Agenda item

To receive any items that the Chairman considers to be urgent.

There were no items of urgent business. 

 

The meeting ended at 10.50pm

 

PUBLIC SPEAKING – SUMMARIES OF STATEMENTS

 

Susan Perry spoke in favour of the motion to remove Councillor Knight as Chairman of the Standards Committee, raising the following points:

 

The radio interviews given by Councillor Knight show a lack of knowledge of basic law around sexual harassment which was not commensurate with chairing the committee effectively; the absence of a required level of competence for members of Standards Committee is of concern; the lack of understanding Councillor Knight showed of the principle that people had the right to be able to work in a non-threatening environment was greatly concerning.

 

Sophie Durlacher spoke in favour of the same motion, raising the following points:

 

Councillor Knight was wrong to have stated that groping was not a crime and should have issued a correction after the interview in which she made this point; she was free to make the comments she did, but they were not appropriate for someone who held public office and in particular the role of chairman of a Scrutiny Committee; an unpleasant anonymous letter referred to those objecting to her comments as being part of a “new Holocaust”, and being Jewish, Ms Durlacher asserted the objections to the statement Councillor Knight had made were not fascist, but were made with democratic intention to hold her to account for her ill-chosen words.

 

Martin Day spoke in favour of the same motion, raising the following points:

 

As a business owner and father, it was important to provide an environment for young people which did not normalise behaviour which objectified women or constituted sexual harassment.  Those working in the hospitality industry were often low-paid and had few options for taking on other employment, so did need protection in the workplace.  It was no excuse that the Presidents’ Club dinner had raised large sums of money for charity.

 

Katy Day spoke in favour of the same motion, raising the following points:

 

Councillor Knight’s comments appeared to perpetuate the view that female employees at events such as the Presidents’ Club dinner should “put up or shut up”, and that the wallet justified the behaviour of the guests.  No woman in future should feel she had to accept such conditions.  Given the comments she had made, how would Councillor Knight be able to deal with a referral to the Scrutiny Committee of a complaint of harassment?

 

Janina Vigurs spoke in favour of the same motion, raising the following points:

 

Having experienced sexual harassment, there is a lasting effect on the victim and a perpetuation of an environment in which serious sexual crime can be more likely, if people are allowed to get away with similar less serious behaviour unchallenged. If Councillor Knight has dedicated her efforts to supporting women, she should realise the impact on them of such behaviour.  Comments indicating that “most” women can deal with this behaviour contribute to the reasons why women do not report crime, and fuel a culture of sexual harassment.

 

Sue Lawson spoke in favour of the same motion, raising the following points:

 

Whilst Councillor Knight says the comments were made in her private capacity, we live in a social media and celebrity culture that blurs the boundaries; I request Governance, Audit and Performance Committee reviews the terms of the code of conduct to clarify when it is reasonable to claim a member is speaking in a private capacity; Councillor Knight’s incorrect comments about the law of sexual harassment were in contrast to those of the Prime Minister and UDC’s Leader, and show a lack of judgment.  I ask that the motion be amended to remove Councillor Knight as a member of the Standards Committee. 

 

Justin Rhodes spoke in favour of the same motion, raising the following points:

 

Whilst groping does not equate to rape, an event such as the Presidents’ Club dinner chips away at the rights of women.  Councillor Knight can speak freely in the media but has shown a lack of judgment particularly as Chairman of Standards Committee.  She said she spoke as a businesswoman but in the world of instant communication on social media it is not feasible to separate roles like that.

 

Sarah Ellis spoke in favour of the same motion, raising the following points:

 

From my work as an educator of young people, I see the damaging results of comments such as those made by Councillor Knight, which gave a message of inequality between men and women.  Councillor Knight’s comments show lack of knowledge and judgment.  There is a responsibility on employers to ensure the work environment is not discriminatory, and a vote in supporting her competence is complicit in such discrimination. 

 

Doug Perry spoke against the same motion, raising the following points:

 

Councillor Knight stood up for what is right, and has, as I have also, been attacked many times for views expressed in connection with the local plan.  This matter has been handled badly, as was the issue of Council Tax fraud in respect of another member, indicating double standards.  This is a witch hunt, Councillor Knight has clear redress through freedom of speech under human rights legislation.  She has suffered harm from these personal attacks.  Tonight’s meeting papers have been corrupted by inclusion of words such as “harassment”, which is clearly not relevant, with further corruption by email, to predetermine who the nominee for the chairmanship is to be.  This is persecution, it is political and shows double standards.  I speak as a resident of Saffron Walden and not as a town councillor. 

 

Amelie Gerard spoke in favour of the same motion, raising the following points:

 

I am 15.  I am glad to hear that Councillor Knight is considered to be a good parish and district councillor. This is about how councillors conduct themselves in public, and the confidence placed in them.  Many teenagers have part-time jobs, but do the comments Councillor Knight made mean it is right that we have to worry about being to blame if someone gropes us at work, or something inappropriate should happen?  It is not acceptable.  Please think of young people when you cast your vote. 

 

 

Angela Foster spoke against the same motion, raising the following points:

 

Councillor Knight did not condone the behaviour of individuals at the Presidents’ Club dinner, and her comments can be interpreted in different ways.  Standards Committee should be looking closely at the question of harassment directed at Councillor Knight.  She did not say being at the event was “hilarious”, but said this about the way in which the journalist went about reporting the event.  Councillor Knight has been an active employer and supporter of women for years.  Shame on those speaking against her. 

 

Anthony Robertson spoke against the same motion, raising the following points:

 

As a grandfather and father, and a retired policeman who was involved in victim support, I consider the “Yummy Mummies” are not the only people who care about women’s rights.  To think that harassment could have happened at one of the most secure hotels in London is absurd, and no criminality was found to have taken place at the event.  There has been an orchestrated social media campaign which was disgraceful.  To demonstrate outside the Council offices showed poor judgment.  Councillors should reject the motion.

 

 

 

The following transcript of part of the recording of this meeting has been provided by Councillor Knight, who has asked that it be included with the Minutes.  Whilst those Minutes were agreed by the Council at its meeting on 10 April 2018, and therefore the transcript provided by Councillor Knight is not part of the Minutes of the meeting, it was agreed by the Council that as there were exceptional circumstances, Councillor Knight should be permitted to add a document to the Minutes.  The following is therefore an addendum which has been added as a separate statement to the Minutes of the meeting at the request of Councillor Knight, as an exception to procedure.  Councillor Knight has asked that anyone referring to the Minutes of the meeting should also listen to the audio recording. 

 

Point of Recording 43:20

 

Howard Rolfe - Presenting this motion is one of the unpleasant responsibilities of being Leader of the Council.  Let me begin by saying what it is not.  It is not about Tina Knight’s role as District Councillor.  She has effectively represented Debden & Wimbish for almost 13 years, created links with Tang Ting in Nepal, liaised with Carver Barracks and worked on many other initiatives in the community.  It is not political.  On the first Friday a statement was issued by all three political parties which summarised their concern.  There has been no political comment since from any current councillor.  The issue is about comments made in interviews on BBC Radio by the Chairman of this Council’s Standards Committee.  We are discussing the matter in council because who is Chairman of that Committee is a council decision.  Reference has been made to free speech but this is a prerogative term.  Some comments break the law and others are simply ill advised.  Cllr Knight was not interviewed as a councillor, but she is a councillor and, more specifically, Chairman of the Standards Committee.  Her public comments matter.  The motion is in 5 parts.  I intend to take Sections 1-4 as one vote and then subject to the outcome will consider Section 5.  Section 1 summarises both the council’s standards and values and the law.  It is essentially a statement of fact.  Section 2 comments on remarks made by Cllr Knight and how they are at odds with codes laid out in Section 1.  I believe all councillors have seen transcripts of two of the interviews.  I do not intend to read from them but clearly the comments about groping not being sexual harassment are particularly material.  Section 3 notes that the Standards Committee might have to deal with such matters and Section 4 lays out that the comments are inconsistent with our standards and values and therefore with the role of chairing the body that upholds the council’s standards.  When the Council noted the interviews it had three options: to agree with the comments, to ignore the comments or to take action as a consequence of the comments.  Of the three options, I don’t believe we agree with the comments I don’t believe a responsible, 21^st Century public body can ignore the comments when the rest of the world, the film industry, the charitable sector, the Houses of Parliament are saying that the ‘boy’s will be boy’s’ culture is over.  That groping is sexual harassment.  I believe we have a responsibility to the staff and councillors of UDC and the people of Uttlesford to show leadership and commitment to our standards.  I therefore propose the motion.

