Birmingham City Council leader Mike Whitby came out fighting today, disproving claims that he had done anything wrong by holding Vodafone shares while sitting on a planning committee hearing applications for the company's mobile phone masts. In last night's Mail the Local Government Ombudsman's office said that a councillor who failed to make this known would have been in contravention of the Local Government Act of 1972. "Where a member has got a pecuniary interest in any matter they need to declare and withdraw from proceedings," an official from the Ombudsman's office told the Mail. But Coun Whitby and independent legal experts in the city say the Ombudsman's statement was inaccurate. The claim concerned Coun Whitby's time on the development control committee. Coun Whitby owns Vodafone shares worth around £2,800 at today's market prices and council minutes of meetings in 2002 and 2003 made no mention of him delcaring an interest. But Coun Whitby, backed up by the council legal experts, today made it clear that any councillor with such a small shareholding would not be required to make a declaration. He added that while several applications for masts had gone through the committee, the Government's planning regulations meant councillors had little option but to let them go through. Coun Whitby said the Labour Government had extracted huge amounts of money from the communications companies for licences and councils were left to bear the brunt of their directives on planning. "I frequently spoke against the masts," he said. " I would rather we played safe and supported the concerns of the residents of Birmingham." Coun Whitby, the Conservative leader who united with the Liberal Democracts to take control of the city, said he felt strongly that they should know more about the effects of the masts before allowing them on to council property. "The current planning leader David Roy has fought magnificently in addressing those concerns," he said. Coun Whitby said that to suggest any improper relationship or subservience because he held a small number of shares was ridiculous and salacious. "We have been let down by the Ombudsman's office," he added. "I believe in complete transparency and to imply anything clandestine is totally wrong. It has never been my intention to deny the shareholding or to use my position to any advantage. "In light of the outrageous implications, I have checked my position with the council's chief legal officer and the chief planning officer. They are both satisfied that I have acted properly. The chief legal officer has also confirmed to me that, under the Code of Conduct for Members, I was not barred from taking part in the debate, as my nominal share value was well below the relevant limits." He said the body which monitors the actions of councillors is now the Standards Board for England. Coun Whitby added: "The Local Government Ombudsman should know better than to speak on matters that it no longer has any jurisdiction or remit in. The Standards Board does not, of course, regard shareholding, per se, by councillors as being incompatible with holding civic office. It would be a sad day, indeed, if citizens were disenfranchised from becoming councillors just because they happen to own a few shares." | 
