The Leader introduced the report which sought Members’ views on the Members’ Allowance Scheme recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel. He proposed that Members’ accepted the scheme as set out by the panel.

The Leader of the Conservative Group seconded the recommendation, including the proposal to accept the scheme, and reserved his right to speak.

In the absence of the Leader of the SIA Group, Councillor Jayes condemned the proposed rise in allowances comparing the removal of free parking in six car parks in the borough introduced that day. He questioned whether the £30k impact had been budgeted for in the annual budget. In response, the Section 151 Officer confirmed that provision had been made within the overall salary and Members’ allowances budget for uplift, together with an allowance for Members’ participation in the Local Government Pension Scheme, which should be sufficient depending on the decision taken that evening.

The Leader of the Liberal Democrats Group drew attention to the table in the report which set out that carers’ allowance was capped at £9.40. She said that if a carer was supporting someone with complex high needs or special educational needs, the cap would impact more than on somebody who did not have those needs and she suggested that the Constitution Working Group (CWG) considered amending the allowance to a more equitable carers’ allowance.  The chair of the CWG agreed to raise at the next meeting.

The Leader of the Reform UK Group agreed that the 8.1% increase should not be accepted in the current climate and would not be popular with the public. He proposed that the increase be shared amongst Members’ grants in order to benefit local residents. However, as no Member wished to second the proposal, it was not debated or voted on.

The Leader of the Green Group agreed that the increase was uncomfortably high in the current climate.

Members were invited to speak and made comments including:

·         Reminded Members that it was an Independent Panel that made the recommendations;

·         highlighted that it was the first increase in four years so the increase appeared more than it was;

·         it was important to encourage Councillors to stand, and the remuneration had to cover the time spent;

·         if the increase was not supported, the allowance would have stayed static throughout the entire four year term;

·         for the average hours committed to Council work, the allowance paid less than half the minimum wage;

·         if remuneration was set too low, it could deter the right number and calibre of people to the role;

·         Members should accept the panel’s recommendations;

·         8.1% increase was steep, and few people in Swale would receive a pay rise that high this year;

·         many other workers had not received a pay rise over the past four years;

·         it was morally wrong to accept the increase;

·         Member allowances were a contribution to time spent, not a reimbursement;

·         some working Members were not paid well in their day jobs and might have to take time off unpaid to cover their Council duties;

·         suggested that the Remuneration Panel should consider an uplift to carers’ leave when the shadow authorities were set up;

·         supported the process because the Independent Panel made recommendations but would not personally accept the increase;

·         reminded Members that three local residents sat on the panel;

·         it was down to each individual Member what they did or did not personally accept but the recommendations from the Independent Panel should be agreed;

·         KCC had recently authorised a larger basic allowance; and

·         residents had good value for money from their Councillors.

Councillor Bowen reminded Members that the Independent Panel’s recommendations were based on what they considered Councillors deserved, and the lack of increase for four years had driven the higher than expected increase. He said Councillors had the choice to not accept the additional money or donate to charity if they wished.

Resolved:

(1)  That the Council considered and agreed the Members’ Allowances Scheme proposed by the Independent Remuneration Panel.