To put questions, if any, to Cabinet Members and Committee Chairpersons (or their representatives) under Council Procedure Rules 11(1) and 11(3).
Minutes:
There were 32
questions:
1.
Councillor Bacon: Will the council conduct a full review into the
way it handled changes to the way bin crews work, which reportedly
led to chaos in the collection of household waste?
Councillor Marshall, Cabinet Member for Street Scene and Green
Spaces, firstly thanked residents for their patience and
understanding in relation to the garden waste collection service
issues. She did not accept that there had been chaos in the
collection of household waste as Councillor Bacon had suggested.
The collection of household waste had been prioritised. As the
situation had not yet concluded, Councillor Marshall stated that
she was not in a position to commit to a review.
In his supplementary, Councillor Bacon stated that the Council was
not interested in learning lessons from its failures to do the
basic jobs right. He asked if the Cabinet member would be issuing a
proper refund to the residents who had not received the service
they had paid for.
Councillor Marshall explained that the original question had asked
for a review into the collection of household waste, not garden
waste. She confirmed that the Council would look into some form of
recompense for the garden waste collection issues.
2.
Councillor Thorp: Would the council ever consider or comply with a
request from the government to sell off allotments to use for
building new houses as a very concerned constituent of mine is very
worried RMBC would just say yes to any Government request to do
so?
Councillor Marshall, Cabinet Member for Street Scene and Green
Spaces, stated that the Council had not had any request from
Government to sell off any allotments
and, by statutory protections, the Council had no intention to
identify any allotment land for other purposes.
In his supplementary, Councillor Thorp asked would the Council sell
them if the Government asked them to.
Councillor Marshall explained that the sale of an allotment had to
go through a rigorous protocol, including consultation with the
National Allotment Society and through the planning
process.
3.
Councillor Thorp: RMBC spent a fortune laying new pedestrian walk
ways in the town centre, trying to improve the visual effect for
visitors. Then along comes someone who needs to get to underground
utilities, but is there any care in what is put down, the simple
answer is no. Why spend this money if you don't keep up its
appearance.
Councillor Williams, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the
Local Economy, stated that he shared the frustration. However, the
Council’s Highways team had protected the recent resurfacing
works in the Town Centre against any utility company carrying out
excavation works in the roads and footways. However, in the
legislation that governed this matter, exemptions were provided for
utilities companies to carry out emergency works and provide a new
connection or supply to a new customer. Any planned works or
emergency works delivered on the adopted highway by a utility
company required approval in accordance with the Street works and
Roadworks Permit Scheme and all utilities companies were required
to restore the highway to its original state.
In his supplementary, Councillor Thorp stated that, outside the
Heart Foundation Shop, around 10 flagstones had been pulled up and
tarmac had been put down in its place. This had happened in other
areas throughout the town centre. Councillor Thorp asked Councillor
to do something about it.
Councillor Williams confirmed that he would raise the issues with
the relevant service.
4.
Councillor Bennett-Sylvester: Can you please confirm the asylum
seeker qualification was not an addition of the 2023 update of
Rothercard and had been in place since the last formal review in
2008?
Councillor Read, Leader of the Council, stated that this was the
case. The asylum seeker qualification was not a recent addition and
had been in place since at least 2008.
In his supplementary, Councillor Bennett-Sylvester stated that
since 2008, the Conservatives, BNP, UKIP and Reform had had a near
continuous presence on the Council. He asked if the Leader was
aware of any questions from their parties on the eligibility
criteria for Rothercard since 2008.
Councillor Read stated that, as far as he was aware, there has been
no mention of it from any member of any of those groups over that
entire period of time.
5.
Councillor Bennett-Sylvester: Can you please confirm the number of
Conservative councillors who volunteered to join the Rothercard
working group ahead of its update in 2023?
Councillor Read, Leader of the Council, confirmed that there was no
record of Conservative members seeking to be members of that
working group.
In his supplementary, Councillor Bennett-Sylvester asked if the
Leader would agree with him that the Conservatives had full
opportunity to help shape the look of Rothercard. He noted that no
Conservatives had come forward to join the new review group created
following the local elections in 2024.
Councillor Read stated that the cross-party working led by former
Deputy Leader Councillor Sheppard on the Rothercard Review had been
a really good piece of work. Those opportunities were absolutely
there, both through those working group arrangements and through
scrutiny arrangements. If Members did not take them, that was their
responsibility.
