24plusnews.co.uk Rotating Header Image

Parking anger in Yarm

Dec 16th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

As we enter the festive season, Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council has given residents and businesses in Yarm a very unwelcome early Christmas present. This council is another in the long list of councils who think introducing parking charges is a great revenue raising opportunity. They just assume that everyone will cough up and not change their shopping and driving habits. They only have to look at examples we have quoted from around the country to know this is not true. 

“An ignorant and short-sighted decision that seems solely about raising money for the council regardless of the impact on Yarm High Street”, is what one resident said on a local newspaper’s website. Unsurprisingly the council disagrees, and said pay and display will give more flexibility to motorists! As defences go, that must be the most bizarre one I’ve heard all year. All pay and display will do is take money out of the local economy to fill the council’s coffers, but I guess when you are desperate you will say anything to justify your position.

When I wrote about parking issues last week, I suggested councillors and council officers should try running a small business for a week. They should experience first hand what it’s like being a small independent trader. They may then appreciate how difficult it is trading in the current economic climate. It looks like Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council is another to add to the list of councils who fail to appreciate just how much parking charges can wreck the local economy.

Non-job of the week

Dec 15th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

As this is the last non-job of the week feature of 2011, I have been looking back at the examples of non-jobs and ridiculously high pay I have highlighted throughout the year. I won’t pick a winner as the non-job of the year – I’ll leave it to you, but there is no shortage of runners and riders competing for the accolade.

Some councils have been busy building large change and performance departments. Surrey County Council and Oxford City Council immediately spring to mind. Surrey has advertised for a Performance Manager, Performance Officer, Intelligence Officer, Change Officer, Senior Change Manager, and a Senior Performance and Research Officer (Intelligence). Non-Job of the WeekOxford City Council have recruited similar officers and managers, as well as a Tenants Involvement and Development Officer.

Nottingham City Council (the only council not to publish its spending above £500) ironically recruited a Head of Quality and Efficiency Services, and Walsall Council was looking for a Smarter Workplaces Programme Manager. Also this year, the new Future Shape Programme Manager of North East Lincolnshire Council was revealed.

Reading Council was looking for no less than ten Seasonal Personal Travel Plan Advisers. Their job was to contact residents and discuss with them how they travel to work, school, and go shopping, etc. If you think this is bizarre, then what about Waltham Forest’s search for a Laughter Yoga Teacher?

This year, many councils have scrapped their newspapers, but Hackney (surprise, surprise) has not followed suit. Earlier this year it was looking for a new sub-editor for its propaganda rag newspaper, Hackney Today.

There has also been the usual raft of Climate Change Officers (something I highlighted repeatedly), Political Assistants, and Diversity Officers - including the BBC who was looking for a Diversity Talent Executive!

A London council was looking for a Governance Officer – Openness and Transparency. Ironically, we didn’t know which council this was, as they were recruiting anonymously through a recruitment agency! Those recruitment agencies have been a feature this year. Remember the Interim Head of Parking Services for an unnamed London Council? In March this was yours for £500-£600 a day! This was the most egregious salary of the year. When annualised, a parking manager was due to be paid more then the prime minister.

I could go on, and please have a look through these examples and the others from 2011. It does come with a health warning though. I don’t want your blood pressure to rise to dangerous levels.

I wish you all a very Happy Christmas, and here’s hoping 2012 will be a non-job free year!

Rotherham councillors booted out

Dec 12th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

How much work do your councillors do? This is a question being asked in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, today. All councillors in Rotherham are paid an annual allowance of £12,130. This is to compensate them for their time, and for any income lost from their normal business activities or job whilst fulfilling their council duties. Yet what about councillors who don’t do any work but continue to claim allowances?

John Gamble was elected to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (RMBC) in May 2008. Mr Gamble is something of a Scarlet Pimpernel. He rarely attended meetings, and the last one he did attend was a full council meeting at the beginning of February this year – ten months ago. According the Local Government Act 1972, a councillor is automatically disqualified if he/she fails to attend any meeting for six months. As Mr Gamble did not give any reasons for his absences, such as ill health, this disqualification should have taken place in August.

Instead, RMBC has let this drag on a further four months until they finally took action. As a result of this inertia, Rotherham council taxpayers are over £4K out of pocket, although with such a poor attendance record since he was elected, it could be argued they were out of pocket the moment he was sworn in.

Attendance at meetings is one of the few ways we can judge a councillor’s performance, but councillors will also point to the other work they do in their communities. A supporter has told me that Mr Gamble did not even hold surgeries. Looking at the council’s website, this seems to be true. On his profile page, under the heading of ‘Surgery Details’, nothing is listed.

I contacted RMBC to find out if we are going to get our money back for the last four months when he shouldn’t have been a councillor. I am still waiting for an answer, but this is not the only Rotherham councillor who has acted in a similar way,

In March this year, former Tory councillor, Gavin Sharp resigned his seat just a few weeks before he was due to stand for election. Since being elected in May 2007, he had been absent from 80 percent of meetings. He hadn’t attended a full council meeting since May 2009, and had made appearances at just enough meetings to allow him to receive his allowance.

According to press reports at the time, his fellow Conservative councillors tried to persuade him to stand down and asked to him to pay the money back, but without success. You would have thought that as a bank manager and magistrate, Mr Sharp would have done the right thing at the time, and it is not known if since his resignation he has paid back all or some of the money he claimed.

These two lazy, (now thankfully) former councillors pocketed money from Rotherham residents, many of whom are on low incomes, without batting an eyelid. Not that they are the only ones at fault. RMBC should have acted sooner to remove John Gamble, and the Conservative group should have taken action against Gavin Sharp.

We elect councillors to make decisions on our behalf. For them to do this, they have to attend meetings. We also elect them to represent our views. Unless they regularly meet their constituents, it is impossible for them to do that effectively. Both of them should hang their heads in shame.

