Concern over financial costings of councillor safety

A councillor has raised concerns over the financial costings of “councillor safety” training following the Full meeting of Warrington Borough Council.

Labour members tabled a motion regarding councillor safety following issues of abuse and harrassment of elected members, calling for a nominated officer for councillor safety, develoipment of a comprehensive Cllr, safety protocol, issuign of lone-working devices and training for conflict prevention.

Independent Councillor Neil Johnson, who represents, Culcheth, Croft and Glazebury says he is “deeply concerned” at the lack of adequate financial information and costings in the motion tabled by Cllr Bond and Cllr Smith regarding councillor safety.

Cllr. Johnson said: “I was very concerned that this Motion was tabled without any associated cost breakdown. The Motion asked for:

1) The appointment of a nominated officer for councillor safety
2) The development of a comprehensive councillor safety protocol
3) The issuing of lone-working devices to councillors upon request
4) The introduction of training, including on issues such as “conflict prevention”, “de-escalation” and “wellbeing”.

“Much of the conversation centred around “abuse” and “harassment” suffered by councillors, though little of substance was offered to support the claim that these things are widespread. My own belief is that certain Councillors are significantly overstating the extent of the problem. Councillors are not routinely at risk, and they do not need training on “wellbeing” or “conflict resolution”. They are there to attend Council meetings and help residents in their wards. If someone is being rude to them, there are ways of dealing with that without going on a training course, paid for by the public purse. Cllr Smith’s supporting evidence seemed to be that someone had recently called him names! This is a ridiculous premise on which to spend taxpayer funds.
“Sadly, there was no information anywhere in the paperwork on how much the demands of this Motion will cost. I wrote to Council officers, and to Cllr Bond, to request this information and received no reply. This, by itself, is discourteous and insulting to residents.
“I was astonished to hear Labour councillors, during the meeting, declare that “cost doesn’t matter”. It certainly does.
“The recent Best Value Inspection Report makes clear that the Council has a long way to go in terms of transparency. It has condemned members of the Council for approving items which incur spend without proper scrutiny or a full assessment of the cost impact.
“In this context, it is totally inappropriate that we should have had a Motion put before us accompanied by zero cost impact assessments, no indication of how much money the authority will spend as a result, or from which budget these things will be taken. I suspect Cllrs Bond and Smith don’t actually know how much any of this will cost, and have made no attempt to find out.
“I am very concerned that Councillors were essentially being asked to vote to approve a “blank cheque” to spend money on themselves. Asking for a cost breakdown is not unreasonable. It does not equate to endorsing “abuse” or “harassment”. In fact, it should be standard practice. I also think that it is the principled and dutiful thing to do.
“Passing a Motion on something which will incur a cost to the Council, without any indication of how wide or deep that cost will run, is not appropriate or acceptable. It may even be illegal. Councillors have a statutory duty to ensure that public money is spent wisely and lawfully. Instead of virtue signalling, Cllrs Bond and Smith should be working to get the backlog of Council accounts signed off by the external auditors, instead of proposing Motions asking for councillors to go on nonsensical training courses paid for by local residents.”
A Labour Group spokesperson responded: “Recent research from the Local Government Association identifies that 72% of councillors across the country have experienced intimidation, abuse or harassment over the last 12 months.
“As Cllr Johnson will be aware, motions to Council are an agreement by members to explore a certain course of action, do an act or declare an attitude.
“At Monday’s Full Council meeting, a cross-party majority of councillors voted in favour of a motion to acknowledge the abuse, harassment and intimidation faced by councillors across all political affiliations.
“The motion further acknowledged abuse and intimidation aimed at local politicians here in Warrington, which has deterred would-be councillors from participating in local politics or standing for election.
“In any place of work and at any level we should take safety and wellbeing seriously.
“As an organisation we should rightly expect that our employees and councillors are able to do their job safely without fear, abuse, harassment or intimidation.”