Having spent three decades in public service, both as an elected member and as a public sector employee, I have come to appreciate that the institutions of civic life are often more important than the individuals who temporarily occupy them.
Public office is temporary; the traditions, standards, and public confidence that underpin our civic institutions must endure.
Newcastle is a city with a proud civic tradition.
For generations, the City has recognised those who have given their time, energy and commitment to serving its communities. Civic institutions, from the Lord Mayoralty to the recognition of those who have made exceptional contributions to public life, connect today’s Newcastle with the generations who have helped shape it.
That is why I believe the honours we bestow in recognition of exceptional service must themselves be governed by principles that command public confidence.
Following Newcastle City Council’s recent decision to confer the title of Honorary Alderman on a number of former councillors, several of whom sought re-election in May but were not returned to the council, it is worth reflecting on what this honour represents and why the process by which it is awarded matters.
The title of Honorary Alderman is not simply a ceremonial title attached to former councillors. It is one of the highest civic distinctions a council can confer on those who have previously served as elected members.
Under Section 249 of the Local Government Act 1972, councils may confer the title on former councillors who, in the opinion of the council, have rendered “eminent services” to the authority. These words matter.
The legislation does not refer simply to years served, attendance at meetings or the completion of a period in elected office. Parliament deliberately chose a higher threshold. The individual’s contribution must be judged to have been distinguished and exceptional.
Serving as a councillor is an important act of public service. It requires commitment, resilience, judgement, and a willingness to place oneself before the electorate in order to represent others. Everyone who undertakes that responsibility deserves respect and thanks for their contribution to civic life.
However, public service and exceptional public service are not necessarily the same thing.
What justifies civic honours?
The title of Honorary Alderman was never intended to recognise service alone. It exists to recognise those whose contribution through public service has been judged to be exceptional. The distinction matters. If every period of public service were regarded as exceptional, the honour itself would lose the very quality that gives it its meaning.
Newcastle City Council has itself described the title of Honorary Alderman as the highest honour it can bestow on former elected members, recognising distinguished service to the City. That description underlines the importance of the honour within Newcastle’s civic tradition. It also reinforces why the basis on which such recognition is awarded matters.
The recent council decision sets out the names of those being honoured but does not appear to provide individual citations explaining the contribution of each recipient or how they meet the statutory test of having rendered “eminent services.”
If someone is being recognised with one of the highest civic honours Newcastle can confer, the citation should be one of the most important parts of that recognition.
It should tell the story of their contribution. It should explain the difference they have made. It should provide a permanent record of why the City believes their service merits such distinction.
That matters not because recipients should have to justify the honour, but because the City should have the opportunity to celebrate the exceptional contribution that has led to it.
The issue is not whether those honoured have contributed to Newcastle. Public service deserves respect, and many people who serve as councillors make sacrifices that are rarely seen or understood.
The issue is that when a distinction is based upon exceptional contribution, the process by which exceptional contribution is assessed should itself be clear and transparent.
Newcastle has many former councillors who have dedicated significant periods of their lives to public service. Some have represented their communities through difficult times, taken on civic responsibilities and helped shape the development of the City.
Where some individuals are recognised and others are not, residents are entitled to understand the principles that have been applied.
Was it length of service? Leadership? Specific achievements? A wider contribution to Newcastle’s civic life? Or a combination of those factors?
Those are not unreasonable questions. They are exactly the questions that should be asked when a city confers one of its highest civic honours.
The timing of these awards also merits reflection. A number of those receiving the honour sought re-election in May but were not returned to the council, surely where honours are conferred immediately following an election in which recipients have ceased to hold office, the need for a transparent process and a clear explanation of how each individual has met the statutory test of “eminent services” becomes even more important.
Adherence to principles generates public confidence in institutions
This also sits within a wider national conversation about public confidence in honours and appointments.
At a time when honours and appointments at national level are frequently criticised as exercises in patronage, local government has an opportunity to demonstrate a different approach—one rooted in openness, evidence and public confidence. Newcastle should aspire to set that standard.
Those entrusted with representing Newcastle City Council are temporary custodians of civic institutions that belong to the whole City. Their responsibility is not simply to make decisions but to protect the traditions and public confidence that give those institutions their legitimacy.
Civic honours belong to Newcastle, not to any political administration.
The answer is straightforward.
Publish the criteria. Provide individual citations. Explain how each recipient meets the statutory test of “eminent services.” Doing so would not diminish the honour. It would strengthen it.
It would ensure those receiving the title have their contribution properly recognised and celebrated while giving the people of Newcastle confidence that one of the City’s oldest and most important civic traditions continues to be based on clear, consistent and respected principles.
Public office is never permanent. Civic institutions endure. Those entrusted with representing Newcastle City Council today are custodians of traditions that belong to every resident of this City. Protecting the integrity of those traditions is one of the greatest responsibilities public office carries.
A civic honour should never be about who has the power to confer it.
It should always be about why someone has earned it.
Friends of Bylines Network
There has never been a greater need for grassroots journalism that investigates the stories that really matter, holds power to account and champions the voices of everyday citizens. We are proudly powered by volunteers but what we do isn’t free.
STAND WITH US for independent, citizen-led journalism that makes democracy stronger, and you will even get some exclusive benefits.
