8
The following 2 Motions had been submitted in pursuance of Council Procedure Rule 11:
a)
Motion submitted by Councillor Janet Craig
Councillor Craig had submitted the following Notice of Motion in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11 and this had been published on the Council's agenda for this meeting:
'This Council notes:
- That the Law Commission is currently reviewing all current hate crime legislation to consider whether any additional characteristics, including misogyny, should be granted legal protection, and is due to report back to Parliament in 2020. Misogyny is not currently recorded as a hate crime by the vast majority of police forces in the UK, outside of a handful of trial areas.
- That this review was thanks to the work of Stella Creasy M.P. and her campaign to have misogyny classified as a hate Crime - which her amendment to the Voyeurism (Offences) (No.2) Bill, or Up-skirting Bill would have secured – alongside groups such as Citizens UK, Hope Not Hate, Southall Black Sisters, Tell MAMA UK, and the Fawcett Society.
- That like women and girls across the country, many of our residents suffer harassment and abuse every single day. A YouGov national survey in 2016 showed that 85% of women aged 18-24 were subjected to sexual harassment in public.
- The adoption of misogyny as a hate crime was successfully implemented in Nottingham, where analysis showed an increase in reporting, as well as an increase in the use of wider services. It also showed the vast majority of local people wanted the scheme to continue.
- Studies have shown that the intersectional nature of discrimination means that women with additional protected characteristics, such as those who are BAME, disabled or LGBT+, are even more likely to experience harassment, discrimination and abuse.
The Council resolves:
- To make a submission to the Law Commission’s Consultation at the earliest opportunity in favour of strengthening hate crime legislation and making misogyny a hate crime.
- To call on the Government to listen to the lived experience of women and girls across our country and to urgently act on any recommendations the commission makes to strengthen the law on hate crime, and to reform legislation around harassment to recognise as an offence a ‘course of conduct’ which targets women and girls in their community.
- To call on the Government to provide the resource and funding for police forces across the UK to effectively tackle harassment, misogyny and domestic abuse.
- To call on Suffolk Constabulary to record harassment of women as a hate crime, following successful trials in Nottingham and elsewhere.'
The Chairman reported that in accordance with the Council's Constitution, a Motion could only be discussed this evening, with the consent of the Council. Otherwise, the Notice of Motion would be referred to the Cabinet or relevant Committee. He therefore sought the view of the Council, as to whether the matter would be discussed this evening and if so, a proposer and seconder would be required. He confirmed that each Notice of Motion would be dealt with separately. He then invited the Leader to speak on this item.
The Leader reported that Members would be aware that the Council’s Constitution sets out, in Section 11 of the Council Procedure Rules, the process for the laying of Motions before Full Council. This section includes the following extracts:
In 11.3, it states Motions must be about matters for which the Council has a responsibility, or which affect the East Suffolk District.
And it states in 11.4 that prior to consideration of the motion at Council, the Leader of the Council, the Leader of the appropriate Opposition Groups of the Council and the Chairman of the Council would discuss the motion and aim to agree on a preferred way forward.
The requirements under 11.3 were, of course, open to interpretation and were intentionally wide which ensured that Members could raise the things that were important to them and important to residents.
11.4 was more prescriptive and was designed to ensure that the time and effort of this Council was not spent on matters which could be dealt with in a more efficient and effective manner.
The Leader reported that as required in respect of both of the Motions, the required discussions have not taken place.
However, as both the matters raised were important issues which would benefit from the Council’s consideration, the Leader considered that it would be right and proper, on this occasion, put aside the requirements of the Constitution. However, in doing so, Councillor Gallant asked all Members to please ensure that all future potential Motions were dealt with as laid out in the Council’s Constitution.
Councillor Byatt then raised a Point of Order. He reported that he had contacted the Leader and had offered to meet and discuss both the Motions that had been submitted. Councillor Byatt accepted that the Council was not directly responsible for either of the matters raised in the Motions, however, he felt that they were important enough to bring before Full Council, as he, and many others, felt so strongly about them.
The Chairman then sought a proposer and seconder for the Motion to be discussed by Full Council this evening. Councillor Gallant proposed that the Motion be discussed and this was seconded by Councillor Thompson.
