Leading councillors in Copeland have again ruled out calls for them to “demand” that Sellafield adopts the Living Wage.

The authority’s Overview and Scrutiny Panel had asked the executive to engage with Sellafield Ltd through their ‘Social Impact Programme’ to boost the income of low-paid workers.

This is the second time the proposals have come to the council’s decision-making body after members asked that the recommendations were “re-worded”.

But at its most recent meeting meeting, leading councillors reiterated their original position after the request made a comeback.

Copeland’s mayor Mike Starkie told scrutiny chairman John Kane that Copeland was already a champion of workers’ rights, adding that it was not the council’s role to be a mouthpiece for the trade unions.

He said: “Looking at the recommendations to make Copeland council a champion for the voluntary Living Wage, we already are.

“We set an example; we are one (a Living Wage employer) ourselves; we set an aspiration.

“What we can’t do is set down a whole raft of demands because there are more businesses in Copeland than Sellafield.  We can’t and won’t be the spokesman for the trade unions.

“Terms and conditions are negotiated between employers during the tender process and through the various trade unions – that is their job not ours.”

The mayor had already written to Sellafield Ltd to explain the council’s position as an advocate of the Living Wage, with a follow-up meeting with industry chiefs in the pipeline.

Councillor Kane said the panel wanted to see Copeland as a “lead advocate” for the Living Wage across the borough but accepted that the authority could not force businesses to adopt it.

But citing examples of hotel workers on ‘zero hour’ contacts across the borough, Labour leader Michael McVeigh said that Copeland did not want to be regarded as “just a cheap labour offer”.

But Mr Starkie told the meeting that the authority could not “set out to determine market forces” and must work instead to “create the open for business culture” to increase the employment choices on offer across the borough.

He also stressed that the council did not have the “capacity” to carry out all the functions asked of it by the Overview and Scrutiny Panel.

Back in November’s executive meeting, members raised concerns that ramping up pressure on nuclear firms to pay apprentices higher wages could backfire – leading to a possible reduction in the number of places available.

It was also claimed that “imposing” the Living Wage rules on Sellafield sub-contractors was contractually impossible.