All councillors have to declare in a Council-held Register interests such as their home address, properties they own in the Borough, the nature of their work, employer, sources of income and any bodies or societies they belong to that could influence or possibly prejudice the way they vote on issues. This Register is held by the Council and is open to inspection.

But some councillors have refused to allow their personal or business interests to be published on the Council’s website, despite a strong public wish for full disclosure of interests following scandals such as Margaret Moran’s expenses claims.

Two recent Labour Mayors, Limbury councillor Norris Bullock and Saints ward councillor Mohammed Riaz, have refused to disclose ANY of their personal or business interests online – deciding instead to withhold all details such as property owned and by whom they are paid.

Morel Benard, another Saints Labour Councillor, has refused to name her employer online.

And Tory councillor John Titmuss has decided to conceal online details of any land or property addresses within Luton in which he has a direct beneficial interest.

Sundon Park Liberal Democrat Councillor, Anna Pedersen said:

“Given the clear steer from all three party leaders that councillors should be fully open about their interests, it’s a shame that several councillors seem to think they should be exempt from scrutiny. Visiting the Council’s web site is the most convenient way for thousands of Luton residents to view the information.”

“It was said in the debate on this issue that refusal to publish interests would reflect badly on those concerned. Now we know the results. The daft thing is that these councillors are only drawing attention to themselves, as any member of the public wanting to know can visit the Council’s legal department during office hours and view the Register without needing an appointment.”

“Residents must be able to be confident that personal interests are not affecting decisions being made, within or outside of the Town Hall. I hope the Labour and Tory Group Leaders will now put pressure on those few councillors who are letting the side down to be fully transparent, so people can feel assured this isn’t the case.”

“That’s nonsense,” says Liberal Democrat Cllr Martin Pantling. “Whether they are recruited internally or externally the cost will be the same. If people who would otherwise be removed from the payroll are recruited to these posts that is still a net increase of two managers and will still cost £120,000.”

“This is on top of half a dozen ‘Excellence’ posts of questionable value, a recently appointed Assistant Chief Executive and a Performance supremo earning over £100,000 a year who couldn’t stop Luton being rated a mediocre two-star Council.”

“We just wish this Labour Council would put as much energy into delivering quality services to residents as it does to hiring highly paid managers.”

“With Council finances in a dire state, with support for children and elderly adults under threat, now is not the time to lumber Council Tax payers with a bill for £120,000 to recruit yet another two senior managers.”

The Labour Executive will on Monday night discuss in secret, and are expected to approve, a 16-page report titled “Sale of Surplus Sites.” The report details eleven currently Council-owned sites in Luton being sold off.

However, the decision to take the discussion in secret means Liberal Democrat Councillors are not allowed to reveal which sites are to be sold or what reasoning there is for the sales.

The Lib Dems are also concerned that Labour may be continuing their policy of selling off freeholds, rather than granting long leases with the land eventually returning to public ownership – as happened under the former Liberal Democrat-led administration.

Liberal Democrat Opposition Leader David Franks is now asking for the decision to be taken in the public part of the meeting and discussed openly, as is usually the case, with only commercially sensitive details such as the anticipated selling price kept under wraps.

Commenting, Cllr David Franks said:

“Sales of Council sites have always been discussed in public so residents can know what decisions are being taken, why and so relevant questions can be asked. In the case of some of these sites there are certainly questions which need to be answered and I will be asking these questions at the meeting. The problem is that, because of the Council’s secrecy rules I am not allowed to say what the questions are or what answers, if any, I may be given.”

“While we understand sensitivities around selling prices and the like, these can be put into a separate appendix. There is no reason at all why a whole 16-page report listing sites for sale should be agreed in secret, except for the fact the Labour Leader and Finance Spokesperson presumably want it to be.”

“By trying to secretly sneak through a set of sales in mid-August, Labour are treating residents with complete contempt. People should be told openly which sites or buildings are being put up for grabs, and have the chance to make any representations.”

