Reports released by Warwickshire County Council shed more light on the decisions to clear three councillors after complaints over their remarks on SEND provision. 

The county received more than 280 complaints about the terms used by Cllr Jeff Morgan, Cllr Brian Hammersley and Cllr Clare Golby in a meeting of the county council's children and young people's overview and scrutiny committee.

That panel of councillors runs the rule over the work of the council and other public bodies in relevant sectors and it discussed the council's analysis of special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) provision that day. 

Much of what was presented centred around the need to tackle multi-million pound overspends and ongoing and proposed mitigation measures.

The complaints centred around Cllr Morgan, who had been the county's cabinet member for children and families until May 2023, questioning whether some children put forward for assessments were "just really badly behaved" and in need of "some form of strict correction", Cllr Hammersley asking whether a surge in demand was down to "something in the water" and Cllr Globy referring to social media pages where "families are swapping tips on how to get their children diagnosed" and querying whether SEND issues had become conflated with parenting skill shortages.

The investigation, conducted by external solicitor Claire Ward of Anthony Collins Solicitors, Birmingham, found that Cllr Morgan and Cllr Hammersley had failed to be respectful, "champion the needs of the whole community" and uphold the reputation of the council, all of which was contrary to the code of conduct, but that they had been entitled to make the comments under freedom of speech protections.

Cllr Golby's words were not deemed to have gone against any element of the code of conduct but the outcome also stated that she would also have been afforded the same protection.

Those verdicts prompted a backlash from complainants and questions over the purpose of the council's code of conduct. 

The explanation 

A freedom of information request submitted by a member of the public saw Ms Ward's reports – there was one for each of the three councillors – published.

Ms Ward explains that requirements in the code of conduct have to be considered "within the context of the right to freedom of expression", as set out in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

"The ECHR has long since recognised the increased importance of freedom of expression in the political sphere," she wrote. 

"As such, elected politicians are afforded enhanced protection against interference with their right to freedom of expression when expressing themselves politically. 

"However, this is not an absolute right. It may be restricted if the restriction is prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the rights and interests of others."

Councillors cross the line if they make "gratuitous personal comments" or comments they know to be untrue, and while Ms Ward acknowledged each of the trio had "offended a lot of people", they had not strayed beyond what is permitted.

All three reports describe a "higher threshold of tolerance" in law.

"This means that Article 10 extends to the expression of views that may shock, disturb, or offend the deeply held beliefs of others," continues Ms Ward's assessment. 

"This, I am sure, will seem at odds with what most of the complainants believe the standard should be, given (the councillors') position of responsibility, but the narrow margin that the courts have created provides little scope to find a breach. The words used have to be exceptionally extreme to be capable of being restricted."

What the councillors said

The reports offer detailed summaries of the evidence heard by Ms Ward, including how the councillors explained the language they had used.

Those summaries are hers and paraphrase what each councillor said. They are not quoted word for word. 

Cllr Golby said her comment on parenting skill shortages had been about ensuring that children with needs that do not meet SEND thresholds were not "lost in the conversation". She defended her comments about social media as a legitimate question as to whether more readily available information had been a factor in a sharp per cent rise in requests for SEND assessments. 

She said her words had been misrepresented and that her apology, released by the council on February 7, had been something "the council wanted her to do" but that she had found it "very difficult because she didn't know what she was apologising for". 

Cllr Golby argued there had been an "orchestrated campaign" linked to May's local elections – she lost her seat on Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council, where she had served as deputy leader, by five votes.

The report added that Cllr Golby was "shocked and dismayed although not surprised about the politicisation of this matter" and that "she feels everyone has been talking about her and not to her". 

She said that it was her job to ask searching questions and that the offence caused was "never intended", adding that she was not seeking to pass "judgement on anyone or blame on parents". 

Cllr Golby has posted on social media and on her own webpage on the matter but declined to field questions when approached by the Local Democracy Reporting Service. 

Cllr Morgan said "he would choose his words differently if he could" but that his comments had been made due to concern over the level of demand for SEND services.

He said his example of a child that may be badly behaved and need strict correction was "a caricature… to emphasise that support and resources should go to those most in need, not those who shout the loudest". 

He detailed "some instances where the problems lie with the family, and that some parents might seek (assessment) when in fact there were other reasons for the child's needs", but insisted he "wasn't trying to blame every parent that comes forward… because most are legitimate". 

Cllr Morgan also said he was "not advocating any type of inhumane treatment". He politely declined to comment when approached.

Cllr Hammersley acknowledged the terms he had used had been "clumsy" but that his remarks were "not about blaming the person who was in need of help, but trying to explain that money spent in earlier intervention could possibly reduce the need for care plans in the future". He has yet to respond to our request for comment on these reports.