 

Councillor Dean – It gives me no pleasure in seconding this motion.  It should have been possible to deal with the matter in a different way than bringing what is effectively a motion of no confidence in the present chairmanship of this council’s Standards Committee and I sincerely regret we are where we are tonight.  I have been pleased to serve on the Standards Committee alongside Cllr Tina Knight for the past 3 years.  During that time, Cllr Knight has led a major review of the way the standards system at Uttlesford operates.  Previously, it did not work well enough, but now it is much more rigorous and there are far clearer responsibilities that should lead to more objective adjudication of complaints.  I have known Tina Knight for over 40 years.  We worked together in the 1970’s to take British Rail to task over its services for commuters on the local railway line.  I suppose my memories of those days were of a woman who does all that she can to stand up to unthinking bureaucracy; especially ones that do not deliver good service to customers.  Most of us know that Tina has been more successful than many men and women in making her mark in the business community.  To do that one has to be outspoken and to be willing to make people think and to be prepared to ruffle more than a few feathers.  The existence of freedom of expression, of free speech, and the ability to exercise them are essential to the shaping of public opinion and a key part of a democratic society.  You all know the maximum about defending peoples rights tof their points of view.  The issue tonight is not that Tina has no right to express her opinions.  It has nothing to do with my agreeing with them, nor my not agreeing with them and what she said on the radio.  Nor does it matter that she was not speaking as a Councillor when she gave her two radio interviews.  The issue is whether Tina Knight‘s publicly expressed opinions on the radio about the events at the Dorchester Hotel would be likely to bring into question, and would affect people’s perception of her judgement in any case of similar interpersonal behaviour that might arise in future within the council were such a complaint to be adjudicated by a Standards Committee of which she was Chairman.  I think it would be very difficult to disentangle the two matters in most people’s eyes.  The objectivity of the standards process would likely be compromised.  For that reason alone, I believe that the council and the public would be best served by appointing a new chairman to the Standards Committee.  I will end by thanking Cllr Tina Knight for her important contribution to the standards process during her period as the Committee’s Chairman.  She has much to offer the council and the local community.  I hope that Cllr Knight will not let this interlude dim her robustness in defending her constituents nor reduce her natural tendency to challenge where challenge is needed.

 

Cllr Lodge – I think as we have seen this evening there has been an enormous amount of interest and many people have spoken and I am very pleased that you have allowed them to do so.  So, to avoid the danger of repeating many of the issues R4U District Councillors have decided to consolidate their views into a single statement which speaks to the important core principals.  The first important principal is the right to free speech.  R4U works hard to be plain spoken and speaks up for people who feel they don’t have a voice but we are mindful that free speech also has responsibilities and all too easily complex issues can be reduced to soundbytes which can be misrepresented or misunderstood.  In reading the media recently it would seem that this may have unintentionally happened here and, in fact, on all sides.  With regard to free speech it is a shameful indictment of transparency and democracy that this council administration has a policy which limits the number of public speakers at council meetings and decides who can and cannot speak.  I believe the Council has only allowed more speakers tonight after bowing to public pressure and from the local media.  The public pay for this Council.  It is elected by them and all residents should have the right to be heard.  Not to do so is grossly undemocratic and we should remember that for ongoing meetings.  The second principal, and just as important, is equality and R4U’s position is clear.  It is our belief that there is no place for inequality in modern society and, in fact, our actions speak louder than words since the last election for this District Council our District Councillors have been in fact composed of half women.  So it’s important as we strive to represent as many local views as possible.  But even though its 100 years since women began to get the vote much of our society is still out of step.  Many professions fail to properly recognise women through equal pay, career progression and other opportunities.  Even worse, the vestiges of our patriarchal society mean that often women are still marginalised and objectified as we have seen.  Nationally, there is a very public and ongoing debate about the situation with women, and both women (and men) are standing up for a fairer, more equal, society.  But when they do stand up then often those who accept the status quo who have their own agenda seek to undermine the change.  We have seen that with a local campaign group which has formed recently and are represented here tonight as we have heard.  It just so happens, that one of the many people involved in that campaign group is married to an R4U Councillor.  Certain politically-motivated activists have sought to hijack the equality agenda by publically insinuating that because of this connection R4U is behind this kind of smear campaign.  These false accusations are designed to distract from the real debate and that debate is securing gender equality.  It is farcical and patronising in the extreme to suggest that a woman who is standing up against the patriarchal society would be doing so because she’s been told to by her husband.  Hundreds of suffragists and suffragettes would be spinning in their graves now.  R4U refuses to be drawn into these activists’ petty party-political game because both equality and free speech are more important.  This means that after we have made this point and this joint statement R4U Councillors do not intend to speak further on this motion and we will not participate in that vote.  We do, however, support the Councils’ affirmation of its belief that everyone has the right to be treated with dignity and respect whether it is in the workplace or beyond, which includes not being subject to harassment.  Finally, this Council should look to the future and how we change it.  2018 already feels like the year of positive change on equality it feels that that is coming but to make that a reality will take decisive action and this Council needs to take its own steps.  Two weeks ago, just after the centenary that women started to get the vote, we submitted a motion to this Council and we will vote on that tonight.  The current District Council policies and tools are not aspirational; they only require the absolute bare minimum of compliance with the law.  That is why we are proposing the formation of a new Equalities Committee.  We wish it to be cross-party and to include independent residents/representatives from the community.  Its purpose will be to ensure that the Council (INTERRUPTION from Chairman reminding Cllr Lodge to stay on track with this motion!).  I was saying the purpose is to ensure the Council and its constitution and practice is fully equitable and we will talk about that later on.  I mention it for a particular reason it is time for UDC to lead and not follow on this issue.  We believe that this is a progressive proposal that all councillors should support so we look forward to cross-party support from our fellow council colleagues.  My colleague Cllr Light will introduce that later on.  Now then, it would be very good if, and I’ve done a calculation here maybe 50, 60, 70  members of the public could actually hear that debate.  It’s now scheduled to be item 23 on the agenda and everyone here will have to sit through some 20 motions to hear that.  So, because they have come here to listen and participate, Mr Chairman, I would very respectfully ask if that could be brought forward and dealt with as the next item on the agenda for the benefit of the public.  (INTERRUPTION from Chairman again saying debating this motion at present.)

