Agenda item

To receive questions from members of the public who may wish to ask a general question of the Mayor, Cabinet Member or the Chairman of a Committee in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.

There were 6 public questions:

1.    Mr Bashir: Following my questions at both the last Council and Cabinet meetings in March, I have not received the alleged process documentation under which the Palestinian art exhibition was censored. Afterwards there was a resignation by Deputy Council Leader, Councillor Sheppard, nevertheless could you please let me know a time frame that you will be able to provide the process documentation? 

The Leader apologised for the delay in forwarding a response. He had only recently received it, but he assured Mr Bashir that it would be sent in the next few days. The Leader did explain that having read the document, it was clear that it was out of date, and it did not meet the need required. As such it would be reviewed

In his supplementary, Mr Bashir asked the Leader to explain how censoring and excluding the art made with the little hands of Rotherham children and young people as well as Rotherham adults was in keeping with the Children’s Capital of Culture campaign.

The Leader explained that the art was not censored. The Council had to have processes in place for approving what was exhibited in its libraries. Paperwork had to be completed with the relevant details and that then had to be signed off by a manager within the service. In this case, the paperwork was not done and there was no management sign off so it should not have been there in the first place.

2.    Mr Iqbal: Aside from the failure of forthright cooperation in the Palestinian Flag raising incident, of 29th of November S2024 that I personally extended the invitation request to you in the Cabinet meeting of 14th October 2024, what cultural activities or events which were in the attached appendix of the 22 OSMB recommendations to the cabinet, have you completed?

The Leader explained that there were seven recommendations to Cabinet from the Petition with some sub-recommendations. All recommendations had been accepted and actioned. There had been reference to further events, but it was the Leaders understanding that the relevant cultural activities and events from petitioners would be put forward to the Cabinet Spokesperson from the nominated lead petitioner and, as yet, none had been received.

In his supplementary, Mr Iqbal referenced the flag raising event and asked for a Freedom of Information request for the invitation request email sent to the Mayor, Councillor Sheila Cowen, on 15 September 2024 and for any additional invitations preceding the flag raising event on 29 November 2024 in Councillor Cowen’s capacity as either a Councillor or as Mayor. Mr Iqbal also wanted an explanation of what happens if the Council failed to be accurate in an FOI request response. He confirmed that an email would be sent to the stand-in Cabinet spokesperson with the email address the invitation was originally sent from and with a copy of his questions for accuracy.

The Leader explained that Mr Iqbal was entitled to make a Freedom of Information request and there was a process for that that he should go through. Details of the team would be provided in a written response.

3.    Ms Boote: Can the Council explain in detail the Freedom of Information Request Procedure?

Councillor Alam was not present at the meeting to answer so a written response would be provided.

4.    Mr Ashraf: Oxford City Council has passed a motion supporting Divestment from Israel, citing the International Court of Justice rulings of the live-streamed Ethnic Cleansings and Genocide, despite the Council Solicitor's repeated protestations of its impossibility. What in detail would be the practical steps for Rotherham Borough Council to do the same?

The Leader explained that, in Rotherham, the Council would not pass motions that would mean committing itself to break the law. That was a matter of principle. Other Council’s did not have that as a rule and did pass such motions but that meant they would then be unable to deliver the actions they had committed to. Rotherham Council staff would not be directed to break the law. The law was what the Monitoring Officer said the law was and this was the same for all Council’s.

In his supplementary question, Mr Ashraf stated that there was some legal advice that showed a possible way of overcoming that. Mr Ashraf thanked the Leader for the answer and for his responses to emails. He thanked the Mayor for her forbearance.

5.    Mr Abdulkarim: Could you explain in detail the process of Councillors discharging their duty including the length of time that is served at the South Yorkshire Pensions Authority?

The Leader explained that the role of South Yorkshire Pensions Authority was to deliver a sustainable and cost effective pension scheme for members and employers in South Yorkshire, and the overriding responsibility of individual members was to ensure that the organisation acted in the best interests of the present and future beneficiaries of the scheme.

All members of the Pensions Authority were requested to attend 5 meetings of the full authority each year. These meetings took a full day, and the day generally included a training session or briefing on specific issues. In addition, members could be appointed to the Audit and Governance Committee which involved attendance at 4 half day meetings per year. S41 members and a number of other members (so as to ensure political balance) were also appointed to the Staffing and Appointments and Appeals Committees which met on an ad hoc basis but usually about twice a year. Depending on the business these meetings could be for either a full or half day.

Members of the Authority were expected to prepare for meetings through reading Authority meeting papers which generally were at least 100 pages long. 

There was an obligation on members appointed to the Authority to maintain a level of knowledge and understanding of pension matters. Based on information provided by the Pensions Regulator, it was estimated that this should require a minimum of 20 hours per year and the Authority organised a full day event to support this which was in addition to other training sessions already mentioned. In addition, members were expected to utilise an online learning system to achieve an initial level of knowledge and then enhance it through the system as new issues emerged. In addition, the Authority provided support for members to attend conferences and other external events in order to build their knowledge and to develop relationships with councillors from elsewhere performing similar roles. New members to the Authority were provided with a supported induction to enable them to achieve the minimum level of knowledge and understanding within 3 months of joining the Authority. 

In addition to the above the Chair of the Authority represented the Authority on the Border to Coast Joint Committee, which required attendance at 4 full day meetings each year together with a variable number of online meetings of around 2 hours duration of which there were 4 in the last municipal year.

In his supplementary, Mr Abdulkarim asked how the Rotherham representatives, Councillors Sutton, Fisher and Beresford could receive public representations and how did they take into account the views of Rotherham workers whose wages partially funded the pension scheme and Rotherham taxpayers who also partially funded the pension scheme.

The Leader explained that their contact details were available online. The Leader was clear that the role of the representatives was to ensure the return on the pension fund on behalf of people who held pensions, within the law. It was not a political role in that regard.

6.    Mr Smart: For the previous financial year, in detail how much deferred wages of workers as well as how much taxpayer money to top up the pensions of the Council workers etc was given to South Yorkshire Pensions Authority?

The Leader explained that for 2023/24 the Authority had collected £78.1m in contributions from scheme members (referred to as deferred pay in the question) and £314.2m in contributions from employers. The employer contribution figures appeared inflated due to decisions by two of the District Councils to make prepayments of contributions for the full three-year valuation period amounting to £136.6m). The employer contribution figure was after the repayment of £39.7m of the surplus in the pension fund to employers with a surplus on their portion of the fund. Figures for 2024/25 were currently being prepared and would be available in the Authority’s accounts which would be published in draft in line with the statutory timetable.

In his supplementary, Mr Smart asked, in itemised detail for the past two financial years, how much money from Rotherham and South Yorkshire workers and taxpayers was spent on Israeli Government Bonds as well as weapon manufacturers and other companies that perpetuated the live streamed occupation, apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide in Palestine as evidenced by the Internation Criminal Court and various other Human Rights bodies and organisations. 

The Leader explained that he did not have that information to hand, but a written response would be provided.