Agenda item

To consider recommendations from the Standards and Ethics Sub-Committee in respect of Councillor Brian Cutts’ appointments to serve on outside bodies on behalf of the Council.

Further to a meeting of the Standards and Ethics Sub-Committee held on 14^th September, 2018, consideration was given to the outcome of complaints about the conduct of Councillor Brian Cutts.  The Sub-Committee found that Councillor Brian Cutts’ conduct at a pre-meeting of the Improving Lives Select Commission had been in breach of the Council’s Code of Conduct for Members and Co-opted Members.  The decision of the Sub-Committee included a recommendation to Council that Councillor Brian Cutts be removed from all outside appointments to which he has been appointed or nominated by the Council.  Councillor Brian Cutts was a member of the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel. 

A number of Councillors spoke on the matter and expressed their personal views:-

Councillor John Turner was of the view that free speech had been damaged, gave examples of how contentious same sex issues were globally and did not feel that the comments made by Councillor Brian Cutts was unreasonable.

Councillor R. Elliott disagreed with Councillor Brian Cutts’ comments about fostering and some of his views previously, but had always been open to a healthy discussion and believed he had never used derogatory language.  Councillor Cutts was a hard working individual who was passionate about Rotherham’s residents.  He believed a Member was entitled to their opinion even if the majority may disagree.

Councillor M. Elliott too disagreed with Councillor Cutts’ comments and distanced himself from the reported comments made.  As a member of the Fostering Panel he understood the in-depth stringent lengthy assessment process for prospective foster carers, couples and individuals regardless of their sexuality orientation.  However, he believed in the freedom of speech which supported the freedom of an individual to articulate their views and feelings publically without fear of retaliation, censorship or punishment.  Councillor Cutts was a conscientious hard working Councillor and to remove him as a member of the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel was understandable, but from any other meeting was a step too far.

Councillor Hoddinott spoke of the important role of the Police and Crime Panel and the tackling of hate crime, which was on the increase, a priority for the Council and partners.  Hate speech, including homophobic comments, was not acceptable and the effect of hurtful comments should not be under estimated on friends and family too.  With free speech came responsibility as an elected representative to everyone in Rotherham.

Councillor Walsh made reference to the various sexuality orientations and how this was part of human life.  Homophobic attitudes were irrational and not a freedom of speech and as such were the height of bad manners.

Councillor Roche was concerned about the increasing negative and adverse comments made in public and on social media.   Councillor Cutts may use his right of free speech, but must accept the consequences of his actions and the impact of the comments on other people.

The Leader considered it sad that in 2018 the Council were discussing a report about gender equality and sexual orientation and whether a member had treated another with respect.  It was the not treating people with respect that the Standards and Ethics Committee found fault with and as a result a breach of the Code of Conduct. 

This was clearly not a one off remark in a meeting from Councillor Cutts and the Leader described other occasions when comments of a similar nature were made and a pattern of behaviour.

Councillor Cutts was free to speak as he wished.  However, he was acting as a Councillor and conclusions would have to be drawn.  It was fit and proper to say there was enough evidence that Councillor Cutts was not the right person to represent this Council on any outside body. 

It was hoped Councillor Cutts understood the offence he had caused and would urge the Leader of the Opposition to accept the recommendations of the Committee in full by removing Councillor Cutts from the Police and Crime Panel and also from his role in scrutiny.  Due process had been followed and the complaint considered by a cross party group and independent members.  It would, therefore, be appropriate to accept their conclusions.

Councillor Steele believed Members should respect the decision of the Committee.  Individual comments were made that offended a member of staff and it was right that the Member concerned should be sanctioned.

Councillor Wilson believed people had opinions based on religion, culture etc, but Councillor Cutts was a representative of the people of Rotherham.  The world was moving forward and to harken back to open discrimination was wrong and certainly not acceptable to make comments such as this on a regular basis.

Councillor Yasseen supported the decision of the Standards and Ethics Committee and hoped the comments had not caused offence to the public.  She hoped this had not prejudiced people from wide ranging backgrounds to come forward to foster vulnerable people.

Councillor Brookes provided clarification on the definitions for inter-sex conditions.

Councillor Cowles’ personal view was that it was better in a caring relationship than a care home.  In this current situation he linked two similar cases that had been before the Standards and Ethics Committee regarding homophobic comments both with different outcomes – Councillor Bird and Councillor B. Cutts. 

The recommendations and subsequent actions of the Standards and Ethics Sub-Committee were completely different.  In the case of Councillor Bird he was censured and recommended to undertake diversity training with a minor article in the paper.  In the case of Councillor Cutts it was recommended he be removed from all committees and from outside bodies, undertake equalities training and a front page spread in the paper. 

The Sub-Committee’s recommendations were for Councillor Cutts to stand down from the Police and Crime Panel, which was appropriate, given the need to foster harmonious relationships in all communities. 

Councillor Cowles made reference to the freedom of speech and of debate where the difference of views should not be punished.  The Leader himself referred to the greater culture of tolerance and freedom to disagree and debate.

Councillor Carter disagreed with Councillor Cutts’ views.  The right to free speech with responsibilities does not give freedom from consequence.  Individuals and couples regardless of their sexual orientation should be encouraged to become foster parents should they so wish. 

It was correct that as a consequence of the complaint Councillor Cutts should step down from the Police and Crime Panel.  He expressed some anxiety over the political groupings and balance when determining the outcome of a minority group nomination to an outside body, but was in favour of the recommendations.

Councillor Pitchley supported the freedom of speech, but not the right to offend and believed boundaries had been crossed.

Councillor Cooksey believed this was not about free speech, but about standards in public life and how Councillor Cutts had not made the remarks under pressure, but by choice.

Councillor Napper believed everyone had the right to their own opinion.  Training was recommended for Councillor Cutts yet three Scrutiny Chairs, who had been trained, were previously found to be unfit for office by a Government official, but retained their seats whilst it was recommended that Councillor Cutts be removed from all what he sat on.

Councillor Ellis defended the right to free speech, but the issue here was more about the manner in which views were put forward.  She referred to the outcome of the Standards and Ethics Sub-Committee and the equalities responsibility and duty of elected representatives.

In her view Councillor Cutts should be removed from representing the Council on the Police and Crime Panel due to breaches of the code and concerns over a number of years.

Councillor B. Cutts addressed the meeting pointing out he had only ever had real concerns for the children in the Borough who he believed would be targeted at some point should their family dynamics be different to others.  Statements and comments made by Members related only to sexual orientation.  He was distressed following the meeting in question when he was shouted at by some attendees when making a simple point about how two men could father a child. 

It was still his view that a child needed the love of a mother, which would always be his preference and believed there were differences between a male and a female and there should be a balance of both.

Councillor B. Cutts referred the Council to the report and Section 2.4 on Page 71 and the focus of the debate on lesbians and gay men fostering children rather than on the children themselves.

Councillor Fenwick-Green drew comparisons of how children learned to hate and how growing up they learned acceptance from home.

Councillor McNeely in her right to reply reiterated that the hearing panel had been made up of a majority of independent persons and not Elected Members.

Resolved:-  That the Council remove Councillor Brian Cutts from the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel. 

Mover:-  Councillor McNeely                     Seconder:-  Councillor Vjestica