Speaking on a motion about protecting councillors from harassment, abuse and intimidation, Cllr Joanna Biddolph strongly urged the council not to prioritise protections for councillors over protections for the people councillors were elected to represent and serve. Many residents have been waiting for many years for decisive action to protect them from harassment, abuse and intimidation. During Labour's summing up of the debate, Cllr Biddolph was assured that councillors would not be prioritised over residents. Further, the motion - taken from the Local Government Association Liberal Democrat bank of motions - referred to existing support for councillors that councillors are unaware of; these and other updates must be added to the website. Jo's speech is below as is a link to the recording on YouTube.
Madam Mayor, thank you.
I have spoken in this chamber before about the need for we councillors to ensure that we put our residents – indeed, everyone we represent – first. We were elected to serve others, not ourselves.
And while I expect, and it’s clear, that no one in this chamber is against this motion in principle, what worries me is that it is only concerned about protections for us. It is self-serving.
Electors, in fact everyone we serve, whether with a vote or otherwise, and regardless of whether they might want to stand for election, have a stake in democracy. Protecting them from harassment, abuse and intimidation is vital.
So I feel strongly that it is wrong of us to look at protection from harassment, abuse and intimidation only from our point of view. Policies, practices and processes to protect us must not take precedence over the council’s policies, practices and processes to protect people we represent.
The cabinet member for housing knows that, before the cabinet meeting on 16th July, I raised concerns about the council’s anti-social behaviour policy (anti-social behaviour includes harassment, abuse and intimidation) as it affects the council’s social housing tenants. Those concerns were raised by residents, who had experienced harassment, abuse and intimidation, to whom I had shown the policy paper and who remain shocked by the continued delays in producing the practices and processes needed to implement the policy to protect them.
Cabinet approved an existing overall policy but there were no, and I’m quoting from this motion “strong, clear and visible” approaches to dealing with this issue and no, and again I quote: “clear steps to improve and strengthen protections against harassment, abuse and intimidation” for residents.
I was given an informal explanation about the paper to cabinet – not from the cabinet member, from an officer – that the processes, including specific actions, named roles and timelines, were still being drafted.
Yet this motion reads as if it will be full steam ahead for practices and processes to protect us while residents are still waiting for decisive action to protect them from repeated harm.
And this is despite many years of appealing to the council for actions to stop harassment, abuse and intimidation – often motivated by racial prejudice or homophobia.
I know some residents have been reluctant to bring their experiences to a councillor for help – discouraged from speaking because they fear repercussions from those who are harassing, abusing or intimidating them – and perhaps stopping them from standing for election.
Their stake in democracy depends on our support of them.
That is why I am very uncomfortable approving a motion that progresses practices and processes that protect us while residents are still waiting.
So, I would like a firm commitment that actions resulting from this motion will not be prioritised over actions that are badly needed to protect residents. Those we serve will be looking at us and how we protect them, having been elected to do just that.
So I’m not saying not to the motion, I’m saying can we please make sure that we don’t just protect ourselves.
Moving on to outcomes – those protections for residents and for councillors and officers must be prominently publicised and kept visible, easily findable on the council’s website and listed in articles and relevant policy papers. They must not be hidden.
There are two points. First, information on the website for residents is currently out of date and that must be changed urgently. Secondly, the motion refers to a need to ‘shore up’ the support offered to members and officers. I don’t know what that support is. I can’t tell how it needs to be shored up. There’s no reference here to what it is and it seems to me that those references would have been here if this hadn’t been just a cut and paste job from the Local Government Association’s Lib Dem bank of motions. There is nothing in here that ties it to what exists already – and you say there is something about which I know nothing.
Madam Mayor, I hope the cabinet member will confirm that actions to protect councillors will not take precedence over actions to support residents and others we were elected to serve – and that practices and policies to protect residents will be published and implemented without further delay. And on the progress, I hope that opposition councillors are included in decisions about what happens because, whilst there are things that are in common for all of us, and we know that there are things in common for women, and I recognise some of the comments that I’ve read on Brentford Today by Cllr Dunne and by Cllr Giles as having happened to me as well, it is important to include every single type of councillor that there is, from many perspectives and some of us might have many things to say.
Response from Labour Cllr Amy Croft who had proposed the motion
Responding first to Cllr Biddolph's points, Cllr Croft said, "If I can just respond to Cllr Biddolph: Absolutely take the point about residents ... absolutely I can confirm that these policies in terms of councillors are not going to [take priority over] those put forward [for residents]. You have my word on that."
Recording of the borough council meeting: You can hear the debate on the council's YouTube channel; Cllr Biddolph speaks at around 2:23:30 minutes in and Cllr Croft responds to her at around 2:38:40 minutes in: click here.
