Last month, Wokingham Borough councillors voted to award themselves a permanent annual increase in councillor allowances. Notably, they chose to do so only after the local elections had taken place.
Councillor allowances are funded by taxpayers and it seems obvious they should remain subject to public scrutiny, democratic accountability and annual review. Instead, the Liberal Democrats approved a system that automatically increases allowances every year in line with CPI inflation, removing the need for future debate and effectively guaranteeing annual rises indefinitely.
The Labour Group voted against these rises because the risks of such a system are obvious. Only a few years ago, CPI inflation exceeded 11 per cent. Had this arrangement been in place at the time, councillors would have received an obscene double-digit increase in their allowances automatically, regardless of the wider economic circumstances facing residents.
Public office should never be viewed as a route to personal financial gain. It should never be about the money. Serving as a councillor is an act of public service, not employment. Councillor allowances exist to support elected representatives in carrying out their duties; they are not salaries intended to replace paid work.
Liberal Democrat councillors sought to justify these increases by arguing that higher allowances are necessary to improve diversity and accessibility within local government. While everyone wants councils that better reflect the communities they serve, this argument does not withstand serious scrutiny. The diversity of the council chamber is ultimately shaped by political parties, candidates, and voters, and not by the money on offer.
Within the Labour Group, every councillor balances their council responsibilities alongside full-time employment. Excluding executive councillors, whose responsibilities are significantly greater, councillor allowances are not designed to replace employment income. The suggestion that annual allowance increases are the key to improving diversity of representation is false.
What makes this decision even harder to swallow is the context in which it was taken. For months, the Liberal Democrat administration has repeatedly warned residents that the council’s finances are under severe pressure as a result of funding constraints. If the financial situation is truly as serious as they claim, how can they justify voting themselves guaranteed annual increases funded by the public purse?
Most concerning of all, no dedicated budget has been identified to fund these additional costs. If councillor allowances are set to rise automatically every year, residents deserve to know where that money will come from. Which services will be cut to pay for these increases?
At a time when households are being asked to do more with less, councillors should be leading by example. Automatic annual increases, approved by councillors for themselves, and insulated from future scrutiny, is just plain wrong.
By Cllr Rachel Burgess
