Agenda item

– report by Mr Roger Gough, Cabinet Member and Mrs Amanda Beer, Director of Personnel and Development)  (parts of this item were declared urgent by the Chairman so that the Director of Law and Governance could provide the Committee with legal advice which it needed to have in order to give full consideration to this matter. That legal advice  was further declared exempt under the provisions of Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph  4 of part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act. The following is an unrestricted minute of the main discussion with the legal advice being set out in the exempt minutes for this meeting)

(1)       The 2011/12 Budget agreed by the County Council in February 2011 included £2.25m savings described as “Review of terms and conditions of employment” (Budget Book page 104).  The suggestion is that this should be taken from the funding for the authority’s new performance pay system.

(2)       The report proposed that the distribution of available money should be prioritised to lower paid staff whilst recognising the need to reward the contribution of as many people as possible. That was seen as being important if the Council was to deliver the key principles of performance management. 

(3)       Three options had been considered these being to half fund the TCP pot, to make no top of grade payment or to taper payments.

(4)       Counsel’s opinion was sought and concluded that the options needed to be considered with knowledge of their magnitude, impact and grounds for dispute.  However, although there were potential risks which varied depending on the options, the Authority should select the one which fitted its business needs best.  The detail of the legal advice is set out in the exempt part of the minutes.

(5)       During the course of discussion Mr Prater said he agreed that protection was needed for lower grade staff but believed the proposals before the Committee could leave the Council open to legal challenge.  Mr Cowan said he also had concerns and that the Council should not proceed with this matter.

(6)       Mr Carter said that with the Comprehensive Spending Review taking 10% out of the County Council’s budget he believed what was before the Committee was a compromise which was both pragmatic and affordable.  The Council had sought external legal advice and this was he said le approach although he accepted there could be a challenge.

(7)       Following discussion Mr Carter proposed and Mr Gough seconded that the recommendations set out in paragraph 5.1 of the report be adopted. On being put the vote there was 6 for with 2 against. Mr Prater and Mr Cowan requested that their names be recorded in the minutes as being against the proposal.

(8)       The Committee Resolved that the proposal to pay the Total Contribution award in a way which favoured the lower paid staff and tapered the amount to nil at KR 14 as shown in appendix 2 of the Committee report be endorsed.