Agenda item

Consideration was given to a report which set out a request to review the response received to a petition in respect of ‘Truthfulness in Communications with Representatives and Advocates of Victims and Survivors of Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE)’.

Under the petition scheme, a lead petitioner may request a review of the Council’s response by the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board. On 13 September 2017, the Council received a petition containing 22 signatures requesting the Chief Executive to write a letter to all employees of RMBC about the importance of truthfulness in their communications with representatives and advocates of victims and survivors of CSE in Rotherham. As the petition had more than 20 signatures, the lead petitioner addressed the Council meeting and, in accordance with the scheme, the petition was referred to the relevant officer for response. On 29 September 2017, a response was sent by the Strategic Director of Finance and Customer Services on behalf of the Chief Executive to the lead petitioner.

In setting out the reasons for the request to review the petition, Mr. Liam Harron explained that his petition was simple and had asked for the council's Chief Executive to write to all employees about the importance of truthfulness in all communications. The Chief Executive had declined to do so and Mr. Harron asked Members to re-visit that response and recommend that the Chief Executive write to all employees about the importance of truthfulness.

Mr. Harron provided his recollection of events in respect of discussions and the publication of the Jay Report and actions that had been taken that he had been involved with since that time to support victims and survivors. He also referred to the need to protect the image of the town and the borough and expressed a view that council officials had let down the people of Rotherham. He made reference to a meeting that he had held with the Chief Executive and Councillor Mallinder, who was one of his ward councillors, to argue for the the investigation of the actions of officers appointed since the publication of the Jay Report in August 2014. He also reflected on the comments of a survivor at the meeting held on 6 September 2017 where the Council received six investigation reports and cited this as an example, in his view, of council officers not listening or acting on the needs of victims and survivors and not being truthful. In conclusion, he implored Members to agree with his view and recommend that the Chief Executive write to all employees to reiterate the importance of truthfulness in communications with representatives and advocates of victims and survivors of CSE.

Members sought to clarify exactly what the lead petitioner sought from the meeting. Mr Harron confirmed that he wished to see a letter or email sent to all staff reminding them of the importance of truthfulness, as it was important that this was put on record. Following on, Members sought to understand what the anticipated benefit of this on the value and behaviours of employees. Mr. Harron indicated that it would be helpful to him when in communication with officers that he could reiterate the importance of truthfulness based on the Chief Executive’s direction. He added that  victims and survivors of CSE needed to feel that truthfulness was a value that councillors endorsed.

Members sought an explanation from the lead petitioner of his experience, knowledge or qualifications that enabled him to speak on the subject so that his representations had credibility. In response, Mr. Harron provided a brief resume of his professional background as a teacher and his work in authoring the publication ‘Voices of Despair, Voices of Hope’.

Reflecting on the values and behaviours expected of employees of the Council, Members observed that these were standard values across a wide range of businesses and organisations and sought clarity as to whether the lead petitioner considered the response to undermine those values. In response, Mr. Harron explained that it was unlikely that every employee in any organisation followed its values and behaviours and the issue should focus on how an organisation or its leaders respond when someone did not follow those values. He added that he considered the response to the petition to be inadequate and profoundly shocking. The Chair reminded Mr. Harron that was a matter of opinion and that the response provided by officers was professional.

Members sought to understand if the intention of the lead petitioner was to use the proposed communication from the Chief Executive in disciplinary proceedings for employees. In response, Mr. Harron confirmed that it was not and that the request related to a very specific issue concerning adult survivors of CSE and getting the truth from officers. Following on, Members expressed confusion as to whether the lead petitioner was referring to issues concerning victims and survivors of CSE or whether it was principally to do with the ‘Voices of Despair, Voices of Hope’ publication. Mr. Harron explained that the two issues were not separate, especially as victims and survivors were beginning to approach him to deal with issues on their behalf. Following on, Members queried whether Mr. Harron was speaking on behalf of all victims and survivors or a small group. In response, the lead petitioner indicated that he was speaking on behalf of a small group, but did not claim to represent any other than one survivor who had asked him to represent her.

In response to Mr. Harron’s comments, Members indicated that there had been an awful lot of investment in services for victims and survivors of CSE since the publication of the Jay and Casey reports. A number of adult survivors had found their voice and were speaking out publicly on their experiences and were fully respected and supported for doing so. It was noted that the representations made by the lead petitioner were focused on what he wanted, not necessarily what victims and survivors were asking for. In response to that observation, Mr. Harron explained that there were people who felt that they had not be listened to and their voices had not been heard, which is why the petition had been initiated.

The Chair invited the Assistant Chief Executive to comment on the response provided to the lead petitioner. He explained that the Chief Executive agreed with the importance of truthfulness and all of the values and behaviours of the organisation, in discussion and correspondence with customers and the public. He explained that the Chief Executive had reinforced the importance of the values and behaviours through a range of staff briefings and roadshows with the Leader of the Council. He also referred to the regular newsletter to employees from the Chief Executive emphasising the importance of values and behaviours. It was explained that if there were an incident or event, there would be due HR processes to follow, but the Assistant Chief Executive was confident that the workforce understood the importance of all values and behaviours.

In his concluding remarks, Mr. Harron indicated that victims and survivors approached him and a colleague and asked them to make their voices public. Since that time, he had started a campaign, where others had come forward with their experiences. Mr. Harron stated that it had been a very humbling process to have victims and survivors approach him and put their trust in him. He wanted a situation where they had the same level of trust in the Council and its officers.

Members debated the points raised by the lead petitioner and the information available to them. In conclusion, Members considered that the response to the petition by the Strategic Director of Finance and Customer Services was appropriate and the lead petitioner should be advised that no further action would be taken in respect of the petition.

Resolved:-

1.    That the lead petitioner be advised that the Board considered the response of the Strategic Director of Finance and Customer Services to the petition ‘Truthfulness in Communications with Representatives and Advocates of Victims and Survivors of Child Sexual Exploitation’ to be appropriate.

2.    That the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board write to the lead petitioner to communicate the outcome of the review request.

3.    That no further action be required.