6.
Councillor Bennett-Sylvester: Who chaired the January 13th
2023 OSMB meeting where the new
Rothercard scheme was scrutinised, were any members from the same
party in attendance and can you give a summary of questions asked
please?
Councillor Steele, Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Management
Board, explained that the meeting of
the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board took place on January 19
2023 and not January 13 2023. The minutes of the meeting on 19
January indicated that while the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny
Management Board at the time was Councillor Clark, the meeting was
chaired by the Vice Chair, Councillor Tom Collingham, after
apologies were received from Councillor Clark.
Councillor Tim Baum-Dixon was the only elected member present from
the same party (Conservative) as the chair Councillor Tom
Collingham.
The following attendances information was provided:
· Councillor Joanna Baker-Rogers, Member, Attendance: Present - Labour
· Councillor Sheila Cowen - Member - Attendance: Present - Labour
· Councillor Wendy Cooksey - Member - Attendance: Present - Labour
· Councillor Lyndsay Pitchley - Member - Attendance: Apologies - Labour
· Councillor Ken Wyatt - Member - Attendance: Present - Labour
· Councillor Taiba Yasseen - Member - Attendance: Apologies - Labour
· Councillor Adam Tinsley - Member - Attendance: Expected - Conservative
· Councillor Tim Baum-Dixon - Member - Attendance: Present - Conservative
· Councillor Adam Carter - Member - Attendance: Apologies - Liberal Democrat
· Councillor Robert Elliott - Member - Attendance: Present - Non-Aligned (Independent)
A summary of the questions asked was also provided.
In his supplementary, Councillor Bennett-Sylvester asked if it
would be reasonable, in Councillor Steele’s opinion, to say
that not only did the Conservative group have full opportunity to
scrutinise Rothercard but actually due to the vice chair
facilitating the meeting, lead the scrutiny?
He
therefore asked if it would be reasonable to accept that the
members of OSMB who were silent, consented?
Councillor Steele stated that he would not make comments on what
people chose to do in a meeting. He did think it was appropriate
for everyone to stake appropriate action and involved themselves in
the decisions made.
7.
Councillor Bennett-Sylvester: Full Council on March 1st,
2023 approved cabinet minutes approving
the new Rothercard scheme, how many members of the current
Conservative group were present and what questions did they ask of
the scheme, especially regards eligibility?
Councillor Read, Leader of the Council, explained that the
following current Conservative group members were present:
Names of Conservative Councillors present on 1st March
2023:
· Councillor Joshua Bacon
· Councillor Simon Ball
· Councillor Tim Baum-Dixon
· Councillor Sophie Castledine-Dack
· Councillor Tom Collingham
· Councillor Zachary Collingham
· Councillor David Fisher
· Councillor Greg Reynolds
· Councillor Adam Tinsley
None of them raised any questions on this matter.
In his supplementary, Councillor Bennett-Sylvester stated that
whilst Rothercard was not there to be voted on as recommendation,
members were able to table questions and speak to the minutes.
There were several Conservative members present who were at the
meeting today. He asked if the Leader agreed with him that it was
reasonable to take their silence then as consent?
Councillor Read stated that he thought there was no reason to
believe that that was not the case.
8.
Councillor Bennett-Sylvester: Can you please confirm that during
his time as MP for Rother Valley that Mr Alexander Stafford
regularly contacted RMBC about council matters and what
representations did he make regards the highly publicised
Rothercard scheme, especially given the role of Conservative
councillors in its scrutiny?
Councillor Read, Leader of the Council, explained that the former
MP sent over 3,000 enquires to the Council in his time in office.
No reference to the Rothercard scheme was found amongst those
pieces of correspondence.
In his supplementary, Councillor Bennett-Sylvester said that the
asylum seeker qualification amounted to 0.0004% of the Rotherham
population and for years, the Conservatives had no issue with it
and had chosen not to scrutinise or shape it. He asked the Leader
if he agreed that Mr Stafford’s comments on social media were
the frantic thrashings of a loser devoid of any real principles and
struggling to find any real relevance but aimed to do so by
bullying societies weakest members?
