To consider the above report

Members considered recommendations from the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) following a full review of the Members’ Allowance scheme. Councillor Burbage explained that the IRP had been advised by an expert. He thanked the Members of the IRP for their many hours of work and comprehensive report. Councillor Burbage highlighted the Public Service Discount which demonstrated that whatever level or remuneration Councillors received, 49% of their time was given voluntarily. He paid tribute to all Members for the work they undertook on behalf of residents and visitors to the borough. Without their dedication the borough would not be in such a good state. He highlighted that RBWM’s basic allowance was relatively low and the IRP had proposed a marginal upward increase. He proposed three amendments to the IRP’s recommendations:

1)    Principal Members to be remunerated at the same level as Lead Members i.e. the SRA will be £11,880 not £9,504.

2)    The Chair of the Pension Fund Panel to be remunerated at the same level as the Audit Panel i.e. £4,752.

3)    Members attending Licensing sub-committees to be remunerated as per the Appeals Panel (£30 to 3 hours, £60 for over 3 hours).

It was noted this would require the following amendment to recommendation c):

An additional £26,000 to be added to the Members’ Allowance budget for 2015/2016, increasing to £87,000 for all subsequent years, to fund the changes in the scheme.

Councillor Burbage commented that in expanding the Cabinet by four Members, equal in responsibility and remit, it would be rather undermined if the allowances paid to the Principal Members were to be any different to the Lead Members. It would not be fair to create an arbitrary difference because the law restricted a Cabinet to ten voting Members in Cabinet meetings. It was also considered that there was a large and meaningful financial responsibility on the Pension Fund Panel and by extension on the Chairman. With a fund in the low billions, decisions at the Panel could affect funds in the millions and consequently the council tax payer. In relation to Licensing Panel Sub Committees, meetings did take place and often took a long time out of a councillor’s day. He therefore did not see the difference between this and the Appeals Panel and therefore proposed the remuneration be the same.

Councillor Mrs Jones stated that she understood that the IRP had identified the basic allowance was lower than other councils and she was aware that councillors put in a lot of time and effort however she was very concerned with the proliferation of extra Special responsibility Allowances (SRAs) which did not reflect the savings culture of the borough. She would not be able to support a motion that awarded councillors themselves extra money.

Councillor Beer supported the fine tuning, particularly in relation to the Licensing Panel Sub Committee. However, the Opposition were of the view that the role of Principal Member should not exist. The law stated a Cabinet was restricted to ten Members and this should not be circumvented in any way. He had heard comments that the Opposition did not do its duty or attend certain meetings. However the administration held 72% of the remunerated posts. Only one of the three Opposition Members received an SRA. He would be voting against the proposals.

Councillor Brimacombe highlighted that if a councillor held more than one post attracting an SRA, they only received one of them. Many councillors had wider responsibilities for example Parish Councillor or school governor. In a similar way to a council tax reduction, those wishing not to receive the extra allowance could choose not to do so. Councillor Dudley commented that he was completely supportive of hard working councillors receiving a level of allowance reflective of their contribution. The Mayor commented that it was important to have a realistic level of allowance to attract people from across the spectrum of salaries including the young and those who worked.

Councillor Werner commented that when he was first elected at age 25 the allowance was practically nothing; he had stood for election because he wanted to serve the community. It was a disgrace that the allowance had increased since then. He would continue as in the past to give his allowance to worthwhile charities.

Councillor Mrs Airey commented that she supported the increase in the basic allowance. The average age of a councillor was 66 and there were few females. The allowance was not high compared to part time work. Councillor Kellaway highlighted it was important the public was aware the allowance was subject to National Insurance and income tax. Councillor Bicknell suggested Councillor Werner should declare to Democratic Services to which charities he donated his allowance. Councillor Werner responded that he gave donations to charity in an anonymous capacity. Councillor Smith highlighted that most councillors had partners and they were affected when councillors were not at home.

Councillor Burbage highlighted that paragraph 19 of the IRP report stated that the total paid out in SRAs was not excessive in the comparative context. A number of Members held more than one SRA role but only claimed one SRA payment. In relation to savings, the borough got great value from the administration and had managed to cut council tax six years in a row.

It was proposed by Councillor Burbage, seconded by Councillor Collins, and:

RESOLVED: That:

a)    Council agree proposals by the Independent Remuneration Panel (IPR) as detailed in Appendix A subject to three amendments to recommendations 6, 17 and 18 as below:

1)    Principal Members to be remunerated at the same level as Lead Members i.e. the SRA will be £11,880 not £9,504.

2)    The Chair of the Pension Fund Panel to be remunerated at the same level as the Audit Panel i.e. £4,752.

3)    Members attending Licensing sub-committees to be remunerated as per the Appeals Panel (£30 to 3 hours, £60 for over 3 hours).

b)   The Head of Governance, Policy and Performance amend the Members’ Allowances Scheme in the Constitution accordingly.

c)    An additional £26,000 to be added to the Members’ Allowance budget for 2015/2016, increasing to £87,000 for all subsequent years, to fund the changes in the scheme.

d)   An additional £375 to be added to the Civic Allowances budget for 2015/16, increasing to £900 for all subsequent years, to fund the changes to the scheme.

            44 Councillors voted in favour of the motion – Councillors Michael Airey, Natasha Airey, Malcolm Alexander, Christine Bateson, George Bathurst, Hashim Bhatti, Phillip Bicknell, John Bowden, Paul Brimacombe, Clive Bullock, David Burbage, Stuart Carroll, Gerald Clark, John Collins, David Coppinger, Simon Dudley, Marius Gilmore, Jesse Grey, Geoffrey Hill, David Hilton, Maureen Hunt, Mohammed Ilyas, Richard Kellaway, John Lenton, Sayonara Luxton, Marion Mills, Gary Muir, Nicola Pryer, Eileen Quick, Jack Rankin, Colin Rayner, Samantha Rayner, Wesley Richards, MJ Saunders, Hari Sharma, Shamsul Shelim, Adam Smith, John Story, Claire Stretton, Lisa Targowska, Leo Walters, Derek Wilson, Ed Wilson and Lynda Yong.

            Three councillors voted against the motion – Councillors Beer, Mrs Jones and Werner.

Councillor McWilliams was absent from the room during the voting on the item.

Councillor Walters left the meeting at 9.08pm.