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.
Minutes:
There were four public questions:
1.
Prior to asking her question, T explained that she had been unable
to attend Council meetings in person for a long time due to chronic
back pain caused by repeated rapes from grooming gangs when she was
12. She explained that her questions related to what the Leader had
said to Look North in June 2025 regarding the National Enquiry into
Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (CSEA.) T felt that, despite
asking questions since 2017, she had not received any answers. She
had had meetings with the Leader about her concerns and needs in
2018.
T asked: In what ways does Chris Read, the Leader of the Council,
believe that Rotherham Council should be used as a model for other
towns and cities for how to deal with the rape of children
(politely referred to by Baroness Casey as CSEA - Child Sexual
Exploitation and Abuse)?
The Leader explained that, in the interview, he had said that it
was important that the events in Rotherham, including the suffering
of people like T, were not lost in the National Enquiry. When
Louise Casey published her report, what she described was a process
very much like the one that Rotherham had been through over the
course of the last 14 years. That was about a place based review of
what happened, which in Rotherham’s case was the Jay report.
Subsequent to that was a police criminal investigation in to
specific allegation of crimes and that was Operation Stovewood. The
Leader thought it important that the Government heard the Rotherham
experience to ensure that other places learnt from the things that
it got right and learn from the things it got wrong.
In her review, Louise Casey singled out the kind of taxi licensing
reform that was put in place in Rotherham. The Leader wanted that
to be adopted across the rest of the Country. Other changes had
been made but that was not to say that the Council thought it had
done everything right at all. The Leader explained that if the
Government, in their review, did not consider the learning of the
things that Rotherham had been through, there was potential that
those mistakes could be made elsewhere.
In her supplementary question, T quoted what first tier tribunal
judge Ord wrote in the decision that was sent out in 24 June which
said: “when the witness T gave oral evidence we questioned T
on the value to her of the information. Her reply was that she
wanted to get the truth, that truth was important to her.” T
stated that RMBC did not answer her questions, and she had many
questions. She asked what the Council was doing to protect Muslim
communities, what was the Council doing to protect other victims,
survivors and members of the Muslim community from South Yorkshire
Police. T explained that she had met
with members of the Muslim community and told them that in no way
did she hold them responsible for what had happened to her. Those
vile criminals could not be called Muslim and the Muslim
communities had suffered so much because of those vile criminals
and were also victims.
T's supplementary question was: Why are you failing to answer
questions on behalf of victims and survivors of child rape in
Rotherham?
The Leader explained that the tribunal process referred to was
about an access to information/Freedom of Information dispute that
a member of the public had taken up against the Council and it was
a long running ongoing dispute. The Council strongly believed that
it had handed over all the information it was able. Whilst the
person and people supporting him had every right to go through the
full legal process, the Council genuinely believed it had handed
everything over.
The Leader confirmed that he was happy to receive any further
questions from T outside of the meeting and he would provide a
written response. He stated that he had always been willing to have
conversations and answer questions but he had not received any for
some time.
2.
Mr Ashraf: What is Rotherham Borough Council's current legal and
financial opinions and risk assessments on all its investments,
including in SYPA and Borders to Coast in light of the recent PSC
legal opinion and can Rotherham Council evidence that it has
urgently, acted prudently, with those investments, vis-a-vis its
prevention and non-assistance duties under international and
domestic law?
The Leader explained that the Council did not invest in companies
or in that kind of private investment. The investments held by
South Yorkshire Pensions Authority were in fact held by the Border
to Coast Pension Pool on behalf of the Pensions Authority. In law,
the investments belonged to them, not the Council. The
Council’s view was that all investments did meet the
necessary legal thresholds. The Leader committed to raising any
specific concerns if there were any but confirmed that there were
no ground for concerns at the moment.
In his supplementary question, Mr Ashraf firstly thanked members
and officers for their willingness to work with him and have frank
conversations about what could and could not be done. The
supplementary question was: Could the legal and financial risk to
Rotherham Council and the taxpayers of non-compliance of urgently
acting prudently vis-à-vis prevention and non-assistance
duties in those investments under international and domestic law be
given a detailed legal liabilities and monetary figure on a
Rotherham borough and a per taxpayer basis? He also asked if the
Palestinian Flag would be flown on 29 November to mark the
International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.
The Leader explained that he would request that officers provide a
written response in relation to the investments. He stated that
they would not be able to breakdown the information in the way
requested but they would provide what they could. In relation to
the flag, there was a question later on the agenda on this matter
and the Leader would respond then.
3.
Mr Horvath: Selective Licensing was rejected overwhelmingly by
formal questionnaires, why did Cabinet approve it?
Mr Horvath did not attend the meeting, and a written response would
be provided.
4.
Mr Mabbott: Could you please confirm whether the Council intends to
fly the Palestinian flag outside the Town Hall on 29th November to
mark the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian
People and to reaffirm the Council's commitment to peace and human
rights in the face of war crimes and genocide?
The Leader stated that yes, the Council did expect to fly the
Palestinian flag on 29th November 2025. There was an
internal decision making process to be undertaken in the next week
but it was expected that the decision to fly the Palestinian flag
would be approved.
In his supplementary question, Mr Mabbott asked that the continued
suffering of the people in Gaza be taken into account during the
decision making process.
The Leader confirmed that it would.