8
a) Motion submitted by Councillor Byatt
The Chairman invited Councillor Byatt to read out his Motion.
Councillor Byatt proposed his Motion, which was seconded by Councillor Deacon and he read out the following:
"This Council recognises that an increasing number of our residents are being negatively affected by the cost of living crisis.
It is our Council’s responsibility to offer relevant advice and support regarding East Suffolk services which may be able to help them, and should ensure that they have access to such advice and support.
We must not assume that everyone uses the Internet, and others may not find using the phone easy. It is important, therefore, to offer residents the opportunity of a face-to-face discussion.
In the light of this, we will review the current opening hours of our Customer Service Centre at the Marina Centre in Lowestoft, and other provision within various Libraries across the District, to assess if there needs to be an expansion of their opening hours and staffing.”
The Chairman advised that, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.4, the Leader of the Council and the Leaders of the Opposition Groups had met to discuss this Motion and agreed a way forward. The recommendation from this meeting was that the Motion would be discussed this evening. She therefore proposed from the Chair that this Motion be discussed this evening and it was seconded by the Leader of the Council. The Chairman invited Members to vote on the proposal to debate the Motion this evening and it was unanimously CARRIED.
The Chairman then invited Members to debate.
The Leader stated that Customer Services recognised that a variety of channels were needed to meet the needs of its customers. Face to face service remained important and following a review, the opening hours had been changed to make sure there were sufficient resources to meet the needs of our customers. We constantly monitor demand, complaints and staff provision and were now available in more locations than ever before in the Marina Centre in Lowestoft, the libraries in Aldeburgh, Halesworth, Leiston, Saxmundham, Woodbridge and Felixstowe. Also, Digital Champions were available by appointment, to assist the public to access services online, as well as how to use smart phones etc for personal use. A number of roadshows were planned to take place around the district to provide advice to people concerned about the cost of living eg rising fuel costs, money saving, benefits and debt management, as well as information on the financial support available.
In light of the support being provided by the Council, the Leader proposed an amendment to the Motion, which was seconded by Councillor Blundell. The amendment was:
This Council recognises that an increasing number of our residents are being negatively affected by the cost-of-living crisis.
It is our Council’s ambition to offer relevant advice and support as part of our Ease the Squeeze Campaign we want to help all residents to ensure that they have access to the best advice and support.
We must not assume that everyone uses the Internet, and others may not find using the phone easy. It is important, therefore, to offer residents the opportunity of a face-to-face discussion if this is their preference.
In the light of this, we acknowledge the plans being put in place by both the Communities Team and The Customer Service Team and urge them to continue to monitor the effectiveness of the customer engagement model and implement change where necessary.
The Chairman invited Members to debate the amendment.
Councillor Coulam commented that she had shared information about the Cost of Living Roadshows on Facebook, to raise awareness amongst her constituents.
Councillor Byatt stated that the amendment was within the spirit of the original motion and he noted the Cabinet Member update in Item 15, by Councillor Burroughes, regarding the Customer Services and Customer Experience Teams. However, he was still concerned by the digital exclusion of many local residents. He gave the example of one of his constituents from Pakefield, who had tried in vain to book a slot at the household waste recycling centre by phone. She did not have access to the internet and eventually turned to Councillor Byatt for assistance. Whilst he had been able to help her book a slot, he was concerned about the many other people who would experience similar difficulties and reduce digital exclusion.
Councillor Cook reported that the Ease the Squeeze campaign was providing a number of ways to assist residents to get help during this difficult time. It was important for all Councillors to share information and signpost residents to get the help that they need.
Councillor Burroughes commented that he was glad that Councillor Byatt was able to support the amended Motion. Since Members had talked about our digital transformation plans in 2019, the Customer Access Strategy had been transformed and regular updates had been received on progress. Residents were now able to access support in more places than before, increasing from 4 to 7 sites, and Digital Champions were available by appointment in libraries to assist on a variety of technical matters. Councillor Burroughes offered to speak to Councillor Byatt in more detail outside of the meeting. It was noted that 3 Financial Inclusion Officers had also been appointed to assist people to cope during the cost of living crisis. It was noted that nobody was immune from the current crisis, everyone was affected to some degree.
