Local authorities are ineffectual gravy trains which waste millions of pounds every year. That is the opinion of a protest group furious about the amounts of money which councillors are now claiming in allowances every year. Miles Godfrey explores whether our local elected representatives are really worth it.

  • More than £200million worth of allowances was claimed by councillors last year.

That is the equivalent of the average salaries of 10,000 teachers or police constables for 12 months.

In Sussex alone almost £6 million was claimed in allowances in 2005-06, up by eight per cent from the previous year.

Being a senior councillor has effectively gone from being a voluntary position to one that is now a full-time, fully-paid, professional occupation.

So are we really getting good value for that huge amount of cash? Are our lives really any better off?

The Is It Fair? group believes we are not better off and has called for sweeping reforms to the "town hall gravy train" to slash the fast-rising payments that every local politician is now entitled to claim in return for spending time in meetings.

It said that last year councillors in a number of areas awarded themselves pay rises of more than ten per cent and in some cases more than 13 per cent - well over four times the rate of inflation.

And the costs of paying allowances, in effect wages, to nearly 20,000 local politicians in England have shot up since councils were given the right to set their own rates 12 years ago.

Christine Melsom, founder of Is It Fair?, said we now have too many councillors claiming too much money and said it is time to slim down local democracy, which she sees as largely ineffective.

She said: "If we genuinely got local democracy from our councils then yes they would be worth the money, but we are not, we are getting an ineffectual form of bureaucracy.

"All over the country, and Sussex is no exception, councillors can now do too many jobs, they can claim vast amounts for spreading themselves thinly across committees and get very little done.

"Do we really want another layer of professional politicians?

"We already have MPs, we have regional assemblies and quangos all taking money from the public purse.

"Becoming a councillor used to be an honour, a way of putting something back into the community.

"It is now more of a profession, a gravy train with too many passengers.

"This proves that the country is being ripped off.

" There are too many councillors, and too many employed by local government.

It is putting far too much pressure on the council taxpayer.

"If and when local government is reorganised, we must have a very slimmed-down version."

The rise in allowances come at a time when council tax bills are at an all time high - with some in Sussex having risen around 100 per cent in the last decade. Part of the problem is that for many people achievements made by local authorities remain intangible and abstract.

The tangible results of decisions taken inside town halls up and down the country, such as planning permission for new buildings or money issues, are often not seen for years after they are taken.

Whereas MPs are often making decisions and laws which have immediate impact on our daily lives.

Those in favour of larger allowances say the payments make local government more democratic and representative because it allows those who are not either rich or retired to take posts as councillors.

Lib Dem Worthing Borough councillor Bob Smytherman defended the allowances.

He said: "If we didn't pay these amounts we would end up with local government run by a dictatorship.

"People have got to do it for the right reasons.

"Local government is not about career politicians but I do think people should get adequate remuneration.

"There are lots of people out there who want to see local democracy scrapped or slimmed down but that is not the answer at all."

A spokesman for the Local Government Association said: "It appears that Is It Fair? has moved away from campaigning against scrapping council tax and is now intent on looking at abolishing representative democracy and replacing it with those few who would be able to afford to work as councillors and survive on the small allowances they are given.

"There is already a huge under-representation of young people and women among the ranks of councillors and saying that they already get too much in allowances will only reduce the number of people who will be willing, or able, to afford giving up hours of their time to help local people.

"Councillors' allowances are entirely in proportion with the extremely valuable services they give to local communities and local democracy.

"Without these payments it is likely that large parts of the country would grind to a halt because the workings of society would simply stop."

The Local Government Association also defended the right of councils to set their own allowances levels via remuneration panels.

The spokesman said: "Setting allowance levels via remuneration panels is a fair way of rewarding councillors for their hard work.

"We have to recognise that the cost of living varies around the country and it is right that remuneration is decided locally to reflect that."