Agenda item

6.1

Marion Gerson attended to present the following questions that she had submitted: Jewish people living in our city, including those who are secular or non-Zionist and who may be deeply troubled by the actions of the Israeli government, nevertheless have a deep emotional tie to the state of Israel at least as great as that of the Sheffield citizens supporting Palestine.  At this time of suffering on all sides, there is surely a need for respect and understanding, not the proliferation of hurt. Is it right, then, for our Council to consider joining a Sheffield Coalition Against Israel?  Or, even worse, a Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid?  Would doing so make one iota of difference in trying to stop the conflict or find a solution?

Answer:  Thank you for your question. At the Council meeting on 1^st November 2023, the Council agreed a resolution which resolved that the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee would be requested to consider whether the Council should join the Sheffield Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid.

This issue will now be scheduled on the workplan for the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee, this committee, for the New Year, so that this can be given due consideration by the Committee. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on whether or not the Council should join the Coalition, while this issue is going through the process outlined.

However, I do want to say that I am acutely aware of the deep hurt and anger being felt in our communities as a result of the ongoing conflict in Israel and Gaza and I strongly agree with you that at this time of suffering on all sides, there is a need for respect and understanding, not the proliferation of hurt. I am also acutely aware that the name of this group is troubling for some people and to my mind does not make a clear distinction between the Israeli government and the state of Israel.

I believe that my role, as Leader of the Council, is to promote understanding, compassion and cohesion in our city and I want to assure you that I will do everything that I can in pursuit of this objective. I will be mindful of all of this when I’m involved in conversations with colleagues about this request and I hope that they will be too.

6.2

Himal Raut attended to present the following questions that he had submitted: I am a Hongkonger and also student at Sheffield Hallam University. As some of you may know, Sheffield Hallam University has the “Helena Kennedy Centre for International Justice.” Named after our University Chancellor, Helena Kennedy, it is a leading centre for human rights and supports scholarly research to fight social injustice, which includes reports about Uyghur forced labor. Indeed, earlier this year in July, the Centre published a report detailing companies identified as using forced labours in the Uyghur region or engaging in labour transfer. (1) As a human rights champion, Lord Helena Kennedy does not only support academic research that reveals the truth, but also supported ‘a campaign to persuade the UK government to give the UK high court the role in investigating whether genocide is occurring in Xinjiang.” (2) As a result, she has been sanctioned by the Chinese Communist Party Regime since 2021. It’s all because Baroness Helena Kennedy believes that we need to work hard to protect international justice. As a university student and resident at Sheffield, I would like to ask the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee of Sheffield Council:

Does Sheffield really want to be twinned with cities from a regime that violates human rights and suppresses academic freedom?

Also, I want to ask, as I am telling you about Helena Kennedy Centre’s research now, and sharing with you the data provided by Helena Kennedy Centre’s websites, does the committee know that the people living in Chengdu and Anshan, who are Sheffield’s twin cities in China, actually cannot obtain this research data, without risking to be arrested? If Sheffield Council decides to maintain the twinning relationship and collaboration agreement with the cities in China, can Sheffield Council please share the research data about forced labour and genocide situation in Uyghur region with the people living in Chengdu, Anshan, Daqing and Nanchang?

Answer: Thank you for your questions and for sharing information with me. Firstly let me pay tribute to the work of Baroness Helena Kennedy for her work over many decades to champion the cause of human rights and international justice. Sheffield twinned with Anshan in 1983.  It must be noted, however, that whilst we remain Twin Cities, there has been limited engagement with Anshan since 2006.  

In respect of Chengdu, this is one of our most recent international partnerships, established in 2010 through a ‘Memorandum of Friendly Cooperation’, together with a Collaboration Agreement between Sheffield Olympic Legacy Park and Chengdu’s HI Tec Zone. 

The Collaboration Agreements with Daqing and Nanchang were signed in 2016, both for an initial 3-year period. Neither of these agreements have subsequently been renewed.  

At the meeting of the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee on the 24 January 2023 the Council confirmed that a review is being carried out by the Council into Twinning and Sister City relationships. As you may be aware, this led to the formation of the paper being presented to S&R today on establishing a new Partner City Policy.

Given Sheffield’s broad range of existing international links, with a variety of terminology in place, the purpose of this report is to propose the creation of a clear Partner City Policy, to ensure consideration of each of these different types of arrangements. This will provide a future framework for: a). Assessing new approaches, and b). Reviewing the effectiveness of existing international relationships – which will of course include our pre-existing relationships with Chinese cities.

As the report notes, the Council has limited resources, which need to be focussed on improving service delivery and value for money to residents. International partnering arrangements may also create the potential for reputational risks as well as benefits for the Council and the city.

For this reason, there must be clear and objective criteria for entering into and maintaining such arrangements. Criteria will establish whether a proposed arrangement will benefit and contribute to the life of the city and its residents.

