10/02/2013 Sunday Politics South East

And in the South East: Some town houses give themselves big rises.

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 2453 seconds

We asked if the system is ripe for Hello. This is the Sunday Politics

in the South East. Coming up: Putting military families before

the homeless. We asked who should be at the top of the housing list?

Joining me in the studio this week are a Conservative MP for Hove and

also with as is the prospective Labour Party for Chatham. Let us

talk about something that is quite relevant to your area. Boris

Johnson has sent his aviation adviser to tried to persuade some

locals to come on board over the Thames estuary the airport. He has

been given short shrift and sent packing, could you be persuaded by

the arguments for the estuary airport? Absolutely not. That is

the position of the Labour group I sit on as Councillor but also as a

parliamentary candidate. This has gone on for years. I suspect Daniel

is on manoeuvres in Kent because Boris is due at the Transport

Committee in the House of Commons on Monday. There is no groundswell

of support for it. What does his best to the airport idea mean to

you, what does it do to his credibility? I am in favour of the

idea, I think we need more capacity. I would like to see the regional

airports used more. In principle we must have the extra capacity and

Boris Island is a good idea for congestion and emissions across

London. So you would tell him you are on site? I would indeed. Do you

think he would be a good future leader of the party? I think he is

brilliant. Thank you very much indeed. Now how much should you be

paid if you are helping make important local decisions? The

amount has gone up every year, a 74% increase since 2008. While

public sector workers are under the cosh, how have they got away with

it? Our reporter went to find out. In the economic downturn, council

budgets have been cut. Frontline services have suffered and staff

have had pay freezes. Leaders at Tunbridge Wells borough councils

want their allowances to rise to �6,312. They want the leader of the

cabinet to get more than �2,000 extra per year. That is part of a

budget that would increase in council tax by nearly 2%. People

respond to in the town were not impressed. I think at this stage,

given the financial crisis we have been through, it is a bad idea.

They are doing a job for the community so the money side should

come secondary. They are not wonderful, are they, sort...

cannot charge people extra money and then fill your pockets with

that money. They should use it in schools or something. We are all in

it together! I think it is wrong, I think most taxpayers will think it

is wrong. If they do continued to ramp them up they will have to

account for it come election time. Elected councillors are volunteers

but they get an allowance to compensate them from her time spent

on their duties. In addition they need expenses like travel and even

childcare costs. Here at the Town Hall it is councillors themselves

to suggest how much the allowances should be. Recommendations are

based on the average earnings in the local area and how many hours

they are expected to work. In Tunbridge Wells allowances are set

to rise by more than what was recommended. To save costs

elsewhere the number of committees will be reintroduced. This will be

the 4th year of pay freezes. Councillors in Hastings have chosen

to freeze their allowances in line with their staff pay. Staff have

suffered, in effect, a 20% peak/over the past five years. It

makes no sense at all. What would make sense would be to link any

councillors allowances to that of the pay of staff working for the

local authorities. They are responsible for looking after our

streets and leisure facilities, bin collection and housing. Since the

recession began most councils have frozen allowances but in six

councils there have been rises of up to 45%. Four councils have

decided to reduce allowances. Allowances here have been reduced.

Councillors now get �700 less than they were six years ago. It is a

saving of �300,000. Our staff are taking the friezes and in effect we

are reducing staff because of the limitations of finances at the

central Government. We are feeling the three's the same as everyone

else. There will be mergers of councillors. Less councillors. I

think that is the trend that will come so it will drive some of these

changes. With councillors allowances driving so much

controversy and some paying themselves more than others, is it

time to take them out of their own hands and move to a more

standardised independent system? We are joined by at Tunbridge Wells

counsellor. Do you think you should get another increase? If this is

voted through it will be up by 74%, is it really needed? It is a

deferred payment for staff that was spotted on three years ago. It is

quite easy to single out extra payments to the areas people but

the whole budget has been reduced by �40,000 this year. The tax payer

will actually be paying �40,000 less this year. They could pay less

altogether if you were not taking this rise. I think that is true.

The arguments are understandable. The union person was talking about

the dead. He would be a candidate for low pay. This is very low pay

we are talking about. It is about how to pay for our democracy and

what we as residents get for our money. You heard the voices in the

report there, are you not concerned about how it looks?

recommendations are based on the average pay of -40 % of the

Tonbridge burr. The councillors pay is estimated on that. I think it is

very easy and very understandable that there is a story but what it

paid should be used at is an opportunity to look at how we pay

for our democracy, who does it and how to extend the possibilities of

who we choose to do that. It is very limited at the moment. Let us

get on to that but first of all you will ask the youngest councillor.

What is your allowance? I get slightly more than �9,000. We have

a single layer of local Government. We ourselves this year voted

through a 5% pay cut. What do you think about what is happening in

Tunbridge Wells? I am slightly concerned. The increases should be

proportionate to the wages in the public. I think the public want to

see that all are equal in local Government, especially when

services are being cut and jobs are having to go. It is interesting

that he gets �9,000. I get �6,000. How many hours do you do? It is

hard to work out. We will not be able to work out if he gets more

or! �6,000 is not a salary but who should decide how much it is?

