JustinFair point, and I will endeavour to answer it to the best of my ability.The provision for a significant increase in allowances, largely to councillors in senior positions, was made by the previous Labour administration. As yet that provision has not been utilised but it is still there and it is fair to say that the matter must inevitably arise sooner or later.For many years the government has taken the view that councillors are inadequately remunerated, and in the case of councillors who hold Executive portfolios considerably so. To help you make your own judgement on this I can tell you that backbench councillors currently receive around £9.5k per annum, ordinary Executive members £16k (including basic allowance), and the Leader of the Council £25k (again including basic allowance). These are not precise figures as I don't have them to hand, but they are very close. Currently the allowance awarded to the Leader of Hounslow Council is the lowest in London (the highest being £71k plus basic allowance, although the council in question operates on a different model), and that given to Executive members is the second lowest. A panel commissioned by the government recently advised that the Leader of a local authority should receive similar remuneration to that of a backbench MP, and that Executive members should be paid something in the region of £41k, although this was a recommendation not an instruction and - significantly - no extra funding would be provided by central government to cover the cost of any such increases.There is a big debate to be had as to whether councillors should be remunerated more generously, or indeed at all. When I first became a councillor in 1998 the allowance was in the region of £1.4k per annum. Those, such as John Connelly and Vanessa Smith, who were councillors before this time will recall that once they didn't even receive this.There is a valid argument to be made that councillors ought to be volunteers, and that as such they should not be paid an allowance of any kind. The down side of this is that people who need to make a living - younger people, poorer people - would then be deterred from standing for office and that councillors would as a result be in the main retired and well-heeled, and thereby unrepresentative of the community which they serve.It is also, in my personal opinion, unfair and unjustifiable that a backbench MP should receive a generous salary and outrageous perks while the Leader of a local authority, who must do at least as much work and in the case of Hounslow I would guess considerably more, is awarded less than he would get grilling Big Macs for forty hours each week. Either people who hold political office should be paid for their time or they should not, but surely there is no reason for MPs and councillors to be treated differently?At the opposite end of the scale it would clearly be undesirable for councillors to be paid the kind of allowances which would encourage the more mercenary to partake in the process simply for personal gain. Thus the introduction of "salaries" per se, in the sense of being wholly comparible to those which people working at a similar level in the private sector would enjoy, would be clearly undesirable.The issue has been further complicated by the introduction, by this government, of the Cabinet system which entrusts the majority of the council's work and decision-making to a small group of councillors, who are thus required to be effectively full-time.Therefore the question must be asked - should councillors be paid allowances at all and, if so, how much?Sadly the debate isn't helped by emotive references to "fat cats" and obscenely inflated allowances, which frankly is so far removed from the reality as to be ludicrous. Neither is it helped by the David Hughes view that councillors from one political party should be paid but those from others should not, which is clearly even more ridiculous.I guess it really depends where you stand. Speaking for myself, I receive more than eleven times what I received when I joined the council nine years ago. However it could also be pointed out that I put in as many hours as senior officers over whom I have authority but who earn six times what I do. I could also argue quite sincerely that my work as an Executive member costs me and my family some £40-50k per year in lost income because I don't have the time to pursue other work as a result of fulfilling my council duties. This doesn't prevent me from being a councillor and portfolio holder because I feel motivated to do it, but it would certainly put a lot of people off who may have something useful to offer.What is patently unfair is that decisions relating to councillor pay are left in the hands of councillors. It is unfair on us, because we cannot with the best will in the world take a completely detached view, and unfair on the people we serve and on those with competing claims for a share of what is a finite (and declining) pot of money.My view, for what it is worth, is that the decision as to whether to remunerate councillors more, or less, or the same, should be taken by a body whose members have no personal interest arising from that decision. I also believe that if the government is going to make recommendations of this kind then it should be prepared to reimburse local authorities if and when they decide to adopt its recommendations, in whole or in part.Unfortunately neither I nor Hounslow Council has any jurisdiction to change the way in which these decisions are made, or how any resultant shortfall is covered. This being the case the position which the Community Group has taken is that we should put the case, openly and objectively, to a residents' panel and that we should accept the findings of that panel whatever they may be. I doubt whether everybody will agree with my conclusions (inasfar as I've actually reached any), but I hope the above will serve to inform sensible debate.
Phil Andrews ● 6660d