Skip to main content

Agenda item

Mid-Term Review of Members' Allowances Scheme

Purpose:

To present to Council the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel which has undertaken a mid-term review of the Council’s members’ allowances scheme.

 

Recommendation(s):

That Council considers the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel, which are that:

1.    The special responsibility allowance (SRA) for Leader is increased from 3.0x the basic allowance to 3.5x the basic allowance.

2.    The SRA for Deputy Leader is increased from 2.0x basic to 2.5x basic.

3.    The SRA for Cabinet Member is increased from 1.5x basic to 2.0x basic.

4.    The SRA for Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee is increased from 1.0x basic to 1.5x basic.

5.    The SRA for Chair of Audit and Governance Committee is increased from 0.5x basic to 1.0x basic.

6.    Any agreed increases to SRAs are backdated to 1 April 2025 (being the mid-point of the 4-year Scheme).

7.    The existing allowance for Co-opted Members of £1,000 per annum is included in the Scheme.

8.    That additional clarification is provided on expenses claims in the Scheme, specifically that:

a.    The list of approved duties for which expenses can be claimed is included in the Scheme.

b.    VAT receipts are requested for mileage claims.

c.     Mileage claims should normally be calculated from the Councillor’s home address.

d.    Claims should be made within 3 months of the expenditure being incurred.

e.    Mileage rates are aligned with HMRC rates to prevent the creation of taxable benefits.

9.    Officers engage with town and parish councils in the New Year on the option of establishing a tiered allowances scheme to guide town and parish councils in the payment of allowances to elected town and parish councillors, to enable the Independent Remuneration Panel (as the Parish Remuneration Panel) to assess whether such guidance would be useful.

10.Note that the Parish Remuneration Panel has recommended to Cirencester Town Council that Cirencester Town Councillors (including the Chair) receive an allowance set at 20% of the basic allowance paid to Cotswold District Councillors.

Minutes:

The purpose of the report was to present to Council the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel which had undertaken a mid-term review of the Council’s members’ allowances scheme.

 

Nick Craxton, Chair of the Independent Remuneration Panel, introduced the report and stated that the Panel comprised a broad and well-balanced range of experience across the private and public sectors, subject matter experts, reward and HR specialists, and individuals familiar with the Council’s operations. He emphasised that the Panel’s recommendations had followed extensive discussion, with several matters revisited in light of further evidence.

The Panel Chair highlighted the challenges the Panel had faced in proposing councillor and leadership remuneration, noting that the requirement to reflect a “public service” element — implying lower pay — might be seen as conflicting with the Council’s aim to make these roles accessible to a wider range of people.

It was noted that the panel had considered written representations from the former Leader and heard evidence from the current Leader. Although the current Leader wished to undertake the role full-time, Mr Craxton advised that the Panel could not give this weight, as full-time arrangements were neither legislated nor prescribed. He added that making the role full-time would require substantially higher pay, noting that a locally advertised trade counter supervisor post offered a higher salary than the Council Leader both before and after the proposed increase.

The  Panel Chair concluded by noting that consideration of economic context and affordability lay outside the Panel’s remit and was a matter for the Council. He indicated that he was happy to answer questions.

 

The Chair indicated that Councillor Evemy would be invited to propose the recommendations and that there would be the opportunity to ask any questions for clarity.  The Chair advised that the report should be taken at face value and that it was not necessary to examine the Panel’s detailed methodology.

 

Councillor Evemy thanked Mr Craxton for attending and acknowledged the significant work undertaken by the Panel over several meetings. He noted that he had attended one meeting and valued the opportunity to contribute.

Councillors were reminded that this was a mid-term review. It was noted that no changes had been made to Special Responsibility Allowances (SRAs) during the previous review, as it had been unclear whether increased workloads were temporary or would persist. It was further noted that the Panel had drawn on the councillor workload survey and on representations from the former Leader, himself, and other councillors.

 

Councillor Evemy acknowledged the difficulty for councillors in determining their own allowances, which underlined the value of the Independent Remuneration Panel. It was reported that the Panel had recommended increased SRAs for Cabinet roles and for the Chairs of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Audit and Governance Committee. These recommendations were in recognition of the workload associated with these roles.

