d) the Council needs to provide elected Members with the tools and skills to perform their role.

An “Interim Report” was prepared and circulated to all members for comments on 12 October and as a consequence four comments were received – these and the Panels response to them are set out at Appendix C. Where the Panel agreed with some of the suggestions arising from the consultation period these have been incorporated in Appendix B.

Terms of Reference

As explained in the Foreword the Panel has prepared this report to consider the following:

a) Should there be a recognised element for “constituency” work within the scheme for claiming travel and subsistence?

b) Is the current “claim as you go” arrangement for travel and subsistence claims the most appropriate one?

c) Updating the travel and subsistence scheme for approved duties; and

d) The Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) paid to the Chairman of the Licensing Committee and whether this should be extended to other members of that Committee.

In preparing this Report the Panel has met on three occasions and has considered the current arrangements, undertaken a critical analysis of the scheme, and sought some benchmarking advice from other relevant authorities on their arrangements. As mentioned above before making our final report we consulted with all members and have included the comments received and our views on them at Appendix C.

Process

(a) Members’ Travel and Subsistence

To assist them in this part of the work the Panel specifically considered the following:

Replacing the current scheme with one that makes a monthly payment to cover all travel and subsistence costs (thus negating the need to claim on a monthly basis and reducing administration).
If so how could the monthly payment be calculated (for example banding by type of member and distance of home from County Hall)?
If the current “claim as you go” scheme should continue how could this be modernised to make it more relevant?
In either scheme should there be a recognised element for “constituency” work?

For the first two and the last issue the Panel took an analytical approach and then tested the findings against a number of other authorities. The results of this benchmarking exercise is attached at Appendix A.

The analytical findings of the Panel for each of the three elements are detailed below:

Existing Scheme

Strengths	Weaknesses
Simple/understandable	Flat rate so does not necessarily reflect expense incurred.
Transparent/works	Doesn’t incorporate constituency element
Fair/equitable	Open to manipulation
Index-linked	Expensive to administer
No tax liability	Needs modernisation
On-line submissions
Reasonable

A Lump Sum System

Strengths	Weaknesses
Less administration/Cheaper	Potential tax liability
Factorise it	Unfair
Fixed costs	Benefits people who do not travel much
	Difficult to calculate (parameters)
	Accountability

Constituency Work

For	Against
Could increase visits	It’s what it’s all about
	Voluntary element
	Distances travelled very local

A review of the results from other Authorities shows that only three Authorities (Rotherham, Wolverhampton and Leeds) have some form of “flat rate” approach to travel and subsistence. But this only relates to within authority travel – all out of authority travel is claimable.

Appraisals of the Issues

“Flat Rate” –v- “Claim as you go”

Whilst undeniably a “flat rate” scheme would reduce administration this did seem to be the only major advantage of such a scheme. The current “claim as you go” arrangement is clearly accountably and actually pays for what people do, rather than some token thereof. In a change to a “flat rate” scheme there would be loss of accountability and a complex set of parameters would need to be established to ensure fairness – i.e. a member living at one end of the Island would need to receive a higher level than a member living in Newport given that the vast majority of Council meetings are held in Newport.

The Panel also considered the public perception of a “flat rate” scheme which might be difficult to justify without an auditable trail of actual expenses incurred.

Additionally there were potential tax complications with a “flat rate” scheme as the Inland Revenue view such arrangements as receiving financial gain there being no direct correlation to the amounts paid for the expenses incurred.

Although in their Guidance (Guidance on Consolidated Regulations for Local Authority Allowances) the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) suggest that Panels could consider recommending “an annual or monthly allowance designed to cover all travel and subsistence” from the benchmarking exercise that has been undertaken we have been unable to find an Authority that has taken this approach in total (although some have used it for elements of the expenses).

The conclusion of the panel is therefore that the existing “Flat Rate” scheme should remain for the list of approved duties (subject to these being “modernised” as set out later in this report).

“How should a “Flat Rate” be calculated?”

Given the above conclusion, the Panel decided not to spend any time defining how a “Flat Rate” could be calculated. The reason being that this would be complex as parameters would need to be devised to cover such things as distance between County Hall and home and number of meetings likely to attend to ensure that the scheme was fair and reasonable.

“Modernising the list of Approved Duties”

The current list of Approved Duties pre-dates the current modernised structure of Executive style governance and has some unique features that are clearly historical and of little relevance now (for example the “Association of Gardens Trusts” no longer exists).

The Local Authorities (Members’ Allowances) (England) Regulations 2003 provides a list of categories of meetings for which the Council may provide payment for travel and subsistence. This list has been used as a basis for the revised schedule attached at Appendix B.

“Should there be any payment for travel and subsistence for Constituency Work?”

The Panel noted that the current scheme provides no provision for any form of “constituency” work – and it is noted that this was an issue raised by the Leader at the Council meeting in November.

