Councillors spend longer discussing increasing their own allowances than annual budget

At a meeting of the district council on Tuesday, more than an hour – around 62 minutes – was spent arguing back and forth about how much the basic allowance for each member should be.

The budget debate lasted around 60 minutes, with eight of those spent on two recorded votes. The allowances vote was decided by a show of hands.

Faced with a report from an independent panel, recommending the basic allowance be increased from £4,725 to £5,200, there were calls from some to add as much as £900 to that figure to reflect the amount of time and effort put into their roles.

The number of wards in Chichester fell from 48 to 36 after last year’s boundary changes, effectively saving the council £56,700 in members’ allowances.

Jonathan Brown (Lib Dem, Southbourne), who said he had taken ‘a great deal of annual leave’ to meet his council duties, suggested using that saving to increase the allowances.

He said: “I stood for re-election knowing how much work was involved – or at least I thought I did – and perfectly willing to do the job on the existing allowance.

“But given how demanding the work is, I don’t actually think it’s reasonable – and it doesn’t feel right – asking good potential councillors to take on what is a very time-consuming and at times stressful role.”

Mr Brown was one of several councillors who felt reducing the ward numbers had been a mistake.

Clare Apel (Lib Dem, Chichester West) said she was concerned members ‘seem to be working much harder’ since the change, while leader Eileen Lintill said it had had a ‘tremendous impact’.

Mrs Lintill proposed a rise to £5,500.

Sarah Sharp (Green, Chichester South) was concerned that the workload faced by councillors meant fewer people, especially younger, working people, were attracted to the role.

She said: “We need to be more widely represented of people in our communities. We need to make it so more people are able to step up and do this.”

The call for an extra increase was not welcomed by all.

Carol Purnell (Con, Sidlesham & Selsey North) reminded her colleagues that they were discussing an allowance not a salary, adding: “If I was to look at the allowance and work out my hourly rate, it would be about tuppence an hour.

“If you double the money you are still not going to get working people in here because it is not a salary and we need to get away from that idea.”

Kevin Hughes (Lab, Chichester East) was somewhat conflicted, acknowledging the amount of work done and the need to attract younger people. But he warned members: “We’re asking people to pay more council tax and on the same agenda we’re saying let’s have a pay rise.”

Tony Dignum (Con, Chichester North) said suggesting what amounted to a 30 per cent rise would not be well-received by people facing ‘substantial’ council tax increases.

He added: “We’re just becoming too self-obsessed at the idea that minor changes like this will have any effect at all on people’s decisions whether to stand as a councillor or not. It’s absurd. There is no evidence that allowances make any difference.”

There was a word of caution from the council’s solicitor, who said: “I’m quite concerned to hear arguments saying, effectively, what’s the total amount that we’ve got here, what’s the largest amount that we can be given?

“At the time of the financial pressures that our communities are under I think that puts you in a very dangerous place and you need to think very carefully before voting on these matters.”

Calls for the additional increases were withdrawn and members voted in favour of the £475 rise in basic allowance that had been suggested by the independent panel.