Agenda item

Councillor Ric Metcalfe proposed the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel, as follows:

·         that the Council retains its current Members’ Allowances Scheme for 2021/22 and that this be increased in line with any staff increase on an annual basis;

·         that a further, comprehensive review of the Members’ Allowances Scheme be undertaken in 2022/23.

Councillor Donald Nannestad seconded the proposition.

Councillor Thomas Dyer was disappointed with the report and the fact that his comments, although referred to in the body of the report, had not been reflected in recommendations to Council which specifically referred to what he felt were overinflated Special Responsibility Allowances for certain chairmanships of committees. He welcomed a further comprehensive review which he said all members should participate in, especially those in receipt of a Special Responsibility Allowance. Councillor Dyer called for all members to freeze their remuneration with the Council’s funding being committed to service provision no matter how small the amount.

Councillor Dyer proposed an amendment to the motion, to delete the words ‘and that this be increased in line with any staff increase on an annual basis’ so that the first paragraph of the motion read:

‘That the Council retains its current Members’ Allowances Scheme for 2021/22’.

Councillor Christopher Reid seconded the amendment.

Councillor Edmund Strengiel supported the amendment and said it was a moral issue as opposed to being political. He said that by supporting the amendment it was demonstrating to the public that members did not wish to take any increases in allowances for the coming year.

Councillor Gary Hewson referred to the County Council which, on a four-year cycle of elections, had traditionally accepted an increase in allowances at the beginning of the respective term of office.

Councillor Jane Loffhagen sought clarification as the motion was seeking to implement the scheme as it currently stood as opposed to recommend any increases to specific allowances.

Councillor Ric Metcalfe outlined that the Members’ Allowances Scheme currently in place had a condition, recommended by the previous Independent Remuneration Panel and approved at Council, whereby the Scheme increased at the same rate as City Council employees annually on the basis of inflation. He added, however, that no increases had been made to the scheme until the last couple of years due to a freeze on local government pay increases. Councillor Metcalfe outlined that allowances were an important remuneration for people acting as councillors in order that a person’s financial standing did not impact their ability or willingness to stand for Council. The recommendation of the Panel following its review this year was solely to retain the existing Members’ Allowances Scheme and that this be increased in line with any annual staff pay increase, should this occur. Councillor Metcalfe was of the view that the amendment had been made solely from a political perspective.

In voting on the amendment, it having been proposed and seconded, the amendment was lost.

Debate reverted to the original motion.

Councillor Christopher Reid reported that, in the event of any increase in members’ allowances in 2021/22, members of the Conservative Group would refuse the increase and request that the balance be donated to the St Barnabas Hospital in Lincoln.

Councillor Hilton Spratt refuted any allegation that this act represented political point scoring.

Councillor Jackie Kirk agreed with Councillor Loffhagen’s earlier comment and queried the perception of a recommended increase in allowances when the current scheme and circumstances were being retained.

Councillor Ronald Hills made the point that in retaining the current scheme and circumstances in respect of allowances mirroring any percentage increase in staff pay, members would receive an increase in their allowances.

Councillor Christopher Burke was of the view that comments from opposition members were politically driven in view of the upcoming elections. He reiterated the point that what had been recommended by the Independent Remuneration Panel did not constitute an increase in allowances but was solely ensuring they were in line with inflation in the same way that staff pay was, which had been the same for many years. Councillor Burke agreed with Councillor Metcalfe’s earlier comment that adequate members allowances encouraged anyone to become a City Councillor.

Councillor Edmund Strengiel reiterated that this should be a moral consideration and was not political.

Councillor Metcalfe reiterated his earlier comments in respect of what he perceived as electioneering and political point scoring on a subject which he felt, as a principle, should be above party politics. Councillor Metcalfe reminded Council of the existing policy which saw the Members’ Allowances Scheme increase in line with any annual staff increase, should any such increase occur which for many years it had not. He acknowledged the suggestion nationally that a further pay freeze on the public sector, which may include local government, may be put in place in which case the current Members’ Allowances Scheme would remain in place.

Having been proposed and seconded it was RESOLVED that:

(1)       The Council retains its current Members’ Allowances Scheme for 2021/22 and that this be increased in line with any staff increase on an annual basis.

(2)       A further, comprehensive review of the Members’ Allowances Scheme be undertaken in 2022/23.