Agenda item - Public Involvement

To consider the following matters raised by members of the public:

 

(a)           Petitions: To receive any petitions presented by members of the public;

 

(b)           Written Questions: To receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 19 March 2024;

 

(c)           Deputations: To receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 19 March 2024.

 

28.1 The Chair invited Ruth Farnell to put her question to Committee found on page 3 of Addendum 1.

 

28.2 The Chair gave the following response:

 

The revised VAWG strategy 2024-27 is being finalised. The timetable for formal agreement of the final document is currently being discussed following completion of the consultation stage with the proposal that it will be considered by Cabinet in June.

 

28.3 Ruth Farnell asked the following supplementary question:

 

Will the new VAWG strategy include the commitment to urgently tackle the gap of 14 refuge spaces for women and children which was identified in the 2021 pan Sussex domestic abuse accommodation strategy?

 

28.4 The Chair confirmed that a written response would be sent to Ruth Farnell.

 

28.3 The Chair invited Samantha Kidd to put her question to Committee found on page 3 of Addendum 1.

 

28.4 The Chair gave the following response:

 

BHCC are in regional arrangements with partners across Sussex under the Pan Sussex Domestic Abuse Board. The Needs Assessment refresh is part of these arrangements and aligns with the Pan Sussex Domestic Abuse and Support in Safe Accommodation Strategy. A revised needs assessment will be carried out in 2024/25.

 

28.5 Samantha Kidd asked the following supplementary question:

 

At the time of the budget meeting last month, Councillors gave assurances that all of the 2024-25 new burdens funding would be protected for domestic abuse services. In the Argus, Councillor Sankey said “There are some fantastic organisations in our city who are laser focused on ending violence against women and girls, and we want to work with them on our shared goal.” Why then is the Council missing an opportunity to extend all the new burdens funding through to the end of March 2025 in order to work with partner organisations on a more coordinated commissioning strategy for the following year and beyond? Recommissioning services piecemeal and mid year will cost both money and staff time in both the Council and Charities that could be better used providing services to  residents.

 

28.6 The Chair gave the following response:

 

Thank you for your question. I’m very happy to confirm that this money is ringfenced and we have no intention of changing that. Councillor Sankey is absolutely right in saying that we want to have this new approach, looking at commissioning services in a holistic way, and that particular case I assume you talk about the LGBT dispersed accommodations service. We looked very carefully at this service and I understand that officers are in conversations with RISE, and we will continue these conversations but there are worries about how the contract performs, and we want to get the best services available to perform the LGBT dispersed accommodation services, so that is why we will put this contract as agreed previously out for tender when it runs out in September 2024.

 

28.7 The Chair invited Dani Ahrens to put her question to Committee found on page 3 of Addendum 1.

 

28.8 The Chair gave the following response:

 

For the financial year 2022/23, this budget remained unspent as a result of the continuation of the new burdens grant funding. The Chief Finance Officer did allow a further partial carry- forward of £110,000 into 2023/24. Some of these funds have been used to fund the continuation of perpetrator work.  This has been reported as part of the Targeted Budget Management Report for month 9 to Strategy, Finance and City Regeneration (SF&CR) Committee 8th February 2024.

 

28.9 Dani Ahrens asked the following supplementary question:

 

Just checking the figures, so only £110,000 was carried into 2023/24 and has all been spent, but the remaining £121,000 just disappeared – is that what happened?

 

28.10 The Chair confirmed a written response would be sent.

 

28.11 The Chair invited Helen Saxby to put her question to Committee found on page 3 of Addendum 1.

 

28.12 The Chair gave the following response:

 

Review is underway and will be completed after the end of the financial year. It will not be published as it contains commercially sensitive information.

 

28.13 Helen Saxby asked the following supplementary question:

 

In the first year of the current commission for domestic abuse refuge and casework services, RISE supported more than double the number of clients supported by Victim Support, despite having considerably less funding. Since 2021/22, data on the number of clients the service that Victim Support has not been publically available. RISE continues to support over 1000 clients each year – does the committee think that we’re getting good value for money from the current commission services?

 

28.14 The Chair confirmed that a written response would be sent to Helen Saxby.

 

28.15 The Chair invited Gail Gray to put her question to Committee found on page 3 of Addendum 1.

 

28.16 The Chair gave the following response:

 

Budget setting followed the usual decision making process, looking at all services and budgets including the LGBTQ+ Dispersed Accommodation and Refuge In reach Service. The new service will be commissioned. Funding for both services will be aligned with the 24/25 budget.

 

28.17 Gail Gray asked the following supplementary question:

 

The Equality Impact Assessment for the budget cuts to domestic abuse services provided by RISE did not mention the severe impact of the proposed cuts on children living at the Brighton Women’s Refuge. For the protected characteristic of age, it wrongly said proposed reduction does not affect services provided to children who are survivors of domestic violence. Will you agree to revisit this decision now that it is apparent that accurate information about the impact of the cuts was not presented at the time to all councillors?

