Agenda item

17.1

Wing Kam Li attended to present the following questions that she had submitted:

Following my second email inquiry to the FOI on 3 June asking about the names of manufacturers of CCTV and where the CCTV are made which are used in public and government buildings as well as the pubic question I asked last Wednesday 17 July at the Sheffield council meeting regarding the concerns about potential cybersecurity threats associated with CCTV being used in public and government buildings in Sheffield.  One of the main concerns is the creation of backdoor channels by Chinese manufacturers to the Chinese government to remotely access data, and I am going to follow up on the CCTV issue at this Strategic and Resource Policy Committee meeting.

Firstly, I would like to thank Councilor Tom Hunt for his positive response at the Sheffield Council meeting where he stated that one of the considerations was the replacement of existing CCTV at the end of the product's life. However, waiting for the end of a product's life cycle can take years or even ten years, and the challenges are imminent.

I would like to share some information that may assist in identifying potentially effective ways to deal with CCTV issues, and I look forward to hearing from your committee on specific timelines and implementation plans.

If you look inside a CCTV, there is an NVR (network video recorder) that records the video data transmitted from the CCTV and stores it in a format that can be accessed later. The function of NVR is to transmit data and images, and can access data and monitor terminals through the network.

An optimistic approach would be to replace all CCTV within a timetable to ensure there is no risk.

Due to financial considerations, can I ask Sheffield Council to look into ways to replace the NVR? The captured images and data remain in the CCTV, but changing the NVR can cut off data transmission or uploading or downloading activities by unauthorised parties.

Can we try to source NVRs from local suppliers or other countries to address the potential risks posed by products associated with the Chinese government?

Answer: Thank you for attending today.  As communicated to you over the last few days, due to the technical nature of the question and the need for further officer investigations, it won’t be possible for me to provide a verbal response today, but I will provide a written response in due course.

17.2

Clara Cheung attended to present the following questions that she had

submitted:

I would like to extend my gratitude for Councillor Tom Hunt's response last week regarding the inquiry about our sister-city relationship with Chengdu.

Today, I'd like to follow up on the topic of facilitating cultural exchanges with the Early Rain Covenant Church in Chengdu. It is important to recognize that it is not realistic to expect residents of Sheffield to directly contact the Early Rain Covenant Church. The People's Republic of China (PRC) does not afford its citizens religious freedom, and under its national security law, any engagement with foreign individuals could be construed as subversion. This church has been under surveillance and has experienced raids by the PRC authorities. Therefore, any direct contact initiated by individuals in Sheffield could inadvertently place the church members in legal jeopardy.

One safe and feasible way to facilitate such cultural exchanges is for the council to communicate directly with the Chengdu government. If the Chengdu government endorses these cultural exchange activities, it would provide a layer of protection, ensuring that church members can engage with people outside the PRC without the fear of persecution.

Additionally, I would like to update you about Pastor Wang Yi from the Early Rain Covenant Church, based on an online article by Church in Chain dated 26 June 2024.  Despite his arrest five years ago, there are no official channels for the outside world to learn about his situation. The article states, "Wang Yi has only been permitted one family visit since he was detained, a visit from his wife in October 2021. His parents, now in their eighties, have been under surveillance since December 2018 and are only allowed out to walk around their local community."  Wang's parents have been permitted to see Wang's wife Jiang Rong once a month, under surveillance. "Chengdu National Security police officers have also carried out a raid on their home, during which they made the elderly couple stand at attention for an extended period." Given these distressing circumstances, I hope the council can help by asking the Chengdu authorities for an update on Pastor Wang Yi's situation.

To provide further context, this situation mirrors the national security law imposed on Hong Kong by the PRC, which the Sheffield councillors may not be fully acquainted with. Under this law, actions perceived as foreign collusion or subversion are subject to severe penalties. Understanding this parallel may help clarify why governmental endorsement is crucial for the protection of  human rights in cultural exchanges with Christian Churches in our sister-city Chengdu.

Thank you for your support

Answer: Thank you for raising this issue. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are fundamental human rights that I believe everyone should have. I therefore take the concerns that you have raised very seriously. As I said in my response to your question at Full Council last week, we will need to undertake some enquiries of our own before deciding whether any action should be taken, and we need some time to do this. The Council has already had a call with the China lead at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office about the issues that you have raised, and they agreed to enquire as to whether there were any available updates. I will keep you updated when we have more information.

