To receive questions relating to items of business on the agenda from members of the public or press who are present at the meeting.
Minutes:
The Chair confirmed that questions from members of the public had been submitted.
1. Ms. Shazia Yousaf asked the following question: After all of Dignity’s failures and dishonesty to their customers, why has RMBC not kept on top of their progresses. Appears RMBC lacks the resources or will power to keep Dignity under close scrutiny, which in turn leads to distrust from the public. How can RMBC show to the public that Dignity will be and is being held to account?
The response from the Cabinet Member noted that, as shown in the annual report, the Council had so far received £232,935 that the Council have charged Dignity for areas of the contract that had not met the contractual requirement. Responsibility for the management of the contract was transferred from R&E to Legal Services in November of 2021. There are performance Management meetings monthly of Bereavement officers with Dignity, and quarterly meetings of the internal group of officers. There three Council officers ensuring there is robust contract management.
Supplementary: Can the minutes of the meetings be shared with the public, or can the public get involved in the meetings?
The response from the Cabinet Member was that this is a commercial contract, so under the commercial rules for local government, they are not public meetings in that sense. Much of the information that the Council does hold is included in the annual report, which is brought to public meetings like this one. That can be challenged by Members of the Public.
2. Ms. Nida Khan asked the following question: Rotherham Borough Council has fined Dignity for its failures and not-fit-for-purpose service. How has Rotherham Borough Council been held accountable for its failures, and what action has been taken against those responsible?
The response from the Cabinet Member affirmed that since the contract had been managed by Legal Services, the Service had maintained openness and transparency. The Council had numerous arrangements in place to ensure that it is accountable, including scrutiny meetings such as these where questions can be asked. Robust contract performance management measures were in place to show that going forward there was zero tolerance for failure.
Supplementary: Have you had scrutiny meetings before, or is this a new approach to resolve this problem?
The response from the Cabinet Member noted that the Bereavement Services annual reports had been submitted for scrutiny since 2016. Every year, Elected Members and the public have had a chance to challenge Dignity.
3. Ms. Nida Khan asked the following question: Why is Rotherham Borough Council not allowing Dignity to make independent decisions and keep its promises, as lines keep getting blurred as to who is in charge of what.
The response from the Cabinet Member noted that since taking over responsibility for the management of the contract, the Service has been working to clarify that governance of contract management was the Council’s role, and operations was the responsibility of Dignity. Therefore, the Council was allowing Dignity to make decisions and should not be intervening in operational issues. The Council were then holding Dignity to account for their promises through our contract management process.
Supplementary: Related to a specific funeral that was initially cancelled, did the Council have to intervene to get Dignity to do its job?
The response from the Cabinet Member noted that in the specific case the Superintendent Registrar had communicated with the Rotherham Business Lead who oversaw action taken on the operational side to ensure the funeral went ahead.
4. Mr. Saghir Hussain asked the following question: Where are the scrutiny reports and inspection reports; how are the reports managed; where is the audit trail of inspection visits; and are these accessible by the public?
The response from the Cabinet Member clarified that scrutiny reports were available on the Council website and were available to members of the public, and the inspection reports of the gravesites were done by Bereavement Services officers who were happy to send the information in response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request.
Supplementary: Why are the inspection reports not included in the scrutiny annual reports?
The annual report and performance reports came to this committee (Improving Places Select Commission). The visits and operational inspections do not come to this committee, but these could be accessed through an FOI request.
5. Mr. M. Osman Suleman asked the following question: Why can’t we find any established social media group, social liaison groups to join in our efforts. Or any of their contact details?
The response from the Service was that details of Friends groups were available on the Council’s Website. Any cemetery that has a social media presence had a link to this on the Council’s website.
6. Mr. M. Osman Suleman asked the following question: Can you please explain how £250,000 has been invested in the Muslim burial area at East Herringthorpe cemetery and over what time period?
The response from the Cabinet Member was that £250,000 had been invested in East Herringthorpe this year. In relation to investment decisions by Dignity the question should be addressed to them. The Dignity Operational Director offered a schedule with detail of the investments made outside the meeting.
Supplementary: The work has not been completed so far regarding paths and drainage. Can you provide assurance that all the remaining works will be completed in full as soon as possible?
