Agenda item

Alleged Breach of the Adur District Council Code of Conduct - Cllr Neil Parkin

To consider an exempt report by the Monitoring Officer, item 5.

Minutes:

The Legal Advisor (LA) advised that the Sub-Committee had been convened to determine an allegation that Cllr Parkin (SM) had breached Adur District Council’s Code of Conduct for elected members. The Sub-Committee’s role was to establish the facts, which were not in dispute and to establish whether there had been a breach of the Code of Conduct.

 

The alleged words used by the SM had resulted in 7 complaints from Councillors, alleging that various areas of the code had been breached, and 2 complaints from members of the public.

 

The LA also advised the Sub-Committee of an additional paper which provided details of questions from 1 of the complainants to the Independent Investigator (II). Copies of the questions and corresponding answers had been shared in advance of the meeting.

 

The Independent Investigator outlined his report to the Sub-Committee. 

 

In accordance with stages 6 (ii) and (iii) of the procedure for the hearing, the SMR and Members of the Sub-Committee asked the II a number of questions in relation to the contents of his report, to which the II replied.

 

In accordance with stage 8 of the procedure for the hearing, the SMR asked the Monitoring Officer (MO) whether consideration had been given to the complaint being politically motivated. The MO and Independent Person (IP) advised that consideration had been given to whether there was a potential breach of the Code of Conduct and if the complaint should be determined by the MO or a Sub-Committee. It was noted that the IP’s comments were also set out in the MO’s report. 

 

In accordance with stage 9 of the procedure for the hearing the Sub-Committee sought clarification from the MO as to whether the SM had been given an opportunity to retract his statement. The SMR suggested that no informal resolution had been offered in this case.

 

In accordance with stage 10 of the procedure for the hearing, the SMR outlined the SM’s defence to the allegation that they had breached the code of conduct. It was noted that the SM did not dispute the words spoken, but did dispute the context in which they were spoken. There had been no intent to cause offence or use language of a racist nature, it had been an off the cuff comment and in hindsight, the SM acknowledged that the words could have been said differently contextually.

 

In accordance with stage 13 of the procedure for the hearing, the MO asked whether the SM had been offered an opportunity for informal resolution. The SMR replied not to his knowledge. It was noted that as the Leader of the Council had said these words; it had been deemed important for the complaint to go before a Sub-Committee for determination rather than determination by the MO.

 

The MO was provided with an opportunity for final comment in accordance with stage 15 of the procedure for the hearing.

 

The SMR was provided with an opportunity for final comment in accordance with stage 16 of the procedure for the hearing. It was suggested that there was no evidence that the SM had been given an opportunity to apologise and that the SM had been exercising his freedom of speech. The SM did not believe that his actions amounted to a breach of the Code of Conduct. 

 

The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 7.56pm in order for Committee Members, the Independent Person and the Legal Advisor to the Committee, to retire and deliberate.

 

The meeting was reconvened at 8.54pm.

 

The views of the Independent Person, Simon Norris-Jones, were sought by the Chairman in accordance with stage 18 of the procedure for the hearing.

 

Mr Norris-Jones stated that he was not a lawyer, nor was he involved with politics and that none of the parties involved were known to him in any way. His role was to stand back and give independent views on information and evidence presented to him. He supported the principles of free speech but was not comfortable with free speech being an excuse.

 

Mr Norris-Jones stated that complaints were generally submitted by the opposition and the complaint in this case was for justifiable reasons.He was satisfied that the complaint was not politicking but to hold the Leader of the Council to account for his actions.

 

Mr Norris-Jones stated that he had given weight to the complaints from members of the public who had been of the opinion that the language used was disrespectful and who’s background provided both personal and professional experience in relation to this matter.

 

Mr Norris-Jones stated that it had been a finely balanced conclusion by the II and he was of the opinion that the words used tipped just on the side of a breach of the Code of Conduct.

 

The LA provided advice to the Sub-Committee on the principles Members needed to consider when making a determination:

 

1.     Was the SM acting in his official capacity?

 

2.     Were the words alleged, actually said on the balance of probabilities?

 

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights

 

This states that everyone has the right of freedom of expression and the right to hold opinions. For elected members, there are enhanced rights because of their special position in a representative democracy. However, Article 10.2 says that the exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions as it may be necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation or rights of others. 

 

Therefore, there is a balancing act to be done and the adoption of the code of conduct  back in 2012 has been recognised as being a fetter on that unfettered right of freedom of expression. So there is a degree of responsibility on the person making observations or actions.   

 

3.     On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is comments that are silly, unwise, throw away or careless, in the middle of the scale where Members may have said things recklessly and 10 where a Member intended hurt or intended to cause offence.

 

4.     Whether or not the comments which were made come above the breach requirement for the three areas of the code which have been examined.

a.     Has there been a breach of respect for others;

b.     Has there been a breach of the Council's approach to equalities and especially the Council’s public sector equality duty which is not to discriminate but also positively to promote equalities, especially the nine protected characteristics;

c.     Has the Members actions or words brought his Council into disrepute by lowering the reputation of the Council, or in that of his office as Councillor and as Leader, or whether he has brought himself into disrepute (the Livingstone Test).  

 

The sub-committee took a public vote on the alleged breach, as required under stage 19 of the procedure for the hearing.

 

Vote:- In Favour 1, Against 5, Abstentions 0

 

Resolved,

 

That the Joint Governance Sub-Committee found that an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct, by Cllr Parkin, was not proven.

 

 

It was stated by Councillor Kevin Boram that all sides wished to promote transparency in this instance and therefore he proposed that the papers relating to the matter be made public. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Roy Barraclough and supported by the SMR. 

 

Resolved,

 

That the Joint Governance Sub-Committee agreed unanimously that the papers be made public alongside the published minutes.

 

Supporting documents: