Agenda item

To receive questions from members of the public who wish to ask a general question in respect of matters within the Council’s area of responsibility or influence.

Subject to the Chair’s discretion, members of the public may ask one question and one supplementary question, which should relate to the original question and answer received.

Councillors may also ask questions under this agenda item.

1.    Mr S. Hussain stated that he felt like he was in the film Groundhog Day as he kept asking the same question over and over again. There had been a response from the Council that an update would be provided on 17 October but that would be too late for some families who would be looking to bury their loved ones in the Muslim section of the cemetery. Earthen grave space was at 1 as of 16 September 2024. Mr Hussain asked what happened if there were two deaths; where did the second one go?

The Assistant Director of Legal, Elections and Registration Services confirmed that an update had been provided on Friday 13 September which explained that the next public meeting would be held on 17 October 2024, at which further updates would be provided. The Council were actively in discussions with Dignity and were considering all possible contractual remedies that were available. The discussions were ongoing and were changing up to and including in the previous week. The Council would continue to keep people updated as and when details were confirmed.

In his supplementary question, Mr S. Hussain stated that he believed that the Council had a revised plan. He wanted to emphasise the fact that there was only one earthen grave left. If there was the need for a second burial, the community would be looking for answers and what would they be told? It would not help to say that the Council had mechanical ways of dealing with Dignity.

The Leader stated that he understood the point that had been made. He advised Mr Hussain to tell the community that the Council were doing everything they could to ensure that more graves were made available as quickly as possible. That was the best that could be provided at the current time.

Mr Hussain asked if the current plan could be shared?

The Leader explained that once there was a plan that the Council were satisfied met the needs required, it would be shared. However, it was not helpful to anyone to share draft plans.
 

2.    Mr Azam stated that since the last meeting, he had had a Labour Councillor go up to the gates at the cemetery for pictures. He felt it had become a beauty sport for some bizarre reason where they took a picture and then sent the same rhetoric out to the community, adding more anxiety and angst. Mr Azam did not know what the benefit of that was. Mr Azam also expressed concern for the employees that were involved. He asked if they had been considered at all as they were finding out from the local paper what was going on. They did not know if they would still have a job and they did not know what was actually happen. Mr Azam had been informed that one person had gone off on sick leave due to the anxiety and stress caused by the situation. He asked what the Council’s response was to that?

The Leader explained that the staff employed were employed by Dignity, not the Council. It was Dignity’s responsibility to ensure that they were appropriately managed. The Council felt for the employees of Dignity as they were being caught in the middle. The Council were trying to get improvements in the service as explained in the pervious answer. If the contract were to change, there would be a legal process to go through in relation to the employees but for now, it was for Dignity to look after its staff.

In his supplementary question, Mr Azam stated that there had been many plans produced by Dignity. There had been one where a tarmac path had been planned but this had turned into a gravel path. There were sections of land which were waterlogged but had now been marked for baby graves. Mr Azam questioned where the drainage was and why this was being done? Mr Azam stated that plans were being shared but he questioned if people understood what exactly was in those plans? His second point was in relation to how the media were framing this situation as a Muslim issue. Mr Azam stated that this was not the case. It was in fact a Council and Dignity issue around investment, return on investments and how business was done. It was far wider that just a Muslim issue which was why contractual negotiations were ongoing. Mr Azam asked the Council to formally put on record that this was not as a consequence of the Muslim community asking for what should be rightly offered to them as a service; it reached much further than that.

The Leader stated that he was happy to make that clarification. This was a matter of ensuring that the right services were provided to the people of Rotherham, no matter their background or heritage or religion. In that sense it was not a Muslim issue. It was about ensuring services were provided appropriately.

3.    Mr Iqbal stated that, notwithstanding repeated requests made specifically to the Council’s solicitor on multiple occasions, including in the Chamber, petitioners had not received the minutes of the second sub-OSMB group meeting from Tuesday 30 April 2024. Mr Iqbal asked when they would receive them?

The Assistant Director Legal, Elections and Registration Services explained that there were no minutes of the meeting as it was an informal meeting.

In his supplementary question, Mr Iqbal asked if there could be a recorded vote on the Palestine Petition item that was later on the agenda?

The Leader advised that all Cabinet Members would be voting the same way on that agenda item.

4.    Mr Y. Hussain stated that petitioners had been waiting for 11 months for Rotherham Council to raise the Palestine flag. He asked when this would be done.

The Leader explained that this would be considered later on the agenda when a report on the Palestine petition was presented.

5.    Dr Awadallah stated that she was a British Palestinian and she referenced the petition that over 4000 Rotherham residents had signed in February 2024. The Council had previously stated that they had followed government guidance regarding flying the Israeli flag however, Dr Awadallah stated that this was not mandatory as shown by York and Leeds Councils. As such, Dr Awadallah asked if the Council would raise the Palestinian flag, like they did for the Ukrainians?

