POLICE were called to a meeting of Warrington Borough Council after a member refused to leave after the council had voted for him to be excluded.
Rebel Labour councillor Kevin Bennett (pictured) refused to leave the meeting after members – including most of the controlling Labour Group – had voted that he be asked to leave the council chamber.
The Mayor, Cllr Peter Carey, called police and two officers arrived at the Town Hall.
They spoke to council solicitor Tim Date – then asked Cllr Bennett to leave and he agreed to do so peacefully.
But he later issued a statement in which he criticised the Mayor for “turning the meeting into a circus.”
He added: “This makes a laughing stock of our council, and politicises the role of the Mayor.
“While this smokescreen was being generated, there were serious questions which the leader (Cllr Terry O’Neill) failed to answer about his recent conduct.
“These questions will not just go away quietly and I will continue to ask them, despite the vicious hate campaign that some members of the Labour Group seem to have launched against me.”
Liberal Democrat councillors voted against the move to expel Cllr Bennett as did at least one Labour member, Cllr Jan Davidson. But some Conservatives voted with the Labour group.
The situation – described by Conservative leader Cllr Paul Kennedy as “a shameful episode and an embarrassment to the council” – arose following an incident at the previous meeting of the council when a legitimate question, asked by Cllr Bennett, was struck from the agenda on the instructions of the council leader, against the advice of the council solicitor.
Cllr Bennett subsequently threatened to report the council to the Local Government Ombudsman over the issue.
Liberal Democrat leader Cllr Ian Marks said: “In an extraordinary personal statement to the council, the Labour leader admitted that he had demanded the question be removed because Cllr Bennett had not followed Labour’s ‘agreed political protocol’.
“He did this despite being strongly advised by the Council’s legal officer that the question was legitimate and it was a breach of the council’s constitution to strike it out.
“In a parliamentary democracy, it is fundamental that elected politicians are bound by constitutional rules which must take precedence over party political protocols. To abandon this principle is a slippery slope which it is dangerous to go down.”
Cllr Bob Barr, Lib Dem, added: “Sadly the council leader failed to answer questions about why he had ignored legal advice or which section of the constitution gave him powers to censor legitimate questions from elected councillors.
“If the ruling group can change the constitution to make their own party rules prevail, what is to stop them banning questions from opposition parties or the public in future?”
After the meeting, Cllr Bennett – who is currently suspended from the Labour Group following an earlier fall-out with the party – said: “The Mayor moved a vote on whether I should leave the chamber. He gave no explanation why I should leave and therefore I remained in my seat and exercised my right to peaceful protest.
“Some Labour and Lib Dem councillors voted against his suggestion to evict me. In the end, the Mayor turned the meeting into a circus by calling the police on the grounds that his authority was being challenged. After a meeting with the police and the council solicitor, the police asked me to leave, which I did peacefully.”
Cllr Sheila Woodyatt, Conservative, who voted for Cllr Bennett to be excluded from the meeting, said: “This was a direct challenge to the authority of the Mayor, who is the Queen’s representative in Warrington.
“At one time, this would have been considered treason.”
In a statement, the controlling Labour Group said: “”This Labour administration is appalled by the actions and slanderous comments of suspended Cllr Kevin Bennett and we call on him to apologise to the police, council officers, the people of Warrington and especially the residents of his ward, Fairfield and Howley. However, we are also disgusted at the implicit encouragement Cllr Bennett received from the Lib Dems who refused to vote to have him expelled for disrespecting the Mayor and being rude to others in a public meeting.
“What Cllr Bennett and the Lib Dems need to understand is that the public and this Labour administration are more concerned about the council’s budget to provide essential local services being slashed by £80million by their Coalition Government, youth unemployment being ridiculously high, disabled people being hammered by the bedroom tax and hard working families and pensioners struggling with ever increasing gas and electricity bills.”
The stormy meeting was adjourned twice – for a total of about one and-a-quarter hours.
Police called after rebel councillor refuses to leave shameful Town Hall meeting
2828 Comments
Share.
About Author
Gary Skentelbery
Experienced journalist for more than 40 years. Managing Director of magazine publishing group with three in-house titles and on-line daily newspaper for Warrington. Experienced writer, photographer, PR consultant and media expert having written for local, regional and national newspapers. Specialties: PR, media, social networking, photographer, networking, advertising, sales, media crisis management. Chair of Warrington Healthwatch Director Warrington Chamber of Commerce Patron Tim Parry Johnathan Ball Foundation for Peace. Trustee Warrington Disability Partnership. Former Chairman of Warrington Town FC.