Councillor Topping stated that she had been speaking to Councillor Burroughes about this for some time and she stated that she was glad that Councillor Byatt had submitted this motion. She stated that Beccles was the largest town outside of Lowestoft in Waveney and at one time there had been a district Council office in the town, as well as Councillors available to speak to the public in the library. When Covid arrived, everything had changed and the area in the library where Councillors and officers could meet with the public was removed. Councillor Topping stated that she was receiving complaints and queries all the time from residents, which should be answered by Council officers. She stated that she was desperate to get an officer to come to speak to the public in Beccles and deal with their queries, even if it was just for a couple of hours a week. The population in Beccles was ageing, who often did not have smart phones and the ability to get online. She stated that Bungay was in an even worse position, as they did not have the bus or train routes to get to the Marina Centre in Lowestoft or Halesworth. She noted that the Cost of Living Roadshow would be in Beccles on 27 October between 11 am and 2 pm, however, if residents were unable to attend, their questions would remain unanswered.
Councillor Jepson took the opportunity to highlight the work of the Community Partnerships (CPs), who were identifying a number of warm rooms across the district and each CP had the option to fund their own. It was important to share the work of the CPs and inform residents of the help and support available in their areas.
Councillor Smith echoed the words of Councillor Jepson and took the opportunity to invite Councillor Topping to contact her outside of the meeting, to discuss the issues in Beccles. Councillor Smith stated that she would also see if the Communities Team would be able to assist.
Councillor Gooch stated that she supported Councillor Byatt and Councillor Topping's comments and she felt that support needed to be in person by default, rather than by digital methods. She gave an example of an article in the Daily Express, which mentioned the difficulty some people had in paying for their telephone and internet bills. Many people may not be able to afford to use digital means in the future and, as such, people would really want to see a friendly person, face to face.
Councillor Lynch stated that his ward of Kesgrave had a population that was 50% larger than Beccles and he expected local residents to come to him for help and support, as a Town and District Councillor. He commented that a significant part of a Councillors' role was to assist their constituents, in a variety of settings. He did not expect officers to undertake this role.
Councillor Mallinder stated that one of his constituents had made an appointment to see a customer services advisor face to face and it was important to remember that this facility was available, and to inform constituents, as appropriate.
Councillor Blundell reported that it was important the residents knew what the Council was doing. Communication was key and Councillors should make themselves available to answer questions and share information. At the Foodbanks in his ward, additional information was being provided about the Ease the Squeeze campaign and all the help and support that was available. He felt that it was an excellent campaign and should be supported by all Members.
The Leader thanked Members for the interesting debate. He was concerned about the view that officers should meet with the public and deal with their queries, as he felt that was what all Councillors had been elected to do, Councillors were the link between the public and the Council. He also did not agree with the Council communicating face to face by default, as he felt it would be more expensive and time consuming for people to have to drive to the nearest customer services facility, queue up and speak to an officer there. Digital by default was a much simpler and more efficient way of working, with other methods of contact available for those unable to use digital communications.
As the amendment to the motion had been moved and seconded, the Chairman invited Members to vote on whether or not to accept the amendment. Upon being put to the vote the amendment was CARRIED.
N.B. Councillor Brambley-Crawshaw and Councillor Topping left the meeting at this point in the proceedings at 7.38 pm.
The Chairman clarified that the amended Motion had now become the Substantive Motion. There being no further debate, the Motion was put to the vote and it was CARRIED.
b) Notice of Motion Submitted by Councillor Beavan
The Chairman invited Councillor Beavan to read out his Motion.
