Allowances for Buckinghamshire County Council

Buckinghamshire County Council 

Independent Remuneration Panel 

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

A Review 

Of 

Members’ Allowances 

ANNEX A 

For 

Buckinghamshire 

County Council 

___________________________________ 

A Report by the 

Independent Remuneration 

Panel 

Dr Declan Hall 

Mr Roy Heape, OBE 

Mr John Ingold 

Mr Alex Pratt JP OBE 

September 2006 

September 2006



__________________________________________________________________________________ 

Foreword 

This is the third report produced by the Independent Members Remuneration 

Panel for Buckinghamshire County Council. The original panel was appointed 

in January 2001 as a requirement of the Local Government Act 2000, 

whereby the Council was obliged to adopt new roles and responsibilities for 

Councillors and also to review Councillors’ allowances to reflect those new 

roles and responsibilities. The recommendations of the Independent Panel in 

2001 were largely accepted by the Council. In June 2003 a further review was 

undertaken in compliance with the Local Authorities (Members’ Allowance) 

(England) Regulations 2003 1 and subsequent amendments. The Panel was 

required to make recommendations on certain associated allowances, e.g., 

travel allowances, before 31 December 2003. The recommendations (which 

did not result in major changes) were produced in June 2003 and the Council 

once again accepted the Panel’s main recommendations. 

The Panel is undertaking this third review, for two reasons. Firstly, the 2003 

Regulations require that Buckinghamshire County Council review and 

implement a new allowances scheme every four years, so the county would 

have been required to hold a review by early 2007 regardless and this review 

ensures that legal requirement has been met in good time. Secondly, the 

other driver of this review is the perception that the nature of some posts has 

evolved over time resulting in increasing demands on certain Members. 

The recommendations contained in this report seek to address any anomalies 

in the current scheme and make the receipt of allowances more transparent 

and Members more accountable for them. The role of the Panel has been to 

assess the rate for being an elected Member, representing the diversity of 

communities that make up Buckinghamshire. 

Dr Declan Hall 

Chair of the Independent Remuneration Panel 


1 See Statutory Instruments 2003 Nos. 1021, 1022 and 1692 for further details. 

September 2006



__________________________________________________________________________________ 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Recommendations as a Package 

A 

B 

The Panel is resolute in proposing that its recommendations on the 

scope and levels of allowances should only be accepted as part of a 

wider package that includes taking up the accompanying 

recommendations on Member performance. 

The recommendations are listed in order of the Panel’s priorities: 

Enhance Member Performance, Accountability and Transparency (PAT) 

C 

The Council should adopt the following measures to enhance PAT: 

i. Publish Member attendance records 

ii. Produce Member Statement of Activities 

iii. Member Role Profiles – A Compact with the Electorate 

iv. A Claw Back Scheme 

v. A Comprehensive Member Development Programme 

The Basic Allowance 

D 

The Basic Allowance for 2006/07 (£9,999) be maintained at its present 

level and not altered. 

The Leader 

E The Leader’s SRA for 2006/07 is increased from £37,053 to £40,000. 

The Deputy Leader 

F The SRA for the Deputy Leader is increased from £24,702 to £28,000. 

Cabinet Members – Portfolio Holders 

G The current SRA for Cabinet Members remains at £18,821. 

Opposition Group Leaders 

H 

The SRA for the ruling Group Leader be discontinued. The SRAs for 

‘Opposition Group’ Leaders to be paid on the following basis: 

N 2-5 Opposition Members: £2,000 




N 20+ Opposition Members: £10,000 

September 2006 2



__________________________________________________________________________________ 

Other Post Holders Currently in Receipt of SRA 

I The following post holders’ SRAs should remain unaltered for 2006/07: 

N Overview and Scrutiny Chairmen (4): to remain at £9,414 

N Council Chairman (1): to remain at £11,766 

N Council Vice Chairman (1): to remain at £2,943 

N Development Control Chairman (1): to remain at £4,707 

Co-optees Allowance 

J A Co-optees’ Allowance to the statutory Co-optees on 

Buckinghamshire County Council be paid for 2006/07 as follows: 

N 

N 

Co-opted Members of Standards Committee: £550 per annum 

Co-opted Members on the Children’s Services 

Overview and Scrutiny Committee: 

£300 per annum 

Additional SRAs 

K 

L 

The Chairman of the Standards Committee to be paid a SRA of 

£4,707 for 2006/07. 

The Chairman of the Regulatory and Audit Committee to be paid a 

SRA of £4,707 for 2006/07. 

Further SRAs Considered But Not Recommended 

M 

N 

Portfolio Spokespersons not to be paid a SRA. 

Chairmen of the Local Area Committees not to be paid a SRA. 

Indexation 

O 

The Council should continue to link the Basic Allowance, SRAs, Cooptees’ 

and Dependant Carers’ Allowance to the annual percentage 

increase in salary for Officers of the County. 

Backdating of Allowances 

P 

All recommendations are to be backdated to the start of the financial 

year 2006/07. 

Travel and Subsistence 

Q 

The current mileage rates to be maintained and the total maximum 

subsistence allowances claimable by Members in a 24 hour period to 

be aggregated at £46.70, and reimbursed on production of receipts. 

September 2006 3



__________________________________________________________________________________ 


Review of Members’ Allowances 

For 


Introduction: The Regulatory Context 

1. The following report notes the proceedings and recommendations 

made by the Buckinghamshire County Council Independent 

Remuneration Panel. 

