24plusnews.co.uk Rotating Header Image

Councils can publish more spending information

Dec 2nd, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

When asked by the Department for Communities and Local Government to publish all spending to suppliers over £500, all but Nottingham City Council did so. Of those that did, there are still some issues regarding how the data is put online.

This degree of transparency is still in its infancy though, and will hopefully become more efficient and more meaningful in some areas. After all, allowing residents to properly analyse spending without having to wade through a maze of indecipherable data is the whole point.

Some councils are going beyond the £500 limit. Hammersmith and Fulham have recently published all spending, not just to suppliers and not just over £500. They have acknowledged the benefit of this exercise to taxpayers and ultimately to the council themselves.

While they admit there are limitations to the data at this early stage, it is undoubtedly a big undertaking and one which we would encourage all other councils to follow.

Spending cuts essential according to new Audit Commission report

Nov 18th, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

Most councils are coping well with current level of cuts but the future could be challenging, according to findings of a new Audit Commission report. It says well-managed councils are weathering the current economic storm far better than others. They claim:

“big expenditure cuts are always hard but auditors feel that well-managed councils can deliver their 2011-12 budgets. Facing big cuts is not, on its own, enough to worry auditors. It is councils with big cuts and weak management that are at higher risk of not achieving their budget. Good financial management is helping most councils cope in 2011-12.”

The report explains three ways councils can help plug the financial gap. They can either raise charges and/or council tax, dip into reserves or make reductions in spending.

Many families are struggling, making savings to household budgets and coping with increasing fuel and energy bills. That means raising council tax or charges is unacceptable. It’s a lazy option.

At the start of the 2011-12 financial year, councils held £11.8 billion in reserves. This was equivalent to 30 per cent of total revenue spending in 2010-11. According to the report single tier and county councils held unallocated reserves equivalent to two-thirds of their central government reduction in funds, and district councils around twice the value. If earmarked reserves are included in this figure then the picture is markedly different: district councils reserves are then six times the value of their cuts and single tier and county councils nearly three times.

But when it comes to using reserves, Sir Merrick Cockell, Chair of the Local Government Association makes a strong point: that councils should only consider dipping into their reserves in extreme measures and only for use in the immediate term.

The final way of making up the shortfall – cuts to spending – is something the Audit Commission says is essential. Once falls in income and reserves are taken into account there is a net gap of 7 per cent in total income available to fund services for single tier and county councils and 8 per cent for district councils. But those figures relate to existing services. Councils must consider the difficult but necessary options of scrapping services or departments that are not a priority, or can be performed by someone else.

Besides, the report states that there was no identifiable link between the extent of impact on services and the size of cuts. It is something that is more affected by local decision making and individual council priorities, meaning many councils’ excuses don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Much of this report confirms what the TPA has been claiming for some time – that spending cuts are achievable through good management and the willingness to make difficult decisions. Councils should look through our research archive for suggestions on what to cut. Harry Phibbs’ list of 100 ways to cut council tax without cutting key services also has some excellent suggestions.

New Research: Sustainable Development Commission credit card spending revealed

Nov 2nd, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

In the latest in our series uncovering spending on credit cards by Britain’s wasteful quangos, we expose £185k of spending between April 2009 and March 2011 at the Sustainable Development Commission. This is further evidence that the decision to abolish this quango was the correct one, in the process saving taxpayers’ millions of pounds.

Last week, Chris Daniel wrote about the Government’s decision to publish spending on GPCs over £500. As this research shows, the Government should go further and publish all spending on credit cards to catch all wasteful spending. It must surely be easier to publish a whole credit card statement, as opposed to going through them and removing spending under £500.

The key findings include:

  • More than £14,000 spent on 4* Hotels, including the Hilton Grosvenor in Edinburgh and the Thistle Hotel in Kensington Gardens.
  • More than £10,000 spent on air travel and £62,000 on trains with the total travel bill totalling £80,000.
  • £299 paid to the Royal College of Music.
  • £1,483 paid to Apple Computers.
  • £750 to ‘The Adam Pottery’ in Edinburgh.
  • £135.30 at “Forget-Me-Knott” a glass engraving specialist.
  • £448 on RSPB images.
  • £200 to Scottish Whisky Heritage and £216 on Scotch Malt.

Responding to the findings, our Director Matthew Sinclair said:

“This outrageous spending is yet more evidence that the Sustainable Development Commission was anything but sustainable. It was an unaccountable quango that milked taxpayers while arguing against economic growth. With the commission now consigned to scrapheap, taxpayers will be thankful that there is one less pointless quango racking up ludicrous bills on credit cards by spending on luxury hotels and flights abroad. Government procurement cards can be a great way to ensure there is more transparency in public spending, but those using them should be responsible and remember who pays the bills.”

Download the data here

Civil servant credit card spending over £500 set for publication

Oct 27th, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

This morning the Government began publishing all spending over £500 on Government Procurement Cards (GPCs). Earlier this year we launched a campaign against wasteful spending on GPCs and other corporate credit cards, uncovering millions of pounds that was previously insufficiently monitored.

GPCs are credit cards used widely throughout the public sector. For many items they are often the most efficient way to purchase goods and save significant sums in administering expense claims. Previously, civil servants had to pay for items themselves upfront and wait for claims to be signed off. With corporate credit card schemes, there is not the same concern. However the ease of making purchases has resulted in many dubious claims slipping through the net. Of course we are fully supportive of a scheme that if used correctly would save taxpayers’ money, however until now, spending by civil servants on credit cards has gone largely unchecked.

It is great news that the Government has been paying close attention to revelations such as those covering spending in Whitehall Departments, Local Authorities, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, NICE, Ordnance Survey and the Health and Safety Executive. In addition to stricter oversight policies, publishing details of transactions online (in an easy to use format) will hopefully make civil servants think twice before booking into 4 or 5 star hotels, or making dinner reservations at Michelin starred restaurants.

But why only publish spending over £500? While it is consistent with other government spending releases, it is an arbitrary figure that would still exclude a huge number of transactions. Many of the claims made on GPCs are small in value, and indeed so too are many of the egregious claims, all of which would be exempt from publication. Strangely the Government’s own press release notes a couple of transactions to support their policy. Unfortunately one of the items, £258 spent at Puppets by Post which sells “finger puppets, hand puppets and glove puppets”, would clearly go unpublished under these new guidelines.

In our experience of requesting information on GPC/credit card spending, providing information for transactions above a certain threshold is often more expensive and demanding because of the transactions needing to be removed. Instead, the Government should consider revising its policy to cover the publication of entire GPC and credit card statements (personal details redacted, of course). Publishing entire credit card statements must surely be easy than filtering out claims under £500.

