To consider recommendations from the Independent Remuneration Panel and to approve a Members’ Allowances Scheme from 1 April 2024.  

Members received a report on the Members’ Allowances Scheme and Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) Report to consider recommendations from the IRP and approve a Members’ Allowances Scheme from 1 April 2024.

 

The Monitoring Officer introduced Nicci Marzec, Spokesperson for the IRP and referred Members to the Panel’s report attached at Appendix 1 to the report, pages 253 to 266 refer.

 

Ms Marzec thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to present the report and was conscious that Members may have questions on the elements that were deliberated on as part of the report.

 

Members were advised that there were four key areas that the Panel was asked to focus on that came out of the questionnaire sent out to Councillors in autumn 2023.

 

• Basic Allowance and Special Responsibility Allowances
• Allowance for the Vice-Chairman of Planning Policy Committee
• To consider remuneration for Co-opted Independent Members
• To consider increases to the Leader, Deputy Leader and Executive Allowances

 

It was highlighted that a lot of active benchmark work was undertaken on allowances both in Lincolnshire and similar authorities across the country.  Overall, the Panel determined that the basic allowance in East Lindsey was not significantly lower than others either in terms of statistically nearest neighbours or Lincolnshire district councils and the fact that East Lindsey had already adopted the annual cost of living allowances linked to the staff pay award which was applied to the councillor basic allowance.  Over time, if this continued the basic allowance in East Lindsey may end up as one of the highest in the county and had already increased quite significantly over the last 2 years as a result of pay awards and the Panel recommended that this index link continued.

 

The Panel also looked at the £50 per year increase to the basic allowance which had been the pre-cursor to the link to the staff pay award.  The recommendation was that as this had been put in place before the annual link to the pay award, then that should now cease as it was now outdated.

 

In relation to a number of the special responsibility allowances, it was essentially determined that the Leader’s allowance should remain as it was, subject to the annual increase from the pay award, however the Deputy Leader and Executive Board Members were lower than the average Lincolnshire allowances for the same role.  In comparison to other Lincolnshire authorities the Deputy Leader allowance was approximately 60% of that of the Leader, therefore it was a recommendation of the Panel to amend the Deputy Leader allowance to 60% of that of the Leader’s allowance.  Similarly, the Panel proposed an increase to the Executive Board Member allowance to bring them up to the Lincolnshire average.

 

In terms of Co-Opted Members allowances, the Panel undertook a lot of benchmark work with regards to what happened in other authorities across the country and in particular the recommendations from CIPFA in terms of the function of Audit and Governance Committee and the technical expertise required.  As a result, to attract that technical expertise the Panel recommended an allowance of £650 per annum.

 

These recommendations were summarised in Appendix A at Paragraph 8, page 257 of the Agenda refers.

 

The Chief Executive asked that his thanks to the members of the IRP for their work on the report and attendance at the Meeting be noted.

 

Members were invited to put their comments and questions forward.

 

A Member highlighted that currently a Chair of a Scrutiny Panel received a standard payment for producing a report, however referred to the ‘not applicable’ for the Chairman of Scrutiny and Policy Panels (per report), page 259 of the report refers and queried whether this would continue.

 

In response, the MO clarified that as ELDC operated a different type of scrutiny to the partner councils, there was not a comparable allowance for a scrutiny chair and why it was listed as ‘not applicable’.  It was confirmed that if Members adopted the scheme again incorporating the recommendations it would continue as part of the existing scheme.

 

A Member queried how the Panel saw fit that the Leader of ELDC which represented a larger number of people than the Leaders at Boston Borough Council and South Holland District Council received less remuneration and considered it grossly unfair.

 

In response Ms Marzec advised that the Panel was required to assess the amount of work involved in the role and whether it had significantly changed to warrant an increase, however after undertaking this assessment the role had not significantly changed in its duties and responsibilities to warrant an increase in that particular role.

 

The Deputy Leader of the Council echoed the Chief Executive’s comments and supported the recommendations, with the exception of the Members Basic Allowance.  As the largest Council within the South and East Lincolnshire Councils Partnership (SELCP) it was highlighted that this allowance was behind the partner councils and since the formation of the SELCP, ELDC Councillors had additional responsibilities and more complex matters to scrutinise which had delivered substantial savings whilst maintaining and improving the services that the Council delivered.

 

Following which the Deputy Leader of the Council proposed the IRP recommendations be approved and that the basic allowance for all Members be increased by £1,000.

 

It was considered by increasing this, it recognised the value of Members and hoped it would encourage younger more diverse members in the communities to consider putting themselves forward to stand for election during financially difficult times.

 

Councillor George Horton seconded the proposal.

 

Speaking to the proposal, Councillor Jackson stated that the Basic Members Allowance decided by the IRP should be respected, however took on the points made.

 

Councillor Ros Jackson further commented that she was grateful to the work of the IRP and was very pleased to see that an allowance had been proposed for the role of an Independent Co-Opted Member.

 

At this point, the Monitoring Officer clarified to Members that the IRP report and its recommendations stood alone, and Members should debate on the substantive motion proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Council and seconded by Councillor Horton.

 

Further to the information contained within the report of the IRP, the Portfolio Holder for Coastal Economy stated that the Leader of the Council had taken on extra responsibilities since the Partnership was formed and worked extremely long hours in the role and considered he should be remunerated accordingly.  It was further highlighted that most Councillors were involved and active with the Partnership and that they worked hard in their communities.

 

A Member agreed that the Leader of the Council should be remunerated properly for the difficult work that he undertook.  He further considered that he would not be against increasing the basic members allowance by double to encourage more people to become Councillors and engage, however personally considered that this should be means tested.

 

The Leader of the SUDS Group agreed that the Leader of the Council should receive a higher allowance by at least being on an equal level with the Leaders from the other two councils, and highlighted that from his own experience the Leader put in a lot more work since the Partnership was formed.

 

A Member concurred with the Deputy Leader of the Council in relation to attracting the right people by being proactive and offering the right remuneration.

 

In response, the Leader of the Council thanked Members for their kind words and was humbled by them.  He further thanked the IRP Members for the work undertaken and the report presented.

 

With regards to Members’ suggestions to further increases to some of the allowances, he stated that he fully understood the motivation for that and acknowledged the amount of work Members put into their communities.  He highlighted examples over recent years to the response to Covid and the incredible responsibility for Members to engage with their communities in very difficult circumstances.  He further agreed with the comments received in relation to engaging younger people and by making the role attractive to get people engaged and acknowledged that the allowances were not enough but reflected the worth of a Councillor’s role.

 

The Portfolio Holder for Planning reiterated previous comments with regards to increasing the basic members allowance to encourage more young people to want to join the Council and recognised the difficulties managing this for those in employment and the impact on the work/life balance.  He also concurred that the Leader of the Council’s special responsibility allowance be aligned to that of the Leaders at SHDC and BBC.

 

The East Lindsey Independent Group Leader concurred with the comments made and stated that it cost money to undertake the role as a Councillor which was the reason for payment of the basic members’ allowance.

 

A Member thanked the IRP for its hard work on producing the report, however did not fully agree with the findings or the recommendations and considered that it was not right to compare different areas for worth as each person was individual.  It was highlighted that a lot of work undertaken by Councillors was unseen, particularly that of a confidential and sensitive nature.  It was further highlighted that each council was unique to certain things, for example East Lindsey had tourism and farming which was very different to an authority based in the Midlands.

 

At this point in the Meeting, the Leader of the Council stated that he would be leaving the room as he did not feel comfortable being present while the allowance for his role was being discussed.

 

N.B.  Councillor Craig Leyland left the Meeting at 6.00pm.

 

Following which, a discussion ensued with regards to the population of each partner council and the equivalent pence per head of the electorate.

 

A Member highlighted that if East Lindsey Members were given an increase of £1000, it would calculate to 4.3 pence per head which was still less than other local authorities.

 

At this point in the Meeting, it was Proposed and Seconded that an amendment be made to include the Leader of the Council Allowance to be increased to £20,000 and continue to be index-linked to the national pay award as set out in the IRP’s recommendations.

 

There were no further comments or questions received to the amendment.

 

Upon being put to the vote, the amendment was carried.

 

3 Abstentions were noted.

 

N.B.  Councillor Craig Leyland, Leader of the Council re-joined the Meeting at 6.03pm.

 

The Deputy Leader of the Council thanked Members for supporting his proposal to increase the basic members allowance by £1000.  It was acknowledged that it was difficult in making decisions to increase these types of allowances, however it was an area that needed addressing.

 

The Monitoring Officer clarified to Members that the vote was to approve the recommendations contained within the IRP’s report which included the amendment to the Leader of the Council’s Allowance and the proposal for the Basic Members Allowance to be increased by £1000.

 

Upon being put to the vote, the vote was carried.

 

7 Abstentions were noted.

 

RESOLVED:

 

• That the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP), an increase of the Basic Allowance of £1,000 and an increase of the Leader of the Councils Allowance to £20,000 are incorporated into the Members’ Allowances Scheme from the 1 April 2024 and to include the associated financial implications into the 2024/25 budget be approved.  The recommendations of the IRP are detailed at page 5 of the IRP’s Report (Appendix A to this report).

 

The Chairman advised Members that as the Council had been in session for over four hours, a vote was required for the Meeting to continue.

 

Following which, it was Proposed and Seconded that the Meeting continued to conclude the business.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Meeting continued to conclude the business.

 

N.B.  Councillor Stef Bristow left the Meeting at 6.05pm.