2. The Panel was convened under The Local Authorities (Members’ 

Allowances) (England) Regulations 2003 (SI 1021) to make 

recommendations to the Council on a new scheme of Members’ 

Allowances. These regulations, which arise out of the relevant 

provisions in the Local Government Act 2000, require all local 

authorities to maintain an advisory Independent Remuneration 

Allowances Panel to review and provide advice on Members’ 

allowances. All Councils are required to convene their Allowances 

Panel and seek its advice before they make any changes or 

amendments to their allowances scheme and they must ‘pay regard’ to 

the Panel’s recommendations before setting a new or amended 

Members’ Allowances Scheme. 

Terms of Reference 

3. The Panel was asked to review the Buckinghamshire County Council’s 

Members’ Allowances scheme and to make recommendations to the 

Council with specific reference to the following issues: 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Any changes needed in the rates of allowances; 

Current mileage and subsistence allowances; 

The possibility of giving Special Responsibility Allowances (SRAs) 

to Portfolio Spokesmen; 

The possibility of giving Special Responsibility Allowances (SRAs) 

to some of the statutory committee chairmen; 

The linking of allowances to pay increases or some other form of 

indexation; 

The payment of a Co-optees’ Allowance; and 

The feasibility of having the Basic Allowance related to performance 

September 2006



__________________________________________________________________________________ 

The Panel 

4. Buckinghamshire County Council appointed the following to its 

Independent Allowances Panel, namely: 

SDr Declan Hall, Institute of Local Government, School of Public 

Policy, The University of Birmingham, an academic specialising in 

the field of Members’ allowances was appointed by the Council to 

act as Chair of the Panel. 

SRoy Heape OBE, formerly Personal Financial Services Director at 

Midland Bank plc. 

SJohn Ingold BSc FCA, formerly Finance Director Technical 

Functions and HR at GE Healthcare, and founding Director of 

Bucks Economic Partnership. 

SAlex Pratt JP BSc OBE FRSA Managing Director Sunalex Ltd, 

Chairman Business Link Solutions Ltd, and Founding Director 

Bucks Economic Partnership. 

5. The Panel had the support of Clive Parker, Democratic Services 

Manager, who acted as the ‘Panellists’ Friend’ and whose role was to 

service the Panel, and take the organisational lead in facilitating the 

whole process. 

6. The Panel would like to record its gratitude to the Members and 

Officers of Buckinghamshire County Council for making themselves 

available to talk to the Panel and ensuring the work of the Panel was 

supported in an efficient and effective manner. In particular, special 

appreciation is reserved for Clive Parker who was central in ensuring 

the Panel met its deadlines. 

Methodology 

7. The Panel met at the Judges Lodgings, Aylesbury on four occasions: 

N 15 th March 2006 

N 9 th May 2006 

N 19 th May 2006 

N 13 th June 2006 

8. The Panel meetings and deliberations were held in private session so 

as to enable the Panel to meet Members and Officers in confidence. 

The details of the range of elected Members and Officers of the Council 

that met with the Panel are provided in Appendix One. 

9. The Panel’s activity fell into four parts: 

N One: Review of background information on Buckinghamshire 

County Council, i.e., political structures and composition; roles and 

September 2006 2



__________________________________________________________________________________ 

responsibilities of Members; a briefing on recent changes to the 

Council, and previous allowances reports for the Council. 

N Two: Interviews with Members and Officers of the Council 

N Three: Review of oral and written submissions, and analysis of 

allowances schemes from other country councils (see Appendix 

Two for full list of information reviewed by the Panel) 

N Four: Arriving at recommendations and drafting and redrafting of 

report to the agreement of the Panel. 

Principles of the Review 

10. The Panel as far as possible was guided by the previous reviews and 

was concerned with seeking out anomalies in the current scheme 

rather than carrying out a ‘root and branch’ review. 

11. The Panel felt that there was not enough openness and transparency 

in the allowances scheme. In particular there was no obvious link 

between performance of Members and their remuneration. Where 

there is a traditionally dominant party (as in Buckinghamshire) it is 

essential that the receipt of allowances and the accountability of 

Members for those allowances be made as transparent as possible. An 

overarching theme of this review has been to seek means to make the 

receipt of allowances more transparent and for Members to become 

more accountable for their performance. 

12. The Panel developed a number of guiding principles, namely: that the 

Buckinghamshire Members’ Allowances Scheme should seek to 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Be more transparent in what Members receive and what is 

expected from them in return; 

Make Members more accountable for the receipt of their 

allowances, particularly if they are not performing as expected; 

Provide reasonable recompense for the various roles and 

responsibilities held by Members; 

To allow most people considering standing for Council to do so 

without suffering financial hardship; 

Be at a sufficient level to retain experienced and competent 

Members. 

13. Most importantly the Panel strongly believes that the Council 

should accept its recommendations as a package. In particular, 

the Panel feels that if the Council was to adopt its 

recommendations on allowances that it should do so in 

conjunction with the recommendations on enhancing member 

performance, accountability and transparency for the payment 

and receipt of those allowances. 

September 2006 3



__________________________________________________________________________________ 

The Evidence Reviewed and Recommendations 

A Robust Foundation 

14. The Panel observed that the allowances scheme for Buckinghamshire 

County Council was still broadly appropriate in structure and scope. 

The Panel was convinced that the Members’ Allowances scheme 

needed amendment rather than fundamental reformation. 

The Basic Allowance 

15. The Panel noted that the Basic Allowance for 20006/07 (£9,999) is 

neither the highest or lowest Basic Allowance paid by English county 

councils. On information from the County Council Network from 2005 it 

is somewhat above the average, which was £8,432 in 2005, with two 

thirds of county councils paying between £7,000 and £9,708 as a Basic 

Allowance. At 2005 levels this evaluation places the Buckinghamshire 

Basic Allowance in the upper third percentile. However, on information 

supplied directly by county councils to the South East Employers 

Organisation (SEE) in May 2006 on allowances paid in county councils 

in the south east, which this panel regards as more relevant and up to 

date comparator, it shows that the average Basic Allowance for county 

councils in the region for 2006/07 is £9,916 and the median is £9,999. 