Councillor Beavan sought clarity on procedure at this point during the proceedings. Mr Bing, Head of Legal and Democratic Services and Monitoring Officer, reported that in accordance with the Constitution, the Motion would become 'live' once it had been moved and seconded. The Mover, when moving the Motion, should explain the purpose of it. Councillor Beavan should therefore read out his Motion and explain the purpose of it and then seek a seconder.
Councillor Beavan stated that the Motion had been published on the agenda and he wished to take it as read. He then explained why Members should support the motion. He stated that everyone would agree that staff were the Council's most valuable asset but some of them, due to the cost of living crisis, would not be able to feed their families or warm their homes. People could not afford to live on the national living wage of £9.50 an hour, nor the real living wage of £10.90 an hour. Morally, Members should not wish to see any East Suffolk Council employee in a foodbank queue. The motion attempted to ensure that never happened, by automatically raising the lowest paid in line with the UK median salary.
Councillor Beavan stated that most of the Council’s low paid staff were apprentices, however, next year the Council would take on Norse, where many more staff were trying to raise families on low wages. He stated that a target was needed to raise wages over the next few years. The Council's vacancy rate was now 9% which put a strain on the remaining employees and public servants continued to fall behind, as real wages had been cut by 28% in ten years. The labour market was tight as retailers raised their pay rates and the Council needed to stay competitive.
He felt that the pay deal was unlikely to match 10% inflation next year, so that would be another pay cut for most staff. However, the present pay deal was looking at a flat rate increase of nearly £2k for everybody, which meant that those earning less than £19k (£10 an hour) kept up with inflation. He asked why the Council could not keep doing this every year, until all staff were above survival level?
Councillor Beavan then proposed his Motion, which was seconded by Councillor Thompson. A copy of the Motion is shown below, for completeness:
This Council notes:
1. As of July 28th, ESC had 82 vacancies, 10% of the workforce.
2. Attracting and retaining staff will become more difficult as pay lowers.
3. With inflation above 10%, the current pay deal being discussed by Government means a real-terms paycut for most staff, but rightly prioritises lower paid staff with a flat rate increase so that they can feed their families and warm their homes.
This Council resolves:
1. To write to the Chancellor and Secretary of State calling on Government to fund competitive salaries for public servants.
2. To set a new minimum wage target at 75 per cent of median hourly pay by 2030, amounting to £11.70/hr on present figures. This would see the minimum wage rise at a rate on par with average wages, making sure that those earning the least don’t fall too far behind.
3. To pay for this by restricting top salaries to less than four to five times median earnings (£100k to £125k pa at present).
4. To explore the feasibility of running a three-month pilot of a four-day working week in 2023 to see if productivity can be maintained while improving staff’s work/life balance.
The Chairman advised that, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.4, the Leader of the Council and the Leaders of the Opposition Groups had met to discuss this Motion and agreed a way forward. The recommendation from this meeting was that the Motion would be discussed this evening. She therefore proposed from the Chair that this Motion be discussed this evening and it was seconded by the Leader of the Council. The Chairman invited Members to vote on the proposal to debate the Motion this evening and it was unanimously CARRIED.
The Chairman then invited Members to debate.
Councillor Cook reported that the number of staff vacancies in East Suffolk Council, was a constantly moving feast. The latest information he had was that there were currently 75 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) vacancies, which represented just under 9% of the total workforce. This was a welcome improvement. Higher inflation affected all employees, when prices were rising faster than wages and salaries. It was, therefore, no more difficult in local government to attract and retain staff than in any other sector. Local government remained a secure and well rewarded provider of employment and the greater challenge in this area might be retaining sufficient young talent in the district to fill the vacancies. That said, the Council's excellent record on apprenticeship schemes and the retention of those employees after their initial period was testament to ESC as an employer.
Councillor Cook stated that, as the current pay offer to local government staff had not been agreed with all the unions and with inflation now falling, due mainly to a fall in petrol and diesel prices, it was not yet clear that there would be a pay-cut in real terms. He confirmed that today, the Council had received an update from the LGA that on a turnout reported to be 34%, UNISON’s members had voted by 63.5% to 36.5% to accept the National Employers’ final pay offer for local government services (‘Green Book’) employees.