Councillor Read stated that he would associate himself with those
remarks. He also agreed that it was not a surprise that media
outlets such as the Sun and GBNews had
picked this story up. Information had been provided to them, and
they had chosen not to run that information. The situation was that
a former MP was struggling to remain relevant and clearly had his
eye on a job. He had picked on one person in pursuit of driving
division and creating uncertainty. Councillor Read said this was
unbecoming of the Conservative Party and they should expect
better.
9.
Councillor Sheppard: Could the cabinet member outline the dangers
presented by the illegal painting, especially on mini-roundabouts, currently taking place in our
borough and across the country?
Councillor Williams, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the
Local Economy, explained that the dangers were twofold. The
individual carrying out the behaviour was putting themselves in
serious danger and at risk of injury from a collision with a
vehicle or the road. Secondly, graffiti on the highway was
distracting for road users.
In his supplementary, Councillor Sheppard asked what the cost was
to taxpayers to repair the roundabouts?
Councillor Williams stated that it cost around £1000 to
restore a roundabout. There would also be disruption to the road
network whilst the repairs were carried out.
10. Councillor Sutton:
What support is there for young people in Rotherham?
Councillor Cusworth, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Children
and Young People, explained that a wide range of support service
were available for children and young people. These included family
help services and family hubs. In terms of outreach and engagement
teams, a lot of work had been done to support young people after
lots of anti-social behaviour in Cortonwood. There were many online
initiatives regarding development and the Building Bridges Together
project was aimed at promoting inclusion and challenging negatives
views, particularly around race and immigration following the
disorder at Manvers in 2024. Other support included awareness of
the dangers of image sharing / sexting, support for LGBTQ plus
young people, anti-social behaviour education and universal support
sessions.
In her supplementary, Councillor Sutton asked if Members were aware
of all of the support and how to signpost residents?
Councillor Cusworth agreed to raise the matter with
officers.
11. Councillor A
Carter: Given the Government's U-turn on welfare reforms and on
scrapping the winter fuel payments, does the council leader believe
that he was in the wrong to back these cruel changes?
Councillor Read, Leader of the Council, stated that he was not sure
what Councillor Carter was referring to as he had voted for the
same motions as him, opposing the changes. The Leader had written
to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for
DWP to express opposition.
In his supplementary, Councillor Carter said that in the chamber,
the Leader had been known to support and speak in favour of the
government's changes. He asked if the Leader thought he had been
wrong, if the wrong decisions had been made and if he thought those
pensioners who were just above the current pensions credit
threshold were in poverty.
Councillor Read did not accept the premise of the question and
repeated what he had said at the meeting in September 2024
regarding the motion: “The motion says we'd like the
Government to pause and reconsider. I think we'd all like the
Government to pause and reconsider. So on that basis we're
supporting the motion in front of us today. That was the position I
took then, it's still the position I
take now.”
12. Councillor A
Carter: The closures of the waterpark at Clifton Park over the
summer so soon after opening is really disappointing. What has gone
wrong here, and will the council be recouping money spend from the
contractors for the remedial works?
Councillor Marshall, Cabinet Member for Street Scene and Green
Spaces, explained that the Council understood and shared the
disappointment caused by the interruptions. The issues experienced
were due to two separate issues. Firstly, the paddling pool surface
initially installed was found to be slippery and the Council did
not want to risk any children getting hurt. Following a series of
slip resistance tests, the surface was re-laid at no cost to the
Council, with the contractor covering all remedial works. The
paddling pool was fully operational and open to the public.
Secondly, a fault occurred with the chlorine injector pump, which
temporarily affected the operation of the entire Water Splash
system. This issue was also repaired by the contractor at their
expense, and the system was now functioning as intended.
In his supplementary, Councillor A Carter asked if it would be fair
to say that the planning for the scheme meant that the contractors
felt rushed to get this scheme finished in time for the summer
holidays and therefore the necessary quality standards were not met
before handing over the scheme to the public? He asked if the
Cabinet Member would commit to undertake a review of the process
that had led to the failures?
Councillor Marshall disagreed that the contractors had been rushed.
It was important to strike a balance between ensuring the surface
was not too abrasive while still providing enough grip for safe
use. The health and safety of children came first.
.
13. Councillor
Tinsley: Has Rotherham Borough Council made any representations to
the Government Inquiry on Taxi Licensing?
Councillor Williams, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the
Local Economy, explained that this question related to the call for
evidence from the Transport Committee in Parliament who were doing
a short inquiry into taxi licensing. The Committee wanted to look
into the performance of the national framework for licencing,
regulations of the sector and specific issues including
cross-border hire, which Rotherham would call out of town taxes.