Table One: SEE Survey of Allowances May 2006 

South East County Councils Basic Allowance 

Buckinghamshire £9,999 

East Sussex £9,549 

Hampshire £11,286 

Kent £12,000 

Oxfordshire £7,000 

Surrey £10,000 

West Sussex £9,581 

Mean £9,916 

Median £9,999 

16. In other words, it places the Buckinghamshire Basic Allowance in the 

middle of its regional peers. Thus, a comparative approach indicated to 

the Panel that the Buckinghamshire County Council Basic Allowance, 

while relatively generous nationally was less so regionally and is still 

broadly appropriate. 

Cross Checking the Basic Allowance? 

September 2006 4



__________________________________________________________________________________ 

17. To cross check, the Panel replicated the methodology utilised by the 

Panel in the 2001 review to arrive at the Basic Allowance with up dated 

variables. 

18. In 2001, the three variables and their values used in arriving at the 

Basic Allowance were: 

I. Time Necessary to fulfil role: 850 hours per year 

II. Public Service Discount: one third or 280 hours per year 

III. Rate for Job: 

Local Government Association (LGA 

daily session rate, £15 p/hour (2001) 

Expected Minimum Time Inputs 

19. The time deemed necessary to fulfil the role of ordinary Member was 

originally 850 hours per year (or just over 16 hours per week), 

recognising that as a voluntary role some Members were and are in 

position to and do put in more hours. The Panel felt that 850 hours per 

annum as minimum expected time input is still appropriate in 2006. 

Public Service Discount 

20. The Panel originally discounted 280 hours, or one third of the hours 

deemed necessary to fulfil the role, for public service. In other words, 

one third of the expected time commitment was to be given as pro 

bono publico. This requirement is also included in the statutory 

guidance and since 2001, what has become known as the public 

service discount, has settled down around the one third mark 

nationally. The Panel was content that 570 remunerated hours per year 

for which to calculate the Basic Allowance was still appropriate. 

Rate for the Job 

21. The third variable was to apply a rate for the job to the remunerated 

(570) hours. The Panel originally applied regional version of the LGA 

daily session rate. The LGA daily session rate is a daily rate published 

annually by the LGA and, while not the officially sanctioned rate of what 

the LGA deems Councillors are worth, it is a rate the LGA suggests 

allowances panel may find useful. It has been used extensively by 

panels for arriving at their recommended Basic Allowances. This rate 

was originally based on the national average male non-manual salary 

which was approximately £14 per hour in 2001. In 2001 the 

Buckinghamshire Panel took a south east version of this rate, which 

was £15 per hour. 

The Original Formula to Arrive at the 2001 Basic Allowance 

22. In 2001 the Basic Allowance was arrived at by the following formula: 

September 2006 5



__________________________________________________________________________________ 

N 

Time Required – Public Service Discount X Rate for Job 

= 850 hours – 33% X £15 per hour 

= £8,550 

The 2006 Formula 

23. The only changed variable in 2006 is the rate for job. However, the 

south east (or any other) version of the average male non-manual 

salary is no longer published by the Office of National Statistics (ONS). 

The LGA now use a slightly different version of their original daily 

session rate. Notwithstanding the methodological meanderings of the 

ONS the LGA daily session rate for 2006 is £133.80 per day (LGA 

Circular 28 February 2006 Members’ Allowances). The Panel has 

divided this daily rate by 8 hours per working day to arrive at an hourly 

rate of £16.73 per hour. The Panel then up rated this to £18 per hour to 

approximate what would be the south east element. 

24. Thus, the Basic Allowance by using the 2006 for rate for the job was 

arrived at by the following formula: 

N 

Time Required – Public Service Discount X Rate for Job 

= 850 hours – 33% X £18 per hour = 

= £10,260 

25. The Panel felt that the 2000/07 Basic Allowance (£9,999) has 

broadly kept in line with what the Basic Allowance would be 

(£10,260) if it was recalibrated by using a 2006 rate for the job. The 

difference between the current Basic Allowance and the recalibrated 

Basic Allowance is so marginal as to make little difference. The Panel 

recommends that the Basic Allowance for 2006/07 of £9,999 is 

maintained at its present level. 

The Role of the Leader 

26. The Panel noted that the Leader’s current SRA (£37,053) is among the 

highest for County Council Leaders in England, based on figures from 

the County Council Network supplied in 2005. It is also one of the 

highest in the south east (see Table 2 below). 

Table 2: Leaders’ Allowances in South East Counties 

SEE Survey of Allowances, 20 May 2006 

South East County 

Councils 

Basic 

Allowance 

Leader’s 

SRA 

Total 

Remuneration 

Buckinghamshire £9,999 £37,053 £47,052 

East Sussex £9,549 £21,219 £30,768 

Hampshire £11,286 £27,239 £38,525 

Kent £12,000 £41,000 £53,000 

September 2006 6



__________________________________________________________________________________ 

Oxfordshire £7,000 £17,500 £24,500 

Surrey £10,000 £20,000 £30,000 

West Sussex £9,581 £25,750 £35,331 

Mean £9,916 £27,109 £37,025 

Median £9,999 £25,750 £35,331 

27. In the event, the Panel felt that the fact the Leader was at the high end 

of comparable leaders was not an issue to worry about unduly. If 

anything the role since 2001 could be perceived as becoming more 

onerous for the following reasons: 

N 

N 

N 

Increasingly the Leader is perceived as the political foci of the 

Council. 