An electronic vote was undertaken on whether to discuss the Notice of Motion this evening and the Motion was
CARRIED.
Councillor Craig, as the proposer of the Motion, was invited to speak first. She reported that it was very appropriate that this Motion was being discussed by Full Council on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. It was noted that misogyny could take many forms, some of which, sadly, included violence. None-the-less, non-violent cases were equally unacceptable.
Councillor Craig stated that charity organisations such as Citizens UK, Plan UK and Hope Not Hate had found that over a third of existing hate crimes were also motivated by gender, that two thirds of young women have experienced unwanted sexual or physical contact in a public place, and that a rise in Men’s Rights Activism was encouraging young men to commit extremist misogynistic and racist crimes.
Sadly, women could also be victims of misogyny in their own homes, and campaigners hoped that by classifying misogyny as a hate crime, it would provide critical data on the link between hostility against women and the domestic abuse they experience. Councillor Craig stated that the recording of misogynistic hate crime would allow charities supporting women to identify patterns and perpetrators, and it would support women to be able to name the experiences they have, and to know they will be believed when they do so.
Councillor Craig stated that many men and women appeared to not fully understand what misogyny was, and the serious effects that it could have on women. It was also noted that men can be victims of misandry. Therefore, Councillor Craig encouraged Full Council to consider arranging a misogyny and misandry awareness raising session for all Members. This would help Members to identify when this is happening in our communities and to be able to support victims in coming forward.
Councillor Gooch, as seconder of the Motion, was invited to make a speech and she stated that she wished to reserve her right to speak.
Councillor Jepson, Assistant Cabinet Member for Community Safety, was invited to speak on the Motion. He thanked Councillors Craig and Gooch for raising this issue, however, he would be voting against the Motion and wanted to take the opportunity to explain why. He stressed that any crime or behaviour which appeared to be committed based on a prejudice was wrong and should be challenged. It was also appropriate to be discussing this matter today, as it was White Ribbon Day and he commended the Chairman for wearing a white ribbon this evening.
Councillor Jepson reported that he welcomed the review and East Suffolk District Council supported any changes to legislation that protects any individual or sections of our community. It was noted that the Community Safety Partnership (CSP) Action Plan specifically included categories of Domestic Abuse and Hate Crime, and within those categories, violence against women, girls, men and boys was concentrated on. Campaigns were planned during the year to promote such categories, to raise awareness of the crimes and the impact it had on the victims, as well as to encourage the reporting of such crimes. He stressed Councillors would be welcome to attend the quarterly meetings of the CSP, so they could be involved and updated on developments.
He reported that the Law Commission had launched a consultation paper on Hate Crime. The main document exceeded 500 pages and was extremely comprehensive, however, the main issues the Consultation Paper had been asked to consider were;
•
Who would be protected by hate crime laws? This related to consistency across the existing characteristics and should further characteristics be included?
•
How should hate crime laws work? Were existing offences and sentence enhancements working well?
Clarification was provided that the Review had not been asked to review matters relating to the police and prosecution training and practices, services for hate crime and hate crime prevention. It was noted that the main document consisted of 21 chapters and included a thorough examination of existing laws, determining how characteristics should be identified and what other characteristics should be considered.
Many organisations had already been consulted about the inclusion of certain characteristics, such as misogyny, however, numerous other categories had also been raised which included age, the homeless and street workers. He reported that a question had been raised as to whether the law should focus on the most serious forms of hatred, rather than trying to capture every form of hatred? This raised the issue of dealing with emerging trends, which would have not been identified subsequent to this review.
Therefore, Councillor Jepson suggested that it would appear to be inappropriate to consider just one potential category within the Motion, when other categories should receive equal support.
He reported that he had attended the Police and Crime Panel Conference this week, which had included a presentation from Yvette Cooper, Labour MP and the PCC from Nottinghamshire, both of whom touched on the topic as to whether misogyny should be included as a protected characteristic, and their observations were:
•
the PCC stated the majority of incidents occurred in the pubs and clubs;
•
there have been very few convictions under this specific category;
•
they both felt it was more about setting the right tone and challenging culture, rather than criminalising, unless there were persistent and aggravated circumstances.
