Agenda item

The Chairman invited the HR Manager to introduce the report. He explained that the report provided members with information to consider a medium-term increase in mileage rates for staff due to the ongoing situation with respect to increased fuel costs. If supported, the increase would remain in place to the end of the 2022/2023 financial year.

Cllr T FitzPatrick said that he knew how hard staff worked and acknowledged that fuel costs were high, however, he could not support the proposals during a time of an unprecedented rise in the cost of living. Inflation was rising sharply and mortgages were being pushed up. People were struggling to pay for food and it was the wrong message to give to the hard pressed people of North Norfolk at this time. He requested a recorded vote.

Cllr G Hayman said that he agreed with Cllr FitzPatrick’s comments regarding the timing and optics of the proposal. He added that there could be an issue with expenses that if they were higher, then it encouraged and increased use of them, whereas if they were lowered it could encourage a reduction in the use of vehicles. He said that the Portfolio Holder for the Environment should have concerns around such proposals as it the Council should be taking the opportunity to cut the number of journeys being undertaken by staff. He then asked if the mileage rate increase would apply to members. The HR Manager confirmed that these proposals just applied to officers. Members’ allowances were dealt with under a different process.

Cllr Hayman then asked if it was possible to have a list of officers and the mileage that they claimed for over the period of a year. He suggested that Overview & Scrutiny Committee could review this. The HR manager replied that he could provide this information on service basis rather than by individual.

Cllr V FitzPatrick said that this was a difficult matter. He reminded members that the Council was not always held in the highest regard by the public and he felt that awarding such a sizeable increase in mileage rates could cause significant reputational damage. He added that many people were really struggling with rapidly increasing costs and proposals such as this just added to the public’s perception of a ‘them and us’ culture within local authorities. He concluded by saying that it was a terrible message to send out during such a difficult time and he could not support it. All alternatives to car usage should be considered instead.

Cllr N Pearce agreed with the previous comments. He acknowledged the challenges that everyone faced, including high fuel costs. He reminded members that during the pandemic staff had adapted quickly to working from home and modern technology should be utilised fully. He said that the focus should be on essential journeys only. He said it was the wrong message at the wrong time and it also went against the Council’s ambition of achieving net zero status.

The Leader, Cllr T Adams clarified that the proposals related to business travel. Journeys had reduced significantly during the pandemic but there was still a requirement for key staff to make some necessary journeys across the District. He said that he was fully supportive of them. He urged the Government to address the issue of rising full costs. He concluded by saying that it was a temporary increase and it would be reviewed regularly.

Cllr N Housden said that he agreed that the proposals were totally inappropriate for this time. He referred to section 2.6 of the report which mentioned the ‘Green Book’ and asked if members were to reject the proposals, if the Council would be in contravention of the green book or whether it could take its own decisions in the context of the fuel increases. The HR Manager said that this was a local agreement between the Council and Unison. It had been agreed initially on a temporary basis but was coming forwards to members to be formally ratified. Cllr Housden asked for clarification on the review period. The HR Manager confirmed that it was monthly and would be undertaken by the Chief Executive. Cllr Housden asked whether, if fuel costs were to drop, if the mileage amount would be pro-rata or if it would revert automatically to 45 pence per mile. The HR Manager replied that this had not been considered, adding that it was a volatile environment. In response to a further question from Cllr Housden, the HR Manager confirmed that the temporary increase would not go up beyond 60 pence in the next 12 months.

Cllr N Lloyd, Portfolio Holder for the Environment, said that he wished to clarify some of the issues that had been raised regarding the environmental impact of the proposals. He said that the Council was moving over to electric vehicle fleets as leases expired. In addition, HR was working on a salary sacrifice scheme to enable staff to switch to electric cars. He said it was important to remember that some officers had to travel right across the District, often to react to incidents that had been reported by the public. It was necessary part of their job that they had to fulfil.

Cllr H Blathwayt said that it was a difficult decision to support but it must be acknowledged that staff were living and working in a rural area and it was challenging to attract staff. If the Council wanted to attract good quality officers then it must compensate them.

Cllr E Vardy referred to the proposals being locally negotiated between the Council and Unison. He asked whether they had been shared with other local authorities in the region or had the Council acted alone. The HR Manager replied that this was just a local agreement between NNDC and Unison. He said that any discussions outside of the Council would be for Unison to progress. Cllr Vardy expressed his disappointment.

Cllr S Butikofer said that some very good points had been made. She acknowledged that it was a difficult decision but she agreed with Cllr Blathwayt that it was important to compensate staff for the excellent work that they did. In some parts of the country, council staff were having to go to food banks as they were struggling with increased living costs.

Cllr L Shires said that it was not clear which procedures had been followed to come to this decision. The report did not include any details regarding this. She asked whether it would be possible to make a decision pending confirmation to Cabinet regarding the procedures that had taken place. The HR Manager replied that there had been discussions between himself and Unison representatives and a delegated decision had been taken to implement an initial temporary increase for 3 months.  He said that the Monitoring Officer would have to provide a response regarding the full governance process.

Cllr Hayman said that he wished to make the following amendment:   

The report should be sent back to the relevant committees for comment and review before coming back to Full Council for consideration

Cllr N Housden seconded the proposal.

Cllr T FitzPatrick sought clarification regarding the process as there was already a proposal on the table that had been seconded. Cllr T Adams said that he did not wish to withdraw his proposal. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that Cllr Hayman’s proposal would be treated as an amendment to the original proposal and would be taken first.

The amendment as proposed by Cllr Hayman and seconded by Cllr Housden was put to the vote. 12 members voted in favour, 16 against and 2 members abstained. It was therefore not supported.

The Chairman advised members that she would now move to a recorded vote on the substantive motion.

It was proposed by Cllr T Adams, seconded by Cllr H Blathwayt and

RESOLVED

To agree Option 2 – to support the increased mileage rates for the remainder of the 2022/23 financial year, subject to monthly review by the Chief Executive, with the increased rates being removed if there is a significant reduction in fuel prices over that period.

17 members voted in favour, 12 against and 1 member abstained.