Decision details

The Council considered the report of the Independent  Remuneration Panel (IRP), circulated with agenda for the cabinet meeting held on 5 January 2016.

At the Chairman’s invitation, Mr John Pressdee (Chairman of the IRP) introduced himself and the two other members of the Panel, Mr Michael Bevis and Mr John Thompson.

Mr Pressdee explained that the Panel had previously reported in 2003, 2007/08 and 2011, although the composition of the Panel had varied over that period. The Panel members were totally independent of the Council. The Panel’s recommendations were summarised in Part 2 and set out in detail in Part 3 of their report. The Council was obliged to take the Panel’s report and recommendations into account, but was not obliged to adopt all or any of them.

In making their current recommendations, the Panel had taken into account: that allowances should fairly reflect the time spent and responsibilities of the various roles; the financial positions of the Council and members; comparisons with allowances paid by other authorities; the views of members expressed in questionnaires and interviews; and that there was a strong public service voluntary element in the work of a councillor.

In response to the questionnaire sent out on the Panel’s behalf, members had placed emphasis on the allowances paid in other district councils as being a significant factor in determining the allowances to be paid in Chichester. Although every council was different and varied in size and the rates of allowances paid, the Panel had tried to be close to the average.

The Panel had been asked to consider whether the allowances should be index-linked and had concluded that in this time of low inflation the allowances should be fixed until the next review.

They recommended an increase in the Basic Allowance from £4,541 to £4,725. This had to be the same for all members, irrespective of the size of the ward and the member’s commitment.

The Special Responsibility Allowances (SRAs) should be paid to the same postholders as now. However, the Panel had carefully considered the differences in time commitment and responsibilities between the various roles. They felt that the role of Cabinet members was significantly greater than the roles of committee chairmen, and their allowances should be rounded up with some uprating for inflation. In the case of committee chairmen, the Panel considered that there were differentials in the workload and responsibilities involved. The Chairman of the Planning Committee presided over about 13 meetings a year, many of which lasted most of the day, in a very public arena where emotions were frequently high. The Panel considered this role demanded a higher time commitment and level of responsibility than the other chairmen. They felt also that the role of the chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee carried more responsibility and time commitment than the chairmen of the Corporate Governance and Audit and Licensing Committees. This was not to demean these committees or their chairmen, but the Panel’s recommendations sought to reflect the differential between them. If the Panel’s recommendations were accepted, the SRA’s would move as follows in comparison to other councils in South East England, and in all cases would exceed the mean:

Planning from 25^th to 6^th equal out of 46

Overview & Scrutiny from 15^th to 10^th out of 44

Corporate Governance & Audit from 4^th to 8^th out of 40

Licensing from 6^th to 8^th out of 41

The Panel had also recommended changes to other SRA’s and some clarification of and additions to the official duties for which travelling allowances should be payable.

The Panel considered that their report offered a fair deal for both members and council taxpayers, for a modest budget increase of about £11,000.

Finally, the Panel wished to thank the officers, especially Philip Coleman and John Ward, who had assisted them.

Mr Oakley asked the Panel whether they had considered the payment of SRAs to members of the Planning Committee. Mr Pressdee answered that the present scheme provided SRAs only for chairmen, who bore significant additional responsibility compared with committee members. This could be re-considered at a subsequent review.

Mr Dignum, seconded by Mrs Taylor, moved the recommendation of the Cabinet that the Council receives and considers the report of the Independent Remuneration Panel and makes decisions on its recommendations, and in particular reviews the Panel’s recommendations in respect of Special Responsibility Allowances for the Deputy Leader of the Council and the Chairman of the Corporate Governance and Audit Committee.

Mr Dignum explained that, taken as a whole, he believed the Panel’s recommendations were acceptable to members. However, there were clear concerns that the recommendations did not sufficiently recognise the responsibilities of the Deputy Leader beyond those of other Cabinet members, and, whilst the addition to the SRA of the chairman of the Planning Committee was wholly justified, it was very difficult to rank differences in responsibility between the other three committee chairmen. Having consulted these committee chairmen, he proposed, with their agreement, that all three should receive the same allowance. He, therefore, had placed before the Council a proposal that the Independent Remuneration Panel be thanked for their impartial and well-constructed report, and thatall the recommendations of the Panel be approved with the following five exceptions:-

(1)  That the proposed allowance for the Deputy Leader be amended to £7,700 from £7,200

(2)  That the proposed allowance for the Chairman of Overview &Scrutiny be amended to £4,800 from £5,500

(3)  That the proposed allowance for the Chairman of Corporate Governance & Audit be amended to £4,800 from £4,000

(4)  That the proposed allowance for the Chairman of Licensing Committees be amended to £4,800 from £4,000

(5)  That the £300 per meeting allowance paid to Licensing Sub-Committee members for in excess of 5 meetings be scrapped.

Mr Ransley, seconded by Mr McAra, moved an amendment that the recommendations of the Panel be approved, and that the words “with the following five exceptions” onwards be deleted.

After debate, Mr Ransley’s amendment was put to a vote and lost.

Mr Plowman moved an amendment that, additionally, a Special Responsibility Allowance of £300 per meeting in excess of five meetings a year be paid to members of the Planning Committee. His amendment was not seconded.

The Leader’s proposal was then put to a vote and carried.

RESOLVED

(1)  That the Independent Remuneration Panel be thanked for their impartial and well-constructed report.

(2)  That all the recommendations of the Panel be approved with the following five exceptions:-

(a)  That the special responsibility allowance for the Deputy Leader be amended to £7,700 from the proposed £7,200.

(b)  That the special responsibility allowance for the Chairman of the Overview &Scrutiny Committee be amended to £4,800 from the proposed £5,500.

(c)  That the special responsibility allowance for the Chairman of the Corporate Governance & Audit Committee be amended to £4,800 from the proposed £4,000.

(d)  That the special responsibility allowance for the Chairman of the Licensing Committees be amended to £4,800 from the proposed £4,000.

(e)  That the £300 per meeting special responsibility allowance paid to Licensing Sub-Committee members for in excess of 5 meetings be scrapped.