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 six public questions:

1.    Allen Cowles: Leader, In answer to my supplementary question, you said you lobbied the government to assist in holding to account those who knew about CSE. However, there were individuals here, identified by Jay who attended a seminar who knew what had been taking place. Why did this council take no action to hold to account those individuals?

The Leader explained that, as Mr Cowles was a Councillor at the time, he would have been aware that there was never an option within the remit of the Council to take action against individual Councillors. The Council was under Government intervention and acted within the directions that were put in place by the Government. The Labour Party had taken action and held its own investigation which resulted in potential candidates being barred from standing in elections.

In his supplementary, Mr Cowles referenced the internal investigation carried out by the Council which had cost around £450k of taxpayers’ money. He stated that the investigation was carried out by a company who produced a report that, in his opinion and that of others, was inconsequential and worthless. Issues had been raised that remained unanswered, had never been followed up and for which no one had been held accountable. Mr Cowles stated that some Members had been rewarded with new jobs and promotions. He asked if the Leader agreed that the investigation was a waste of taxpayers’ money and that the Council should demand its money back.

The Leader did not agree. He stated that it was right for an investigation to take place and to ask serious questions off the back of those reports about the failings that had occurred. The reports were commissioned from various reputable sources, and the independent adjudication had to be accepted. The Leader shared the frustration that some of the questions were not answered but he did feel that the Council had done everything it could and put all of the information it had into the public domain. That information was still available on the Council’s website. The Leader also confirmed that criminal investigations were still ongoing and he wanted people to suffer the consequences of their actions. He encouraged anyone will any new information to report it accordingly.

2.    Pat Garnett: As a resident of Wellgate House for 11 years, I have repeatedly raised concerns about the council car park and worsening anti-social behaviour, including late-night gatherings, noise, shouting and street parties. What action will the Council now take, including enforcement, CCTV, improved lighting, gating or restricted access, and what clear timescale will be given for finally resolving these longstanding problems?

Councillor Alam firstly stated that he was sorry to hear about the ongoing difficulties. He confirmed that work to address the concerns raised had taken place with joint visits to properties in the area with South Yorkshire Police, targeted monitoring by the Council’s Out of Hours service, engagement with Wellgate House regarding CCTV coverage and how this could be used to support investigations and regular communication with both residents and the building’s management company.

Where the legal threshold was met, the Council would take appropriate enforcement action and residents could assist this process by continuing to report incidents. Councillor Alam was of the understanding that the situation had improved slightly but appreciated there were still ongoing issues.

In his supplementary, Mr Garnett stated that this had been ongoing for years and not much had changed. Officers had only met with residents after the Ward Councillor repeatedly escalated concerns. The situation was so serious that the district nurse had twice refused to attend for night visits due to feeling unsafe. Mr Garnett asked if the Council and Police would commit to a written action plan with agreed timescales and a meeting including the Ward Councillor.

Councillor Alam agreed to facilitate a further conversation between the Community Safety Team and Mr Garnett to discuss these matters.

3.    Steve Metcalfe: As a resident of Lilian Street, Wellgate house I am concerned about speeding vehicles and obstructive parking, which endanger residents, particularly disabled people, and can prevent emergency vehicle access. Will the Council undertake a traffic and highways assessment, introduce appropriate traffic-calming measures, and review parking restrictions to keep the street safe and accessible?

Councillor Williams thanked Mr Metcalfe for raising the concerns and confirmed that the Council took matters of road safety and traffic management very seriously and recognised the importance of ensuring that local roads remained safe and accessible for all users, including emergency services. The Council received a high volume of requests for highway improvements and road safety measures from communities across the borough, and so it did need to assess requests like these alongside other priorities, as well as looking at what funding was available for the different types of requests.

Councillor Williams confirmed that an officer from the Transportation team would visit the site so that the concerns raised could be recorded and considered as part of future programmes.  

In his supplementary, Mr Metcalfe stated that residents had repeatedly raised concerns connected to road safety. He stated that older residents were afraid to go outside, fearing they may get hit by vehicles. He asked if Councillor Williams would ensure Highways and relevant Council Officers would attend a joint meeting with residents and Ward Councillors to agree a written road safety plan, including action on the car park beside Wellgate House.

