A modest increase in Brent councillors' basic allowance

 

 

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)

 

Teachers organise to reject 'half-funded' 6.5% pay offer - this is why

 Initial reaction in Brent appears to challenge yesterday's media assumptions that the teachers' dispute is over.  Claims that the government has funded the increase were challenged. Schools will have to find 3% of the 6.5% from their budgets and the assumption that they have the money to have budgeted for 3.5% already is doubtful, when many Brent schools are heading for a deficit budget.

Schools are already restructuring staff and negotiating redundancies, particularly among support staff.

The last round of strikes emphasised the need for the increase to be 'fully-funded' and there is disappointment that this is not the case. There are vague assurances that there will be a 'hardship fund' for schools that cannot afford to pay the increase but no firm details.

Furthermore, there is concern that the Government has not put forward any longer term plans on making up the loss, in real terms, of the loss in teachers' earnings. It is this loss that had led (along with workload and Ofsted pressures) to the recruitment and retention crisis in our schools.

An 'Educators Say No to 6.5%' campaign has been rapidly organised and has received support from many Brent NEU members.

Brent Councillors' allowances to rise by 4.04%

Thursday's Full Council meeting will consider increasing councillors' allowance by 4.04% in line with the National Joint Council  Government Services pay award.

 

Councillor's allowances are made up of 2 elements: a basic allowance for every councillor and an additional responsibility allowance when they take on a specific role (leadership, chair of committee etc). For the last couple of years only the basic allowance has been increased.

 

This year the proposal increases both as in the table below. In addition the second opposition group leader is given an annual allowance of £4,000 for the first time. (Click bottom right to enlarge)

 

 

The report on the proposal states:

The 2022, Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) for London Councils,  report recognises the importance of the role played by elected members not only in terms of their representational role but also given the increasing challenges and demands in managing the delivery of local services and on the allocation of financial resources. The report highlights the increasingly difficult and complex nature of choices and work faced by local councillors in terms of managing these challenges and increasing level of demand on services. In addition, reference is made to the growth in other public sector activities including community safety, increasing expectations for closer working with health services and the voluntary sector, as well the growing role of councillors acting as a point of information, advice and reassurance for local communities. The report also recognises the increasing expectations of the public in terms of access to their local councillors supported by the growth in digital connectivity, social media etc.

While conscious of the above, the review also takes account of the continuing
financial challenges faced by local authorities. Having taken account of adjustments made in accordance with annual local government pay settlements over previous years, this led to the recommendation of a Basic Allowance set at £12,014. The current basic allowance payable under Brent’s Members Allowance Scheme is already comparable at £12,484.

 

The report from the Independent Panel for the Remuneration of Councillors in London reiterated its previous recommendation that members’ allowances should be uplifted annually in line with the pay settlement for employees and are therefore recommending that boroughs also use the 4.04% uplift for their member allowances. It is, however, up to each borough to determine the allowances it pays to members. On this basis, members are therefore asked to consider (following consultation with the Constitution Working Group) applying an uplift of 4.04% across the Basic and Special Responsibility Allowances within the Members Allowance Scheme for 2023/24. If this were to be agreed, it would mean an increase in the Basic Allowance from £12,484 to £12,988 (a difference of £504 for each of the 57 councillors).

 

Overall the proposals  would increase the total councillors’ allowance costs by £46,143. This, however,  would be affected by any role changes made at the Annual Meeting of the Council. You will have read the Conservative budget proposal that the 4.04% rise should not be implemented and that the Cabinet should be reduced by two members and the roles redistributed to the remaining Cabinet members.

 

 

Last chance today to submit comments on Wembley Stadium events and capacity increase

Guest blog from Wembley resident Denise Cheong

 I write regarding Wembley Stadium planning application 17/0368, which Martin has covered extensively.

For your information and in the interests of raising greater awareness on the issues residents face, these are the comments I submitted to the Head of Planning, Alice Lester.

"Dear Ms Lester

Thank you for consulting us on planning application 17/0368.