The Leader has an enhanced role within Buckinghamshire and 

increasingly is seen as the face of the County, e.g., dealing with the 

media, and ex officio on a number of county-wide bodies, e.g., the 

Buckinghamshire Strategic Partnership and Buckinghamshire 

Leaders Group. 

The Panel further noted that the Buckinghamshire County Council 

Constitution specifically designates an external responsibility to the 

Leader, notably “representing the Council externally, for example in 

leading community planning arrangements within the County…..” 

(Part 3, Section H, 3.16) 

28. However, the Panel was not convinced that on their own the enhanced 

pressures on the Leader merited an increase in allowances. 

The Enhanced Regional and National Agenda 

29. On the other hand, the Panel noted in the 2001 review that there was 

acknowledgement of the regional and national dimension of the 

Leadership role. The 2001 Panel Report paragraph 49 (page 13) 

states: 

Such a high level and high profile post [Leader] requires {2006 emphasis} 

the post holder to be very active in regional and national affairs. We believe 

the County Council should make no additional payment for work of this 

nature. 

30. The majority of interviewees agreed that the role of Leader and to a 

lesser extent the Deputy Leader were underpaid, as there had been a 

number of external developments since 2001. The development of the 

regional agenda, with automatic representation on the South East 

Regional Assembly (SEERA) and South East LGA has put more 

demands on the Leader (and to a lesser extent the Deputy Leader). 

The leadership is expected to act on behalf of the county regionally 

much more than in 2001. Together, they have to represent the county’s 

interest at the regional level and will continue to do so. 

September 2006 7



__________________________________________________________________________________ 

31. The national dimension, while not experiencing growth to the same 

degree as the regional dimension, is one that has continued to develop 

for the following reasons: 

N 

N 

The Leadership is expected to meet ministers, civil servants and 

other political figures to lobby on behalf of the council. 

The Leader is also on the County Council Network Executive 

Committee, the LGA Strategy and Finance Policy Review Group 

and the LGA European and International Policy Review Group. 

32. The Panel further notes that the Buckinghamshire Constitution 

specifically designates “external relations” to the Leader, with specific 

responsibility for “furthering the Council’s interests in the South East 

region, nationally and in Europe.” (Part 3, Section H, 3.16) 

33. Therefore, the Panel recognises that the regional and national aspect 

of the Leader’s role is no longer incidental to the post. This Panel now 

does believe that the post of Leader requires him/her to be active in 

regional and national affairs and it should be recognised by additional 

payment for this work. 

34. As a result of the evidence received the Panel concluded that the role 

of Leader had become larger since 2001 and to a lesser extent so as 

that of the Deputy Leader. Consequently, it decided that the Leader’s 

SRA merited an increase from £37,053 to £40,000 per annum. 

35. The Panel noted that the total recommended remuneration package for 

the Leader of Buckinghamshire, while making it one of the highest paid 

Council leaders is not the highest paid in England or Wales nor is it as 

high as a back bench MP, a post which the previous review recognised 

has much less responsibility than the Leader of Buckinghamshire 

County Council. Furthermore, the previous review had also applied a 

public service discount of 33 per cent to the Leader’s (and all other 

SRAs), a notional discount that is still applied by this review. 

The Post of Deputy Leader 

36. The Panel noted that the national and regional implications for the 

Leader also have impacted on the Deputy Leader but to a lesser extent 

than in the case of the Leader. The Deputy Leader also has an external 

responsibility across Buckinghamshire and regional aspect to the post 

with particular responsibility for the following: 

September 2006 8



__________________________________________________________________________________ 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Managing important corporate partnerships arrangements and 

establishing a clear protocol for the way the Council works with 

stakeholders and others 

Working with partners, particularly in relation to economic 

development at both a county-wide and regional level 

Represents the County at meetings of the LGA sub-group, the 

County Councils Network 

Taking a lead on regional planning via statutory consultations with 

the responsible body, the Regional Assembly 

37. The Panel took the view that the Deputy Leader is very much part of 

the ‘top team’, and merited an extra recognition for the external role. At 

present, the Deputy Leader is paid SRA at 66.66% of Leader’s SRA 

and the Panel decided that the Deputy Leader’s SRA should be up 

lifted and paid at 70% of the Leader’s recommended SRA. 

38. The recommended SRA for the Deputy Leader is increased from 

£24,702 to £28,000. 

Cabinet Members – Portfolio Holders 

39. The Panel received evidence that the other Cabinet Members have 

enhanced responsibilities and workloads through the county-wide 

partnership working that has developed since 2001, but not to the 

same extent as the leadership. The Panel noted that the current SRA 

for Cabinet Members is paid at 50% of the Leader’s SRA. The Panel 

felt that the relative increase in overall responsibility and workload for 

Cabinet Members was so marginal that there was not a case to alter 

their current SRA. Consequently, the Panel recommends that the 

current SRA for Cabinet Members remains at £18,821. This reduces 

the ratio to the Leader’s SRA from 50% to 47%. 

Differential SRAs for Cabinet Members 

40. The Panel received some representation that there was a case to 

differentiate between the SRAs for the 7 portfolio holders within the 

Cabinet on the grounds that some posts are larger than others. 

However, the Panel noted that the interviewees generally did not 

support such a differentiation and it is not common practice across the 

country. Furthermore, the Panel took the view that while indeed some 

portfolios may be larger than others at this moment government 

agendas come and go. There will always be ‘peaks and troughs’ in the 

size and intensity of particular portfolios and they tend to even 

themselves out over time. 

