Leatherhead Matters

A Government commissioned report, released today, contains proposals on how to make “serving as a local councillor more appealing and accessible to a diverse range of people”. The new, big idea appears to be that the Government wish to professionalise local councillors. The proposals in the report, to be released on Monday, sit alongside other proposals released in a White Paper last year to streamline decision making in local Government (see my earlier blog on this HERE).

Based on leaks the report proposals appear to include:

• Salaries for all locally elected officials
• Pensions for all councillors
• A personal “communications allowance” for all councillors
• A golden payoff for all those who lose office at election time
• Scrapping the requirement for councillors to attend meetings to vote
• An end to bye elections to replace councillors who have died or, are unable to fulfill their role for other reasons. Political parties would draw from a “reserve” list

Most of these proposals would put local councillors on a similar arrangement to MPs although the level of payments would presumably be less.

However, the report misses the whole point of local democracy. The proposals would clearly change the whole culture of local politics where councillors voluntarily serve their communities. The councillor population comes from many walks of life and experience. These proposals would change the nature of local  councillors from serving their communities to serving their own careers.

The cost of putting councillors on the proposed “professional” basis would be huge and presumably have to be born by local Council Tax. For example the cost in my own Mole Valley District Council (where there are 41 councillors) would run into millions of pounds.

So what are the Government upto? Well, just a thought but, if the number of councillors is progressively reduced (via pay offs) and the rest are put on to a salaried/pensionable basis, their independence to serve the local community is eroded. Central Government would find it much easier to control the actions of local councils. Perhaps I am just too suspicious? But, then why would a spokesperson for the Department for Communities & Local Government refer to this report as coming from an independent commission when it actually comes from the “Councillors Commission” a Labour dominated body?

When the Government published its White Paper “Strong & Prosperous Local Communities” last year, little did we know that this also meant more prosperous local councillors.