 

Some councils double parking charges

Dec 8th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

In last week’s bulletin sent out to all our supporters, I asked for examples of increases in parking charges across the country. Many thanks to those who got in touch. (If you would like to receive our weekly bulletin, sent out every Friday, click on this link to sign-up)

It appears that many councils are planning increases, or are considering charges on evenings and weekends. Some councils regard motorists as the gift that keeps on giving, however as we have highlighted this year, some councils – Wiltshire Council in particular – have found themselves in the eye of a storm as drivers desert town and city centres to visit and shop in other places that are cheaper to park.

Brighton and Hove Council has been in the news lately because the ruling Green administration is planning to refuse the extra cash from the government to help freeze council tax. It instead plans to increase it by 3.5%. Cllr Jason Kitcat, the finance portfolio holder, was awarded our Pin Head of the Month prize in November for this action that will increase the burden on council taxpayers. But it’s not just council tax bills that will increase. Car parking increases are on the way too.

Last week the council approved to advertise price hikes of more than 100%! The Green Party has said this is to reduce congestion, improve air quality and promote the use of sustainable transport.

Not surprisingly this has been greeted with opposition. At a time when when residents, visitors and traders can least afford it, these increases would have a devastating effect. If you wish to object to these plans, you have been allowed 21 days from 29 November (the day the meeting took place) to lodge your complaint.

There are also plans to double the cost of parking in Gravesend, and introduce charges on a Saturday. Free parking on a Saturday was one of the town’s selling points, but that seems to be lost on Parking Manager, Paul Gibbons, who told the cabinet, “We seem to be the only town in the county which offers free parking on Saturdays.”

Local trader, Bob Atkinson, said, “It is disgusting what they are doing. If you really, really want to drive everyone to Bluewater, put the prices up.” There are many more comments along the same lines.

There are planned increases in Chichester, and a petition has been set-up to oppose the introduction of charges on Sundays, and Oxford City Council has introduced charges at park and ride car parks. This must be to pay for all the non-jobs they have advertised this year!

What amazes me is the reaction from some councillors. You would think they would be acutely aware of how many shops are closing in their high streets, and how difficult it is for everyone during these hard economic times. Instead they defend increases by saying ‘our charges are favourable compared to other towns in the area’. They justify increases by saying ’50p isn’t much.’ They seem to be completely divorced from reality. Perhaps they should trade places for a week with a small independent trader. Perhaps that’s the dose of reality they need.

Non-job of the week

Dec 7th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

North Somerset Council is looking for a Waste Minimisation Officer. As far as I can see, the officer will spend a large amount of time either visiting or communicating with schools, community organisations, and other partners showing them how to minimise the amount of waste going into their standard refuse bins.

This is despite the various leaflets already sent out to residents and businesses informing them of what they can and cannot recycle. Does it really need someone to be constantly haranguing them with the same messages? Non-Job of the WeekThe EU landfill directive keeps increasing the burden on council taxpayers, so I can understand why councils are keen to push the recycling message. There does come a point though where you wonder just how far councils will go. With recycling rates already on target to hit 60% this financial year, this is one job North Somerset council taxpayers can do without.

A central government department is looking for a Senior Integrated Communications Officer based in Leeds, paying £180-£220 per day (£900-£1100 per week). This role requires the jobholder “to gather intelligence about the mood, activities, opinions of key stakeholder e.g. staff representative groups and professional bodies, the national media.”

The job description goes on to say they will be “supporting senior members of the team to deliver communications about pensions reform to staff. This will be vital as elements of the reform ratchet up over next 6 months and will also entail feeding into the Departments industry relations policy group.”

When we published our report on the taxpayer funding of trade unions, we were told by union leaders that union reps needed time off on our watch because it promoted harmony in the workplace. Recent strikes don’t back up that message, but leaving that to one side, it could be argued the government needs to communicate its message on public sector pensions reform more effectively. As TPA Research Director, John O’Connell wrote last week, there are many myths about pensions reform still being articulated in the media – mainly by unions.

Take a look at the job advert. This role predominantly involves communicating with staff and stakeholders, which in turn means the unions. We will be paying someone the equivalent of £45-55K per annum on a temporary full-time contract to tell the unions what they already know – or at least should know.

I appreciate there is more to this job, but as it’s a temporary contract on a daily rate, clearly it’s not going to last a long time. Once again though we don’t know which department it is, as the job is advertised through a recruitment agency, which will also incur additional fees.

This job is unnecesary as the government already has a team of negotiators working with the unions. The unions then pass on the information to their members, with additional employer information distributed to staff. This is an additional expense we can do without.

 

Arts Centre gobbles up our cash

Dec 2nd, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

Theatres and arts centres are costly things for taxpayers. Earlier this year I wrote about ‘The Waterfront’ in Aylesbury. Taxpayers give this theatre a £500K subsidy, yet despite this, when the council wanted to hire the theatre on election night, we had to stump up another £20K for the privilege.

It’s not a pretty picture further north in West Bromwich. A controversial arts centre, ironically called The Public, eats up £2.29 million in taxpayer subsidies, and only manages to generate a profit of £58,801.

Looking at the figures, it appears very few people use this venue. One of the excuses for such a poor financial performance is ticket sales are down, but they are down from £54,850 to £34,267. In what is described as a good year, tickets sales only generated a little over £1000 a week.

Conferences generated an income of £174,893 from 240 events. In a £72 million arts centre, there must be plenty of space, so an average income of £728 per event must mean the conferences were very small.

No doubt I will be described as a Philistine for daring to criticise the arts, although anyone who knows me will tell you I am certainly not. As a musician I fully appreciate the role the arts play in our country. I have been involved with small theatre groups in the past, and they had to balance the books. If they made huge losses, they went out of business.

What appears to be happening here is no-one is taking responsibility. Taxpayers’ cash keeps rolling in – even during tough economic times – and for as long as this continues, the incentive to make this venue pay is not there.

This is a classic example of a grandiose plan gone wrong. I very much doubt there was ever a sound business case put forward for the building of this arts centre. It will have been dreamed up as something to put West Bromwich on the map. As so often happens with these examples, taxpayers are left footing an enormous bill.

I would rather have fewer venues that really succeed, are popular, and are a credit to the their town or city, than countless white elephants gobbling up our money, especially when there are many very worthwhile projects for the money to be spent on.

