News

Cllr Paul Bettison, leader of the council, had called for the decision to be looked at by the committee with the aim of changing the rules
advertisement

Whip system breached rules

By Hugh Fort
July 03, 2012

A decision to use party whip rules to push ahead with a controversial housing plan was an unintentional breaking of the rules, it has been ruled.

Bracknell Forest Council’s Tory party used the system to vote through the Site Allocations Development Plan Document (SADPD) earlier this year.

However, the borough’s standards committee has now ruled that decision broke the rules because the council is not allowed to use whip votes on planning matters.

The system is used to make decisions within the ruling Tory group before public meetings.

All the discussions are done in private and if members do not follow the whip they can be punished.

Three members – Councillor Shelagh Pile of Harmans Water, Cllr Chas Baily of Birch Hill and Hanworth, and Cllr Michael Sargeant, member for Bullbrook – were all suspended from the Conservative Party for voting against the plans.

At the meeting, the committee agreed that the mistake was unintentional, and that the policy itself was muddled.

Cllr Paul Bettison, leader of the council, had called for the decision to be looked at by the committee with the aim of changing the rules.

He said members had assumed the policy meant they should not make decisions on planning applications before debating them in public, but that the whip system should be used to make big decisions.

Alex Jack, the borough’s solicitor, told the committee his view on the matter was that it was “an oversight” but it was not a breach of policy

The committee debated the policy, agreeing it was confusing, although Labour councillor Mary Temperton did say if it was “taken literally” it was a breach.

Cllr Cliff Thompson said the existing policy was “open to interpretation” and needed to be clearer.

After around 40 minutes of debate, the committee agreed the decision was an unintentional breach of policy.

The committee will now prepare a report which will detail the changes to the policy.

The SADPD plans sets out where new housing will be built around the borough in the next 15 years, particularly in Binfield, Warfield and Crowthorne.

| Submit Comments | View Comments (11)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 11 of 11

why doesn't Cllr Paul Bettison change that Photo...we can't all help our looks but he looks like he'll stitch you up as soon as look at you...

Timothy Jefferies
06/07/2012 at 11:29

The Standards Committee comprises 4 members of the public and 10 councillors. However, interestingly, one of the councillors is a Cllr Mrs Jean Bettison. I wonder if she might be related to Cllr Paul Bettison. http://democratic.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/mgCommitteeMailingList.aspx?EM=0&ID=156

LarryS
04/07/2012 at 13:49

If they broke the rules unintentionally or otherwise then they should at the very least reverse the decision.

The suggestion that the rules should be changed because they broke them, sounds arrogant and does not portray the attitude to rules we want.

Our local politicians should be squeaky clean.

Wiztwas, Binfield
04/07/2012 at 09:02

I've just had a look, it appears there the Standards Committee is made up a mix of councillors and non-councillors.

Two of its members are conservatives, two are Labour opposition and the rest seem to be "normal" people.

Megaman
04/07/2012 at 08:13

Of course, they will tell you that not having parties would increase the cost of debating decisions and policy agreements, which would be much harder to achieve when everyone doesn't have a common reason to work together.

mavdo, Wokingham
03/07/2012 at 16:33

mavdo - I see where you're coming from and half wondered much the same as I was typing.

However I think if you had Independent candidates spelling out what they stood for, how they envisaged serving their chosen ward, where they stood on national issues, and specified a broad political position (right, centre, hard left etc.) then it could actually enfranchise voters.

It would also make the candidates work harder for the vote, which is no bad thing, as they would need to ensure people knew what they were about and also would need to gain as broad understanding of the local issues as possible - the current system encourages voter apathy and laziness in Councillors. I can think of one in particular who lives in my street and who has never once answered an email or even been seen out canvassing.

You know who you are.....

Winstanley, Bracknell
03/07/2012 at 15:44

@Winstanley - I tend to agree, and I started typing the same earlier, but then I remembered that most people *vote* on party lines, even in local elections, completely ignoring what little material on policies that is actually published to them. Also, having parties helps summarise what councillors stand for to the elctorate in the simplest of terms. They can more easily see where that candidate sits on the political fence and don't have to spend time trying to work that all out from individuals' lists of policies.

That said, central government parties, who the public are generally familiar with at least on some level, have vastly different policies to local ones, who seem to fail to engage the public to any great extent nowadays, and the commonality can sometimes be limited to just supporting each other with spin.

I think there is a risk that if you remove parties from local elections, no one would know what councillors stood for any more (because I certainly don't ever see them canvassing for votes any more) and the electorate would be even more disenfranchised than they are already, leading to practically no turnout at all.

In this story, it was reportedly believed that the whip could be used for the "big decisions". In fact, I think the whip should NOT be used for decisions with big impacts. These are the ones where people should be allowed to FULLY represent the people that voted for them (even though they probably actually mostly voted for the party). The biggest impact means the most important vote. Parties are not technically elected and should not have any reason to affect the outcome of that vote.

I would therefore be in favour of a reduction in the impact of party politics from local government, but I think total removal would lead to voter confusion and disenfranchisement from local politics.

mavdo, Wokingham
03/07/2012 at 15:21

mavdo you evidence perfectly why I believe local government should not be conducted upon party political lines. All Councillors should be Independent and directly answerable to their constituents. You'd have no marshaling of party policy at any cost, but a set of policies, decisions, etc. that directly reflect what the electorate wants.

Too often with party politics you have politicians only serving their core support and forgetting that in fact they represent everyone.

Winstanley, Bracknell
03/07/2012 at 14:30

The three members who were suspended should now receive a public apology and compensation. Paul bettison should also step down from being the leader of the Council, he cannot be trusted to serve the people of the Borough in a loyal, non self-serving and honest manner.

Marjo
03/07/2012 at 14:04

So one committee decided that another committee broke the rules, and they are made up of pretty much the same people? How can you have a group of people auditing their own decisions?

So what are the punishments for this breach? Nothing. What is the impact on the decision that was affected by this breach? Nothing. So they broke the rules, and nothing will happen. What on EARTH is the point in the rule?

I don't believe it was "unintentional" for a moment. They knew what they were doing. Getting through a very unpopular policy to bulldoze over a popular golf couse, full in the knowledge that using the whip was wrong, but that no one would find that out until long after the policy had gone through, and even then it could be just brushed off as a "mistake" and the decision would stand. They've achieved what they wanted to achieve. A rule breach is of no consequence whatsoever.

Power corrupts, at any level.

mavdo, Wokingham
03/07/2012 at 13:18

"...the borough’s standards committee has now ruled that decision broke the rules."

This committee being made up of Councilllors.

So the next question is: did the standards committee whip this decision?

Winstanley, Bracknell
03/07/2012 at 12:03

Book your advertisement yourself 24 hours a day. Save time book online. Book an Ad.

News

Whip system breached rules

Add Your Comment

Most recent user comments 11 of 11

Browse Sections

Interactive

Popular Sections

Get Shopping

getbracknell

Site navigation