41. Thus, the Panel does not recommend that there should be 

differential SRAs for the portfolio holders in the Cabinet. 

September 2006 9



__________________________________________________________________________________ 

Other Posts Currently in Receipt of SRAs 

42. The Panel saw reason to change the SRAs for other post holders. 

43. The Panel recommends that the SRAs for the following post holders 

remain at their 2006/07 levels, with the recalculated SRA payment ratio 

in relation to the Leaders’ SRA also being adjusted. 

N Overview and Scrutiny Chairmen (4): to remain at £9,414, which 

was 25 % of the Leader’s SRA and is now 23.5 per of the Leader’s 

SRA. 

N Council Chairman (1): to remain at £11,766, which was 32 % of the 

Leader’s SRA and is now 29.5 % of the Leader’s SRA. 

N Council Vice Chairman (1): to remain at £2,943, this is still 25 % of 

the Council Chairman’s SRA. 

N Development Control Chairman (1): to remain at £4,707, which 

was 12.5 % of the Leader’s SRA and is now 11.8 % of the Leader’s 

SRA. 

Group Leaders 

44. The Panel decided that the current method of paying the Group 

Leaders, with a standard plus variable element, was inappropriate in 

the context of all out elections. Moreover, there is no point in 

maintaining a SRA for the Leader of the ruling party group as s/he 

receives a SRA as Leader of the Council. 

45. Instead, the Panel felt it would be a better fit to pay SRAs to 

Opposition Group Leaders based on incremental bands. 

Moreover, the Panel felt that the size of the role of the Opposition 

Group Leaders was underestimated and should be recognised 

through enhanced SRAs. 

46. The Panel noted that it is common practice to remunerate Leaders of 

the main Opposition Groups on a similar level as Chairs of Overview 

and Scrutiny, see Hampshire County Council for instance. The Panel 

took the view that a properly resourced Opposition is vital to a healthy 

local democracy. Having just noted the practice of paying the Leader of 

main Opposition Groups on a par with Chairs of Overview and Scrutiny 

Committees, the Panel has not done so for the Leader of the largest 

Opposition Group in Buckinghamshire; although it makes provision for 

such a level of remuneration if and when an Opposition Group has 

reached an appropriate size. 

47. The recommended SRAs for the Opposition Group Leaders are: 



September 2006 10



__________________________________________________________________________________ 



N 20+ Opposition Members: £10,000 

The Chairman of the Standards Committee 

48. The Panel noted that the Chair of the Standards Committee does not 

receive a SRA. In 2001 this was a common occurrence as it was a new 

committee, with limited powers and responsibilities. But Standards 

Committees now have enhanced powers and responsibilities; they are 

the first point of call for breaches of the code of ethics and the 

presumption is now that the National Standards Board will only hear 

the major cases and refer all other cases to local Standards 

Committees. Furthermore, local Standards Committees now have the 

power to suspend a Member for up to 3 months. It is also a scheduled 

committee, meeting at least every Council cycle. 

49. The Panel decided that the Chair of the Standards Committee 

merited a SRA and should be paid the same as the Chairman of 

the Development Control Committee, which is £4,707 for 2006/07. 

The Regulatory and Audit Committee 

50. The Regulatory and Audit Committee is an enhanced committee. It 

continues to consider changes to the Council’s Constitution, exercises 

the licensing and registration functions of the Council, such as safety 

certificates for sports grounds, etc. It also recently acquired the audit 

function. This relates to approving the Council’s annual statement of 

accounts and other financial auditing functions. 

51. The Panel decided that the Chair of the Regulatory and Audit 

Committee merited a SRA and should be paid the same as the 

Chairman of the Development Control Committee, which is £4,707 

for 2006/07. 

Chairmen of the Local Area Committees 

52. The Panel was particularly tasked to consider if ‘half’ a SRA for the 

Chairmen of the Local Area Committees, with the relevant district 

Councils paying the other ‘half’ of the SRA, should be paid. There are 

presently four Area Committees that correspond with the four district 

councils in Buckinghamshire and at present they have limited 

responsibilities. The Panel noted that the whole structure and function 

of the Area Committees is under review and the Panel decided to wait 

and see how the Area Committees develop in future. Consequently, 

the Panel does not recommend that the Chairmen of the Local 

Area Committees be paid a SRA. 

Portfolio Spokespersons 

September 2006 11



__________________________________________________________________________________ 

53. The Panel was also asked to consider if there was a case to 

recommend the payment of a SRA to the Portfolio Spokespersons. 

There are 16 Portfolio Spokespersons whose role is to assist the 

relevant Cabinet Member by having particular areas of expertise for 

which they can act as sounding boards for the Cabinet Members and to 

attend meetings when Cabinet Member are not be able to attend. 

54. The Panel decided not to recommend a SRA for the Portfolio 

Spokespersons on the following grounds: 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Paying 16 Portfolio Spokespersons would put three quarters of 

the Conservative Group on a SRA, and potentially 69 % of all 

Members on a SRA, which the statutory guidance does not 

regard as best practice (which is defined as not having a 

majority of Members in receipt of a SRA). 

The responsibility associated with the post is not significant. 

The Local Government Act 2000 does not permit appointment 

of formal deputies with responsibilities to cabinet members 

The Panel viewed the role of Portfolio Spokesperson as 

presently constituted as a training ground or means of 

succession planning for future Cabinet Members. 