28 Comments
A couple of years ago,when labour were in opposition, disruption was caused at a Council meeting when a member of Labour’s youth wing tried to give a speech, which, as he was a member of the public, not an elected councillor, was against procedure. Labour very vocally supported him. It is clear that what is important to Warrington Labour is not procedure, unless it suits them, and not Democracy – what matters is toeing the party line.
unbelievable! Is this councillor a child?
Spot on Sheilla. Councillors do not realise that as you quite rightly said ‘ The mayor (whether Mr or madam Mayor) are the monachs representative when the monach is not in the borough.
How many anti royalist mayors realise this though???
The mayor, all be it the Queen’s representative, is usually elected simply because he/she is a long server and the fact that this chain wearer has authority is very medieval and has no place in a democracy. The currect incumbent seems to simply supporting has party’s leader who is refusing to explain his alleged illegal actions.
Does Warrington need a mayor?
The mans a clown, I’d be really fed up if I had voted for him.
The Mayorality of Warrrington dates back to the incorporation act ( hence corporation) of 1846 Warrington had its first mayor in 1847.
William Beaumont was the first mayor. before that the barons ruled the land. so to call the mayoality medieval actually is the reverse.
The mayor is indeed the leading citizen of the borough no matter how good or not so good they appear.
Might be a case then to have the Mayors elected by the citizens. We might then get a Boris Johnson ? food for thought
Surely what should happen is a vote of no confidence in the Mayor? The legal officer in attendance and the chief exec, acting at the time, told Terry Oneil that he should allow the question from Councillor Bennett last time. The Labour Leader refused to abide by the constitution because he says his Party’s protocol is more important than the constitution. The Mayor then calls the police because Councillor Bennett won’t sit down and shut up. Whoever is in power on our Council, the rule of law and the principles of democracy should be paramount. But then the local Labour party has been investigated by the national party after allegations of bullying and other mis doings. Wouldn’t trust them.
As the Queen’s representative, whatever his own political leanings the Mayor should at all times be impartial and remain scrupulously above party politics throughout his term of office. Moreover, he should never have initiated (or moved a vote) on whether Cllr Bennett should have left the chamber. If this report is correct, Cllr Carey has sullied both this borough’s Mayoral office and the Council’s Labour administration by his behaviour at the meeting. Although, it has to be said the present administration’s actions to date have done little to commend its democratic credentials.
Wasn’t he in the news in April for talking out of turn and bemoaning unavoidable cuts that have to be made due to the austerity measures imposed by the coalition? I’m guessing this was a similar issue.. We have a lot of councillors doing their best for the town. Thy aren’t helped by a councillor turning a meeting into a sideshow and then trying to point the finger at the mayor. If you’re asked to leave by just about everyone in the room and you force their hand by not leaving you can’t be surprised when calling their bluff gets you booted out!
Fortunately, Ms Woodyatt we’ve moved on. Perhaps you yearn for pocket boroughs, voting eligibility decided by property-owning and you yourself refused the vote because of your gender. I notice that that other news website for Warrington has followed the Labour Party’s view of free speech and disallowed comments on this story.
I heard he was being allowed to make his point that the leader and chief exec should not have over-ruled the legal advice about his earlier question. But he then strayed over the line into silly defamatory accusations which it might be wise not to repeat – and as the council chamber doesn’t have parliamentary privilege, he could have ended up being sued for defamation so it was probably in his interest for the mayor to stop him.
It appears that this action was taken because he broke, not the constitutional rules but, the Labour party’s internal rules – it is not the place of the Police to enforce those. I hope that the Cllr involved considers making a formal complaint against the Police and has the officers involved investigated for potential abuse of their authority.
Right on the nail Nick in Cllr Woodyatt’s direction; not forgetting rotten boroughs, which sadly still seem to be very much with us.
Kevin Bennett is an absolute plonker of the first order .Step down from the Labour Party and be a Real Man instead of shouting and screaming behind the red rose .
Bennett is yesterday’s man.
Judging by the headlines, he is very much today’s man and seems to have touched a nerve or two in this shambolic council of ours. Pity his fellow councillors, Messers Higgins and Carey don’t have the same gravitas….
