Agenda item

To consider the report of the Independent Remuneration Panel on the Members’ Allowances Scheme.

Councillor Ian Blair-Pilling, Cabinet Member for Leisure, Libraries, Governance, Facilities Management and Operational Assets, introduced the background to the report.

 

It was a legal requirement to review Members’ allowances at least every 4 years. In 2021 the council convened an Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) to review the Members Allowance Scheme. The council was asked to consider the recommendations of the IRP, the views of Members and the financial implications of the proposals, as set out in the report.

 

The Chairman of the IRP, Mr John Quinton, presented the report and appendices in the agenda.

 

The IRP had met seven times and consulted with a total of 36 Members in addition to surveying for views and had also carried out comparison work other local authorities and their allowances pre and post pandemic and after. Mr Quinton emphasised that the IRP was not responsible for financial implications of the recommendations and could not consider these when determining what they felt was appropriate to recommend for any roles or activity. He noted that the purpose of allowances was to provide reasonable compensation for time spent on a specific role and was not a salary replacement scheme.

 

Some key findings and conclusions were noted. In previous years the allowances were increased in line with the staff pay award. As this had not yet been agreed, the Panel had factored in an increase for 2021/22, to bring it in line with an expected incremental pay rise and to the added requirements of working from home due to the pandemic.

 

Each Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) position was considered on its own merits due to the varying level of input and requirement each afforded. In addition, some decrease in allowances were recommended for posts such as the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Council and a removal of an allowance for the Chairman of the Health & Wellbeing Board.

 

Other recommendations included the implementation of an increase to the Carers allowance, as well as the inclusion of a Sickness and Parental Leave policy, which it was noted would help to remove perceived barriers to those considering standing for election.

 

Councillor Blair-Pilling thanked Mr Quinton for his report and noted that it was clear that the IRP had applied a great detail of reasoning and research towards the task. However, in particular due to the financial implications of the proposals and difficulty in extracting other elements from within the recommendations, he could not support the proposals. Accordingly, he moved the following motion:

 

That council notes the recommendations of the IRP, and the requirement to consider these in the context of their financial implications, outlined in the covering report;

 

The council retains for the council term 2021-25, the entire Councillor Allowance Scheme as set out in Part 13 of the Constitutionand continued to apply the staff pay award (NJC terms and conditions) as the index by which annual adjustments apply to allowances, with effect from 1 April 2021; and the Members’ Allowance Scheme be amended accordingly.

 

This was seconded by Councillor Laura Mayes.

 

The Chairman then invited Group Leaders to comment on the report and the proposal of the Cabinet Member.

 

Councillor Richard Clewer, Leader of the Council, thanked the IRP for its work but stated that the proposals would increase the overall remuneration by 5.5%. With the NHS was looking at a 1% increase, and Wiltshire Council staff a possible 2% increase, he therefore did not feel it was appropriate for Members to take an increase above that.

 

As there was not a simple way to make individual changes, he agreed with the suggestion of continuing the existing scheme, adopting an annual increase in line with the staff pay award once this was known.

 

Councillor Ian Thorn, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, added his thanks to the Panel and agreed that the proposal for a 5.5% increase could not be accepted and supported the motion of the Cabinet Member.

 

Councillor Graham Wright, representing the Independent Group, supported the motion.

 

Councillor Ricky Rogers, Leader of the Labour Group, thanked the IRP for the report and noted that no elected Member put themselves forward to represent their community for a salary. He noted that as with other Members he had separate job and a business to run, and felt that the allowances had to be in context as they were a reflection of the lost earnings incurred when representing his community and all Members made sacrifices to carry out their roles in some way. He went on to add that the report was honest, and a suggested way forward, however he agreed with the motion of the Cabinet Member.

 

The item was then opened for general debate. A comment was made that the 5.5% increase recommended was of the maximum possible under the proposed scheme and did not represent the reality of what would be paid, as for example some SRA positions would not be able to be claimed due to the limits on the number held by each Member.

 

Councillor Jon Hubbard then moved an amendment to the motion that:

 

Council REJECTS the recommendation of the IRP in full but does ask that the following elements of the report are adopted:

 

·       Revisions to payments for Special Responsibility Allowances

·       Payments to co-opted members of the council”

 

The figures below were based on if ALL renumerated posts were filled (which they were not) and assumed that the current Employers offer of 1.5% rise for public sector workers was finally adopted. The figures had been accepted by the Section 151 Officer as accurate.

