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.
Minutes:
Two public questions had been submitted in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12:
1.
Mr Paul Thorp:
FORS Gold operators champion the reduction of any carbon footprint and the safety of all vulnerable road users as a cornerstone to best practice. When you chose to build cycle lanes, the Sheffield Road to Wellgate was one of the first to be built. Since spending so much taxpayer’s money what was the expected benefits to Rotherham and its community?
The Leader
responded:
The objectives were very similar to those of the FORS Gold
Operators Scheme, including the reduction of carbon footprint and
the safety of all vulnerable road users. The objectives of the
scheme, as set out in the Cycling Strategy, where to enable
Rotherham residents to choose walking or cycling as an option,
reducing their carbon footprint relative to driving. The new
infrastructure will allow this to be done safety, without impinging
on access for motorists.
The Sheffield Road scheme in particular was chosen for two reasons.
One was that, often when cycle lanes go in, they do not connect to
anywhere and there were random bits of infrastructure. The
Sheffield Road scheme allowed connections between the Town Centre
and Tinsley and, Sheffield City Council had further proposals for
improvements towards Meadowhall and then Sheffield City Centre.
This would provide a corridor for common journeys.
The second reason was that the development of Sheffield Road closer to the Town Centre would involve more people living in that community. As such, changes needed to be made on the “town-end” of Sheffield Road in any case because of the number of people and vehicles.
The scheme was paid for wholly from external funding for walking and cycling, not from the Council’s budget. The scheme would be assessed in due course in terms of safety and the number of people using it.
In his supplementary, Mr Thorp stated that he understood the idea behind the scheme but explained that the literature that had been put out spoke about extending cycling but there was already a Sheffield to Rotherham cycle lane. The Council had used the most carbon-unfriendly way of building a cycle lane instead of just using paint and cones. Sending cyclists across a roundabout and to the wrong side of a road was not going to work. Cyclists would just use the normal road which was now even narrower and would cause the possibility of more accidents. He asked the Leader why this had been done?
The Leader responded
that the scheme was designed in line with the latest set of
government guidance. The latest rules from the government were
specifically not to just use paint and cones to separate cyclists
and the cycling community do not believe that a series of white
lines offer the protection required.
It was the first one that the Council had done, and it would learn
from the process. However, it was designed and built in accordance
with those national guidelines in order to provide the maximum
level of safety.
2.
Ms Hafsa Yusufi:
Hafsa Yusufi - In
1983, Rotherham Council partook in resisting South African
apartheid alongside other local councils across the UK. Rotherham
Council once again has the opportunity to stand on the right side
of history. Will this Council follow its own proud precedent and
take a principled stand against Israeli apartheid, such as by
declaring Rotherham to be an Israeli apartheid-free zone?
The Leader responded:
Since the last meeting, the deteriorating situation in Gaza and the
wider Middle East was of grave concern to all. We’ve all be
horrified by the rising death toll and violence across the region
and our hearts go out to all those effected. Rotherham Council and
groups across the borough have a proud history of supporting people
fleeing violence.
In terms of the question, it was important that Rotherham was a
welcoming environment for Israeli citizens just as it was for
citizens from other countries around the world. In terms of the
opposition to the policies that were implemented by the Netanyahu
government, the very right-wing government, we were concerned about
these even before the escalation in violence and were now
increasingly concerned about those. In terms of making a statement
against those, we certainly have no problem in doing so.
There had been a lot of talk about the kind of procurement
restrictions that could be put in place by the Council, like what
happened in 1983 with the boycott of South Africa. The government
were currently legislating specifically to prevent Council’s
from taking that kind of action, specifically against Israel. The
Council needed to be on the right side of the rules, it could not
be in breach of the law. However, the Leader confirmed that he was
happy to have a conversation regarding what kind of signal the
Council could send.
In her supplementary question, Ms Yusufi stated that she was
confused over certain things that had happened over the past few
months regarding how the Council operates. Firstly, regarding how
Councillor Ball presented a motion, spoke to it and then retracted
it which wasted a lot of the publics time. Secondly, Ms Yusufi had
been told that on the day of the meeting that questions were
supposed to be towards a specific Councillor however at the last
meeting she had tried to direct her question at her ward
Councillors but was told this was not allowed. Finally, Ms Yusufi
raised concerns in relation to the way petitions were run and
conflicting information on the website compared to that being
provided by the Council.
The Constitution
states that the Council aims to adhere to the concepts of
accountability and transparency. In light of that, Ms Yusufi asked
if the Councillors that had stated that they had made
representations to the government would make those public so that
they could be seen by the residents of Rotherham? In terms of the
other procedural issues, could further clarification be provided so
that when residents want to engage with local democracy, they can
do so in a very clear and understandable manner?
The Leader stated that he shared Ms Yusufi’s frustration
regarding the events at the last Council meeting. It had not just
wasted her time but had wasted everyone’s time. It was
disrespectful. In regard to Council questions, the Leader
understood the confusion. The premise of questions to the Council
in the Council meeting were that questions needed to be addressed
to Cabinet or to a Chair of a committee. The Cabinet, the
administration, spoke on behalf of the Council. As such, questions
were not able to be put to back benchers. There was a rule that
said questions had to relate to affairs of the borough and the
Leader understood that there had been some confusion regarding this
prior to the meeting. They needed to specifically relate to things
the Council was doing or could do in future. Usually, this meant
that things that related to foreign policy issues were outside the
remit of Council questions but occasionally there was overlap. The
Leader confirmed that colleagues in Democratic Services would be
happy to discuss with Ms Yusufi how the submit questions that
complied with the Council’s rules.
Ms Yusufi had also asked if the Council would make public any of
the correspondence. The Leader stated that he thought they would be
able to do that and where things could be shared, they would
be.