Agenda item

 

To receive any questions from members of the public addressed to Member of the Executive in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.  There is up to 5 minutes for each question, one supplementary question may be asked arising from the original question.

 

Questions must relate to any matter the Council has power or which affects the Borough, except no questions may be asked in relation to

 

A specific planning or licensing application

A specific staffing appointment or appeal, or Standards determination

 

Public question time will last up to 30 minutes; questions will be taken in the order of receipt.

 

The deadline for submission of questions is Friday 16 October 2020 at 12 noon. Questions to be submitted to democratic.services@adur-worthing.gov.uk 

 

 

Director for Communities:

Catherine Howe  

Adur & Worthing Councils,

Town Hall, Chapel Road,

Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 1HA

 

 

The following question had been received in advance of the meeting.

 

 

1.         Question submitted from Shelley McCabe, a Worthing Resident   

 

For the Executive Member for Health & Well-being:

 

Worthing Borough Council has committed to more pop-up cycle lanes. See page 9 of the ‘And Then... Bouncing back in post pandemic Adur and Worthing’ document.

 

Can you tell me where you will put these new pop-up cycle lanes, given the unpopularity of the current scheme?

 

The Leader replied that West Sussex County Council were the Highways Authority and as such had responsibility for any cycling infrastructure on the public highway.

 

It was a normal process for any new cycle routes to be consulted on widely, and for the designs to be developed over time with input from local stakeholders and residents. However, the ‘pop-up cycle’ routes installed by the County Council during the summer were designed at speed and installed with considerably less consultation than would normally be the case, in order that the county council could meet the very tight timeframes attached to the Government’s funding stream (the Emergency Active Travel Fund).

 

This fund intended to help people that do not normally cycle to feel safe enough to cycle on the roads following on from the government advice to avoid using public transport because of Covid. The pop-up routes were intended to help mitigate the increases in congestion that were inevitable. They also aimed to help people use active means of travel to support their health and wellbeing, and to help reduce carbon emissions associated with transport.

 

Adur & Worthing Councils were committed to making cycling and walking safer and easier. The councils had developed a Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan having consulted widely with local communities at the end of 2019. This set out a high level map of potential routes where cycle routes could be installed.

 

Any proposed future cycle routes delivered by the County Council were likely to be explored based on routes identified in the Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructure Plan. The council would work with the County to try to ensure that appropriate levels of consultation were always undertaken, and that the consultation process informed the design of and any implementation of future cycle routes.

 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.1.10, Councillor Martin McCabe moved that the matter raised by the question be referred to the Executive. The motion was seconded by Councillor Bob Smytherman but not supported following a vote.

 

 

2.         Question submitted from Susie Pepper-Smith, a Worthing Resident

 

Worthing saw a record number safely protest in our town this summer to say Black Lives Matter, which was reflected in many cities and towns across our country, across the world. Many local councils passed motions showing support recognising that the status quo must change.

 

Many Worthing residents tuned into our councils meeting  3 months ago to see what progress could be made here, and sat patiently through many hours of other business as Black Lives Matter was at the bottom of the agenda. Unfortunately, just as the BLM motion was to be debated, transmission to the public was cut due to a technical failure.

 

Given the motion was not heard, and given the alertness to the public of Worthing demonstrating the status quo on Black Lives, what consideration was given to having the motions on Black Lives Matter not sitting at the end of business once again?

 

The Leader replied that the Council and its officers were committed to tackling racism and xenophobia in Worthing and it was extremely unfortunate that the debate transmission was cut short due to the technical failure with the livestream. 

 

The order of the agenda was standard and set out in the council's constitution and any motions always appeared at the end. The Council had ensured the two notices of motion that were deferred from the last meeting, because of these technical problems, had been listed first for debate.

 

Ms Pepper-Smith asked a supplementary question seeking details of the work undertaken by the Community Working Group.

 

The Leader replied that work had been taking place involving Community Works and other groups from around the town.

 

 

 

 

3.         Question submitted from Susie Pepper-Smith, a Worthing Resident

 

The question asked was not allowed by the Mayor as it was not the question submitted in advance of the meeting. 