Co-optees’ Allowance 

55. The 2003 review recommended that the statutory Co-optees’ should be 

paid the new ‘Co-optees’ Allowance at the following rates: 

N 

N 


Co-opted Members on the former Lifelong 

Learning Overview and Scrutiny Committee: £250 per annum 

56. However, the Council never accepted the Panels’ recommendations in 

2003. The Panel felt that the payment of a Co-optees’ Allowance is 

regarded as good practice across English local government. The Panel 

re-recommends a Co-optees’ Allowance to be paid to the 

Council’s statutory Co-optees. Furthermore, the original sums 

recommended should be up rated by £50 to reflect indexation 

since 2003. The applicable rates for 2006/07 are as follows: 

N 

N 


Co-opted Members on the Children’s 

Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee: £300 per annum 

57. The Panel notes that if the Chair of Standards is a Co-optee then 

the 2003 Regulations require that Co-optee to receive a SRA that 

is the equivalent of the SRA that would be paid if the Chair of the 

September 2006 12



__________________________________________________________________________________ 

Standards Committee was an elected Member. In 2006/07, this 

would be £4,707. 

. 

The Mileage Allowance 

58. The Panel received some representation that the current mileage rates 

that Members can claim do not take into account the recent rises in 

petrol costs. The current mileage rates are those that are paid to 

Officers and as such should be maintained. 

The Subsistence Allowance 

59. The Panel heard evidence that the maximum subsistence allowances 

that Members are able to claim are too low, particularly as there is a 

maximum sum specified for each meal of the day. Specifically, the 

issue arises when a Member has to attend conferences in London. The 

Panel had some sympathy with this view and recommends that 

the total maximum subsistence allowances a Member may be able 

to claim in a 24 hour period is aggregated at £46.70 per day on the 

production of receipts. 

60. The current rates for overnight accommodation are likely to be below 

the actual cost of accommodation in London and other major cities. In 

the Panel’s view such accommodation should, where possible, be 

booked centrally through ‘Member Services’ so that the Council can 

better monitor and control this type of expenditure. 

Member Performance, Accountability and Transparency 

Establishing the Principle – As a Package 

61. The Panels’ terms of reference included a specific request to consider 

linking the Basic Allowance to performance. The Panel has gone 

further than that and has attempted to link the whole payment and 

receipt of allowances to performance. It cannot be overstated from 

the Panel’s perspective: it is keen to establish the principle of 

enhanced transparency and accountability for the payment and 

receipts of allowances by all Members of Buckinghamshire 

County Council. It is difficult to develop meaningful performance 

measures and even more difficult to enforce any such measures but 

there should be a means to hold Members to account if they are not 

undertaking the duties that are reasonably expected of them. It may 

well be a reiterative process that takes time to become effective. But 

nonetheless, the Panel is resolute in proposing that its 

recommendations on the scope and levels of allowances should 

only be accepted as part of a wider package that includes taking 

September 2006 13



__________________________________________________________________________________ 

up the accompanying recommendations on Member performance. 

The Panel does not accept that the Council can take up one 

without the other. It is also pointed out that the interviewees generally 

supported this view. It will also be a further means by which the Panel 

in the future can assess the effectiveness of Members. 

The Present Legal Context Regarding Performance 

62. With the introduction of a flat rate Basic Allowance and the abolition of 

the Attendance Allowance in 2003 there was a fear in local government 

generally that it could lead to a drop off by Members in attending 

approved duties. A Member’s allowances scheme that is largely based 

on attendance allowances at least bears a correlation between what 

Members put into their formal role and what they are paid. Now 

Members receive not inconsiderable remuneration by automatic right. 

Section 85 of the 1972 Local Government Act permits Members to 

draw down their allowances by simply remaining as Members. To meet 

this qualification a Member only has to attend a formal meeting of the 

Council once every six months. However, the attendance records 

maintained by the Council and presented to the Panel shows that some 

Members are struggling to keep up with attending all the committees 

and panels they are appointed too. 

Enhancing Performance, Accountability and Transparency (PAT) 

63. The Panel was convinced of the need to ensure its recommendations 

relating to levels of allowances were intrinsically linked to the Council 

adopting mechanisms to enhance Member performance, accountability 

and transparency (or PAT). The mechanisms are presented below in a 

hierarchical fashion, increasing in severity as one goes down the list. 

Publishing Attendance Records 

64. As part of a general statement of performance the Panel believes 

that enhanced remuneration should involve a degree of 

sharpened accountability by the publication in appropriate 

forums, such as Council web pages, local libraries, and parish 

halls, etc., of Members’ attendance records. This is a common 

practice elsewhere and is straightforward to implement as the Council 

already maintains attendance records. As a means to pilot the process 

the Council could investigate publishing Member attendance records 

when it publishes the statutorily required annual list of payments to 

members in local newspapers. The Panel also recommends that any 

publication of attendances by Members should include provision 

for valid absences, such as attending constituent duties, illness 

and/or representing the Council externally. 

Member Statement of Activities 

September 2006 14



__________________________________________________________________________________ 

65. The Panel also recommends that Members have the opportunity 

to fill in a pro forma on a periodic basis to allow them to give an 

account of their activities outside the Council and attendance at 

formal meetings. All Members have access to a laptop and the 

Council intranet, with their own webpage, accompanied by appropriate 

training. It is relatively simple for each Member to write and publish 

their activity statements on their web page. These activity statements 

could then used by electors and other interested parties to evaluate the 

performance of Members in areas of activity that cannot be captured by 

the publication of attendance records. 

66. To assist the Council in implementing this recommendation it points to 

the practice in Tameside Council in Greater Manchester, where 

members are required to fill in an ‘activity sheet’ based on a standard 

pro forma, and examples of these activity statements can also be 

downloaded from the website of Tameside Council. 

