AT A MEETING of the INDEPENDENT REMUNERATION PANEL of the County Council held at The Castle, Winchester on Friday, 8 November 2002

PRESENT

Professor Malcolm Grant (Chairman); G Boutle; F H M Quick

Councillors: P A Pierce and Mrs E M F Randall also attended to address the Panel

Following a briefing the Panel looked at matters arising from the meeting of the Panel held on 22 March 2002 and the issues for consideration at this meeting:

Members' remuneration for 2003/04

Childcare and Dependent Carers' Allowances

Travel and Subsistence

Special Responsibility Allowances for Members of the Cabinet

Issues relating to the backdating and indexation of allowances which had been raised by District Audit were noted.

They gave consideration to written representations received from Councillors

Capt K B Estlin RN; E F Gale MBE; J K Glen; B T Gurden; Sir James Scott Bt;

Dr J G L Wall and J K West. They also heard oral representations from members. The Panel met in public session, but there was no public attendance.

Councillor P A Pierce (Chairman of Standards Committee)

Councillor Pierce expressed disappointment at the number of members requesting to address the Panel but agreed that it was because the majority of members generally accepted that the level of remuneration was reasonable. He explained that, although the Panel had recommended a 5% increase in remuneration for members at the last meeting, the Standards Committee and County Council took the view that such an increase would be inappropriate bearing in mind that the staff pay offer was, at that time, only 3%. In the circumstances it had been agreed that the basic members' allowance be increased by 3% from 1 April 2002 and that the Special Responsibility Allowance be increased by 3% from 1 April 2003. He agreed that it was appropriate that members' remuneration should shadow staff pay increases.

Members asked about the Special Responsibility Allowance awarded to him as Chairman of the Standards Committee. He explained how the Standards Committee and County Council had agreed the allowance of £5,000 per annum even though the Panel had not recommended any allowance. He gave details of the work of the Standards Committee and his role as Chairman. The Panel noted that no complaints had been received to date for the Standards Committee to deal with.

Councillor Mrs E M F Randall (Conservative Back Bench Member)

Councillor Mrs Randall said that since the set up of the new structure her level of remuneration had fallen and her volume of work had increased and work previously carried out in the office was now being done at home resulting in higher personal telephone and postal bills. She also expressed concern that those members who travelled long distances and, therefore, claimed more travel allowance were subject to tax on their travel allowances.

The Panel asked Councillors Pierce and Mrs Randall for their views on childcare and dependent carers' allowances. They had no particular knowledge of these allowances but took the view that, in principle, such allowances should be paid. The payment of such allowances should assist in attracting younger members on the Council.

Councillor J K West (Chairman of Regulatory Committee)

The Panel considered a written presentation from Councillor West as he was unable to attend the meeting. The Panel noted the comments he made and although not unsympathetic to his request, took the view that there was not sufficient evidence to compare the role of the Chairman of the Regulatory Committee with the roles of the Chairmen of the Policy Review Committees. They were concerned at being invited to re-open the allowances attached to particular posts without being in a position to undertake a proper comparison with other posts, such as the Chairmen of the Policy Review Committees.

Matters Arising from the Meeting of the Panel held on 22 March 2002

The Panel expressed concern that the Council had resolved to make an award of a Special Responsibility Allowance of £5,000 per annum to the Chairman of the Standards Committee, despite the Panel's recommendation that no such allowance should be made at a time when it was still unclear what responsibilities and time commitment would attach to this post. Although recognising that the Panel's role was advisory, and that the Council's obligation was simply to have regard to the Panel's recommendations when making or amending a scheme of allowances, the Panel wished to record that:

(1) such a payment appeared to them, prima facie, to be significantly out of line with other allowances payable by the authority, taking account of the responsibilities of Members of the Cabinet and the Chairmen of the Policy Review Committees and the Regulatory Committee;

(2) from a quick check with surrounding local authorities and Kent County Council, it appeared that none of them make a Special Responsibility Allowance to the Chairmen of their Standards Committees. Subsequent informal inquiries have disclosed only one other authority where such an allowance is paid.

(3) they had some concern with the handling of the matter by the Standards Committee, to which they thought it appropriate to draw attention. The papers considered by the Committee disclosed the proposal, but contained no supporting case for the making of this allowance. The Panel were told that the proposal had originated from the Majority Party Group (of which the Chairman was a member, but there was no suggestion that he had been involved in discussions within the Party Group). The minutes of the meeting of the Standards Committee at which the proposal was discussed showed that all members, including the Chairman had sought advice about declarations of interest. They were advised by the officers that, although they clearly had a direct financial interest in the outcome of discussions about members' allowances, this was not a "disqualifying interest" within the terms of the applicable regulations. The Government had made an express exception in order to allow members to determine members' allowances. They were not obliged to withdraw. No doubt in reliance upon this advice, the Chairman remained at the meeting, and in the Chair, throughout the discussion of the proposal that a special responsibility allowance should be granted to him. Notwithstanding the exceptions conferred by the regulations, it was, of course, open to him to have withdrawn from the meeting, so as to have allowed a full and frank discussion to have occurred. The Independent Panel do not doubt the validity of the officers' advice, and they believe that the Chairman cannot properly be criticised for relying upon it. However, they would wish to draw to the Council's attention their unease about this unfortunate combination of factors.

Members Remuneration for 2003/4

The Panel agreed that members' remuneration should generally shadow staff pay awards and as the staff pay award for 2003/04 had already been agreed at 3.5% they RECOMMENDED that the basic members' remuneration should also be increased by 3.5% with effect from 1 April 2003 and that the Special Responsibility Allowances should also be increased by 3.5% with effect from

1 April 2003 in addition to the 3% already agreed by the County Council as they would not wish to see a decline in the real value of allowances.

Childcare and Dependent Carers' Allowances

The Panel gave consideration to the making of these allowances and were advised that, at present, there was little information on what to base such an allowance. They RECOMMENDED that, in principle, a Childcare and Dependent Carers' Allowance should be made with safeguards built in to protect against any abuse. A recommendation on the level of allowance would be made following further research by the Chief Executive. The Panel were willing to consider the matter further by circulation rather than meeting.

Travel and Subsistence Allowances

The Panel were advised that the problems that had been encountered had been resolved by the provision of packed lunches for members attending visits away from The Castle where prior arrangements could not be made for the County Council to be invoiced for the provision of lunches. The Panel RECOMMENDED that the system for the provision of lunch for members attending meetings away from The Castle should continue. The Panel were also advised that in recent years members' travelling allowances had mirrored staff travelling allowances. They RECOMMENDED that members' travelling allowances should exactly mirror staff travelling allowances which were currently:-

Cars 45.2p per mile

Motor Cycles 25p per mile

Bicycles/Electric Bicycles 8p per mile

Special Responsibility Allowances for Members of the Cabinet

There being no particular requests for Special Responsibility Allowances for Members of the Cabinet to be linked to their workload, the Panel RECOMMENDED that there be no change in the way Special Responsibility Allowances for Members of the Cabinet are calculated.

The Future

The Panel proposed that, in future, an opportunity be provided, should members wish it, for the Panel to undertake a more detailed appraisal of the Scheme of Allowances, and to hear evidence for any proposals for amendment and approval, They felt that there was otherwise a risk of disparities and inequities being introduced to the Scheme as a result of their piecemeal consideration of individual requests. They also proposed that, in such case, sufficient time be given to allow members to make written representations to be considered by the Panel and that the officers present a report on members' representations.

5mm391102