Should we have a standardised amount? Nobody likes to pay for

Government but at the end of the day you have to and you must pay a

realistic wage to attract the right sort of candidates. I do think we

need to pay the correct level. Let us not let Labour get away with

talking in tongues here. Labour voted against reducing the cost of

Parliament now I do not see them doing the same locally as they did

nationally which is what they should do. The biggest point is

that there is no consistency. It looks like brilliant value for

money when you look at Dartford council where the reader gets

�27,000. He considers it to be a job. Should you get a salary?

would like to see it as more of a professional service we get from

our representatives. When I looked around. If you are a county

councillor you are a candidate in the elections. I look around the

county council and Tunbridge Wells Council and I see it is largely

drawn from the retired, the unemployed and the idle rich. There

are very few women. Almost nobody of working age who is a man in the

council because they cannot afford to do it. If we create a job where

they should be in the office five days per week. At the moment I can

say I cannot do a committee meeting because I have my daughter's

birthday. That would not happen if you go to a professional thing.

Would you go for that? Absolutely. We do have an independent

renumeration panel in our area. I have personally taken decision-

making out of the politicians' hands. I want to clarify that we do

need to be very sensitive to the public. They are suffering real

wage cuts. A lot of people work part-time at the moment as well. We

have to reflect on the fact that they are not getting pay increases.

We have got councillors in some cases paying 21,000 in allowances

that they do not even know what about. There are issues around

expenses and people are very sensitive to this fact. If you do

get elected it is �12,800 which is more than what this man gets.

leader of Tunbridge Wells put 64 70 hours. It is a full-time job even

at 40 hours per week. Now who needs a council house most? If you are ex

military you may get a house even though a homeless person has been

waiting for years. There are currently 340 homes available, 600

applicants queueing up for them. That is a nightmare. We have David

green with us. Why would you want to move homeless people further

down the list? It seems strange logic to say homeless people are

not in need of a home. They are. We have 6,000 people on our housing

waiting list. The housing stock generates only 300 houses per year.

We have a problem. Also what will affect us are the Government

benefit changes. Universal credit for example. But why a move

homeless people further down the list? I think you need to

distinguish between the housing list and housing stock and

homelessness. Yes, homeless people need our attention and are getting

our attention. Our duty to statutory homeless is very

important. There are not people on the streets, we do house them. That

is a different situation to how we manage our own housing stock. We

give priority to people with the really serious medical and social

need. Management transfers includes domestic violence. You are giving

high priority to military individuals and families, it is

intriguing why they are treated differently. They would be allowed

to have significant assets and still come into the council housing

list. They would be a higher priority than local homeless people.

How is that fair? Because just through being military personnel it

makes it very difficult for them to fulfil the other qualifications.

They would otherwise be excluded from our housing stock. We needed a

way to prioritise them and that is what we have done. We have also

given as priority people who need to downsize their homes because

they cannot afford where they are living after the bedroom tax in

April. That is two categories who are in higher category than a

homeless people. Thank you. I suspect we could do a whole debate

about the bedroom tax and that is likely to come. Obviously the

shortage of council properties is the real story behind all of this.

But to do you think should be top priority for council houses?

problem is acute. There is not enough social housing to survive.

Each local authority has to set its own priorities. I think what we

need to emphasise is that if you are homeless here is still a

statutory obligation to house you it may just not be in the social

housing register. Where? That is currently an unfortunate situation

where there is not a supply. If you are able through health

requirement... Who is the most needy? The individuals who I would

place are those who have health concerns, the elderly and infirm.

And who would be top of your list? The homeless people are extremely

vulnerable. What they have had by having this the year rule. They

should not push the problem away so it comes off their register. They

should fix the problem, used innovative techniques like Brighton

is using now. Let's talk about that imaginative idea in Brighton. Plans

to turn a car-park in to a homeless village where people are housed in

shipping area is -- shipping containers, are you all right with

that? We cannot turn it into a ghetto. It is just one example. I

think the local authority should talk to landlords who have their

buildings empty and turn them into homeless shelters, especially where

houses which have not been used for one year. Been really must use look

after the almost, get them off the streets. There is so much going on

in politics this week. Let us get a round-up in 60 seconds. As the

Commons voted in favour of gay marriage someone who opposed the

bill put forward a new idea. Abolish civil marriage and create a

Civil Union belt that applies to all, irrespective of their

sexuality. And a police commissioner wants a �15,000 per

year youth Commissioner. And this lady once a deputy paid �45,000.

Sweeping reforms to the EU Commons fishery policy to prevent fish

being thrown back into the water. Water customers face a higher than

national average rise in their water bills. And Nigel for Ryeish

accused of being a Stalinist dictator. He calls the claims

laughable nonsense. Even when he is being criticised Nigel Farage

manages to make it into the show almost every week! Now I am hoping

you were one of the Conservatives who voted in favour of gay marriage,

is that too much of an assumption? I did vote in favour. I think

individuals who want to get married should be allowed to do so.

think the ban on Church of England managers for same-sex couples

should be lifted? I do not think the Church should impose their

rules on society in general and vice versa. It is about the balance

of rights. Do you think it was a significant day in our history?

Absolutely. It was a combination of perhaps two decades worth of action.

So much was done on the civil partnerships Act which was a step

towards this. An equal age of consent and the scrapping of

section 28, a lot of good things have happened. There are a lot of

things on which the Conservative Party is split. I think everyone is

very clear that the Conservatives were divided on this.

Conservatives brought this legislation in during their

parliament, it is a good thing, let's rejoice in it. Most MPs voted

in favour of it. A very quick thought on the police and crime

commissioners. Four to �5,000 for a deputy, should she be allowed?