67. This mechanism was previously recommended and the Council 

did not implement this measure. The Panel strongly reiterates this 

recommendation. 

Member Role Profiles – A Compact with the Electorate 

68. The Panel recommends that the Council adopt Member Role 

Profiles. These Role Profiles should form the basis of a role and 

accountability statement, an increasingly common practice in many 

authorities. They should be utilised to make explicit the respective 

roles, duties, responsibilities and competencies expected from 

Members and post holders. They should contain minimum performance 

measures that Members are expected to reach such as: 

N 

N 

N 

N 

The scope and type of Committees, etc., a Member is expected to 

be on, such as a Scrutiny Panel, a Statutory Committee and an 

Area Committee. 

The minimum number of meetings a Member is expected to attend, 

e.g., at least 50 or 60 %. 

That they should be expected to attend an approved duty at least 

every 3, rather than 6 months, so they cannot meet their attendance 

requirements by frontloading within an intensive period 

That Members are expected to take part in an individual Training 

and Development Programme with the aim of increasing their own 

personal skills and capacity – see below. 

69. Through the extensive publicity of Members duties and expected inputs 

other elected Members and the public can be informed on what is to be 

expected from being elected. The Panel notes that role profiles have 

been published by the Association of London Governments (ALG) and 

the National Assembly of Wales and are available on the internet. It is a 

September 2006 15



__________________________________________________________________________________ 

practice that many types of Council have adopted such as Birmingham, 

Tameside, Cornwall and Redcar and Cleveland. 

70. To give further effect to the role profiles, a ‘Compact with the 

Electorate’ could be developed in which Members are asked to sign. 

Such compacts are ultimately difficult to enforce but it makes an explicit 

link between allowances received and a specific set of tasks and duties 

a Member is expected to undertake. Members cannot claim they did 

not know what they are supposed to do and moreover it provides moral 

leverage for the rest of the Council to utilise. 

The Claw back Scheme 

71. Some authorities, such as Wigan and Worcestershire, have a claw 

back scheme. For legal reasons it has to be adhered to on a ‘voluntary’ 

basis. Essentially, this mechanism “fines” a Member if they do not meet 

at target of attending a set percentage (often 50-60%) or more of 

meetings. It is pointed out that in the few authorities where claw back 

has been adopted it is rarely invoked and appears to have limited 

value. Nonetheless, the Panel received evidence that the Council 

would appreciate having such a mechanism as part of the allowances’ 

scheme even if has to be a voluntary arrangement. Thus, the Panel 

recommends the Council adopt a claw back mechanism. As a 

voluntary process the claw back is probably best implemented through 

the group system. The Panel also recommends that the minimum 

standards the Council adopts for claw back to be activated should not 

be seen as a substitute for non-performance. Members should not be 

paying the claw back fine as way of circumventing their duties. 

Instituting a Member Development Programme 

72. It is not possible to be a magistrate without undertaking on-going 

development and training; it is a requirement of most professions and 

increasingly for public appointees, such as non-executive directors of 

primary care trusts. The government and the Improvement and 

Development Agency (IDeA) are promoting Member Development to 

ensure Members have the competencies and capacity for modern local 

government. There is limited evidence of on-going development in 

Buckinghamshire for individual Members (i.e., their own personal 

training and development plans). Local government is a fast changing 

area with on-going government initiatives in such areas as community 

leadership, community planning, working in partnership at local and 

strategic levels and the provision of new regulatory powers. The Panel 

recommends that the Council should establish a comprehensive 

Member Development programme. All Members should sign up to 

the elements of the programme that fits with their personal 

development plan. They should also be appraised by, for instance, their 

respective Group Leader or Deputy Leader, to ensure that relevant 

competencies are being acquired and if not what remedial action needs 

September 2006 16



__________________________________________________________________________________ 

to be taken. In turn, the appraiser should also undergo an appraisal 

that is independent of the group, for instance by a sub-committee of the 

Co-optees on the Standards Committee. 

Establishing and Embedding PAT 

73. The Panel does not expect that all its recommendations regarding 

enhanced performance, accountability and transparency for the 

payment and receipt of allowances will be fully developed in one 

foul swoop. It recognises it will be a reiterative process that will 

take time and experimentation to reach effective fulfilment. The 

Panel will be reviewing progress on how the Council implements 

and develops mechanisms and processes that link allowances to 

Member performance. 

Indexation 

74. The Panel recommends that the Council should continue to link 

the Basic Allowance, SRAs, Co-optees’ and Dependant Carers’ 

Allowance to the annual percentage increase in salary for Officers 

of the County. 

Backdating of Allowances 

75. The Panel recommends that any alteration in allowances following 

this report be backdated to the start of the financial year, as 

permitted by the regulations. 

September 2006 17



__________________________________________________________________________________ 

APPENDIX ONE: Councillors and Officers who Met with the Panel 

Cllr S. Adams: 

Cllr M. Baldwin: 

Cllr B. Chapple: 

Cllr M. Clayton: 

Cllr L. Hazell: 

Cllr N. Hussein: 

Cllr R. Pushman: 

Backbencher (Conservative) 

Leader of the Opposition (Liberal Democrat) 

Deputy Leader of Council (Conservative) 

Cabinet Member for Achievement and Learning 

and Lead Member for Children’s Services 

(Conservative) 

Cabinet Member for Children’s Social Care 

(Conservative) 

Backbencher (Liberal Democrat) 

Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny Committee 

and a Portfolio Spokesperson 

Cllr D. Shakespeare OBE: Leader of Council (Conservative) 

Cllr J. Wassell: 

Leader of Minority Opposition (Labour) 

