SOUTHAMPTON’S politicians have been asked to justify their positions in office after rejecting plans to axe a third of their number over fears their workload would be too big.

In light of the savage cuts to jobs and services at the city council, elected members were being asked to consider reducing their own number.

A consultation concluded the majority of the Southampton public were in favour of reducing the size of the administration.

However, the ruling Labour party voted down the plans that would have seen a cut in councillor numbers from 48 to 32.

The move has come under fire from campaigners and the opposition Conservative party, which voted for the changes.

It called on the authority to back the reduction at a time when the council is losing hundreds of staff as the move would have saved the cash-strapped authority £500,000 per year.

But Labour said the current numbers represented “good value for money” for residents and that it would be harder for councillors to work effectively for their residents if there were fewer of them.

Campaigning group the Taxpayers’ Alliance said Southampton should follow the lead of other councils which have cut councillor numbers.

John O’Connell, director, said: “We need to balance the need for a representative local democracy against the pressing need to find savings.

In a number of councils up and down the country councillor numbers have been cut without damaging the quality of local governance so it’s clearly something we need to look at. We need to revisit this – clearly the electorate is in favour so perhaps a less drastic cut in numbers might ensure democracy is still well served.

“It’s important for democracy that taxpayers know what their representatives do – that’s as true for our MPs in Westminster as it is for our local councillors.

“Voters would like to know more about their councillors and particularly what they do on a daily basis to justify their not-insignificant allowances.”

Councils which have voted to reduce numbers include North Somerset, which has axed 11 posts, Darlington, where two have been lost, and a district council in Staffordshire that has shed nine councillors.

Proposals to cut councillor numbers from 48 to 32 in Southampton went out to consultation earlier this year.

More than 1,400 people responded with 67 per cent saying they wanted to reduce the council’s size.

At a full meeting of the council, Labour councillor Chris Hammond compared Southampton, which has 48 councillors and more than 170,000 electors, to Winchester, which has 57 city councillors and seven county councillors for 92,000 residents.

Council leader Simon Letts said there was concern about the workload of councillors if there were only 32 members of the council, saying extra technology such as email had increased councillors’ workloads at a time when the city’s population is rising.

He said: “There is in the public eye some merit to reducing the number of councillors on the grounds that it is cutting costs.

“You are putting many more pressures on fewer councillors in difficult times so we are saying that at this time it is the wrong time to reduce members.”

He said councillors were playing an ever more active and visible role in their wards as fewer council officers were employed who were out and about among communities.

The Conservatives had called on Labour to reduce councillor numbers and change the electoral cycle, saying the changes could save the council up to £500,000 per year.

The council recently announced its proposals to meet a £31m budget gap for 2015/16, which could include losing up to 300 jobs, while five city libraries could close after a review into their future was launched.

Conservative group leader Royston Smith said: “£500,000 is a lot of money, that would keep the libraries open.

“You’re asking people at this authority to get their coats and leave the building but you are not willing to set an example yourselves.”

His colleague, John Hannides, accused Labour of “putting their interests before those of the city”.

But Labour and the rebel Councillors Against the Cuts voted against the proposals over councillor numbers and elections, outvoting the Conservatives.

After the meeting Cllr Smith accused his opponents of “self-interest” and rejected the argument that workloads would become unmanageable, citing how new technology was making it easier for the public to report issues to the council without the need to go through their ward councillor.

He said: “You have no argument if you shrink an organisation but then say the only part of it that is sacrosanct is your own. I find that abhorrent.

“The council will be a third of the size it was, maybe even a half when all of this (the cuts) is finished, yet the number of councillors remains the same.”

He vowed that should the Tories win back power the plan would be resurrected.

However, Cllr Keith Morrell, leader of the Councillors Against the Cuts, warned that any reduction in numbers would have an impact on the quality and effectiveness of local democracy.

He voted against the plan because he didn’t think the power of a local authority should be with a party with a majority of 17.

Cllr Morrell, said: “That would mean 17 people from whom to draw the expertise need to properly carry out the functions of the key posts. That, in my view, would lead to fewer people who are driven to become councillors because they want to represent their community because they would have to have a considerable number of qualifications or experience as chances are they would need to be holding a senior post within the council if we had to draw on fewer people.

“That is not good for local democracy in my view. I know the argument for fewer of us is that all other areas of the council are being cut but from my position I do not believe any of that should be happening anyway. I believe we should be pressing the Government for these funds as this becomes a classic divide and rule situation.

“Having a bigger pool of councillors better reflects the views of the person on the street, there is a better chance of having a worthy debate.”

He said he divides his time between a full-time job as an accountant for a local firm with his responsibilities as a councillor.

“Luckily my employer is very understanding. I don’t think councillors should all be retired or rich enough to do it as a hobby “Half my working day is spent dealing with case work issues, attending briefings or council meetings. Several evenings a week I am attending residents meetings.”

Councillors to have pay cut

COUNCILLORS in Southampton will have a pay cut after the council voted through changes to members’ allowances.

They accepted the recommendations of an independent board appointed to look into councillors’ allowances.

The board, which is appointed every three years, had recommended pegging basic allowance to the Living Wage, which currently stands at £7.85 per hour, for 27 hours a week.

While the current allowance is pegged to the national minimum wage it is based on a 37-hour week, meaning councillors’ allowances will now be reduced from £11,159 per year to £11,021.

As council leader, Simon Letts would be entitled to an extra £22,042, while Conservative and Councillor Against the Cuts group leaders Royston Smith and Keith Morrell would be permitted another £8,266 and £918 respectively.