Agenda item

A 15-minute question and answer session with the Leader of the Council on matters relating to his portfolio.

The Chair invited questions from members of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board (OSMB) to the Leader of the Council, and the following were noted:

1. Could you justify the decision made at the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (SY MCA) to allocate £496 million of City Region Sustainable Transport Settlements (CRSTS) funding to Sheffield trams – given that this overwhelmingly benefited Sheffield residents, offered only slight benefit to Rotherham, and that CRSTS money was usually split equally among constituent authorities – when that funding might have been better spent on improving transport links to the rural villages in Rotherham?

The Leader explained that, although the decision fell outside his SY MCA portfolio, the £496 million investment was justified because allowing the tram system to fail would have been disastrous for South Yorkshire. It was emphasised that the tram was a regional asset – owned by the SY MCA – even though it operated mainly in Sheffield. He explained that supporting a strong central city benefited the entire region and that letting the tram collapse would have been a step backward – especially when other cities were investing in light rail. He concluded that the funding met South Yorkshire’s shared obligations.

2. In light of concerns regarding the tram’s status as a regional asset, and given that the government intended to enhance rather than reverse the scrutiny protocol, why did the Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA) delay its full implementation of the protocol?

The Leader had outlined that public transport, including the tram system, should not have been treated solely as a commercial venture, as it provided essential services for those who relied on it, particularly in areas where private transport was not an option. The Leader drew a parallel with franchising bus services, which also required subsidies to ensure accessibility. It was emphasised that public transport, whether buses or trams, was a public good that always needed government support, with the focus being on determining the appropriate level of subsidy and its allocation. Regarding the scrutiny protocol, it was confirmed that it had been implemented, with the only outstanding issue being the allowances for members of the scrutiny committee.

3. If the tram system was considered a South Yorkshire asset, did that mean Sheffield would have been subsidising the tram station at Magna?

The Leader explained that all tram assets, including the new stop at Magna and the park and ride at Parkgate, were considered South Yorkshire assets. Therefore, they were funded from the same pool of money as the Supertram assets, with Rotherham also having a bus station in a similar context.

4. Do you believe there was a conflict of interest in your role as both the Leader of Council and the Chair of the South Yorkshire Transport Committee, where you signed off on funding for cycling lanes that were decided locally in Rotherham?

The Leader stated that he did not believe there was a conflict of interest. It was explained that, while each leader represented an area within South Yorkshire, which meant that projects inevitably affected their respective regions, the balance of democratic accountability was key. Additionally, it was noted that the SY MCA was working on establishing the appropriate level of scrutiny and decision-making processes. The Leader explained that decisions were not made by the full SY MCA committee to ensure efficiency and that any schemes underwent a rigorous evaluation before reaching politicians. It was acknowledged that a conflict could arise if there had been an intervention in a scheme that had been recommended for refusal but emphasised that this had not occurred. Ultimately, the Leader noted the importance of balancing local representation with decisions based on adopted policies.

5. How were you promoting Rotherham to the rest of the country to attract visitors?

The Leader explained that while his primary responsibility was to the people of Rotherham, he was also working to attract inward investment both nationally and internationally. The importance of collaborating with the SY MCA to amplify their voice and advocate for Rotherham and South Yorkshire was highlighted. Additionally, the Leader emphasised engaging with wider networks, such as the Local Government Association, and ensuring the council's representation at events like the upcoming UK’s Real Estate Investment and Infrastructure Forum (UKREiiF) in Leeds. Despite these efforts, he reiterated that his main focus remained on delivering services for the people of Rotherham.