Agenda item

The Committee was informed that the cost of the Mayoralty was contingent on the activity preferences of the office’s incumbent which could therefore mean that there was, on occasion, a wide variation in expenditure.

Members were provided with details a series of options for implementing defined parameters for the role and activity profile of the Mayor.  With continued pressure on public finances, a number of suggestions were proposed which would reduce the overall cost of delivering the Mayoralty in Havering and Members were invited to express their preferences which would then form the basis of a revision to the provision of Mayoralty support.

Members were unanimous in the primary duty of the Mayor was to the borough, wherever and whenever he or she was invited to be present and as a good deal of activities took place at the week-end, there was no question of reducing or eliminating that from mayoral duties.  The Committee considered that this extended – to a large extent – to the Mayor’s presence being important across London (notably the Lord Mayor’s events and other pan-London civic functions) and to a lesser extent, with neighbouring boroughs.

Members were adamant that in the future, no support should be provided for anything concerning the Mayor’s Charity – and this included reciprocal arrangements with other mayors.  If any mayor wanted support, it would have to be paid for by them or obtained from the charity’s own fund-raising operation.

Concerning visits other than local and pan- London ones, it was proposed that they normally would be declined, but exceptionally could be accepted if sanctioned by the Leader – or paid for personally.  The question of “twinning” events was included in this.  There was support for Ludwigshaven, but not for the French twin.

Members discussed the matter of the Mayor’s car and considered that a reasonable status needed to be maintained (any savings obtained by making radical changes here were considered to be marginal and possibly counter-productive.  There was, however, interest in possible changes in the duties of the Mayor’s drivers.  Having a principle driver was agreed, but whether a second driver could take on the duties of Mayor’s secretary/pool driver, was moot and required further examination.

There was no support for reducing the Civic Purse and Members were not persuaded that reducing the Mayor’s SRA was helpful, though there was agreement that the duties of the Deputy Mayor should be restricted to providing cover for when the Mayor was unavailable – not extending Civic commitments.  Accordingly, the Committee expressed an opinion that the Deputy Mayor’s SRA should be reduced.  It also considered that more involvement by former mayors could be encouraged and the Remembrance Day attendance by a number of former mayors was cited as an example.

The Committee ACCEPTED that changes needed to be made to ensure that the cost to the borough of the Mayoralty was as carefully managed as any other service provision and, having given their counsel, delegated the matter to officers to set the matter in order: