| answer text |
<p>Brentwood Borough Council did not send in a response to the consultation on “Taxpayer-funded
pensions for councillors and other elected local office holders”. A copy of Essex
County Council’s response is attached.</p><p> </p><p>This differential interest no
doubt reflects the fact that Brentwood Borough Council did not have any councillors
in the Local Government Pension Scheme (a consequence of the decision of my hon. Friend,
the Member for Great Yarmouth, when he was leader of the Council not to join the scheme),
whereas Essex did. Non-participating councils tended not to respond to the consultation.</p><p>
</p><p>Prior to the consultation, only 16 per cent of councillors were actually members
of the scheme and only 55 councils actually responded. The majority of Councils and
Councillors submitted no objection to the Government’s proposal to end Councillor’s
access to the Local Government Pension Scheme.</p><p> </p><p>Such taxpayer-funded
local government pensions have now been abolished, subject to practical transition
measures introduced as a result of the consultation. These reforms will save taxpayers’
money, strengthen the independence of councillors, and reflects that the fact that
councillors are not salaried employees of the council. Nothing prevents councillors
from contributing to their own private personal pension, receiving tax relief like
any other member of the public.</p><p> </p><p>The suggestion by some that these changes
would discourage people from running for election has not been borne out. In last
year’s London borough elections, all candidates nominated in the knowledge that there
would be no taxpayer-funded pensions if they were elected; yet more candidates ran
for election in London in 2014 than in 2010 (source: <em>London datastore</em>).</p><p>
</p><p>I suspect that the council tax-paying public would be less than impressed at
the Labour Party’s calls to reintroduce such taxpayer-funded pensions.</p><p> </p>
|
|