 

Total cost in 2020/21 - £1,981,998

 

	Proposal from IRP	Reject IRP	Proposed Amendment
Total Cost in 2021/22	£2,065,000	£2,011,503	£2,019,969
% Increase against 2020/21	4.2%	1.5%	1.9%
£ Increase against 2020/21	£83,002	£29,505	£37,970

 

Total additional cost of implementing Proposed Amendment against option of rejecting the IRP was £8,465.

 

The amendment was seconded for debate by Councillor Ricky Rogers.

 

Councillor Blair-Pilling in response stated he did not support the proposed amendment. He did not consider it appropriate to seek to unpick elements of the overall recommendations and did not consider any proposals over the staff pay award should be accepted.

 

The Chairman then invited comments from group leaders.

 

Councillor Richard Clewer, Leader of the Council, did not support the amendment, noting that some SRAs would increase by 15% and that a pay rise above staff was not appropriate at the moment.

 

Councillor Ian Thorn, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group did not support the amendment, noting that members on the basic allowance would enjoy an increase of around 1.5% but those members with several SRAs would receive higher increases.

 

Councillor Graham Wright, representing the Independent Group, noted the logic in the yes or no approach to the report, and confirmed that he would not support the amendment.

 

Councillor Ricky Rogers, Leader of the Labour Party thanked Councillor Hubbard for raising the issue and the plight for carers, and noted  that the recommendations of the IRP did have some positive elements in that respect. In relation to SRA allowances, he noted that it was optional to take the higher increase and Members could individually refuse a higher increase be paid to them, should that be their preference.

The amendment was then opened for general debate.

 

During debate the level of increase for staff against the proposed higher increase for Members was questioned. Support for an increase to the Carers allowance was raised. Some considered that that the issue of Members Allowances would best be decided nationally by central Government.

 

As mover of the amendment Councillor Hubbard responded to the debate, stating that the 5.5% figure was not a true reflection of the amount that would be paid. With the increase to the basic allowance removed through his amendment this reduced the increase significantly. He noted that If the amendment was rejected, the highest earning Members not face the reductions had the IRP proposals been adopted. He stated that he was always open and transparent with the electorate on any increase in remuneration.

 

At the conclusion of debate a recorded vote was requested and supported by the requisite number of Members.

 

The amendment to the motion was rejected with 2 votes in favour, 74 against and 3 abstentions, with the details attached to these minutes.

 

Councillor Christopher Newbury then raised a new amendment to incorporate elements of the IRP with regards to dependents carers allowance:

 

The Dependants’ Carers’ Allowance shall be paid at actual cost (up to a
maximum rate of £30 per hour) or set at the National Minimum Wage
hourly rate when informal case is provided by a friend or family member.

The period of duty is calculated on a ‘door-to-door’ basis, i.e. from the
time a Member or co-optee leaves their place of residence to carry out
the council duty to the time they return.

 

The amendment was seconded by Councillor Bob Jones MBE.

 

The Chairman invited comment from Group leaders.

 

Councillor Richard Clewer, Leader of the Council, noted that whilst he had sympathy with the recommendation, he considered whether it would be better to ask the IRP to look at the topic and report back in a year’s time.

 

Councillor Ian Thorn, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, supported the amendment.

 

Councillor Graham Wright, representing the Independent Group, supported the view that the IRP could look at specific matters further in future.

 

Councillor Ricky Rogers, Leader of the Labour Party, supported the amendment.

 

The item was then opened for general debate.

 

During debate the needs of carers to be supported to best enable them to also carry out duties as a Member was raised.

 

During the course of debate, Councillor Blair-Pilling and the seconder of the original motion determined to accept the amendment.

 

At the conclusion of debate, it was there:

 

Resolved:

 

1)    That Council notes the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel, and the requirement to consider these in the context of their financial implications, outlined in the covering report;

 

2)    That Council retains, for the council term 2021-25, the entire Member Allowance Scheme as set out in Part 13 of the Constitution, with the addition of the carers allowance recommended as detailed in recommendation 19 of the report, para 93:

 

The Dependants’ Carers’ Allowance scheme shall be amended to be paid at the actual cost up to a maximum rate of £30 per hour or set at the National Minimum Wage hourly rate when informal care is provided by a friend or family member.

 

3)    That Council continues to apply the staff pay award (NJC terms and conditions) as the index by which annual adjustments apply to allowances, with effect from 1 April 2021; and the Members’ Allowance Scheme be amended accordingly.