Town Hall bosses’ spending on credit cards revealed

Oct 18th, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

The latest in a series of investigations by the Daily Telegraph into public bodies’ use of credit cards exposes the bills run up by local authority chief executives across the UK. Earlier this year we led the campaign to uncover huge amounts being spent by Whitehall civil servants racking up million pound credit card bills, and have exposed similar waste at many of Britain’s biggest quangos.

The findings show that town hall bosses spent £2.6million on luxury perks using corporate credit cards, including concerts, sport events, dining at Michelin-starred restaurants, tailored clothing and fine whiskies. Council chief executives themselves have expenses tens of thousands of pounds, despite many enjoying six-figure salaries, and at a time when councils need to make all of the savings they can.

Some of the biggest expenses claims were from Colin Carmichael, chief executive of Canterbury Council (salary £135,000), who claimed expenses totalling £18,181; Tim Shields, the chief executive of Hackney council (£203,376), claimed £34,186; Andrew Taylor, chief executive of Lincoln City Council (£149,445), claimed £11,403; and John Foster, chief executive of Islington Council (£210,000), claimed £14,815.

Here are just a few of their claims:

  •  The chief executive of Hackney council spent £6,000 on flights to the 2008 Beijing Olympics for “training” to which he flew business class.
  • Colin Hilton, former chief executive at Liverpool City council, spent £1,152 taking colleagues to a sold out Coldplay concert.
  • Andrew Taylor, chief executive of Lincoln City Council charged more than £4,000 to his card for flights to Beijing, Frankfurt and Krakow for his assistant, the mayor and his wife. Other items he charged for included £2.17 mini-bar bill and a cash withdrawal of £362.77 which was classified as “unidentified expenditure” when asked by the Telegraph.

Of course many chief executives use corporate credit cards to expense small work-related items, and this is often the most cost effective means of doing so. But evidence suggests that, in practice, taxpayers are footing the bill for much more.

Some of the other favourite destinations include the luxury Dorchester Hotel in London; the Hotel Gray D’Albion in Cannes; the Hard Day’s Night, a Beatles themed hotel in Liverpool; trips to the world renowned Belfry Golf Course; a five star spa in Cardiff Bay; and Lushy Beg, a private 75-acre island.

Many of the items claimed for have little relevance and questionable benefit to the residents council bosses work for. Council chief executives already receive more than substantial salaries that, if they feel they need to stay in luxury hotels, mean they could easily pay for it themselves. This sentiment was echoed by an unidentified chief executive of a UK local authority who said:

“If I spend any money for work I just get it reimbursed but champagne lunches and first class travel is shocking. Chief executives incur costs in their jobs but we are paid well and you should not exploit that. No-one expects a chief executive to stay in a fleapit, but there is a big difference between the Dorchester and a fleapit.”

Unsurprisingly, the LGA has leapt to councils’ defence. They claim:

“It is part and parcel of the job that they have to travel to meet top people from the public and private sectors, and this can involve stays in hotels and the proportionate use of hospitality.”

But they completely miss the point. No-one is claiming council chief executives won’t incur reasonable expenses while carrying out their day jobs, but it is unacceptable for taxpayers to pick up the bill for visits to the Dorchester and luxury restaurants that many can only dream of. Such a staunch defence of irresponsible spending suggests the LGA doesn’t care about the interests of taxpayers or residents. If councils were transparent, residents could decide whether they agree with this sort of spending. The LGA claim that the spending is “properly audited and transparent”, but if it weren’t for newspapers like the Telegraph and bodies like ourselves, such waste would go unnoticed.

While they are one of the more cost-effective means of paying for items, corporate credit cards are inadequately monitored. Far too many dubious claims slip through the net and must be brought under control. If chief executives had to pay for the items up-front and then wait before being reimbursed, the number of lavish claims would almost certainly fall considerably.

Procurement cards were supposed to improve this more inefficient system of claiming expenses, but our research, along with the Telegraph’s inquiry, shows that this system needs to be tightened up to stop taxpayers picking up the bill for unnecessary luxuries.

Councils can return to weekly bin collections

Sep 30th, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

Yesterday the Coalition announced it is to provide £250 million to enable local authorities across the UK to switch back to weekly bin collections. In June I wrote about our disappointment that the Conservatives had backtracked on their manifesto pledge to end to fortnightly collections. However, Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles yesterday made the offer councils will hopefully find impossible to refuse.

Council tax has almost doubled over the last decade and for many the most valued and visible service in return is waste collection. While councils across the country reassess their priorities after reductions in their central government grants, many are reluctant to return to weekly collections. But we regularly publish stories and produce research that shows there are savings to be made in council budgets.

While it is not ideal that the Government felt forced to bribe councils to provide the weekly service, as with the council tax freeze introduced earlier this year, it is often the only tool Ministers have. But this decision places power back in the hands of local residents. Councils will find it difficult to go against their will.

There will be some who claim that offering an incentive to local authorities goes against the localism agenda. Firstly, the offer is optional. The councils that genuinely believe a weekly collection is what their residents want but who find it financially prohibitive have the funds available, those who strongly believe in fortnightly collections can refuse. Secondly, the eye-watering landfill taxes councils frequently moan about emanate from the European Union, the very anathema of localism. Meddling from the EU in council affairs severely restrict the service they can provide residents. If councils want more power, they should first tell the Government to stop accepting diktats from Brussels.

Offering his immediate reaction to the news, our Chief Executive Matthew Elliott said:

“Weekly bin collections are the number one service which council taxpayers expect to receive from their local authorities, so it is terrific to hear that councils will no longer have any excuse not to provide this to every resident in their area.  Rubbish collection may not be seen as a sexy issue to the chattering classes in London, but it is one which is of great concern to ordinary hardworking taxpayers. It’s good to see a manifesto promise delivered despite the difficult financial times we live in. Woe betide the councils who do not reinstate weekly bin collections or who persist with plans to scrap this basic service, causing misery to local residents.”

Meanwhile our Campaign Director, Emma Boon, was on Sky News discussing the announcement:

BBC splash out on consultants and hotels

Sep 27th, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

The BBC spent more than £8 million on consultants in 2010-11 despite huge cuts to programming and job losses. Figures obtained by the Telegraph under Freedom of Information laws reveal the extent to which the BBC indulged in advice estimated to be the equivalent of producing one of their flagship dramas like Spooks, or 54,983 licence fees.

A more detailed itemisation of the expenditure shows £769,045 was spent on “change management” and £1.9 million on “strategy”.

Tracey Morris, head of sourcing at BBC procurement, defended the expenditure:

“The BBC in common with other large organisations does employ consultants but only when we need specialist advice and resource on projects that are outside of the normal course of our business and where it would not be cost efficient to maintain those specialist skills in-house.”

