Debating the councillor renumeration proposals
There is always a faint air of embarrassment around the Council chamber when the issue of councillor allowances comes up at the Budget setting meeting of the Council. This year was no exception as councillors were required to vote on giving themselves a rise.
Allowances were introduced to ensure that the role of councillor was open to a wider range of people rather than just those with a high enough income or an independent income tenabling them to subsidise the role.
Some councillors have other employment in addition to being a councillor while others treat it as a full-time job.
A saving grace is that Brent has the Independent Renumeration Panel (IRP) to advise on renumeration for London councillors. In fact the IRP in its report LINK advocated a higher basic allowance than that adopted by Brent Council (£15,960) against the Brent figure of £13,637 (up from £12,988). This is £649 extra a year for each of the 57 Brent councillors.
The IRP in its report said:
[Our] research showed that basic allowances per annum in London are significantly lower than those paid in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The assessment of members’ allowances in the home nations is carried out by independent bodies whereas in England, the level of allowances is determined by the local authority members themselves. It has also become clear that allowances in many boroughs are considerably lower than remuneration received by workers in London with comparative levels of responsibilities and skills. This comparative contrast in remuneration is juxtaposed against increased workloads, time pressures, accountability, and financial pressures that councillors are presently having to manage. The Panel takes the view that it is important that there is a system of support in place that recognises the vital role that elected representatives play in local government and the full scale of their responsibilities. This support includes appropriate remuneration levels.
The Roberts commission considered a wide range of issues but at its heart were the key questions of: 1) how best to ensure that people from a wide range of backgrounds and with a wide range of skills are encouraged to serve as local councillors; and 2) how to ensure those who participate in and contribute to the democratic process should not suffer unreasonable financial disadvantage.
Within these broad considerations there can be no doubt that financial compensation or a system of allowances plays a crucial part in making it financially possible for local people to put themselves forward to take on the onerous responsibilities involved in being a councillor and indeed to continue to serve as one.
For this reason it is crucial that allowances for councillors across London are pitched at an appropriate level such that they make a major contribution in ensuring diverse and effective local representation. This 2023 review of Member allowances has aimed to take a step back and ensure that the recommended allowances are pitched such that they serve this crucial purpose.
We are clear that the Panel can only make recommendations and that each council must determine its own system and rates of allowances. However each council must have regard to our recommendations. We are concerned that a wide variation in the level of allowances between councils across London has evolved over the years.
Given that this year’s Panel review has been a significant stocktake and that we have made clear recommendations, with a clear rationale and for the important purpose described in this section, we strongly recommend that the findings of our review and the Panel’s position are adopted across London. This is at the heart of ensuring a healthy, vibrant and representative local government in the capital.
Having looked at various options, the Panel has concluded that the most appropriate approach is to determine the basic allowance as a proportion to the remuneration of the people councillors represent and has used the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) data, published by the Office for National Statistics as a basis of its calculation. The Panel has used the median wage for all London workers for this purpose. In 2022-23, this is £38,936.73 per annum. Based on a 37 hour week, and taking into account a 30% public service discount, (as has been the custom and practice) the Panel has determined that the recommended basic allowance should be £15,960.
On top of the basic allowance there are Special Responsibility Allowances (SRAs) for councillor roles on committees etc. The Brent proposl this year was that these remained unchanged except for members of the Licensing Committee and chairs of Brent Connects. As Cllr Georgiou pointed out at the Council meeting these have been significantly increased. The Council reports sets out the reasons for the proposed increase:
Over the last two and a half years, the number of Licensing Sub-committee meetings have averaged at 20 or more per year with each hearing lasting at least half a day. Serving on the Licensing Committee bears significant personal responsibility as the committee is quasi-judicial in nature. All members are expected to strictly adhere to the Licensing code of practise, with the failure to do so risking reputational damage to the council or the risk of legal proceedings. All members on the licensing committee are expected to regularly attend the Licensing Sub-committee as well as undertake regular training and development sessions provided by the council, in addition to site visits and other applicable work.
Similarly with the role of Chairs of the Brent Connects Area Consultative Forums and the increasing pressures on community resilience and power, these forums will be taking on a more developed role in the council, as part of our Borough Plan commitment to enabling communities and encouraging greater involvement at a neighbourhood level in council activities
As commented on previously on Wembley Matters SRAs are an area where a council leader can indulge powers of patronage. Their potential loss via removal from a post can keep a councillor in line.
