Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chair of the Independent Remuneration Panel concerning the consideration of a new Member role.

19.1    Councillor Hilton moved and Councillor Wilson seconded the motion. Councillor Hilton advised Members that the Independent Remuneration Panel had presented a report to the General Purposes Committee and that the committee agreed to recommend the Panel’s proposals for a Special Responsibility Allowance for the new Member role to Council with an additional recommendation requiring the Portfolio Advisory Member to prepare a report for Overview and Scrutiny Committee biannually in the first year and annually thereafter.

19.2    Councillor A. Chambers moved and Councillor Graham seconded the following amendment:

          Council it asked to RESOLVE :-

(1)       That the recommendations contained in the Report of the Independent Renumeration Panel (Appendix 1) be approved.

(2)       The agreed title for the role is ‘Portfolio Advisory Member’.

(3)       The post-holder be required to prepare a report on their activities, bi-annually in the first year of operation and annually thereafter, which will be made available to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee should they wish to include it in their Work Programme.

(4)       That the General Purposes Committee be asked to consider a report from the Head of Paid Service and make a recommendation to Council as to whether the postholder should be subject to questioning at Council meetings.

19.3    In debating the amendment, Councillor A. Chambers advised that his questions about the post and why it was needed the Administration had already increased the size of the Cabinet by two Members had not been answered at General Purposes Committee. He reiterated his belief that, if the role attracted an allowance, the holder of the post should be subject to scrutiny from Members.

19.4    Councillor Hilton accepted the amendment which became the substantive motion.

19.5    Councillor S. Chambers queried what the next steps in relation to the role would be following acceptance of the amendment. Members were advised that the role was already in place and that the debate related only to its remuneration, which had to be voted on. If the amended recommendations were approved, the remuneration would be backdated and the Head of Paid Service would bring forward a report to the General Purposes Committee considering the proposal for the Portfolio Advisory Member to be questioned at Council meetings.

19.6    Councillor S. Chambers raised concerns that the size of the Council’s Cabinet had already increased before adding a further allowance for the new role to support Cabinet Members. She expressed the view that the remuneration for the role was hard to justify when there were other financial pressures facing the Council, and queried which services would be reduced to compensate for it.

19.7    Councillor Pullen referred to the two additional Cabinet Member positions and stated that this brought an additional £23k cost to the Council. He noted that if an allowance for the new role were to be approved at a cost of £5172, there would be a total cost of £28k. He stated that the Labour Group could not support the recommendations.

19.8    Councillor Patel expressed concerns about the costs and commented that he felt it was not a good use of taxpayers’ money.

19.9    Councillor Chambers-Dubus reflected on the explanation provided for the additional Cabinet Member posts, and stated that she could not find justification for an additional paid role when the appointed Cabinet Members were competent enough without it.

19.10  Councillor Lewis impressed that a Cabinet Member role was not an easy one, but stated that he may be able to support payment of an allowance if it was brought in in one years’ time once it was established that there was a need for the role.

19.11  Councillor Wilson noted that Members had the option to change it if the role was not needed. Referring to the allowance, he noted that in his view it would be unfair not to recognise the work and believed that the advisory role ought to be given a chance.

19.12  Councillor Hilton confirmed that the Cabinet had been bedding in and needed to put in a lot of work. He stated that in his view it would be unusual for the Council not to accept the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel.

19.13  The motion as amended was put to a vote and was lost, therefore Council did not approve the payment of a Special Responsibility Allowance for the Portfolio Advisory Member.