Non-job of the week

Nov 30th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

In our report last, week, we revealed that trade unions are subsidised by taxpayers to the tune of £113 million. That is made up of an estimated £80 million in paid staff time, plus £33 million in direct payments. This is an increase of £7 million from 2009/10.

One of the beneficiaries of our cash is the Union Learning Fund. This was created by the last government in 1998 with the aim of promoting ‘activity by trade unions in support of the objective of creating a learning society.’

Non-Job of the WeekIn plain English, this means that instead of unions paying for their training courses out of the subscriptions they receive from their members, taxpayers pick up the tab.

On a day when our bins are not be emptied, many schools across the country are closed, and some operations in our hospitals are being cancelled, we are paying for the staff time to organise the strikes and the courses that teach them how to do it.

Ironically, the TUC is currently advertising for a Media and Public Affairs Officer for unionlearn – the body responsible for administering the Union Learning Fund. This comes with a salary £38,534, and part of this role’s job description is to be responsible for the provision of good news stories and information raising the profile of unionlearn to the national, regional, local, specialist and union media.

This is a non-job as far as taxpayers are concerned. If the TUC wants to employ a media officer to promote its training courses, that is up to them, but it should not be done with our cash.

 

Media and Public Affairs Officer – unionlearn

Grade 7: Salary £38,534 per annum rising incrementally to £39,929 pa including London Weighting

Unionlearn is the education and skills section of the TUC. We administer the government’s union learning fund and promote lifelong learning and skills in the work place. The communications team are responsible for the promotion of unionlearn and its work, for liaising with the media and opinion formers and ensuring that the skills agenda and our work on learning in the workplace remain part of the wider debate on learning and skills.

The post holder will be responsible for the provision of good news stories and information raising the profile of unionlearn to the national, regional, local, specialist and union media.

As well as having experience of writing for publications and/or high quality websites, the successful candidate will also need to demonstrate:

• Qualitative research and analysis including interview techniques

• Participatory research projects, finding stories or data which illustrate issues

• Project management

• Experience of working on public affairs campaigns

• Excellent communication skills including writing press releases, reports and features

• Good computer literacy including handling database programmes and ability to source material from the internet and publish online.

20% of councils may increase council tax

Nov 24th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

Today we announced our Pin-up and Pinhead of the Month. The pinhead was Cllr Jason Kitcat, a Green Party councillor from Brighton and Hove, and the portfolio holder for Finance and Central Services. His council is not going to take up the government’s offer of extra cash in return for not increasing council tax in 2012/13. Unfortunately, Cllr Kitcat is not the only pinhead in our town halls across the country.

According to a BBC report, an amazing 20% of councils may increase council tax from next spring. This is despite the government setting aside £805 million from efficiency savings to give to councils to ease our council tax burden. 

One of the main reasons cited in the Local Government Chronicle is that councils fear a sharp rise in council tax in 2013/14, when no government assistance will be available. Hardly the most convincing argument I’ve ever heard. Why should there be a sharp rise? What would cause it? As councils find efficiency savings, they are not going to suddenly spend more from 2013.

Over the last decade we have not seen the quality of council services double, but the same cannot be said of our council tax bills. We have highlighted in many TPA reports ways councils can reduce spending.

Not accepting the government’s offer is wrong, and will unnecessarily increase the burden on families when they can least afford it. To threaten sharp rises for the following year is scaremongering, which is the last thing any of us need at this moment in time.

Non-job of the week

Nov 23rd, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

Lewes District Council is looking to employ an Equalities Officer whilst the existing officer is on maternity leave. According to the job advert “this post co-ordinates the development of our Equalities work, Impact Assessments and equalities policies. It identifies and introduces practical steps and monitors our success so we make continuous progress with our equality duties.”

It is – and has been for many years – illegal to discriminate on the grounds of religion, gender, disability, race, sexual orientation, etc. Why does Lewes Council need to employ someone to monitor its success in order to make continuous progress with its equality duties? Legislation does change, but not to the extent that you need a full-time officer monitoring those changes.  

Non-Job of the WeekLambeth Borough Council is searching for an Energy Strategy Officer on £32532 – £35055. Perhaps if it installed smart meters in all council premises it would see consumption fall and benefit from lower bills? Not that the installation of smart meters is as easy as you would think. Well, maybe to you and I it is, but not for the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC).

It is looking for a Stakeholder Engagement Manager – Smart Meters Programme, paying £46,975 – £56,597 per annum. Here’s part of the job description:

As our Stakeholder Engagement Manager, you will be responsible for planning and overseeing the programme’s engagement with the organisations outside the smart meters programme who need to be involved in the successful delivery of the programme and its benefits. These include energy suppliers and other industry players together with consumer representatives. You will need to work closely with colleagues across the programme who are dealing with these groups day-to-day through a range of working groups and bi-laterals Your challenge is to ensure that we have the right arrangements in place to capture and share feedback and to ensure consistent messages are being conveyed by the programme.

In addition, there is a need to maintain communications with a much wider group of stakeholders including MPs and Local Government, community groups and special interest groups who all need to be kept aware of developments and can help promote consumer awareness. You will also play a key role in driving forward the communications strategy for the programme, working with the energy industry to develop key messages and communication approaches and providing the main interface from the programme into DECC’s press office. You will be part of the Consumer Engagement, Roll-out and Benefits team within the programme which is headed by the Deputy Programme Director and you will be expected to be flexible and able to contribute to current priorities within the wider team.

Smart meters are an excellent way to help us reduce our bills. As I’ve said before, you can watch in real time which appliances use the most electricity. It’s not complicated, but the DECC seems to have set-up a mini-department to promote something energy companies could do every time they send us a bill!

Finally, when it comes to waste, the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) certainly does it in style. They spent nearly £70 million making nearly 1800 people redundant. I don’t know how generous those payments were, however I do know there are times when you have to take a short term hit for a long term gain. Defra says it can recoup this money in a year. So far, so good then, but it was also revealed whilst making 1800 people redundant, at the same time it was recruiting another 500 staff. You would have thought common sense would prevail and the department would assess its needs before it let staff go. Many of those who received redundancy payments could have moved to those new jobs, thus saving taxpayers money.

