Minutes:
The IRPW Representative explained that the IRPW was responsible for determining the allowances payable to elected members of principal Councils, National Park Authorities, Fire and Rescue Authorities and Community and Town Councils in Wales.
It was explained that there were regular meetings with principal Councils and with National Parks and Rescue Authorities. Due to there being 735 Community Councils it was difficult to meet with them all.
Therefore, it was the aim that there was a better interaction between One Voice Wales and Community Councils, now that there was more of an opportunity to meet with Community Councils. This was the fourth meeting that has commenced and it was a chance for the IRPW to explain to Community Councils what they do and to hear feedback and current views.
The IRPW Representative explained that the IRPW published an annual report and that this was a requirement even if nothing changed from the previous year. The IRPW listened to responses from Community Councils to ascertain if any changes were to be made which were then published at the end of January.
The consultation phase was completed. Next week, responses to date will be looked at and checked to see if amendments needed to be made. The IRPW Representative stated that there had been changes introduced over the last few years due to the vast diversity in Town Councils. Some Community Councils were very large and had significant expenditure and individual powers. Other Councils were quite small, some with only 8-9 members. Therefore, there were some issues in getting people to stand for Council. There was a need to adapt due to the significant variation in Wales comprising of 7,500 Councillors so this was a very big task to meet with all clerks and Community Councils.
The IRPW Representative ran through the proposals they had along with changes in the draft paper.
Introductions from each Town Council representative were then made as agreed by the Chair.
The IRPW Representative May explained that the IRPW produced an annual report. Each clerk in the 735 Town Councils should have received a copy of the draft. A draft was produced in February and then feedback was taken to reflect on what was in the draft.
There was huge differentiation between Community Councils which recognised that there was a huge variation of budgets between Councils ranging from £1million to £10,000 and a one size fits all grouping was not sufficient. Feedback provided last year did not propose any changes and there was not much changing in the coming year.
Councillor Payments
The IRPW Representative explained that Community and Town Councils in Groups A and B must make a £150 payment to the Member and the Member can take the decision themselves not to accept that payment. The change was made to make the payment mandated for groups A & B that earn above £30,000 and this change was made in the final report.
It was reported by some Community Councils that they were disappointed that this had been done. The IRPW Representative mentioned that some people did really like the change and it was requested by The IRPW Representative that Town Councils should be making the IRPW aware if they do or do not like something. It was reiterated that a Councillor can refuse the £150 payment given to them if they wished to do so.
The IRPW Representative also stated that there were no changes to the annual £500 payment that Community and Town Councils in Group A must make available to each member, up to a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 5 members that have specific responsibilities.
Town Councils in Group A that have a budget over £200,000 must make that payment. Groups B and C can make this payment available. Some members have many committees that they attend and some members do not have many.
The IRPW Representative clarified that it was a move to another change to Civic Head payments and a payment to the Civic Head and this could cause confusion. The Town Council was authorised to make a payment to the Civic Head-Mayor of £1500 to the individual to undertake the role, it was a payment for their time and extra commitment. It was in addition to the £150 payment and if the member has another senior role then they can also have the £500, this was an individual payment. The £1500 payment was the maximum amount for the Civic Head and the IRPW confirmed that they have had a lot of enquiries about this.
The IRPW Representative mentioned that Community Councils were often reluctant to make payments, asking why they needed to be made. The IRPW Representative explained that in order to carry out their duties all members were asked to make a formal Declaration of Office and that the member occupied a different position to a volunteer. This was a completely different arrangement and so it was really clear elected members were not volunteers. This was why the payment had been included. The IRPW Representative confirmed that it was felt that it was important to try to get a diverse range of people to stand for office. Individuals could also not accept any or all of the payment but they were entitled to receive them.
Points made regarding payments:
-In relation to the budget setting process, clerks could make estimated budgets.
-Pro rata payments- It is up to the clerks when members were paid, at the beginning of office or in instalments etc.
-Payments were eligible to be paid from May and this would take effect unless the clerk was notified differently.
-On the 30th September all payments made to members were to be sent to the IRPW as an annual statement of payments proforma. Nil returns details also would need to be sent to the IRPW.
-There were no changes to the travel assistance and financial loss allowance and the reimbursement of care costs.
Questions from Community Councils
It was questioned why the amount £150 had to be paid and The IRPW Representative reiterated that not everyone had the same needs and if the IRPW received information that the amount was too low then it would be reviewed. It was all about increasing diversity in Members joining.
Cllr White from Wentlooge and a Representative from Rogerstone asked would they have to pay Community Councillors because it would be difficult to pay out especially now that concurrent expenditure had been removed and Community Councils would struggle.
The IRPW Representative answered that a lot of members work a lot of hours for a small amount of money and some may not be able to afford not to have the payment. The ability to receive the payment would make the difference.
A Representative from Nash stated that there was an impact on rate payers with Concurrent Expenditure being slashed so it would be a financial burden.
The IRPW Representative also mentioned that there was an understanding that there had been previous coercion of members to not take the money and this was very concerning and quite unfair on those members who really needed the money.
The Nash representative asked whether the money paid to councillors was taxable? They had contacted the HMRC and enquired about this and it was confirmed that the money was payable and it was to be paid through payroll. However, this could be a barrier if the member was self-employed. The IRPW Representative stated that this was understandable and a lot of discussions has been had with One Voice Wales about this issue.
The Nash representative stated that a taxable statement would be a helpful item to have in the report. The IRPW Representative confirmed that the IRPW cannot get involved with the HMRC and Councils can therefore be signposted to One Voice Wales to assist with enquiries on this matter.
One representative asked whether the matter would be put to Council? The Chair stated that this was done individually and this was not secret.
The Langstone representative enquired whether there were other Community Councils apart from Langstone that paid out this amount? A Representative from Bishton stated that their Community Council was not on the payroll therefore do not give the allowance as they would get charged for a payroll provision. Therefore, they did not wish to create a payroll just for this amount, there were a lot of wage slips to create. The IRPW Representative confirmed that the Remuneration Panel cannot give tax advice but maybe One Voice Wales can look at this? It was discussed that the amount the member received was taxable and that it was up to them to declare it.
The Langstone representative stated that the payment changed the character of what the Councillor does and it extended the social involvement of Councillors and brought to light what it entails. He stated that expenditure clashes on the agenda and it made them feel uncomfortable.
The IRPW Representative stated that it was hard to introduce changes and the cost was very small overall. In relation to the membership of local authorities, 30% of new members were coming into principal Councils who were younger and this made it more diverse and this was very encouraging.
The Rogerstone Representative mentioned that Councillors do not see themselves as the same as Town Councillors.
Finally, it was mentioned that the £1500 was for the Councillor themselves and the amount was set to £1500 and no receipts were needed.