Superintendent Cutler, who was the Lead for Hate Crime in Suffolk, had also made some observations:
•
There has been a lot of activity and traction, nationally, about misogyny however most Police Forces are still not recording this as a Hate Crime. At this time, further guidance was awaited from either the College of Policing or the National Police Lead for Hate Crime.
•
She was also keen to understand how the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) would interpret the law in relation to Misogyny, so as to understand what we would need to prove to demonstrate that Misogyny was the motive.
•
She would rather wait for the finalised legislation and then adjust our processes to reflect the legal requirements, as a result of the changes.
Councillor Jepson reported that he was now the Chair of the Police and Crime Panel, a panel which consisted of Elected Members from across Suffolk, whose role was to support and challenge the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC). The panel met with the PCC four times a year, each meeting followed a workshop where the areas of policing they intend to question the PCC on were discussed. Domestic Abuse and Hate Crime were always included on that agenda, together with victim satisfaction, as standing items.
Having witnessed this scrutiny of the PCC over the last year, Councillor Jepson believed that Suffolk Constabulary were already committed to trying to achieve point 4 of the Motion and he was sceptical that by writing to the Constabulary, it would achieve its intention.
Members noted that the Accountability and Performance meeting was chaired by the PCC, and this was his opportunity to examine the performance of Suffolk Constabulary with Chief Officers. At the meeting last Friday, attendees heard how the Police examined a range of crime categories on a monthly basis, which included Domestic Abuse and aggravated harassment type offences. The Constabulary had also recently launched Operation Investigate, which aimed to improve the level of investigations and file submission. In considering point 3 of the Motion, the PCC had referred to his ongoing challenge with the Home Office to improve the funding allocation for Suffolk. It was noted that the Home Office had already made £750m available for the recruitment of an additional 20,000 officers and Suffolk had received an allocation of circa 54 of those officers. However, it was not just about the new officers, it was the additional demand it placed on Constabularies, in terms of equipment and associated costs, not covered by the Home Office. In reality, residents paid the price for being a very safe county. They were fortunate not to experience the demands and threat of other counties and metropolitan areas, however, because of that, precious funds would go to those areas.
In voting against the Motion, Councillor Jepson reported that he would be very willing to strengthen the various priorities within the Community Safety Partnership, to broaden Hate Crime, to take into consideration the wider hate crime categories. Whether the term misogyny was used was open to debate with the panel and he queried how many people would understand that term? He queried whether it would be better to try to educate and challenge negative behaviours towards women and girls, and also extend that to other groups, like the homeless, for instance? Councillor Jepson reported that he could explore whether members of the Community Team could incorporate something on this into their work with schools or into the Crucial Crew weeks.
Councillor Gallant reported that he was fully aware of the impact that Hate Crimes had on people. He noted that we lived in an ever-changing society, however, he had been disappointed when “Transgender” had been added to the list of protected characteristics. He clarified that he was not against Transgender people, however, he felt that term Transgender was very specific. He felt that it would have been preferable if ‘Gender’ had been a protected characteristic instead, as this would have covered a greater range of discrimination and Hate Crimes. As such, he suggested that it would be preferable to await the results of the review into Hate Crimes, to see the outcomes. Then a further discussion could take place, as he was concerned about being too prescriptive and having a narrow view. He would prefer if it was a Hate Crime to behave wrongly to anyone, regardless of their individual characteristics.
Councillor Thompson felt that the Motion was extremely important and reported that he had been a victim of misandry. It was vital that these issues were not ignored, that there was greater public awareness that these things were happening and that any sort of domestic violence was eradicated. He felt deeply about this and wanted to take this matter forward.
Councillor McCallum stated that she agreed with the earlier statements from Councillors Gallant and Jepson. She reported that was attended Community Safety Partnership meetings and had also been a victim of domestic violence herself, on numerous occasions. She felt that the Council needed to look at the bigger picture and help to ensure that the right help was available for those people who needed it.
