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.
Minutes:
There were two questions from members of the public:
1.
Mr Hussain: In relation to Herringthorpe cemetery, had there been
any progress on the renegotiation of the contract, how far had the
Council got, how would they proceed, what was the situation with
Dignity?
Councillor Sheppard explained that negotiations were still ongoing
with Dignity. It was not a quick exercise and the Council wanted to
make sure that whatever they did was the right thing for the
residents of Rotherham, both with Herringthorpe cemetery and the
wider Dignity contract. Councillor Sheppard offered assurances that
the work was still in progress.
The Assistant Director, Legal, Elections and Registration Services,
confirmed that a response was still awaited from Dignity.
In his supplementary question, Mr Hussain stated that at a previous
Cabinet meeting, the property director from Dignity had attended
and said that they had submitted their full proposal, and they were
awaiting a response from the Council.
The Assistant Director explained that the property director had
attended a scrutiny meeting, not Cabinet. The submitted documents
referred to at that meeting were the operational plans, not the
responses to the negotiations.
2.
Mr Azam: In the operational plan submitted to Scrutiny last year,
18 months of capacity was left at Wath. Just over two years
capacity was left in the Muslim section at East Herringthorpe. The
number of earthen graves nearly reached zero. Another earthen grave
had been provided but that was in the space where the road was
initially going to go. The planning application that was submitted
in October 2022 was therefore no longer valid. Mr Azam stated that
it did not matter if the issues were with Dignity or if it was for
Dignity to answer. The accountability sat with the Council. Various
commitments had been made to bring the proposals back to Cabinet to
show how the Council would move forward with providing the service
to the community of Rotherham. Mr Azam asked which Cabinet meeting
the proposals would be brought to: February, March or April?
The Leader explained that he had continued to reassure Mr Azam that
the cemeteries would not run out of space. The current situation
was frustrating and not satisfying, however, graves continued to be
made available. The day-to-day operation of the cemeteries
continued, and progress had been made on some of the issues raised.
The process of renegotiating with the provider was necessary and
took time. The conversation was ongoing with Dignity about whether
they could deliver the service to the standard that was required by
the Council and the community. The Leader explained that a
commitment could not be made for a specific Cabinet meeting. A
commitment was made however to consult with the community when
sufficient progress had been made. A complete failure would mean
the cemeteries would be shut and people were unable to be buried
and that had not happened. The Council continued to operate a
contingency model whilst the new plan was drawn up.
Mr Azam stated that he appreciated the honesty, but the situation
was taking too long to resolve. It had been going on for over two
years and the tit-for-tat and lack of answers was very
frustrating.
Mr Azam stated that he had not received a response to the questions
he had submitted for scrutiny, and he asked Councillor Sheppard to
look into that.
In his supplementary question, Mr Azam referenced the Kaushar Tai
Review and stated that it was supposed to have been released for
review by the January Cabinet meeting. The Muslim Bereavement
Liaison Group meeting was taking place on 20 February and Mr Azam
stated that the Group would want to discuss the review at that
meeting. Mr Azam wanted to remind Councillor Sheppard about the
Group meeting as he had not attended the previous two meetings. As
the review document had not been received, Mr Azam asked for the
Council’s position.
The Assistant Director explained that the Council were still
targeting delivery for the February meeting.