Councillor Williams confirmed that he would ensure an officer made an assessment of the issues raised. He also confirmed that the Head of Transportation Service was happy to discuss the issues directly. Councillor Williams also encouraged the Ward Councillors to include the matter in their Ward Road Safety Plans.
 

4.    Mohammed Ashraf: Could you clarify what specific safeguards ensure "Debate Not Hate" campaign's reporting mechanism, and zero-tolerance approach to abuse and police protocols are not misused by Councillors or officers to target political opponents, the powerless public and their families, and how it will distinguish between unfairly labelled “abuse and intimidation”, and genuine complaints?

The Leader explained that the Motion related to “Debate Not Hate” to be discussed later in the meeting did not establish any new procedures but instead set out a set of expectation on behalf of the Council. He confirmed that all were in favour of healthy democratic debate, differences of opinion and discussions but this could be easily distinguished from a programme of abuse and intimidation. The Leader referenced the “powerless public” section of Mr Ashraf’s question and stated that many elected Members felt powerless as well due to their addresses and workplaces being publicly available in some instances and due to details of their families being available on social media.The aim of the Motion was to establish a more respectful dialogue and ensure democracy could continue without violence or intimidation.

In his supplementary, Mr Ashraf stated that both main parties had predicted significant victories for Reform UK against each other in recent weeks. He also stated that Officers were being moved from ward to ward in order to prevent Councillors having undue influence or blurred relationships with them and that serious questions relating to human rights or child sexual exploitation lead to equivocation with a smile. Mr Ashraf asked how the public could question the accuracy of the Council’s policies or speak out against dishonesty or hypocrisy without it being labelled abuse or intimidation.

The Leader stated that he did not recognise the descriptions put forward by Mr Ashraf. He stated that Councillors were held accountable in a variety of different ways and healthy political debate between political groups was democracy in action. The Leader also stated that he believed standards of behaviour in Rotherham were good and most members adhered to good standards of personal behaviour.

5.    Dima Alshami: Rotherham NHS Trust board records public and staff concerns about Palantir’s human rights record, including enabling genocide in Gaza and supporting ICE surveillance, while the BMA warns its use could destroy patient trust. As FOI requests ask whether unions were consulted, can the Council (Health and Wellbeing Board) confirm whether local staff representatives were consulted and what safeguards protect patients?

Councillor Baker-Rogers explained that it was not within the remit of the Health and Wellbeing Board to be involved or comment on the procurement activities of any other partner or organisation. Questions on that subject should be directed to the Trust.

In her supplementary, Ms Alshami asked, given the Council's health and wellbeing responsibilities, would it use its influence to demand the Trust published its union consultation and risk assessments before proceeding any further.

Councillor Baker-Rogers stated again that that was not the role of the Health and Wellbeing Board and the question should be directed to the Trust.

6.    Hafsa Yusufi: With Yorkshire Water's CEO receiving a further £660,000 payment on top of salary, bills rising 41% by 2030 (5.6% this April), and pollution incidents up 72% to 200 last year, what steps is this council taking to hold Yorkshire Water accountable to Rotherham residents?

Councillor Marshall explained that the Council routinely met with Yorkshire Water at various levels, including senior and executive levels and challenged them on various issues. The Council had, for example, challenged the company in recent months about their response to burst water mains in Maltby. However, responsibility for regulating Yorkshire Waters Environmental Performance sat with the Environment Agency and Ofwat rather than local authorities. Executive Pay was generally determined by the company’s Board and shareholders. 

Councillor Marshall also stated that she was pleased that the Labour Government had toughened up the rules to prevent bonuses being paid to water company bosses when their companies failed to maintain basic standards. However, she was concerned to hear that the Yorkshire Water CEO seemed to have found a way around those rules by receiving a payment from the parent company.

In her supplementary, Ms Yusufi stated that the Council always seemed to answer with what they could not do, rather than what they could do. She asked if the Council would consider bringing a Motion to nationalise water companies.

Councillor Marshall stated that it would be easy if they had the power to do that but unfortunately the Council did not have the power to nationalise water companies. There was a Motion on the agenda where the Council would be discussing what steps it could take on the matter of Yorkshire Water.