This is my first article as a candidate for the Progress strategy board in which I outline a policy area which I would hope Progress would focus upon in the run-up to the next election. As a member of the Progress strategy board I want our organisation to have a key role in developing progressive Labour policies for the next election and the next Labour government.
*****
This government’s localism rhetoric is purely to devolve power to save money at state level and not to improve services so they are more meaningful to, and have greater ownership by, local people and there are two means by which this applies. First, voluntary groups are labelled in the ‘big society’ to run outreach work, run community services, and encouraged to take on responsibilities which were previously carried out by the state. But many groups have to fight for funding needed to run these services and have to become experts or even employ people to fill out complex and strict funding bids – diverting resources away from delivery and into securing their very survival. We have to devolve state funding to local levels and make it easier to access and deliver – if not there is a real danger that much needed social and community services will be lost.
Second, local authorities have been given more powers and responsibilities but not the funding needed to carry out those duties effectively to go with it, and in many cases funding has been significantly cut. This will lead to services being reduced or even lost and will become a political battleground at local level between political parties when in fact they needn’t been if funding went with responsibility. This then leads to a downward spiral of further disenchantment with politics and governance even further.
However, with increased funding and power comes the need to ensure that local people feel part of society and not run by it – so local authority representation needs to change. Local authorities have to be more representative of the local population and have more younger people becoming councillors, and by that I mean younger than the average age of a councillor which in the UK is said to be 60 – up from 55 in 1997 according to the Local Government Association. At present, many in employment find it difficult to take up the responsibilities of being a councillor if they are duly elected because of current circumstances in the private sector. Many private sector companies in the current economic climate are reluctant or are unable to accommodate their employees being councillors as well.
Therefore, I believe that being a local authority councillor has to become a full-time job with a full-time wage, and we have to encourage a broader range of ages and experiences at local authority level. If that means reducing the number of councillors because of budget constraints on funding full-time councillors at current numbers, but have the remaining councillors working purely for the benefit of their communities full-time, then that seems to me the way forward.
This current government has strained the faith in localism in people because many see it as a way of cutting services rather than enhancing their delivery. Therefore, as the last Labour government began this localism journey – the next one needs to complete it.
—————————————————————————————
Mike Harrison is a candidate in the members’ section in the Progress strategy board elections 2012. You can find out more about all the candidates at the dedicated Progress strategy board election microsite
On the same day that the Tax Avoiders Alliance has published its usually distorted analysis on councillors’ allowances, it is disappointing to read such a poorly-argued proposal that all councillors should be full-time.and paid accordingly. A few points:
– being a good local councillor can be very demanding; but this varies considerably across the UK (eg some DCs have 1 cllr per 1500 electors, whereas some mets have 1 cllr per 6000. eg the community demands of representing an urban inner-city ward are very different from representing a wealthysuburb)
– one of the great strengths of not being full-time is that you remain grounded in the real work and community experiences of the community; being a councillor shouldn’t be a career (see below);
– most councillors should neither lose nor gain significantly from being elected. (Being a councillor cost me a fortune in lost earnings [when I didn’t go to work, I didn’t get paid] which is why I designed (a) the model allowances’ scheme first agreed by all the local government associations and later by the LGA and (b) the model requiring a local independent panel to make recommendations, which can take account of the huge variations in both authorities and in the expected time commitments of particular responsibilities at local level.)
– having been involved in mentoring and developing leading councillors theoughout the UK, it is depressing to note how many ‘neglect’ the real day-job, only to find that they have been left behind when the electorate or their party members make a choice for them!
– under-representation of particular groups (younger, female, BME) has far more to do with (1) party membership and (2) the failure of local (Labour) parties to adopt the spirit, let alone the letter, of the requirements originally set out in Project 99 to identify, develop and nurture possible candidates.
A far better proposal to support new potential candidates coming forward would be a statutory requirement that all employeres were required to give time-off without pay equivalent to that assessed by the local independent panel. Councillors’ allowances would then be recognised for waht they were intended – to compensate for the loss of income – not, as they appear to be by some, to be a supplement to other income.
Howard Knight
formerly, Head, Labour Party Local Government Unit.
Of course councillors should get paid, for the extra work they do for
the community. Labour’s policy has been to move from Borough to unitary
authorities with wider responsibilities and consequently greater
commitments required from members. I served as a Borough Councillor for
12 years with most of those on the Executive. Even then it would not
have been reasonable to expect anyone to do the job unless they were
self employed, employed part time or had a sympathetic public sector
boss. With Unitary authorities it would be impossible.
It is all very well making regulations demanding that private sector
employees give unpaid time off, but the job still has to be done and
managers of small and medium sized businesses would soon make clear their resentment at the hassle involved.
At present allowances compensate for extra time worked, but for “back
bench” councillors they are not enough to live on. If we are serious
about recognising the importance of the role of local councillors and we
also wish to make the job more attractive to those groups who are under
represented at present there is a good case for more “paid
politicians”, not a dirty word in my book.
Howard Knight’s logic would lead him to suggest that part time or
retired people should receive no pay at all. After all, apart from
travelling expenses, they may not lose any income through their council
work.
My logic does nothing of the sort; the allowance is paid irrespective of situation.
But, the presumption should be that the allowance level compensates for the loss of income incurred for the hours required to undertake the functions. Having read the reports of many Independent Panels on Allowances, I believe they’ve generally done a good job in their assessments. [Of course, there are the politically opportunistic or cowardly councils that have chosen not to implement their proposals!] In fact, in addition, most have proposed allowances at an hourly rate above the national average wage.
