We have just been informed that the Communities Minister, Brandon Lewis, last week said the following:
“The Derbyshire principle is clear that local authorities cannot bring libel or defamation actions. Democratic bodies should be open to public criticism, within the law. Whilst I make no comment on the nature of allegations, I believe it is totally inappropriate for private defamation actions to be funded by council taxpayers’ money, given the clear Derbyshire principle."
This confirms the legal opinion we were given and begs the question what legal advice Rutland Council determined they should spend public money in this way, which must now be well in excess of £42,000. We stated in our response to Bevan-Brittan that:
“I understand that your client has to date, expended approximately £42,000.00 in the matter. I consider that this is a misuse of public funds and those officers that have sanctioned the expenditure are culpable. Public funds have been used far payment for what I consider to be a private civil action.
Notwithstanding that your client has no cause of action, is abusing its powers, is acting ultra virus and is misusing public funds”
The question now is; “Who should be held accountable for this expenditure?”.
It is our belief that it should be those Councillors that approved this expenditure, most certainly not the taxpayer. It is incumbent on those Councillors that voted for this to have done so in light of all the facts, if they are not sure or are in doubt then they have a duty to insist on being provided with such information before making any decision that involves expenditure (Nothing more than we have been asking before making other far reaching decisions on expenditure, such as £627,000 on a football pitch). One has to remember it is the very same Councillors that voted to close the Theatre in the Museum to save £10,000 and the same Councillors that voted to reduce the Youth budget by £42,000 and who will be asked to confirm £65,000 of cuts in Adult Social Care this year and £200,000 next year.
The problem is that the majority of Councillors do not carry out their duty to be totally appraised of all facts before making a decision, far too many, mainly Conservatives, merely vote in line with their Party and what they have been told. All too often they appear to rely on nothing more than the opinion and views of the Conservative Deputy Leader, Councillor King, when they should be relying on what is reported as written fact.
There is of course, in line with this, a duty on the part of Officers, in particular the Monitoring Officer, to ensure that all the facts are presented in a clear and precise manner for Councillors to form a properly appraised opinion. However, if those facts are not forthcoming, it is not good enough for Councillors to suggest they were not made aware of those facts on which to base their judgement if they have approved expenditure inappropriately. It is incumbent on Councillors to insist on all the information being made known to them, they always have the option to defer a decision until the facts are properly presented. In fact, Councillors should already have looked at and debated, any major decision thoroughly in Scrutiny, sadly that rarely occurs, again that is the responsibility of Councillors to ensure everything is properly scrutinised before going to Full Council for a final and ratifying decision.
In the next Blog we will give an example of just how Councillors have approved the huge expenditure of £627,000 on the football pitch without any of the facts to support such a decision, as just one example, which flies completely in the face of the Wednesbury Rule, which states that any decision must be made in light of all the facts.