 

 

4.         Question submitted from Emma Taylor, a Worthing Resident

 

As a Worthing mother of a mixed race daughter, I would like to see the council progress to equality being a central part of its actions, whether that's services, policy or processes. Often it feels like a bolt-on after thought at best. As we know, the last Worthing Borough Council meeting in July did not hear the Black Lives Mater motion that was at the bottom of a long agenda. Please could the council set out what discussions were had with members of this committee with a view to holding an earlier meeting to address the motion on Black Lives that dropped off the end of the agenda in the summer?

                                           

The Leader replied that it was, as previously advised, extremely unfortunate that the debate was cut short due to the technical failure with the livestream. 

 

Due to the technical failure with the livestream, the motion was carried forward to the next Full Council meeting, which would be the usual approach for any item that had not been debated in full, and was in accordance with the Council’s Constitution. The two notices of motion that were deferred from the July meeting, had been listed first for debate.

 

 

5.         Question submitted from Emma Taylor, a Worthing Resident

 

The motion to this meeting, that was originally listed to be heard at the last WBC meeting states

 

"Worthing Borough Council reaffirms our commitment to condemning racism and working to ensure local bodies and programmes have support and resources needed to fight and prevent racism and xenophobia. We commend the words of our Prime Minister who said that “black lives matter and I totally understand the anger and the grief that is felt not just in America but around the world and in our country as well”

 

Hundreds of people in Worthing demonstrated in June and  we saw protests here again in July outside our Town Hall expressing a shared frustration at the lack of equality for BAME communities. Since then, what review of the work with local bodies and programmes' support and resources have taken place which reaffirms Worthing's commitment to fighting and preventing racism and xenophobia?

 

The Leader replied that the Council and its Officers were committed to tackling racism and xenophobia in Worthing and have begun reviewing a number of work streams to see how the work of the Council could reflect this. 

 

Officers had connected to the local organisers of the BLM campaign locally to discuss issues that could be worked on together.  Officers had also been continuing to develop the community response to Covid-19 and outbreak planning to ensure there was wide reach to local ethnic minority groups and communities. 

 

Community Works, an organisation commissioned by Adur, Worthing and WSCC Councils had been supporting local BAME groups and organisations and working with them to understand more about the makeup of different groups within the local area.

 

In addition Community Works had been undertaking a significant amount of work around anti-racism and diversity. They were developing a range of work to tackle barriers to engagement for BAME* organisations, and championing the voices of the, perhaps, less often heard organisations. They were building a strategic plan around this work.

 

Community Works had also been providing more intensive support and developing a closer understanding of local groups through regular meetings over the last 6 months and connecting them to one another through small networks.

 

In addition, Community Works had been delivering Zoom training sessions and workshops working with BAME* leaders locally, for C&VSOs to reflect on their board diversity and consider how to be more inclusive and attract a diversity of trustees to their work.

 

 

6.         Question submitted from Mr Conell Loggenberg, a Worthing Resident

 

Question(s) for Leader of the Council, Mr Daniel Humphreys

 

On 14th June 2020, I wrote an email letter, addressed to yourself. The email was an Open Letter for the Promotion of Racial Equality.

 

Copied into that email, was the Leader of the Opposition (Labour Party Members), Councillor Rebecca Cooper and separately, Liberal Democrats Member, Councillor Robert Smytherman.

 

In the letter I raised the matter of the Monument in Steyne Garden. (If time permits, I’d like to read the letter for the benefit of members of the public who may not be aware)

 

On 16th June 2020, you replied, thanking me for my email and stated that (and I quote):

 

“This issue is obviously more relevant than ever at the moment and I would like to assure you that I support the campaigns to promote a more inclusive and fairer society in which race and skin colour should never be a basis for discrimination. Black lives matter and the recent unlawful killing of George Floyd serves as an appalling example of how far we still have to go.

 

I am aware of the war memorial on Steyne Gardens and I know about the history of the “South Africa War”. It is undoubtedly not a proud part of British history…”

 

Further in your reply, you state:

 

“I also agree that we should review the way in which we remember and educate people about this particular war and the others that were taking place in southern Africa during that period. So I will work with colleagues and approach the management of Worthing Museum to assess the public facing displays relating to this time and explore options for adding to the information provided in Worthing that gives the proper context. An information board explaining the history of the war near to the memorial or in the museum or Town Hall may be appropriate.”

 

And in the concluding parts of your email, you stated:

 

“When the museum reopens and we look into this more widely I will contact you again if that is alright with you?”

