Sally Wainman, chair of the independent panel

Ipswich: Borough rejects allowance hike for members

By Paul Geater Thursday, September 27, 2012
9:46 AM

MEMBERS of the borough have rejected calls for a five percent increase in backbench allowances in a heated debate in the council chamber.

They voted along party lines to reject the recommendations of an independent panel that had looked at the council’s allowances.

The panel had suggested that backbench councillors should have their allowances increase by about £195 a year while the some special responsibility payments should be cut or abolished altogether.

This would have left the overall allowance bill broadly unchanged.

The chair of the panel, Sally Wainman, said the members had met many times since April and had looked at allowances paid by many other authorities.

Ipswich’s basic allowances were below average in the area, and had not increased since the last independent report was prepared in 2007 – that report was not implemented either.

Labour council leader David Ellesmere said he could not tell council staff their salaries were continuing to be frozen if councillors were getting a 5pc rise in allowances.

He thanked the independent panel for its work, but said area committee chairs deserved their special allowances of £3,745 because there was considerable work needed in that role – the panel had suggested an allowance of £1,200 would be appropriate.

Opposition leader John Carnall said the Labour group wanted to retain the status quo because 18 out of the 32 Labour councillors got special allowances.

“He likes the system because it enables him to reward more than half his own side,” he said.

Area committee chair Keith Rawlingson supported Mr Ellesmere, saying the role entailed considerable work, not just chairing meetings but acting as a point of contact in the areas served.

The council voted on party lines – Labour voted to maintain the current allowances, the Conservatives voted to accept the recommendations of the panel and the Liberal Democrats abstained because they objected to the panel suggestion that a payment for the leader of the third party should be abolished altogether.

Should council allowances change? Write to Your Letters, Ipswich Star, 30 Lower Brook Street, Ipswich, IP4 1AN or e-mail starletters@archant.co.uk

Latest News See all

9 comments

The IRP Report lowered the total bill of councillor allowances when the Basic and SRA's were added together; the current budget for allowances is £281,600: the recommendations came to just £120 more at £281, 720. The current scheme endorsed by Labour last night totals £298,102 (a theoretical overspend of £16,502). This report was not therefore an allowances "hike" but a saving on the current scheme, a saving that was rejected at the Council Meeting on Wednesday 26th September,

Report this comment

kmw@pedarson.com

Friday, September 28, 2012
All Borough Councillors receive a Basic Allowance (currently £3745 per annum), but...... in addition councillors may also receive a Special Responsibility Allowance, if, for instance, they are serving on the Executive or acting as a Committee Chair. At the end of last year Labour Councillors irresponsibly, created five new Committees (the new Area Committees) and therefore five new SRA's without reference to the existing Budget. The cost of these changes was nearly £19,000 and this took the total cost of allowances to more than £16,000 over budget. The Independent Review Panel looking at councillors' allowances recommended the increase in the Basic on the condition that the SRA's were reined in. This recommendations therefore lowered the total bill. This has not been made clear enough in the press coverage to date where the emphasis has been on the 5% increase in the Basic Allowance and not on the 68% increase Labour Councillors have voted through for themselves on the Special Responsibility Allowances for Area Committee Chairs. The Panel recommended an SRA of £1200 for the Chairs of Area Committees but Labour Councillors voted themselves the full allowance of £3745 for this position, riding roughshod over the Panel's recommendations and making a mockery of their assurances that an Independent Panel would decide on this particular allowance. Cllr Ellesmere's noble declaration that he cannot accept a 5% rise in the Basic Allowance whilst council staff see their salaries frozen looks a little hollow against the 68% increase in Area Committee SRA's he has just voted through. The IRP Report lowered the total bill of councillor allowances when the Basic and SRA's were added together; the current budget for allowances is £281,600: the panel recommendations came to just £120 more at £281, 720. The current scheme endorsed by Labour last night totals £298,102 (a theoretical overspend of £16,502). The report was not therefore an allowances "hike" but a saving on the current scheme, a saving that was rejected at the Council Meeting on Wednesday 26th September,

Report this comment

kmw@pedarson.com

Friday, September 28, 2012
My comment has still not appeared yet despite being posted several hours ago, so apologies if it appears twice. There was no overall "hike" on allowances: the recommended increase in the Basic Allowance was offset by greater restraint in the SRA's (Special Responsibility Allowances). Our report made recommendations that were actually more economical than the currrent scheme.

Report this comment

Sally Wainman

Thursday, September 27, 2012
There should be no allowances at all for Third, Second or First Party leaders. Councillors should behave as Councillors and leave Party Politics to the Westminster players.

Report this comment

Rolf

Thursday, September 27, 2012
The Independent Review Panel did not recommend a 5% increase across the board, only for the Basic Allowance and it was also conditional upon the SRA's (Special Responsibility Allowances) being reined back. Our overall recommendations were a reduction on the current scheme and therefore the headline of this article is very misleading because there was no overall "hike" in allowances.

Report this comment

Sally Wainman

Thursday, September 27, 2012
Any comments 'against' the Star writer on this site is dumped in the bin at Star HQ and not allowed to show up the bad reporting of the 'newspaper'.

Report this comment

kmw@pedarson.com

Thursday, September 27, 2012
Typical Labour, all are equal, but some are more equal then others. Instead off accepting the lower total package the panel proposed - saving tax payers £16k - Labour rejected the new figures, so some Councillors get twice as much for being Area Chairmen and doing the job they are meant to be doing anyway.

Report this comment

kmw@pedarson.com

Thursday, September 27, 2012
That sounds about right. Labour trying to think about the fairness of it all and prepared to make a sacrifice. Tories opting to line ther own pockets and not think about others and the Lib Dems having to think up a third option to be different! Well done David Ellesmere.

Report this comment

Public Purson

Thursday, September 27, 2012
Typical Tories! The same self serving mentality at local Council level as they are at National Government level. Cut everyone's income, but try at all costs to increase their own. I take it they brought their own food to this meeting, or did I contribute to another "jolly" buffet for them too?

Report this comment

england1770

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Ipswich: Borough rejects allowance hike for members

Latest News See all

More news

Digital edition

Send us a story