Of course, there is nothing to stop to stop councillors in any authority making a well-reasoned and evidenced case to their Independent Panel that all those councillors should be ‘full-time’ and the allowances set accordingly. But, I’ve not seen a single example yet.
[PS For the record, I was a Met Cllr representing demanding inner-city wards for 16 years, holding a ‘Cabinet’ responsibility for 13 of them, as well as being Chair of the AMA Public Services Committee and Chair of an NJC for many.]
My logic does nothing of the sort; the allowance is paid irrespective of situation.
But, the presumption should be that the allowance level compensates for the loss of income incurred for the hours required to undertake the functions. Having read the reports of many Independent Panels on Allowances, I believe they’ve generally done a good job in their assessments. [Of course, there are the politically opportunistic or cowardly councils that have chosen not to implement their proposals!] In fact, in addition, most have proposed allowances at an hourly rate above the national average wage.
Of course, there is nothing to stop to stop councillors in any authority making a well-reasoned and evidenced case to their Independent Panel that all those councillors should be ‘full-time’ and the allowances set accordingly. But, I’ve not seen a single example yet.
[PS For the record, I was a Met Cllr representing demanding inner-city wards for 16 years, holding a ‘Cabinet’ responsibility for 13 of them, as well as being Chair of the AMA Public Services Committee and Chair of an NJC for many.]
The last thing we need is more paid politicians.
Think people not getting involved is more down to the same reasons why so few get involved in the party which is basically how they are treated when they join, especially by the closed shop CLP’s who want new members, as long as they are nodding dogs to the old guard.
A lot walk away or just don’t get involved and certainly don’t want to be a representative of the group that is causing them a problem.
I loath localism and the complete drivel that is said to promote it. In my own area of interest which is crime and anti-social behaviour in particular, the problems largely relate to ‘national policies’ (most introduced by Labour) not being implemented ‘locally’, things like community safety strategy objectives not being fulfilled and this, in my opinion, is down to those in local positions being inept.
It’s only when those at the local level are seen to achieve on a regular not just on a one off basis, closed shops are dealt with and councillors are seen as something worth being that ‘we’ will ever get more people wanting to do the role.
Howard Knight says:
“…most councillors should neither lose nor gain significantly from being elected.”
“the allowance is paid irrespective of situation. ”
“But, the
presumption should be that the allowance level compensates for the loss
of income incurred for the hours required to undertake the functions.”
However, those neither employed or self-employed are in no position to lose income, except for possible benefit deductions for those receiving certain State benefits.
A large part of a councillors work takes place after normal working hours or at weekends when losing pay would not apply.
Regardless of the assumptions in Howard Knight’s original allowances scheme it is now realistic to regard councillors’ allowances at least partly as compensation for additional work carried out.
As Howard no doubt discovered in his distinguished local government career his allowances accumulated as his responsibilities grew.
Mike Harrison deserves our support for highlighting an important issue.
I’m not sure if I’m not making myself clear, or whether you are purposely misrepresenting what I’ve written.
The allowance (based on an assessment of the time required for undertaking the functions – eg being a councillor = 12 hours, being a cabinet member = additional 16 hours – at an appropriate hourly rate (say, national average or median)) is paid irrespective of the employment status. So, the same amount is received by all. [NB: As a matter of fact, those on benefits effectively lose £benefit for £allowance.]
The assessment recognises that undertaking functions is more than just ‘attending meetings’, but it also usually recognises that some contribution is voluntary – just like being a school governor is voluntary.
Of course, some of that commitment is in the evenings or at weekends (although you also seem to believe that everyone works 9-5, when this is increasingly not the case.)
I think you also comment only from a metropolitan perspective. Most councils outside London have daytime meetings. It has always seemed a weakness to me that LBs have this obsession with evening meetings, which leads to the perception that ‘allowances’ are additional to ‘income’. As a very active local councillor, I always thought that evenings were for meeting constituents and local organisations!
Yes, you are perfectly clear about how you think the present allowances system works. Your involvement with its formation explains your defensiveness.
Like the author of the original post I think the system needs revising, to be more attractive to potential councillors.
Unlike you, I have no problem with the notion that allowances be regarded as additional income, after any deduction for pay withheld by an employer (unpaid time off).
You cite the example of school governors. I am sure it will not surprise you that I think they too should receive an allowance. Of course as with councillors’ allowances there would be the option for individuals to decline the allowance.
“A large part of a councillors work takes place after normal working hours or at weekends when losing pay would not apply.”
I made this comment to illustrate the fallacy of your view that allowances are solely a compensation for loss of income. I realise that patterns of working hours are far more varied now than they used to be. I used to be a shift worker during part of my time as a councillor.
I’m not defensive about anything.
I simply fundamentally disagree with your proposition that all councillors should be full-time, and neither the author of this article nor yourself has made out a case for such a proposal. [I recognise that Leaders of unitary authorities are likely to be full-time, and most Independent reviews recognise this.]
To the best of my knowledge and experience – and I’m sure someone will advise otherwise – there is no country which has full-time local councillors. Although I do remember working some 20 years ago with the ANC (South Africa) on its first Local Government legislation, where it was proposed to have full-time locally-elected representatives, but they would also carry a specific remit and responsibility for community development in the areas they represented; this was a particular response to a new democracy.
I simply don’t share your expectation that ‘allowances’ are an additional income. i think that has become part of the problem in some places.
[PS: And, yes, I also worked shifts for part of my time as a councillor; hospital patients tend to be there 24 hours a day!]