 

On 18th June 2020, I replied to your response:

 

“Dear Daniel,

 

Thank you for your reply.

 

I welcome your offer of collaboration to set in motion actionable proposals for tangible unambiguous public facing representation that people of Black Ethnicity’s Lives do matter. I wish to acknowledge your early motion to engage local Museum Management towards  aims for public displays as an encouraging development for confidence.

 

May I suggest that we commence that conversation with the Museum’s Management Team by way of a letter of overriding purpose intent from Council on the issue.

 

Some of the work, that of sourcing all available relevant historical records to this war, could already be done prior to our face-face meeting(s).

 

These early interventions would benefit us expediency and promote trust and confidence in pursuit of the aims.

 

I will in due time inform you of parties and representatives who wish to attend face to face meeting(s).”

 

4 months has lapsed.

 

I have not heard from you again on the issue.

 

Question:

 

Does the Council commit to, beyond that of a declaratory statement to do so, work with People of Black and Asian Ethnicity, to reflect widely on or alongside the same monument, including elsewhere such as the museum, the full and proper context of Black People's suffering and the loss of their Lives as an equal commemoration of Lives Lost in that war?

 

If so,

 

Who is taking Leadership on the matter, when have they started doing so and, given that I haven’t heard anything from the Council on this matter since the 16th June 2020 promising to work with colleagues and contact Worthing Museum Management, what exactly has so far been done and is there any evidence to support what may have been done. 

 

If, for any reason, the Council had not yet moved on this issue, when will it do so?

 

The Leader clarified that it was the South Africa Wars that were not proud moments in our history and that as stated previously this evening, the Councils had undertaken extensive work with the local communities during the summer.

 

The Local Authority had been focusing its resources in responding to the pandemic, including its support to residents in need and in developing resilience within the communities and businesses of Worthing to enable recovery and manage the anticipated second wave.

 

The Museum, an independent trust, was in the process of undertaking a careful and limited re-opening process and the Council would now take the opportunity to progress this matter with the museum's service.

 

Mr Loggenberg asked who would be taking ownership of the matter and when it would commence as a supplementary question.

 

The Leader replied that he would take leadership of the matter and speak to relevant people later in the week to form a plan. 

 

 

7.         Question submitted from Ms Kelly Hannah-Rogers, a Worthing Resident

 

Does the Council believe it is required to undertake an Equality Impact Assessment (or legal equivalent) for the changes to its constitution which has affected how the public partake in its democratic processes?

 

The Leader replied that Councillors were aware of their duties but did lean on the advice of the Council’s solicitors at times. Under the Equalities Act 2010, the Council must have regard to 3 equality objectives: eliminating discimination and other prohibited conduct; advancing equality of opportunity; and fostering good relations.

 

The Council did do Equalities Impact Assessments but the Leader had been advised that the Council was not required to undertake these in all situations but instead must be minded to its duties.

 

In regards to public participation and how that had changed as a result of changes to the constitution, resulting from emergency legislation that parliament had put through to enable remote meetings such as this. No equality impact assessment was undertaken in relation to those changes but Councillors were aware of their duties in relation to the Equalities Act 2010 and the Leader was not aware that anyone had suffered particular disadvantage as a result of meetings taking place remotely.

 

Ms Hannah-Rogers asked why equality implications had not been incorporated within the 26 May report as a supplementary question.

 

The Leader replied that to the best of his knowledge the report to the Joint Governance Committee had given consideration to the equality implications.

 

 

8.         Submitted Question from Ms Kelly Hannah-Rogers, a Worthing Resident

 

Was the relevant Equality Impact Assessment or legal equivalent put before elected members on 21 and 26 May 2020 respectively, when considering a change to the council's constitution?

 

The Leader replied that as per his previous answer, an Equality Impact Assessment had not been conducted for the report to Council on 26 May.

 

Ms Hannah-Rogers asked what the equality considerations were as a supplementary question.

 

The Leader replied that the matter related to a change in the constitution to allow remote meetings to be held instead of physical meetings, as up until that point, it would have been illegal to hold a remote meeting. The consideration was about switching across to and being able to do remote working and the Leader had been very alert to any issues that would have restricted the participation of any groups. 

 

The Leader also advised that he had not been made aware of any issues or concerns raised in regard to these changes.