Contact: David Hinxman - Ext: 7339

1. Summary

1.1. This report comments on a recent DTLR Consultation Paper concerning a review primarily of arrangements for travelling and subsistence for elected Members of the County Council, (including the establishment of a statutory scheme of approved duties), and allowances for co-opted and appointed members. A copy of the Consultation Paper is in the Members' Room.

1.2. The report also comments on the requirement to establish an independent remuneration panel to review the County Council's Members' Allowances Scheme and, in due course, the allowances referred to in the consultation paper should they be introduced. The independent remuneration panel would also consider pension arrangements (see item 3).

2. The Proposals in the Consultation Paper

Each element of the proposals in the Consultation Paper insofar as it is relevant to the County Council is set out below with detailed comments. These were required to be with the DTLR by 26 October and have been submitted as the County Council's draft response after consultation with the Chairman. They have also been forwarded to the LGA who asked for comments by 18 October.

A COUNTY COUNCILLORS

1. Proposal: Travel and subsistence allowances to be discretionary, i.e. they may be incorporated into the basic allowance or paid separately.

Comment:

No objection; when the Members Allowances Scheme for the new Constitution was recommended by the previous independent panel it was the panel's view that travelling allowances should remain outside the scheme given the wide variety of distances travelled by county councillors in the exercise of their duties, especially when Winchester is the venue. It is considered that these variations are sufficient to maintain a system of travelling expenses. Subsistence has been incorporated into the basic allowance already other than for overnight stays or all day site visits. Other councils' circumstances might be different, particularly close knit communities where travelling is not an issue.

2. Proposal: Travelling and subsistence allowances are to be determined locally.

Comment:

No objection; the County Council has already aligned its travelling allowances to those payable for staff in relation to motor cars and bicycles. This could now be extended to motor cycles. .

In relation to the overnight allowance, this has long been considered inadequate and freedom to pay reasonable "actual" costs will be welcome although the County Council will need to state the quality of accommodation it would expect members to use e.g. 3/4 star or hotels hosting conferences a member is appointed to attend.

3. Proposal: The County Council to determine its own scheme of travelling and subsistence having regard to the recommendations of an independent allowances panel.

Comment:

No objection; this was the case when allowances were last reviewed.

4. Proposal: Pay a cycling allowance.

Comment:

Already available under existing powers.


5. Proposal: Travel and subsistence only to be paid in accordance with a list of approved duties to be agreed by the Secretary of State.

Comment:

This proposal is not supported. The Secretary of State's proposals do not improve upon the current situation whereby the County Council is free to agree its own scheme, much of which the Secretary of State's proposal reflects specifically, and the remainder of which the County Council would be allowed to agree to reflect local needs.

There is no justification for this proposal by the Secretary of State. From the County Council's experience, there would seem to be no reason for it.

6. Proposal: Records of travelling and subsistence payments to be kept and made available for public inspection.

Comment:

This seems to be an overly bureaucratic proposal. Records are kept currently for accounting purposes and, as with the Members Allowance Scheme, annual totals could be made available for inspection when in accordance with Regulations the previous year's allowances payments are published. This would seem to be a more coherent and co-ordinated way of addressing the issue rather than singling out travelling and subsistence payments for special treatment. Councils which choose not to pay travelling allowances but to incorporate an element for travelling in the basic allowance would be unable to provide the information. The County Council sees no merit in a special arrangement for travelling and subsistence payments but perhaps a case could be made for adding the information to the annual statutory notice of allowances paid. It is also not clear whether the Secretary of State's intention is that the record would be of individual payments for members per approved duty or the amount per member per year. Members may only claim for authorised travelling and, therefore, the reason for this proposal is far from clear taking also into account that the County Council's accounts are open to inspection annually in any event and are, of course, subject to both internal and external audit.

B. CO-OPTED MEMBERS AND APPOINTED MEMBERS

1. Proposal: The County Council may pay a meeting allowance to co-opted members and must pay no less an allowance to appointed members on Education Policy Review Committees; rates may vary between co-opted members depending on the nature of the cooption and the expected time commitment.

Comment:

This will have financial implications. The proposal appears to equate with the financial loss allowance but payable whether or not the persons concerned suffer financial loss, the key issue being the level of such payment. There is no objection to this in principle save that increased budgetary provision would be necessary. The payment of different rates to different members will need careful consideration by the independent review panel. This proposal seems to be unnecessarily bureaucratic although a contrary argument no doubt will be that it allows complete flexibility. Either way it complicates what hitherto has been a clear and simple modus operandi.

