Christopher Booker's notebook
(Filed: 26/02/2006)
'Prejudicial interest' rules make mockery of democracy
Thanks to a diktat from John Prescott, thousands of elected councillors have
been shocked to be instructed by council officials that they are no longer
permitted to represent the views of the communities which elected them. The
bizarre consequences of this extraordinary bid to undermine local democracy are
highlighted by four recent examples from just one county, Shropshire.
When Aggie Caesar-Homden was last September elected to Oswestry borough council,
to represent the residents of the village of West Felton, she found herself at
the centre of a local planning row. The parish council was up in arms over a
50-foot-high Orange mobile phone mast which had suddenly appeared on the edge of
the village, blocking the view to the Berwyn Mountains.
The villagers' objection was not to the mast in principle, but that its erection
was in clear breach of planning rules. Of 10 procedures required by the rules
for phone masts, nine had not been complied with. The mast was illegal. But when
Councillor Caesar-Homden raised this on behalf of the parish council she was
told by senior council officials that it was not her role to speak for her
electors. Since she was now an Oswestry councillor, she must support her
council.
There was no one angrier about this than the local MP, Owen Paterson, who had
recently been involved in a similar row over a highly unpopular plan by North
Shropshire district council to close down municipal swimming pools in Ellesmere
and Wem. Councillors from the two towns had been told by North Shropshire
officials that they could not participate in debates on the issue, because the
fact that they represented the views of their communities gave them a
"prejudicial interest". Only when Mr Paterson intervened was this ruling
reversed.
In Telford, the council came up with a contentious plan to build on part of the
local park. A councillor billed to chair a meeting on the issue was forced to
pull out when officials told her that her participation would exclude her from
attending any council debate on the issue. A letter on behalf of the council's
head of "Legal and Democratic Services" explained that a "councillor's
overriding duty is to the whole community, not just to the people in their ward
or area". Decision-making must be "undertaken impartially", and councillors must
not appear to be "improperly favouring any group or locality".
In South Shropshire, council officials went even further. Following an incident
when a protestor shouted abuse at a planning meeting, they produced new
guidelines stating that members of the public are not permitted to speak to
councillors, before, during or after meetings.
Council leader Heather Kidd explained that, because members of the public had
shown "disrespect to councillors", the rules had been introduced to "protect the
security of councillors".
But one councillor, Claude Bodenham, urged electors to ignore the rules. He said
"I am always out and about in Craven Arms or Ludlow, and I expect people to come
up to me."
Last week I reported how Bob Mills, a Powys county councillor, was told by
officials that, because he had criticised wind turbines in a letter to the local
paper, he would not be permitted to attend any debates on this issue. His letter
showed that he had a "pre-determined" view. It was fine for the council and the
Welsh Assembly to have a "pre-determined view" in support of turbines, but
because he opposes them he must leave the chamber whenever they are discussed.
Similar instances are sprouting up all over the country, thanks to zealous
interpretation by council "monitoring officers" of Mr Prescott's Local
Authorities (Code of Conduct) Order 2001. By excluding from council business any
councillor who can be considered to have a "prejudicial interest", the code is
now being widely used to silence councillors who wish to speak on behalf of the
communities they represent.
And, like the bulk of the laws which now rule our lives, this astonishing
revolution in local government was imposed by means of a statutory instrument -
a ministerial edict which Parliament had no chance to discuss.