Councillor Cook reported that, of course, in order for the pay deal to be finalised so that it can be implemented and paid to employees, GMB and/or Unite must also vote to accept the employers’ offer. We must now wait for Unite’s membership consultation to close on 14 October 2022 and GMB’s to close on 21 October 2022. If further updates were received before those consultations closed, Members would be kept informed.
Councillor Cook then updated Members on the reversal in the increase in National Insurance:
• For an annual salary of £30k, the annual NI saving for an employee was over £200 (£2,092 compared to £2,309 which was the July rate)
• For an annual salary of £40k, the annual NI saving for an employee was over £300 (£3,292 compared to £3,634 which was the July rate)
For clarification, Members noted that £30k was close to the mid-point of SCP1-53 (so excluding Chief Officers) - Band 6 SCP 27 £31,895 (current pay before pay award). £40k was close to the mid-point of all SCP (including Chief Officers) - Band 8 SCP 36 £40,578.
In terms of the Motion itself, Councillor Cook report that, as previously stated, this Council would not lobby the Government on matters in which we were not a party to the issue. Public sector wages and salaries were determined by the Government in agreement with employers and Trade Unions and any representation by this Council had little or no influence. Of course, any Member, individual or group was entitled to write, if they wished, either direct or via their MP.
In respect of the Council considering running a pilot scheme for a reduced working week, Councillor Cook reported that the Council was aware that other Councils were considering this as a possibility. However, having only recently introduced the Council's own hybrid scheme of balanced office and home-based work to maintain efficiency and provide for a better work/life balance for our employees, it would be prudent to assess the success of this initiative and note the outcome of the pilot scheme in South Cambridgeshire before contemplating such a pilot here.
With regards to items 2 and 3, Councillor Cook reported that there was a fundamental misunderstanding, in that the Council does not have the authority to either of them. The setting of the minimum wage was the sole duty of the Government and the restriction of top salaries was a matter for the Government, as far as the public sector was concerned, and employers in the private sector. Councillor Cook stated that he suspected that the Unions would not entirely welcome such a proposal, since the figures suggested would include senior teachers, doctors and other senior public sector employees. On that basis, he could not support the motion and he urged colleagues to vote against it.
Councillor Goldson asked Councillor Beavan who would pay for the increase in staff wages? It would be the tax-payer and he stated that in this economic climate it would not be well received.
Councillor Byatt reported that whilst he supported the principle of the motion, he understood that the Council could not commit additional funds that it did not have on increasing staff wages. He agreed that staff should be valued and supported.
The Leader reported that it was not possible for the Council to set its own minimum wage or take money from the top earners to give to others. He also commented that the Council was in the process of appointing a new Chief Executive and a Strategic Director for Growth. It was, therefore, important to get the best people for those 2 roles, which meant having an attractive salary, comparable to other Councils'. The evidence was there in the number of applications received from excellent applicants. He reassured Members that the staff salary situation would be monitored over time, to ensure the Council was doing the best for its staff.
Councillor Daly stated that he supported Councillor Beavan's motion. He asked why those on lower pay were always paid the minimum? Why could their wages not be increased to ensure that all frontline staff were on a comfortable wage?
Councillor Thompson stated it was important for the Council to address this issue. Staff needed to have a good wage and a vacancy rate of 10% was a concern. The Council needed to attract and retain good people.
Councillor Beavan stated that he disagreed with some of the earlier statements, including the figures quoted by Councillor Cook. He also felt that those working for the LATCO and East Suffolk Services were really still East Suffolk Council employees. He stated that pay for those at the top was always increased, however, those at the bottom of the pay scale were often ignored and he was concerned that the inequality was only increasing. Growth was currently being suppressed and it was important to have an equal and fair society.
There being no further debate and as the Motion had already been moved and seconded by Councillor Beavan and Councillor Thompson, the motion was then put to the vote and it was NOT CARRIED.