 

28.18 The Chair confirmed a response would be sent to Gail Gray.

 

28.19 The Chair invited Adrian Hart to put his question to Committee found on page 3 of Addendum 1.

 

28.20 The Chair gave the following response:

 

Degrading actions that humiliate another individual based on their identity, and/or cause an individual to fear assault/violence in some manner for example, physically, mentally, psychologically.

This is in line with the Human Rights Act that states:

Although people have freedom of expression, they also have a duty to behave responsibly and to respect other people’s rights.

Public authorities may restrict this right if they can show that their action is lawful, necessary, and proportionate in order to:

 

·                     Protect national security, territorial integrity (the borders of the state) or public safety

·                     Prevent disorder or crime

·                     Protect health or morals

·                     Protect the reputations and rights of other people

·                     Prevent the disclosure of information received in confidence

·                     Maintain the authority and impartiality of the judiciary

 

An authority may be allowed to restrict freedom of expression if, for example, someone expresses views that encourage racial or religious hatred. Like the right to freedom of expression, the right of each person to be protected from discrimination and violence are fundamental human rights. In addition, the Freedom of Expression Legal Framework Guidance by Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) also provides guidance on hate speech, context, and the limitations on freedom of expression, which informs our work as a public authority.

 

28.21 Adrian Hart asked the following supplementary question:

 

Rape survivors who demand female only counselling services are holders of gender critical belief – their view that sex is immutable and binary – and is protected under the equality act, yet at the January 29th Reimagine event, this Council demonstrated that it regards a rape survivor expressing this belief as having no protection under the act. Can the Chair clarify under which circumstances this Council regards gender critical belief as offensive, harmful, or undermining of dignity?

 

28.22 The Chair confirmed a response would be sent.

 

28.23 The Chair stated that Phillippa Sawyer had submitted a question but couldn’t make it to the meeting, so the response would be emailed to her. The response was:

 

Thanks for your question, Philippa. I can confirm that Brighton & Hove City Council operates firmly within the legal framework of the United Kingdom and does not nullify any belief. In fact, people are free to believe whatever they like. Should a belief lead to actions or statements that are considered harmful by the Equalities Act or any other piece of legislation, then this Council will challenge it when and wherever appropriate.

 

The council must act within the law and comply with the legal duties and obligations placed on it including those of the Equality Act 2010.

This includes the Human Rights Act which states Public authorities cannot interfere with your right to hold or change your beliefs.

However, the HRA is also clear that “there are some situations in which public authorities can interfere with your right to manifest or show your thoughts, belief, and religion. This is only allowed where the authority can show that its action is lawful, necessary, and proportionate in order to protect:

 

·                     Public safety

 

·                     Public order

 

·                     Health or morals, and

 

·                     The rights and freedoms of other people

 

Should the manifestation of an individual’s belief result in actions that could be considered a hate incident or crime, then the council will follow standard and appropriate procedures and processes in partnership with relevant partners such as the police. Hate and/ or inciting of violence, hatred, or discrimination against others will not be tolerated in this city.

In addition, the Freedom of Expression Legal Framework Guidance by Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) provides guidance on hate speech, context, and the limitations on freedom of expression, which informs our work as a public authority.

 

28.24 The Chair invited Thomas Chatfield to put his question to Committee found on page 3 of Addendum 2.

 

28.25 The Chair gave the following response:

 

Thanks for your question, Tom. We are in extraordinary times where some communities, including the TNBI communities, are experiencing society turning back the clocks in some respects.

Let me start by saying that I am finding it increasingly difficult to deal with the painful simplicity of today's binary debates. The "you're either with me or against me" approach, the streamlining complex issues into unreflected yes or no answers and the fact that people stopped listening to each other a long time ago, preferring to talk about each other without the other party in the room, is a problem that is driving people into adopting extreme positions. I appreciate that the soothing echo of our echo chambers can be comforting, but it doesn't help our minds and hearts grow.

Now, the Administration and I personally have made it clear that trans inclusion is a priority for us. Not just because Brighton & Hove has a reputation as the LGBT+ capital, but also out of an inner conviction that this is the right thing to do. And I much prefer to talk about inclusion rather than exclusion.

But actions are stronger than words, so let me give you a brief overview of what we are doing to support the TNBI and wider LGBTQ communities: In my Chairs comms, I mentioned Stonewall Housing opening their first site in our city which will support LGBTQ+ people who are homeless or fled from an abusive home.

Despite the new government’s school guidance, we stand true to the trans inclusion toolkit which has been a real trailblazer and transformed the lives of many gender-questioning children.

The new Nighttime Safety Charter will think about ways to keep our city safe at night and looks at LGBTQ+ specific measures. Our LGBTQ+ Community Protection Plan will further strengthen our status as City of Sanctuary.

This is our progress after one year in office, but I realise that there is more to be done so let’s keep working on it.