The problem is the BBC is not like any other large organisation. It is funded by a tax on televisions and has a responsibility to spend every penny carefully.

Earlier this year the BBC sent more than 250 staff to cover an event marking the start of the one year countdown to the Olympics, 10 times more than their biggest news rival.

Michael Crick, former Political Editor of Newsnight warned that spending cuts might damage leading BBC programmes. But there are clearly visible cuts to make which needn’t affect programming or news production and their lavish spending sheds some light on their priorities. In another Telegraph story over the weekend, it was revealed that the BBC booked more than 1,600 nights of accommodation to house its staff when staging Radio One’s Big Weekend. Overall more than 210 staff were sent to Carlisle, some up to 2 weeks prior to the event amounting to 1,437 night of accommodation for Radio One staff and 190 for BBC television employees.

It is not surprising the BBC has been heavily criticised for out of control spending when attending major events. A National Audit Office report has criticised the BBC for not knowing in advance how much attending or staging events such as Glastonbury and Radio One’s Big Weekend will cost.

With a licence fee which leaves little change from £150, the BBC needs to act immediately to bring costs down. Thoughtless spending cannot continue.

New LGA Chief hired on package worth nearly £200,000

Sep 20th, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

The new head of the Local Government Association (LGA) has been hired on a package worth nearly £200,000 a year. Carolyn Downs will replace outgoing interim Chief Executive John Ransford and enjoy a salary of £169,000 plus a generous pension amounting to almost £27,000 per year.

Our Campaign Director, Emma Boon offered her reaction to the news:

“The LGA lobbies government to further its own political interests and

 agitates for higher pay for senior council staff, so it’s unsurprising to see them giving their own chief executive such a great deal. This salary is an insult to ordinary families and shows how out of touch the LGA is with taxpayers who fund it and with public sector workers who are subject to a two-year pay freeze.”

Eric Pickles has urged pay restraint across all councils, however the size of this package shows the LGA think such control does not apply to them. This local government lobbying organisation does not act in taxpayers’ interests. Councils spend millions of pounds in total each year in subscriptions to the LGA for supposed benefits many rarely use. Earlier this year Windsor and Maidenhead council concluded they could put their £40,000 annual subscription to better use. As for the services they receive in return, they decided that it would be cheaper for them to source them on an ad hoc basis.

They are not the only ones though, Barking & Dagenham and Greenwich in London, Test Valley, South Cambridgeshire and Rutland councils have all served notice to leave. This is in addition to Rochford, Doncaster, Slough, Barnet, Kingston upon Thames and Sutton councils, who have all served out their notice.

While the eye-watering pay packet is hardly the act of an organisation in touch with ordinary taxpayers, the LGA can at least be commended for displaying the remuneration package of their incoming Chief Executive on the front page of their website. Despite being an organisation funded by taxpayers and entirely concerned with local government, it does not fall under the Freedom of Information Act.

Innovative councils do not need spoon-fed assistance from the LGA and are beginning to leave. The size of the pay packet for its new chief should provides another reason for councils across the country to reconsider their membership of this costly organisation.

CPS report urges Government to reform pensions and stand up to irresponsible trade union tactics

Sep 9th, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

Trade unions have announced further plans for widespread public sector strikes. Compounding the gloom of the passing of summer, commentators are now talking of an ‘Autumn of Discontent.’

Not satisfied with the disruption earlier in the year, they plan a fresh wave of strikes intended to bring many public services to a standstill once more, this time over proposed reforms to public sector pensions. In a new report, the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) warn:

“the on-going negotiations between the government and the unions are as great as any other negotiations between government and unions in history.“

Andrew Haldenby of Reform – who themselves have a report out today on public sector reform – has an excellent article for the Telegraph today, arguing the Coalition cannot and must not let the TUC derail plans to reform public services. The public sector has grown so much that it is now unaffordable and urgently needs slimming down. Ordinary taxpayers cannot be expected to continue paying the generous pensions of public sector workers when figures show that one in six have had to stop paying into their own.

 In his article, Haldenby quotes Tony Blair on public sector “reformers” and “wreckers.” It is obvious which bracket the trade unions fall into. Haldenby concludes:

“Britain needs excellent public services with smaller, better workforces and great results… the TUC’s retrograde vision would achieve none of these things.”

And today’s CPS report reiterates how important pension reform is:

“The relatively lavish pensions enjoyed by many public sector workers are a burden which will largely be met by the private sector. Yes, reform of public sector pensions is tremendously difficult. But this must be ruthlessly pursued if we are to have a lasting and fair solution.”

Five years ago contributions into and withdrawals from pension funds were roughly in balance. Today the shortfall is expected to exceed £5.8bn and will rise to £8bn if the Hutton Review’s measures are not implemented in full. Public sector pensions must be self-sufficient as soon as possible because it’s not fair to leave taxpayers to foot the bill.  And if plans to privatise organisations like Royal Mail go ahead, their enormous pension liabilities look set to stay with taxpayers.

Trade unions often argue that lower pay in the public sector warrants generous reward in retirement. But Office for National Statistics now show that gross pay is 4 per cent higher and rewards are 13 per cent higher in the public sector, completely discrediting their case.

The size of the pension black hole illustrates how essential it is that public sector pensions are reformed as soon as possible. The Government must stand firm against union action, as giving into the “wreckers” will simply leave future generations of taxpayers to pick up the tab.

More than 100 quango chiefs sitting on £1 million pension pots

Sep 5th, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

A Sunday Times (£) survey has revealed that more than 100 of Britain’s most senior quangocrats now have pension pots worth more than £1 million. The investigation found many growing by up to £240,000 every year, with some increasing by more than the salaries they are paid.

The size of these pension pots only compound other stories about huge six-figure salaries, and other perks. One of the biggest beneficiaries is Cynthia Bower, Chief Executive of the Care Quality Commission. In 2009 her pension pot was worth £871,000 but has since grown to a staggering £1,350,000, as of March this year.

Others sitting on hefty £1 million-plus pension pots include the Health and Safety Executive Chief, Geoffrey Podger, at £1,741,000; Lynda Hamlyn of the NHS Blood and Transplant at £1,640,000 and Peter Lauener, Chief Executive of Young People’s Learning Agency whose pot is worth £1,289,000.

It is feared that many will cash in on the government’s intention to shrink quango numbers and staff with perks such as early retirement pay-offs. Tony Cooper, the former Chief Executive of the Rural Payments Agency, took early retirement last year with a pension pot of £1,295,000. In addition he received an early retirement lump-sum of £243,803.

Those leaving the soon to be abolished regional development agencies are expected to receive some of the biggest financial packages. Pam Alexander, who left her position last week as Chief Executive of the South East England Development Agency, has a pension pot worth £1,268,000 and received an undisclosed “exit package.”

