MP Cat Eccles says she will not quit as a Dudley councillor after criticism of her absence from meetings.
Labour’s Ms Eccles, who represents the Wollaston and Stourbridge Town ward, was elected to Westminster in July’s general election.
She came under fire at Dudley Council’s full meeting on October 21 during a debate on the introduction of parking charges.
During the debate, Lib Dem Cllr Ryan Priest said: “I’m tired of hearing the borough’s MPs bleat their opposition to this when one of them could have voted against parking charges in this chamber but didn’t even show up – it’s not good enough.”
Cllr Eccles, who was not at the council meeting, told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: “I am wearing two hats, as a member of parliament its a matter of prioritising, while I won’t always be able to be in the council chamber I am keeping abreast with what is going on in the council.
“I am satisfied the residents of Wollaston and Stourbridge have more than adequate representation.”
The MP has written to the council highlighting the concerns of traders in Stourbridge that the withdrawal of two hours of free parking would cost them business.
She was also attacked by Conservative Cllr Simon Phipps during a debate on the Labour government’s policy of removing winter fuel payments for some pensioners.
Cllr Eccles had gained permission to be away from parliament for the vote on the issue to attend an event in Stourbridge.
Cllr Phipps said: “There is one Labour MP that didn’t vote, that Labour MP is a councillor and should be sat in this chamber.”
Despite remaining as a councillor the Stourbridge MP does not collect a council allowance and continues in the role voluntarily, she says she has regular meetings with a variety of people to talk about council issues including the authority’s officers.
Cllr Eccles added she is working in Westminster to lobby for more cash for Dudley Council. She said: “I am raising points on funding in central government which is more powerful than anything I can do in the council chamber.
“I won’t cause a by-election and cost the council £20,000; in the current financial situation, that would be extremely irresponsible.”
Comments
Add a comment