Agenda item

To receive the report of the Independent Remuneration Panel on Members' allowances (Yellow pages) (To follow).

The Council appointed a statutory and independent Panel to advise and recommend the level of allowances for members.  Council itself decided the members' allowances scheme and any amendments to it, having regard to the Independent Remuneration Panel's (IRP's) report.

 

Council considered and endorsed an interim report in September 2015 and agreed at that time to consider a further report on the allowances scheme.

 

The IRP report made a number of recommendations for increases to allowances for the reasons set out in the report.  If the Council accepted all of these it would increase the amount spent on basic and special responsibility allowances by £18,500 in a full year. The total budget for members' allowances and other support for 2017/18 was £983,700.

 

The Leader introduced the report and moved (seconded by Mr A I Hardman) that Council:

 

a)    notes the report of the Independent Remuneration Panel and Panel members be thanked for their hard work;

 

b)    adopts the Panel's recommendations 1-13 inclusive; and

 

c)    authorises the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to amend the scheme of Councillors' allowances in the light of Council's decision.

 

The Leader explained that Council was not bound to accept the findings of the Independent Remuneration Panel but had to have regard to them and convention dictated that Council took their recommendations seriously. The Panel had taken longer than expected to report their findings. However their findings were comprehensive, taking into account allowances paid by other councils and members' diary sheets. He paid tribute to the work of the Panel. The main recommendations included:

 

a)    a 2% increase in the basic members' allowances. However there was a reduction in the amount paid for IT consumables from £505 to £240 which represented an overall reduction in basic remuneration for members;

b)    SRAs had been frozen since 2008 and the Panel recommended a series of raises to these allowances; and

c)    The Panel proposed to end the £1,000 drawdown option for members' IT and recommended that councillors received their IT and support through the Council. This made compliance with IT security rules and servicing of equipment easier to facilitate.

 

The seconder commented that the review of members' allowances was overdue as the roles and responsibilities had changed during that time. Although there were elements of the Review that members might not agree with, the report was independent and should be supported on that basis. This was the last report presented by the Chairman, Michael Clarke and he thanked him for the time and effort put in to produce the report.

 

An amendment was moved by Mr P M McDonald and seconded by Mr R C Lunn that:

 

"Council resolves to consolidate the consumables allowance of £510 into the basic allowance before the application of the increase proposed to the basic allowance. To limit all SRA's to no more than 2% and not accept the proposed new SRA for the Deputy Leader."

 

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services asked the proposer of the amendment to clarify whether the first line sought to amend recommendation 12 not to reduce the consumables allowance to £240 but to retain the £510 and put that into the basic allowance and that the total would go up by 2%; also that the 3^rd line would limit all SRAs to an increase of 2% with no extra for the Deputy Leader. The proposer confirmed that that was the intention of the amendment.

 

Those in favour of the amendment made the following comments:

 

·         The proposer of the amendment commented that there had been a cap on officer pay as well as on the basic members' allowance. There had been an unjustified increase in the number of Cabinet Members at a time when services were in decline. There was less work for CMRs given the reductions to Council services.  On this basis, it would be difficult for Council taxpayers to understand an increase of 8-10% to the SRA allowances. In addition, the reduction in the IT consumables allowance showed a lack of understanding of the requirements of councillors who lived some distance from County Hall 

·         The role of councillors had increased over time and so had the cost of IT consumables

·         The amendment should be considered in two  parts with the proposed consolidation of IT consumables into the basic allowance being considered as a separate resolution to the limit on the increase of the SRAs

·         The original proposal would increase the allowances gap between CMRs and backbench councillors. The report did not reflect the increased workload of backbench councillors. Out of the ten comparison councils, this Council's basic allowance was one of the lowest and yet the SRAs were amongst the highest

·         What message did the increase of 8-10% to SRAs give to those receiving and providing services to vulnerable people in the county?

·         The reduction in the IT allowance represented an overall cut in members' allowances. It was not possible to properly fulfil the role of a local councillor and operate in a paperless environment and consequently members were subject to significant associated printing costs

·         How many hours a week were CMRs expected to work to justify their increased SRAs?

·         The administration had selected the IRP recommendations it wished to accept over a number of years. A 2% increase in allowances across the board was a fair and equitable approach.

 

Those against the amendment made the following comments:

 

·         It was not right to select certain elements of the report. In order to get a cross-section of members involved as CMRs, appropriate level of recompense should be provided to compensate for the level and quantity of work involved. The allowance for the Deputy Leader was justified given the associated level of responsibility 

·         The comparison with staff was not equitable as staff had received salary increases year on year whereas the SRA allowance had been frozen since 2008. Staff also received an annual review and often moved up a grade

·         The Leader of the Council commented that the amendment should be rejected. The recommendations in the report were made by an independent body. There was a clear distinction in the report that members received an allowance not a salary. All councillors had had the opportunity to complete day sheets to help the Panel understand their work loads. Each individual councillor had the right to accept or reject their allowance. He therefore recommended that the amendment should be rejected.

 

The proposer and seconder of the motion requested that the amendment be considered in two parts and this was agreed by the Chairman. Council therefore considered the amendment in two parts.    

 

"Council resolves to consolidate the consumables allowance of £510 into the basic allowance before the application of the increase proposed to the basic allowance."

 

On being put to the vote, the amendment was lost.

 

"To limit all SRAs to an increase of 2% and not accept the proposed new SRA for the Deputy Leader."

 

On being put to the vote, the amendment was lost.

 

Those in favour of the substantive motion made the following comments:

 

·         The Leader commented that he had no intention of monitoring the working hours of CMRs. The Panel had examined the evidence provided by members before coming to a conclusion. The Government had set up IRPs to establish an independent review body to avoid the kind of narrow debate that had taken place. He emphasised that the recommendations of the IRP were not binding on the Council. 

 

Those against the substantive motion made the following comments:

 

·         The reduction in basic member allowances was being made at a time when councillors were being encouraged to become more involved

·         the number of CMRs had increased which would indicate that their work load had decreased. Technological advances had meant that local councillors were available for access by the public 24 hours a day. By reducing the basic allowance, it sent out the message to backbench councillors that their contribution was not valued

·         It one followed the logic that SRAs had not increased over a number of years to justify the 8-10% increase then staff should be expecting a similar increase to their salaries. 

 

On a named vote Council RESOLVED that

 

a)    the report of the Independent Remuneration Panel be noted and Panel members be thanked for their hard work;

 

b)    the Panel's recommendations 1-13 inclusive be adopted; and

 

c)    the Head of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to amend the scheme of Councillors' allowances in the light of Council's decision.

 

Those voting in favour were:

 

Mrs A T Hingley, Mr R C Adams, Mr A T Amos, Mr T Baker-Price, Mr R W Banks, Mr R M Bennett, Mr G R Brookes, Mr B Clayton, Ms R L Dent, Mr N Desmond, Mrs E A Eyre, Mr S E Geraghty, Mr P Grove, Mr I Hardiman, Mr A I Hardman, Mr P B Harrison, Mr M J Hart, Mrs L C Hodgson, Dr A J Hopkins, Mr A D Kent, Mr S M Mackay, Ms K J May, Mr P Middlebrough, Mr A P Miller, Mr R J Morris, Mr J A D O'Donnell, Dr K A Pollock, Mrs J A Potter, Mr A C Roberts, Mr C Rogers, Mr J H Smith, Mr A Stafford, Mr C B Taylor, Mr R P Tomlinson, Mr P A Tuthill, Ms R Vale, Ms S A Webb.(37)

 

Those voting against were:

 

Mr C J Bloore, Mr P Denham, Mr A Fry, Ms P A Hill, Dr C Hotham, Mr M E Jenkins, Mr R C Lunn, Mr P M McDonald, Mr L C R Mallett, Mrs F M Oborski, Prof J W Raine, Ms C M Stalker, Mrs E B Tucker, Mr R M Udall, Mr T A L Wells. (15)