Full list of allowances (Click bottom right corner for full page view)
25 comments:
If their council responsibilities are so huge how can they effectively and responsible do full time work and be a local councillor and committee member or chair as well???
It was not just the basic allowance that was increased. Allowances for Chairs of the Connects Meetings (these meet just 4 times a year at best ) and for members of the Licensing Committee were also increased. Some of the increases are not justified and this is why the Lib Dem Group voted against.
Martin refers to the Independent Remuneration Panel but some of their recommendations are very questionable and excessive - especially as Councillors are not employees and therefore not subject to performance appraisal and they will get the basic £13,637 allowance irrespective of doing much or even being out of the UK a lot of the time.
I attended the recent Kingsbury and Kenton Brent Connects meeting, which was held via Zoom.
I was only there because the Community Engagement Officer organising it had invited Wembley History Society to present a "soapbox slot", as WHS would be a useful contact for Young Brent Foundation, who were doing a presentation at the meeting.
I stayed for the whole meeting, so was able to observe. There were some interesting and informative presentations, but the disappointing feature was the attendance, or lack of it.
The maximum number of participants at any one time was 32, and half of those were involved in the meeting in some way. No Kingsbury councillors attended, and Kenton and Welsh Harp Wards only had one councillor each attending, for part of the time.
Cllr Georgiou makes the point about the Brent Connects chairs and Licensing Committee members in the video extract.
It’s is really annoying that Local Councillors are able to claim their expenses (plus any gifts they receive) without being appraised in any way to prove that they are working to represent us local people not just the party they belong to.
We have 3 local councillors in our ward and all we hear is that they don’t respond to residents at all, yet they turn up for self publicity photo shoots or on the election campaign.
If councillors are Ill or out of the country they should be made to have another councillor cover their work so that local people can easily get the help they need.
If you have 3 councillors and 1 is out of action it absolutely makes sense that the other 2 pitch in, just as anyone would in a normal place of work. Not so much that “they should be made to”, more that it’s common sense?
Our three councillors never respond to residents so no idea what they are doing whether they are well, ill or away??? :(
“Modest” - every year.
Just like with many other jobs.
In most other jobs your pay increase is dependent upon your performance and your results.
Our Councillors don't even respond to us residents so how exactly is their performance and results monitored???
Maybe they just don’t respond to you.
Not like other jobs though is it. They’re meant to have other jobs the majority of them.
So you’d want them to do the role for a pittance?
They don't respond to anyone!
Why are they 'meant to have other jobs'???
How do you know
Councillors' roles are meant to be part-time as they are meant to be positions of public service rather than full-time employment. This allows councillors to have diverse backgrounds and experiences, bringing a broader perspective to local government. Additionally, part-time roles help maintain a balance between governance responsibilities and other professional or personal commitments. If you want career politicians with no experience of the real world, then think otherwise.
Because it's all we hear from neighbours, fellow residents and even council officers!
We need councillors with real experiences of the actual real world who are committed to supporting local residents to build a better borough.
We don't need councillors who sit back and take their allowances on top of their huge full time salaries whilst doing very little because they know they cannot be removed from their position particularly if they agree with what the Leader of Brent Council tells them.
This sounds very hostile towards people who have quite possibly worked very hard to do well enough to achieve “huge full time salaries”. Often such people have more real world experience than people who earn a lot less, simply because the latter would have less time and fewer resources to experience more outside of their day to day or immediate surroundings.
It sounds like it’s all you talk about
The irony is, you have to be rich to think that their allowance isn’t a lot of money on top of any salary. So what we’re actually seeing is greed and nothing that makes a more virtuous or effective councillor
Lol
So you think it is acceptable that council tax paying residents with genuine issues and concerns get no help from their elected representatives?
Anonymous31 March 2024 at 12:28 says...
"This sounds very hostile towards people who have quite possibly worked very hard to do well enough to achieve “huge full time salaries”. Often such people have more real world experience than people who earn a lot less, simply because the latter would have less time and fewer resources to experience more outside of their day to day or immediate surroundings." Meanwhile In the actual real world we've known a lot of people get promoted because they are totally useless and can't manage important projects on a day to day basis yet due to employment legislation it's so difficult to get rid of them. It is the hard-working people on lower salaries who have the most important life experiences, money and 'position' does not make you better than anyone else.
Post a Comment