Following the closing ceremony of the Olympic Games next summer, the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) also plans large pay-outs. Chief Executive Dennis Hone has a pension pot of £1,354,000 which will be topped up when the body is shut down.

In 2008 we revealed that more than 8,500 NHS employees ad pension pots in excess of £1million, and the situation has only become worse.

After the disappointment of the so-called “bonfire of the quangos” and irresponsible credit card spending, The Sunday Times findings will do nothing to repair quangos’ discredited reputations. Staff is often the biggest area of spending for many organisations; hidden costs such as pensions and pay-offs are considerably more than their annual salaries therefore it is important this information is publicly available.

Lord Hutton published a report this year proposing widespread reforms including higher contributions and pensions based on career average earnings rather than final salary. Ros Altman has advised the government on pensions and agrees that something must be done:

Huge sums of money will be payable and people don’t realise this…taxpayers need to understand what the costs are.

The public finances are in crisis and big pension liabilities add to these worries. Hutton’s suggestions are a good place to start, although in the long term it may be advisable to switch to a system based on defined contributions.

Police efficiency quango spends more than £6.5 million on taxpayer funded credit cards

Aug 8th, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

Staff at the National Policing Improvement Agency ran up a credit card bill of more than £6.5million, freedom of information requests have revealed. Credit card statement statements show an astonishing   range of items were purchased using the cards, from lingerie, beehives, wellington boots to “Duck tours” on the Thames. Around 150 members of staff have such credit cards and they racked up an average spend of £20,000 a year, each, this follows releases of credit card statements by Government departments and councils.

London's famous "Duck Tour"

Bosses at the quango held their hands up and admitted that spending was out of control, commenting on the disclosure it’s Chief Executive Nick Gargan said “We accept that, in the early days of the NPIA, there was a perception of wastefulness.”

Ironically the quango was set-up in 2007 to help police forces in England and Wales save money and operate more efficiently. It is a pity they didn’t practice what they preached. Among some of the more shocking items were over £100,000 in taxi fares; £1,800 on a beehive; £800 on Judo equipment; £2,500 dining at the exclusive Boisdales restaurant in Belgravia and £1,200 on a lawnmower. The Daily Mail have examples of more here.

With these shocking figures now in the open, and following other examples of waste like the £70 million spent on consultants as we discussed in How to save £50 billion, it is becoming ever more clear why the government has taken the decision to scrap the quango. Unfortunately taxpayers will not be able to breathe a sigh of relief until they are finally disbanded next year, until then we are still picking up the tab for their irresponsible and out of control spending.

DCLG are right to urge local authorities to publish asset registers

Aug 5th, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

The Department for Communities and Local Government has published a list of all assets owned by more than 600 public sector bodies. Many are schools, health centres and leisure centres as you would expect, but what is more astonishing is the sheer number that are shops, theatres, golf clubs, hotels, stables and even football clubs. A map released by DCLG shows where more than 180,000 assets worth more than £385bn are located. More than two thirds of these assets are held by councils, which emphases how important is it that all councils publish their assets register so residents can use it alongside new powers in the Localism Bill to get better value and engage in local decisions. Perhaps what is more disappointing is that councils do not publish this information themselves and the task has fallen to a central government department, as it so often has.

Listed in the disclosure are over 130 cafes and restaurants; more than 100 pubs; 60 theatres; over 40 hotels, 3 of which are Holiday Inns; 20 cinemas and an airport. Estimates show annual running costs top £25bn each year and the backlog of maintenance costs exceeds £40bn. All public bodies must first make their asset registers available to the public which will help them to use them more efficiently. Our Research Director John O’Connell wrote in his weekly ConHome column about the benefits of having this information made public: “A report by the Westminster Sustainable Business Forum (WSBF), led by Matthew Hancock MP, made a range of recommendations about local government estate management, including reducing asset lists by 20-30 per cent and handing control of property management to one central department in the council. It makes clear that although the money gained from sales is a one off, the reductions in running costs gained by merging services into fewer buildings will save money in the longer term too.”

There are huge savings for councils to make, whether through selling off assets or running them more wisely, helping to provide the best possible value for money to taxpayers and contribute to lowering council tax.

Are Union bosses really in touch with their members? Former Unite boss Derek Simpson’s £500k payoff met with “shock and anger”

Jul 19th, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

Do trade union bosses really feel their members’ pain? Reading this morning’s news that Derek Simpson, former General Secretary of Unite, received a ‘golden goodbye’ of over half a million pounds when he retired, it certainly doesn’t sound like it. Hearing that Mr Simpson received such a huge pay-out upon standing down last year was met with “shock and anger” by the current leadership.

The £500,000-plus package consisted of a £361,000 severance payment,£100,000 salary and more than £51,000 in housing benefit and car allowances. Such a massive pay-out undermines Unite’s credibility in the current fiscal debate; as part of their battle against cuts, union leaders claim to be speaking for ordinary workers and the poor, and attack high earners. For members to see their union’s boss receiving such a generous package, paid partly through subs, will be a bitter pill to swallow.  Our Trade Union Rich List published last month placed Derek Simpson as the highest earner in 2009-10, in receipt of a package totalling £186,626.

Of more concern to taxpayers is the extent to which we are contributing to such a lucrative payoff. Our report last year on taxpayer funding of trade unions revealed they received £85.8 million from public sector organisations in 2009-10 made up of £18.3 million in direct payments and an estimated £67.5 million in paid staff time.

On the pay-out, Emma Boon, Campaign Director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said:

“Trade unions leaders claim to speak for ordinary workers but this whopping golden goodbye puts Derek Simpson in a class with the privileged elite he spent so much time criticising. Simpson looks hypocritical for taking this pay off after condemning high pay elsewhere. Worse still, the union coffers that this money came from are boosted by millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money every year, which helps them to afford generous deals like this to departing leaders.”

Weekly bin collections sent to landfill

Jun 14th, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, guaranteed all councils would return to weekly waste collections when the Government was formed,  as over the previous years many had switched to fortnightly collections. But it’s over 12 months since the Coalition Agreement was signed and the situation on the ground is actually worse; 13 more councils have switched to fortnightly collections than have switched the other way.

Back then Eric Pickles claimed “It’s a basic right for every Englishman and woman to be able to put the remnants of their chicken tikka masala in their bin without having to wait two weeks for it to be collected.” Saying that was clearly not enough to persuade councils to revert to a weekly collection of residual waste so there was talk that further measures, most likely some form of incentive, were needed.