Councillor Topping stated that she fully supported the Motion. She stated that since becoming a Councillor, she had herself experienced harassment and, therefore, she would support the Motion wholeheartedly and would welcome training on the matter in future.
Councillor Green reported that she regularly attended the CSP meetings and she encouraged all Councillors to attend and participate. She sought to reassure Councillor Thompson that all cases of hate crimes were treated very seriously and independent advisors would offer support to the victims. The Police also worked with various charities and voluntary sector organisations to provide support.
Councillor Jepson reported that he had been a Chief Inspector 10 years ago and he confirmed that the Police always treated Hate Crimes seriously. However, he acknowledged that the Police may not always get things right, however, they tried hard to do so.
Councillor Thompson clarified that his earlier comments had been an observation, based upon what had happened to a family member, in the past. There was also historical information which proved that Hate Crimes were not always treated in the manner that they should be.
Councillor Byatt reported that he used to be a Special Constable and he had dealt with instances of domestic violence. He felt that misogyny would potentially affect 50% of the population and it was important to raise awareness of it, by undertaking training etc. He then accepted that it was important for the Law Commission’s review to take place and he wondered if the matter of Hate Crimes could be considered again, once the results of the review were known?
Councillor Gallant reported that the CSP was best placed to deal the matter of Hate Crime and they would feed into the review. He felt that the Council would be better to wait for the review to take place and then review the results in due course. If the Council needed to raise awareness or host additional training, that could be considered when the results of the review were known.
Councillor Smith-Lyte stated that she was keeping an open mind about the discussions this evening. She felt that the people had more in common to unite them, than divide them. However, she found it hard to understand why Members would object to the opportunity to have some awareness training on Hate Crimes.
Councillor Gooch, seconder of the Motion, indicated that she wished to speak at this point in the proceedings. She stated that the debate this evening had been interesting and honest, and that Full Council was the best place to have these discussions. She thanked Councillor Jepson for his update and informed those present that an easy read guide was also available; it was not compulsory to read the 500-page report. It was noted that Stella Creasy MP had raised the original Motion for Parliament and Councillor Gooch was happy to support Councillor Craig’s Motion this evening.
Councillor Gooch stated that the coverage on this matter in the national press, over recent months, had been impressive. The Sun had reported on the Law Commission’s consultation on 23 September 2020 and had clarified that “misogyny was the dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women”. It went on to say that: “most dictionaries gave the definition of "hatred" towards women, but modern uses of the word also incorporate prejudice against women”. The article cited sociologist Allan G. Johnson who defined misogyny as, "a cultural attitude of hatred for females because they are female".
Councillor Gooch reported that interestingly, the wider context of this article also included the historic case of one former Labour Party MP in Sheffield whose parliamentary career came to an end as a direct result of his treatment of women. However, the recent high-profile cases of accusations of sexual assault on women by MPs of both the Conservative and Labour Party show that misogyny could find a home anywhere. As such, this was not a party-political matter but an issue within society that is an expression of the values of some of its members.
In addition to such predatory acts, and the earlier mention of cases of rape and domestic violence in Suffolk, Councillor Gooch also raised the prevalence, in some parts of our country, of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and so-called ‘Honour’ killings. FGM was a cultural practice masquerading as a religious or faith-based act, which she felt was undeniably driven by a desire to control and dominate women. She felt it showed a hatred of any autonomy or self-determination these women might have in their sexual choices and lives. The FGM Enhanced Dataset was opened five years ago. Since the collection began in April 2015, and up to March 2020, information had been reported by NHS trusts and GP practices. Sadly, the dataset recorded 24,420 individual women and girls who had been victims of this practice. It was noted that funding to tackle FGM, an issue championed by former prime minister Theresa May, had been reduced by 84% since 2015.
It was noted that ‘Honour’ killings were almost exclusively targeted at teenage girls and young women. The recent dramatization by the BBC followed the police investigation and the revelations about police failings in the run-up to the 'honour killing' in 2006 of Banaz Mahmod, a 20-year-old Iraqi Kurdish woman. Tragically, it was estimated that 12 women and young girls were murdered in the UK every year in this way. British charity Karma Nirvana, which receives around 800 messages a month from concerned people, believes the true scale of abuse in Britain could be far greater.