Please remember we pay some senior civil servants and council officers six-figure salaries because (we are told) we need the best, and if we didn’t pay them as handsomely, they would quit public service and move to the private sector. This rarely happens, and it is examples like this that prove why.

Oslo Trip

Nov 22nd, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

Fact finding missions have long been the butt of many jokes. You name the subject, and it seems an elected or unelected official has been forced into arduous foreign travel to get that final piece of information to complete the jigsaw. In our report earlier this month, we highlighted the foreign jaunts council taxpayers in the Midlands have had to pay for, and now another one has come across my radar.

The recycling rate in Hull is currently at 50%. This is above the target 45%, and residents of the city are regularly told to ‘Recycle for Hull.’ Not content with this, some councillors recently went on a fact-finding mission to Oslo to see how Norwegians dispose of their rubbish. They have already visited Rotherham, Sheffield and Swindon to see how its done there.

This had angered Cllr John Fareham, the leader of the Conservative Group, as the councillors who travelled to Norway are a sub-committee of the environment scrutiny commission. This means they can only recommend. They cannot make decisions.

The cost of the trip was under £1000, but to defend it as cheap (as a councillor has done) is missing the point.

A group of councillors and officials drove to Stansted Airport, stayed overnight, then flew to and from Oslo in the same day, and then drove back to Hull. The people who can make decisions about this were not present. It has to be asked what did they find out that they couldn’t find out by research on the Internet, and a conference call on Skype?

If councillors spent our money in the same way they would spend their own, trips like this would not happen. All it achieves is two things. It makes councillors the butt of jokes, and gives the impression they have their snouts in the trough. I know that’s not true of the majority of councillors. If they don’t want to give the public that impression, they know what to do next time.

Leicester Mayor set for large pay rise

Nov 18th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

According to a report in the Leicester Mercury this week, the elected Mayor of Leicester is in line for a 78% pay rise. Sir Peter Soulsby (who stood down as MP for Leicester South to run for the job this May) currently receives a salary of £56K a year.

The Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) has recommended his salary rise to £100K. His deputy is also in line for a large rise, as are the city’s forty seven councillors. It has recommended some savings too, such as scrapping vice-chairs of committees and the extra cash they receive. 

All of this is happening at a time when the council is looking to make savings of £100 million in the next four years. Sir Peter said, ”It’s right that an independent panel reviews pay, rather than myself and councillors.” He also went on to say, “It’s important to remember we now also save £250,000 a year due to no longer having a chief executive.”

I can’t disagree with anything he’s said. Scrapping the chief executive’s role has proved the council can operate without one. This still isn’t a justification for whopping pay rises for him, his deputy and councillors. It sends the wrong message to those 1000 council staff who have either been made redundant or are facing redundancy.

Town Hall Square, Leicester Councillors will vote on these pay rises next week. Hopefully, they will vote against them, and send the right message to Leicester taxpayers. If you live in Leicester, contact your councillor and tell them what you think. It is hard to justify these increases at the best of times. We are not living in the best of times. We are facing the most difficult economic challenges we’ve seen for decades. Leicester taxpayers cannot afford these increases, and for councillors to accept them would be a kick in the teeth for them, and for other council employees.

Non-job of the week

Nov 16th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

A non-job of the week with a twist today. Barnet Council do not like criticism, and it seems the council will go to any lengths to make sure it silences its critics.

A local blogger, writing under the pseudonym Mr Mustard, criticised Barnet Council for hiring a Change and Innovation Manager in 2010 on a salary of £47,550 -£50,913.  It sounds very much like the sort of non-job I highlight on here every week. He quoted from the job description, which has to be said is written in perfect gobbledegook, and also quoted from the personal website of the man who got the job – Jonathan Tunde-Wright.

Non-Job of the WeekAlthough I have joked in the past about receiving a letter from Oxford City Council’s solicitor for harassment after all the non-jobs I have highlighted in the past, I have of course never received one. Nor should I. Freedom of speech is something we hold dear in this country, unless you are from Barnet Borough Council.

The council went to the extraordinary lengths of contacting the Information Commissioner claiming Mr Mustard had committed a criminal offence under the Data Protection Act by not registering as a data controller  because he had made critical comments about whether some of its officials have real jobs! The commissioner rightly disagreed, but that didn’t stop the council. It then came up with what can only be described as the most ludicrous description of what he could write about. The One Barnet blog has the full details of the correspondence between the ICO and the Council.

The council said all that bloggers (and that includes us on this website) can write about is their own personal data, their own family defined as people related by blood or marriage and their own household, which is anyone living in their house or flat. Barnet Council claims everything else requires registration and can be subject to a legal challenge.

The Information Commissioner disagreed again, saying this would have a hugely disproportionate impact on freedom of expression.

Because Mr Mustard (real name Derek Dishman) regularly holds his council to account on his blog, and sends in freedom of information requests to find out how our money is spent, he is regarded as an inconvenience. This may be so, but as he is not writing anything defamatory, he is within his rights to write about anything he likes – inconvenient or not.

So not only do we have a job with a more than dubious title offering £50K a year, we also have the council employing its staff to actively prevent anyone of us criticising them. If Barnet Council had its way, none of us would be able to speak out against waste and hold councils to account.

Hat-tip: David Hencke 

A sad day for democracy in East Yorkshire

Nov 10th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

Council standards committees were set-up as a way of disciplining councillors who have brought their office into disrepute. They were designed as a way of investigating sleaze. What happened at a meeting of the Standards Committee in the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) yesterday proved once again that they are increasingly being used as a way of stifling debate, and forcing councillors to toe the line.

Conservative councillor Paul Robinson was censured not for something he said, but for two comments he allowed to be posted on his blog. One of the comments described Mike Whitley –  a political rival of Cllr Robinson – as an “absolute idiot” and another one said that in Mark Twain’s day, troublemakers were stripped, tarred and feathered before being ridden out of town. The person who made the comment then said that was not something he was advocating. A little tongue in cheek perhaps, but nothing that can be described as defamatory. Mr Whitley took exception to those comments, and reported Cllr Robinson to ERYC.

