§ 3.21 p.m.
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE)My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
§ Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Aberdare.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ Clause 170 [Attendance allowance and financial loss allowance]:
§
BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 119, line 32, leave out from ("duty") to the end of line 34 and insert ("such amount as may be specified by the Secretary of State.").
§ The noble Baroness said: I am mindful of the fact that this is the 102nd Amendment and that, somehow, before the end of to-day's Sitting it is hoped that we shall reach the 310th. This is quite a formidable programme and therefore I will not rehearse the arguments which we put at an earlier stage in favour of this Amendment and No. 103, which should probably be considered together. We have put them down again because we feel very strongly that the responsibility for determining the allowances which should be made to members of local authorities under the new arrangements should be with the Secretary of State, and should not be left to individual authorities. We think that to leave it with individual authorities is bound to be inequitable. It may press very hardly in some areas on people who would find it difficult to undertake public service in local government unless they had reasonably generous allowances to enable them to do so, and we think that this matter is something which should properly fall to the Ministers responsible for local government in England and Wales.
1830§ We hope very much that the Government have had second thoughts on this subject and will be able to appreciate the force of the arguments which we deployed at an earlier stage. But of course we are in an even more difficult position, in so far as I think I am correct in saying that the Secretary of State has not yet made any announcement about the maxima which it has been decided he should himself lay down. So people who are standing as candidates next Spring, many of whom have either been selected or are in process of being selected by their respective Parties, are completely in the dark as to the circumstances in which they will be carrying out their duties, if they are so unfortunate as to be elected. I need not say any more and I think it would be advisable to get the views of the Government. They know our views and it would be helpful to all of us if the Minister could tell us what is the Government's mature thinking on this matter. My Lords, I beg to move.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD)My Lords, we have certainly looked once more at this matter since the Committee stage, but our view remains much as it was then. The attendance allowance is the most significant feature of a package of improved allowances. We remain sure that it is right for local authorities to exercise their own discretion in this matter, and in so many more matters than they have done hitherto; in particular, in fixing their own maximum within the rate fixed by the Secretary of State. This is a matter on which the Secretary of State will be having further discussions with the associations and he will make his announcement in good time. The different authorities have different needs to meet different circumstances and a set figure for all of them would lead to anomalies and injustices between them. We have no evidence, and no reason to suppose, that any local authority will abuse the discretion that it is being given under this clause. In any case, the Government will be consulting local authority associations about the advice which the associations will be wanting to give to their members.
1831 Another important point is that the associations have been strongly against departmental regulation of allowance rates and very anxious to be rid of this intervention by Whitehall in local government affairs, as they have in many other spheres. The Government have thought it right, in the wider interest, that an overall maximum rate should be laid down by the Secretary of State, and this he will do after the Bill has become law. But within this maximum rate authorities should have, as they have under the 1948 Act, the right to determine whatever rate they consider most appropriate in their own circumstances. The proposed Amendment of the noble Baroness would take away that right in the case of the new attendance allowance, but would leave it for financial loss, subsistence and travel allowances, and there is no evident reason for the discrimination against the attendance allowance. The Government take the view that, wherever practicable, local authorities should be free to decide their affairs as they think best, and in the case of the new attendance allowance it is likely that what is reasonable may vary from authority to authority.
In line with the pattern of existing local government some, particularly urban, authorities will be likely to hold meetings in the evenings, attendance at which may not cause members to lose wages. Others will hold meetings in the day time. Times of committee meetings could also vary. Attendance allowance, unlike other allowances, will be claimable as of right. Against this background the Government accept that any attempt to lay down fixed rates of allowance within the 24-hour maximum would be likely to produce serious anomalies and injustices. Therefore, the most sensible solution is to leave each authority to fix rates within the maximum which it considers reasonable. An instance of this approach already exists in the sessional allowance which the G.L.C. pays to its members under special powers. The G.L.C. has asked the Secretary of State, and he has consented, to prescribe rates which, although consistent with daily rates of existing financial loss allowance, use different time bands appropriate to G.L.C. meetings.
