Agenda item

Report number LDS247 of the Chairman of the Independent Remuneration Panel.        (Enclosure)

Decision:

1.    That the Council agrees the recommendations made by the Independent Remuneration Panel made in its report as attached at Appendix A to report number LDS247 as its scheme of remuneration for Councillors.

2.    That Members’ allowance should continue to be index-linked to local authority pay awards.

3.    That the Council agrees to adopt the following local changes:

a.    To allow members to claim for their travel when they have a legitimate interest in a matter being discussed by one of the Council’s Committees.

b.    To allow members to claim for their travel when they attend the Council offices to meet with an appropriate officer to discuss included item(s) on committee agendas.

c.    To allow members to claim for their travel when attending parish council meetings

d.    To allow recompense for “informal” caring arrangements

4.    That the Constitution be amended to incorporate the approved Scheme of Remuneration.

5.    That the Council refers to the Constitution Committee to formulate appropriate wording following consultation with Internal Audit for consideration by Council on 25 January 2018.

6.    That the revised scheme of Members’ Allowances should take effect from 1 September 2017

The Chairman of the Council welcomed John Cade, who was the chairman of the Independent Remuneration Panel. Mr. Cade was invited to present the Panel’s report and recommendations.

The Chairman of the Remuneration Panel summarised the Panel’s process, which fell into five stages: a pack of background comparator information, a workshop, a questionnaire, an evidence-giving session and the subsequent review of all the evidence that had been gathered. He stated that while the evidence gathered was not unanimous, the common message related to the recognition that there had been changes to the way in which the Council was doing business. He referred to the question put during the public open forum session of the Council meeting and stated that while the panel was very much aware of budget pressures, it had reached the conclusion that, on balance, it could not disregard the weight of evidence that it had received and felt that this needed to be acknowledged and recognised.

He explained that the scheme was based on building up from the basic allowance and highlighted some of the changes that had been proposed. Mr. Cade made specific reference to the proposal relating to the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees. The panel had recommended that the allowance for the Chairmen of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees should be a factor of 1 of the basic allowance; but this uplift had not been reflected in appendix B to the panel’s report. He explained that the uplift recognised the strong improvements developing around scrutiny and reflected the importance of the scrutiny function in a local authority that operated a strong leader model of governance. He added that this had also been reflected in the recommended uplift in the allowance for opposition group leaders.

While the panel had not made recommendations in relation to the level of travel and subsistence allowance, it had made a number of recommendations regarding the eligible duties for which travel could be claimed and suggested that consideration should be given to recognising the use of informal caring arrangements. A new allowance had also been proposed for the Council’s Independent Person; previously this role had not been remunerated.

Prior to any formal proposition and debate, Members of the Council were invited to ask questions of Mr. Cade. During the question and answer session, Mr Cade clarified that:

• The proposal “to allow members to claim for their travel when they attend the Council offices to meet with an appropriate officer to discuss included item(s)” related to an item on an agenda in which a member had a legitimate interest and would cover meetings with officers, the relevant Cabinet Member of Committee Chairman
• The law required that an allowance was paid to leaders of formally constituted opposition groups and, where a council had more than one such group, a methodology allowing for proportional payments to their leaders was often practiced
• The increase proposed in the basic allowance constituted a 16.5% uplift
• It was not possible to link the payment of allowances to attendance and the basic allowance had to be the same for all members
• The proposals reflected the current number of Cabinet Members and Overview and Scrutiny Committee Chairmen and Vice-Chairment

The Chairman thanked Mr. Cade for attending the meeting and the way in which he presented the recommendations of the Panel. He also expressed the Council’s thanks to the other members of the panel for their work.

A proposal was made to approve the recommendations of the panel with the date from which they would take effect as 1 September 2017. In making the proposition, comment was made that while there was never a good time to deal with such matters as increasing Members’ allowances, the report had provided independent evaluation that reflected the changes to the way in which the Council operated. Comments were also made about those Councillors who had jobs and were required to take unpaid leave in order to fulfil their duties. It was felt that while the proposed increase did not fully compensate for lost earning, it may prove a help. It was also hoped that it would make standing for election a possibility for a wider pool of candidates in the future.

The proposals were seconded and reference was made to making fair recompense to Members’ for their work. If accepted, it was also suggested that the proposals would bring the Council more into line with the schemes of other local authorities.

Some Councillors spoke against the proposal, stating that they did not feel that it was an appropriate time to increase allowances in the midst of public sector cuts. They echoed the sentiment that they stood for election for the benefit of their communities and they did not feel that the best interests of those communities would be represented by approving the increase. During debate, a number of members referred to the fact that when they stood for election they had not realised that they would be entitled to an allowance. One member also refuted the suggestion that an £800 increase in the basic allowance would alter the demographic of individuals standing for election. When referring to the total costs of the proposal, members noted that those costs associated with the broadening of criteria for mileage claims had not been modelled.

An amendment was proposed to recommendation 6: that increases should be delayed until after the next district council elections in May 2019. This was seconded.

Members who spoke in favour of the amendment reiterated that they did not feel that the time was right for an uplift in Members’ allowances. The sentiment was also expressed that agreeing a scheme that would only come into effect with a new Council would mean that there was less personal interest involved in making the decision. It was also suggested that a later implementation date would allow the electorate to take the level of remuneration into account when making their choices at the ballot box. Further reference was made by several Councillors about their motivation for becoming a Councillor, which was the value they could add to their local communities through the role, and not for the allowance.

Those members speaking against the amendment highlighted that the recommendations were made by an independent panel and were based on evidence including comparator data from other local authorities. It was argued that citing a percentage increase could be misleading. When averaged over the number of years over which the basic allowance had not increased, together with the four-year duration of the proposed scheme, the overall impact was diminished, equating to a small uplift each year. Others, while supporting the principle of an increase suggested that 16.5% felt too high an increase in the current climate or suggested that personally they would not feel able to accept that increase.

The amendment was put to the vote and lost.

A request was made that a recorded vote be taken. As the request was supported by more than ten members of the Council, in accordance with article 4.13.4 of the Council’s Constitution, a recorded vote was taken on the substantive motion.

The proposition was carried.