This description covers a multiple of issues but the sort of things that we are considering are travel to meetings of the Town or Parish Council in the Members’ area, travel to County Hall to deal with issues raised by constituents (other than attendance at any formal meeting of the Council, Executive or Committees/ sub Committees), and Political Group meetings.

The Panel felt that it was totally inappropriate for members to be able to claim for travel to Political Group meetings as these were generally matters about the internal political workings of the relevant Groups.

On all other types of constituency work it was felt that attendance for all such work was part of the voluntary element of the elected members role. In any case the vast majority of such travel was by definition local and unlikely to amount to any significant cost to the Member.

In terms of benchmarking there was only one authority (North Lincolnshire) that included constituency work within its scheme, whilst four others included part of the constituency work of members the majority clearly excluded such claims.

Therefore the Panel considers that travel and subsistence for constituency work should be explicitly excluded from the scheme.

(b) Additional Special Responsibility Allowance for the Licensing Panel Chairman and Members

The last Panel considered in some depth the increased workload likely to fall to the Chairman of the Licensing Committee as a consequence of the transfer of the liquor licensing function to the Council. At that time the expectation was that this additional workload would run from roughly April 2004 for approximately a year. Consequently the previous Panel recommended that the SRA for the Chairman of the Licensing Committee should be increased to be the same as that for the Chairman of the Development Control Committee for a period of a year running from the Annual Meeting of the Council in May 2004.

Unfortunately due to various issues the proposed legislation is only now beginning to be implemented and the anticipated additional workload will now go beyond May 2005. So the Panel considered a request to look again at this case and possibly providing an SRA for other members of the Licensing Committee given that the Committee is likely to have to meet at an increased frequency (certainly in the short term) to deal with applications from licensed premises under the new regime.

Whilst understanding the point made, it was noted that the Chairman of the Licensing Panel had already received the enhanced payment in line with the recommendation of the Panel although the additional work had not commenced. It was accepted that estimation of the time period for the additional work remained unaltered – it was just that the actual start time had slipped. Therefore given that the Chairman has already received the additional payment the Panel are minded not to revise their earlier recommendation.

With regards to the other members of the Licensing Committee whilst there is likely to be an increased number of Committee meetings to attend as a consequence of the Liquor Licensing function it was noted that this would be “spread” across a number of members so as to reduce the burden and was likely to be of a transitional nature. Simply because a Committee (or in this case Sub Committee) has to meet more frequently than originally anticipated does not necessarily increase the level of responsibility falling on the members of the Committee. It is not difficult to envisage another range of circumstances that would require a particular meeting to meet more often to deal with some transitional matter and there is a danger of setting a precedent.

As no additional responsibility is falling to the members of the Licensing Committee (over and above that normally expected) and as any increase in workload is likely to be transitional the Panel do not consider that there is any case to recommend an SRA for normal members of the Licensing Committee when they are considering Liquor Licensing applications under the new legislative arrangements.

(c) Mainland Travel

Although not strictly within the Panel’s terms of reference the Panel took the opportunity to look at the current scheme in relation to travel and subsistence “out of authority” – ie to the mainland. It was explained to us that in the vast majority of cases all such travel was arranged through the Members Support Office and that the usual mode of transport was standard class train travel to mainland destinations and the lowest cost means for transport to destinations abroad. Very occasionally, when there were clear time or cost benefits to the authority, members would fly to mainland destinations. It was a very rare occurrence for a member to take their own car to the mainland on authority business and where this did happen there was clearly agreed and defined benefits to the Council before approval was given.

The Panel were satisfied with these arrangements. However it was noted that there was no specific mention within the Council’s scheme requiring that any mainland travel should be at the lowest reasonable cost to the authority – bearing in mind the overall efficiency of the Council.

Therefore to avoid any potential problems in the future it is suggested that such a clause be added, this is in the full knowledge that it will not change existing custom and practice – merely reinforcing it.

Recommendations

1. That the principle of Travel and Subsistence being paid on the basis of monthly claims (as at present) remains.

2. That the schedule of Approved Duties for which Members can claim Travel and Subsistence be modernised as set out at Appendix B.

3. That it be explicitly stated in the scheme that Travel and Subsistence cannot be claimed for any Constituency Work.

4. That the recommendation contained on the last report of the Panel with regard to the SRA payable to the Chairman of the Licensing Committee remains unaltered.

5. That no SRA be paid to ordinary members of the Licensing Committee.

6. That the Council’s scheme be amended requiring that any mainland travel should be at the lowest reasonable cost to the authority – bearing in mind the overall efficiency of the Council.

