LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 (AMENDMENT) (Hansard, 9 March 1976)

§ Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Local Government Act 1972 in respect of allowances to members of local authorities and other bodies; to facilitate the recovery of loss of earnings especially for self-employed persons; and for purposes connected therewith. The Bill is a quadrupedic creature. As one would expect, it has four legs. First, it seeks to abolish entirely the payment of attendance allowances as established in Section 173 of the 1972 Act. Secondly, it will make it clear, by the inclusion of a clause to this effect, that no payments from public money, for any reason whatsoever, will be payable to councillors because they have participated in meetings of a purely party political nature that are not meetings of a council or its properly constituted committees or subcommittees.

Thirdly, the Bill will compensate councillors for the real loss of money to them in the cost of postage, telephone, petrol, fares and other matters which are incurred in doing their job.

It is my intention to establish what I might call a council honorarium that is payable entirely tax-free to all councillors at the rate of £3 per 100 electors, with a minimum of payment of £50 per annum and a maximum payment of £300 per annum. Thus the district councillor with 2,000 electors would draw £60, and the county councillor with 9,000 electors, for example, would draw £270.

Fourthly and finally, the Bill seeks to facilitate the recovery of loss of earnings for that category of person, who is not necessarily a shift worker, for whom loss of earnings can be more readily established, but who is just as badly needed as a councillor in local government as a person who is at the height of his or her earning ability—namely, the sort of person who at the moment tends to hold 250 back from council work. Local authorities have never had so much responsibility as they have now, and persons of the necessary calibre must be encouraged to participate.

In the past few weeks I have received many letters from councillors. Only today I received a typical letter from a Harrow borough councillor who works in London. He writes: I do … incur considerable expense during a year i.e. postage, telephone, petrol, fares, etc. which at present I meet out of my own pocket to the detriment of my family income. In order to do my job as a councillor it is necessary for me to incur expense but if I wish to reimburse myself I have to support the present system which I dislike…In my opinion the present system leads to abuses". I have had a number of letters in that vein, and I hope that the Bill will help to put an end to the abuses. I believe that the 1972 Act has already proved to be deficient as regards Section 173. It is a widespread view that the necessary remedial action should be taken now.

Finally, in asking for leave to introduce the Bill it is right that I should say that I believe that this measure, when enacted, will result in an annual saving to the public purse in England and Wales of about £5 million.