Councillor Gooch stated that the deadline for submissions to the Law Commission was 24 December 2020. In addition to seconding the Motion this evening, Councillor Gooch urged individual Councillors to read the details on the website and make individual submissions. She stated that The Equality Act (2010), amongst others, should offer full legal protection, however, these aforementioned crimes suggested that we were a long way from ensuring that women of all ages could enjoy absolute equality with men. She felt that recognizing that sex and gender could be a characteristic that spurs acts of hatred would go some way to acknowledging the structural and societal work that still needs to be undertaken to help keep us safe.
The Leader made a point of order. He requested some clarification, as he felt that the speech made by Councillor Gooch did not reflect the wording of the Motion that had been submitted. There was no further reply from Councillors Craig or Gooch.
Upon being put to the electronic vote, the Motion, as submitted by Councillor Craig, was
NOT CARRIED.
b)
Motion submitted by Councillor Mike Deacon
Councillor Deacon had submitted the following Notice of Motion in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11 and this had been published on the Council's agenda for this meeting:
‘We call upon this council to make their Armed Forces Champions and Lead Officers aware of the difficulties experienced by Commonwealth Veterans and ensure that those who are currently experiencing problems, whether financial or immigration difficulties, are not disadvantaged whilst their applications are ongoing.
We also call upon the Leader of the Council to write to the Prime Minister, Kevin Forster (Minister of State for Immigration), and Johnny Mercer (Minister of State for Veterans Affairs) outlining this Council’s support for all Commonwealth Veterans, who have served a minimum of 4 years in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces being granted automatic and free of charge right to remain in the UK, and that any Veteran who completes 12 years of service to be automatically given British Citizenship.
Further, we call upon the Leader of the Council to write to Peter Aldous, Therese Coffey and Dan Poulter as MPs with Constituencies in East Suffolk, on behalf of this council, to ask that they press the Government for a change in the legislation that affects those that have served diligently and honourably for this Country.’
The Chairman invited the Leader of the Council to say a few words.
Councillor Gallant proposed that the Motion be discussed this evening and this was seconded by Councillor Fryatt.
An electronic vote was undertaken on whether to discuss the Notice of Motion this evening and the Motion was
CARRIED.
The Chairman then invited Councillor Deacon to speak to his Motion.
Councillor Deacon reported that the UK relied on its armed forces personnel, who came from all over the world. They were highly valued and important members of society, however, he felt that all of that changed when the time came for those people to leave the armed forces. Should a member of the armed forces, who came from overseas, wish to remain in the UK after leaving the armed forces, then they would be charged thousands in fees. It was not uncommon for the charges to cost £10,000 for a serving armed forces officer, and their family, to gain permission to stay in the UK after leaving the armed forces. These charges also applied to those people joining our armed forces, from the Commonwealth. Those who did not gain the required permissions to stay in the UK would be repatriated.
Councillor Deacon felt that this was particularly unfair, given the service and dedication provided by those people, when working for the UK’s armed forces. He also noted that armed forces personnel were not earning very high wages, therefore the fees charged to be able to remain in the UK were exorbitant. Also, those people were ineligible to use the NHS etc whilst making their claim to remain in the UK, if they had already left the armed forces. He was concerned about the hostile and unfair environment for our former armed forces personnel, who joined from overseas.
Councillor Deacon then proposed his Motion and this was seconded by Councillor Byatt.
The Chairman then invited the Leader of the Council to say a few words.
The Leader thanked Councillor Deacon for raising this issue. He was sure that Councillor Deacon was aware that the Leader was also the East Suffolk Council’s Armed Forces Champion.
The Leader also commented that in his role as Armed Forces Champion, and as Leader of the Council, he made himself available at any time, to any Member, regardless of political affiliation, should they wish to discuss matters which concerned them. He commented that Councillor Deacon had availed himself of this offer on numerous occasions, therefore, he was somewhat surprised to see this Motion being submitted by him, without any prior discussion.