17.3

Annie O’Gara attended to present the following questions that she had

submitted:

The Sheffield City Councillors’ Code of Conduct says this: “This Code of Conduct applies to you as soon as you sign your declaration of acceptance of the office of councillor or attend your first meeting as a co-opted member and continues to apply to you until you cease to be a councillor or co-opted member.” It says that the Code applies to Councillors when acting in an official capacity.

Can the Chair of this meeting confirm that:

• the Code of Conduct applies to all Councillors present at this meeting today and

• that he will ensure that respectful and non-discriminatory speech is used in line with the Nolan Principles and with Clauses 1.1 and 2.3 of the Council’s own Code of Conduct which adopts those principles?

Answer: The Council's code of conduct applies when Councillors are acting in their capacity as councillors of Sheffield City Council. This is a statutory requirement of the Localism Act 2011.

Councillors are each individually responsible for complying with the Code of Conduct. Committee chairs are responsible for maintaining the orderliness of proceedings, and I look forward to the support of councillors in doing that.

17.4

Calvin Payne attended to present the following questions that he had

submitted:

1) On December 21st 2023 this committee heard the council report into their progress following the Lowcock inquiry. In the minutes the committee requested a further update on the inquiry recommendations in July 2024. Can the Leader of the Council confirm if, and when, that update will happen?

2) Many of the personal apologies originally promised by the end of October 2023, including to those most affected by the issues raised by Sir Mark, are still outstanding nine months later, despite being further promised to be completed by now in the above mentioned report. Can the Leader of the Council please update on the progress made towards completing the apology process?

Answer: Thank you for your questions. The update report on the inquiry recommendations is due to come to the S&R committee meeting in August. With the exception of the apologies to be given to the ‘undertakers’, it is my understanding that all personal apologies recommended in the Lowcock report or requested through the agreed process set out within the S&R report in June 2023 have been made. As I know you will understand, the apologies to the ‘undertakers’ have not yet been completed because there is an outstanding complaint which needs to be resolved before the apologies can be given. An independent review has been commissioned in relation to the complaint and this is due to reach its conclusion shortly. The apologies to the ‘undertakers’ will be completed as soon as practicable after the independent review report has been received.

17.5

Hilary Smith attended to present the following questions that she had

submitted:

You will not be surprised that I have serious concerns about the content and recommendations in the report on the Stand with Palestine petition. I wish to ask that the Council's response to the petition needs to be considered afresh in the light of the ruling of the International Court of Justice on Friday. The World Court has determined that Israel is practicing the crime of apartheid, and this finding should lead Sheffield City Council to reconsider its reluctance to accept the designation of Israel as practicing apartheid against the Palestinian people.

I recognise that the report was written before the ICJ ruling, but I had in any case had serious concerns about the tone and assumptions in the report. For example, point 1.4 frames the report in a way which suggests that the language of genocide and apartheid is not legitimate. The report falsely gives the impression that it is only Amnesty that has determined that Israel is practicing apartheid. I should note here that nothing in the petition's wording suggested that the report by Amnesty was the only human rights organisation which designated Israel as a state practicing apartheid. For the avoidance of doubt, the following organisations and United Nations special rapporteurs have come to this conclusion:

Al Haq

Btselem

Human Rights Watch

Four successive United Nation Special rapporteurs for the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

This Council has no need to conduct its own investigation into whether or not Israel is practicing the crime of apartheid unless it chooses to reject the findings of every one of these internationally respected human rights organisations and bodies.

The report takes a completely negative view of any step, however minor, that the Council might take towards making Sheffield a city free of complicity with Israel's apartheid. The report is excessively legalistic and risk adverse - a classic 'Yes Minister' approach which I hope and expect that you, as councillors, will today question and challenge. Do not collude with the implications of the report that you have done everything you need to, and that your responsibilities are now ended. That is not the case. Sheffield City council could decide to leave no stone unturned to find ways to reduce its complicity with Israel's apartheid state policies and practices.

The report rejects any possible steps that could be taken, suggesting that because a step might be difficult, or need careful thought, that it should not even be considered.  

The author of the report now needs to reconsider in the light of the findings by the President of the International Court of Justice, the highest court in the world, that Israel is practicing the crime of apartheid. I look forward to hearing each of you, members of this committee, make a robust rejection of the report's recommendations today. You are politicians, and you have a duty to act according to the highest ethical standards. The Palestinian people, and respect for international law, deserve nothing less.