We object to the proposed variation of condition 3 (event cap, to allow 31 additional full capacity events) and removal of condition 33 (temporary traffic management) of planning permission reference 99/2400.

The proposal would adversely affect the quality of life of not only Wembley residents, but also a far reaching radius of other Brent residents (as well as their visitors). Traffic congestion generated on Event Days on local roads is noted to be over 3hrs per Event in supporting documents. Granting planning permission of this would effectively impinge on 1/5 of an average person's day time (based on an average adult sleep of 8 hrs per night) on up to 68 Event Days a year; an Event Day every 5.3 days.

The Stadium is not highly accessible by public transport. The supporting documents note the centre of the Stadium has a mere PTAL rating of 3.

There is no robust plan to safeguard residents (as well as their visitors) from additional litter and public order offenses such as urination generated by such Events. There is no firm plan noting exact monies sought from the applicant or the Stadium user for post Event clean up. There are guidelines and assurances but nothing specific to safeguard Brent residents (as well as their visitors). These issues are the financial responsibility of the applicant and need to be individually addressed.

Whilst we appreciate the many benefits our National Stadium affords us, Brent Council has a responsibility and duty of care to it's residents which it needs to safeguard."

Following on from the above, I was pleased to read on page 4 of the 13th March Brent cabinet report Pilot Paper on Managing Street Drinking that:

"7.1 The introduction of the Met Patrol Plus scheme in May/June 16 will also ensure there is robust policing plan of the PSPO areas in the pilot areas.

7.2 ASB Localities Officers, Local Safer Neighbourhood Teams and Kingdom Officers will also assist with the policing of these areas. There will be discussions with Quintain to address what resources they could contribute to the policing of the PSPO in Wembley Park."

We would like to see the specific details of the precise resources that Quintain will be contributing to the Wembley Park PSPO.

Have you submitted your comments yet? Today's the deadline.

Thanks for reading!
Denise Cheong

Submit on-line comments HERE

In a Tweet this afternoon Cllr Stopp (Wembley Central ward) said he was keen to hear residents views on this issue:  cllr.sam.stopp@brent.gov.uk

Powney: Cabinet's 'blatant disregard makes everyone involved look ridiculous'

 

Front page of this week's Kilburn Times

Former councllor James Powney takes up the issue of the Labour Group vote in favour of a Council Tax rise, and the leadership's decision to ignore the vote in his blog LINK

Cllr John Duffy has made a formal complaint to the Coinstiutional officer of the Labour Party over the issue.

This is what James Powney said:

Reports of the discussion of Council Tax increases cause me some embarrassment as a member of the Labour Party.  It seems that the Labour Group debated and voted on the issue, deciding in favour of a rise just short of what would trigger a referendum.  This seems eminently sensible to me for reasons I have explained. 

It now appears that the Executive plan to simply ignore the majority of the Group, and freeze the Council Tax.  I have never heard of such a thing in Brent or in any other authority, or indeed any other party.  Such blatant disregard makes everyone involved look ridiculous.

It is normal for Budgets to be subject to Group whipping, but since the majority voted in favour of an increase, I would have thought the Labour whip is in favour of the increase rather than against it.

Council Tax increase of 1.99% would raise £1.4m over two years and add £21 to Band D residences

The debate on a possible Council Tax rise of 1.99% may be helped by the following figures I have obtained from Brent Council:

A council tax increase of 1.99% would provide £1.7m (gross) and £0.7m (minus the freeze grant) in each year. 

Therefore the council's ongoing resources would be £1.4m higher after two years of council tax increases. This assumes the freeze grant would continue to be added as permanent funding by the government in subsequent years (which is the current arrangement).

A 1.99% increase would be equal to a £21 increase for Band D residents.

