Three complaints were made after a county councillor made comments about people not vaccinated against Covid-19, it has been revealed.

The incident led to a conversation being held with the elected member about "careful choice of phrase"

But they were not found to have breached the members' code of conduct, a report to a council meeting said. And "interpretation of statements as being offensive (was) not intended by (the) member".

The councillor involved was not publicly identified in the report to the authority's Audit and Standards Committee.

Newcastle councillor Derrick Huckfield made the headlines when he said in a public meeting that people who gather outside vaccination centres to discourage others from getting jabbed "want shooting".

Speaking at the full county council meeting in December 2021 he urged everyone to get the Covid jab to protect others.

He added: "When you see these people that stand outside where they're giving the injections they want shooting – and that's putting it politely because they're standing there and stopping people from going in to have the injection. I think it is absolutely disgusting."

Fellow members at the meeting applauded his words and echoed his calls for those who are currently unvaccinated to come forward for the jab – but they did not back the shooting comment.

In total 11 complaints were made against seven councillors between June 2021 and June 2022, the report to Tuesday's Audit and Standards Committee meeting (July 5) said.

It added: "Overall, members adopt high standards of conduct all of the time. However there are occasions when members of the public are unhappy about the way an individual member of the county council has behaved.

"For this reporting period there is no underlying theme to the nature of complaints other than the fact that many relate to one to one dealings which a member has had with a constituent. Previously common themes, including the use of social media, do not feature highly however it is worth taking this opportunity to remind members of the need to carefully consider the contents and potential consequences of social media posts."

The county council now has a social media officer based in its communications department, committee members were told, who can provide advice, support and training to members to help them avoid pitfalls online.

John Tradewell, the council's director of corporate services, said: "Members treat each other properly and deal properly with members of the public.

"There are a trickle of complaints about standards every year. But it is a trickle and does seem to be about specific issues specific constituents have taken umbrage with.

"I wouldn't say we get a high number of complaints when we do have a theme. In the complaints listed there was one related to Burton Library but it was just the one, rather than there being a big proliferation.

"Sometimes issues can cause complaints. Highways can lead to complaints, often through the frustration of the process people go through, but ultimately they are founded on people being unhappy with the service or the way the council is operating with policy rather than the behaviour of the individual members concerned."

Councillor Graham Hutton said: "We are politicians and I would be utterly surprised if there weren't complaints, whether they're founded or not. I expect complaints."

Councillor Phil Hewitt said: "I think this report is surprisingly good. It doesn't altogether surprise me sitting on this council – I'm in my sixth year now and I see a pretty good level of professionalism generally across this council and members.

"If a councillor is not particularly agreeing with a protest group then the obvious thing to do is to complain about that member or a number of members. This would appear is not the case.

"I was very much at the centre of the Cannock Chase issues and the one thing we learned online was they would list all the things they could complain about. I often say to residents I'll get you an answer, but sadly it may not be the answer you want.

"Generally we do comply. To see so few complaints tells you that members behave professionally during somewhat challenging times."

Councillor Bernard Williams said: "I'm finding in my own patch (in South Staffordshire) a hell of a lot more work coming my way over the last two years. I think a lot of this is because people are supposed to be working from home and consequently they're finding much more time to send us more work to do.

"If you find we are going to get more complaints maybe that is the reason why."

Details of complaints made against elected members of Staffordshire County Council between June 2021 and June 2022

1: Misleading statement in Scrutiny Committee (alleged aim to influence decision). Decision: Comments not intended to, nor had, undue effect on decisions. No breach of obligations under code.

2: Failure of member to respond to correspondence. Decision: Complaint essentially related to service area. Correspondence redirected to service. No breach of obligations under code.

3: Misleading information to constituents/objection to nature of consultation documentation. Decision: Comprehensive consultation exercise carried out. Documentation not deemed to be misleading. No breach of obligations under code.

4-6: Statements made re Covid non-vaccinated persons. Decision: "Interpretation of statements as being offensive not intended by member. Conversation with member re careful choice of phrase. No breach of obligations under code.

7: Failure to declare interest in a meeting. Decision: No relevant interest applicable. No breach of obligations under code.

8: Posts on social media likely to cause detriment to business. Decision: No deliberate reference to business made by members. No breach of obligations under code.

9-11: Failure to carry out role of local councillor, alleged damage to reputation of Staffordshire County Council. Decision: Under consideration.