As part of the new Partner City Policy there will be an increased focus on due diligence considerations. Considering any potential risks including reputational issues through association with the location and/or key individuals – concerning matters such as Human Rights issues.

It would not be appropriate for me to comment further on the validity of the currently held relationships, but do please rest assured that you all the issues you have raised will be considered within the review of our current twining arrangements. This is one of the main purposes of the paper coming before the Committee today and I fully support it.

6.3

Annie O'Gara attended to present the following questions that she had submitted:

Q1. In the Full Council meeting of November 1st, a decision about the Council’s discussing the project initiated by the Sheffield Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid  was deferred to this committee. The proposal for such a discussion had been approved by the Full Council, it being one strand of the Motion put forward by the Sheffield Green Party. Despite this important matter being referred to this Committee, it does not appear on your agenda. Why has this issue not been tabled as part of your agenda?

Answer: The resolution about giving consideration to joining the Coalition Against Israel Apartheid has been referred to the Strategy and Resources Committee from Full Council.  It has been placed on the committee’s Work Programme and is currently being considered for the new year.

We are hopeful this will enable officers sufficient time to prepare a thorough report for consideration by the committee, taking into account the legal, equalities and other policy implications of joining the coalition and making a recommendation to the committee.  It will also provide time for appropriate consultation and discussion with community groups in order to ensure that the committee has as much relevant information before them as possible.

This will include discussion with the coalition, but will also take into account conversations with faith and community leaders that have and are continuing to take place following the agreement of the council resolution, about how to show solidarity with all communities affected by the conflict in Israel and Gaza, and to support reconciliation in the city. The time taken for that may impact on when the matter can next be brought back to the committee, but this will be in the New Year.

Q2. Will you, as a matter of urgency, arrange a meeting between the Leaders of the three major parties as well as key Council responsibility-holders on the one hand, and the Sheffield Palestine Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid on the other?

Answer: Full consultation with the Coalition Against Israel Apartheid and community and faith groups will take place so the committee has as much relevant information before them as possible. I’ve offered to meet with the coalition and am happy to extend the invitation to the other party leaders.

Q3. Will members of this Committee commit to reading the two documents submitted with this question, which give essential background information, without which Council members may lack the necessary contextual knowledge to enter into a full and proper discussion.

Answer: Thank you for providing this information. I will read all of this, as well as circulating it the other members of the committee, and requesting that they do likewise.

Q4. Lastly, will the Council release to us the letter sent by the Government to Councils, in response to which Sheffield Council chose to fly the Israeli flag on October 10th?

Yes, this will be circulated to you directly following this meeting.

6.4

Julie Pearn attended to present the following questions that she had submitted:

At the last meeting of full council on 1st November 2023 it was resolved that the Council requested the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee to consider whether the Council should join the Sheffield Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid.

What action has been taken so far in the light of this resolution and what is the timetable for consideration of this matter?

Answer: As I stated in my response to the earlier question a response will be submitted early in the New Year so that there is sufficient time for a thorough report can be prepared and that the necessary conversations can take place within the City and with faith and community leaders and consider the legal, equality and policy implications of joining the Coalition. There have been ongoing conversations with community leaders over the last few weeks about the conflict and how to support reconciliation within the City.  This must be done in a way that is respectful to all of our communities in the City and that shows compassion and promoting cohesion in the City.

6.5

Hilary Smith attended to present the following questions that she had submitted:

This committee has no need to delay further in taking steps to end Sheffield Council’s support for Israeli Apartheid; the system of oppression, segregation, domination, dispossession, administrative detention, torture, inhuman and degrading treatment and extra judicial killings outlined so clearly last week at full Council meeting by a Sheffield student.

This Council has a moral and legal responsibility not to be complicit in supporting war crimes and the crime of apartheid, which is a crime against humanity under international law. Sheffield City council took responsibility in the 1980s in ending its complicity with apartheid in South Africa and it needs to take responsibility now. You cannot say - We did not know, just as no-one could say they did not know in the 1980s about South Africa.

These are the first steps that this committee can take:

?Cease banking with Barclays Bank, a bank that holds over £1 billion in shares and provides over £3 billion in loans and underwriting to 9 companies whose weapons, components, and military technology have been used in Israel’s armed violence against Palestinians. 

?Ensure that this council ends all financial links with any company that appears on the United Nations list of companies that operate in Israeli settlements;

?Ensure, in particular, that this Council does not directly or indirectly maintain a financial relationship with JCB, a British company which is listed in the UN database and which is responsible for enabling home demolitions across Palestine, including of Palestinians who are citizens of Israel;

?Ensure that this council ends any financial relationship with Israeli arms companies and with any arms company selling arms to Israel.

