‘You’re making a fuss, enough of this carping’ - political row breaks out over leader’s allowance at Cambridge City Council
A political row has broken out after the ruling Labour party at Cambridge City Council proposed to increase the leader’s allowance by £7,819.
Opposition councillors questioned the need and said the move went against the recommendations of an independent panel that reviewed councillors’ remuneration.
But Labour councillors accused them of making a fuss – and argued the proposed increase is justified due to the amount of work the leader is expected to do.
All councillors receive a basic allowance, with those who take on extra roles entitled to additional money.
Current leader Cllr Cameron Holloway took over from Cllr Mike Davey in May, when it was agreed at a full council meeting to increase the basic allowance for councillors from £7,138 per annum to £7,819. The annual allowance for the leader was increased from £21,414 to £23,459.
These rises were based on the independent panel’s recommendations but a report to the civic affairs and audit committee on Monday (30 June) set out proposals to increase the leader’s allowance to £31,276, up £7,819, making it four times the basic allowance for a councillor at the city council.
Cllr Naomi Bennett (Green, Abbey) could not support any increase in pay without the city council reconsulting with the independent panel. She said there were only a few reasons to depart from its advice, including the panel not being competent or new information coming to light.
Cllr Bennett argued the council’s reputation would be damaged.
Cllr Jamie Dalzell (Lib Dem, West Chesterton) accused the ruling group of “systematically undermining the independent process” that prevented “what could be cast as self serving behaviour”.
He said the proposal was “at best poor governance” and argued the leadership was treating the panel’s recommendations like a “pick and mix counter, taking what they like and discarding what they don’t”.
Cllr Dalzell also highlighted that the recommendations for all councillor allowances had been based on a percentage of the leader’s allowance, so this move would “effectively throw out assumptions” the panel had made.
Cllr Richard Robertson (Lab, Petersfield) argued the proposed increase was “all very justified”.
He said the Labour group had “very good reasons” for the suggested increase, highlighting the amount of work the leader of the city council was expected to do.
Cllr Richardson said the leader was “ultimately responsible for discharging all functions of the council”, and also sat on the Greater Cambridge Partnership board, and engaged with the Combined Authority and the joint venture with the developer Hill.
He said: “The list goes on and on. This one guy has got a hell of a lot of work to do and we have got to pay him for it.”
Cllr Dalzell argued that a lot of the responsibilities raised by Cllr Robertson had also been part of the workload of previous leaders.
He said: “Why have the past three leaders managed perfectly well on that allowance. Why does the new leader require a new pay rise?”
Cllr Tim Bick (Lib Dem, Market) said the leader’s volume of work had “always been high” and argued it was “ridiculous and completely groundless” to claim it was especially high right now.
He also highlighted that unlike other council leaders in the area, the leader of the council does not sit on the board of the Combined Authority.
He said: “Is the leader really doing the full job that other leaders are?”
Cllr Bick asked what the “urgency” was and questioned why it could not wait until a new review by the panel at the end of the year.
Cllr Bennett added that if the Labour group believed they had “got a good case”, this should be presented to the panel.
But Cllr Robertson accused the opposition of “making a bit of a fuss about this”.
Referencing the local authority shake-up, he said: “Claiming there are no grounds for this change, you are forgetting in a year or two this council could not exist. Who is going to do the negotiating in the meantime?
“We need somebody to look after our interests and the interests of the city council’s residents, we need somebody to look after their interests, and that is what Cllr Holloway is doing.
“I had further lists of items and jobs this guy is doing, one is definitely looking after our interests as we become a unitary council.
“Of course there is Hartree happening, it will be a hell of a job; how many houses are other councils building? How many are we building? We have just finished our 1,000th house.
“I am afraid I cannot accept any of this carping. We need to pay for the job. It definitely can not be deferred for another year – ridiculous.”
Cllr Jenny Gawthrope Wood (Lab, King’s Hedges) noted the leader sat on the advisory council for the Cambridge Growth Company and dealt with local government reorganisation proposals.
She said: “You may say these are things done before, but they are getting bigger and there is a very substantial amount of work to be done related to those. Do we just want to have leaders who are elderly people with pensions doing the job? This is a big job.
“It is bigger than a normal district council’s job.”
Cllr Gawthrope Wood said there had been times in the past where the authority had not taken the pay increase recommended by the panel.
She added that the increase was “reasonable” and the panel could look at this again in the new year.
She said: “We need to have someone who is a quality person acting as leader who can devote time to the job and it is a big job with the growth of Cambridge.”
Opposition councillors refused to support the leader’s pay increase.
A final decision on it will be made at a full council meeting.
Opposition councillors also refused to support allowing the maximum number of special responsibility allowances councillors can claim to three, as the independent panel had recommended limiting it to one internal and one external.
The committee fully supported removing the special allowances for councillors who sit on some of the Combined Authority committees, as the Combined Authority already pays them an allowance.