Readers can see the full range of proposed cuts HERE but it may be useful to see the value of a few key cuts in relation to that £700k achieved each year from a Council Tax increase:

Adult Home Care: The proposals are to cut home visit times from 30 minutes to 15 minutes saving £600k

Stonebridge Adventure Playgroun : Proposed ceasing funding to save £118k

Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre: Closure to save £13k

Energy Solutions: Cease grant to save £50k

Closure of Leisure Centre:  saving £400k

Reduction in Street Cleansing (inc no litter clearance in Zone 5 residential roads): saving £400k

Possible Council Tax rise emerges as an option on eve of Budget Consultation deadline

I understand that at last night's Labour group meeting the possibility of a Council Tax increase came back into play with a potential rise of 1.99% for 2015-2016 looked upon favourably by a majority of the group. A straw poll indicated 24 in favour of a Council Tax increase and 6 against.  This would be an annual increase of £30 for Band D residents.

Although Cllr Muhammed Butt opposed an increase at the Civic Centre Public Budget Consultation  that this would hit people already suffering from Coalition cuts the counter-argument is that in terms of social solidarity sharing the burden (with those in higher rated property paying more) would enable the most extreme of the proposed cuts to be avoided.  This would preserve some vital threatened services  to the benefit of poorer residents andwould be better for the Council's long-term stability.

Since 2011 the Council has avoided Council Tax increases, accepting the Government's grant for freezing the tax. Indeed Muhammed Butt has made virtue out of what he sees as necessity by boasting to residents that he has frozen the tax.

However there is an argument that long-term freezing of the Council Tax undermines the Council's revenue base.

This is what Clive Heaphy's Report stated in the First Reading Debate in November 2011 LINK

On 3 October 2011 the government announced a further one-off grant, for 2012-13 only, of £2.6m predicated on the basis that the council does not increase council tax for 2012-13. Each 1% in Council tax equates to approximately £1m of Council spending and members should note that the failure to increase Council tax over a number of years will erode the Council’s underlying revenue position in the longer term.

By January 2012 Ann John had ruled out a rise in the Council Tax as reported by the Brent and Kilburn Times LINK

As I stated at the time: LINK

The [Heaphy] report said that a rise of 2.5% in council tax would close the budget gap as follows:

2012-13 £4.4m
2013-14 £1.1m
2014-15 £19.7m
2015-16 £13.1m

In other words a rise of 2.5% in council tax this year would result in a net gain when the loss of the £2.5m grant is taken into consideration. Some councils are considering this option and some Labour councillors in Brent thought it worthy of debate. However that option appears to have been ruled out in advance of both consultation and decision making.

In November 2012 Assistant Director Finance presented a Budget Report that assumed a 3.5% Council Tax increase (above that triggered a referendum at the time). However the trigger was reduced to 2% (still current).

As I stated on my blog in January 2013 LINK

I understand that there has been discussion in the Brent Executive as to whether to raise Council Tax with the benefit marginal after grant losses and  a reduced collection rate are taken into account. A rise above 2% would have incurred the cost of a local referendum.  It would of course have been another additional cost for people already suffering from benefit cuts and low or frozen wages. An alternative view is that calling the Coalition's bluff and triggering a referendum could result in a proper political debate about the need to adequately fund  local services and the iniquities of the Coalition's grant reduction to local authorities. Only a very small percentage of local government revenue comes from council taxes and charges.

Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt has confirmed via a Facebook interchange with me that there will not be a 2% rise this year. Asked about a possible lower rise he said that the Council was looking at the settlement figures as part of the budgetary process and considering the offer of the freeze grant.

In January 2014 Muhammed Butt said that there were 'no plans' to change policy from freezing Council Tax in the 2014-15 Budget. LINK

I wrote on this blog:

Reflecting on Muhammed Butt's declaration yesterday that there were 'no plans to change course' on freezing council tax for the 2014-15 budget, I wonder what his plans are for 2015-16. In October the Council forecast a deficit for that year of  £34m (see below) a huge amount that on the council's own reckoning will put essential services at risk.

As political parties are deciding their manifestos for the May local elections surely they should be saying something about this crisis waiting for them in their first year of office.

In that respect a manifesto pledge to have a referendum on increasing council tax would make sense. Rank and file Labour party members and the wider public could than have a say and it could provide a launch pad for similar moves by other local authorities.  I do not think increases in council tax are the answer to the huge cuts in local authority funding, that of course requires the restoration of adequate funding, but a national debate post May 2014 leading up to the General Election in 2015 could feed into that demand. It will certainly put the future of local government on the General Election agenda.

