An adviser to the Councillors’ Commission, Sir Rodney Brooke, argues for a better financial deal to encourage more people from different backgrounds to become councillors
There is a paradox about members’ allowances. Councillors don’t become councillors for the pay. They do it because they want to serve the community. But, without reasonable pay, many people can’t afford the time required to be a councillor.
I started work as an office boy in Morley Town Hall in 1955. Reassuringly, the names of half the Conservative councillors were familiar. They were the grandchildren or great-grandchildren of the aldermen whose names were on the 1892 foundation stone outside the Town Hall. They owned the local woollen mills. The Labour councillors worked in the nationalised industries and the public sector.
For the Tories, service on the council went with their status as mill-owners. For the miners and the railwaymen, service on the council was a more rewarding prospect than the pit and the engine-sheds.
Fifty years later, the old reservoirs of councillors have dried up. The mill-owners have fled, their factories converted to industrial units. The pits have closed. The nationalised industries are no more, And public sector workers are too busy clambering up the promotion ladder to fritter away their prospects by serving on the council.
Meanwhile, the demands on councillors have risen inexorably. Bigger authorities demand more commitment from councillors. Local partnerships require a time-consuming input. Constituents are more demanding, and councillors must guide them through the complexity of the new local public management and act as local ombudsmen.
Half a century ago, being a councillor was important. Either you were a councillor because you were somebody, or you were somebody because you were a councillor. Today, despite the importance of their jobs, councillors are largely unknown. Fifty years ago, local newspapers relied on the town hall for their lead stories. They had a municipal reporter. The national newspapers had local government specialists. None do now. The media has lost interest in local government.
Perversely, one story never fails to hit the local newspaper – councillors’ pay. Joe Public seems not to mind that the chair of the local primary care trust can be paid more than £40,000 a year for working two or three days a week. Ordinary members of the PCT are paid £7,500 for two or three days a month. Average backbench councillors spend that amount of time on council business every week. Leaders of major councils are often full-time. Yet publication of the annual payments made to councillors always sparks off a row. The time involved in being a councillor is bound to be an inhibition for many people. People with a ‘normal’ job cannot think of becoming councillors. Councils have largely become the preserve of pensioners, and those with private incomes or a working spouse.
The overwhelming majority of councillors do not become councillors for pay. Indeed, they would be ill-advised to do so. They become councillors because they want to make a difference.
Councillors’ pay is not generous enough to enable many people to work as councillors. In particular, women, young people and those from ethnic minorities are very under-represented on councils. There is, though, a clash between attracting competent people and making councils more representative. Retired professional people are often experienced in running organisations and participating in meetings. Younger people may not have a similar level of competence.
To try to overcome these problems, councillors’ allowances have risen substantially over the last 10 years. Each authority must now set up an independent remuneration panel and be guided by its recommendations.
Private sector members of the panels have usually been appalled by the inadequacy of the remuneration for the hours worked. As a result of the panels’ recommendations, members’ pay has increased substantially.
The annual allowance for a backbench councillor now averages £5,648. In big authorities, the average is at least £9,000. The average annual allowance for a leader is £16,356. Not a princely sum, indeed, but reasonable. The leaders of the big authorities average between £25,000 and £30,000 from their leader’s allowance.
However, the present system results in wide and unjustifiable disparities in levels of allowances. Authorities of similar size and functions can reward their members differently. In similar authorities, the basic allowance for backbenchers can vary from £1,500 to £9,198.
The leader of Newcastle City Council receives a leader’s allowance of only £16,215 in return for running one of the most important cities in the country. At the other extreme, the leader of Birmingham receives a leader’s allowance of £52,808. The leader of Tandridge receives only £2,660 for his pains. In contrast, the leader of Allerdale – with a similar, though less affluent population – receives just under £30,000, a differential of more than 11:1. The leader of Luton Council – which delivers all local government services in the area – has a total remuneration package less than the vast majority of full-time council employees.
Leaders of the large authorities often have no other source of income. They are full-time – and usually more than full-time – on the job. But, even those on miserly stipends, enjoy no certainty of employment.
They can lose their own seats at the polls. Even if they retain their own seat, they can lose office when their party does badly. At the last London borough elections, the electorate unceremoniously ejected seven leaders from office. The increase has not been enough to reverse the demographic trend. Indeed, over the last three years, the age of councillors has reached above 58.
Attempts in Scotland and Wales to dislodge elderly councillors have succeeded only in replacing them by the equally elderly.
So, what can be done to overcome these problems? One ingredient is a more encouraging attitude from employers. Experience on a council should be seen as an enhancement to a CV. An appreciation from the media of the commitment of local councillors would also be helpful.
On pay, a national panel could identify and reduce unjustified discrepancies between similar authorities. There is a case for redundancy payments for those who lose senior office at the hands of the electorate – six months pay would provide a cushion.