The Leader repeated his answer given to the previous question, explaining that this would be considered later on the agenda when a report on the Palestine petition was presented.

In her supplementary question, Dr Awadallah referenced the IHRA definition of antisemitism which Rotherham Council adopted in September 2019. She explained that there had been conflates between Judaism and Zionism, assuming that all Jews were Zionists. Dr Awadallah explained that the fight against antisemitism should not be turned into a stratagem to delegitimise the fight against the oppression of the Palestinian people. Dr Awadallah gave an example of a doctor at Glasgow University who was accused of antisemitism. He had called for the replacement of the IHRA definition with the Jerusalem Declaration on antisemitism. Dr Awadallah asked the Council to reconsider the adoption of the IHRA definition.

The Leader noted the request and explained that the IHRA definition was the one that most public bodies used in the UK. The Council would of course continue to consider other definitions if there were further arguments that developed. However, there were no plans to change that currently. The Leader reiterated what he had said in previous meetings of Cabinet and Council which was that, as somebody who was pro-Palestinian, he felt that there was a danger that discussions around the IHRA and definitions became a distraction and became damaging in the wider narrative. The argument supporting the Palestinian people should not be seen to be an argument about discrimination against Jewish people. In the end, people needed to be able to live side by side.

Dr Awadallah stated that not every agency had adopted the IHRA definition, and it was voluntary to do so. In 2016, the House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs published a report entitled “Antisemitism in the UK” which stated that the adoption of the IHRA was subject to two caveats. By adopting the IHRA, the two main exclusions were ignored. These were that it was not antisemitic to criticise the government of Israel without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent and secondly, it was not antisemitic to hold the Israeli government to the same standards as other liberal democracies or to take a particular interest in the Israeli governments policies without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent. Dr Awadallah explained that there were ways to adopt different definition that would serve the same purpose.

The Leader noted the point and stated that there had been plenty of criticism levelled against the current Israeli government from members of the Council with the adoption of the IHRA.
 

6.    Mr Ashraf thanked the Leader for the emails sent on 8^th and 9^th August. Mr Ashraf reiterated that the petition collected the largest number of signatures ever in Rotherham Council’s history. Point 8 of the petition, signed by over 4,000 residents, was for the Council to recognise that criticism of the Israeli government did not equate to criticism of Judaism as noted by the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Mr Ashraf asked the Chair to distinguish that Rotherham residents that saw war crimes, occupation, apartheid, ethnic cleansing and multiple genocides committed by Israel as a State was something able to be criticized and residents had no interest in criticizing Jewish people or the Jewish faith.

The Leader stated that he was happy to make that clarification. The Council had been robust in the way it had expressed its fear and upset about the violence being perpetrated against ordinary Palestinians by the current Israeli government. The Leader wanted to be clear however that Jewish residents in Rotherham needed to be able to live safely and freely and practice their religion the same as any other religion. It was noted that many Jewish people felt under attack and prejudiced against and felt that they had been forced to take responsibility for the actions of a government that was not their government. The terrible attacks in October 2023 against Israeli Jews were also noted.

In his supplementary question, Mr Ashraf stated that, in his opinion, the Council’s solicitors personal opinion sometimes conflated with his legal opinion, and no one seemed to be able to challenge that by asking for the legal basis or for outside independent advice. Mr Ashraf gave the example of local council’s being able to successfully challenge the official interpretation of section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988 in the courts. The Leicester City Council, Waltham Forest Council and Islington Council court judgements also fragrantly contradicted the legal opinion of the Council’s solicitor according to Mr Ashraf. Mr Ashraf also explained that the Procurement Act 2023 had the sub-heading “disapplication of duty in section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988. Mr Ashraf asked how, if someone like him could drive the proverbial horse and cart through the blind defence of section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988 without even trying, why couldn’t those who were legally educated, trained and employed do so as well? Mr Ashraf stated that there were multiple legal avenues to meet the petitioners demands in full. It was clearly not impossible but was a matter of political will and competent legal advice. Mr Ashraf asked the Leader to seek independent legal advice following the aforementioned court judgments and legal discovery in order to fulfil the petition in full.

The Leader stated that that was the third time Mr Ashraf had asked a variation of that question. The advice set out by the Monitoring Officer was always professional advice because he always acted as the Council’s Monitoring Officer. The Council was legally obliged to follow that advice. Mr Ashraf had previously been asked to make his submission in writing if there were things that he thought the Council should look into and the Leader again reiterated that request. As Leader of the Council, he had to act within the legal guidance provided by the Monitoring Officer and not provided by members of the public.