Connected to an explosive report on last weekend’s Sunday Politics, the Labour Group has had sight of a letter from the Leader of the Council to a former Liberal Democrat Councillor which casts doubt on the accuracy of public statements made by Councillor Sue Derbyshire.

Councillor Patrick McAuley, now an independent, has accused her of attempting to use ‘hush money’ from local taxpayers to avoid bad headlines in the run-up to local elections on 5th May. Councillor Derbyshire has denied this, saying she was merely offering special leave.

Labour Group Leader Councillor Alex Ganotis said ‘The letter in Councillor Derbyshire’s name offers Councillor McAuley the opportunity to handle his sacking ‘discreetly’ so that he can continue to claim an allowance until 24th May.

‘The question I’m left wondering about all of this is why did it need to be handled discreetly if this was simply a case of an Executive Member needing to take leave on health grounds? Councillor McAuley has actually now come out and said he didn’t need to take any leave.

‘To members of the public it could appear as though she has effectively offered a fellow Lib Dem Councillor taxpayers money in return for him agreeing to be removed from office quietly and without publicly commenting on how she has handled plans for the market.’

Councillor Patrick McAuley, until 11th April Stockport’s portfolio holder for Thriving Economy, issued a statement which reveals how Council Leader Sue Derbyshire relieved him of his duties whilst suggesting that if he ‘allowed this to happen quietly [he] would keep any special responsibility allowance that [he] was entitled to as an Executive Member.’

Councillor Ganotis added ‘If Councillor Derbyshire’s plan had worked, and been kept secret from residents, Stockport taxpayers would now be footing a bill to pay an Executive Member who had been sacked in all but name.

‘Had Labour not stepped in Councillor Derbyshire’s plan to move Stockport Market without considering either of the public consultation responses would also have been approved.

‘Why was there a plan to allow Councillor McAuley to stay on the Executive if he has lost the confidence of his colleagues and there was such a fundamental disagreement on a flagship policy? That isn’t grounds for special leave and for continuing to receive public money.

‘Using taxpayers’ money in an attempt to cover-up bad news stories before an election in which you are a candidate is a flagrant breach of all proper and ethical standards of behaviour in public life, whichever political party you are from. This brings politics into disrepute and undermines faith in our local democracy.’