           

Cllr Harris – I wasn’t going to speak but I feel compelled to now.  Voting against or abstaining I do not believe makes me complicit in supporting a crime.  I resent that comment.  I don’t believe the two things go hand in hand at all.  I support the right that anyone, not just councillors, has the right to a private life and it clear to me, on this occasion, that Cllr Knight was indeed speaking in her capacity as something other than a councillor.  I cannot support this motion but equally I can’t oppose it and it concerns me greatly that for the first time in seven years I will abstain on this vote.  I am ashamed at how the Council has dealt with this matter.  There is more than one form of harassment.  We have heard a lot about that this evening and I believe that the council’s poor approach to dealing with this matter has actually led to Tina being a victim of harassment here.

 

Cllr Jones – I want to make it very clear that I am going to vote against the motion.  I am doing so primarily because of the way the whole thing has been handled.  It has been absolutely shameful.  In effect, we will have the decision taken on this matter by public debate.  In the three or four weeks since the matter has become public Cllr Knight, to my knowledge, has not had the opportunity to meet with people to explain her take on the interviews that she carried out (interruption by someone) and I firmly believe that everyone has a right to have their say before they are condemned.  Now we’ve heard a lot about free speech and I defend that.  I think people should have free speech but they must also be accountable for it.  I certainly believe people should have a fair hearing before such time as they are condemned.   And, as I say, I shall therefore be voting against the motion.

 

Cllr Loughlin – I wasn’t going to speak tonight.  I have found this to be one of hardest things that I ever had to do since I was a Councillor.  I like Tina Knight, I respect Tina Knight, I’ve know her a long time and I know the good work that she does and I wouldn’t take anything away from her.  What I am concerned about is the fact that she has gone public and in her position as the Chair of the Standards Committee, and I am on the Standards Committee, I make that quite clear now, I think it leaves her position untenable.  I am also Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee where we are told it is a matter of perception.  It is a matter of what the public thinks and how they understand that how councillors will react and, unfortunately, and I’m sorry Tina it’s nothing personal, I really cannot vote to keep Tina on as Chair of the Standards Committee.  I hope she stays on the Standards Committee, because she has been very valuable; but as Chair, I think, I can’t support that and I would like to ask, and I’m not sure if it’s the right place, but for a recorded vote please.

 

Cllr Ranger - My view on the matter is that Tina Knight was asked on the programme, and introduced on the programmes, as representing a Women in Business Organisation.  To my knowledge she did not qualify any of her remarks as representing that body.  Therefore I see that as a lack of judgement and, as such, with such a lack of judgement exposed she cannot chair the Standards Committee.

 

Cllr Redfern – I’m sorry Chair, I wasn’t going to speak this evening either. I agree with both sides of this argument.  I’ve never felt so torn over anything before.  I have a tremendous amount of respect for Tina in so many ways and I agree with something that was definitely said there’s all forms of harassment and bullying and I do feel that some of the comments in the public speaking on both sides were not appropriate.  But..., I’ve agonised over this and there is a couple of things in the motion I am not particularly happy about such as the comment that says “which would appear to condone the behaviour of guests at the President’s Club dinner”.  As we know, there has only been one person, plus her assistant, that has come forward and made any accusations of actions at the President’s Club.  I am not comfortable with that and that reporter was there for a story and she got a story.  Having said that, there was one comment that Tina made where she was asked about whether groping was sexual harassment and she said, no, it wasn’t, or words to that effect.  I’m sorry, Tina, I haven’t got the transcript in front of me.  And for me, that’s the one comment that I really feel, that at this point, I have to support the motion.  But, as I hope that everyone can understand it is a very difficult situation but I feel that, for me, it is the only thing.

 

Cllr Knight invited to give her Right of Reply.

 

 

Point on Recording 66:44