1832 In the debate in Committee it was suggested, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that some authorities might abuse their discretion to embarrass poorer members or to make political capital but, as I said, we have no evidence whatever for supposing this. There have been no suggestions that existing authorities abuse their discretion under the 1948 Act. The G.L.C. have always adopted an all-Party approach on allowances. As has already been announced, the Government will be consulting local authority associations as to the advice that they will offer their members about determining allowance rates within the maximum. I confirm that after the passage of the Bill, and after further consultation with the local authority associations, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be making an announcement about the maximum scale of allowances in good time before the first round of allowances. I hope that with those assurances and with that explanation the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press this Amendment.
§ BARONESS WHITEMy Lords, I suppose that that is the kind of answer one would have expected, but it is none the less disappointing. I think I am right in saying that the new attendance allowance for all local authorities, other than the G.L.C., is a change in principle from the allowances that have hitherto been paid and, to my mind, it can have a considerable influence on someone who is trying to decide whether or not he or she wishes to stand in an election. It is no good the Minister saying that his right honourable friend will be making an announcement in good time. The time to decide whether or not you wish to go forward as a candidate is here and now. The whole procedure is going forward now in the Party organisations in different parts of the country. One does not normally wait until a week or two before polling day before determining that one will offer oneself for election. It is grossly unfair—this is a slightly different point from the Amendment—to keep people in suspense and without proper information on this point—
§ LORD SANDFORDMy Lords, I wonder whether I might interrupt. It is all very well for the noble Baroness to 1833 ask my right honourable friend to make the announcement now, but how can he possibly do so until the Bill is on the Statute Book?
§ BARONESS WHITEMy Lords, the Bill will be on the Statute Book, one supposes, in a few days' time, but if the noble Lord's right honourable friend has not yet had these consultations with the local authority associations—and I understood from the reply given by the Minister that those consultations are still to be held—it will be very difficult for him, I should suppose, to make an immediate announcement, which is certainly what would be for the general convenience.
§ LORD SANDFORDMy Lords, I am sorry to go on interrupting the noble Baroness, but before my right honourable friend can have the consultations he must know on what basis Parliament has decided that the consultations should take place. I assure the noble Baroness that my right honourable friend will move with all due dispatch, but Parliament has a job to do on this Bill before people can take action to implement it.
§ BARONESS WHITEYes, my Lords, but, after all, the Minister's Department has been having consultations on various matters all through the passage of this Bill, without knowing the final determination of Parliament.—That again, quite frankly, is an excuse which does not seem to me to be particular impressive. As I say, I do not necessarily wish
§ to pursue the matter very much further, although if my noble friends would care to divide on it I think it would bring a great deal of comfort to those who have been putting us under considerable pressure on this matter. I just do not agree that attendance allowances are impossible of definition on a general basis. An hour is an hour, no matter where you are spending it, whether it is in Somerset, Berkshire or wherever it may be. It simply is not true that persons who go to evening meetings do not necessarily lose wages. In my former constituency at least a quarter of the workers were working on a three-shift system and would probably lose rather more wages through an evening meeting than they would through a daytime meeting. So I think it will be found extremely difficult to order different time bands on any basis which would be equitable as between different areas or between different groups of workers. I still think it would be fat' more satisfactory, so far as the attendance allowances are concerned, which are the basic thing, if there were national rates and everybody knew exactly where they stood. The Government have not been co-operative in this regard, and I would therefore ask my noble friends to support us in the Division Lobby.
§ 3.33 p.m.
§ On Ouestion, Whether the said Amendment (No. 102) shall be agreed to?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48 Not-Contents, 114.
