Richard Baum

This week’s “First” magazine, produced by the Local Government Association, has a letter from me in it which continues a debate about how to attract younger people, and those from a successful business background, towards being a Councillor.

The thrust of my argument is that I think Councillors should be paid more - in fact, they should be paid a large proportion of the salary that they give up to become Councillors. It’s no wonder that the average age of Councillors in England is 58, and that so many Executive Members are retired, when the allowances are so low. For me to be an effective Executive Member in Bury, I might have to give up half my working week or more. The amount of money I’d be given in return would nowhere near compensate for my lost wages. And of course I’d be trading job security and swift career progression for a potentially vulnerable Council job which might disappear at the next election.

I know that being a Councillor is about public service and volunteering to help the community. That’s fine, and I do it without complaint. But if the opportunity arose to become an Executive Member, and I’d been judged appropriate by the electorate first and my fellow Councillors second, I’d have to turn it down on financial grounds. And that’s surely not right. I wouldn’t be able to afford the mortgage. And I would lose the chance to get promoted at work because I wouldn’t be there half the time.

We are asking Councillors to be leaders, but we aren’t paying for the qualities of leadership. What person in their right mind would swap financial security for themselves and their family in exchange for a Council Executive Member position?

Of course some people do it part time, and manage adequately. But Councils have budgets of hundreds of millions of pounds, and the Executive Members are responsible for it. Some may argue that spending, say, £50,000 on an Executive Member is a waste of public money. But we happily pay that for some Council officers. And is it not a worthy investment to pay for the best people to guard these massive budgets well?

MPs are the same. We pay MPs £60,000. That’s lots more than the average salary, but it’s lots less than a huge proportion of MPs would be able to earn in the private sector. The brightest, most able working people in our society earn lots of money, and rightly so in my book. So why would they be attracted to public service when the trade-off is so poor? It’s why so many of them claim so much on expenses. Not because they’re all thieves, but because they’re working seven day weeks, running two homes, missing their families, and losing out on tens of thousands of pounds of wages they’d earn doing any other job.

I’m not saying we should pay MPs and Councillors the same as merchant bankers or top barristers. But let’s reward the impact that they can make in communities by giving a reasonable salary. To put this in context - the three Councillors in St Mary’s ward earn less between them for their Councillor work than a single average salary in this country. Executive Members, most of whom are full time, earn only about half an average salary. And the Prime Minister is paid less than some Council Chief Executives.

These days, with £200,000 starter-homes, student loan repayments, rising bills and everything else, the brightest young things are rarely going to opt for public service ahead of financial security. It’s sad, yes, but it’s inevitable unless we face up to the fact that to be an effective Councillor means sacrificing lots of time, and thus requires adequate financial recompense.

We all want a diverse crop of Councillors who are all the most committed and able people to lead our communities. But if we want leaders, we must pay for them.

Rick