Issue - meetings

To consider and decide on the recommendations as set out in the associated report. 

RESOLVED - That Full Council be recommended: That Members determine an alternative scheme (Option C) – to keep the current scheme but to add a new condition that no Cabinet Member will be entitled to a minority group leader’s allowance.

REASON FOR DECISION: To comply with the requirement to undertake a full review of Member Allowances every four years.

Councillor David Hayward Cabinet Member for Governance and Transparency introduced the item.  Lee Colyer, Director of Finance, Policy and Development introduced Ben Garland from JIRP who provided a brief summary of the report.

Discussion and questions from Members included the following:

-       The report included three options for Cabinet:

o   Option A – Keep the current scheme

o   Option B – Implement the JIRP recommendations

o   Option C – For Members to determine an alternative scheme

-       Whilst Full Council was the ultimate decision maker, Cabinet had the opportunity to propose a scheme.

-       At the Finance and Governance Cabinet Advisory Board, there was general support to keep the current scheme, but the ambiguity around minority group leaders within Cabinet should be resolved.

-       One way to resolve this issue was for Cabinet to add a new condition that ‘no Cabinet Member would be entitled to the minority group leader’s allowance’.  If Cabinet agreed this, a supplementary appendix could be issued for Full Council on Wednesday 14 December 2022.

-       The existing conditions would remain except for ambiguity related to minority group leader’s allowance.

RESOLVED - That Full Council be recommended: That Members determine an alternative scheme (Option C) – to keep the current scheme but to add a new condition that no Cabinet Member will be entitled to a minority group leader’s allowance.

REASON FOR DECISION: To comply with the requirement to undertake a full review of Member Allowances every four years.

To consider and provide a recommendation to Cabinet on the proposals set out in the attached report. 

Lee Colyer, Director of Finance, Policy and Development introduced the report set out in the agenda.  Ben Garland from JIRP Panel provided a brief summary of the report.

Discussion and questions from Members included the following:

-       The review exercise started in July 2022 with the report being finalised in October/November.

-       When considering the level of special responsibility allowance, the panel reviewed other authorities and if the mean average was higher then the recommendation to TWBC was to raise the level of allowance to a similar amount.  This was the reason for the recommendation for the Overview and Scrutiny special responsibility allowance to be raised from £2,000 to £2,500.  

-       Member’s allowance of £5,500 came into effect in 2016.  This amount remained in line with other Councils so the recommendation was that this remained unchanged.  However, for future years, it was recommended the allowance was indexed linked in line with Council staff pay increases.

-       Special responsibility allowance was paid in addition to the basic Members allowance.

-       The Opposition Group Leader recommended allowance was £5,500 and would be paid only if the Opposition Leader was not in Cabinet (i.e. they would not receive both the Cabinet allowance and the Opposition Leader allowance).  In total therefore, they would receive the Members allowance of £5,500 plus the Opposition Leader allowance of £5,500. 

-       The method used for setting allowances was by comparative analysis.  The panel looked at groups of Councils to ensure that there was parity within the group. 

-       Workload levels did not form part of the assessment process.

-       From discussions, it was determined there was a higher burden of workload for the Chair of Planning which was why it was held at its current level of £5,500. The amount was also comparable with other Councils.

-       In terms of the Opposition Group Leader the amount was set in part due to a historic anomaly where previously you could be in Cabinet but also receive an Opposition Leader allowance.  This had now been removed and the amount was now comparable with other Councils.

-       The panel must assess the allowances as per the current composition.  They could not predict what changes may or may not occur as a result of any changes to the boundaries or to the number of Councillors.

-       The decision on what allowances were appropriate rested with Full Council.  As such, if a review took place and boundaries changed, the Council could request a reassessment of allowances.

-       There was concern that the drop in allowances was untenable and would not be allowed in other sectors. 

-       It was suggested that there should be no change in the schedule of allowances, that they remained fixed until the Council determined otherwise – i.e. that they didn’t rise in line with increases given to Council staff (indexation).

-       There was recognition that TWBC were slightly out of sync with other Councils and so there was a need to readdress the balance.

-       In terms of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55