COMMENTS

Free speech? I don’t think so

The Orwellian overtones of the Local Government Act of 2000 are causing Robin Page acute discomfort as he prepares to be ‘re-trained’

BY ROBIN PAGE Ihave to say, with a degree of pride, that the local Standards Board for South Cambridgeshire has found me guilty and consider me to be a very naughty boy. By showing a ‘lack of respect’ to a fellow councillor, I have brought South Cambridgeshire District Council into disrepute and, as a result, have been banned from attending Planning Committee meetings for three months. As the longest serving district councillor at South Cambs – 35 years – the only way I could avoid the punishment was to apologise to the other councillor and be ‘re-trained’. That’s right. In true Orwellian 1984 style ‘re-trained’ – ‘2 + 2 = 5, War is Peace’ and the government’s Local Government Act of 2000 is good for free speech – I think not. My crime was quite extraordinary. A local developer had wanted to get planning permission for a sporting development in the Green Belt and, by his own admission later, he confi rmed that it would have opened up the area for development. That was my big worry – the safety of the Green Belt. Then a neighbouring councillor phoned me to say that she had been to a meeting with the developer and thought the sports facilities were a good idea. Following this, I had the temerity to say that the councillor had been to a ‘soirée’ with the developer – that was my crime. My trial – oddly called a ‘hearing’ – then followed, lasting a whole day. I thought ‘hearings’ implied that people listened, but there was not much sign of that. The three local Standards Board members then sat for over seven hours while a barrister from London, representing the Standards Board for England, argued the meaning of the word ‘soiree’. The decision was that it is evidently fi ne for a councillor to have a private meeting with a developer over unlocking the Green Belt, but she had only received tea and biscuits from the developer, which did not constitute a ‘soirée’. Consequently, I was guilty. If only this was a joke and I was making it up – but it is true. The Standards Board for England also picked on a colleague and, unlike me – I represented myself – he employed solicitors to defend him. He won, at a cost of £2,000. Although he won, there is no way under the outrageous Local Government Act for the innocent to recoup their money. Because of this, many good parish,

Local government

is falling into the hands

of compliant ‘yes men’

““

- an identical method

to that used by Joseph

Stalin in helping him to

get his way.

district and county councillors are giving up, not wanting the stress, humiliation, insult and fi nancial cost of dealing with the Standards Board. Consequently, local government is falling into the hands of compliant ‘yes men’ – an identical method to that used by Joseph Stalin in helping him to help him get his way. It gets worse: another colleague has just received a 44-page charge sheet and is already banned from attending planning meetings before his case is even heard. His crimes are speaking out at public meetings about a monster development to be imposed shortly on his village. To compound his crime, he can see the site from his own house – this, according to Standards Board for England, gives him a ‘prejudicial interest’ and prevents him speaking at meetings, despite huge support from his local community. Legal opinion is concerned that a ‘hypothetical member of the public’ might think the councillor is prejudiced. So, according to the Local Government Act 2000, one hypothetical member of the public is more important than hundreds of voters who elect people like me and my colleague to represent their views and their fears. To make matters worse, I believe that it might have been planning offi cers who reported my colleague after he had asked a number of diffi cult, but relevant, questions; as a result he has been effectively silenced. More is to come. Close to me a cement works is planned to increase fi ve-fold, with a huge incinerator burning toxic waste to drive it. I recently spoke in my village hall against it – it was the largest and angriest public meeting I can remember in the parish and virtually all those attending were against the development. By speaking publicly against the scheme – before speaking at the Council – I have, according to Prescott’s crazy law, shown a ‘prejudicial interest’. I believe that the Local Government Act of 2000 was only introduced to control local councillors and to allow development plans to get passed quicker – without opposition. I intend to speak up for my village outside council meetings and inside council meetings. If they want to stop me they will have to carry me kicking and screaming out of the Council Chamber, or lock me up. Sorry Mr. Prescott, this is known as freedom and democracy.

THE ECOLOGIST 021