2. Proposal: The County Council may pay meetings allowances to non-councillors appointed to various bodies.

Comment:

There could be serious financial implications here. There is also an important issue of propriety in relation to school exclusion and admission appeal panels. Their independence could be seen to be seriously compromised if the County Council were to be their paymaster as well as the admissions/exclusions authority.

The number of appeals in Hampshire now runs into hundreds each year; at the financial loss rate of £55 a day in 2000/01 a meetings allowance would have cost the County Council about £32,000 based on 3 members a day for 195 hearing days compared with actual expenditure on financial loss for that year of about £2500.

There are also serious concerns about how the availability of meetings allowances would affect the availability of appeal committee members if adjoining authorities or unitary authorities in the County Council's geographical area were to pay more generously given that some members sit for the County Council and Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council.

This is an area where the DTLR should think again. It should either retain the status quo or consider imposing a national flat rate. Joint agreement locally may not be readily achieved given that Hampshire, Southampton and Portsmouth are in competition for appeal panel members. It would be unfortunate if financial considerations swayed members' allegiance and denuded an authority's panel membership leaving it unable to meet its statutory obligations effectively and efficiently. As long as these appeal panels are set up and serviced within the County Council, albeit by the Chief Executive not the Education Department - some unsuccessful appellants will continue to believe that the panels do not operate independently however much appeal panel members explain their position. To say that they are paid by the County Council will only make matters worse.

Accordingly, the County Council does not consider that the Secretary of State's proposals insofar as they relate to members of the independent appeal panel are appropriate. They seriously undermine the independence of these panels. To be truly independent these panels should be managed outside the local education authority's organisation.

3. Proposal: Co-opted and appointed members must have equity of allowances in relation to mutually equivalent responsibilities.

Comment:

The County Council agrees that whatever the outcome of this review fairness and equity must be paramount.

C. COMBINED FIRE AUTHORITIES

Proposal: Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority should have its own scheme.

No objection. As the Police and Fire Authorities develop their own roles it is not unreasonable for them to wish to have control over their own allowances.

D. APPROVED DUTIES

Proposal: A statutory scheme of approved duties with local additions.

Comment:

It is considered that such detailed interference is not required. The Secretary of State's proposal largely reflects the County Council's existing scheme and would, therefore, be unnecessary given that it also allows local authorities to add to the list as they think fit.

E. SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY ALLOWANCE

Proposal: To extend SRA's to quasi-judicial functions, e.g. adoption panel membership.

Comment:

The County Council has hitherto taken care to allocate SRA's to offices of particular significance across the political groups. There are a wide range of quasi judicial roles performed and each authority will respond as it considers necessary.


3. The Independent Remuneration Panel


3.1. Before the County Council can change its Members' Allowances Scheme regulations now require the scheme to be reviewed by an independent remuneration panel which the County Council is obliged to establish. Its recommendations must be advertised and the County Council must have regard to its recommendations when making decisions on members' Allowances.


3.2. The Panel must have at least three members. None of the members may be elected members of any local authority or a person disqualified from being an elected member. To make progress as quickly as possibly advertisements have been placed inviting applications for membership of the independent remuneration panel. The appointment process must be open to public scrutiny. Some, if not all the members of the panel, should be recognisable members of the local community.


3.3. The independent panel previously appointed by the County Council comprised Professor Malcolm Grant and Mr. Rodney Brooke, both well known and well respected figures in local government nationally. The third member was Sir Leonard Peach, a Commissioner for Public Appointments who had worked in the private sector in Hampshire and who gave a local and business dimension to the panel's deliberations. Professor Grant and Mr. Brooke have chaired or been members of several large local authorities' remuneration panels. All three Members previously indicated a willingness before the regulations were issued to be involved in further reviews of Hampshire's scheme when the new Constitution was in place. Continuity and consistency will be important factors and accordingly, it is proposed that one of these three be asked to chair the new panel, the other two places being filled by interview after public advertisement. It is suggested that the panel to recommend independent members for the Standards Committee also be asked to appoint two suitable persons to the independent remuneration panel. The first task of the new independent remuneration panel will be to review the existing scheme and to consider the scheme for 2002/03.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. That the comments of the Chief Executive and County Treasurer in response to the DTLR consultation paper on members' allowances be endorsed;


2. That, after consultation with the Chairman of the Standards Committee and the political group leaders members be appointed (1:1:1) with the Chairman of the Committee to make two appointments to the new independent remuneration panel and that a member of the previous independent panel be asked to act as chairman of the new independent remuneration panel;


3. That the terms of reference of the new independent remuneration panel be as follows:-

To review the operation of the County Council's existing Members' Allowances Scheme and rates of travelling expenses and to make recommendations.

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB the list excludes:

1 Published works.


2 Documents which disclosure exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

TITLE	FILE
None

5kR241001