The Leader of the UKIP Group expressed concern that the tabled paper contained an additional recommendation.  The Chief Executive clarified that the report from the Panel was not clear regarding whether, if agreed, Deputy Cabinet Member allowances should be backdated, and so the Chairman of the Panel had been asked to clarify their intention.  The additional recommendation related to the start date of the proposed Deputy Cabinet Member allowance, not the introduction of a new allowance.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance introduced the report, referring to the updated summary of recommendations from the Panel that had been tabled at the meeting.  He emphasised the importance of setting allowances that would enable people to take up the position of councillor without being in financial difficulty as a result.  He proposed the recommendations, as tabled, and proposed that the allowance for the Mayor and Deputy Mayor be increased to 70% and 30% of the basic allowance.  These were seconded by the Deputy Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance.

The Leader of the UKIP Group considered it was undesirable that Councillors decided on their own pay, referring to the recommendations made by the Panel in 2013, which the Council had chosen not to accept.  He did not consider that the Council should keep increasing the amounts, in-line with staff pay rises, and questioned why Members did not receive the same mileage rate as staff?  He also questioned why Special Responsibility allowances (SRAs) were required for Deputy Cabinet Members, and why more posts were required to do what nine Cabinet Members used to do?  He questioned how the Council could find the money to finance an increase when it could not afford to support other events, such as the Mops Festival and the Kent Community Rail Partnership?  He considered it was not good to increase allowances at a time of austerity, and said he would be happy to take the £4,000 pay cut that was proposed for the SRA for the Group Leader of the largest opposition party.

The Leader of the Labour Group advised that the view of his Group was that the Council should accept the recommendations of the Panel, referring to the proposed introduction of a requirement for Leaders of smaller minority groups to have 4.7 members before they could claim an SRA as Group Leader.

The Deputy Leader of the Independent Group advised that they did not agree that the post of Deputy Cabinet Member should attract an SRA, and asked for clarification regarding the criteria for claiming mileage for attendance at meetings with officers.

Discussion ensued regarding the proposals, during which the following comments were made:  the proposals would bring the mileage rate in-line with those of officers;  the role of Deputy Cabinet Member should be cost-neutral, in that the allowance for Deputy Cabinet Members should be the equivalent of the SRA saved as a result of the reduction in the number of Cabinet Members;  the role of Chairman of the Licensing Committee should not attract an SRA, given the shortness of meetings, especially when compared with the length of time of the Licensing Sub-Committees which were chaired by members of the Committee who did not receive an SRA; the size of the reduction proposed to the SRA of the Leader of the opposition; the amount set for the IT allowance which was not in keeping with what Members were spending; the report was independent and so recommendations should not be ‘cherry-picked’; the allowances for Mayor and Deputy Mayor should be increased more than was being suggested; the report already referred to the proposal to backdate the allowances for Deputy Cabinet Members, but further clarity had been sought from the Panel; and that it was important to set allowances to attract people from different backgrounds/ages with different earning powers. 

A Member gave the background to the introduction of Independent Panels, and the need to ensure that the role of councillor was not available just to those who could afford it.  Employers were required to allow time off for public duties, but there was no entitlement to be paid for this, and the workload of Members had changed over the years.  Public expectations were much higher, with more demands on Members time on ward work, as well as time at Council meetings.  The allowances were a contribution towards expenses of Councillors, and it was important to ensure that the role of councillor was available to all who wished to support their communities, not just a select few who could afford it.

The Leader clarified the proposal was to reduce the mileage rate, and that the Council had taken a decision four years ago to increase the allowances to a mid-point, to assist in encouraging candidates to stand from all backgrounds.  He explained that the workload of the Cabinet had increased, and the role of Deputy Cabinet Member also gave opportunity for succession planning.    Whilst he did not agree with all of the Panel’s recommendations, he considered that Members should support their recommendations, as they were independent and had expertise in this field.  Other Members spoke in support of accepting the whole of the Panel’s proposals and not to ‘cherry-pick’ those they preferred.

The Deputy Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance, as seconder of the motion, encouraged Members to agree the recommendations, as did the Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance.  It was clarified that the recommendations from the Panel would be taken separately from the recommendation regarding the Mayor and Deputy Mayor’s allowances.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19(5), a recorded vote was taken on recommendations 1(a) – (e), and voting was as follows:

For: Councillors Sarah Aldridge, George Bobbin, Lloyd Bowen, Bowles, Roger Clark, Derek Conway, Mike Cosgrove, Mike Dendor, Duncan Dewar-Whalley, Mark Ellen, Sue Gent, Nicholas Hampshire, Harrison, Alan Horton, James Hunt, Lesley Ingham, Ken Ingleton, Nigel Kay, Samuel Koffie-Williams, Gerry Lewin, Peter Marchington, Bryan Mulhern, Prescott, Ken Pugh, George Samuel, Roger Truelove, Anita Walker, Ghlin Whelan and Ted Wilcox.  Total equals 29.

Against: Councillors Mike Baldock, Cameron Beart, Monique Bonney, Andy Booth, Tina Booth, Katy Coleman, Adrian Crowther, Richard Darby, Paul Fleming, Mick Galvin, James Hall, Padmini Nissanga and Ben Stokes.  Total equals 13.

Abstain: no Members abstained.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19(5), a recorded vote was taken on recommendation 2, and voting was as follows:

For: Councillors Sarah Aldridge, Cameron Beart, George Bobbin, Andy Booth, Tina Booth, Lloyd Bowen, Bowles, Roger Clark, Katy Coleman, Derek Conway, Mike Cosgrove, Adrian Crowther, Mike Dendor, Duncan Dewar-Whalley, Mark Ellen, Paul Fleming, Mick Galvin, Sue Gent, James Hall, Nick Hampshire, Harrison, Alan Horton, James Hunt, Lesley Ingham, Ken Ingleton, Nigel Kay, Samuel Koffie-Williams, Gerry Lewin, Peter Marchington, Bryan Mulhern, Padmini Nissanga, Prescott, Ken Pugh, George Samuel, Ben Stokes, Roger Truelove, Anita Walker, Ghlin Whelan and Ted Wilcox.  Total equals 39.

Against: Councillors Monique Bonney and Richard Darby.  Total equals 2.

Abstain: Councillor Mike Baldock.  Total equals 1.

Resolved:

(1a) That the appropriate levels of Basic Allowance and Special Responsibility Allowances for 2017/2018 are as set out on page 90 of the report.

(1b) That the Special Responsibility Allowance for the role of Deputy Cabinet Member be backdated to the date of the formal commencement of the role, subject to Member’s approval of the recommended Special Responsibility Allowance. The backdating of allowances is in Accordance with The Local Authorities (Members’ Allowances) (England) Regulations 2003 (Para. 30) that states “Where a Councillor takes on duties entitling them to a different level of allowances, the new level of allowances may be applied retrospectively to the time at which the circumstances changed”.

(1c) That the Dependants’ Carers’ Allowance should be introduced and prioritised as basic and specialist care.

(1d) That the appropriate amounts for travel should be reimbursed at the Inland Revenue (HMRC) allowed rates and any subsistence rates should be in accordance with those of Officers.

(1e) That index-linking for the Allowances should be at the same rate as that applied to staff salaries for the year 2017/2018 for a maximum of four years.

(2) That the Mayor and Deputy Mayor’s Allowances be set at 70% and 30% respectively of the Basic Allowance with effect from 2017/2018.