Cornwall Council votes to strengthen protections of free speech
Councillors aim to safeguard lawful political expression
Cornwall Council has voted in favour of a motion designed to strengthen the protection of free speech and fair process within the council.
The motion, proposed by Cllr Roger Tarrant and seconded by Independent councillor Dulcie Tudor, seeks an urgent review of the handling of complaints, assessment thresholds, and investigative processes where alleged breaches of conduct are concerned.
Over the upcoming six months, this review aims to ensure that councillors are not investigated or sanctioned solely for expressing lawful political views, however robust or controversial.
Cllr Tarrant emphasised the importance of tolerance for opposing views as a cornerstone of democracy, noting that increasing use of the code of conduct might suppress legitimate expression of legally held views.
He stressed that even when investigations lead to exoneration, the process itself can serve as punishment, potentially discouraging debate and inhibiting free speech.
During a full council meeting, Cllr Tudor highlighted the polarisation in political discourse and its impacts on local government, including increased standards complaints and reputational attacks.
She affirmed that the current procedures at times fail to protect against disproportionate investigations, citing her own lengthy investigation despite her comments being found lawful.
Cornwall Council spent £1,250 on external legal advice for the complaints against Cllr Tudor.
Mebyon Kernow councillor Loveday Jenkin responded, as chair of the standards committee, that the code of conduct is continually monitored and current procedures offer adequate protection.
Meanwhile, other council members showed varying degrees of support for the motion. Some, like Cllr Rowland O’Connor and Lib Dem Cllr Juliet Line, backed the motion stressing that politically motivated complaints cause distress to the accused.
Those against, including Green Party group leader Cllr Drew Creek, expressed concerns about vulnerable groups potentially being affected by political language.
Ultimately, the motion was passed with 42 votes in support and 26 against, and will now be discussed further by the standards committee.