I was just amazed that they called the Police…………. and they actually turned up on the same night…..how many people does that happen to when the situation is not lefe threatening?
looks bitter and twisted to me
He’s got good reason to be bitter.
The Yoof I mentioned in my first posting has now been announced as a Labour candidate – I hope he’s learnt to behave , mind you different rules apply when you’re in with the Labour Junta.
Some one is obviously putting pressure on WG to curb free discussion on this important matter, because it was briefly opened up for discussion this morning only to be closed down again after a couple of innocuous comments were posted. There are now two slots in the WG on the topic both of which do not allow comment. It would be interesting to find out if the local Labour administration is putting the squeeze on the WG or others within the Council are applying a legalistic ligature, for whatever reason.
Good idea……………….. lets waste more police time…………………………
A word of thanks to Editor David for continuing to promote this important discussion thread when others have fallen by the wayside.
I attended the Council meeting in question.
These are my observations and an email I have addressed to all councillors.
Ladies and Gentlemen.
I attended the full Council meeting last Monday (for the first time in my life) and feel so strongly about what I saw that I wish to express my disgust at the way Cllr. Bennett was treated when he was trying to make a point prior to the vote to appoint Steve Broomhead (a point I will return to in a moment). Is it little wonder that the public have a less than positive view of politicians as a whole?
In my view it was unnecessary and an abuse of power by the Mayor in these circumstances to call for the meeting to be adjourned, and completely disrespectful to Cllr. B for members to walk out. From my observation these were mostly Labour Group councillors with a few notable and honourable exceptions. You all know which group you are in and you should be ashamed. I noted carefully that there was no red light on Cllr B’s traffic lights whilst he was speaking and he should have been allowed to finish.
Even prior to the walkout a significant majority of you were shouting or talking loudly with the clear intention of denying Cllr Benefit a voice. It goes without saying that if a member of the public had been as vocal and disruptive in a meeting then they would have been given short shrift. You should all with the few honourable exceptions be ashamed of yourselves. I do however note the report in today’s Guardian that a Labour Group spokesman is claiming Cllr Benefit was “disrespecting the Mayor”. Well if disrespect is to enter the equation let’s at least get the facts right.
I made a note at the time the Mayor said his authority had been challenged. He said he had to suspend the meeting, “at the time we were interrupted” meaning an interruption by Cllr. B. Which of course is a complete distortion of the actual sequence of events. The meeting was being disrupted by the vocal majority of you who for several minutes after Cllr B had started to speak were clearly intent on drowning him out. For the Mayor to claim it was Cllr B that was interrupting the meeting is just plain wrong. Maybe the Mayor said it in the heat of the moment but nevertheless as a statement it is untrue. I have a verbatim written note.
The Mayor then compounded his problem by boxing himself into a corner he could so easily have avoided had he remained calm when he said he would call the police if Cllr Bennett did not leave the room. That was stupidity of the first order. As far as I can see there is no provision in the Council Constitution which allows for calling the police. Did he really expect the police to physically manhandle him out of the chamber? Surely not. Anyone with a more measured approach would have let Cllr. Bennett finish his point. And I won’t accept the excuse that by allowing him to stay after being asked to leave he could then have voted in the Broomhead vote. It would have been open to the Mayor to disallow Cllr B’s vote in those circumstances and all the drama would have been avoided. It’s not even that the vote was ever going to be close since it seemed to me that the whole Labour group had been whipped to vote in favour of Steve Broomhead.
Common courtesy alone dictated that Cllr. B was due respect and should have been allowed his two minutes. You were a disgrace. Where was the Voltaire dictum that should apply in this as in all walks of life? (And if you don’t know what it is I suggest you look it up). Many of you were acting more like a pack of wild herd animals baying for blood, and I’m not interested in any previous controversy which might have been in your minds and advising your loutish behaviour. Except I have to say that for the leader to cite internal Labour Party guidelines on asking questions, as if these were tablets of stone enshrined in council regulations and should apply to council business on any subject, was just pathetic. Cllr Bennett should have been allowed to make his point within the council rules.
Now an unfortunate precedent has been set. What will you do the next time someone (councillor or member of the public) really does start shouting or disrupting a meeting and who refuses to leave the chamber? Will resorting to the police become the default position? And then what? What if unlike Cllr. B they refuse to meet the police and are quiet when the police attend? Do you really expect someone to be physically manhandled in those circumstances? Surely not. You all really need to think carefully about this.