Councillor Williams confirmed that the Council’s licensing
service had made a submission to the Transport Committee. The
Leader, Councillor Williams, and Councillor Hughes, as Chair of
Licencing, all had seen that submission. It was a very strong
submission that set out the Council's position and concerns on
these matters. Councillor Williams also confirmed that the Council
had a strong record on the issue of taxi licensing and had taken
many steps to advocate for new stronger standards.
In his supplementary, Councillor Tinsley asked if the Council would
promote that a taxi used by Rotherham residents in Rotherham should
have a Rotherham licence?
Councillor Williams agreed that this would be a good idea, and he
would raise it with officers.
14. Councillor
Tinsley: A parent was fined for litter dropped by their 6-year-old
child without their knowledge. Does the Council think this approach
is fair?
Councillor Marshall, Cabinet Member for Street Scene and Green
Spaces, stated that she was not aware of this situation and it did not seem fair. She asked
Councillor Tinsley to send her the details and she would look in to
it.
15. Councillor A
Carter: There are no published opening times of the Clifton Park's
waterpark that are easy to find online. This makes it hard for
families to plan activities. Why is this and will you commit to
changing this so it is widely publicised?
Councillor Marshall, Cabinet Member for Street Scene and Green
Spaces, explained that she was not aware that the times were not
published, and she would ensure this was corrected. The times were
on the Facebook page.
In his supplementary, Councillor A. Carter asked if the watersplash
could be opened earlier than 11am in the summer holidays so that
the Council were not encouraging young people to be out in the
height of the heat, risking sun damage?
Councillor Marshall reiterated that the current opening times would
be published online.
16. Councillor A
Carter: Regarding the Plan for Neighbourhoods Government funding,
will the council consider using these funds at Templeborough to
strengthen and reopen the bridge at Grange Lane to better connect
Brinsworth and Templeborough?
Councillor Williams,
Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy, explained
that the allocation of Plan for Neighbourhoods funding would be led
by a new Neighbourhood Board in consultation with the community.
Following consultation exercises in 2024 and 2025 the process of
exploring interventions was underway but not yet complete. Grange
Lane was not adopted highway along its full length, the northern
part having been stopped up. The bridge was not a structure in the
ownership of the RMBC. The matter would therefore not be a simple
matter of maintenance, but of installing a new highway including
securing the necessary agreements of landowners and ensuring the
appropriate requirements were met for adoption.
It was likely therefore that the suggested
intervention would be of significant scale, and considerable work
would be required to understand the costs and benefits of the
proposal. However, at this stage in the process the suggestion
could be fed into consultation for consideration by the
Neighbourhood Board, when that was established.
In his supplementary question, Councillor A Carter stated that the
consultation was very clunky and difficult to access. He asked the
Cabinet Member if he agreed that it was not presented well and was
confusing for the residents of Brinsworth?
Councillor Williams confirmed he would raise the matter with
officers and provide information to Councillor Carter.
17. Councillor Blackham: With not a single neighbouring property responding to an application to change a home in North Anston into a children’s home and 35 objectors having to find out themselves that the same was planned for a home in South Anston, how can we have confidence local residents are being properly consulted about important changes in their area?
Councillor Mault, Chair of the Planning Board, explained that there
were two difference processes involved. All applications for
planning permission were required by statutory legislation to be
publicised by either letters to neighbouring properties or site
notices posted at the site. Documents associated with planning
applications were published on the Council’s
website.
The planning application in North Anston was promoted by the
Council and consultation was undertaken by the Children and Young
People’s Service and with ward members and local residents
prior to the purchase of the property. The application in South
Anston was for a Lawful Development Certificate for the use of the
property for a care home for children (in this case 2 children and
2 carers). Public consultation was not
required for Lawful Development Certificates.
In his supplementary question, Councillor Blackham referenced the
letter that had been sent from CYPS that said the Council planned
to change the use of property from a Class 3 to a Class 2
residential home. Residents did not respond as they felt the
decision had already been made. Councillor Blackham asked if, given
the lack of confidence in the process, the Council would reconsider
the decision to use the property in North Anston as a
children’s home.
Councillor Mault stated that consultation had been carried out, as
shown by the letter Councillor Blackham referenced. In terms of the
process, Councillor Mault stated he would take the comments back to
Planning Board.
