Contact: David Hinxman, Head of Democratic Services; tel: 01962 847339;

e-mail: [email protected]

1 Introduction

1.1 The purpose of this report is to clarify and codify the County Council's position when Members of the County Council receive `open' invitations from Chief Officers or partner organisations to conferences or seminars or other events and to consider the question of payments to third parties contributing to scrutiny, Hampshire Action Teams (HATs) and Executive work.

2. `Open' Invitations to County Councillors

2.1 Recent experience has suggested that it will be helpful for County Councillors and officers if there were a corporate protocol in place for reference vis à vis `open' invitations to conferences or seminars or other events sent to Members by Chief Officers or County Council partner organisations, such as Project Integra.

2.2 Increasing use of e-mail has resulted in `e-flyers' and invitations to conferences, seminars and other events being sent to all Members of the County Council at a keystroke and, being clear that they were from an authorised source, assumptions have been made that attendance would qualify as an `approved duty'. The County Council's policy, however, is that the Chief Executive is authorised to approve all Members' attendance at conferences, seminars. This he does only after consultation with the Leader of the Council. A report listing Members' attendances is submitted to the Governance Committee each year.

2.3 Given the potential impact on the Members' conferences and travelling expenses budgets of unmanaged Member attendance, the County Council has always required specific consideration to be given to conference, seminar etc attendance. Accordingly specific decisions may be made by Portfolio Holders as to Member attendance at national events within the scope of their portfolios, whilst in other cases the Chief Executive liaises with the Leader. In relation to what have been, hitherto, `open' invitations to all Members of the County Council, it is suggested that, for clarification, the Chief Officer or partner organisation hosting or leading for the County Council on the event should, before issuing the `open' invitation, consult with their respective Portfolio Holder as to the identification of Members with County Council responsibilities that warrant a targeted approach due to their office, e.g. spokesperson or champion, or their committee chairmanship/membership. Having set those places aside, the `open' invitation would then be issued to all other Members of the County Council accompanied by a covering note setting out the names of those County Councillors who had been formally appointed to represent the County Council at the event and indicating that travelling expenses would not be paid for other Members' attendance. It is suggested that formal appointments should not normally exceed four Members and that this would normally include minority group representation. In this way it would be clear to all Members that, for other than those mentioned as having been appointed, the flyer or e-mail was an `open' invitation and accordingly attendance would not be eligible for the payment of fees or expenses.

2.4 `Open' invitations to Members from external sources would continue to be dealt with as at present, namely by the Chief Executive when he becomes aware of them in consultation with the Leader of the Council.

3. Policy Review Committees (PRCs), Scrutiny Working Groups, HATs and Members of the Executive - Invitations to third parties to participate

3.1 Following implementation of the Democratic Review in relation to refinement of the County Council's scrutiny activities, it is more likely that members of the public, subject experts and others outside of the County Council's own resources will be invited to give evidence to a PRC or scrutiny working group or be co-opted to contribute in more detail to a particular review where their expertise or experience is considered necessary.

3.2 The question has arisen as to whether such attendances should qualify for an allowance. The payment of reasonable expenses is covered by the County Council's Compact with voluntary sector and that has been relied upon so far to pay travelling and other expenses using the rates which Members of the County Council may claim. This is consistent with the approaches adopted by neighbouring authorities.

3.3 The Members' Allowances Regulations do not encourage the payment of daily allowances because they limit the Members' Allowances Scheme to either basic allowances for elected and co-opted members of the County Council with the option of paying special responsibility allowances to elected and co-opted members to reflect additional responsibilities attached to the offices they hold - for example a committee chairman or minority group spokesperson. Before the new PRC arrangements started on 1 October 2006 there were 16 co-opted members of the former Children's Services PRC who were invited to every PRC meeting. All received special responsibility allowances which sought to recognise the ongoing commitment made by those co-opted members. From 1 October 2006 the number of co-opted members on the new Children and Young People PRC was reduced to just those five with voting rights - the three parent governor representatives, the Church of England representative and the Roman Catholic Church representative - the expectation being that, when the Children and Young People PRC set up scrutiny working groups to investigate specific issues, former co-opted members with specialist experience and expertise could expect to be invited to take part where their experience or expertise would add value - perhaps coming in to give evidence or being co-opted to join the membership of a working group i.e. `one off' rather than continuous commitment. Neither of these situations would reflect successive governments' expectations that special responsibility allowances should be allocated to not more than 50% of the Council's membership and that an on-going, exceptional time commitment would be required..

