To receive questions from members of the public who wish to ask a general question in respect of matters within the Council’s area of responsibility or influence.
Subject to the Chair’s discretion, members of the public may ask one question and one supplementary question, which should relate to the original question and answer received.
Councillors may also ask questions under this agenda item.
Minutes:
There were 2 questions from Councillors:
1. Councillor Bennett-Sylvester asked why the proposed budget included a half price offer for over-65’s to go swimming but the offer was not being extended to children?
The Leader stated that there were already a
number of discount arrangements in place for a number of
different groups, including older people and children. When
analysing the figures, it was noted that there were particularly
low numbers of older people using leisure facilities relative to
the overall size of the population. As such, the proposal within
the budget was for a pilot scheme to reduce the price of swimming
for older people to see whether there was a price sensitivity. It
was important for the Council to encourage older residents to
either get active or remain active later in life.
In his supplementary question, Councillor Bennett-Sylvester
questioned whether all over-65’s should be entitled to the
discount. He stated that teenagers for example would not get free
transport to leisure centres like over 65’s would and would
have to pay more. Councillor Bennett-Sylvester asked if the
additional Government funding was being used to carry favour with
older residents as they were more likely to vote.
The Leader explained that there had been significant emphasis on
young people across the agreed budgets for a
number of years. The proposals for young people in the
2026/27 budget included additional youth work, the baby packs
scheme, youth outreach buses and additional support for children
and families with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities. The
Leader stated that it was important for the Council to be able to
do things for older residents as well as younger residents.
2.
Councillor Yasseen asked why the Leader believed that using public
Council funds to purchase flags and flagpoles represented an
appropriate or lawful use of Council resources when he had
previously said that flags had been used to provoke division and
potentially fuel hate within communities?
The Leader stated that it was important that people who believed in
societies that were mixed and multi-ethnic were able to take
ownership of the Union Flag or St George’s Flag. Those flags
were for everyone, and the Leader did not want them to be a sign of
extremism, anti-immigration views or far right politics. Following
the consultation run by the Council, it was clear that Rotherham
residents wanted to see the Union Flag and St George’s Flag
across the Borough and it was important that this was done in the
right way, from community buildings, and not on lampposts.
In her supplementary, Councillor Yasseen asked what the total
allocation was and what the allocation could actually be spent on? Could it be used for the Pride
flag, the Ukrainian flag or Palestinian flag for example?
The Leader stated that he would provide a written response in terms
of the total allocation. In terms of eligibility, the fund was only
available to Parish Councils or community groups and could be used
to fund a flagpole and national flag, up to the cost of £500.
There would be no contractual arrangement with the council’s
or groups over what could be flown on the flagpole, however, the object of the grant funding
was to make it more possible to support the flying of those 2
national flags in the spirit described.