Proposed £77k increase to Ipswich councillors’ allowances defeated but worries raised for struggling members

A proposed increase to councillors’ allowances worth more than £77,000 has been defeated, but worries were raised about struggling members.

The proposals from Ipswich’s Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP), made up of independent community representatives, were discussed during last night’s full council meeting.

They included several increase recommendations which would have cost the council an extra £38,806 between October and the end of the financial year, and an extra £77,612 next year — in total the council would have to spend £445,679 in allowances in 2025/26.

Before the meeting, council leader Neil MacDonald assured Labour councillors would vote against two of the main proposals, an extra £1,000 for the basic allowance and an increase in the multiplier applied to the leader’s special responsibility allowance.

Yesterday, he confirmed this in his speech, reiterating it would be inappropriate to increase allowances at a time when the council is looking to make savings — a £16 million savings package, which included several cuts, was approved earlier in the meeting.

He added: “It’s a difficult time for us to be asking the taxpayer of Ipswich to increase the allowance for councillors.”

Although the money is taxed as income, it is meant to cover the costs of carrying out council duties and depend on each councillor’s role and responsibility.

Instead, Cllr MacDonald proposed only the remaining four IRP recommendations — these were:

• An increase in the childcare and dependent carer’s allowance to £11 and £27.50 per hour respectively.

• Travel allowance continues to be based on HMRC recommended levels.

• The Local Government Officer Pay Award continues to be applied to the basic allowance each year.

• Allowances paid to co-opted members, non-elected members of a committee appointed to provide a specialist or outside perspective, change from £55 per meeting to £350 for the whole financial year.

This, he said, would allow some councillors to fulfil their roles without sacrificing the care their families might need, as well as increase the pool of people who could become a councillor.

On the Conservative side of the chamber, however, several councillors stood up to criticise the decision to not accept the full set of recommendations.

Cllr Ian Fisher, who leads the Tory Group, said the Labour administration was ‘too timid’ and added there was ‘never an easy time to vote for it’.

In his view, and that of other members in his group, not accepting the full set of recommendations would end up discouraging people from becoming councillors due to the compensation being too low.

Indeed, according to the IRP, Ipswich’s allowances are the lowest allowances, on average, across Suffolk and neighbouring district councils.

Cllr Sam Murray also said, in the past, councillors had decided not to run again due to not being able to afford being one.

She added: “We know that there is a public perception that we do this for the money, but we don’t.

“I do not believe the work we do in Ipswich is worth less than our colleagues in the rural areas.”

Addressing these, former leader, Cllr David Ellesmere, stressed it was not a question of worth but rather the financial pressures the council was already facing.

He added: “Nobody denies that we are worth more, but it’s about choices, it’s about priorities — of course, we ought to be paying more, but we can’t afford it, that’s the end of the matter.”

The majority held by the Labour Group saw the amended proposals were approved.

Although considerably less, it is not clear how much the approved changes will cost.