We are right to expect them once a week

The ‘Waste Review’ will be announced today and the Government will not force councils to collect rubbish weekly. Instead they will refocus their efforts to make the UK a “zero waste” country. This is one battle Eric Pickles has lost, but many taxpayers will lose out too. Council tax has almost doubled over the last decade but taxpayers aren’t getting such a basic service cut. As the Telegraph noted in their Leader article yesterday morning, the collection of waste is the most basic of council tasks, one of the main reasons we pay council tax. Since the 1875 Public Health act, residents have been required to put their waste into a “movable receptacle” which the local authorities should empty each week. John Redwood reiterates this point, noting that many people do not use the majority of their council services. They may not have children in local schools or receive social security or patronise local leisure facilities; but one service they will use is their bin collection service. That makes a combination of less regular, less convenient bin collections and rising council tax bills particularly hard to stomach.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies produced a report on environmental taxes as part of the Mirrlees Review. They argue that the taxes imposed on waste disposal outweigh the social costs that they inflict in the first place. They found that:

“The UK landfill tax was one of the first explicit environmental taxes introduced in this country, initially set at rates reflecting best estimates of the costs involved. However, subsequent large increases in the rate, and the introduction of the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme, appear designed to ensure compliance with EU targets on landfill reduction. These targets look too stringent to be justified by the environmental costs.”

If government really want to help councils they should tackle the EU landfill directive

Those landfill taxes make it much harder for councils to keep offering weekly collections.  Councils are being forced into rationing waste collection by overly simplistic and inflexible EU targets, rather than genuine local environmental concerns.  Complaints that this is about central government interfering in local decisions therefore miss the point. We don’t have a level playing field at the moment with heavy handed intervention not just from Whitehall, but from Brussels.

Our Director Matthew Sinclair was on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this morning saying that local people should decide the priorities for their local area. The EU, with their onerous directives, don’t have UK taxpayers in mind and establish draconian top-down targets. Massive landfill taxes directly hurt local authorities, instead of allowing them to decide the best policies for their residents. This pressure breeds bizarre responses, such as councils requiring residents to sort rubbish into nine bins, which we looked at in recent research . If councils believe that central intervention in waste policy isn’t localist, then they should be asking the Government to take on the EU Landfill Directive.

Matthew Sinclair also appeared on the BBC News Channel this morning, you can watch it here

Bradford City Council spend £300,000 on trade union pilgrims

Jun 10th, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

Since releasing our report last summer on Taxpayer funding of trade unions, more and more stories have emerged highlighting examples public sector employees working full time on trade union duties. Thanks to hard work over at the Guido Fawkes blog and continuous attention on our blog, momentum is building against this atrocious use of taxpayers’ money.

Today the Conservative Group at Bradford City Council have revealed that the local authority is spending £300,000 a year on the wages and offices of trade union staff.  Councillor Miller, Leader of the Conservative group on the council stated “council’s have a duty to ensure value for money for the taxpayer and I call upon the Labour leadership to respond to the Minister’s call for the merits of union officials and office facilities funded by councils to be urgently reviewed”.

Bradford City Hall

That is a lot of money for an authority with significant pressures on its finances.  In December last year Councillor Greenwood, the Leader of Bradford Council said: “The cuts for the next financial year will still have a massive affect on us. It’s still several thousand jobs almost certainly, it’s still a massive effect on frontline services and it’s still people not getting the services they so desperately need … the Council had been taking action for months to secure substantial savings, including cutting bureaucracy and duplication, and prioritising our available resources on the vital services local people need.”

If money is so tight at the council – and they are trying to deliver value for money, surely Councillor Greenwood will support saving £300,000 by ending taxpayer funding of trade union officials? The unions should pay for their own staff through membership subs, not with our money. The £300,000 spent in Bradford should be used to provide services for residents, not subsidise trade unions.

If you want to help us put pressure on politicians to stop this gross subsidy, we’ve written about what you can do here .

Councils taking taxpayers for a ride with lavish credit card spending

Jun 1st, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

This week The Daily Telegraph revealed that councils across the UK spent over £100million on taxpayer funded credit cards in the last three years. Government Procurement Cards (GPCs), as they are officially known, were intended to cut red tape and the costly bureaucracy involved in reimbursing employees for small expense claims, but The Telegraph’s findings show that over the last three years councils have spent recklessly on their credit cards, taking taxpayers for a ride.

And that ride was quite often to the Far East for employees of Cornwall council, as they took trips to Goa, Bangkok and Kyoto at taxpayers’ expense, in turn racking up a bill for over £1.1million in the last three years on hotels alone. The council refused to comment when contacted by The Telegraph.

It's alright, it's on the taxpayer!

Council employees also dined at the Michelin starred Claridge’s restaurant in London’s Mayfair, and spent over £500,000 on lavish gifts from retailers such as Gucci and Tiffany’s. The list of transactions ranges from the extravagant to the outlandish: a Horsham council employee spent £1,150 on two llamas to graze a patch of commercial land and Aberdeenshire council splashed-out £3,500 on some cheerleading pom-poms. Councils across the UK also spent over £100,000 on Apple products alone; it is hard to believe the benefit of this to residents across the country. Apple products are by no means the cheapest products on the market – there are other options available.

Eric Pickles described the findings as “wild” and claimed “some councils have been enjoying the high-life, paid for by you and me.” He’s right: many of the items of spending simply cannot be justified. Some councils don’t even have a record for some transactions; a total of over £20,000 was unaccounted for by councils because no receipts were provided. If an expenses system was cumbersome, at least receipts had to be shown. But with GPCs councils are agreeing to pay for transactions they do not even have a record for.

The Telegraph discovered that of the 434 local authorities questioned only 48 do not issue employees with credit cards. Those that do seem to have their own internal guidelines on how they should operate. Philip Green in his efficiency review concluded that spending on GPCs is “simply not monitored.” They may be the most cost effective means of spending for certain items, but what was supposed to be a means to cut red tape has resulted in taxpayers footing the bills for unchecked spending. The principle of switching to GPCs may have been a good one however it needs to be properly monitored, the current financial controls are inadequate.

With an expenses system, staff may be more careful with their spending as they have to pay for items themselves first. But with taxpayers’ cash on tap, this is no longer an issue and many have had quite a time on our shout.

