We shouldn’t be freezing councillors’ allowances; we should be cutting them

It was reported over the weekend that Councillor Bob Cook, the leader of Stockton Council, is to recommend freezing councillors’ allowances for 2013/14.

Big deal.

Given the current economic climate, and particularly in light of changes to council employees’ pay and conditions in recent years, the very idea of increasing councillors’ allowances in unconscionable. So suggesting a freeze is hardly groundbreaking stuff, but welcome news nevertheless, right?

A little background first. Stockton Council currently spends around £800,000 each year on councillors’ allowances.  The lion’s share of this is accounted for by the basic allowance of £9,300 paid to each of the borough’s 56 councillors.

Although this basic allowance has been frozen since 2010/11, it had risen substantially in preceding years, from the £6,150 payable in 2007/08 – a rise of 50% in just three years.  Furthermore, the current basic allowance is, according to the borough’s Independent Remuneration Panel, nearly £1,000 more than the average annual allowance paid by comparative councils.

To put the basic allowance into a regional context, the figure of £9,300 is calculated on the basis of councillors ‘working’ an average of 15 hours each week.  This amounts to a full-time equivalent annual income of nearly £23,000.  In comparison,  the average income of residents throughout the North East is just £20,800 p.a., with 52% of residents earn less than £15,000 p.a..

In his press release lauding his own proposal to freeze allowances, Councillor Cook played down the resultant ‘savings’ from councillors not giving themselves a pay rise as “not a lot of money”.  (Interestingly, he then went on to say, “we have to do all we can” despite failing to even float the idea of actually reducing allowances, let alone recommending such a move!)

In any event, if the ‘savings’ from his idea are “not a lot”, then let’s find a way to increase them.

Instead of a freeze, I would like to see allowances paid to councillors CUT. A 5% reduction in allowances across the board would see savings of around £40,000 overnight (and I mean genuine savings, not the ‘savings’ Cllr Cook refers to despite the fact his proposal wouldn’t actually see the council pay out any less money).  A further saving of  £33,500 could also be found, again overnight, by abolishing the Special Responsibility Allowance paid to the vice chairs of the council’s select committees.

Over the next couple of years, councils the length and breadth of the country face continued challenges to make further efficiencies and savings.  Within Stockton, this has already led to senior council officers talking about further redundancies to come, many of them compulsory.

I grant you, not even the savings from my suggestions amount to a king’s ransom, but they could be implemented immediately and the savings used to protect a handful of jobs.  Whilst 3 or 4 jobs may not be significant to the council in the grand scheme things, they are to those people currently being paid to undertake them.

Of course, much more substantial sums could be saved by conducting a wholesale review of the council’s governance arrangements, particularly the number of elected councillors. I’m only guessing, but I suspect the vast majority of people would happily see a reduction in the number of councillors throughout the borough and would find it difficult to notice any subsequent negative consequence.

Unfortunately despite repeated calls from Conservative councillors to undertake such a review, our pleas have fallen on deaf ears.

But, then, that’s hardly a surprise.

When Labour councillors issue press releases boasting of how they are protecting their own incomes by freezing allowances, yet they refuse an offer of government assistance to freeze the council tax bills of hard pressed residents, that tells you all you need to know about Stockton Labour's priorities.