Local Lib Dem questions Council plan for second Deputy Leader

Councillors will tonight (11/07) vote on a report which sets out a new Parental Leave Policy for councillors and the appointment of a second Deputy Leader of the Council.

The Parental Leave Policy is widely supported and sees a step forward in supporting people from more diverse backgrounds to become elected representatives. It will also encourage a better work/life balance for existing councillors.

However, the plan to create a second Deputy Leader is more controversial. Both positions will be paid a Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA), set at 10% of the Leader’s SRA, which would currently be just over £2,700. This is in addition to the basic allowance of £11,006.76 which all councillors receive.

Having been asked to justify the payment of SRA to two Deputy Leaders, Council Leader Cllr. Marion Atkinson told an independent remuneration panel that Deputy A will allow for, “additional external political leadership capacity”, while Deputy B will also allow for, “additional external political leadership capacity”. There was no accompanying evidence of a new strategy or change in direction which explained why these were needed now.

In a written question at tonight’s meeting, Deputy Leader of the Lib Dem Group, Cllr. Gareth Lloyd-Johnson will ask the Leader of the Council to set out the strategic reasoning for creating the new post and why it was felt necessary now.

Gareth said, “There’s plenty of management-speak around this decision but very little clear explanation of why a second Deputy Leader is needed. It is likely that both Deputy Leaders will hold other portfolios in the cabinet and this seems like an unnecessary complication.”

“There’s no history of us needing a second Deputy Leader on Sefton Council and no explanation of how the Council’s work will be improved by having one. It’s a shame that this appears in the same report as some really good, progressive work on Parental Leave for councillors.”

“Alongside good, sensible measures, we seem to have something which either doesn’t have a strong strategic basis, is badly thought out or, at worst, is a case of handing out titles as prizes.”