Agenda item

6.1

The Safer and Stronger Communities Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee submitted a report outlining in depth work undertaken around hate crime. This was done through a cross party Task Group. The work focussed on the reporting of hate crime and the report submitted was the final report of the Task Group.

6.2

RESOLVED: That Cabinet:-

(a)

thanks the Safer & Stronger Communities Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee for its work on hate crime;

(b)

notes the Hate Crime Task Group Report attached as Appendix A to the report;

(c)

agrees that an initial joint response from the Cabinet Members for Community Services and Libraries, Housing, and Children, Young People & Families is provided to the Safer & Stronger Communities Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee’s July 2017 meeting; and

(d)

agrees that a further report to the Safer & Stronger Communities Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee on progress on implementing the Task Group’s recommendations be provided to the Committee by December 2017.

6.3

Reasons for Decision

6.3.1

In order to make it clear to the Scrutiny Committee what actions the Council is committing to, the Committee requests a joint response report to its Hate Crime Task Group Report.

6.3.2

To enable the Committee to scrutinise progress made in implementing the recommendations, the Committee requests a further report back on implementation.

6.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

6.4.1

An alternative option in relation to the recommendations would be to do nothing with the Task Group Report.  However, given the time and effort spent by the Task Group and contributions, to the work from external organisations this is not deemed a viable option.

6.4.2

An alternative option in relation to the recommendations would be to respond to the Committee’s report over a much longer timescale. However, the Scrutiny Committee would welcome a fast response to its recommendations. The Committee believes a report to its July 2017 meeting strikes an appropriate balance between speed and allowing sufficient time for Cabinet Members and officers to consider the recommendations in the Hate Crime Task Group report.

6.5

Any Interest Declared or Dispensation Granted

None

6.6

Reason for Exemption if Public/Press Excluded During Consideration

N/A

6.7

Respective Director Responsible for Implementation

Laraine Manley, Executive Director, Place

6.8

Relevant Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee If Decision Called In

Safer and Stronger Communities Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee

6.1

The Safer and Stronger Communities Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee submitted a report outlining in depth work undertaken around hate crime. This was done through a cross party Task Group. The work focussed on the reporting of hate crime and the report submitted was the final report of the Task Group.

6.2

RESOLVED: That Cabinet:-

(a)

thanks the Safer & Stronger Communities Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee for its work on hate crime;

(b)

notes the Hate Crime Task Group Report attached as Appendix A to the report;

(c)

agrees that an initial joint response from the Cabinet Members for Community Services and Libraries, Housing, and Children, Young People & Families is provided to the Safer & Stronger Communities Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee’s July 2017 meeting; and

(d)

agrees that a further report to the Safer & Stronger Communities Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee on progress on implementing the Task Group’s recommendations be provided to the Committee by December 2017.

6.3

Reasons for Decision

6.3.1

In order to make it clear to the Scrutiny Committee what actions the Council is committing to, the Committee requests a joint response report to its Hate Crime Task Group Report.

6.3.2

To enable the Committee to scrutinise progress made in implementing the recommendations, the Committee requests a further report back on implementation.

6.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

6.4.1

An alternative option in relation to the recommendations would be to do nothing with the Task Group Report.  However, given the time and effort spent by the Task Group and contributions to the work from external organisations, this is not deemed a viable option.

6.4.2

An alternative option in relation to the recommendations would be to respond to the Committee’s report over a much longer timescale. However, the Scrutiny Committee would welcome a fast response to its recommendations. The Committee believes a report to its July 2017 meeting strikes an appropriate balance between speed and allowing sufficient time for Cabinet Members and officers to consider the recommendations in the Hate Crime Task Group report.