Calling the police was a draconian measure worthy of a police state. Apart from bringing the council into disrepute and making it a laughing stock, most normal people I suggest would regard calling the police in these circumstances as a total waste of police time. Wasting police time is of course a criminal offence under section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 and I would suggest the Mayor himself has a few a questions to answer. A point I will be pursuing further with both the council officers and the police.
Coming to the appointment of Steven Broomhead.
I found the statements that it would be too costly to re-advertise the position of Chief Executive, and the leader’s words that “we’d be unlikely to find someone”, as laughable, lamentable excuses and totally unacceptable. I have heard it said that one councillor was quoted as saying ‘better the devil we know”, which if true is an unbelievable reason for appointing SB.
SB said himself in an interview last December that it was not in his life plan to be CE and that the search for a new CE could last until 2014. So what has changed? If it’s not in his life plan one has to ask is he really going to be energised in a useful way on behalf of Warrington?
Maybe now is a time to allow real democracy to prevail and let the public have a vote on whether Warrington should have a directly elected Mayor instead of a Chief Executive.
As I’m sure you’re all aware the Local Government Act allows the council to opt for the Mayoral model after public consultation. If the council won’t move this forward then if 5% of the electorate can be encouraged to sign a petition calling for a referendum the council could be forced to have one. In such a referendum Steve B. could still be allowed to put his name on the list along with anyone else. If he’s really the man the public want then he would be ‘back in charge’ with a real democratic mandate. If he’s not then he won’t. What is there to lose?
You’ll forgive me for expressing it this way but given Monday night’s debacle the appointment of a CE should not be left to councillors who show little vision and who perpetuate what seems an incestuous jobs for the boys culture.
Anyone interested in moving a petition for Mayor forward let me know.
Nick.
I have as a matter of course already submitted a formal complaint to the Standards Committee. (See below) I don’t think the police are to blame here, however I am also asking them to comment on why they thought it appropriate to attend in these most unusual circumstances.
I honestly believe that Cllr. Carey committed the offence of wasting police time which of course is a criminal offence if true
FAO the Standards Committee
Good evening,
I attended the full Council meeting on Monday 2nd December 2013 and took various notes.
You will know of course that the session was suspended by the Mayor Councillor Carey and the police were called to evict councillor Bennett.
I believe the Mayor acted unconstitutionally in that
1. He failed to name Cllr. Bennett in accordance with section 31.3.
2. That being the case the vote that the Mayor subsequently took presumably believing it to be covered by 31.4 was itself unconstitutional.
3. The mayor summoned the police to evict Councillor Bennett. There is no provision in the Constitution which permits this and neither was any Public Order offence being committed which might be the only justification for such an act.
As a consequence of the Mayor’s acts or failure to act constitutionally he has brought the Council’s name into disrepute.
I ask for Councillor Carey to be suspended whilst this matter is investigated.
Notwithstanding any internal investigation, Cllr. Carey, by calling the police without any justification has I believe committed the criminal offence of wasting police time contrary to section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, and I ask the council to contact the police asking them to conduct a separate police investigation into the offence of wasting police time.
I think someone needs to report you for wasting everyones time.
A little Long winded matey keep it simple next time
@Sid Snot
Admittedly the web site has destroyed the layout of the original which is much better with white space and bullet points where relevant. Sorry about that.
However this was an extremely serious event, one which can’t be analysed or dealt with in a few words. In essence there were remarkable and unconstitutional happenings which need dealing with. Sadly there was no video recording so we are in the hands of the minute taker.
I remember the warning that the Tory minister Francis Pymm gave in 1983 about the dangers of the large 1983 majority the conservatives had just secured under Margaret Thatcher. He was proven right. Too large a majority for any party is not healthy.
I see much the same happening here in Warrington with a large Labour Group that is self evidently out of control and moving quickly towards what they regard as a divine right to rule according to their beliefs and dictats. This last episode being just one instance. Even the central Labour Party have had to step in so serious do they regard it.
We are in a very dark place with the current and arrogant Labour Group in power. It will either self destruct or rule with a soviet style iron fist. One hopes it’s the former since any semblance of democratic accountability will surely continue to disappear out of the council chamber.
Richard you are right on most counts listed in your last two posting and for the reasons stated. But you have omitted or forgotten to blend into your toxic mix the influence of or on the council officers of all of the above, and ask whether it is a benign or malign one. greyman makes reference to this in a parallel posting on the appointment of the CEO’s in similar fashion to you.