Once again we have a row over town hall pay with councillors in the line of fire this time after their independent review panel suggested Birmingham’s 45 most senior politicians should take a collective £100,000 cut in their annual allowances.
It was only a month ago that full-time officials found themselves under the microscope of the annual Town Hall Rich List through which we learned that Birmingham’s top table of executives and senior directors could earn more working for a county council in the less demanding shires.
Now it’s the turn of the politicians who yesterday found themselves having to justify special responsibility allowances for running local services in the face of a proposed pay cut.
The problem with councils like Birmingham is that the system developed from a time when being a councillor was an amateur occupation – public service went unrewarded, at least in the terms of direct financial benefit (status, kickbacks and preferential treatment are another matter), and, as a result, those that took part needed to be people of other means, business owners and professionals who could be indulged with time off from their day job.
But as the range of local government activity expanded over the last century, these councillors found themselves responsible for bigger budgets, larger workforces and services like social care which are literally a matter of life and death. So allowances have crept up and gradually a more professional approach has evolved with the arrival of the cabinet system – and the top table of eight to ten councillors have, over the last decade been paid between £40,000 and £45,000 a year for this role (although £16,000 of that is for their local councillor duties). That basic councillor allowance is based on an average three-day week.
Cabinet members are also assumed to be part-time and indeed some, like airport security guard and cabinet member for contracts Stewart Stacey, manage to hold down a day job. But others have told me that they simply do not have the time to do other work and have wound down their involvement in private businesses or trades as a result. So we wind up with a system where the pay does not really match the level of responsibility or demands of the system.
Many given the choice of taking £25,000 a year allowance for being cabinet member for running the mess that is children’s services, or taking a similar sum for managing a fast food restaurant or coffee shop would go for the latter.
The argument goes that if you paid more for running major services for Britain’s largest local authority in a demanding city with complex social problems, a better calibre of candidate may come forward.
There are plenty of other roles in the public sector such as running quangos and taking in higher education, many are part time and many are paid vastly more than the leader of Britain’s largest local authority.
But critics say politics is a vocation, the fuzzy warm feeling from carrying out a public service should be enough and at a time of austerity the politicians should be first in the queue for a jolly good pay cut.
So the Independent Remuneration Panel has been carrying out a ‘root and branch’ review of the revised Cabinet and senior roles introduced by Sir Albert Bore in 2012 and come to the conclusion that the allowance system needs to be simplified.
They decided that all allowances should be pinned to the leader’s £50,000 and set as a fraction of that.
In common with many faced with Sir Albert’s system, where cabinet members take on policy areas rather than departments, the Panel found things a little confusing and has arrived at a conclusion that cabinet members are not responsible for as much as previously thought. Thus the cabinet allowance should be cut from £28,000 to £25,000.
Sir Albert and his colleagues are set to challenge the assumptions made about these and a set of other senior roles.
But maybe the panel has hit the nail on the head and realised that far from devolving power and increasing the scope of responsibilities that the authority has in fact been centralised in the leader and deputy.
● Senior councillors grumbling about the attempt to cut their allowances have found a focus for their anger - former Lord Mayor Len Gregory.
It turns out that genial Len is now a member of the council's Independent Remuneration Panel and has offered some expert advice on the councillors' pay proposals.
Readers with long memories will remember that, before becoming Lord Mayor, Conseravitive Len was a senior member of the Tory-Lib Dem Coalition cabinet between 2004 and 2010 - with responsibility for transportation and street services.
His reluctance to commit taxpayers' money to any project was legendary. He led reviews of council spending and was notorious for picking holes in projects and clamping down on waste.
And he was a key promoter of a string of below inflation council tax rises - he was the classic ultra-low tax and low spend politician - an early advocate of austerity before it became fashionable.
So when the panel drew up proposals for an average 18 per cent cut to senior councillors allowances, those same councillors were speculating that this was the hand of Len at work.
Alden’s cold calculation..?
Birmingham’s Conservative leader Robert Alden is widely assumed to be a campaign mastermind – having orchestrated election victories in areas like Erdington and Kingstanding which were previously solid Labour territory.
It was no surprise to see he had succumbed to the Ice Bucket Challenge and uploaded the video as he is one of those politicians who doesn’t take himself too seriously. (His shorts in the clip are testament to this).
But it was somewhat surprising to find upon my return from the summer break that he had nominated me for the challenge.
Was it really the act of a campaigning genius to nominate the political correspondent who will be covering the up and downs as we approach the 2015 election?
PS: For the record, I have taken the challenge.
