Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Nicholas Bennett, who was replaced by Councillor Ruth Bennett, and from Councillor Ian Payne.

Councillor Diane Smith declared that her daughter worked part time in the Library Service.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, questions to this Committee must be received in writing 4 working days before the date of the meeting.  Therefore please ensure questions are received by the Democratic Services Team by 5pm on Wednesday 17^th October 2012.

No questions had been received.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 26^th September 2012, including those containing exempt information, be confirmed as a correct record.

Report HHR12006

At its meeting on 29^th May 2012 the Committee had authorised the Assistant Chief Executive (HR) to conduct formal consultation with trade union and departmental representatives and with staff on proposals for Bromley to withdraw from national collective bargaining arrangements and introduce localised pay and conditions for all staff with the exception of teachers. The Committee received a report summarising the consultation process and the responses received from individual members of staff, Unite, Unison and the Staff-Side Secretary. 

The Chairman invited Councillor Graham Arthur, Portfolio Holder for Resources, to set out the reasons for the proposals. He emphasised that the Council had to align funding with the ability to pay, and seek value for money in all its activities. High performance should be rewarded and poor performance dealt with. He thanked staff for attending the consultation meetings and submitting responses, but he felt that the trade unions had been against the proposals from the start. The Council owed it to local taxpayers and to its own good staff to expose them to a more commercial approach and seize the opportunity to remove the restrictions of the national agreement. 

The Assistant Chief Executive (HR) reported that over 900 staff had attended the consultation meetings, and he personally had attended most of these meetings.  He understood the concerns that had been raised, but he did not consider that any of them undermined the principles of the proposals. Linking pay awards to performance was fundamental for any organisation. He felt that staff should not be fearful of local negotiation – indeed many terms and conditions were already local, and in practice staff would notice no difference. He considered that it was inevitable that the national bargaining arrangements would collapse at some point, and already some 46 local authorities had opted out, including Kent County Council and several other local district councils. If Members agreed the proposals, he would continue to talk to staff about the details of implementation.

The Staff Side Secretary, Glenn Kelly, addressed the Committee on behalf of the staff. He emphasised that this was a time of unprecedented uncertainty and financial pressure, so any attempt to minimise the protection currently offered by national terms and conditions would be viewed with concern by staff. Workers were currently being asked to pay for parking, while managers had previously been asked to forgo their pay award. He had asked on behalf of the staff for assurances on issues such as an award at least at the level of the national award, or at the level of inflation, or that no terms and conditions would be reduced, but there had been no response from the management on any of these issues, and no assurances had been received. He rejected the argument that local pay awards would allow greater certainty on budgets, as most Councils appeared to cope with any uncertainty about the national award. He felt that the new proposals would be divisive, offering a small bonus to a very limited  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

The Working Group’s report is to be considered by this Committee and by the Executive on 24^th October before being referred to full Council on 12^th November 2012 for decision.  

The Committee received the fourth report of the Constitution Improvement Working Group. The Working Group had examined the potential to revert to a committee system, concluding that the Council should retain the leader and executive model, and looked at area committees, although it had not made any recommendations on this subject. It had also suggested some changes to executive decision making and to enhance the role of full Council and examined the use of new technology.

Councillor Julian Grainger stated that he was disappointed that a return to the committee system was not proposed, and he was concerned about the relaxation of the pre-decision scrutiny arrangements, particularly in relation to contracts. He did not support the proposal that major planning applications could be dealt with at full Council – he considered that it would be difficult for all sixty members of the Council to match the expertise and commitment of those who sat on Development Control Committee. He also had concerns about reducing the numbers of councillors, which would have an adverse affect on democratic oversight, and wanted to see some evidence of the costs relating to the IT proposals. This would be provided for Council.           

RESOLVED that the report of the Constitution Improvement Working Group be recommended to full Council for decision.