SENIOR Thurrock councillors have recommend refusing a pay rise to the borough council's executive officers – saying it would send out the wrong message to residents to reward them for failure.

Members of the council's general service committee met on Wednesday evening and in a most bizarre move,  after three of the seven suggested dishing up a pay increase, then voted unanimously not to give one.

The committee, the most senior panel on the council outside the cabinet heard a presentation from HR director Jackie Hinchliffe.

She told its members that it had already been agreed to issue a four per cent increase to members of staff up to assistant director level, but it was required that special consideration be given to the pay for the most senior officers.

Currently, based on the most recent pay scales from 2022 the CEO of the council earned £186,000 in basic salary, directors get between £107,000 and £144,500 and assistant directors from £80,000 to £102,000. On top of that they would be able to benefit from significant pension packages.

Ms Hinchliffe told members a new pay scale needed to be approved by March next year and she put a series of recommendations and directive for them to approve.

They were:

• 1.1 Consider the legislative and policy background to the annual senior manager pay review.
• 1.2 Consider the outcome of the annual review and benchmarking.
• 1.3 Consider context in which this year's review is taking place.
• 1.4 Consider benefits, risks and legal implications for options presented.
• 1.5 Determine a preferred option to recommend for inclusion in the revised annual Pay Policy statement for approval at Council in July 2023.
• 1.6 Note the commitment to undertake a wider review of pay and reward in the Council, including senior manager pay and arrangements for determining on-going annual pay settlements.

The options in recommendation 1.5 were

• A) Pay a 4% increase recommended by an independent assessment. Financial cost - £136,000, the most expensive option.
• B) Match the 3.5% national pay offer to Chief Officers Financial cost - £119,000 - £17,000 less than option A.
• C) Apply a lower % increase determined by the Council Financial cost - £68,000 if 2% - half the amount option A
• D) No increase. Financial cost - £0.

Council leader Cllr Andrew Jefferies started the debate by saying: "I am struggling with this. The report says a four per cent increase could be seen as a reward for organisational failure, my struggle with this is any reward could be seen as a reward for failure."

His concern was reflected by that of Tory Cllr Luke Spillman who was even more decisive in his comments. Last month Cllr Spillman delivered his personal damning verdict on senior officers as he quit his front bench role, saying he had lost faith in their competence.

He said: "Given the stark conclusions of the Best Value Inspection report, that makes it clear it just wasn't about finances, it was about every single project we had taken on - and given the issue with the bins over the last year which is a basic function of any local authority - I find it very hard to think that any councillor can make a strong coherent argument for a pay increase in this authority

"Now I'm willing to listen to arguments around option C, but it's going to have to be pretty convincing.

"Like Cllr Jefferies said, if you say four per cent is a reward then so is any pay increase. And we are not talking about a cohort of people here who are struggling with the cost of living, are we?

"The other point is, every penny we don't spend on senior management on pay is a penny that we don't have to cut from other services.

"Or that we can increase the wages of staff who truly had no influence on the failings that have been laid in the Best Value Inspection."

Opposition Labour leader Cllr John Kent, said: "I have considered the various issues and it comes down to the fundamental issue that it is a pay increase. As much as I hate to think of anyone not getting a pay increase with inflation running at eight per cent I do worry about the wider signal that it sends if we agree to any increase. Option D would be my favoured option."

However, three other councillors were in favour of paying an increase.

Cllr Graham Snell, the portfolio holder for finance, said: "I am going to be one of those councillors mentioned by Cllr Spillman. I get it, I can see the message it sends to the wider body of Thurrock but we are in special circumstances and in my experience the officers are working all the hours and putting in a huge amount of work to try and drag this authority back around and making it a successful authority.

"I think the risk of not giving a reasonable increase is that we demotivate the staff 

"It negates our ability to employ other staff that want to come into the authority that we might well need - good people to come in to help us with that recovery.

"So I think, while I completely understand where that 'no pay rise' idea comes from I would be minded to still not go the full whack but I will be minded to go for something like three per cent.

Labour's Cllr Lynn Worrell said: "I am in between the devil and the deep blue sea, but I am thinking we are in a position now where we need to reshape Thurrock with a new directive and we need to be able to recruit people who a want the challenge to turn Thurrock around.

"While I dont see anybody at the top of the tree struggling to pay their gas and electric over the next year, I still expect that they will have increased costs because you live to your means, I guess.

"But I do want to be able to attract people that are in the top quartile. I want people to come to Thurrock, I want them to feel that we do have a good pay structure.

"I don't think it should be four per cent but I don't think it should be zero percent. I would be leaning towards two percent. I don't think that we should give nothing because nobody deserves to get nothing.  

"To me, I think it should be two per cent.

The Tories' deputy leader, Cllr Deborah Arnold said she also believed a pay increase was necessary.

She said: "I can really understand everybody's point of view but I really do think there has been some exceptional stepping up by people and we shouldn't be penalising everybody for some who maybe haven't stepped up.

"So maybe two per cent sits in the middle and recognises that there has been dome great work. I don't want to not recognise those people who have really, really stepped up."

Cllr Kairen Raper (Labour) did not speak in the debate.

Summing up and making his recommendations, Cllr Kent said: "There are a lot of people putting in a lot of hours and a lot of hard work I have real admiration for men and women that are actually on the front line, those who are emptying the bins and sweeping the streets and cutting the grass and looking after our wonderful elderly or looking after our vulnerable children.

"I think it is important that we make sure that those people are properly rewarded for what they do because what's happened here, the catastrophe that has happened here, is absolutely nothing to do with those people.

"I think that part of being a senior leader in local government means that you do lead by example and when things have gone as wrong as they have that you say 'actually I'm not going to accept an increase this year. I am going to sit tight on what I've got.  

"And we have to acknowledge that many of our senior leadership team now are interims, that aren't going to be bound by this anyway, that when (the CEO) Dr Smith has completed his new structure and we go out to the market we might be able to go out on different terms and conditions and different pay rates so I don't think this will prevent us from going out and finding good people.

"For that show of leadership we should be saying that for the most senior people, and it is only the most senior people, an increase just isn't the responsible approach.

Cllr Kent moved that recommendations 1.1 to 1.4 and 1.6 were agreed and that option D, the selection of no increase be the outcome of recommendation 1.5.

His proposal was seconded by Cllr Spillman and then, despite the earlier words of Cllrs Snell, Worrell and Arnold who had said they supported a rise, the decision for no increase was unanimously approved and it will go to council for further approval next month.