Unfortunately despite some efforts at raising the issue and confronting the Coalition with the impact of the cuts, no real movement has emerged and no Referendum challenge..

Brent Council is left with the weakened revenue base that Clive Heaphy warned them about and deeply damaging unpalatable cuts.

It is noteworthy that in the above examples it has been Ann John and Muhammed Butt who appear to have made the decision about a Council Tax rise, although formally of course it is the Full council Meeting.

Where this leaves the Labour Group's support for a modest 1.99% rise, just below the Referendum threshold remains to be seen. Clearly the Cabinet should be taking note of the virews of its own councillors as well as the support shown for services by residents in consultations and in the campaigns that have sprung up to defend services.

If you wish to put your view there is still time to submit a  comment to Brent Council's budget consultation. The deadline is tomorrow, Wednesday February 4th :consultation@brent.gov.uk


 

Muhammed Butt promises to consult on Brent budget

Following my posting on the lack of consultation on the Brent Budget LINK, Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt has sent me this comment:

I can assure you that we will be consulting on the budget. I am formalising dates and times with the consultation team and will get back to you and we will let everyone know as soon as things have been set.

We have not been able to put the budget on the agenda due to the government giving us our funding settlement figures so late and they are still giving us the data in chunks which is making setting the budget process very difficult.

Everyone has the opportunity to use the soap box to highlight any issues and concerns to us at every forum and would encourage you to use that and you can always suggest topics of conversation for the forums.

We are always looking to find different formats and topics that will allow us to engage better with our residents.

Brent allotment rents to rise again

Big rises in allotment rents caused a furore last year LINK and allottees have just received notice that they will rise again in April 2012.

The council says that rents will rise by 6% 'in line with inflation' although it is hard to see how the council's costs have risen by that amount with council officers' wages frozen and extensive staffing cuts in the Sports and Parks Unit last year.

The 6% figures is likely to be the norm increase for other council services in the new year, while wages, pensions and savings show a decrease in real  terms.

Do these charges protect the most vulnerable?

An excellent habitat for rats behind Neasden shops

Just before Christmas Brent Council announced increased charges for its services generally averaging around 10%.  However this average concealed some much sharper increases that raise doubts about whether Labour is keeping its promise to protect the most vulnerable in  the face of Coalition cuts in funding. The charges are operative from January 1st 2011, giving no time for those affected to organise opposition.

Charges for allotment rental are to rise by a massive 127% but in addition groups previously exempted from fees will now pay 50%. The concessionary rate for people in receipt of a state pension now only applies to those who get Pension Credit and that for the unemployed now applies only to those on Income Support or Jobseekers' Allowance.

As a long-time allotment holder, first in Bridge Road, Harlesden and now at Birch Grove, Kingsbury, I know how important having an allotment is to those groups. The elderly, those on benefit or disability allowance  not only keep fit through working the allotment and healthy through eating its produce, but become part of a supportive and sociable community of gardeners, enhancing their quality of life. It is shameful that the council is increasing charges for these groups who are already the hardest hit by the Conservative-led Coalition cuts.

It is even more perplexing that the Council is introducing for the first time a charge for the control of rats. This is now going to cost £95 for one course of treatment. Sharp-eyed Brent residents will be familiar with the dark green bait tunnels to be seen around many of our estates, school playground and shopping centres. The rat population of the borough is on the increase and already resistant to many of the usual treatments.

Again the increased charges will hit those least likely to be able to pay, particularly those who live in poorly maintained, multi-occupied, private rented accommodation. The problem is likely to be exacerbated by the introduction of fortnightly rubbish collections and the possibility of sacks of rubbish being left by over-flowing bins.  Rather cynically the Council predicts that demand for rat pest control will fall by 75% to 90% as a result of the introduction of charges - will we see an equivalent increase in the number of rats running around the borough and the consequent danger of disease?

The full list of increases can be found HERE