The promising news is that the Government is addressing the issue of the diminishing pool of competent people prepared to serve on councils. This week saw the launch of the report of the Government’s Councillors’ Commission, chaired by Dame Jane Roberts. It represents a real opportunity to tackle the problem imaginatively and constructively. n
Sir Rodney Brooke was an adviser to the Councillors’ Commission
I started work as an office boy in Morley Town Hall in 1955. Reassuringly, the names of half the Conservative councillors were familiar. They were the grandchildren or great-grandchildren of the aldermen whose names were on the 1892 foundation stone outside the Town Hall. They owned the local woollen mills. The Labour councillors worked in the nationalised industries and the public sector.
For the Tories, service on the council went with their status as mill-owners. For the miners and the railwaymen, service on the council was a more rewarding prospect than the pit and the engine-sheds.
Fifty years later, the old reservoirs of councillors have dried up. The mill-owners have fled, their factories converted to industrial units. The pits have closed. The nationalised industries are no more, And public sector workers are too busy clambering up the promotion ladder to fritter away their prospects by serving on the council.
Meanwhile, the demands on councillors have risen inexorably. Bigger authorities demand more commitment from councillors. Local partnerships require a time-consuming input. Constituents are more demanding, and councillors must guide them through the complexity of the new local public management and act as local ombudsmen.
Half a century ago, being a councillor was important. Either you were a councillor because you were somebody, or you were somebody because you were a councillor. Today, despite the importance of their jobs, councillors are largely unknown. Fifty years ago, local newspapers relied on the town hall for their lead stories. They had a municipal reporter. The national newspapers had local government specialists. None do now. The media has lost interest in local government.
Perversely, one story never fails to hit the local newspaper – councillors’ pay. Joe Public seems not to mind that the chair of the local primary care trust can be paid more than £40,000 a year for working two or three days a week. Ordinary members of the PCT are paid £7,500 for two or three days a month. Average backbench councillors spend that amount of time on council business every week. Leaders of major councils are often full-time. Yet publication of the annual payments made to councillors always sparks off a row. The time involved in being a councillor is bound to be an inhibition for many people. People with a ‘normal’ job cannot think of becoming councillors. Councils have largely become the preserve of pensioners, and those with private incomes or a working spouse.
The overwhelming majority of councillors do not become councillors for pay. Indeed, they would be ill-advised to do so. They become councillors because they want to make a difference.
Councillors’ pay is not generous enough to enable many people to work as councillors. In particular, women, young people and those from ethnic minorities are very under-represented on councils. There is, though, a clash between attracting competent people and making councils more representative. Retired professional people are often experienced in running organisations and participating in meetings. Younger people may not have a similar level of competence.
To try to overcome these problems, councillors’ allowances have risen substantially over the last 10 years. Each authority must now set up an independent remuneration panel and be guided by its recommendations.
Private sector members of the panels have usually been appalled by the inadequacy of the remuneration for the hours worked. As a result of the panels’ recommendations, members’ pay has increased substantially.
The annual allowance for a backbench councillor now averages £5,648. In big authorities, the average is at least £9,000. The average annual allowance for a leader is £16,356. Not a princely sum, indeed, but reasonable. The leaders of the big authorities average between £25,000 and £30,000 from their leader’s allowance.
However, the present system results in wide and unjustifiable disparities in levels of allowances. Authorities of similar size and functions can reward their members differently. In similar authorities, the basic allowance for backbenchers can vary from £1,500 to £9,198.
The leader of Newcastle City Council receives a leader’s allowance of only £16,215 in return for running one of the most important cities in the country. At the other extreme, the leader of Birmingham receives a leader’s allowance of £52,808. The leader of Tandridge receives only £2,660 for his pains. In contrast, the leader of Allerdale – with a similar, though less affluent population – receives just under £30,000, a differential of more than 11:1. The leader of Luton Council – which delivers all local government services in the area – has a total remuneration package less than the vast majority of full-time council employees.
Leaders of the large authorities often have no other source of income. They are full-time – and usually more than full-time – on the job. But, even those on miserly stipends, enjoy no certainty of employment.
They can lose their own seats at the polls. Even if they retain their own seat, they can lose office when their party does badly. At the last London borough elections, the electorate unceremoniously ejected seven leaders from office. The increase has not been enough to reverse the demographic trend. Indeed, over the last three years, the age of councillors has reached above 58.
Attempts in Scotland and Wales to dislodge elderly councillors have succeeded only in replacing them by the equally elderly.
So, what can be done to overcome these problems? One ingredient is a more encouraging attitude from employers. Experience on a council should be seen as an enhancement to a CV. An appreciation from the media of the commitment of local councillors would also be helpful.
On pay, a national panel could identify and reduce unjustified discrepancies between similar authorities. There is a case for redundancy payments for those who lose senior office at the hands of the electorate – six months pay would provide a cushion.
The promising news is that the Government is addressing the issue of the diminishing pool of competent people prepared to serve on councils. This week saw the launch of the report of the Government’s Councillors’ Commission, chaired by Dame Jane Roberts. It represents a real opportunity to tackle the problem imaginatively and constructively. n
Sir Rodney Brooke was an adviser to the Councillors’ Commission
