Agenda item

To receive questions from members of the public who may wish to ask a general question of the Mayor, Cabinet Member or the Chairman of a Committee in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.

There were 4 questions:

1.    T asked: Will this council publicly demonstrate the value and benefit to the community consequent upon the legal expenses incurred relating to the ongoing avoidance of disclosures of information concerning child sex exploitation?

As T did not attend, a written response would be provided.

2.    Mr Shepherd asked: Following my last question, do you agree that at least some of the reasons given for not distributing the 1400 copies of ‘Voices’ purchased at a cost of £5600 made no sense at all? The intended audience was crystal clear - RMBC's workforce AND it was agreed that a RMBC leaflet showing support services would be placed in each copy?

As Mr Shepherd did not attend, a written response would be provided.

3.    Mr Cowles asked: Was your only action about serious evidenced dishonesty about Voices of Despair Voices of Hope to send an email to those potentially involved in the evidenced dishonesty?

The Leader confirmed that he had reviewed the email which had been sent eight years ago. At the time, he had raised it with senior staff and was assured that the concerns had been looked at properly. A couple of years later, a formal documented response was provided to the person who had raised the concerns. At the time it was agreed that officers could have dealt with some matters of process better but there was not the kind of evidenced dishonesty that was claimed by the complainant. The Leader could not recall conversations that took place eight year ago. However, any decisions taken at that time would have been overseen by the Government Commissioners and any issues should have been reported directly to the Secretary of State.

In his supplementary, Mr Cowles stated that there had been some prosecutions of perpetrators of CSE but, in his opinion, there had been no accountability so far for those who knew what was happening but took no action to prevent the abuse. He asked the Leader if he agreed that accountability was just as essential as responsibility.

The Leader agreed and stated that he had lobbied the government at the time to ask them to look at what more could be done to hold account people in professional positions who had overseen long-term failings. The Leader did state that the people complained about in the email referenced were not the same people who had overseen the previous failings in Rotherham prior to 2014.

4.    Mr Ashraf asked: Council Leader Chris Read with an itemized breakdown of all financial contributions including investments, subsidies, loans, core subscriptions, specific levies for functions like transport, and any match funding, contributions etc, as well as funds received a share of, from national sources, does Rotherham Council use to fund SYMCA?

The Leader stated that he knew Councillor Alam had written to Mr Ashraf in the last few days and had written to him previously, advising him of the right place to raise his queries. At the Cabinet meeting held on 11 May 2026, the Leader had reported that the Council paid a £35,000 subscription to SYMCA. The Leader confirmed this had been incorrect as this was the subscription that used to be paid to the Sheffield City Region. The Council did not pay a subscription to SYMCA.

The Leader confirmed that the Council did not fund the day-to-day running of SYMCA but that payments were made for the delivery of services, most notably the Passenger Transport Levy which was £1,053,737 for 2025/26.

In order to get the exact information requested, the Leader advised Mr Ashraf to use the Freedom of Information process at SYMCA.

In his supplementary, Mr Ashraf stated that it raised red flags when he could not ask or receive a proper answer on where Rotherham money was going and said that Councillor Alam had made mistakes. In relation to SYMCA, he asked for the projected cost for commitments made and what financial or other returns Rotherham had received in return for the financial year 2025/26 and all preceding years.

The Leader reiterated that Councillor Alam had referred Mr Ashraf to SYMCA’s FOI process which is exactly what he should have done. This was the best way for Mr Ashraf to get the information he wanted. No one was trying to hide any information. The Leader stated that this was the third time that Mr Ashraf had now been told the most appropriate way to get the requested information.