Agenda item

Report of the Independent Remuneration Panel

The Acting Head of Paid Service introduced the report and explained that a full review of the Members’ allowance scheme was conducted every 4 years and the recommendations following the most recent review were detailed in the appended Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) report.  He welcomed Quentin Tallon, the Chair of the IRP to introduce the report.

Mr Tallon firstly wished to thank Democratic Services for their support in conducting the  review. He highlighted the process for the review and explained that they had sent a questionnaire to Members to which they had received an 85% response rate. They had also interviewed 12 Members, including leaders of political groups, Cabinet Members and back benchers.  He summarised the recommendations in the report, as follows:

·           They recognised the increased workload for Councillors and so were proposing a 2% increase to the basic allowance and the same increase to all SRA’s.

·           The report was recommending to formalise the split of the SRA for the Chair and Vice-Chair of Licensing in the scheme.

·           They acknowledged the increased work load for the Chair and Vice-Chair of the  planning committee as a result of the evolving legislation and the need to keep informed of changes to the emerging local plan, the JCS and NPPF. As such, they were recommending a 15% increase to the allowance for the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee.

·           They had considered increasing the allowance for the Mayor following comments from Members, however, reasoned that the allowance was not designed to compensate a Member for loss of earnings and when compared with other mayoral allowances within the region, it was considerably higher.

·           They were recommending an increase to the Members training budget as they felt it was imperative Members were equipped with the right information and knowledge to fulfil the role.

He lastly wished to the thank Members for their invaluable participation in the process.

In the debate that followed, Members thanked members of the IRP for conducting the review. The Leader noted the reference in the report to extending the size of the Cabinet and explained that this was something he was seriously considering in the near future, however, the election had halted the process.  He confirmed that they were considering creating a role as a Cabinet Member for Cyber Central and one for climate change.

Members had some concerns in the report regarding remuneration to council appointed representatives on outside bodies.  Whilst they acknowledged that the appointment to the airport was a slight anomaly as the airport was jointly owned by the council they felt that all other appointments were carrying out duties on  behalf of the council, and as such, should receive an allowance. It was highlighted that the non executive directors of the airport, Ubico and Publica now receive a payment and so it was deemed unfair that the council nominated non exec director does not receive an allowance for the same role.

Councillor Parsons wished to propose the following amendment that was seconded by Councillor Stafford:

"That the Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) for members appointed as non-executive directors or trustees of bodies undertaking responsibilities for which the council is ultimately responsible be set pari passu with the remuneration of other non-executive directors of the organisation.”

The Head of Law advised that a SRA could only be paid in accordance with the regulations and the proposed amendment if accepted could result in the council paying a SRA in circumstances that were not permitted under the regulations. Consideration would need to be given the regulations more widely and to each appointment. A more detailed report could be presented to Council if required.

Councillor Parsons explained that the reason for the amendment was that there were a number of appointments made by the council that were treated differently from executive directors that were appointed by the body themselves.

One Member suggested that the matter be debated to get a general steer on the subject and then it be referred to the overview & scrutiny committee for further consideration.

One Member questioned whether the SRA would be paid for by the council and whether this would be equal to what the outside body pay the other representatives. They acknowledged that as separate legal entities it was up to the outside body what they pay the representatives and this could not be dictated by the council. Therefore, consideration would need to be given to whether the council ask the body to pay the appointment or whether it is paid for by the council in the form of an SRA.   A Member agreed that the onus should be on the outside body to pay the representatives but the legalities surrounding this would need to be explored.

One Member felt that the appointment to the Cheltenham Trust was particularly challenging and required considerable commitment both in terms of meetings and workload outside of the meetings.   Similarly, it was noted that the Cheltenham Trust performed functions  that would have previously been undertaken by paid CBC staff and Cabinet Members and so it only seemed fair that they were remunerated for this role. It was agreed that if the council wanted to be more diverse they needed to reasonably remunerate Councillors so that they were financially able to undertake the role.  

Other Members felt that the payment should come from CBC, particularly in the example of the Cheltenham Trust Board because they were functions that would otherwise be taking place inside CBC. 

Councillor Whyborn declared an interest in the matter as the council nominated representative on Gloucestershire Airport.

One Member highlighted that you cannot be remunerated as a trustee of a charity as stipulated by the charity commission. 

Members understood the complexities around the matter and agreed that there were inevitable legal and financial considerations and felt that the matter should be referred to the overview and scrutiny committee for consideration.

Councillor Parsons withdrew the amendment on the agreement that it be referred to the overview and scrutiny committee. Members unanimously supported this.

Members proceeded to vote the substantive recommendations, they welcomed the recommendation to make the travel and subsistence form electronic as they felt the current process was a waste of resources. They also felt it was imperative councillors had access to the right training in order to make legally sound decisions. They also recognised the importance of remunerating councillors to ensure diversity.   

RESOLVED (with one abstention) THAT

• That the Special Responsibility Allowance for the Chair and Vice-Chair of Planning Committee be increased by 15% in addition to the 2% inflation increase to give the following levels:
  • Chair of Planning Committee -  £3,767
  • Vice-Chair of Planning Committee - £1,881

• That the Special Responsibility Allowance for the Licensing Committee be split between the Chair and Vice-Chair on a 60/40 basis and formalised within the scheme. 

2.    The Council notes the IRP comments on:

·         Potential additional training requirements in order to equip Members with the knowledge and expertise required to undertake their role.

·         Digitalising the submission of travel claims. 

3.    The matter relating to remuneration of CBC nominated representatives on outside bodies be referred to Overview and Scrutiny.