The case should have been thrown out immediately. It was clearly vexatious, but instead ERYC – which has form when it comes to wasting our money – took this case all the way to a standards committee hearing. The cost of this is unknown, although I will be sending a freedom of information request to find out. The punishment meted out was merely a wrap on the knuckles, and under the circumstances even that was a nonsense.

This case is very worrying on many levels. We elect councillors to speak their mind. If we don’t like what they say, we always have the opportunity to kick them out next time they stand for election. Councillors who do blog about their work and local issues are opening up channels of communication and debate, which is the hallmark of a free society. We may not like what other people write about us, but it is their right to do that. If I took exception at everything that is said about me, there wouldn’t be enough hours in the day for me to get on with my job.

Cllr Robinson was not accused of saying anything defamatory himself, which is why this charade is breathtaking in its nonsense. It eats at the heart of our democracy. It turns councillors into automatons, fearing if they say anything or allow people to leave comments on their blog, they will be hauled before the standards committee. It closes down channels of communication, and makes councillors less accessible. It makes them less likely to speak out, and stand up for what they believe in.

In a press release sent to me yesterday, Cllr Robinson ended by saying:

If ever there was an example of why the Government is right to abolish this expensive and misused system, this is it. Absolutely nothing has been achieved and no difference has been made apart from the taxpayers get the bill for someone to pursue a personal, vexatious political agenda. 

He is correct. Taxpayers are being forced to pick up the tab for another nail being hammered into the coffin of democracy.

 

Chief Fire Officers Association

Nov 8th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

The Chief Fire Officers Association (CFOA) – according to its website – is the professional voice of the UK fire and rescue service. Reading that, you would think it was a professional organisation for senior fire officers, paid for by them. You would be wrong. This is an organisation paid for by us to lobby on behalf of senior fire officers, and it is an organisation that has grown over the years, once again thanks to our money.

When looking at spending above £500 on Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service’s (CFRS) website, I noticed to payments to the CFOA of £6175 in April this year. I sent a freedom of information request to find out why. It turned out that one of those payments was made in error, however Cambridgeshire taxpayers pay for a corporate membership of the CFOA of £6175 a year. But that’s not all. CFRS also pay the personal subscriptions for the senior management team – eight subscriptions in total. As these subscriptions are below £500, they are not published, and I do not know what the total figure is. What I can say is the figure paid by CFRS to the CFOA is higher than the published £6175.

That example gives you a snapshot of the national picture. I don’t have the time to check the spending of all fire and rescue services in the country, but I can’t imagine the figures quoted will be much different from Cambridgeshire.

Considering taxpayers fund the CFOA, finding out how it spends its money is not easy. The general public can access parts of the website, but much of it is for members only. What we do know is the CFOA is a registered charity that also has created other companies such as CFOA National Resilience Ltd and CFOA Publications Ltd. We also know it intends to expand. If you take a look at Des Prichard’s blog (the Chief Fire Officer of East Sussex) he says he was part of an interview panel for a commercial business and marketing position with the Chief Fire Officers Association.

One of our supporters sent a freedom of information request to East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service asking how much time off from his Chief Fire Officer (CFO) duties he received to carry out work as the CFOA’s Director of People and Organisational Development, but the response was the service didn’t keep a record. Mr Prichard is one of many serving chief fire officers who spend time away from the jobs we pay them for, to act on behalf of the CFOA.

The Presidential Team is made up of the following: Lee Howell, CFO, Devon and Somerset, is the president. The Vice President is Vij Randeniya, CFO, West Midlands, and the Vice President Elect is Paul Fuller, CFO, Bedfordshire and Luton.

This is another example of an organisation funded by taxpayers that’s job is to lobby ministers, but not only are we paying for that, we are also paying to fund business and commercial enterprises to give it more money to lobby and campaign on behalf of those at the top of the fire service. Instead of heading operations in their own areas, many CFOs are leaving those duties behind to work for the CFOA completely at our expense. If the example of Cambridgeshire is the norm throughout they country, they don’t even have to pay their own subscriptions.

It is in everyone’s interests that we have a first class fire and rescue service throughout the country, and there will be times when senior fire officers will be required to meet ministers to discuss possible changes in legislation. This is to be expected. Questions must be raised though as to why taxpayers have to fund  an organisation like the CFOA, not only directly, but also indirectly with time off from their normal duties.

CFOA FoI Response:

Hull Action Day

Nov 3rd, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

Last Wednesday I wrote about our new campaign to end KCOM’s monopoly in Hull. Last Saturday a group of us were out on the streets of Hull collecting signatures for our petition (you can sign the online petition here).

We got a great response. There is no doubt that almost everyone in the city wants a choice in who supplies their telephone and broadband services. This was the message coming back to us over again. We also know people feel they are paying too much, and suffer from poor download speeds.

One member of the public also told us how the company she works for recently lost business as they were unable to accept chip and pin payments because of a fault on the line. She said it took two weeks to repair the fault.

Dominique Lazanski and I met with KCOM on Monday and presented our case to them. It was a productive meeting, although as you will no doubt appreciate, there were some differences of opinion. To give you an example, they were unaware of the problems of broadband speeds during a recent electrical storm, although they did say they would investigate this issue.

When you add up the costs of broadband, and the problems many of us experience, this can easily add as a disincentive for those who are thinking of relocating their businesses in the city, or for those who want to start a new business. When broadband goes down in this way, it causes serious disruption for not only members of the public, but also for businesses.

Taxpayers in Hull not only want, but need to benefit from competition. It is vital for any local economy. We will be doing everything we can to achieve this goal.

UPDATE:

I have been contacted by KCOM, and have been informed that according to their records the business I wrote about was suffering from a fault in their hardware, and it was not a fault with the line. They have also informed me that unless there was a lightning strike on an exchange or on the underground or overhead copper cabling to your home, an electrical storm shouldn’t affect your broadband, however I have still not received an explanation as to why there was a problem with the broadband service on Tuesday 25 October which did occur during an electrical storm.

