LIMIT ON PAID LEAVE FOR LOCAL AUTHORITY DUTIES (Hansard, 13 June 1989)

§ Mr. Blunkett
I beg to move amendment No. 144, in page 15, line 8, leave out 'it shall be unlawful for the authority to' and insert 'the authority may'.

§ Mr. Speaker
It will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following amendments:
No. 145 in line 10, after 'is' insert 'up to or'.
No. 146 in line 12, at end insert 'where any time off is taken in accordance with a scheme made by the authority, and having regard to any guidance which may be issued by the Secretary of State.'.

§ Mr. Blunkett
There was unanimity in Committee across a wide spectrum of political opinion that the Government needed to think again about what at first appeared to be their vindictive attitude towards the level of remuneration and availability of time off to enable people to undertake council duties.
We are here dealing with the question of time off. We suggest that 26 days should be a minimum—being only half a day a week—rather than being the maximum, which would exclude people from being able to negotiate and agree time off with their employers. This change would allow people to have greater flexibility.
This issue would not have arisen to the extent that it has if we had in prospect a reasonable system of remuneration for council duties. I am aware that discussions are going on to try to find a more satisfactory formula on that front. But we do not have that yet, and we face a situation, which was revealed in Committee, which could lead to senior elected members not being able to undertake basic duties unless they were designated the mayor, the lord mayor or chairman of council, in which case they could have the requisite time off if employed by a local authority. It was mentioned in Committee that we might reach the silly situation where leaders of councils might have to double up in one of those roles to enable them to do their job. None of us wants that to happen. I certainly would not have wanted that to occur when I led a council. Indeed, if it were to happen it would lead us into a model of north American or partly European politics which would be detrimental.
We must accept that the demand here for adequate time in which to do the job is not a threat. It is not a question of elected members beginning to manage authorities or interfering with the role of those whom they employ. It is simply giving them sufficient time in which to formulate and monitor the implementation of policy and to undertake the liaison that is now necessary, even within the restricted bounds of local government. They must be able to do that work in consultation with other agencies and with central Government.
I recall telling the Minister that he and his colleagues would be in an unhappy situation if they had to travel the country meeting elected members who could not get, and certainly could not afford to take, time off to come from the north, Scotland, Wales, the south-west and the midlands to London. The whole attitude appears to be predicated on the experience of people who can pop around the corner to see Ministers, to liaise with civil servants or to take part in local authority association work—which, as everyone agrees, is important. We want people to have time off for such work and also to be remunerated.
802 Although it is late and there is still a great deal of business to be discussed, I should be interested to hear the Minister's view of whether someone who is prepared to hand his allowances to his employer could he permitted additional time off. In other words, if someone gave up the notion of remuneration and instead passes it to his employer, would he be allowed additional time off to carry out his duties? As the Widdicombe report suggested—and, indeed, as was suggested as long ago as 1964 in the first Maude recommendations—certain senior councillors inevitably must have time off to carry out their functions. Officials in councils are also clear about that need because without political guidance and the ability to liaise with politicians they would be in some difficulty. Of course, it would be nice from one political point of view if active politicians were kept out of the arena of spending time on policy formulation and monitoring, but wearing another hat we would all accept that that would not be right.
It is worth reminding the House that the secretary and solicitor of the county of Kent, one of the largest authorities in Britain, said on leaving that authority that he felt that the politicisation of local government came from attitudes imposed by the centre, not from the activities of elected members seeking to do their duties more effectively.

§ Mr. McAllion
Will the Minister take into consideration the different circumstances in Scotland? I know that he believes that there is a whole series of gross abuses, with people being paid by one authority to act as full-time councillors in another. I ask him to consider, for example, the Highland region, which covers an area of just under 10,000 square miles. It is the largest region in Scotland with about 40 per cent. of Scotland's land mass.
Someone travelling from Durness, in the north-west of Sutherland, to Inverness, which is the centre of the Highland region, would have a four-hour journey each way. The Bill allows only four hours paid time off per week, so that person could not even attend one meeting at Inverness. The journey from Ardnamurchan peninsula in the Lochaber district to Inverness, which involves the use of ferries, takes about four and a half hours each way, so someone could not even get to the council meeting at Inverness in the time allowed. The journey from Skye to Inverness, which also involves a ferry, takes about three and a half hours each way.
People living in the rural areas of Scotland will be severely affected by the imposition of a maximum of 208 hours paid leave. I hope that the Minister will take that into account and try to be fair to councillors living in remote parts of Scotland. Unless he accepts the amendments he will be discriminating against them. I note that the Scottish Office Minister is on the Front Bench and I hope that he will support the amendments, which have been proposed by COSLA.

§ Mr. Gummer
The issue to decide is what is a reasonable amount of time off to allow an employee in local government to take part in council activities elsewhere. We have accepted the figure proposed by the Widdicombe committee. The 208 hours referred to in clause 10 equates with the 26-day limit that it proposed. It is about half a day a week. Of course, I know that there is a division in the House, not necessarily between the two sides, but between those of us who believe that local council activity is a part-time, unpaid activity for which certain allowances 803 and restricted expenses should be paid, and those who want it to become something quite different. We heard the frank words of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) telling us what he sees local government work to be.
That is a distinction between us and would lead me to take a different view when it comes to what appears a reasonable amount of time off to work on the local council to which one is elected. I believe that this is about the right level. It is difficult for us to fix it, because, obviously, we all have different ways of looking at it and different approaches. However, we can be guided by the committee that was set up to look into the matter and the committee made that recommendation. On that committee was a very distinguished Scottish representative of local government, a man of very considerable worth. That is the figure upon which the committee decided. I believe that that is a reasonable one on which to agree.
I know that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) would agree that it is one of those issues that we will differ on because we start from a different view of what local authorities should do. I have a view of the great importance of local authorities, but I see their elected members as playing a rather different role from the hands-on role that the hon. Gentleman believes they should have. We have different views of the role and, perhaps because of that, we have different views on the nature of the remuneration and the like. Therefore, it is not surprising that we disagree about how many days off a year it is reasonable for a public authority to give specifically for that purpose.
I believe that we are best to keep to the individual figure of the Widdicombe committee rather than any figure that we might dream up for ourselves. I know that some people feel that this is a lot to be given in the circumstances of someone who is paid for out of the public purse, but I believe that more or less a reasonable line has been presented by the committee. I suggest to the House that it would be best to keep with this rather than any alternative.
The committee took into account—and the very nature of its composition would make it necessary for it to take into account—all the varied differences throughout the United Kingdom. I recognise that in some parts of the United Kingdom the distances travelled and the time taken are considerable. It is difficult in those circumstances to make a special arrangement, because it is also true in some individual parts of England and Wales as well as in Scotland. It is obviously much more difficult in my constituency for district councillors to travel than it would be if they sat, for example, on some authority in London. With 54 miles of coastline, people obviously have to travel great distances. However, I think, in general, that this is not an unreasonable figure, and we are here supporting the independent recommendation of Widdicombe.

§ Mr. Blunkett
Clearly, I shall not persuade the Minister tonight. I hope that in the discussions on remuneration he will be willing to be more flexible and reasonable, because otherwise we will end up with a local government service that rests entirely on the rich and the retired, which would not be satisfactory for anyone.