8 November 2004

Appendix A

Responses from other authorities – Members’ Remuneration

Authority	Basic Allowance (£)	Leaders Allowance (£)	Travel & Subsistence scheme?		Constituency Work included?
				Details		If so details
Isle of Wight (Current)	5,916	17,724	Yes	Definition of various meetings – 40p per mile	No
North Somerset Unitary	6,000	11,000	Yes	Definition of various meetings – variable mileage rate	No
North Lincolnshire Unitary	6,900	16,764	Yes	Covers for all Council business – no exclusions - Variable mileage rates.	Yes	All of it is claimable
Herefordshire Unitary	5,827	11,644 (plus £114 per member)	Yes	Definition of various meetings – 40p per mile	No
East Riding Unitary	9,250 (extra £705 for IT)	23,140	Yes	Definition of meetings includes attendance at Parish Council meetings and political group meetings – variable mileage rate.	Part	See details under earlier column.
West Berkshire Unitary	4,250	13,196	Yes	Definition of various meetings – 40p per mile	No
Telford & Wrekin Unitary	6,492	9,426	Yes	Definition of various meetings – 40p per mile	No
Darlington Unitary	6,984	20,000	Yes	Definition of various meetings – variable mileage rate	No

Hart District Council	3,085	19,250	Yes	Definition of various meetings – 40p per mile – in authority only.	No
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council			Yes	Flat rate for within Borough work – individual claims for out of borough travel.	Part	See details
Wolverhampton City Council			Yes	Basic Allowance deemed to cover in area travel – out of area for official duties only.	Part	See comments
Leeds City Council	12,420		Yes	Basic Allowance covers all travel within the area.	Part	See comments
Calderdale			Yes	Definition of various meetings – with a mileage rate	No
Birmingham City	14,000	47,908	Yes	Definition of various meetings – with a variable mileage rate – does include some constituency business (ie attending Constituency Partnership meetings)	Part	See Comments

Appendix B

SCHEDULE II

MEMBERS’ ALLOWANCES

APPROVED DUTIES FOR THE PAYMENT OF TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES

a) Attendance at a meeting of the Council.

b) Attendance at a meeting of the Executive, or any Committee, Sub Committee, Panel, Working Party or Task Group of the Council (regardless of whether actually a member (or deputy) of that body).

c) Attendance (as the duly appointed or nominated member), at any other body to which the Council appoints or nominates a member, or any Committee or Sub Committee of such a body. (Other than where the body itself pays or attendance and travel).

d) Site visits or inspections by the Executive, or any Committee, Sub Committee, Panel, Working Party or Task Group when acting as such a body (regardless of whether actually a member (or deputy) of that body).

e) Training and any other development activities as and when approved by the Council in accordance with the scheme for approval of attendance at such event or where specifically invited by the Leader or Chairman of a Committee or an officer.

f) Attendance at briefings for the Executive, Committees or Sub Committees were such briefings have been prior arranged.

g) Conferences organised by other bodies where such attendance has been approved under the scheme for the approval at conferences and seminars or the Executive or relevant Committee has approved attendance.

h) Meetings with Government Departments and nationalised bodies as Portfolio Holder or when deputed by the Executive or a Committee.

i) Pre-agenda meetings (Chairman of the Council, Vice Chairman of the Council, Leader, Deputy Leader, Chairman and Vice Chairman of Committees only)

j) Briefings for the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Council, Leader and Deputy Leader and for the Chairman and Vice Chairman of Committees.

k) Attendance at Council offices by Members at the request of Directors/Heads of Service

l) The performance of any duty in connection with the discharge of any function of the authority conferred by or under any enactment and empowering or requiring the authority to inspect or authorise the inspection of premises.

m) Where attendance is required at County Hall in connection with the opening of tender documents in accordance with Contract Standing Orders.

n) Attendance at civic functions or on civic duties by the Chairman of the Council or by the Vice or Deputy Chairman at the request of the Chairman if transport has not been provided by the Civic Office.

Appendix C

Details of comments received during the consultation on this report with all Members of the Council

Comment received	Panel’s conclusion

1. That the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Council be included in the list of those eligible to claim travel and subsistence for pre-agenda meetings and briefing.	Agreed that the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Council should be added to the list.
2. That there be the following additional list of approved duties: “Attendance at civic functions or on civic duties by the Chairman of the Council or by the Vice or Deputy Chairman at the request of the Chairman.”	Agreed that this should be added with the proviso that the following wording be added “if transport has not been provided by the Civic Office”.
3. That members should be able to claim the cost when using their own mobile phones on Council business.	The Panel understood the current arrangements for the issue of Council mobile phones to some members but noted that this was a matter for the Executive. The Panel were unaware of any evidence that would merit them revising their original conclusion that the Basic Allowance was deemed sufficient to cover such incidental expenses as telephones.
4. That members of the Licensing Committee should receive an SRA in recognition of the additional work that they will have to undertake once Liquor Licensing becomes the responsibility of the Council.	The Panel had considered this in some detail at their previous meeting and additional evidence was presented to merit a reconsideration of their earlier view. It was emphasised that there was no precedence or historical basis for paying all members of a Committee an SRA simply because of potential increased work. Also noted that the Chairman of the Committee has had an increased SRA in view of the additional responsibility falling to him to assist with the implementation.

PAPER E

FINAL REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MEMBERS REMUNERATION PANEL

Appendix A

Appendix B