Councils splash-out over £2 million on away days

May 26th, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

A Sky News Waste Watch investigation has today revealed that councils spent more than £2 million on away days over the last two years. Laser tag, trips to the zoo, Centre Parcs and narrow boat outings are some out of office trips local authorities made when they should be eradicating all unnecessary spending. Westminster council were the biggest spenders with £164,275. Some specific examples are:

  • Eight officers from Rutland District Council spent £80 on Laser-tag in June 2009
  • Shepway District Council spent £1,085 at Port Lympne Zoo Park in 2009
  • Wiltshire County Council spent £2,010 on a trip to centre parcs in July 2010 and £290 to hire a narrow boat in May 2009
  • Leicestershire County Council splashed out £231 for a barge in April 2010

The boating theme is a popular one but sport venues are also a particularly well-liked choice for away days:

  • Carmarthenshire Council spent £17,976.93 at Parc y Scarlet’s Rugby Stadium and also visited Ffoslas Racecourse
  • Nottingham City Council enjoyed away days at the National Water sports Centre and Trent Bridge Cricket Ground - perhaps explaining their reluctance to open up their spending over £500 like all other councils in the UK have done
  • Greenwich Council spent £13,000 on team building sessions at Charlton Athletic FC

Is this really the best venue for an away day?

Ironically councils spent thousands of pounds on away days to discuss ways in which they could save money. The London Borough of Merton spent £10,269 at the Hilton Hotel in Cobham including £4,000 on food and drink for ‘training focusing on making efficiency savings’ in July 2009.

The research carried out by Sky also uncovered some councils displaying a more prudent approach. West Berkshire Council held a team development meeting in a Village Hall where staff took their own sandwiches and paid for the hire of the venue by donating their time clearing allotments and paths. Oxfordshire County Council displayed a similar level of thriftiness in holding an away day in a team members house with attendees providing their own food. It is clear from this that councils can still perform their duties and host vital meetings at little or no cost. It is simply unacceptable to see councils spending so much money at a time when they tell us they are cutting back.

Councils need to make better use of their own resources and learn from councils that have managed to arrange away days but at no or very little cost to the taxpayer. Councils keep telling us they’ve made all savings possible, these findings tell us this is not the case.

BBC One’s The Street That Cut Everything taught us nothing

May 17th, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

Last night the BBC aired The Street That Cut Everything, a reality television show. Nick Robinson opened the show proclaiming: “Welcome to an extraordinary experiment. The people living here are going to have to do a whole lot more for themselves and get used to having have a lot less done for them. Asking the people on this street to do without something we all take for granted – council services. Everything the council provides is going. “

The crux of the experiment was seeing how an ordinary street manages when all council services are removed. They are all given their pro-rata council tax contribution and are given freedom how to spend it. The 52 Residents had to decide if they were to work together or as individual households.

Residents of ‘The street’ were put through a series of challenges, from losing street lighting, removal of their wheelie bins and waste collections, fly tipping, graffiti, housing benefit, closure of parks, leisure centres and loss of council buses

The 'scientist': Nick Robinson

The residents took recycling to the local supermarket. Only to find it returned to them because the supermarket bins are also emptied by the council. They eventually took their waste to a private recycling plant and were paid £15 for it.

Whilst the theatrical show made for sensationalist television the concept was completely flawed.  It bore little relation to the actual challenge people would face without council services for three reasons.

First, it compared large-scale long-term council provision and planning with an attempt to manage without on a small-scale, for only 6 weeks. Many of the services residents used on a regular basis are administered by a council with an established infrastructure. If the council ceased to exist then a private organisation would inevitably move to fill the void. Anton Howes on the Adam Smith Institute’s blog makes this point:

“If private money could have been used to replace services, any entrepreneur in the area would have jumped at the chance to make a profit providing lighting, or collecting rubbish. But then six weeks for just a handful of households is not enough to merit that kind of endeavour. Instead of rationing public services within strict limits, a whole service industry involving growth and increasing productivity could have been created, particularly if done on a larger, longer-term scale.”

The second reason is it focussed on the frontline services residents receive. What it failed to highlight was other vast examples of waste that councils could cut tomorrow and save millions of pounds.

One resident hit the nail on the head. “No wonder the council is short of money, there seems to be a service for everything. If they cut a few of the services, I think people would manage and survive off their own devices. One daft rule of the experiment was that residents were not permitted to use any of their own money, even to buy a torch to light the streets when on the way to work, surely that is unrealistic and made it harder to deal with the withdrawal of services.

Finally, it is unclear where the figure of £52.90 the residents receive comes from. The money residents pay in council tax only makes up a proportion of local government revenue. Preston City Council have three sources of funding: £7.34 million in Central Government Grants; £10.17 million from council taxpayers and £12.92 million from non-domestic rate payers, it is not clear if the share residents received back takes this into account. Furthermore, does the figure include both the money paid to Preston City and Lancashire County councils?

A valid comparison?

One of the most controversial moments during the six weeks was when residents were told that out of their budget they had to pay for the care of the father of one of “the street’s” residents. Following a majority vote, they voted to provide the care. It would have been contentious not to, and following the emotional plea by his daughter, heartless. But it would be logical for the street’s residents to also receive the father’s share of council tax, it they were expected to pay for his care. This was wholly unfair and ate up a not insignificant £300 of their already diminishing budget.

But even leaving aside the flaws in the application of the programme’s concept.  The concept itself bore little relation to the actual challenge for councils.  They don’t need to respond to cuts by dropping services, let alone all of them, but should instead be looking to emulate other authorities that have shown it is possible to get better value.

Thankfully the programme did not consist entirely of residents cheerleading services provided by their council. The tight financial circumstances did prompt some residents to search for examples of waste within their authority. One resident discovered Lancashire County Council spent £29,000 to change their logo. His response “£29,000?  That’d pay for a lot of care!”. Perhaps the most useful outcome of the programme was that it provoked some residents to start realising there were areas of spending the council poured hundreds of thousands of pounds into with no direct benefit to residents. When councils threaten to remove provision of elderly care and closure of public parks and school buses, residents will realise the council needs to sort out their priorities. When challenged the residents seemed to take more of an interest in where the council spend their money.

Following an event we ran at Conservative Party Conference, the BBC published an article about some of the ways councils can save money, with cost cutting tips from the successful council leaders we invited. It is a shame measures like those weren’t given more publicity in last night’s documentary. The programme was more of a propaganda campaign against council cuts, when it could have asked more serious questions and investigated, for example, why Wandsworth Council is able to spend the best part of a third less than neighbouring Lambeth Council and generally get better marks for its services.  A lot of that is down to running a lot more efficiently.

Interestingly when residents realised their pot was empty, they prioritised. They chose to take down their hired street lights in order to claw money back to enable them to have their waste collected. Councils need to prioritise now but that shouldn’t mean giving taxpayers a worse deal.   They should be making cuts in non-essential areas, reducing the bloated back office, slashing  fat-cat salaries and slimming down the enormous mass of middle managers.  How many of those residents would’ve rather seen a diversity officer in post over having their waste collected? How many would care if they existed at all if it meant a reduction in council tax?

An experiment like this will naturally have huge limitations, but these limitations are not an excuse for ignoring saving suggestions or for failing to acknowledge and remind audiences that only a proportion of council expenditure is on frontline services.

I struggle to see quite what the aim of the programme was supposed to be.  An experiment, and one set up unfairly, in how people would cope with short-term revolutionary anarcho-capitalism isn’t the right way of exploring how best councils can manage budget cuts.   There is only one really clear result: the people on the programme really valued being able to see what was happening to their money.  If all councils were transparent about their spending residents could come to a much more informed view about how to prioritise with their money.

Union predicts an apocalypse: a tad over the top?

May 6th, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

“Dead bodies could start piling up, strip clubs could be set up on any street corner and vulnerable children could be left without care”.

What does this chilling sequence of words describe? The strap-line of a bad action movie, perhaps? No. This is the scenario envisaged by Unison if the Government goes ahead with proposals to remove a series of statutory duties on councils.

Coming soon to a street corner near you?

Back in March I blogged on DCLG’s planned review of the hundreds of statutory duties placed on local government. Many of them exist as a result of centuries old Acts of Parliament and are no longer really necessary. Many of the newer ones are equally unnecessary. Conforming to them inevitably costs councils and thus taxpayers millions of pounds each year. Removing some of them could help reduce unnecessary burdens on local authorities and enable them to decide for themselves what they regard as necessary areas of spending.  As this article on Public Service explains, DCLG has invited all local authorities “to suggest which are unnecessary burdens that could be repealed.” It will help unlock big areas of spending in which councillors and council staff could root out waste before cutting back on frontline services.

A good example is our report on Unnecessary Jobs. We looked at Diversity and Climate Change Officers. They are employed to carry out tasks that councils have to perform because of central legislation. Of course, responses to these requirements varied wildly, but essentially these posts were created mainly because councils thought they had to create them.

But the response from the unions, to what is an important debate, is one that beggars belief. Predictions of an apocalypse help no-one and in the long-term could actually harm their members interests, as councils will have less freedom to try and find genuine efficiencies and waste to cut.

The proposals could bring long overdue changes to local government so it’s disappointing that Unison have reacted so mindlessly to them.

**Update**

Even the LGA agree with us:

LGA chair Baroness Margaret Eaton said: ‘The elimination of statutory guidance notes and a root-and-branch prune of unnecessary duties would not only ease the costly red-tape burden being placed on local authorities, it would help government departments avoid unnecessary policy work, saving them up to £1.5bn each year.’

Eaton added:

‘The government has an opportunity to completely revise the existing culture of excessive bureaucratic oversight. We are not seeking to abolish the statutory duty to provide core services and protect the vulnerable. However, some of the duties currently placed on town halls are perverse, unnecessary and run contrary to localism. Bossy guidance telling councils how to collect rent, costly duplication in the collection and reporting of data, and confusing and contradictory policy guidance increase the administrative burden and make it harder for councils to deliver the services people want in the way they want them.’

It is encouraging that the LGA are taking a common-sense approach to this. It is a great pity the unions have not done the same!

The Unions and their unrealistic demands

Apr 23rd, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

The public finances are in a mess, so you’d be forgiven for thinking all councils were looking at reducing their spending. And many are, no doubt. To help the process, you’d have thought other groups like unions would be helping to suggest areas of spending to cut back in order to protect vital frontline services and their members. But that’s wishful thinking. Unison, Unite and GMB have sent a joint email around to councillors asking them to agree to a range of measures that will actually damage their members’ interests in the long run.

In their email they say:

“Across the UK, sick leave, holiday pay, car allowances, redundancy and unsocial hours payments – already the lowest in the public sector – are also under attack. While petrol prices soar, the Local Government Employers have refused to carry out the annual review of car allowances. Many of our members can no longer afford to use their cars for work. Others are finding themselves without occupational sick pay for up to six months of illness. Those who work hard at night or at weekends to provide your council’s services are being forced to do so on flat rates – without any recognition of the disruption to their family lives or sleep!”

Since releasing our report last week on council mileage allowances, I have been contacted by many councils who say they are lowering their rates to bring them in line with the 45p

Are union bosses living on another planet?

recommended by the taxman. Clearly they regard this as an easy saving to make. But the letter signed by the unions appears to be calling for an increase to the current agreed rate of 65p per mile. A rate that far exceeds the cost of motoring, as our report outlined. Taxpayers shouldn’t be footing this bill when many of them can themselves only claim up to the 45p tax-free rate, and very often below this.

 

Furthermore the email not only calls for an end to the public sector pay freeze, but an increase over the next two years, a completely unrealistic demand. Considering the fragility of the country’s finances and the financial settlement councils are dealing with, the unions don’t seem to be living in the real world.

Our Director Matthew Sinclair has more thoughts on this, as you may have seen in the Daily Mail:

“Although the big unions defend so many unreasonable perks, taxpayers will still be shocked that they are still trying to look after gold-plated mileage payments and secure fresh hikes in their pay. The pay freeze in place in the public sector is vital to get a handle on the deficit. It is utterly irresponsible for the unions to be putting this kind of pressure on councillors as the public sector needs to tighten its belt, like the private sector has, after years of excess. Times may be hard but wages in the public sector outstrip those in the private sector, so it’s disingenuous for unions to try and plead poverty on behalf of their members. To even think of increasing mileage payments, instead of cutting them to 45 pence a mile or less, betrays a mindset completely out of touch with reality. The unions need to be more reasonable or the end result will be more of their members out of work and more of British taxpayers’ money spent paying the interest on a bloated national debt.”

Union demands for higher pay and even higher mileage payments

Apr 23rd, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

The public finances are in a mess, so you’d be forgiven for thinking all councils were looking at reducing their spending. And many are, no doubt. To help the process, you’d have thought other groups like unions would be helping to suggest areas of spending to cut back in order to protect vital frontline services and their members. But that’s wishful thinking. Unison, Unite and GMB have sent a joint email around to councillors asking them to agree to a range of measures that will actually damage their members’ interests in the long run.

In their email they say:

“Across the UK, sick leave, holiday pay, car allowances, redundancy and unsocial hours payments – already the lowest in the public sector – are also under attack. While petrol prices soar, the Local Government Employers have refused to carry out the annual review of car allowances.  Many of our members can no longer afford to use their cars for work.  Others are finding themselves without occupational sick pay for up to six months of illness.  Those who work hard at night or at weekends to provide your council’s services are being forced to do so on flat rates – without any recognition of the disruption to their family lives or sleep!”

Since releasing our report last week on council mileage allowances, I have been contacted by many councils who say they are lowering their rates to bring them in line with the 45p

Are union bosses living on another planet?

recommended by the taxman. Clearly they regard this as an easy saving to make. But the letter signed by the unions appears to be calling for an increase to the current agreed rate of 65p per mile. A rate that far exceeds the cost of motoring, as our report outlined. Taxpayers shouldn’t be footing this bill when many of them can themselves only claim up to the 45p tax-free rate, and very often below this.

