Newcastle is a city with a proud civic tradition. For generations, the city has understood that public life is about more than administration. It is about people who give their time, energy, and commitment to serving their communities. The role of Lord Mayor, civic ceremonies, and the recognition of those who have contributed to the life of Newcastle are all part of a long tradition that connects today’s city with its history.
That is why civic honours matter.
Honorary Alderman
Among the most significant honours Newcastle City Council can confer is the title of Honorary Alderman.
The title has deep roots in local government. Historically, aldermen were among the senior civic figures in towns and cities, recognised for their experience, judgement, and contribution to public life. Although the role changed through reforms of local government, the principle behind the title has remained: it should recognise people whose contribution has been exceptional.
Under the Local Government Act 1972, councils can confer the title of Honorary Alderman on former councillors who have rendered “eminent services” to the authority.
Those words are important.
This is not intended to be an automatic recognition for anyone who has served as a councillor. It is not a leaving gift or a reward for simply holding elected office.
It is a civic distinction – one of the highest forms of recognition a council can give to a former member.
That is precisely why the process matters.
Newcastle City Council is due to consider a formal resolution this Wednesday to confer the title of Honorary Alderman of the City of Newcastle upon Tyne on twelve former councillors:
Steve Fairlie, Robert Higgins, Linda Hobson, Karen Kilgour, Joanne Kingsland, George Pattison, Clare Penny-Evans, Jacqui Robinson, Hazel Stephenson, Linda Wright, Robin Ashby and Karen Robinson.
The significance of this decision should not be underestimated.
This is not simply a vote of thanks or a routine recognition of past service. It is the highest civic honour Newcastle City Council can confer on a former councillor.
The publication of the proposed nominations provides the names, but not the reasons.
There are no individual citations setting out the contribution of each nominee or explaining how each person meets the statutory test of having rendered “eminent services” to Newcastle City Council and the City.
That raises a simple but important question.
Why these individuals?
What is the rationale for these nominations? What evidence demonstrates that each person has reached the exceptional threshold required for this honour?
And equally important: why were others not proposed?
Public service should always be respected
This is not about questioning the commitment of those individuals being nominated. Many councillors, from all political parties and none, dedicate years of their lives to serving their communities. Public service should always be respected.
But civic honours are not only about the individuals who receive them. They are also about the confidence of the wider public that the process has been fair, transparent, and based on clear principles.
There are former councillors who have given many years of dedicated service to Newcastle, represented their communities through difficult times and made significant contributions to the development and life of the city.
If some have been selected while others with lengthy service and substantial contributions have not, residents are entitled to understand why.
Assessment process
What was the assessment process?
Was length of service considered? Were achievements considered? Was leadership considered? Was contribution to the city and its communities considered? Were all eligible former councillors assessed against the same criteria?
The issue is not whether those nominated have served the city. Many will have made genuine contributions and deserve respect for their public service.
The issue is whether the same transparent test has been applied to everyone who could reasonably have been considered.
Among those proposed are several former Lord Mayors of Newcastle.
The Lord Mayoralty is one of the City’s oldest civic institutions and those who hold the office have an important role in representing Newcastle.
However, if previous service as Lord Mayor is one of the reasons for these nominations, then that principle should be applied consistently.
Following the 2026 local elections, a number of former Lord Mayors are no longer serving councillors, including David Wood, Margaret Wood and Habib Rahman.
The question is not whether every former Lord Mayor should automatically receive the title of Honorary Alderman. That would misunderstand the purpose of the honour. Holding a civic office alone cannot be the test.
The question is whether the council has applied a clear and consistent standard.
If being a former Lord Mayor is part of the rationale, why have some former Lord Mayors been included and others not?
If the decision is instead based on other factors – length of service, achievements, leadership, contribution to Newcastle or exceptional public service – then those reasons should be explained.
That is not an unreasonable request. It is exactly what should be expected when a city confers one of its highest civic honours.
There is a wider issue here about public trust and the role of patronage in public life.
At national level, the honours system – including appointments to the House of Lords – has frequently faced criticism when recognition appears too closely connected to political loyalty or personal favour.
The principle is the same whether at Westminster or within a city council.
Honours matter because they are trusted.
They retain their value because people believe they are awarded for merit, contribution, and service – not because of political circumstances.
The timing of these proposals inevitably invites scrutiny.
They come following the 2026 local elections, when Labour lost control of Newcastle City Council. A number of former Labour councillors who are no longer on the authority, either because they stood down or were not re-elected, have been put forward for one of the city’s highest civic honours.
That does not mean the nominations are wrong. But when a political group can recognise former colleagues at the point of leaving office, the responsibility to demonstrate openness and independence is even greater.
Public confidence depends not only on decisions being fair. It depends on decisions being seen to be fair.
The answer is straightforward.
Publish the criteria. Explain the decisions. Demonstrate how each nomination meets the statutory test of “eminent services”.
That would not diminish the honour. It would strengthen it.
Those receiving the title would know their contribution had been recognised through a process beyond question, and the people of Newcastle could have confidence that one of the City’s highest civic honours continues to mean what it was intended to mean.
Newcastle’s civic traditions belong to the whole city.
The title of Honorary Alderman should represent exceptional service to Newcastle – not political favour, not patronage and not reward.
A civic honour should never be about who has the power to give it. It should 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.