 

Councillors were also asked to note recommendations to update provisions on co-opted member allowances, clarify approved duties, and provide a framework for town and parish council allowances, including specific reference to Cirencester Town Council. Further work would be undertaken by officers in early 2026 on a tiered allowances scheme for town and parish councils.

 

Councillor Evemy moved all ten recommendations set out on pages 27 and 28 of the agenda, noting that the implementation of the increases would be backdated to 1 April 2025.

 

The Chair then requested any questions for clarity.

 

Councillor Fowles referred to section 5.1 of the report,  and noted that councils were required to have regard to the Panel’s recommendations but were not obliged to accept them. The councillor asked whether other councils had accepted or waived similar recommendations in light of current financial pressures, and whether this Council was the exception or the norm.

 

Councillor Evemy responded that each authority determined its own allowances. He confirmed the Panel had considered other authorities’ schemes, but it was for the Council to decide whether to accept the recommendations.

 

Councillor Fowles then asked for clarity regarding Cirencester Town Council and queried why the report specifically referenced Cirencester, given that other large settlements, such as Moreton, faced significant pressures.

 

Councillor Evemy explained that Cirencester Town Council already had a members’ allowance scheme in place, and the Town Council’s Chief Executive had met the Panel to discuss it. The recommendation was intended to formalise a benchmark of 20% of the basic allowance. He added that Recommendation 9 provided for officers to engage with other town and parish councils about establishing tiered allowance schemes, should they wish to do so.

 

The Chair sought a seconder for the recommendations.

 

Councillor Patrick Coleman thanked the Panel Chair and Panel Members for their professional approach. He noted the additional budget implications and that allowances could be renounced. Acknowledging the significant workload and complexity of Cabinet roles, Councillor Coleman confirmed his support for the proposed allowances and seconded the motion.

 

The Chair moved to the debate.

 

Supporters of the proposed increases argued that adequate remuneration was necessary to encourage broader participation in local government, particularly from younger people and those from diverse backgrounds. It was noted that councillor roles carried significant responsibilities affecting residents’ lives, and allowances should reflect this to ensure high-quality democratic representation. Several speakers highlighted that financial support could help remove barriers for those who might otherwise be unable to participate due to personal circumstances. In addition, the increased workloads of Cabinet members and Committee Chairs, particularly in the context of local government reorganisation, were cited as justification for the proposed increases in Special Responsibility Allowances (SRA’s). Provision for town and parish councils to consider allowances for volunteers undertaking significant responsibilities was welcomed, and the recommendations were described as a fair recognition of the work undertaken.

 

Opponents of the proposed increases focused on financial constraints and broader economic pressures. Concerns were raised that the cumulative cost, while modest per individual, represented a significant expense for the Council and that any savings should benefit taxpayers or be invested in services rather than councillor allowances. Some argued that councillors served their communities as a matter of public service, and additional remuneration could risk undermining motivation and the quality of elected members. The timing of the increases was questioned in light of cost-of-living pressures, inflation, and forthcoming local government changes, with caution that it might send the wrong signal to residents and parish councils.

 

A number of points were raised for clarification, including the modest level of the basic allowance, the total additional cost of the proposals, and the rationale for distinctions between roles based on workload and responsibilities.

In summing up, Councillor Mike Evemy noted that this was the third debate on members’ allowances since 2019 and addressed points raised during the discussion. He refuted suggestions that the Council had “pleaded poverty” or slashed services, and emphasised that the proposed increase of £3,144 per annum for ten members was modest and reflected the significant workloads of Cabinet Members and Committee Chairs.

 

The distinctions between roles were highlighted, noting increased responsibilities for Cabinet Members and some Committee Chairs, and emphasised that some remuneration was necessary to enable participation by those for whom financial constraints might otherwise be a barrier. Councillor Evemy supported the Panel’s recommendations as a fair recognition of work undertaken, reinforced the importance of diversity and inclusion, and councillors were encouraged to approve the proposals.

 

The Chair then moved to the vote on the resolution proposed by Councillor Mike Evemy and seconded by Councillor Patrick Coleman.

 

Voting Record:

18 For, 7 Against, 3 Abstentions.

Did not vote: Councillors Andrew Maclean having left the meeting and Ray Brassington.

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages