Warwickshire County Council leader criticised over Conservative response to SEND storm

A frustrated parent has criticised the leader of Warwickshire County Council for failing to make clear who decides the future of three under-fire Conservative councillors.

Councillor Jeff Morgan (Bulkington & Whitestone), Councillor Brian Hammersley (Bedworth Central) and Councillor Clare Golby (Arbury) are under investigation by the authority over a flurry of complaints about comments they made when discussing a surge in demand for special education needs and disabilities (SEND) provision during a council meeting in January.

Widespread outrage followed Cllr Morgan questioning whether some children put forward for SEND assessments were “just really badly behaved” and in need of “some form of strict correction”, Cllr Hammersley asking whether the increase was down to “something in the water” and Cllr Golby referring to social media pages where “families are swapping tips on how to get their children diagnosed”.

Leader Councillor Izzi Seccombe OBE (Con, Stour & the Vale) has resisted calls from the public and The Green Party to temporarily remove the whip – banishing the trio from the party – until the investigation is completed, arguing the councillors have right to go through the due process.

Who actually makes the call?

That argument came under scrutiny this week when parent Elissa Novak registered to speak at a meeting for all county councillors, questioning who would make such a call.

“It is important to clarify exactly where responsibility lies for maintaining standards and discipline for elected members. It is vital that this is clearly understood both by councillors and the public,” she said.

“A lack of clarity on this point in relation to the current investigation has caused confusion about what is a political decision – for example removing the whip – and what is a council process, for example the complaints procedure.

“Conflation of the two and the confusion this creates for the public risks undermining the hard work of council officers (staff) whose roles are not political, they cannot influence political decision making.

“To rectify this immediately, I would respectfully ask the leader to confirm whether it is her decision to remove the whip or whether that decision is made by the local group.”

That point was not addressed by Cllr Seccombe during a meeting that she missed the end of due to a prior engagement.

Green Party group leader Councillor Jonathan Chilvers (Leamington Brunswick) picked up the baton during questions for portfolio holders.

He asked deputy leader Councillor Peter Butlin (Con, Admirals & Cawston): “In a situation like we have, can you clarify the distinction between the role of the political party group and the role of the council’s own procedures?”

Following a prompt from chief executive Monica Fogarty, Cllr Butlin offered to provide a written answer.

Blurred lines?

Speaking to the Local Democracy Reporting Service outside the meeting, Ms Novak referred to an instance where a councillor had the whip removed while being investigated by Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council.

“I am not clear why that has not taken place here,” she said.

“If it couldn’t happen, I would expect a reason to be given but that has not been made clear at all.

“It is very disappointing not to have clarity on that because I cannot see why those two things (removing the whip while the investigation continues) cannot happen alongside each other.

“If a precedent has been set on removing the whip, why is this place different?”

She went on to advocate taking action now.

“What happened was recorded,” she added.

“As a political leader, or whoever it is, you can watch that and decide whether that meets the standards of your party.

“The leader has done television interviews saying ‘this is not my Warwickshire, this is not representative of my group’. If it is not representative of your group, you remove the whip, that is the mechanism to show that and I do not understand why that hasn’t happened in this case.

“The question about the whip has been raised quite a few times but as far as I am aware there has been no direct answer other than ‘we are awaiting the results of the investigation’.

“It conflates political decision making with council business. How the officers have been affected has been raised directly by the leader – in my opinion part of the reason for that is the blurring of these two things.

“She is the leader of the council but she is also the leader of the Conservative group, those are two different things and that can be confusing as a member of the public because you just see the leader.

“They are two separate things with two separate processes and for the integrity of what the officers are doing, their day-to-day work, it is really important to draw that distinction.

“Speaking as a parent, it is disappointing that hasn’t happened and I don’t think it is fair on the officers that the line has been blurred.”

Leader would ‘have to go through the group’

Invited to clarify the process behind any such decision, and whether she had sole responsibility for it, Cllr Seccombe confirmed that she would “have to go through the group”.

Asked whether that extended any wider than the group of Conservative county councillors, she replied: “No.”

She declined to comment further, including on whether any such decision would be led by her in consultation with other councillors, other than to say that it would be an internal Conservative process “should we even consider it”.

Invited to offer an explanation as to why she could not provide more clarity, Cllr Seccombe replied: “I don’t feel I need to offer one.”

She added: “We are going through an internal process… a quasi-judicial process that determines what the perspective of the council is, what the view of those words is, and although it is separate from me, it also does have a bearing on our process,”

“Personally, I think if you go out (further than that), it is (acting like) judge and jury beforehand.”

She reiterated the action taken so far, including the removal of the three councillors from the scrutiny panel on which the comments were made, Cllr Morgan’s resignation as vice-chair and a training programme on SEND for all councillors.

“I am developing workshops which I think will be very exciting because they will bring forward the voices of the SEND community in Warwickshire – headteachers, specialised schools, parents and carers, young people,” said Cllr Seccombe.

“All of those things tell the story of what this is. I am looking forwards and I am not prepared to keep hauling over the coals.

“I have a plan in place. We are going through the process, we will look at the outcome of the process and I will consider my options.”

She did not comment further on Ms Novak’s views other than to say each decision on removing the whip was judged “on its own merits” and that no precedent could be cited in this case.

Meanwhile, Ms Novak was pleased to see council unanimously accept a motion asking for mandatory SEND training for councillors.

“It is important,” she said.

“It cannot be the only thing, it needs to be embedded in every area of work.

“One of the councillors said how they all had families approach them and that is true, so this is not only relevant to those on scrutiny panels, every single councillor will have constituents that are affected by education, health and care plans (EHCPs), transport or access to support.

“It is a wide issue that affects a lot of people in Warwickshire. This is relevant to anyone who works representing residents.”

Cllr Morgan, Cllr Hammersley and Cllr Golby were individually approached for comment at the council meeting but all three declined to field questions.