1835| CONTENTS | ||
| Addison, V. | Gaitskell, B. | Sainsbury, L. |
| Airedale, L. | Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.] | St. Davids, V. |
| Amulree, L. | Geddes of Epsom, L. | Serota, B. |
| Archibald, L. | Hale, L. | Shackleton, L. |
| Ardwick, L. | Hall, V. | Shepherd, L. |
| Arwyn, L. | Henderson, L. | Shinwell, L. |
| Avebury, L. | Jacques, L. [Teller.] | Slater, L. |
| Balogh, L. | Leatherland, L. | Summerskill, B. |
| Beswick, L. | McLeavy, L. | Taylor of Gryfe, L. |
| BIyton, L. | Maelor, L. | Thurso, V. |
| Brockway, L. | Milford, L. | Wells-Pestell, L. |
| Buckinghamshire, E. | Moyle, L. | White, B. |
| Burntwood, L. | Nunburnholme, L. | Williamson, L. |
| Champion, L. | Ogmore, L. | Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L |
| Crook, L. | Platt, L. | |
| Davies of Leek, L. | Popplewell, L. | Wynne-Jones, L. |
| Faringdon, L. | ||
| NOT-CONTENTS | ||
| Aberdare, L. | Amory, V. | Balfour of Inchrye, L. |
| Ailwyn, L. | Auckland, L. | Barnby, L. |
| Albemarle, E. | Balfour, E. | Bath and Wells, L. Bp. |
| Bathurst, E. | Glasgow, E. | Napier and Ettrick, L. |
| Belhaven and Stenton, L. | Goschen, V. | Northchurch, B. |
| Belstead, L. | Gowrie, E. | Nugent of Guildford, L. |
| Berkeley, B. | Greenway, L. | Oakshott, L. |
| Bessborough, E. | Grimston of Westbury, L. | Orr-Ewing, L. |
| Blackford, L. | Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor) | Penrhyn, L. |
| Brentford, V. | Poltimore, L. | |
| Bridgeman, V. | Hanworth, V. | Rankeillour, L. |
| Brooke of Cumnor, L. | Harvey of Prestbury, L. | Redcliffe-Maud, L. |
| Brooke of Ystradfellte, B. | Hawke, L. | Reigate, L. |
| Buckton, L. | Hayter, L. | Rennell, L. |
| Carnock, L. | Headfort, M. | Rochester, L.Bp. |
| Carrington, L. | Hereford, L.Bp. | Rockley, L. |
| Clancarty, E. | Hewlett, L. | Ruthven of Freeland, Ly. |
| Clifford of Chudleigh, L. | Hood, V. | St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.] |
| Clwyd, L. | Howe, E. | St. Just, L. |
| Coleraine, L. | Hylton-Foster, B. | Sandford, L. |
| Colgrain, L. | Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.) | Sandys, L. |
| Colville of Culross, V. | Jessel, L. | Somers, L. |
| Courtown, E. | Kilmarnock, L. | Southwark, L.Bp. |
| Craigavon, V. | Lauderdale, E. | Stamp, L. |
| Cranbrook, E. | Limerick, E. | Strathcarron, L. |
| Crathorne, L. | Lothian, M. | Strathclyde, L. |
| Daventry, V. | Loudoun, C. | Swansea, L. |
| Denham, L. [Teller.] | Lucas of Chilworth, L. | Trefgarne, L. |
| Derwent, L. | Luke, L. | Trevelyan, L. |
| Ebbisham, L. | Mac Andrew, L. | Vernon, L. |
| Eccles, V. | Macleod of Borve, B. | Vivian, L. |
| Elliot of Harwood, B. | Malmesbury, E. | Wakefield of Kendal, L. |
| Elworthy, L. | Merrivale, L. | Ward of Witley, V. |
| Emmet of Amberley, B. | Milverton, L. | Willingdon, M. |
| Exeter, L.Bp. | Molson, L. | Winchester, L.Bp. |
| Ferrers, E. | Monck, V. | Windlesham, L. |
| Fortescue, E. | Morrison, L. | Wolverton, L. |
| Fraser of Lonsdale, L. | Mowbray and Stourton, L. | Young, B. |
| Gage, V. |
On Question, Amendments agreed to.