Councillors demand pay rise as councils set to hike rates for homes and businesses

The National Association of Councillors (NAC) – which represents elected councillors from all the main parties – wants a review into pay, higher pension contributions, legal cover and provisions for parental leave and sickness.

The report was agreed at the end of January, just weeks ahead of many local councils significantly raising rates bills. It states that councillors are “setting the rates to finance a £60 million organisation and large capital projects which could total many hundreds of millions” – and claims councillors “have the same responsibilities as a director on a company with a turnover of over £60 million”.

Councillors in Northern Ireland are currently paid what the NAC describes as a “basic allowance” of £17,030 per year for the part time role.

The report, seen by the News Letter, states that “for many years Councillors have felt that their work has been undervalued in relation to the work of MLAs and MPs. Councillors’ allowances and pension entitlements are a great deal lower, and there are no ongoing severance arrangements”.

The ‘Councillor Equality Proposal 2024’ says it has the endorsement of Sinn Fein, the DUP, Alliance, the Ulster Unionist Party, the SDLP and the NI Local Government Association.

The reports says councillor pay should be reviewed in the next six months, there should be a severance scheme for all councillors including those voted out of office, councils should make greater contributions to elected members’ pensions and there should be provisions for “extended periods of leave due to maternity, paternity, or sickness”.

The NAC also wants “secretarial support, office facilities, equipment and stationery supplies deemed necessary to perform Councillor duties” and insurance for councillors “to cover legal costs in relation to malicious Code of Conduct claims and press/social media reports/posts”.

TUV councillor Timothy Gaston says the report “amounts to nothing more than 14 pages of whining by the four big parties in local government.

“The report claims that the ‘range and scale of councillor’s responsibilities’ isn’t recognised and moans about how they were ‘seriously impacted’ by the collapse of Stormont - even though in reality it freed up MLAs to do more constituency work”.

The group – effectively a union for councillors – said being a councillor is “a full-time job, involving an elevated level of responsibility and includes the exercise of executive responsibilities. It is right that it should be remunerated on a basis which compares with similar positions in the public sector, while still retaining a reflection of the voluntary character of public service”.

Mr Gaston said: “Frankly, if councillors don’t have the skill set to do the job they should have been open about that when standing for election.

“Tellingly, this report - which boasts it has the support of the DUP, Sinn Fein, Alliance, UUP and SDLP - doesn’t manage once to make any mention of the fact that the wish list it contains will place an additional burden on ratepayers who are already facing the prospect of serious increases in their bills.

“The sort of disconnect between the reality on the ground and the political class which this report reveals is frankly staggering and something all five big parties in local government should be ashamed of.”

One section of the report highlights complaints from anonymous councillors.

One said: “The £1000 allocated for consumables was added to the basic allowances and is taxable”.

A councillor complained that they “are treated like poor relations” with another saying that council officials “get everything they need for their duties”.

Other feedback included the complaint that “a severance pay scheme that is in place in the South of Ireland provides all non-returning Councillors with a significance recompense”.

The NAO made headlines in 2021 when the BBC Nolan Show reported that it had received a grant intended to help small businesses through the pandemic. Councillors from the five main parties decided not to support an initial TUV proposal to discuss returning the money.