Agenda item

[To receive a presentation in relation to Rainbow City]

The Board welcomed Julia Nock, Head of Assets and Chair of the Rainbow Project Board and Kieran Simpson EDI Adviser (LGBT), to the meeting.

The Board understood that there was a clear drive and passion for ensuring Wolverhampton was firmly on the map as a rainbow city and there was a high level of commitment, not only within the council but also with partners to make this happen. The overall aim was to ensure that the City of Wolverhampton was a fair, diverse, and inclusive city where everybody felt free to be themselves. Multiple initiatives would be delivered across the city to highlight this commitment, with a particular focus on improving health and wellbeing outcomes for our growing LGBT+ community.  The work was being delivered through the Rainbow City Project Group, which included officers from across the business and representatives from city partners including Wolverhampton Homes, Wolverhampton LGBT+ and Enjoy Wolverhampton.

Board considered the 168 responses to the consultation including:

·       82% agreed with the initial principles, vision, and objectives of the Rainbow City

·       67% thought Wellbeing Services were the top priority for Health and Support Services (with 52% being Sexual Health)

·       60% got information on health and support services from Google (8% get information from WIN)

·       82% wanted to see Cafés as their top priority for what they wanted to see in the daytime economy (71.3% wanted to see City Events)

·       71% wanted to see Bars as their top priority for what they wanted to see in the daytime economy (70% wanted to see Social Events)

The majority of people agreed with the principles, vision and objectives and a lot of the feedback was around visibility and recognition of our LGBT community. Respondents sought equality, acceptance, and diversity in the Rainbow City and to be a welcoming city where LGBT people could thrive. The consultation specifically referred to health opportunities and health inequalities, which were seen as major concerns in society and the highest option that came out was around Wellbeing Services with sexual health being at 52%.

In relation to the drivers for change the Board understood that LGBT+ people showed lower satisfaction with their lives than the general population.
In the national LGBT survey, LGBT people gave an average rating of 6.5 out of 10, while trans respondents gave an average rating of 5.4. For the general population, the average rating was 7.7.

Board understood that a high proportion of LGBT+ people suffered from mental health issues.  It was noted that 24% of respondents to the national LGBT survey had accessed mental health services in the 12 months prior to responding. These were likely to have been exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, as indicated in survey results published by the LGBT Foundation.

Many LGBT+ individuals had experienced hate crime, and this was often unreported.  The national LGBT survey showed that over 40% of respondents had been victims of abuse as they were LGBT and indicated that over 90% of these incidents went unreported. While some LGBT+ support was available in the city, there was no unified offer. Feedback from LGBT+ individuals in the city indicated that this could lead to a perception of Wolverhampton not being LGBT+ friendly.

In relation to the national picture, the Government had released an LGBT Action Plan in 2018, this was as a response to the findings of the national LGBT survey conducted in the previous year. The Action Plan contained 75 committed for delivery by 2022, across themes including health, education, safety, and workplaces. The latest progress report from July 2019 highlighted the following actions:

·       The appointment of the UK’s first LGBT Health Advisor (Apr 2019)

·       The appointment of an “LGBT Advisory Panel”. The Panel’s term ended in March 21 and had yet to be reconvened. 

·       Funding for training and development of LGBT+ community groups and a small grants scheme, delivered by Consortium (the LGBT+ Futures Fund, January 2019 to March 2020).

·       A new curriculum for Relationships Education (primary schools) and Relationships and Sexual Education (secondary schools) that included non-heteronormative portrayals of relationships. Schools were required to have implemented the changes by September 2021. 

·       Consultation on Banning Conversion therapy (launched on the 29 October 2021)

·       The scheduling of an international LGBT+ conference for June 2022, entitled ‘Safe to be Me’.

Based on research and consultation, the LGBT conference held in 2019 and the work of the Project Board; five key themes had been identified and officers allocated to these themes as part of a wider group. The five key themes were:

1.    Digital

2.    Culture and Creative

3.    Health and Wellbeing

4.    Community Safety

5.    Education

Detailed information was provided to show some of the interventions, aims, objectives and the actions that were proposed, alongside the theme leads and deputy leads.

Board considered the Governance arrangements of the Rainbow City which included at the strategic level, the Rainbow City Project Board, at the operational level the Rainbow City Operational Steering Group and at the consultative level. The Rainbow City Charter Network.

Board considered the Engagement Plan which showed the approval path for the project, including being sent out to all Councillors for feedback on 13 December 2021, approval by Cabinet on 23 February 2022 and a launch date of 28 February 2022.  Board thanked officers for what was considered a great initiate and welcomed the presentation.

Board referred to page 61 of the agenda and queried whether it would be possible to have hate crime data from across the whole of the West Midlands.  Board also requested some additional clarification as to who had been consulted and whether there was a breakdown of the ages of those who had responded and whether any consultation had been carried out with schools. Board considered that if might be good to see enhanced consultation with schools as this work needed to be shaped by young people as well as people who worked in the Council. Some Board members considered that it would have been better had the project been resident driven rather than staff driven in the first instance. 

It was stated that consultation had been widely advertised through social media and letters had been sent out in relation to a number of briefings that had been held. In relation to providing a more detailed breakdown of those who had been consulted and responded, the survey had been anonymous, but a high-level breakdown could be provided. In relation to working with schools, this was one of the largest areas where work was hoping to be carried out as this was where the future would be shaped. Work in this area was under development and the team were working closely with the Youth Council but recognised that there was much more that could be done moving forward.

The question was also raised in relation to whether the Council had reached out to partners such as the local football team; there had been consultation previously in relation to setting up a LGBT supporters Club in the year before the pandemic and as football was such a huge part of the culture of the city it was considered important to try and include this in the Rainbow City project. It was noted that the Wolves Captain was the British LGBT ally which was wonderful, and it was stated that Ian Fegan (Director of Communications and External Relations) was the sponsor for the project and that the aspiration was to work with as many partners as possible including the football club. 

Board queried the costs associated with the Rainbow City Project and noted that there had to be priorities for the Council and that the outreach centres referred to would come at a cost which would take resources away from other priority areas.  It was stated that in relation to budget, the team and project board were acutely aware of its and nothing in relation to the outreach centres had been set in stone yet. At the moment investigations in to the centre and available budgets were ongoing. Work was being carried out with partners such as the University and Wolverhampton Homes as it was not incumbent upon the Council to necessarily share all the financial burden and work was being carried out to see what could be achieved together. 

Board queried what research had been done in relation to other towns and cities and their approaches.  It was stated that prior to the main consultation, work had been carried out by the Senior Policy and Strategy Officer in relation to what best practice was already out there locally, nationally, and worldwide; information about this could be provided to Board after the meeting.

Board suggested that there could be some further work with West Midlands Police given the very concerning statistics in relation to hate crime. This work could include a focus on understanding what a hate-crime was and how it could affect different people in different ways.

Board thanked officers for what was considered to be a fantastic initiative and a powerful and proud statement to make to our citizens.

Resolved:      That the presentation be received.