Employment tribunal with a crystal ball

I was intrigued to read a recent story about an ex-Labour councillor in Birmingham. Apparently, he was given the boot because of suspicion of wrong doing in the election process. Having thrown a wobbly about this rejection, said councillor stormed off to an employment tribunal – yes that’s right, an employment tribunal, even though he was attempting to become ‘elected’ and not ’employed’ as a councillor.

Even more surprising, having won his case, he was awarded a six figure sum for loss of, well I’m not sure really. According to the judgement, he was awarded, ‘£80,000 for loss of earnings that he would have received in the form of allowances between 1998 and 2004 – the period during which, the tribunal decided, Mr Ahsan would have most likely been a councillor.’

As an elected member, this judgement strikes me as entering some very dangerous territory.

Firstly, it appears to have reclassified councillors’ allowances as salary, which, in the real world, is something that is earned by carrying out a recognised activity, with measurable outcomes, something normally called a job.

These employment tribunal members also appear to have the ability to read the minds of Birmingham’s voters, not just once, but twice. How else could they award this non-councillor cash for a period of greater than 4 years, the normal period between local elections, when he was never actually elected, having been deselected by his Labour Party Association?

Taken to it’s logical conclusion, I think I might well have a case for not being elected Prime Minister – I wonder who Mr Ahsan’s no win no fee lawyer was? Read the full story below.


Localism Bill – anything goes!

Personally, I’m still undecided about what benefits (if any) the Localism Bill will bring, especially given its inherent criticism of elected members.  How else are we to view the drive to introduce ‘local’ representation and neighbourhood forums populated by those who will not of stood for any form of election?

There is however, one bit of the bill that appears to be some sort of sop to those elected members who seem unable to present the views of their electorate without actually making those views their own.  I quote the text below.


Clause 13  

(2) A decision-maker is not to be taken to have had, or to have appeared to have had, a closed mind when making the decision just because

(a) the decision-maker had previously done anything that directly or indirectly indicated  what view the decisionmaker took, or would or might take, in relation to a matter, and

(b) the matter was relevant to the decision.  This Clause needs to be read in conjunction with a statement issued by DCLG (http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/1768609) which says that:

These proposed legislative changes will mean councillors can be very clear and discuss freely their view and voting intention and publicise their views as they see fit.  However, councillors must be prepared to listen to arguments and evidence before making their decision.  These changes will reduce the threat of challenge.

I’ve no doubt some very clever lawyers at DCLG have drafted this clause to do exactly what the minister wanted it to – allow members to shoot their mouths off and get away with it!

Yes, very occasionally there will be issues that a person got themselves elected on and that it would be ludicrous to then exclude them from being involved in when it came to the debate and the subsequent voting process.  However, to suggest that, by simply producing the text above and make it the ‘law’, this changes completely the status of that members words in respect of pre-determination, is an insult to anybody who thinks they understand the English language.

The last paragraph especially demonstrates the nonsensical nature of this clause.

‘…….mean councillors can be very clear and discuss freely their view and voting intention and publicise their views……’

But then having done all of the above, ‘…..councillors must be prepared to listen to arguments and evidence before making their decision.’

I think they should change the word ‘prepared’ to pretend, because that it what somebody who has discussed and publicised freely, their view and voting intentions, will really be doing.

Worse still and hopefully an unintended negative effect of this clause, will be the pressure members will now come under to declare their view on an issue. It will no longer be acceptable to keep an open mind, listen to all the evidence, and maybe even put the case for those who have asked for your help, but then vote with your conscientious.  The public will now have the right to expect you to take a position or suffer the consequences.