The Leader reported that as an ex-serviceman, having spent 12 years in the RAF, the treatment of veterans was very close to his heart. He reported that the UK recruited military personnel from across the Commonwealth to serve in its Armed Forces. Many of these people left behind family and friends to move across the world to serve, becoming valuable assets to our defence capability. There were currently over 6,000 personnel serving in the UK Armed Forces, from foreign and Commonwealth countries, with more being recruited each year to fill technical and specialist roles.
Members noted that from late 2018, Her Majesty’s Armed Forces announced its intention to increase its reliance on Commonwealth personnel, with an aim to recruit 1,350 personnel a year. Unlike their UK national colleagues, these personnel and their families could only continue to live in the country they had served at significant personal financial cost. The Leader reported that he, and many others, believed that this was unfair and should end.
He confirmed that Commonwealth citizens serving in the Armed Forces have the right to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the UK after four years in uniform, however, a service leaver with a partner and two children could face a bill of almost £10,000 to obtain a visa. If they could not afford to pay those fees, they faced deportation.
The Leader noted in Councillor Deacon’s Motion, that he had asked that Commonwealth Veterans be given Automatic Rights to remain in the UK, following 4 years’ service and to become British Citizens after 12 years’ service. The Leader felt that this was fraught with danger. He asked Members to consider the case, where a member of the Services had been given a Dishonourable Discharge, had committed a Criminal Offence, or was otherwise considered to be an undesirable. He felt that in those circumstances, the Automatic Rights suggested would not be in the best interests of the Country or its citizens. Therefore, the Leader took the opportunity to propose the following amendment to the Motion:
‘Council agree to fully support its Armed Forces Champion in their continued efforts to support all Armed Forces veterans, including those that hail from Commonwealth countries. Council encourage the Champion to write to:
•
Kevin Foster MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Minister for Future Borders and Immigration); and
•
Johnny Mercer MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Minister for Defence People and Veterans)
outlining this Council’s general support for Commonwealth veterans. We specifically ask that Commonwealth veterans who wish to apply for the right to remain in the UK following four years’ minimum service have their applications processed free of charge.
As with all letters to Ministers from this Council, we ask that the local Members of Parliament are copied in and asked to consider supporting this Council’s ambitions.’
The Leader asked Councillor Deacon if he was content to accept the proposed changes to his Motion and Councillor Deacon confirmed that he was. The Chairman confirmed that the amended Motion was now the substantive Motion and he invited Members to debate this matter.
Councillor Hedgley thanked Councillor Deacon for raising this important matter. Councillor Hedgley stated that he had served in the Navy for 34 years and he had sailed with colleagues of all colours, creeds and nationalities and would vouch for their professionalism. He commented that the public were not aware how many people from the Commonwealth served in our armed forces and he supported the Leader’s amended Motion. He felt that the door allowing armed forces personnel from overseas to stay in the UK was partially open, it just needed a last push.
Councillor Byatt stated that he would like to reserve his right to speak later in the meeting.
Councillor Goldson reported that he had served in the Territorial Army and had several tours, where the Gurkhas had been involved. They had proved to be extremely brave and loyal and he would support ex armed forces personnel to stay in the UK after their service. However, he felt that serious misbehaviour should prevent them from staying in the UK.
Councillor Byatt stated that this was a cross-party matter and he acknowledged the concerns raised about dishonourable discharges, which was a serious issue and needed to be dealt with sensitively and robustly. He felt that the large number of service people from abroad and the increasing numbers from the Commonwealth meant that the unfairness of the right to remain in the UK needed to be addressed shortly. This would also show that the UK was a fair country that could be relied upon to do the right thing. He reported that his late father had served in Africa with his Commonwealth colleagues and he supported the amended Motion unreservedly.
Councillor Deacon apologised to the Leader, as he believed that he had seen the Motion in advance, and he felt that there had been a breakdown in communications on this occasion.
The Leader proposed the Motion and this was seconded by Councillor Deacon.
The Chairman then invited those present to vote upon the Motion and upon being put to the electric vote, the Motion regarding Veterans was
CARRIED.
The Chairman then informed those present that there would be a 5-minute break and the meeting was adjourned from 8.03pm to 8.08pm.