 

Photographs courtesy of Carl Minns

Non-job of the week

Nov 2nd, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) has been in the news this past week. The RPA is an executive agency of Defra, and its job is to administer an EU subsidy for farmers for maintaining their land. It was introduced in 2005.

It has faced much criticism over the years for delayed payments to farmers, and although it is questionable why such an agency needs to exist, I will leave that to one side. The post of Interim Finance Director (which was a job share, and has now thankfully been replaced by someone on a much lower salary) cost taxpayers a massive £425K a year. MPs were rightly outraged when they heard this figure. Conservative MP, Neil Parish said his constituents wouldn’t believe that the highest paid post at Defra was an accountant.

Non-Job of the WeekI have regularly highlighted some of the egregious amounts paid to consultants and interim staff. Many of these posts are advertised through recruitment agencies, which of course makes it much harder to pin-point which government department, Quango, health authority, etc, is recruiting. This example though is the worst I have come across, and proves why we need more transparency in the public sector so we can see where our money is going.

Staying on the same theme, the recruitment agency Morgan Hunt is advertising for a Head of Campaigns and Partnerships for a central government department. Once again we don’t know which department, or what those campaigns are going to be. We do know if it for a fixed period of 3 months, and the post pays £250-£400 per day. Is it a non-job? Who knows, and unless there is more transparency, I doubt we ever will.

Morgan Hunt is also acting on behalf of a local government client who is looking for an Interim HR Manager. All we know is this is a London council. The job pays between £150-£200 per day.

This week we can see once again that our money is being spent in large amounts in ways we know very little about. The money spent on the Interim Finance Director’s post at the RPA wasn’t discovered until after the event. The same will apply with the two other posts I have highlighted.

Until and unless there is more transparency this is going to continue. The government will from time to time recruit people to highly sensitive jobs, and for reasons of national security we won’t necessarily know those jobs exist and what those people do. I understand that, but this cannot be said of the examples I have given. We have a right to know how our money is spent.

 

North & North East Lincolnshire Councils save £1.3 million

Nov 1st, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire Councils have announced a deal to share housing and council tax administration. It is expected this will save taxpayers around £1.3 million.

This is a very welcome move, and it again proves what we have been saying that when councils share back-office functions, significant savings can be made. If is also worth noting that each council will maintain its own records, and only designated employees will be able to access information from both councils, so data protection laws are adhered to. 

The £1.3 million savings are possible because 21.4 full-time equivalent posts will no longer be needed, and those staff will be offered redeployment elsewhere. Overall in time this will bring down staff numbers, and importantly, will avoid redundancy payments as staff leave of their own accord, or retire.

I have spoken to many people over the last few months who worry that sharing services means the end to their council. They fear that it will mean the creation of super-councils who will not understand and appreciate local concerns. I hope this news will allay some of their fears. Deals like this one help protect those important, local, front-line services that many in our communities rely on.

What this deal also proves is it is possible for opposing political parties to work together. North Lincolnshire is controlled by the Conservatives, and North East Lincolnshire is controlled by Labour, where it is the largest single party. By putting political differences to one side, these councils have proved taxpayers can get a better deal for their money.

Non-job of the week

Oct 26th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

Based on the premise that you have to keep repeating yourself over and over again before people will start listening, here are some words I wrote two weeks ago regarding Lambeth Council’s search for an Energy Efficiency Manager:

I am sure many of you who have worked in offices will have seen stickers next to light switches reminding you to switch off the lights if they are not needed. These days we also have things like smart meters that tell us exactly how much energy we are consuming. If you have seen one in action you will know that as soon as you switch on a kettle, the energy consumption rises. It doesn’t stop me making a cup of tea, but I know exactly which appliances at home use the most electricity, and if I can find ways of using those appliances less I will save money.

Non-Job of the WeekCouncils can reduce energy consumption by doing the same. If you are about to go into a meeting for a couple of hours, does your computer still need to be switched on? It may have been dark when you started working this morning, but do the lights still need to be switched on? Letting council workers see how much energy they are consuming will result in a reduction of energy consumption, as happened at Windsor and Maidenhead Council.

In a report last year we highlighted how councils reacted differently to government legislation. Although all councils have to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions, there are councils who manage to do it without creating mini-departments like Lambeth do.

By adopting simple strategies that we all use at home, councils can dramatically reduce their CO2 emissions and save taxpayers’ money.

This week, Nottingham City Council is searching for a Carbon Development Officer who will be ‘tasked with improving Nottingham’s resilience to fossil fuel depletion and climate change, and identifying opportunities for securing investment to support this agenda.’ No prizes for guessing who is likely to be paying for the ‘investment to support this agenda.’

The London Borough of Redbridge is also looking for an Energy Management Officer, who needs to have the skills to forecast the quantity of Carbon Allowances required by the Council each year.

Finally, Broadland District Council needs a Climate Change Advisor who will be raising awareness and promoting sustainable sources of energy and will be required to be inspiring, but credible, and must therefore have sound knowledge of energy and sustainability issues.

My response? As it is often said in the House of Commons: I refer the honourable member to the reply I gave some moments ago!

End KCOM’s monopoly in Hull

Oct 26th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

If you live in Hull and some of the surrounding areas (the 01482 dialling code) instead of having a BT telephone line, your services are provided by KC – part of the KCOM group. When municipal telephone exchanges were brought into the national network, Hull was the exception, and it remains the exception to this day.

Taxpayers in Hull are forced to use KC every time they want to make a call from their landline, or access reliable broadband from a fixed line. If other companies call you and offer you a cheaper service, as soon as you say you’re from Hull, they apologise for disturbing you, and put the phone down.

This monopoly has been allowed to continue, with telecoms regulator OFCOM ruling as recently as 2008 that the people of Hull are getting a fair deal. The truth is: they are not.

In July this year, my colleague Dominique Lazanski wrote how OFCOM had ruled where BT has a monopoly (generally in rural areas) it must reduce its wholesale prices to other Internet Service Providers (ISPs) by 12% below the rate of inflation. Today we are launching a campaign calling on OFCOM to rule in the same way regarding KC. Taxpayers in Hull are paying over the odds for telephone and broadband bundles compared to what other companies charge. I personally pay £40 a month for unlimited telephone calls, and 150 gb of broadband per month. Other companies who operate outside of the Hull area offer similar deals for around 25-30% less.

