At Pendle Council’s latest full meeting, concerns were raised regarding the council’s Standards Committee system, following a recent decision involving Liberal Democrat Councillor David Whipp. Conservative Councillor Neil Butterworth voiced his discomfort with the current process, where councillors are responsible for judging the conduct of their fellow councillors. Butterworth described the system as “harsh,” noting the difficulty of making impartial decisions about colleagues with whom they may have close professional or personal relationships.
The issue arose from a standards hearing held in August, where Coun Whipp was found to have breached the code of conduct. The breach related to an incident at a meeting in 2022, during which Coun Whipp forcefully opened a door at Nelson Town Hall while other councillors were positioned behind it. Based on the evidence presented, the committee concluded that Coun Whipp had applied “undue and excessive force” to the door, violating the standards expected of councillors. Despite denying accusations that he had kicked the door, Coun Whipp accepted the committee’s decision and submitted a written apology, which was read out at the full council meeting by Mayor Mohammad Aslam.
Pendle Council’s Standards Committee is chaired by an independent individual with no formal connection to the council. The committee reviews evidence from various sources, including senior council officers, staff, elected members, and external witnesses. However, the system has come under fire due to the perceived difficulties of councillors judging one another’s conduct. Coun Butterworth, who participated in the August standards meeting for the first time, expressed his unease, stating that it placed councillors in an awkward position where personal and professional relationships could influence their judgment. He emphasized that the process was not as impartial as it could be, calling it a “higgledy-piggledy” procedure and highlighting that the person leading the meeting was not fully informed about potential sanctions that could be applied.
Coun Butterworth argued that an independent body should handle these cases instead of councillors. He believes this would eliminate the inherent conflict of interest that arises when councillors are tasked with judging their peers. He stated, “We are required to judge someone who is a friend. I think it’s wrong. It should be done by an independent body.” His comments suggest a desire for reform to ensure greater fairness and transparency in the standards process.
However, not all councillors shared Coun Butterworth’s view. Independent Councillor Mohammed Iqbal acknowledged the challenge of councillors judging their peers but pointed out that changes to the standards process could not be decided at a full council meeting. He hinted that such changes would require a more formal review of the system. Pendle True Independent Councillor Yasser Iqbal supported the validity of the current process, noting that while Coun Whipp may not have been happy with the decision, it was a fair outcome based on the evidence provided. He also raised concerns about the financial implications of switching to an independent body, suggesting that it would incur additional costs for the council.
Coun Yasser Iqbal, who participated in the August hearing, further elaborated on the nature of the meeting. He described the atmosphere as “volatile,” with some heckling and disruption in the background. Although the hearing had its challenges, he maintained that the evidence presented by all parties was genuine, even if some of the testimony may have sparked tension among the attendees. Despite the heated environment, he believed the committee had reached a fair conclusion based on the available information.
The debate over the Standards Committee system has highlighted differing perspectives on how complaints about councillor conduct should be handled. While Coun Butterworth’s call for an independent body reflects concerns about fairness and potential bias, others believe the existing system remains adequate. Coun Whipp, who left the chamber during the discussion of his own apology due to a declared interest, has accepted the committee’s decision, and some councillors feel the matter should now be put to rest.
However, the broader issue of whether councillors should continue to judge their colleagues remains unresolved. While some argue that an independent review system would provide greater impartiality, others see it as unnecessary and potentially costly. The discussion has opened the door to further consideration of the standards process, but for now, it appears that Pendle Council will continue to rely on the peer review system, despite the concerns raised.