18. Councillor A.
Carter: Given a further £9 million overspend on the
refurbishment of the markets, does the council still believe this
is value for money, and what projects will miss out because
£9 million is being taken from to fund this?
Councillor Williams, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the
Local Economy, stated that the market and library development was a
huge regeneration project for the town centre, boosting footfall,
supporting businesses and helping to foster new economic activity
in the town centre.
Redeveloping an existing building was a challenge, it added
complexity which often translated into cost. Investing in a
high-quality market that was fit for the future was value for
money. It should not be forgotten that the project would also
create a brand new central library which would bring additional
footfall and custom to the Town Centre.
Councillor Williams explained that, as with any capital programme,
there were projects that became undeliverable, for a variety of
reasons, as further development work was done, and it was from such
projects that funding had been moved.
In his supplementary, Councillor A Carter asked Councillor Williams
to provide a list of the capital projects that were not going to
take place due to the overspend?
Councillor Williams stated that you would provide a written
response. In relation to the overspend, Councillor Williams
explained that the cost increases between the Cabinet reports of
September 2022 and March 2024 (£9.2m) were driven by a number
of key factors, most notably the period of super-inflation that
impacted the construction industry following the pandemic. Other
notable additional costs included the identification and removal of
RAAC concrete, and improved arrangements for the temporary indoor
market, enabling traders to remain in situ during the works, which
was at their request, following consultation.
19. Councillor
Tinsley: Parking enforcement on Maltby High Street feels
inconsistent, letting cars overstay and affecting businesses. Will
the Council commit to regular, reliable patrols to support fair
parking and local traders?
Councillor Tinsley
was not present at the meeting to ask the question, and a written
response would therefore be provided.
20. Councillor Currie:
Why did Keppel ward receive no funding from the ‘our
places’ pot when we were the biggest contributors to the
consultation. Please could you explain the criteria for the
allocation of the funding?
Councillor Currie
was not present at the meeting to ask the question, and a written
response would therefore be provided.
21. Councillor
Tinsley: Last summer, grass cutting complaints were high, but this
year dry weather limited growth. Why weren’t teams redirected
to other tasks, like hedge cutting, to ensure staff productivity
and timely maintenance?
Councillor Tinsley was not present at the meeting to ask the
question, and a written response would therefore be
provided.
22. Councillor
Tinsley: With the review of waste collection routes and new working
methods, are there plans to reduce the number of bin lorries or
collection routes?
Councillor Tinsley was not present at the meeting to ask the
question, and a written response would therefore be
provided.
23. Councillor Thorp:
The 20 million pound neighbourhood fund can you please confirm this
fund will not be just used in Rotherham Town Centre only, and using
the reason as it will benefit everyone.
Councillor Williams, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the
Local Economy, explained that the Plan for Neighbourhoods boundary
in Rotherham had been specified by Government – it was
actually the same boundary as the one determined by the previous
government – and was one of 75 built-up areas that had been
identified across the country. The area was centred on Rotherham
Town Centre and included the surrounding neighbourhoods and
communities. The area was based on data provided by the Office for
National Statistics and other factors. The allocation of funding
would be led by the Neighbourhood Board, when that was established,
in consultation with the community. Following consultation
exercises in 2024 and 2025 the process of exploring interventions
was underway but not yet complete.
Councillor Williams asked Councillor Thorp to let him know of any
suggestions on how the funding could be used for the benefit of
those who visited the area as well as those who lived there.
In his supplementary, Councillor Thorp stated that Councillor
Williams had said in Improving Lives that the Neighbourhood Board
will just be the Town Board with a few other people on it.
Councillor Thorp also stated that money had been removed from town
investment to Effingham Street public realm improvements works.
Councillor Thorp asked if the £20 million would be used to
stack back up for the town centre.
Councillor Williams stated that he had not said that. The
Neighbourhood Board would be made up from the community and that
process was taking place. There had to be at least two elected
members on the board so Councillor Williams encouraged Councillor
Thorp to let him know if he would be interested. He also reiterated
that the Neighbourhood Board would consider any funding proposals
and that the proposals would benefit those who did not live or work
directly inside the immediate boundary.
24. Councillor Ball:
Why has scrutiny failed to halt Labour’s project slippages in
the capital programme?