In the 2008 report, OFCOM correctly stated that other ISPs were not being prevented from entering the market in Hull, but because the population was relatively small, it was not in their commercial interests to do so. The report also stated that the wholesale charges KC were offering were similar to BT. Since its ruling in July though, the same arguments do not apply. Reducing wholesale prices by 12% below the rate of inflation would make the Hull market more attractive, and thus open it up for competition.

We believe taxpayers in Hull deserve a better deal, and have set-up a petition for you to sign. If you live in the Hull area, you can meet-up with us on Saturday from 11.30 am in Queen Victoria Square in the city centre where we will be collecting signatures for the petition. If you have some time to spare, please contact me if you can help us.

Competition will help the economy of Hull by driving up service quality and lowering bills for everyone, leaving taxpayers with more money to spend as they wish. This is good news for everyone, especially businesses who are already struggling during these hard economic times.

Blame the cuts, say two of Hull’s MPs

Oct 25th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

A report in the Yorkshire Post says Humberside Police has recorded one if the worst crime rates in the country. Between June and August this year the force ranked in the bottom three for violent assaults causing injury and incidents of criminal damage, and is among the worst 10 for serious acquisitive crime and domestic burglaries.

Not good news for those of us who live in Hull, East Yorkshire, North and North East Lincolnshire. There may be many factors that explain this, and Humberside Police have promised to give those explanations, but the story has provided some politicians a platform to blame government cuts.

Karl Turner, MP for Hull East has this to say:

“These figures are worrying but not surprising. I have regular contact with Tim Hollis and I believe he is doing the best job he can with drastically reduced budgets. It is disingenuous of the Government to state that the quality of policing will be not affected when savage cuts to police officer levels are taking place. It is simply not possible. I am deeply concerned that as the cuts take further hold crime will continue to increase in Humberside and the public will ultimately end up paying the price.”

Diana Johnson, the MP for Hull North and Shadow Home Office Minister, also waded into the debate, once again blaming government cuts

I have a lot of time for Karl, but he knows he is being disingenuous. The budget has been reduced, but that has not had a massive impact on police numbers in June, July, and August this year. Figures given to me by Humberside Police state that from 1 April – 31 August, 27 police officers have left the force due to funded reductions. It is also worth noting that not all of them were front-line officers. A reduction of around 1% can hardly be described as savage.

The country is suffering from a debt crisis. People are losing their jobs and their homes. This doesn’t mean we are more likely to go out and commit a violent assault, or cause criminal damage.

Those politicians who are eager to blame the cuts should read what Mark Littlewood, Director General of the Institute for Economic Affairs, has to say in his Daily Mail blog. In it, Mark says:

“The government plans to reduce state expenditure by about 3% before the next election. In real terms, for every pound being spent by government by Gordon Brown when he left office, David Cameron intends to spend about 97p by May 2015. He may not even succeed in this modest objective.”

If every time some statistics are quoted, politicians are going to jump on the bandwagon of blaming the cuts, we will never have a serious debate about the problems facing this country.

Turn that light out!

Oct 24th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

It’s around 10 o’clock in the evening, and it’s been a long day, so you decide to go for a couple of beers at your local pub to unwind. You get chatting to some friends, and you leave at midnight. Because you are a responsible citizen, you left your car at home, and made the 15 minute journey there and back on foot.

Sound familiar? I’m sure many of us have done this before. The only problem if you live in Derbyshire is next year the council may have decided to switch off the street lighting, so you may need a torch to find your way back.

(but not after midnight!)

This is the latest wheeze from Derbyshire County Council to save money, although when you read comments from Cllr Simon Spencer, cabinet member for highways and transport, it seems he is more interested in reducing carbon emissions than protecting the safety and security of council taxpayers.

According to a report in the Yorkshire Post, Derbyshire County Council is responsible for 89,000 street lights, but the council has drawn up proposals to turn off 40,000 of them between midnight and 5.30 am, and around 900 permanently. Senior councillors have stated this will save 2,000 tonnes of carbon every year – the equivalent of taking 625 cars of the road. With costs of motoring rising, and drivers collectively being overtaxed by £17.9 billion a year, I imagine those 625 cars will come off the road anyway, as people struggle to pay their bills.

It is estimated switching the lights off will save £200K a year. If the council would like any suggestions on how to save that amount, it can look at our Town Hall Rich List, or its own accounts. In 2009/10, there were 103 council officers earning in excess of £50K a year. This figure rose in 2010/11, to 126, despite a pay freeze. Rather than looking inside its organisation, and reducing the tiers of management, it instead looks at ways that will impact on front-line services – and street lighting is surely one of the most basic front-line services there is.

If you want to have your say on this matter, you can do so by contacting the council. You have until 6 December.

Non-job of the week

Oct 19th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

At the end of last year, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) appointed Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti as the UK’s Climate and Energy Security Envoy.

It is important to note that this doesn’t appear to be his only duty, he seems to have a real job too.  But it clearly takes up a substantial part of his time and you may ask what climate change has to do with the MoD, and why it feels the need to appoint a Rear Admiral to such a role. During an interview to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, this is what he had to say:

I think we – the reason we think that the implications of climate change have broadened from just environmental, socio-economic and political is that we’re beginning to recognise – and this is on a global basis – that the – not the physical changes that occur with climate change, but the second and third-order consequences, the result of rising temperatures, sea levels, increased acidity of the ocean is that we’re seeing the potential for loss of land, of loss of livelihood for people.

And that, on top of all the other stresses they’re facing, many of them related to resources, food, energy, water, etc., has the potential to increase the likelihood of conflict. So, climate change isn’t necessarily something that’s going to start a conflict on its own, but it is what I would call a threat multiplier or a catalyst of conflict.

I still can’t see what he and presumably his team are going to do. If there is conflict as the result of a water shortage, which Rear Admiral Morisetti mentions later in this interview, how is he going to prevent it? What does he do all day? Talk to governments about potential threats they already know about? Rising temperatures (and indeed falling temperatures) are not something that happen overnight. No-one predicted the earthquake in Japan earlier this year, which has contributed to energy supply problems there.

