Councillor Birch
This Council notes:
· That Councillors are entrusted with public money and must therefore be held to the highest standards of transparency and accountability.
· That recent information obtained through a Freedom of Information request has revealed a significant imbalance in the claiming of Councillor expenses at Rushcliffe Borough Council.
· That despite holding 23 of the Council’s 44 seats, Conservative Councillors account for approximately 97% of all expenses claimed.
· That claims have included attendance at Remembrance services, charity events, and other civic functions which, while permissible under current rules, may reasonably raise questions amongst residents regarding appropriateness and value for money.
· That public confidence in Local Government depends not only upon legality, but also upon openness, restraint, and sound judgement in the use of taxpayer funds.
This Council believes:
· Residents are entitled to full transparency regarding how elected members spend public money.
· Existing arrangements for oversight and scrutiny of member expenses appear insufficient.
· Greater transparency would strengthen public trust and protect the reputation of the Council.
· Councillors should always consider not merely whether an expense can be claimed, but whether it should be claimed.
This Council therefore resolves to:
1. Publish quarterly reports detailing all Councillor expense claims, including:
o claimant name;
o event or purpose;
o amount claimed; and
o and category of expenditure;
2. Require all expense claims to include sufficient explanatory detail to allow meaningful public scrutiny.
3. Request the Governance Scrutiny Group or appropriate committee to undertake a review of the Council’s Expenses Scheme.
4. Report back to Full Council within six months with recommendations to improve transparency, accountability, and public confidence.
Minutes:
Notice of motion to be proposed by Councillor Birch and seconded by Councillor Chewings.
The Mayor stated that he had been advised that Councillor Birch wished to alter his motion, and asked Councillor Birch to confirm that.
Councillor Birch confirmed that he wished to propose the following altered motion:
This Council therefore resolves to:
1. Publish quarterly reports detailing all Councillor expense claims, including:
o claimant name;
o event or purpose;
o amount claimed; and
o and category of expenditure;
2. Require all expense claims to include sufficient information to enable a reasonable member of the public to understand:
o what expenditure was incurred;
o why it was incurred; and
o why it fell within the Council’s Members’ Allowances Scheme.
3. Request the Governance Scrutiny Group to undertake a comprehensive review of the Council’s Members’ Expenses Scheme, including formal consideration of:
a) the adequacy of the current arrangements for verifying and auditing Members' expense claims;
b) whether the categories of reimbursable duties remain appropriate and reflect public expectations, including claims relating to attendance at Remembrance services, charity events, civic functions and other ceremonial or voluntary community events;
c) whether the information published alongside expense claims is sufficient to enable meaningful public scrutiny;
d) whether additional safeguards, declarations, audit arrangements or reporting requirements should be introduced to strengthen transparency, accountability and value for money; and
e) any other amendments the Committee considers necessary to improve public confidence in the Council's Members' Expenses Scheme.
4. Report back to Full Council within six months with recommendations to improve transparency, accountability, and public confidence.
On being put to the vote to accept the alteration, the vote was lost.
Councillor Birch proposed his original motion as follows:
This Council therefore resolves to:
1. Publish quarterly reports detailing all Councillor expense claims, including:
o claimant name;
o event or purpose;
o amount claimed; and
o and category of expenditure;
2. Require all expense claims to include sufficient explanatory detail to allow meaningful public scrutiny.
3. Request the Governance Scrutiny Group or appropriate committee to undertake a review of the Council’s Expenses Scheme.
4. Report back to Full Council within six months with recommendations to improve transparency, accountability, and public confidence.
Councillor Birch stated that this motion was not an allegation of misconduct against any Councillor, or that anyone had broken any rules, nor was it about naming and shaming individuals, as throughout his discussions with colleagues and officers over the past six months, he had been concerned if the current rules still commanded public confidence. He believed that there was a difference between something being allowed and something being appropriate, and referred to the Parliamentary expenses scandal in 2009, which had highlighted that the vast majority of claims made had been within the rules. Councillor Birch clarified that he was not comparing Rushcliffe with Westminster; however, some parallels existed, with the Council writing its own Councillor Expenses Scheme, just as Parliament had then, and despite having an independent advisory board, the Council was not obliged to follow its recommendations. In 2009, the public was not asking if the rules were followed, they were asking if taxpayers should pay for those things, which was the question Councillors should be asking now. Councillor Birch stated that every Councillor was a custodian of public money, and they should hold themselves to a higher standard rather than complying with the minimum legal requirements. He referred to the Freedom of Information (FOI) response he had received, which had highlighted that almost all of the expense claims during that period were made by members of one political group, with some claiming for attendance at charity events and Remembrance Services. He questioned how those claims would appear to the public and reminded everyone that they were paid to be Councillors. Councillor Birch stated that this motion was not seeking to prevent anyone from serving as a Councillor due to financial circumstances, it was asking for the expenses scheme to be reviewed to ensure that current arrangements reflected modern expectations. He felt that the best way to protect the reputation of both Councillors and this Council was to embrace scrutiny, and that this motion was about accountability and ensuing that every resident could have confidence that public money was spent carefully and responsibly.
