10
Councillor Gallant, Leader of the Council, presented report ES-0273 which was the report of the Independent Remuneration Panel, containing the proposed amendments to the Members Allowances Scheme. The Leader took the opportunity to thank the Members of the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP), some of whom were present at the meeting, for their hard work in undertaking such a detailed review. He also thanked the Members, who had engaged wholeheartedly with the process. It was noted that the IRP was comprised of community representatives and was independent of the Council, therefore the public could have confidence that their report was impartial. Any recommendations from the IRP were referred to Full Council for consideration, in order that the process was open and transparent.
The IRP was commissioned in September 2019 to carry out an in-depth review of the East Suffolk Council (ESC) Members Allowances Scheme, following an agreement that it would only sit once the new Council had been ‘up and running’ for a few months. This would allow the IRP to work with detailed information about Councillor workloads and meeting attendance, which would help to inform their review. Councillor Gallant advised that the cost to the East Suffolk tax payer was currently the lowest in Norfolk and Suffolk by some distance, with all the Councillors costing the individual tax payer £1.12 per year. Even with the proposed increase in Members Allowances, the individual cost to each East Suffolk taxpayer would still be lower than eight of the other eleven councils in the area.
It was noted that there had been an overall reduction in the number of Councillors since the creation of East Suffolk, from 90 Councillors to 55 Councillors, which meant that the total cost for Members Allowances would still be far lower than the overall payments which were made to the Suffolk Coastal District Council and Waveney District Council Councillors. Should the proposed changes to the Members Allowances Scheme be approved, the total cost of the new allowances still amounted to an overall saving of over £112,000 per year, or a 15% reduction, when compared to the total payments made to Members of our predecessor councils. These savings would equate to £448,000 over the four-year term.
During the review, the IRP recognised that all councillors now have greater responsibility representing considerably more residents, businesses and community groups, as well as a far larger geographical area. The IRP also found that the workload for Members had increased significantly and had actually doubled in most cases. The role had changed significantly and could not be viewed as part time. Reassurance was provided that the overall cost of Member Allowances represented a tiny fraction of the Council’s overall budget. The overall cost of Members Allowances was around £600,000, compared to a total net spend of £30 million on Council Services, which equated to 2% of the Council's net outgoings.
Councillor Gallant reported that all Councils must seek to attract more and different people to the role, who may otherwise have considered the role un-viable because of financial concerns. It was noted that there was a lack of diversity within the Council, which could be attributed to the small allowances currently available. The IRP also recognised that people who were self-employed could not afford to become a Councillor. Likewise, employed people might find it difficult to get the time off work required to fulfil their role effectively. As a result, the IRP had also recommended that the Council investigate ways to attract different people from different backgrounds and with a range of skills, by inspiring companies to encourage their workforce to consider becoming a Councillor, or to enable the self-employed to be adequately recompensed for lost work.
Councillor Gallant then invited Mrs Forster, Chairman of the IRP, to say a few words.
Mrs Forster reported that the Councillors had been elected to the newly created East Suffolk Council without knowing the workload of being a Councillor or the allowances that were to be paid. It had been agreed previously that a full review of Members Allowances would be undertaken approximately 6 months after the elections, as more information about the Councillors workloads and responsibilities were available.
The IRP had asked Members to complete a survey about their role and over 54% had responded. There were also a number of interviews which were conducted and it was clear that the basic allowance was too low for the amount of work that Councillors were undertaking. Their overall workload had doubled, Councillors were serving Wards with double the number of constituents and there was considerable preparation required for meetings. There was also additional travel to attend meetings which were held at both sites, in Lowestoft and Melton, and many Wards were spread over a large geographical area, necessitating increased travel to visit constituents.
It was noted that it was important for Councillors to balance their Council work with their home/family life, as well as any other outside work they may have. There were considerable savings which had been generated by the creation of a new Council, and the increase in Members Allowances would not erode the savings. Mrs Forster then took the opportunity to thank all the Members and officers who had supported the IRPs review.