Later in the interview he talks about Afghanistan:

One of the challenges we have to look at, for example, is operating in Afghanistan, where we’re dependent on convoys to bring our fuel in from Karachi through to our operating bases and a lot of that convoy’s taken up with carrying the fuel.

So we’ve been looking at ways at which we can reduce our dependency on fuel by being more energy efficient, optimising the way we operate our equipment, perhaps changing our behaviour in circumstances whilst still being able to deliver the operational capabilities that we need.

Adapting to the new challenges facing our armed services is of course important work. No-one is going to dispute that, but surely there are already people inside the MoD who are trying to use fuel more efficiently? Is a Rear Admiral acting as a Climate and Energy Security Envoy – i.e. tasked with engaging with others outside the military – really the right person to get involved in that kind of operational planning?

There are already pressing problems around the world for a man with his experience to deal with. Pirates off the coast of Somalia are regularly hijacking vessels. Wouldn’t his time be better spent concentrating on immediate problems like these, rather than talking to politicians and think tanks about the importance of climate change?

Armchair auditing in Hull

Oct 18th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

Transparency in government spending is something we have been campaigning about for many years. Councils publishing their spending above £500 was a major policy victory for us, but it does have to be said that looking through hundreds of pages of council spending on your computer could be made easier.

A new website has just been launched that does just that for residents in Hull. With a few clicks of the mouse, you can find spending details in areas that most interest you. This makes the job of an armchair auditor much easier. Let me give you two practical examples. 

In April, I wrote about the demise of ‘Hull in Print’ – Hull City Council’s newspaper. Using this website, in under a minute I found out that from March to August, taxpayers funded this newspaper by £45,048.

With a few clicks of a mouse, I found out that from 1 March – 31 August this year, the council made a total of 2014 payments totalling £1,197,927 in council tax computer refunds. Why this is, I don’t know, but it’s very easy for me to send a freedom of information request to find out. Without this website, it would have been much more difficult to spot this information, never mind collate all the figures.

The website has nothing to do with Hull City Council, although the council must be congratulated for publishing all spending online – not just spending above £500. It has been created by a member of the public called Adam Jennison. Adam is to be congratulated for doing this. It is a valuable tool for taxpayers who can easily find out how their money is spent. It is also useful for the council itself, as well as local businesses who may be able to spot an opening in the market and deliver services at a better rate.

As this program can be adapted for use across the country, all councils can be covered. If this was so, all of us would be in a better position to scrutinise them more effectively.

Victory in Winslow

Oct 17th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

In June, I wrote about a local campaign in Winslow, Buckinghamshire to stop the introduction of parking charges in one of the town’s car parks.

Last year, Aylesbury Vale District Council announced plans to introduce parking charges in Greyhound Lane Car Park. A petition opposing these charges was organised by a local resident, the indomitable Ruth Ash. Ruth had never been involved in political campaigning before, but she knew parking charges would have a negative effect on her community. Although she was told to forget it as she would never win, she set about collecting signatures, and managed to get 2186 people to sign her petition – over half of Winslow’s adult population. 

It has been a long and rocky road, however thanks to her determination and tenacity she has achieved a remarkable victory, and parking will remain free until 2018. It should have been obvious to councillors and council officers that charges would drive business elsewhere. Instead the wheels of bureaucracy moved at just about the slowest pace they could as consultations and enquiries took place. It will be interesting to find out how much all of this has cost taxpayers in AVDC, and this is something I will be enquiring after.

In recent months I have highlighted campaigns across the country where local people have stood up against their councils on this issue. In Salisbury, where local traders told of a dramatic fall in business after charges were increased, the local newspaper led the campaign. It was the same story in Northumberland, but I have not come across a campaign that has been so successful and organised by just one person. Ruth is a modest lady who doesn’t want the credit, but as I told her, she deserves it, as without her hard work the council would have go its way, and her town would have been poorer as a result.

I hope this story serves as a catalyst to others around the country. It is possible to take on your council and win. This story has proven it.

The hidden perks inside Hull City Council

Oct 14th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

In a report earlier this year, we revealed that many councils pay mileage rates to staff well above the HMRC recommended rate of 45p per mile. Hull was one of those councils.

In a report in the Yorkshire Post this week, it was revealed that not only are staff benefiting from generous rates of 65p per mile, but staff can also claim a petrol allowance on top of the mileage allowance of up to 11.3p per mile. This was news to me, and to the journalist I spoke to about it. I described it as another of the hidden perks inside Hull City Council, and something that needs to be rectified. Scrapping this allowance and reducing the mileage rate to 45p per mile will bring considerable savings to the council’s budget.

It was also revealed that officers on Grade 12 or higher benefit from 33 days annual leave. Those on lower grades receive 25 days, rising to 26 after ten years service. The council also award two extra days leave to all staff in addition to the statutory public holidays. This means those earning above £42,066 a year are not only benefiting from hugely generous mileage rates when they travel on council business, they also receive 35 days holiday every year.

It is impossible to work out exactly how many officers there are benefiting from these additional days, as the council’s accounts only list those earning above £50k. Instead of providing two lists of teaching and non-teaching staff (which many councils do), Hull does not list them separately. There are, however, over 300 staff listed in the accounts (page 61) who earn in excess of £50k. We can easily add many more who will be earning above £42,066. It is therefore safe to assume that the council would not need as many managers as it currently employs if only the amount of annual leave was reduced.

I’m pleased to say that the leader of the council, Cllr Steve Brady, is negotiating with the unions on these matters. However, this is not a guarantee that these perks will end, or that other perks won’t be substituted for them. Hopefully everyone will see sense and realise that by reducing the mileage rates paid and reducing the amount of annual leave many officers receive, a significant contribution can be made towards balancing the books.

I would love to know if there are similar hidden perks in your council. If you know, please e-mail me. If you don’t know, you can always send a freedom of information (FoI) request to find out. If you would like me to send you a FoI template, please do get in touch.

← Earlier Posts

Switch to our mobile site