Councillor Ball was
not present at the meeting to ask the question, and a written
response would therefore be provided.
25. Councillor Ball:
How do you justify oversight amid rising regeneration costs under
Labour?
Councillor Ball was not present at the meeting to ask the question,
and a written response would therefore be provided.
26. Councillor Thorp:
Why has your Audit committee failed to challenge Labour's
reallocation of Pathfinder funds from the planned Town Centre
projects, funnelling yet more money into the centre while outer
wards are denied fair shares for vital infrastructure?
Councillor Baggaley, Chair of the Audit Committee, explained that
the role of the Audit Committee was to consider internal controls
and issues raised through external controls and audit processes.
The reallocation of funds within the Pathfinder programme was not
an issue that had been raised as part of these processes. Any
reallocations had been approved by Cabinet, and it was not the role
of the audit committee to challenge or scrutinise those cabinet
decisions. The Committee had to stick within the remit that had
been given to it.
In his supplementary question, Councillor Thorp referred to the
£20 million Neighbourhood Fund and asked if the Audit
Committee would just stand by and watch as the money was moved, not
for the purpose it was designed for.
Councillor Baggaley reiterated that it was not the role of the
Audit Committee to scrutinise decisions. Its role was around the
controls and risk frameworks that existed within the Council. Any
decisions like that would need to be scrutinised through the
relevant processes.
27. Councillor
Yasseen: I assured my constituents I would keep them informed about
Selective Licensing, especially after repeated officer assurances
that we would receive regular updates on this critical issue. It
directly affects my ward, yet I now face daily inquiries and remain
completely in the dark. Why has the elected ward council-lor not
been properly briefed or kept updated?
Councillor Beresford, Cabinet Member for Housing, was not present
at the meeting to respond and a written response would therefore be
provided.
28. Councillor Ball:
Why hasn’t an independent body been commissioned to review
whether the budget overspends stem from ideological spending over
taxpayer value?
Councillor Ball was
not present at the meeting to ask the question, and a written
response would therefore be provided.
29. Councillor Ball:
How has your board challenged Labour’s underfunding of NHS
partnerships?
Councillor Ball was not present at the meeting to ask the question,
and a written response would therefore be provided.
30. Councillor
Yasseen: Do you agree that conducting a second Selective Licensing
consultation survey more than three months after the statutory
consultation closed could reasonably be perceived by residents as
the Council acting in bad faith or attempting to shift the
goalposts?
Councillor Beresford, Cabinet Member for Housing, was not present
at the meeting to respond and a written response would therefore be
provided.
31. Councillor
Yasseen: What is the Council’s policy and position on
unauthorised flags or banners being displayed on public property,
including lampposts, railings, and other street furniture?
Councillor Marshall,
Cabinet Member for Street Scene and Green Spaces, explained that
the Council welcomed the display of flags on private property,
recognising flags were often used to celebrate community events,
express national pride or mark certain occasions. The formal
policy was clear. The Council did not permit the use of public
assets or the public realm for political purposes. Any political
flags, banners, posters, or offensive material would be removed
immediately, and where appropriate, enforcement action could be
taken. Formal agreements were in place with some Community Groups
and Parish Councils to install items such as hanging baskets,
Christmas decorations, or Poppies on lighting columns. These
agreements included safety checks, approved installation methods,
and removal requirements.
In terms of public safety, the Council would use its legal powers under the Highways Act 1980 to remove any unauthorised items from the adopted highway. Flags or graffiti that posed a risk to pedestrians or road users would be removed as soon as practicably possible. The Council were also concerned about public safety around street lighting columns, particularly where ladders were used to install flags. Council operatives used specialist equipment and followed strict safety protocols to protect themselves and the public.
In her supplementary, Councillor Yasseen stated that St George was
a Palestinian and Greek Christian Soldier who was martyred and
buried in Palestine. He was adopted by England as a patron saint in
the 14th century and the history was one of solidarity, faith,
sacrifice, diversity and not of hate. She asked Councillor Marshall
if she agreed that the embracing of the St George’s flag
should be used as an opportunity for education and inclusion.
Councillor Marshall stated that she was unaware of this and would
support the opportunity for education residents.
32. Councillor Ball:
Why has there been no scrutiny of migration pressures overwhelming
health resources due to Labour open-border policies?
Councillor Ball was not present at the meeting to ask the question,
and a written response would therefore be provided.