Anne Davies: 

Chris Williams 

Head of Legal and Democratic Services 

Chief Executive 

September 2006



__________________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix 2: Information and Evidence Considered by the Panel 

1. Panels’ terms of reference 

2. 2003 Regulations and Guidance for panels issued by Office of Deputy 

Prime Minister (ODPM) 

3. County Council Network (CCN) survey of allowances as published in 

2005 

4. South Employers Organisation, summary of allowances paid in South 

East Counties, May 2006 

5. Presentation by Declan Hall on allowances reviews and patterns post- 

2003 

6. Current Allowances scheme for Buckinghamshire County Council and 

other support received by members 

7. Previous allowances reports by IRP February 2001 and June 2003 

8. Summary of attendance records for members in 2005/06 

9. Relevant material on Buckinghamshire County Council such as political 

structure charts, schedules of meetings, the Council Constitution, 

Agenda and Reports 25 th May 2006, Overview and Scrutiny Annual 

Report 2006, Getting Closer to Communities Report County Council 

25 th May 2006 and Buckinghamshire County Council Corporate Plan 

2005 

10. List of co-optees on Council 

11. 2006/07 Travel and Subsistence Rates for Officers 

September 2006 2

Buckinghamshire County Council Independent Remuneration Panel 

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix 3: Allowances paid in English Counties, County Council Network (CNN 2005) 

County 

Correct 

Main SC Main SC Comm 

Council 

from Basic Leader Deputy Cabinet Ch V-C Chair Comm V-C Chair Council V-C Dev Con Chair 

Northamptonshire Apr-05 6460 34408 20645 20645 17204 8602 14628 7335 17204 - 5735 

Cambridgeshire Apr-03 6480 18942 12312 12312 - - 5682 

Norfolk Apr-05 6569 24086 15656 12043 3613 - 3613 - 9634 2409 4817 

Suffolk Dec-03 6609 15411 8811 7158 4410 - 3027 - 7710 - 2757 

Wiltshire May-04 6875 11755 10255 8755 4850 - 4850 - 6875 3440 ? 

Leicestershire Apr-05 6936 32688 19620 17436 16344 - 6540 - - - 3588 

Cumbria Sep-03 7000 20000 11000 7500 10000 2700 6000 1700 4500 1700 6000 

Shropshire Mar-05 7000 24000 13272 8849 6637 - 6637 - 6637 8849 6637 

North Yorkshire Apr-03 7116 17388 9936 8694 3737 1442 3737 1442 6268 2491 2484 

Oxfordshire Sep-03 7192 17991 14385 10789 5394 1027 5394 1027 7192 1798 2397 

Lincolnshire Apr-04 7212 18030 12621 10818 7212 2406 7212 2406 10818 3606 4833 

Worcestershire Apr-04 7501 25650 12825 12825 10260 - 8541 - 12825 5130 8541 

Dorset Apr-03 7800 23400 14040 7800 6630 - 5850 - 7800 - 3900 

Staffordshire Feb-04 8000 28785 19190 10660 5330 1600 5330 1600 - - 4265 

Warwickshire Apr-04 8040 20140 11790 9650 6400 - 6400 - 5900 2950 3750 

Gloucestershire Apr-04 8180 24540 20450 16360 8180 - 4908 - 8180 2700 2700 

Cheshire Apr-04 8397 15746 9450 6296 5040 1890 3780 1890 11427 5715 3150 

Northumberland May-03 8418 19032 14274 11419 9516 4758 9516 4758 - - 7613 

Bedfordshire Dec-03 8500 25000 15000 15000 12500 3500 10000 2500 12500 5000 7500 

Derbyshire Apr-04 8538 28200 21156 14100 8460 4236 8460 4236 7056 3528 7056 

Somerset Apr-05 8739 27201 18270 16485 16485 2202 16485 2202 9342 2202 5772 

Hertfordshire Jan-05 8864 31024 22160 17728 8864 4432 8864 4432 8864 2216 6648 

Lancashire Apr-04 8995 26990 18890 13500 7410 5190 6745 3175 - - 7830 

September 2006

Buckinghamshire County Council Independent Remuneration Panel 

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

West Sussex Apr-05 9031 21623 12317 12317 7664 - 7664 - 21623 10813 6023 

Essex Oct-04 9140 31990 20790 18280 9140 - 9140 - 18280 9140 9140 

Cornwall Nov-04 9251 8330 6248 6248 4165 1041 4165 1041 6248 1562 4165 

East Sussex Apr-04 9549 21846 15291 10920 4371 - 4371 - 10920 4371 4371 

Devon Jun-04 9594 9371 9371 9371 6508 3258 6508 3258 - - 4554 

Buckinghamshire Apr-05 9708 35973 23982 18273 9138 - 11421 2856 4569 

Durham May-05 10218 27801 17073 10653 10653 6651 1707 855 4065 2034 1707 

Hampshire Jul-03 10670 25750 15450 15450 10300 2580 10300 2580 - - 5150 

Surrey Dec-04 11000 20000 16000 16000 12000 4000 12000 4000 15000 5000 14000 

Kent May-04 11330 36050 26986 23433 11896 - 11896 - 11896 3966 11896 

Nottinghamshire Apr-05 11787 26520 17679 17679 10581 - 10581 - 13173 6261 8841 

(East Riding) 

(Herefordshire) 

(Isle of Wight) 

Min 6460 8330 6248 6248 3613 1027 1707 855 4065 1562 1707 

Max 11787 36050 26986 23433 17204 8602 16485 7335 21623 10813 14000 


2

Allowances for Buckinghamshire County Council

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?