Will this committee commit to taking these steps? Will you demonstrate, through actions rather than words, that you are serious about ending complicity with Israel’s brutal, illegal apartheid system of oppression?

Answer: The Local Government Act 1988 prohibits consideration of a wide range of "non-commercial considerations" in procurement and contracting and this includes:

• any involvement of the business of contractors with fields of government policy such as defence, or foreign, policy, and
• the country of origin of supplies or the location in any country of the business of the provider.

This means that the Council is not able to choose to take such matters into account. The law prohibits it from doing so.

However, the Council has adopted an ethical procurement policy, and this does require prospective contractors to declare any breaches of International Human Rights law that have been found against them.

Within the Councils approved Treasury Management Strategy Statement we have an Ethical Investment Strategy, an extract of which states..

“the Council will not knowingly invest directly in businesses whose activities and practices are inconsistent with the Council’s values. To that end, the Council commits not to hold any direct investments in fossil fuels, tobacco, arms companies or, to the best of our knowledge, companies involved in tax evasion or grave misconduct”.

I am confident that the Council’s procurement officers will continue to apply this policy and will provide advice on any future changes made by the government on the legislation relating to non-commercial considerations.

6.6

Russell Johnson attended to present the following questions that he had submitted:

Q1. To demonstrate the sincerity of the Council’s stated aim to be accountable for the destruction of thousands of healthy street trees, the harms to individuals and the associated financial and reputational costs incurred by the wrong decisions of Officers and Members, will the Leader ask the Chief Executive to request a Public Interest Report from the Auditor covering the period of probable misuse of public monies during the debacle described in part by Lowcock?

Q2. Does the Leader agree with me that disallowance of both Public and Members’ Questions about whether the Labour Group, and by extension the Council, is actually being directed by a shadowy group chaired by the Leader of Ealing Council that leads inevitably to accusations of unnecessary secrecy? 

If the Leader is concerned about such unfortunate optics, would it not be preferable to accept Questions from any sources, demonstrate transparency and answer honestly?

Q3. Does the Council Leadership persist in clinging to the misguided notion that the Lowcock Report is the ‘definitive truth’ and the last word on the Street Tree Scandal and the dysfunction of the Council that gave rise to it?  This despite the limited nature of Sir Mark’s brief and the rather weak recommendations that do not make possible the comprehensive accountability that is needed following the gross blunders that occurred and clearing the route for significant improvement in governance. Would it be in the Council’s interests to cease to hide behind Lowcock and engage honestly with all concerned?

Q4. Is the council confident that the £64,000 for committal proceedings on 24th October 2017 was not misuse of public funds?

Answer: I’m always happy to take questions and always enjoy our exchanges. Where questions have been ruled out, it is because they have nothing to do with the council. I am afraid that conspiratorial accusations fall into that category. So in the interests of full transparency and disclosure, I can honestly but politely say that the basis of your question is entirely incorrect.

Sir Mark Lowcock spent a long time fully investigating what went so badly wrong during the years of the street tree dispute. I am satisfied that this was an extremely thorough and important inquiry which is why we now fully accept all of the recommendations. We are now in the process of implementing those recommendations and engaging honestly with members of the public and our partners to make that happen.

I am focused on that task and expect that all elected members, in my party and from others, and all officers, understand the seriousness of what happened during the dispute and commit to work together to ensure a dispute of that magnitude can never happen again.

In our full response to the Sheffield Street Trees Inquiry, we have spoken to our auditors. The consideration of whether there needs to be a public interest report is a matter for the auditor, but if they want to understand the views of those who have suggested it, the Council will provide them with contact details.  The auditors have a statutory right of inspection, and the Council fully engages with that process, as we always do. 

The Council has ensured that the auditor has the Inquiry’s report, and they can take up any line of enquiry on spending that they think appropriate.

The Council is clear that the money spent on committal proceedings in 2017 did not represent a misuse of public funds.  However, it is clear from Sir Mark Lowcock's report that the decision to bring committal proceedings was a misjudged one.  In the words of the inquiry report:

"As the dispute progressed, the volume of expensive legal activity increased, as did the level of protests on the streets. This demonstrates that the Council’s strategy was not effective in deterring protestors or resolving opposition to Streets Ahead. As one member of the Council legal team told the Inquiry, the Council’s legal success was an example of how it could win battles but lose a war. As well as failing to resolve the dispute, relying on legal solutions caused the Council wider reputational damage, as well as costing a significant amount of money that could have been used to fund compromise solutions for street trees."

The decision to pursue injunctions and committal against protestors was misguided and could have actively hampered the possibility of resolution of the dispute.  It was a strategy which was always likely to fail and was not, as was claimed at the time, "a last resort".  It also caused harm to a number of individuals. We have apologised publicly for this. Individuals have also been offered the opportunity to receive a personal apology in writing or in person for the harms caused to them.  That apology process is currently taking place.