Contact: David Hinxman, Head of Democratic Services, Tel: (01962) 847339,

e-mail [email protected]

1 Summary

1.1 Following implementation of the Democratic Review in relation to Hampshire Action Teams (HATs) and the County Council's scrutiny activities through its Policy Review Committees (PRCs), it is more likely that voluntary groups and experts will be invited to contribute to PRCs' or HATs' work. The question has arisen as to whether such attendances should qualify for any allowance. The payment of reasonable expenses is covered by the County Council's Compact with the voluntary sector and that has been relied upon so far. It encourages engagement and, on those grounds, its principles are recommended for adoption (subject to review) together with, when circumstances are considered justified, meeting the cost of absence cover when attendance is specifically requested by a HAT or PRC/scrutiny working group.

RECOMMENDED:

a) That, reflecting the principles contained in the County Council's Compact with the voluntary sector, approval be given to the payment of reasonable expenses to individuals or persons representing organisations specifically invited to give evidence to scrutiny inquiries; co-opted as a member of a PRC or working group for a particular piece of work; or invited to attend HATs' discussions.

b) That, if requests to meet indirect costs are received from organisations which are 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 to work with HATs, these be determined on their merits by the Chief Executive after consultation with the Chairman of the respective PRC or HAT and that the Chief Executive be authorised to make such payments as are considered appropriate;

b) That the financial management arrangements in relation to (a) and (b) above be as set out in paragraph 4.3 of the report;

c) That a report be made to the Committee on the impact of (a) and (b) above before consideration is given to the budget 2008/09

2. The payment of allowances

2.1 The Members' Allowances Regulations do not allow the payment of attendance allowances. The Regulations 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. 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. But 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 and other third parties with specialist experience and expertise with whom the PRC specifically wished to engage could expect to be invited to take part and add value - perhaps coming in to give evidence or being co-opted to join the membership of a time limited working group i.e. `one off' engagement rather than long term, continuous commitment and responsibility which special responsibility allowances are deemed to acknowledge.

3. The Compact

3.1 The provisions of the Compact promote and encourage people and organisations in the voluntary sector to engage actively with the County Council. In return the County Council acknowledges the value of that engagement through its willingness to pay the `reasonable expenses' of those participating.

3.2 The evolving scrutiny and HATs' work is expected similarly to encourage third parties to engage with the County Council when it is operating in scrutiny or HAT modes. Adhering to the thrust of the Compact, therefore, would mean that people representing the voluntary sector and people specifically invited by HATs or PRCs to contribute because of their experience or expertise would have their travelling and any childcare and dependants' carers' expenses paid at the County Council's approved rates. In effect their status would be very similar to that of the members of the County Council's Independent Education Appeal Panel, all of whom devote freely many hours to their work for the County Council save that Regulations require the County Council to pay their travelling expenses (and any financial loss allowance to which they might be entitled).

3.3 Accordingly it is considered that it would 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 to cover their travelling and other reasonable expenses. 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.

3.4 The HATs budget would meet their respective costs. Whilst PRCs have not been allocated budgets, it would not be unreasonable for them to have small allocations for this purpose and, as mentioned in paragraph 4.3 below, for the associated costs to be identified and an allocation from the Members travelling etc budget set aside. In 2008/09 a specific allocation could be made in the light of experience in 2007/08 if the Committee agrees the approach. It will be possible to monitor the impact of each of these initiatives in 2007/08 through appropriate coding mechanisms.

3.5 With regard to engagement sought by the Executive, the Compact's provisions would apply as they do now.

4. The cost of cover

4.1 A related, but separate, issue with the potential to impact on PRCs and HATs is how to respond if an individual or organisation is specifically invited to attend or be represented 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 although consultation with adjoining councils indicates that this is not an issue which they have encountered.

4.2 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 former scheduled Education committee and sub-committee meetings. The Children's Services Department has a `Trade Union and Public Facilities' budget which is used to enable teachers to be released to perform their local and county union roles. This amounts to about £13,000 a year and has included the cost covering half a day per week for up to four designated teachers to support the County Council's democratic processes. This resource can be earmarked to support teachers in the context of the new PRCs but detailed operating arrangements will need to be put in place in the Department so as to manage that budget as efficiently and effectively as possible.

4.3 As the new working arrangements evolve, however, it is anticipated that contact with external contributors to scrutiny and HATs will result in requests being made for the County Council to meet the cost of cover. PRCs and HATs, therefore, will need to respond appropriately taking all the issues into account. 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 PRC/HATs budget. It is anticipated that, with careful consideration of how to maximise engagement and input, the extra demands which PRCs may generate can be met from within the existing Members expenses budget. As mentioned in paragraph 3.4, through careful coding these costs can be monitored. The Committee may wish to set a guideline maximum of say £1,000 for each PRC to stay within in 2007/08 in addition to the sum already set aside within the Children's Services budget, the allocation to meet travelling expenses and other reasonable costs and, exceptionally, specifically justified indirect costs.

5. Conclusion

5.1 The proposals in this report are a step into the unknown for the County Council given that the work of the PRCs and HATs is still evolving and developing. Taking that into account it would be prudent to approach the matter on a trial basis so that the impact can be assessed. Accordingly the Committee might wish to agree the recommended way forward whilst asking for a progress report before the 2008/09 budget is considered, the report to record those occasions when the framework set out in this report has been applied and the amounts paid in travelling and related expenses and for providing cover.

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.