A forum for open discussion on communities and local government policy.

Commission on the role of local councillors

Welcome to our forum. We’re still getting a terrific response and the comments we have received are being fed into discussions at meetings of the Commission. Please keep them coming.

Our question this month is: “Should councillors be better paid, and why?”

All principal local authorities (Counties, districts, boroughs) must pay their members a basic allowance. Councils may, if they choose, pay allowances for special responsibilities, travel and subsistence, care for dependents, and co-optees. It is for local authorities to decide the levels of all the categories of allowance they pay. The Government publishes no guidance on this.

Basic allowance is paid at the same level for all members, which is intended to cover the time commitment of councillors and incidental costs such as the use of their homes. It is not related to the actual level of commitment by the councillor, other than that a member need only attend a meeting once every six months to remain qualified and thus eligible for basic allowance.

From your posts so far it is clear that the issue of money is an important one. Are you in full-time employment and would like to become a councillor, but can’t afford to give your time? As a full-time councillor, are you rewarded appropriately for the hours you put in? On the other hand, do you believe that ‘professionalising’ the role of councillor would demean the value of public service? Would it encourage people with the ‘wrong’ motivations to stand for election?

These are big questions, which the commission is looking at and we would be very interested to hear your views.
We’d like to hear too from people who have been councillors in the past: was money an issue? Would a different system of remuneration tempt you to throw your hat back in the ring?

It’s a fascinating area and I’m sure you’ll have lots to say, so please sign up to the forum and let us have your views.

Thank you for taking part.

Dr Jane Roberts DBE
Chair

previous discussion | next discussion

Is pay the right issue???

Posted by John Radford on 16/08/2007 - 10:36

Pay for councillors is indeed a fascinating and provocative subject given the fact that effectively being a councillor is a hybrid between volunteering and work. On the one hand individuals put themselves forward for public service but at the same time are expected to meet stringent standards of ethical behaviour and their performance can be the subject of a level of scrutiny most workers would regard as intrusive.

In theory the question asked is irrelevant as councils can now pay their councillors (ie themselves) whatever they choose. Ultimately they pay reasonable sums because the issue is emotive and excessive payments (however defined) will generate legitimate public and media outcry. Councils have to have regard to an independent panel’s advice on allowance schemes and generally these have attempted to make some sort of objective assessment of the various “jobs” that councillors do – frequently recognising within this assessment that a significant part of the role is voluntary public service. Councillors suffer from a terrible stereotype – nearly always unjustified. Many of us will know many councillors and the vast majority of those commit to their various roles positively and generously, but when you think about how much to pay councillors think about what responsibilities they have. At one extreme we have Leaders or Mayors who will take decisions affecting the lives and life chances of hundreds of thousands of people. They are effectively the “bosses” of chief executives on six figure salaries and are nearly always full time politicians. They are also on what amounts to fixed term contracts – in the case of Leaders for just a year at a time. We expect these people to have extraordinary levels of competence and are generally rewarded with a “salary” of around £30-50,000 (around about 20p for every resident). Given the public service and political nature of the “job” that sounds about right – doesn’t it? Similar arguments apply to cabinet members.

At the other extreme we have back bench or front line councillors whose roles are very loosely defined. They may include holding regular surgeries; they may sit in judgment on complex planning applications; they may have to decline controversial licensing applications from gangster-like applicants; they may have to stand up against hostile events within their wards; they may take a leading role in a complex scrutiny such as a hospital closure. Or they may do none of these and just attend one meeting every six months. How do you calculate an appropriate reward in these circumstances? The general rule is to more or less average it out and pay something like £8,000 pa (which equates to something like 60-70p per resident represented). These councillors fulfil some similar representative roles to those posed by Harrow Resident and it is a very fair comment to make that residents’ representatives often commit voluntarily without pay. However there are very many differences too. We can all think of our local residents’ or tenants’ outfit (where we have one – and one major difference is that coverage is far from comprehensive) and assess whether payment would be valid. Equally on a pro rata basis I’m not sure that my own “ward” represent would feel more valued at receiving her 60p contribution from the 50 or so people she represents.

But isn’t all of this largely missing the point of this review. This review is supposed to be about finding ways of getting greater representation in councils rather than reflecting on those who have represented us all up until now. We want to find ways of getting a wide cross section of the population to take part whether that be

- young single parents
- people building careers and who also have busy social lives
- high flying businessmen and women
- people living on council estates and people from suburbia
- people from all the ethnic communities in our area
- young people, old people and middle aged people
- the rich, the poor and those on middle incomes

Does an allowance regime really assist all or any of the above or encourage them? Many different regimes have been tried in the past to try to make the allowances work whether that be attendance allowance, financial loss or the current system. Ultimately the pool of councillors and candidates remains largely unaltered.

I’m not sure any of us have the answers. To some extent it goes back to the issue of stereotype alluded to above. Why would anyone want to be a councillor when it will be assumed (if the role models reflected on Coronation Street and the like are to be believed) that you are either corrupt, lazy or inept?

back