my farago asking questions

Over 6 weeks ago, I asked a public question to highlight the issues of aphasia. The draft minutes have only just been published. Hot constitutional air was exploded; little about Aphasia per se......
this can run and run (hence keeping it on the agenda ect....) if members want it ....


One public question has been received before publication date:

(i) Mr R Pennington.

Minutes:
5.1 Mr Pennington asked the following question at the Committee meeting:

“I ask this question on behalf of Sussex Aphasia Self-Help, and Speakability, the national charity.

Aphasia is the communication problems which sometimes follow a stroke, head injury, brain tumour or other neurological condition.

We know what we want to say, but we just have trouble finding the right words. We can enjoy social activities just like everyone else if communication tools are available.

What steps can the Council, as a Licensing Authority, take to advise coffee shop and café owners to provide such communication tools, such as illustrated/photo hand-held menus?”

5.2 The Chairman responded with the following answer:

“The Council welcomes its general duty to promote disability equality. It also uses its influence with partners to further diversity principals beyond its own operations.


Unfortunately, as a Licensing Authority, the Council is subject to limitations. It can only regulate licensable activities and cafes are only subject to premises licensing if selling alcohol or providing regulated entertainment or late night refreshment. The Council’s decisions must also be grounded on one or more of the licensing objectives.

The Council, as a matter of policy, will remind applicants of the requirements of disability discrimination legislation although there are no powers to provide additional communication tools.

Where citizens feel they have been subject to discrimination in the provision of services, it is recommended that they consider seeking independent legal advice.”


5.3 Mr Pennington asked the following supplementary question:

“If this is the case, could I ask that this question be asked at the Full Council meeting or with the Cabinet?”

5.4 The Solicitor to the Committee referred to the Constitution of Brighton & Hove City Council and stated that the Chief Executive may reject a question if it is substantially the same as a question that has been put at a meeting of the Council, the Cabinet, a Cabinet Member Meeting, a Committee Meeting or a Sub-Committee Meeting in the past six months.

5.5 Councillor Hawkes stated that it was unfortunate that the question could not be asked at another Committee meeting if the Licensing Committee (Licensing Act 2003 Functions) could not give a satisfactory answer.

5.6 Councillor Marsh agreed and fully supported the issues that had been raised by Mr Pennington, which she felt were particularly applicable to licensed premises. She did not believe that the question had been answered satisfactorily by the Council, and warranted further investigation. She stated that the Committee should press the issue forward on behalf of Mr Pennington, and was disappointed that there seemed to be no avenue for this within the Constitution.
5.7 Councillor Watkins agreed and did not feel there was a problem with taking the question to another Committee meeting. He asked if it was possible for the Licensing Committee to refer the matter to Full Council under item 8: Items to go forward to Council. The Solicitor to the Committee advised Members that this provision only applied to items where decisions could be made by the Committee under delegated powers, and did not relate to public questions.
5.8 Councillor Mrs Theobald agreed that this was a matter of great interest and felt that the Council should be encouraging café owners to implement the changes suggested by Mr Pennington, and to provide further help to Aphasia sufferers.
5.9 Councillor Simson stated that as Cabinet Member for Community Affairs, Inclusion and Internal Relations, she had listened with great interest to the question from Mr Pennington, and the feelings of Councillors, and wanted to assure the Committee that she would be taking this issue forward under her portfolio.
5.10 Councillor Pidgeon noted that he had worked for many years to promote equalities issues for disabled and blind people and felt strongly that this issue should be brought to the attention of Cabinet.
5.11 Councillor West believed there was a problem with the procedures if it meant that this issue could not be added to the agenda of any other meeting, and Councillor Marsh agreed, highlighting that there were inadequacies in the Constitution if this was the case. Councillor Marsh felt that a member of the public had asked a valid question in good faith, but had been advised wrongly as to where the question should be asked. She added that it was unfair of the Council to reject the question simply because it had been asked at the Licensing Committee (Licensing Act 2003 Functions) first.
5.12 Councillor Kitcat agreed and stated it was fortunate that the relevant Cabinet Member sat on the Committee and was willing to take the issue forward. He felt it would have been a difficult situation to resolve had the relevant Cabinet Member not been present. Councillor Kitcat noted that the twelve-month review of the Constitution was pending and the issue of public questions and their limitations needed to be looked at carefully under this review.
5.13 The Chairman stated that the issue could be carried forward by Members of the Committee regardless of whether a Cabinet Member was present at the meeting or not, and she felt that given the strength of feeling on the issue, this would be the case in any event

5.14 Councillor Simson assured Members that she would take this issue forward, hopefully in time for the next Cabinet meeting. Mr Pennington suggested amending it to “What steps can the Council, as a Licensing Authority or otherwise, take…”.

5.15 The Solicitor to the Committee apologised to Mr Pennington and stated that the procedures were not meant to be obstructive. She hoped he was confident that the issue would be taken forward in the appropriate manner and dealt with to the satisfaction of Members.