The Conservative leader of Warwickshire County Council has been challenged to clarify her stance on three under-fire councillors before the general election.

An investigation into hundreds of complaints about comments on special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) provision cleared Cllr Jeff Morgan, Cllr Brian Hammersley and Cllr Clare Golby of breaching the council's code of conduct.

Cllr Morgan, who had been the county's cabinet member for children and families until May 2023, questioned whether some children put forward for assessments were "just really badly behaved" and in need of "some form of strict correction".

Cllr Hammersley had asked whether a surge in demand was down to "something in the water", while Cllr Globy referred to social media pages where "families are swapping tips on how to get their children diagnosed".

The investigation found that Cllr Morgan and Cllr Hammersley had failed to be respectful, "champion the needs of the whole community" and uphold the reputation of the council, all of which was contrary to the code of conduct, but also that they were entitled to make the comments under freedom of speech protections.

Cllr Golby's words were not deemed to have gone against any element of the code of conduct.

Cllr Izzi Seccombe, leader of the council and the Conservative group, stated at the time that the comments were "not what I or my administration reflect". She has since faced calls to remove the whip from all three – banish them from the group.

One of those advocating that course of action is Elissa Novak, a SEND parent from Nuneaton.

"We need to have an answer to the question of the whip," she said.

"They said they – or Councillor Seccombe – would make a decision once the reports were finalised. We have had that now and we haven't had any comment from the leader.

"First we need to know if she is intending to remove the whip or not, and that will open other questions.

"If the decision is to not remove the whip then why, she said those comments were not reflective of Conservative values – if they are not, there is a mechanism to deal with that.

"It feels more important now we are coming up to an election to know whether those attitudes are representative of the Conservatives or not, especially when you consider the reference to 'strict correction' and 'better ways of dealing with them back then'. That is important."

Ms Novak added that she had "not heard of anyone who is happy with the result" of the council's investigation, which was conducted by Claire Ward of Birmingham law firm Anthony Collins Solicitors at a cost to the taxpayer of £24,225. 

"It was not entirely unexpected, the protection offered to Councillor Morgan and Councillor Hammersley seems a bit of a technicality," she said. 

"Personally, I feel the investigator was a bit generous in the interpretation of Councillor Golby's words, giving them a meaning that was not present in the words that she used.

"It felt unbalanced between the three which is why it is important to have the right to appeal. 

"People are questioning why they have no right of appeal, which is not usual for a complaints process. I don't know who made that decision but it seems unfair for the complainants.

"There is a feeling of what is the point of the code of conduct if they breach three specific elements but get enhanced protections. 

"I think people understand it is important to protect political speech but what is the point of a code of conduct if there are no sanctions for breaking it? There is a lot of confusion over what the code of conduct is for."

She argued that the freedom of speech protections trumping the code of conduct made it "even more important for the political parties to hold their members to account".

"If the code is ultimately just a gentleman's agreement then they are the ones who should be keeping order in their ranks," she concluded. 

Cllr Seccombe has been approached for comment but has yet to respond since the council published the verdicts on Thursday, June 13.