Agenda item

Report of the Senior Specialist – Democratic Services

CM 47

                        A report was considered that presented some suggested revisions to the Scheme of Members Allowances.

To instigate the debate on the recommendation, it was moved by Cllr P R Sanders and seconded by Cllr R E Baldwin that:

‘the recommendations of the Independent Panel on Members’ Allowances (as outlined at paragraph 3 of the presented agenda report) be agreed and that the revised draft Scheme of Members’ Allowances (as shown at Appendix A of the presented agenda report) be adopted with immediate effect, with any consequent increases in Allowances being backdated to 1 May 2016.’

In discussion, reference was made to:-

(i)     the cost implications and the public perception.  A number of Members felt that, the proposed increase in the Special Responsibility Allowance that Hub Committee Members would be entitled to claim, would convey the wrong message to the public and the cost implications would be difficult to justify in the current climate;

(ii)    the Basic Allowance.  Some Members lamented the fact that the Basic Allowance was the lowest in the county and were disappointed that the Panel had not recommended an increase that would benefit all Members and not just those who served on the Hub Committee.  In response, other Members advised that there was the opportunity for any Member to either attend the Panel meeting or make their representations before the meeting had been held on all aspects of the Scheme.  Whilst having this opportunity, there had been no representations made to the Panel requesting an increase in the Basic Allowance.  In light of this lack of representations, the Panel had not received any convincing arguments to recommend an increase in the Basic Allowance;

(iii)   support for the recommended increase.  In contrast to earlier comments, other Members were supportive of the Panel recommendations and, when considering the levels of responsibility being undertaken by Hub Committee Members, were of the view that the recommended increase was a more accurate reflection of the role;

(iv)  the previous recommendations of the Panel.  Having previously overlooked the recommendations of the Panel, the comment was made that the Council would be ill-advised to do so again;

(v)   comparisons with the role of Chairmen of the Overview and Scrutiny and Audit Committees.  In making its recommendations, the Panel had drawn direct comparisons between these roles and the role of a Hub Committee Member.  As a consequence, Members were asked to consider, in reaching a decision, whether or not Hub Committee Members were being treated fairly.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19(5), a recorded vote was then called for on the motion and was subsequently recorded as follows:-

For the motion (14): Cllrs Baldwin, Benson, Davies, Evans, Hockridge, Jory, Kimber, McInnes, Oxborough, Parker, Sampson, Samuel, Sanders and Sellis;

Against the motion (9):Cllrs Ball, Cann OBE, Cloke, Leech, Moyse, Musgrave, Pearce, Roberts and Sheldon;

Abstentions (3): Cllrs Edmonds, Moody and Yelland;                                                                                   

Absent (5): Cllrs Cheadle, Mott, Ridgers, Stephens and Watts.

and the motion was therefore declared CARRIED.