Councillor Gallant thanked the IRP for their thorough review of the Members Allowance Scheme.
There being no questions regarding the Report of the Independent Remuneration Panel, the Council then went into debate.
Councillor Byatt reported that he had taken part in the review process and he had found the IRP to be very thorough and independent. He stated that there had been many comments on social media regarding the proposals within the report, however, he queried whether people had read the whole report, to see the evidence supporting the proposed increase. Councillor Byatt reported that his Ward had doubled in size and he was now representing 11,000 constituents. He then stated that the recent Cabinet papers for the meeting on 7 January 2020 had been over 400 pages long, which Members needed to read to keep informed of latest developments. He felt that the workload had increased significantly and that there should be some recompense for Councillors in this respect.
It was also important to attract younger people and those with different backgrounds to become Councillors, and it was crucial that Members were compensated for having to take unpaid leave or use up annual leave in order to attend meetings. He reported that it was not possible to fully review the Members Allowance Scheme any earlier, as it was important for the review to be evidence-led and Councillors were able to demonstrate and evidence that their workloads had increased and he supported the recommendations contained within the report.
Councillor Elliott reported that he agreed with the reasons for reviewing the Members Allowance Scheme and it was important to attract a diverse range of Councillors who reflected the population of the District. He reported that he supported the proposals in principle, however he did not feel that now was the correct time to undertake the review. Councillor Elliott reported that it would have been more appropriate to have undertaken a review prior to the election, as the increased Allowances may have attracted or enabled a greater number of people, from different backgrounds, to become Councillors. He felt that the timing of the review was crucial and it had been a missed opportunity to attract different people to the role, as it was apparent that workloads would double given the reduction in the number of Councillors. He sought assurance that any future IRP reviews would be completed prior to an election, in order to attract a greater variety of candidates to stand for election.
Councillor Brambley-Crawshaw felt that there were negatives and positives with the proposed scheme. Councillors did work hard, however, the public may not fully understand the role of a Councillor and all of the things that they do. Therefore transparency was important and she encouraged the public to look online to see Councillors' attendance at meetings.
Councillor Deacon reported that he endorsed the recommendations contained within the report and he felt it was important that the public be informed about the work and role of a Councillors, as part of the Communications process regarding the Members Allowance Scheme.
Councillor Patience reported that it was a cross party team of Councillors who had been interviewed as part of the review, so that it was a fair and transparent process. He felt that it was very important to attract a diverse range of people to become Councillors in the future, in order to reflect the population that they served. He thought it was important to look at the various barriers which stopped people from becoming Councillors and he suggested that Councillors and officers work together, prior to the next election, to see if any barriers could be addressed or mitigated.
Councillor Topping reported that she had been working since she was 18 years old and she was now able to reduce her hours to a 4 day working week, as a result of the increase in the Members Allowance, as there was a significant amount of work in being a Councillor.
Councillor Kerry reported that he had a full-time job and he relished working to support the local community. He was fortunate in being able to work flexibly, as required, and the increase in the Members Allowances would assist him, and many other Councillors, in undertaking his Council work. He confirmed that he fully supported the recommendations contained within the report.
Councillor Gallant reported that it was important for the Council to look at encouraging a diverse range of people to become Councillors and the Member Development Steering Group would be looking at this in detail, in due course, ready for the next round of elections. He stated that he valued the independence and professionalism of the IRP and it would have been inappropriate for Councillors to have conducted a review of their own allowances. Councillor Gallant was heartened by the comments received at this meeting in relation to the Members Allowance Scheme and he appreciated the ongoing hard work of the Councillors and noted that all workloads had increased significantly. Therefore, he moved the recommendation contained within the report, which was seconded by Councillor Blundell. Upon being put to the vote, it was unanimously
RESOLVED
That the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel for a new Members’ Allowances Scheme for East Suffolk Council, as set out in paragraph 4 of the report, be approved.