Councillor Chewings seconded the motion and reserved the right to speak.
Councillor J Wheeler proposed the following amendment to the motion:
This Council therefore resolves to:
1. Require all expense claims to include sufficient explanatory details to allow public scrutiny.
2. Request the Governance Scrutiny Group to undertake a review of the Council’s Expenses Scheme.
3. Request a report back to Full Council within six months with any recommendations.
The Leader seconded the amendment to the motion and reserved the right to speak.
In moving his amendment, Councillor Wheeler stated that the Conservative Group had no issue with having a review, he welcomed Councillor Birch’s comments that there were no accusations of any wrong doing and he had complete confidence in officers and the Council’s internal audit processes. He advised that he had put forward this amendment as it was important not to predetermine scrutiny, the Group should decide the content of the review, with input from Councillors. Councillor Wheeler agreed that it was important to include sufficient explanatory details, to provide some context to residents on what any claims covered. He agreed with Councillor Birch that no one should be vilified for claiming expense, it was a personal choice, personal circumstances were different and it was about fairness. He stated that some Councillors had given up work, or gone part time to fulfil their roles, and it was important to ensure an adequate allowances scheme was in place. Councillor Wheeler noted the request in the original motion for quarterly reports and referred to the significant work required to produce those and given that the amount claimed last year totalled £4k, he felt that the frequency of reports should be determined by the Group as part of the review.
Councillor Birch confirmed that he accepted the amendment, which then became the substantive motion.
Whilst supporting the amended motion, Councillor Polenta felt that the original motion provided clarity, accountability and a timetable for everyone to measure progress against, including quarterly updates. This motion would look at the standards the Council set for itself, ensuring that Councillors were acting in the most responsible way, with compliance being the minimum expected standard. Councillors should question the necessity of any claim, was it proportionate and in the public interest. Councillors were entrusted with public money, and should demonstrate that they had acted with integrity, and this motion was about improving transparency and accountability, which was the backbone of good governance. Councillor Polenta believed that information of genuine public interest should be proactively published and being transparent protected both the public and Councillors, with less room for misunderstanding. Public oversight should not be feared, it was the foundation of democratic accountability and Councillors should always strive to go beyond minimum requirements.
Councillor Thomas stated that whilst she could understand the sentiment of Councillor Birch’s motion, she could not accept it, as she felt that allowances and expenses were important to ensure that candidates from all socio-economic groups were encouraged to stand. She agreed that expense claims should be checked to ensure they were valid, there should be transparency and she supported a review. However, Councillor Thomas felt that there should be no shame attached to claiming expenses that met the criteria and she took exception to the implications to the contrary in the wording of the preamble to this motion, and on that basis, she stated that she could not support the motion even though it had been amended. Councillor Thomas also noted that it was perhaps to be expected that the Conservative Group claimed more expenses, as they were still the majority party, covering key roles.
Councillor Gowland felt that the motion would provide clarity and transparency by explaining individual circumstances and removing any possible accusations and she agreed that it was acceptable for Councillors to claim travelling expenses where appropriate.
Councillor Edyvean stated that he was going to support the original motion and confirmed that the expenses scheme had been thoroughly reviewed in 2015 and questioned if it had been reviewed again. He agreed that it was important to review the scheme and that claiming should be a personal choice.
In supporting the amended motion, Councillor Chewings referred to the first point in the original motion and stated that he felt this was very basic information, although he agreed that the review should be set by the Governance Scrutiny Group. He stated that he could not agree with Councillor Thomas that it was about naming and shaming and agreed that Councillors should be entitled to claim; however, it was important for the public to be able to see what claims were being made.
Councillor Thomas made a point of clarification that she was not talking about naming and shaming, she was talking about the general tenor of the preamble to the motion, which implied that there was shame in claiming, it was not about shaming individuals.
Councillor Chewings stated that if he had misunderstood, he apologised and reiterated that the motion was about allowing public scrutiny, as Councillors were accountable to the electorate.
Councillor Birch stated that he was disappointed that his original amendment had been watered down but was pleased that some progress had been made. He agreed with Councillor Wheeler that nobody should be vilified, this was about scrutinising the scheme. Whilst he disagreed with Councillor Thomas, he acknowledged her comments and agreed that anybody should be able to become a Councillor and have the ability to claim expenses. He was surprised that some Councillors claimed expenses for attending the Arena, which he considered to be Councillors’ primary place of work, because in the private sector you could not do that.
Councillor Gaunt made a point of personal explanation that 99% of the public sector also did not make expense claims.
Councillor Birch acknowledged those comments and advised that 97% of expenses claimed were by members of the Conservative Group, despite it having just over half of all Councillors. He stated that it could be argued that this was because they had more responsibility and attended more meetings, but he disagreed with that assumption, as many other Councillors, including himself attending lots of meetings and claimed no expenses. Councillor Birch also raised concerns about dual claims made by some Councillors who were also County Council members and felt that this should also be scrutinised. He hoped that the Governnace Scrutiny Group would undertake a successful review, encouraging more openness and democratic accountability.
On being put to the vote, the motion was carried.