People don’t understand how any of this works.
Take the zoo example.
Zoos (zoological societies) are mainly charities, with the aim of conservation and education. Widening participation is usually one of the fundamental tenets of their charity. So encouraging and facilitating visits by people who wouldn’t otherwise be able to visit, so they can benefit from the educational aspect (particularly children, but also marginalised communities).
Being charities, they can often access funding from bodies like the Lottery, for new enclosures, facilities and experiences. Taking this funding, which is necessary to further the aims of the charity, comes with responsibilities. One of which, quite rightly, has a social element to it, again in widening participation and including people who are currently excluded. No wider participation - no funding. No funding - higher prices for everyone to visit the zoo.
The subsidised places take nothing away from visitors paying full price, but does allow the site to access charity funding for which it would not be otherwise eligible. It also widens participation and enriches the experience in particular of marginalised or excluded groups. If you want a discounted ticket but don’t qualify, sign up to Groupon or save up your Clubcard vouchers, and a cheaper experience can be yours too!
In a civilised society, such schemes are seen as a good thing. The issue is that the likes of Jenrick want you to believe that those people are taking something away from you, the hardworking taxpayer, so that you don’t look up and see the people who are really screwing you over - him, his friends and others of his ilk, who take massively from all of us and never contribute their fair share.