I am aware that the leader of the Council will be responding to my question today, but I address my question to each of you on this committee, and to the Chief executive. Each of you carries a heavy responsibility: to ensure that Sheffield City Council plays its part, however small, in ending UK support for Israel's system of apartheid. I ask you today to reconsider the Council's response to the petition in the light of the ruling of the International Court of Justice.

Answer: Thank you for your question. The scenes of devastation in Gaza are heartbreaking and I repeat my call for an urgent ceasefire. It will be important for me not to predetermine my response to the report being discussed on today's agenda, or to suggest a position on behalf of other members of the committee. I will invite officers to advise the committee on whether the ICJ judgement impacts on the recommendations in the report. The Assistant Director Legal and Governance advised that the report is designed to explore what legal options within the legal framework that the council operates within are available to the meeting today as recommendations from officers, and as such it deals with matters that have a direct impact legally, as a direction on local authorities so may be read as being restricted in that sense. I'm clear that the recommendations formulated and presented to the Committee today are lawful ones that are open for the Committee to adopt or not  and explores the issues around those options in a comprehensive fashion.

The Chair confirmed that this matter would be discussed further at item 9 of the agenda.

17.6

Jonathan Feldman attended to present the following questions that he had

submitted:

The report from the council on the petition notes that the council is not subject to international law specifically that

“matters of international law and war crimes do not fall within the remit of English local government nor are they issues over which the authority has any control ” (para 2.8)

We should note that the invasion of Ukraine is widely considered to be against international law - as set out by article 2 (4) of the Rome Statute - and this did not prevent the rapid statement of support for Ukraine from the council. The war was not a matter over which the Council had control either but one over which it decided it could act locally to mitigate the terrible plight of Ukranian refugees.

We should also note that the International Court of Justice, in its advisory opinion of 18th July 2024, made in response to questions set by the general assembly of the United Nations in December 2022, states that

... the Court considers that, in view of the character and importance of the rights and obligations involved, all States are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. They are also under an obligation not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. It is for all States, while respecting the Charter of the United Nations and international law, to ensure that any impediment resulting from the illegal presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory to the exercise of the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination is brought to an end. In addition, all the States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention have the obligation, while respecting the Charter of the United Nations and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention.

We should further note that in its ruling on 26th January 2024 the International Court of Justice found it plausible that there had been acts of genocide over which it had jurisdiction and that article 25 (3 d ii ) of the Rome Statute,  places responsibility on any individual who “in any way contributes” to the crime of genocide in the knowledge that there is the intention to commit that crime.

As 

(a) Sheffield City Council is a public body constituted under UK law ,

(b) that the UK is a Party to the Rome Statute giving its rulings status in UK courts. 

Sheffield City Council is subject to at least this part of international law and specifically the ruling of the ICC referred to above.

In addition, officers and elected officials are subject to International Law because as individuals they are obligated - as indeed we all are - not to aid and abet a crime against humanity, however indirectly, in so far as we are able.

In view of this clear error in the report will the Strategy and Resources committee review the report?  If not why not?

Further

a) as the Council has delegated authority from the  government of the United Kingdom - a State Party to the Rome Statute and

b) the ICC has said that States must avoid any aid or assistance to Israel;

and

c) the Rome Statute obliges natural persons to desist from aiding in any way however indirectly the crime of genocide and

d) the Council has a duty to protect its officers and elected officials from taking action on its behalf that could lead to their arrest

will this committee move for the Council to engage proactively with the ruling of the ICC and publish a policy that ensures there is no official Council contact either with Israel or its representatives or Israeli institutions or their representatives and discourage business and individuals within the City boundary from doing so too? If not, why not?

Answer: Thank you for your question. The report to be presented to the committee has been prepared by the Council’s officers and is aimed at providing the committee with a framework of advice and guidance within which it may consider its options. I am advised that we place reliance on the primary legislative framework of the UK law, as set down by Parliament, to transpose international obligations into the context of local government law and to provide us with an operating framework. I am conscious that the report touches on questions of official and business contact, and I will leave those matters to the item ahead of us on today’s agenda. The report has been thoroughly checked, and has been reviewed by an external barrister, to ensure that it is correct and free from errors.