3.4 Adhering to the thrust of the Compact, however, will ensure that any person who is invited to contribute to scrutiny activity will have their travelling and any childcare and dependants' carers' expenses paid at the County Council's approved rates and, if they qualify, financial loss paid at the prevailing statutory rate. Their status would match that of the members of the County Council's Independent Education Appeal Panel who devote many hours to their work in return for having these expenses paid by the County Council.

3.5 Accordingly it is suggested that, in the context of the current statutory regulations governing the payment of allowances to members, it would not be appropriate to make payments to any persons specifically invited to give evidence or to be become a co-opted member of a working group other than their travelling and other expenses in line with the current Members' Allowances Scheme rates and as enshrined in the County Council's Compact with the voluntary sector. County Councillors' basic allowances include an element to reflect day subsistence but as the external contributors would not be receiving an allowance, the expenses payable to them should reasonably include subsistence.

3.6 It is further suggested that this approach should apply not only to the generality of external contributors to scrutiny but also to others who, by personal invitation, attend HATs meetings or are invited to meet with Executive Members on business relating specifically to their portfolios. In the latter case, the cost would be borne by the service budget whilst the HATs budget would meet their respective costs. PRCs have not been allocated budgets and accordingly their associated costs would be borne by Policy and Resources. Administrative arrangements will need to be put in place to deliver these proposals and monitor budgets.

3.7 A related, but separate, issue with the potential to impact on PRCs and HATs in particular is how to respond if an individual or organisation is invited to attend and their attendance would require the provision of cover by that person's employer or organisation, e.g. a school might have to pay for supply cover if a teacher was invited and accepted the opportunity to give evidence or to be a co-opted member of a working group, or health professionals may have to arrange cover for their absence from their normal workplace. This situation would clearly have more significant financial implications for the County Council. Consultation with adjoining councils indicates that this is not an issue which they have encountered. Furthermore, under the former PRC arrangements and for many years before the move to constitutional arrangements in 2001, teachers had been co-opted members and regular attendees at the scheduled committee and sub-committee meetings. There is no evidence from this to suggest that payments for cover has been an issue but the new ways of working are likely to result at some time in the future in such a request being made. PRCs and HATs, therefore, will need to respond appropriately taking all the issues into account and, in the absence of experience yet, it is suggested that such instances, if they arise, should be dealt with on their individual merits, the cost being charged to the respective budget. In the case of a meeting with an Executive Member it is suggested that the same principle be applied, the cost being borne by the relevant service budget.

RECOMMENDATION:

a) That the report be approved and that, whilst it is not necessary to amend the County Council's scheme of approved duties, the guidance to Members on allowances and expenses be revised to the effect that Chief Officers and the County Council's partner organisations, when considering the issue of `open' invitations to all Members of the County Council, will initially consult with their respective Portfolio Holder(s) as to attendance by named Members having regard to those Members' responsibilities as County Councillors before the `open' invitation is issued and that the `open' invitation will identify those Members for whom attendance will be an approved duty.

b) That the County Council's scheme of approved duties be extended to included the payment of allowances included in the scheme to individuals or persons representing organisations specifically invited to give evidence to scrutiny inquiries or to be co-opted as a member of a PRC or working group for a particular piece of work and that this approach be extended to such attendance at HATs meetings and meetings with Executive Members;

c) That, if requests are received from organisations to meet the costs of providing cover for an employee of theirs who is specifically invited to take part in a scrutiny inquiry either to give evidence or to be co-opted as a member of a group undertaking the inquiry, or is invited similarly to HATs meetings, these be considered by the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chairman of the respective PRC or HAT on their merits and that the Chief Executive be authorised to make such payments as may be considered appropriate; and that Chief Officers be authorised to make such payments similarly in the event that such attendance at a meeting with a Portfolio Holder is specifically requested and cover is required.

1 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.