No change in cllrs basic allowances

THEREwill be no changes to councillors expenses in the next financial year, although changeswill be made to make it caring easier.

While CllrAndy Croy from the Labour group called for allowances to be pushed back to the 2010/11 rate, thiswas dismissed by the rest of the council.

However, they did approve changing the IT allowance so that it is open only to councillorswho allowconstituents and officers to communicatewith themvia email, and to allowinternet connections of a standard to take part in online meetings.

The panel also agreed to allow£10 per hour formemberswith direct care responsibilities to claim for non-specialist childcare, such as babysitting, and £20 per hour for specialist care, for example, care for someonewho needs lifting ormoving. An invoice is required for this claim, which is up to 35 hours permonth. The carer must not be a familymember living at the same address.

And the panelwill also be able to publish an update on their views on members allowances and thework as a councillor.

Thiswill appear in Wokingham. Today and on the council’swebsite.

The reportwas proposed by Cllr John Halsall and seconded by Cllr John Kaiser.

Cllr Lindsay Ferris, the Lib Dem leader, backed the panel’s decisions: “It is certainly not the right time to change or increase any of the allowances, particularly as so manymembers of the public have had financial issues due to Covid-19.”

He added: “We also appreciate the greater transparency given by the IRP” saying it was very forward thinking of them.

CllrAndy Croy, the Labour group leader, called for an amendment, saying “the basic allowance be reduced to the basic allowance applicable in financial year 2010/11”.

“I am proposing this amendment as it is the right thing to do,” he continued. “The burden of austeritywas a political choice.

“The continued Conservative underfunding of our Borough is also a political choice. We have had a decade of it.”

He added that residents expected councillors to demonstrate the understanding of the problems they face.

“Residentswant to knowwe are on their side, theywant to hear it loud and clear – what betterway of sending a message is there than cutting our allowance?”

He said by reducing the allowances would be the right statement to make.

Cllr Rachel Burgess (Lab, Norreys) echoed this view, welcoming the lack of rise this year, but said “Taxpayers expect theirmoney to be spentwisely”.

“Aswe are frequently reminded, this authority has experienced the full force of cuts, with a massive reduction in revenue support grant causing vital services to be cut back or scrapped altogether,” she pointed out.

Cllr Halsall said that hewould not accept the amendment, a viewshared by Cllr Stephen Conway (Lib Dem, Twyford).

Cllr Pauline Helliar-Symons (Con, WokinghamWithout) said that the suggestionwas political posturing.

Summing up, Cllr Halsall said that the IRP hadworked hard on these recommendations and thatwas theway it was supposed towork.

“We are blessedwith a panel that has worked very, very hard and metwith a lot of people. I cannot see any reasonwhywe should deviate from their recommendations.

“This is just a political stunt andwe should reject it.”