LEMBIT Öpik MP has hit out at legal advice offered to councillors at last week’s extraordinary meeting on the future of secondary schools – claiming it amounted to a ‘gagging order’.
Prior to last Thursday’s meeting at County Hall, councillors were e-mailed advice which included a warning that a personal interest would apply if councillors were aware of strong local opinion for or against the closure of a school in their ward.
They were also reminded of the advice on personal and prejudicial interest before the debate by the council’s chief legal advisor.
Councillors were also warned that speaking up against the closure of any individual school by name could give the impression of ‘pre-determination’ and could invalidate any council decision – and lead to them being barred from voting on the matter in future.
Mr Opik said: “The instructions about what councillors are and aren’t allowed to say are mind-boggling and technical. It just isn't easy to make out what they mean – and this has the effect that councillors get worried about saying anything at all.
“If these rules applied to me as the local Member of Parliament, I’d have to not speak or vote on anything relating to Montgomeryshire over which I had a “prejudicial interest.” Since it’s 100 per cent in my “prejudicial interest” to speak up for everything in terms of how it affects my constituency, that means I’d effectively be barred from taking part in parliamentary debates at all!”
However, Powys County Council insists the advice is in accordance with national policy governing councillors and is not the same as that which affects MPs.
A spokesman said: “The National Assembly for Wales has prescribed the code of conduct for our members while Parliament has prescribed a similar code for English local authorities but not MPs.
“That requires councillors to take decisions in the broad public interest and not just for the benefit of their own constituency.”
However, Mr Opik said the rules defy common sense. He said: “In reality, MPs and councillors should be allowed to talk about their local areas, and to vote on those matters too. After all, voters tend to elect those people who stick up most for their locality.
“To tell councillors they have to declare a personal interest if they’re aware of strong local opinion for or against the closure is sheer madness. I’m aware of strong local opinion against flooding – does that mean I have to declare a personal interest? Come on, let’s get some common sense into this!
“These are real schools with real teachers that we could lose, schools with long histories woven into the fabric of our communities, and they deserve to be spoken of by people who know them and their true value.
“Haven’t we already seen in the four leaked proposals what happens when officials dream up abstractions of social engineering without any idea of what’s going on on the ground? How convenient it would be if the most vocal opponents of any school ‘modernisation' proposal were silenced or banned from the council chamber.”
Responding to the claims a spokesman for Powys County Council said: “It is precisely because the rules on councillors participating on issues where they have a personal interest in the outcome are so complicated that guidance was given to councillors.
“The council is facing very difficult decisions where councillors will be torn between the interests of their own wards and electors and the wider public interest. It is critically important they are taken fairly and properly.
“Where a conflict of interest is so immediate that it might affect the way that the councillor would vote on the issue, it becomes a prejudicial interest and the councillor must withdraw from the debate and cannot vote.
“The advice made it clear to councillors that the meeting was not the occasion for decisions about individual schools, and any resolution of council to protect a particular school, would not only be legally invalid but the councillor might also be ruling themselves out of taking part in future decisions.”