Liberal Democrat Leader, Councillor David Franks comments:

“At last, after more than a week of Liberal Democrat pressure, Luton’s Labour Council has let Council Tax payers know how much of their money is to be spent on the bid for City Status.”

“The £50,000 allocated to this bid is just this year’s spend, more money will be needed from next year’s budget.”

“The Council is slashing spending on the Schools Music service and on road safety schemes whilst much of the City Status money will go to public relations consultants. Thank goodness local residents can now make their own rational judgements about whether this is a sensible way for their Council to be spending taxpayers’ money and I invite them to do so.”

Expressing a personal, not official view, Bedfordshire Police Authority member Councillor Martin Pantling, who spoke against the idea at a simultaneous Bedfordshire meeting this morning – only to see the Authority vote by 9 votes to 8 to consult on possible merger after repeated pleas from Chief Constable Gillian Parker – said:

“It’s a shame we’ve had to rely on Hertfordshire to take the sensible view that with major changes for Policing around the corner, this is just not the right time to be spending £20 million on merging Police forces.”

“The business case contained only one real option, and failed to consider a wide range of alternatives such as shared services with Councils, Health services, the Probation Service, Businesses or others, or more pooling of budgets locally to achieve our aims.”

“Key details such as the Governance structure weren’t fully worked out, and we could have given residents little reassurance that this would be anything but a Hertfordshire takeover and that the Police would be that much more remote. Given this, and the fact it turns out that Hertfordshire didn’t want us anyway, I’m amazed that Central Beds councillors and the Police Authority Chair and Vice-Chair voted to consult on merging the Force.”

“It will now be for those of us who can think beyond merger to shape the future of policing in Bedfordshire. With this embarrassing episode over, I hope the Authority and Force leadership will want to join us in doing so, free of an unwelcome distraction that has already put on hold a number of decisions that are now urgent.”

Liberal Democrat leader, David Franks, says the decision to appoint the consultants was taken in the public part of the meeting but the Executive Committee excluded members of the public before disclosing how much they intended to pay them.

“Because of the Council’s secrecy rules I am not allowed to say how much they propose to spend,” David Franks told this newspaper, “but we have to ask whether this time of severe service cuts is the right time to commit public money to pay outside consultants in a bid to allow Luton to call itself a city.”

“Of course city status would bring prestige and a much needed boost to the town’s image, but with looming cuts in the road safety budgets, an eventual end to free swimming and reductions in summer activities for children, this is no time to splash out on consultants’ fees for a luxury we cannot afford. The sum they have set aside for this project is substantial.”

Councillor David Franks told the meeting;

“Around 60% of all street robbery, house burglary and theft from cars in Luton is committed by people trying to finance drug habits, it is completely unacceptable that drug detox and rehabilitation does not feature on the priority list for Luton policing.”

“Crimes committed to finance drug habits inflict terrible suffering on the victims, sometimes violent and always severely traumatising. In a large, busy town like Luton getting more offenders into effective treatment must be a priority.”

In the statement they say;

“We are very grateful to all those who supported the Liberal Democrats in this General Election. While the result may not of been what we hoped for, we deeply appreciate the welcome that so many Luton residents have given us during the election campaign. We also know that Luton Liberal Democrats will continue to campaign for liberal values and work for the best interests of the town.”

Luton South

Labour majority: 2,329

Turnout: 70.4%

A report by CABE’s design review panel said S&P architects had failed to capitalise on the “wonderful opportunity” to give Luton a prominent new civic building.

Instead, the report claimed, the car park has been given too much prominence, there is a lack of interaction between the building and surrounding landscape and there is too much glazing, which could lead to glare.

The £21 million scheme is to be built to replace a 30m-long swimming pool, and has been designed to include a multi-purpose pool, sports hall, changing facilities and landscaping.

The CABE report said the design should have a more prominent entrance to encourage people to cycle or walk to the centre rather than rely on cars.

It also claimed the building ran the risk of looking like an “out-of-town office development” and should instead focus on features such as cafés and play areas spilling out into the adjacent green space.

You can read CABE’s comments in full on their website.