Agenda item

To present to Council the conclusions and recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) in respect of its review of the current Members' Allowances Scheme. 

Members considered the Review of Members’ Allowance Scheme report presented by Amanda Orchard, Chairman of the Independent Remuneration Panel.

Amanda Orchard thanked all councillors who provided their views as part of the review, whether by completing the questionnaires or attending the face-to-face interviews on members’ allowances. Their candid input had proven invaluable in formulating a comprehensive and robust set of recommendations as outlined in the resulting review report. She expressed her personal thanks to the Council officers who assisted the Panel and her fellow panel members, Gerard Dempsey and Carol Hart.

Councillor Mrs Mayor proposed to adopt the recommendations, seconded by Councillor Booth. Councillor Mrs Mayor opened the item for discussion.

·         Councillor Boden thanked the Independent Remuneration Panel for their work and the clarity of the report produced. He said that although members are required to give due consideration to the contents of the report they are not required to agree with it. It was his intention, and as a matter of principle, to agree to whatever was proposed in the report before it was produced. However, he feels there are a couple of errors within the report which need to be addressed and therefore has proposed two amendments to the report which has been tabled to members.

Firstly in respect of the Special Responsibility Allowances, although the Chairman of Licensing Committee does an excellent job, a greater significant amount of work and responsibility is undertaken by both the Chairman of Planning and Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny. Therefore Councillor Boden would suggest the allowance be reduced from £8,000 to £7,000 and not £5,000 for the Chairman both these committees (item 4 of the Report Recommendations). 

The second change he would like to suggest refers to paragraph 5.9 of the Report. It was suggested that a letter be sent to the CPCA outlining the view that any payments to members representing constituent councils on the CPCA be payable by the CPCA. The problem with this recommendation is that by law the CPCA are not allowed to make any payment. Therefore this resolution is a pointless exercise and without changing any other part of the recommendation made, it seems appropriate not to send such a letter.

Councillor Boden proposed that these tabled amendments be taken as an amendment to the motion. Councillor Topgood seconded the proposal.

Councillor Mrs Mayor opened the amendment for debate.

·         Councillor Count thanked the Independent Review Panel for the work they had undertaken saying that it was not widely known that about 30% of councillors’ time was taken up on reaching these judgements. He agreed with Councillor Boden’s comment regarding the letter to the CPCA, this cannot be done as it was part of the order laid down with the original agreement. He pointed out that he chaired all the meetings up until getting the agreement, and what was envisaged at the start is not what we have now. He stepped back because there was so much work involved, he could not run a council or sit on the CPCA board effectively and many members originally involved have stood down. A number of authorities are now paying their leaders an extra allowance and some districts are doing this work themselves, which he believes is an unhealthy situation. Recently the government has made an approach to mayors throughout the country regarding a ‘levelling up of powers’. They have said they would like to see the ability for every mayoral authority to have the same powers that all the others have, which he believes is quite a difficult thing for local leaders to appreciate because this will involve removing certain functions from certain councils, as well as taking on other ones from national government. If this comes to pass, even more work will be involved so this unhealthy situation that we find ourselves in where leaders struggle with burden will get worse not better. Therefore whilst we cannot write the letter, if there is a period of change and government is going to lay down a new set of orders, then that perhaps is the time where this can be resolved.

·         Councillor Tierney said every Fenland district councillor is worth their allowance; a lot of the public do not know all that they do and if they did they may appreciate they are getting a good deal. Most councillors earn less than the minimum wage. You cannot tell staff they are not going to get a rise or cut public services and then award yourself a rise. Therefore he is proud that this council has shown leadership and he would say this is the best independent review report he has ever seen in his time as a councillor. The panel has done a fantastic job and clearly listened to all that members have said. However, he supports the amendment to the allowances as suggested by Councillor Boden; he felt the original suggestion too harsh but they are still taking a cut. Furthermore, members were told from the beginning that, notwithstanding all the extra work, there would be no additional allowances for work with the Combined Authority. 

·         Councillor Sutton stated he would not be accepting the amendment. He had long felt both the Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny and Chairman of Planning were overpaid in comparison to a portfolio holder. He said it was absolutely wrong to go against the Independent Remuneration Panel and this had never happened before, whether members agreed with their findings or not. Neither does he think it necessary for planning members to be paid more. The Council’s position has always been to go along with the Panel’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Hoy said she did not see how we could send a letter but added that we are in a difficult position as other local authorities are paying their leaders a further £5,000 a year for the extra work and we are not. However, we could not say we did not know there would be extra work because everyone knew at the time this would be the case. Therefore she felt it important to put on record that the Leader has done the right thing to not accept or ask for any more money.

·         Councillor Booth said he did not support the amendment and agreed with Councillor Sutton that as a matter of principal and morally we should not change the recommendations set by an independent panel. It feels we are setting our own salary and that is wrong. The rationale for reducing the SRA to the Chairman of Planning and Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny was so that they would be paid similarly to neighbouring authorities. Also he cannot see the justification for the new figure decided at. The only time he has voted against the recommendation of an independent panel was in a period of austerity when they suggested an increase which he felt was not right. Regarding the CPCA, they were good points that had already been made but we have always been told that the CPCA was going to evolve very quickly but that seems to have stalled. He cannot see the harm in sending the letter.

·         Councillor Sutton requested a recorded vote be undertaken.

A recorded vote was taken on the revised motion with the amendment as follows: 

Special Responsibility Allowance

The allowances for the Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny and Chairman of Planning to be reduced from £8,000 to £7,000.

and

This Council does NOT agree to the recommendation that a letter is sent to the CPCA outlining the view that any payments to members representing constituent Councils on the CPCA should be payable by the CPCA, if justifiable, to ensure consistency across the area whilst also ensuring that the CPCA is responsible for the associated financial consequences of creating additional Committees requiring representation.

In favour of the tabled amendment: Councillor Boden, Councillor Benney, Councillor S Clark, Councillor Count, Councillor Mrs Davis, Councillor Hay, Councillor Hoy, Councillor Humphrey, Councillor Mrs Laws, Councillor Lynn, Councillor Murphy, Councillor Rackley, Councillor Tierney, Councillor Topgood, Councillor Wallwork

Against the tabled amendment : Councillor Bligh, Councillor Booth, Councillor Cornwell, Councillor Divine, Councillor Maul, Councillor Meekins, Councillor Patrick, Councillor Sutton, Councillor Wicks, Councillor Wilkes, Councillor Yeulett

Abstentions: Councillor J Clark, Councillor Miss French, Councillor Mrs French, Councillor Marks, Councillor Skoulding, Councillor Purser

The amendment was carried. 

Councillor Mrs Mayor asked for a vote to be taken on the substantive motion to include the amendment.

Council AGREED to adopt the recommendations within the report of the IRP. 

(Councillor Miscandlon declared an interest by virtue of the fact that he is the Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny and left the room for the duration of this item). 

 (Councillor Connor declared an interest by virtue of the fact that he is the Chairman of Planning and left the room for the duration of this item).