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:
There were a number of questions from members of the public. The Cabinet Member with responsibility was unable to attend the meeting so responses to the questions below would be provided in writing.
The Chair authorised the reading of the following questions from Mr. Azam so they could be recorded in readiness for a written response.
Question 1 – With regards to Section 2.2 of the public report could the Cabinet Member confirm the total amount Dignity had been fined for the financial year 2022/23? This appeared to be missing from the report and it would be in the public’s interests if this could be included to see what Dignity have been fined for the last financial year.
Question 2 - In Section 2.3 of the report in the financial year 2021-22 Dignity were fined a total of £350k with allocation of £150k for various works. Could the Cabinet Member provide a breakdown of how the £150k had been spent and what additional funding was being sought? Reading the report it appeared that a meeting had been requested about additional funding, but it was difficult to decipher how this funding had been spent.
Question 3 – Within the Dignity Report at Section 4.2 could the Cabinet Member provide a breakdown of how the £250k additional capital investment had been spent in the Muslim Section? Whilst there had been some additional investment to improve footpaths and resolve the water issues and to the land graves themselves, it would be interesting to see how funding had been spent. The way the report was written also appeared to suggest the Muslim Community had been given special treatment with additional spend. This did not seem fair so needed to be recorded accordingly.
Question 4 – With regards to the Annual Report : SIP 4, the thirty-five year plan stated that Dignity have not produced this report yet the RAG status was green in the five year plan which was submitted to the Council on 1st October, 2023. Could the Cabinet Member please state why this had not been made available? The Leader had also written to the group represented and had confirmed this would be presented to Scrutiny to ensure it was reviewed.
Question 5 – With regards to the Annual Report : SIP 9 this refers to talking with and liaising with faith leaders, but it does not go into detail as to what was being asked of those faith leaders or why the RAG status was amber.
With regards to the annual report and projects for 2024/25 within the Muslim section this replicates from a previous report with seventy-three vaults being installed. If the report is correct with the potential projects during 2024/25 on landscaping there needed to be detail on how this was to be done.
For clarification it appears operational matters were the responsibility of Dignity, but the Council was responsible for landscaping matters. The report does indicate the Council had approved the approach to be taken, so why was this the case and why was the Muslim Community not informed.
Question 6 – It was requested that identification of all graves be undertaken within the next year, along with improvements behind the gable wall for infant graves, improvements to the waterlogged graves which remained unresolved and for aesthetically refuse bins to be provided at the Crematorium and Cemetery. It was not a pleasant sight for visitors to see over full metal bins when driving into the site.
The Chair also authorised the reading of the following two questions from Ms. Yousaf so they could be recorded in readiness for a written response.
Question 1 – With reference to the Public Report for Annual Bereavement Services and particularly Section 2.3.2 whilst it was understood as to the history involved could the Cabinet Member please provide clear timescales as to when the review for Islamic burials was likely to happen in 2024.
Question 2 – With reference to the Five Year Service Development Plan and in particular the renovation of old office block whilst the Florist and Café were mentioned, would this also incorporate prayer facilities and a public toilet which was much needed.
The Chair authorised a further question from the floor which confirmed the community were awaiting on the annexe to the graveyard and approval from Planning, but asked if there was a back up plan if approval was not given as the graveyard was quickly running out of space for burials and what immediate action could be taken as there was no alternative.