The Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee met to discuss the Cabinet's decision to approve funding from the Corporate Contingency Fund for two political assistant posts, at a maximum funding level of £142,010, with the cost to be built into the Medium Term Financial Strategy¹ (MTFS) moving forward. After discussion, the committee voted to implement the decision as set out in the original decision notice.

Political Assistant Appointments

The main item under consideration was the decision made by the Cabinet on 17 September 2025 regarding the appointment of political assistants. The decision was called in for discussion. The committee voted to agree for the decision to be implemented as set out in the original decision notice. Nine members voted in favour, and three against.

Councillor Graytrex, speaking on behalf of 11 members who requested the call-in, questioned the value and timing of the appointments. Councillor Graytrex suggested that the input of backbenchers and opposition members would be lost, and that the council's officers should be regarded as friends within who will implement democratically decided policy. Councillor Graytrex also raised concerns about value for money, stating:

So you're only as good as the brief that you're going to give to the consultants. If you're not able to say to the consultants, this is what we want out of your employment, then they're not going to achieve what you think they're going to.

Councillor Ian Cooper, Leader of the Council, responded that the role was for a researcher or political advisor, and that the Conservative Party had introduced the concept in 1989. Councillor Cooper stated that Staffordshire used to have such a role until 2014. He added that a political advisor can give partial advice, help with policy direction and constitutional issues, whereas officers must be objective.

Councillor Sean Bagguley asked for more detail on the input and output from a political assistant that would not be available from existing officers. Councillor Cooper replied that officers have to be objective and cannot engage in the political process, whereas a political advisor can give partial advice and help on the political aspect, policy direction and constitutional issues.

Councillor Robin Hall asked what the consequences would be if the council did not take someone on. Councillor Cooper responded that the level of support would be reduced. He clarified that the £142,010 figure was a framework maximum, and that the actual cost would be lower, around level 7, approximately £27,000.

Councillor Jack Rose said he did not agree that the role would be good value for money, even at £71,005. He questioned how the cabinet and leader did not have time to do fact-checking and research, considering their salaries. Councillor Rose also claimed that Staffordshire County Council and its residents were almost £5 million worse off since the new leadership took over, due to a downturn of £4.5 million from central government and other factors. Councillor Cooper responded that Councillor Rose's figures were wrong.

Councillor Alex Farrell, Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Portfolio Holder for Local Government Reorganisation and Devolution, asked what the measurable return on investment would be for the taxpayer, and how the success of the spend could be measured in one year. Councillor Cooper stated that the value for money would be shown in the forward plan and future projects. Councillor Farrell then asked why a political aid was being prioritised over funding for highway staff or social care workers. Councillor Cooper responded that the person would be an employee of the council, not a political appointment, and would fall under the MADS² department as a support role.

Councillor Farrell asked what safeguards would be in place to prevent cronyism or an internal appointment of a Reform supporter, and to whom the role would be accountable. Councillor Cooper replied that the person would be an employee of Staffordshire County Council, and that the contract was for 12 months only.

Councillor Rose asked why the political advisor was being appointed on a band seven rather than a lower band. Councillor Cooper responded that the council was not involved in the recruitment or banding, and that it was done independently through the Hayes system. He said that the council had originally suggested a band 10, but that this was lowered to a band seven after review.

Councillor Hall said that the headline figure of £142,000 was grabbing, but the reality appeared to be £35,000 over 12 months. He asked Councillor Graytrex if he would have brought the objection if he had known that was the case. Councillor Graytrex responded that he would have, because the whole aspect was whether it was value for money.

Councillor Philip White, Leader of the Opposition, questioned the timing and need for the appointment, as the report presented to the last cabinet was relatively brief in terms of justification. He noted that the report stated that the posts would be funded by the council but must be cost-effective and justified, and assessed through a job evaluation exercise. Councillor White asked why the appointment was cost-effective and justified, and why it was being funded through the contingency fund outside of the MTFS. He suggested that the matter be considered as part of the MTFS process with a full value for money assessment and justification of the role. Councillor Cooper responded that there was always a reason not to do something, and that the council should find a positive reason to do something. He stated that the role was a research role, not an officer or political councillor role, and that the council needed to be in a position to have that person there to make investigations and help with critical decision-making now.

Councillor Rose mirrored Councillor White's point of view, stating that the report did not justify what the role would be doing. Councillor Cooper responded that the role was for research across the whole council for the whole time period, and could be any topic that officers could not do because they are politically restricted.

Councillor Bagguley asked Councillor Graytrex if he had received any feedback from other councils as to how useful political advisors had been. Councillor Graytrex responded that the majority of detail he found was from new Reform councils, and that the London boroughs found it particularly useful where they had equal numbers of two or three parties. He added that the usefulness was diminished when there was a large majority and the assistance of officers.

Councillor Bagguley asked Councillor Cooper for specific resident-focused benefits of the appointments. Councillor Cooper responded that the administration came with a more business focus, and that the appointments would help make better informed business decisions and have better outcomes for the people of Staffordshire.

Councillor Farrell stated that councillors are elected to scrutinise decisions and be the grey area between the black and the white, and that officers are there to give the legal and factual position. He noted that 11 councillors had called the decision in, and that Councillor Cooper had said it was not really a political assistant but a researcher on a third of the wage. Councillor Farrell asked how the hiring process would take place, and how Councillor Cooper would have any control over who was hired if the hiring process was going to subvert councillors and go directly to officers. Councillor Cooper responded that the person would be an employee of Staffordshire County Council, not Reform, and that junior job roles are not scrutinised by senior officers.

Councillor Tracey Dougherty asked if the political advisor would be available to the opposition. Councillor Cooper responded that they could have their own if they chose to.

Councillor Antonia Orlandi-Fantini asked what benefits the role could actually bring. Councillor Cooper responded that the person could find information regarding previous contracts, businesses, or even projects, and that they could do some deep diving and find information that officers could not use because of the political sensitive nature of it.

Councillor Kenneth Love-White stated that the decision required changes to the Constitution of the Council because it was a unique role blending the political with the officer role. He reiterated that the appointment of a political assistant must be demonstrated to be cost-effective and justified, and that the justification was not included in the cabinet report.

Councillor Adam Griffiths asked if there would be expenses for the researcher, such as travelling to Westminster. Councillor Cooper responded that there would be no travelling allowance or additional expenditure, and that it was just a research job.

Councillor Hall asked how much money the council spent on consultants, and if the council would have to buy some of the services that the person would do if they were not employed. Councillor Cooper responded that it would be far cheaper to have the person employed by the council than to buy in consultancy services.

Councillor White stated that the increase in staffing figures since 2021 was due to staff being brought back in-house from external contracts, and that it was important not to confuse the issues. He reiterated that the appointment of a political assistant must be demonstrated to be cost-effective and justified, and that the justification was not included in the cabinet report.

Councillor Fantini asked who initially put Hayes into their position, and how many other people had been given a job through Hayes that had been given a higher band. Councillor Cooper responded that the officers do a fantastic job, but that they are restricted in certain things they can do, and that the political advisor could do things that officers and employees of the council could not normally do.

Councillor Jones asked about the value of the role over time, and what restrictions the person could do that officers could not. Councillor Cooper responded that they could liaise with people in London and shape policies around certain directions, and that officers could not do that because they have to remain politically neutral.

Councillor Hall confirmed that the council could have paid £71,000 but was probably going to cost half of that, and that the council could have employed them on a full-time basis but had done it on a 12-month basis. Councillor Cooper confirmed that this was correct.