The response from the Operational Director noted the remaining paths had been started but had encountered weather issues, so a definite date was not known. The Service had previously hoped it would be completed by December and assures that the Service will do everything necessary. The work on drainage has not been halted, and that the necessary expert-to-expert geology and hydrology report had been commissioned to define and solve the problem. When the report is received, this will be disclosed. It was hoped that the findings in the report would enable the Service to address drainage issues effectively.
7. Mr. Arshad Mahmood was sent the answer to this question in writing following the meeting: Dignity and RMBC are proud promoters of equality and diversity across race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, and disability. Why do we not yet have a Muslim liaison officer within Dignity, based at the Rotherham office, overseeing the needs of the Muslim community?
The response from the Service was: This is a question which we will forward to Dignity to provide you with a response as staffing matters are operational and it would be for Dignity to consider. We have requested that they provide you with a direct response.
The response from the Service was: The Council procedure rules are set out in the Constitution and the process for the publication of Reports are set out in the Local Government Act 1972. The reports were available 5 days prior to the meeting as required under both.
9. Mr. Farooq Tareen asked the following question: After Dignity staff were given training on Muslim Faith Burial, why does the report claim an incorrect information?
The response from the Cabinet Member invited Mr Tareen to share the details, and he will address the point.
Supplementary: In respect of Muslim burials, once the death has taken place, the burial procedure should take place as soon as possible, rather than within 24-hours. This timeframe has been confusing to staff who were under the impression that the burial can be anytime in the next 24 hours. Can the 24-hour limit be removed and replaced with “as soon as possible”?
The response from the Cabinet Member noted that the advice was as soon as possible, no later than 24 hours. Within the rules governing the coroner’s releasing the body and post-mortem requirements, etc, 24 hours should be the latest timeframe with the expectation being as soon as possible.
10.Mr. Farooq Tareen asked the following question: Did you say in the last meeting that you became aware of the water issue on 18 April of this year? In 2016, Dignity offices contacted a group called EH to report a water issue. EH was called in to deal with the drainage problem. Their report is available on their website. In 2020, the Clancy report noted there was water and the ground was being saturated every time it rains.
The response from the Cabinet Member noted that the paperwork had been examined when this was formally raised with Dignity, the information had not been referenced in the formal process. The main focus now was to resolve the issue. It was hoped that the investment being made will clear the issue and that going forward, the Service ensure that the drainage system works and that there be no water retention.
11.Mr. Arshad Azam asked the following question: From a performance management perspective, how can the commercial element, the contract, be separated from the day-to-day operations, and the community cannot be engaged. Why is RMBC saying that within this assurance process why can the community not be engaged?
The response from the Cabinet Member emphasised that the rules around commercial contracts require the Council to respect the confidentiality so there were certain proprietary things that we cannot disclose.
Supplementary: How might members of the community be engaged in the operational processes, for example around decisions such as the decision to extend the burial hours?
The response from the Cabinet Member noted that the five-year plan was and the annual report was publicly available. It was the finance and commercial elements which were confidential. Regarding out-of-hours burials, this was publicised extensively within the community. There were burial committees that were engaged through the normal process. The contract was being managed by the service agreement officers. If the five-year plan dates and objectives were not delivered, there were financial penalties, like those enforced on Dignity colleagues this year. To seek specifics about the operational delivery of the 5-year plan objectives, that is a question to address to Dignity directly.
12.Mr. Arshad Azam asked the following question: “Friends of…..,” social media groups, emails to mosque leaders and Muslim Bereavement Liaison Group - to name a few - are methods of contact that have been aired by Dignity and RMBC. Why can’t we simply sit round a table and discuss matters in hand?
The response from the Cabinet member noted that, in terms of engagement, the council had engaged with approximately 30 groups including burial committees, faith groups, and mosques. But going forward, the desire was to have Dignity manage operational issues, and RMBC will be over the contract. An external review had been commissioned with an expert advisor who can clarify certain areas.
Supplementary: What authority does this external advisor from London have over the diverse Muslim community of Rotherham, why not engage with the local Muslim community?
Brother Omar manages the largest cemetery in the country which is award winning. He was an advisor to ministers regarding burials and is being consulted to come to Rotherham to meet with the stakeholders and give an expert view. Has advised the Ministry of Justice on Muslim burials and will provides an expert view outside of the Council and Dignity.