MP speaks out on 'Town Hall madness'

Yesterday, on Audlem Online, we said we would examine the question of why a body established by John Prescott to enforce ethical standards in local government might be preventing councillors debating or voting on vital local issues. We promised you a story that will have you checking your diary to make sure 1st April hasn't come around too soon.

In an article published this week, Owen Paterson MP, whose parliamentary constituency of North Shropshire extends to within a mile of Audlem, describes the crazy world of the modern town hall in which councillors with a mobile phone are banned from debating phone masts and those with cars are unable to vote on parking charges or Park & Ride schemes.

Mr Paterson and his fellow Conservative MP Gerald Howarth, who jointly published the report on Monday, say changes pushed through by John Prescott have effectively gagged local councillors and prevented them from speaking and voting on issues where they have declared an opinion. Unlike MPs, who are expected to adhere to their party's manifesto, councillors face disciplinary action, which can land them with huge legal bills, if they persist in representing the views of their voters.

This 'Town Hall madness' is the product of Mr Prescott's decision to make councillors subject to the edicts of his £10 million-a-year Standards Board, set up in 2001 to police local government. A small army of so-called 'ethical standards officers', each earning £61,000 a year, backed up by hundreds of local "monitoring officers" appointed by council chiefs, have grabbed power and routinely issue directives to councillors on what they can say or do.

Examples given of this 'gagging' include, in North Shropshire District, advising councillors not to discuss the closure of two local swimming pools because they had a 'prejudicial interest' as they had already decided they were against the closures. Owen Paterson says he persuaded them to ignore the Council's official advice and speak out on the closures.

In another North Shropshire example, a Parish Councillor was prevented from speaking on the siting of a mobile telephone mast because representing the views of her community gave her a 'prejudicial interest'. As a Councillor, she was told it was for her to support the council and not express the opinion of her electors. In Chester, candidates standing for election were told not to mention any controversial issues during the election campaign as this would disbar them taking part in any future council discussions and might even lead to legal action against the council.

In South Cambridgeshire, councillors were told they might be disqualified from discussing the siting of a mobile phone mast if they themselves used a mobile phone. Nor could they speak on a Park & Ride scheme if they drove a car. In the same area, councillors were told they could not speak out this year against plans for a new town of 8-10,000 homes, the largest planning decision ever and proposed by Mr Prescott's own department. The local councillor was told he could not put forward the views for which his neighbours elected him. As he lived near the site of the proposed new town and had made his concerns known, this gave him a 'personal and prejudicial' interest which excluded him from any discussion and barred him from even mentioning it to fellow councillors.

The result, warns Mr Paterson's report, has been the negation of local democracy and the waste of millions of pounds of public money. Hundreds of councillors have resigned in disgust, it says, at the insane and unjust regime imposed by the Government.

Audlem Online has examined the Standards Board's website for their side of the story but none of these issues are even hinted at. It is dull in the extreme but would be a boon to insomniacs. More useful background reading may be found in a 57 year-old publication – '1984' by George Orwell.

This article is from our news archive. As a result pictures or videos originally associated with it may have been removed and some of the content may no longer be accurate or relevant.