Furthermore the email not only calls for an end to the public sector pay freeze, but an increase over the next two years, a completely unrealistic demand. Considering the fragility of the country’s finances and the financial settlement councils are dealing with, the unions don’t seem to be living in the real world.

Our Director Matthew Sinclair has more thoughts on this, as you may have seen in the Daily Mail:

“Although the big unions defend so many unreasonable perks, taxpayers will still be shocked that they are still trying to look after gold-plated mileage payments and secure fresh hikes in their pay. The pay freeze in place in the public sector is vital to get a handle on the deficit. It is utterly irresponsible for the unions to be putting this kind of pressure on councillors as the public sector needs to tighten its belt, like the private sector has, after years of excess. Times may be hard but wages in the public sector outstrip those in the private sector, so it’s disingenuous for unions to try and plead poverty on behalf of their members. To even think of increasing mileage payments, instead of cutting them to 45 pence a mile or less, betrays a mindset completely out of touch with reality.  The unions need to be more reasonable or the end result will be more of their members out of work and more of British taxpayers’ money spent paying the interest on a bloated national debt.”

Council mileage allowances

Apr 14th, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

Our report on council mileage allowances was released this morning. Many of the statements released in response are actually answered in the sources and methodology section of our report. But I will respond to a few of them here to clear a few things up.

  • The figures are “out of date”. The figures we provided were for the most recent full financial year available. Total amounts paid for 2010-11 were not available from the vast majority of councils and many had not decided their rates for the 2011-12 financial year. The National Joint Council stated their intention to freeze rates for this year pending the outcome of a review of the entire mileage allowance system. When our request for information was sent in February many councils had not decided their rates for the 2011-12 year and this explains their absence from the table. For those councils that have now lowered their rates to match HMRC’s in the current financial year, we fully praise this.
  • You chose the highest rate. The LGA said that we chose the highest rate and are therefore not presenting an accurate picture of current mileage rates across the UK. We chose the rates for a 1200CC car, not an unreasonable methodology to use considering the Department for Transport say the average engine size on Britain’s roads is in fact 1600CC. Therefore our report presents a more than fair picture.
  • It focuses too much on casual users. The reason for selecting casual users was this provides a fair comparison with other workers. There are those who can claim an essential allowance which is a slightly lower rate, however this is topped up with a lump-sum payment – the rate alone would not be presenting an accurate picture.
  • So Council workers shouldn’t be able to claim for mileage at all? We have in no way suggested that employers, in this case the councils, should not be fairly reimbursing employees for the use of their cars. What we have said is that the HMRC rate of 40p per mile, now 45p per mile, more than covers the cost of motoring for the vast majority of vehicles in the UK. This amount takes into account fuel, wear and tear and depreciation of the car. Anything above this is a taxable perk.
  • Our authority is really big, so of course we pay more. We fully acknowledge this and have acknowledged it in interviews. What we have also been saying, repeatedly, is that those councils that do pay out large amounts have a lot to save if they can reduce their rates to the one recommended by the taxman.
  • Many local authority employees, including home carers and social workers, use their own vehicles in the course of delivering vital council services to often vulnerable residents, like the elderly and disabled. So, to do their job, like every other worker. We fully accept that councils need to reimburse employees when they use their cars, and our report does not attempt to refute this. What we are saying is that HMRC have an advisory rate in place because this covers the cost of motoring. Anything above this is an unnecessary and unaffordable perk.

In addition to this, Sunderland Council responded to the outstanding part of our request yesterday evening, after the report had actually been sent out. They provided their totals: for 2008-09 this was £1,838,465.13 and for 2009-10 it was £1,934,192.73

HR Transparency is contagious

Apr 11th, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

In response to the Department for Communities and Local Government consultation on the “Code of recommended practice for local authorities on data transparency,” our key recommendation was HR transparency. Hammersmith and Fulham Council have taken strides in this area and have a list of job titles available on their website. Encouragingly, it appears to have have caught on, as neighbouring Kensington and Chelsea have done the same; detailed structure charts clearly showing all members of staff in a particular division and where they fit in the council hierarchy. This is a great first step. Finally residents have a better idea where their money is going and have the opportunity to assess their council’s priorities.

Nowhere to hide...

Where we would urge councils to go further is by explaining briefly what each of the employees in the structure actually does. Often job titles are confusing and meaningless. If these job titles came with the job descriptions, it would eliminate any misunderstanding over the position and give residents the opportunity to decide if they think the position is worthwhile.

The Sunday Telegraph reported yesterday that councils are still recruiting members of staff with dubious titles commanding high salaries. Publishing spending £500 is fantastic but this misses out on probably the biggest area of spending – staff. Councils should implement HR transparency in full so that taxpayers have a better understanding of how councils spend their money.

Problems with new accounting regulations no excuse for poor FoI responses

Mar 30th, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

Our annual Town Hall Rich List always manages to provoke a reaction, and this year’s was no exception. Data for the latest 2011 list was taken from councils’ 2009-10 statement of accounts, thanks to a very welcome change in the regulations. Previously, we compiled the information by sending freedom of information requests to all local authorities in the UK. We still had to send requests to councils in Scotland and Northern Ireland this time round as the new regulations do not apply to them.

The new regulations state that while councils should provide information for the respective employees in the year to which the annual accounts relate, “equivalent disclosure is required for the comparative year.” This means that councils should not only provide the most recent year’s figures, but also the one prior to that for the sake of comparison. It is worth noting that while the levels of disclosure varied (for example, some providing searchable pdfs, others providing scanned documents or poorly formatted ones) most councils met these standards with ease. But some didn’t.

Where councils did not provide comparable information for the 2008-09 financial year, we searched our Town Hall Rich List 2010 to fill in the gaps for that year. We did this because it is the most reliable information on senior salaries that has been published, as it was assembled through Freedom of Information requests. This caused confusion with Lincolnshire County council’s numbers. In response to our request last year they initially provided positions and salary bands of £10,000. We had to submit an official appeal through the council to get more information, as our request asked for total remuneration and names. They then provided names and bands of £5,000, still a little short of what we actually requested.

Lincolnshire County Hall

Lincolnshire Council disputed the figures for remuneration increase in this year’s report. This figure will be high in some columns if a person received an extraordinary redundancy payment, was in post for part year or if incomplete information was provided by the council. In Lincolnshire’s case it was the latter. However, we controlled for this. When working out the average remuneration increase across the board we only included those in post for the full two years; therefore excluding part year employees, those who retired or were made redundant. What’s more, the source for the 2008-09 figure was clearly stated in the notes column of the report. For Lincolnshire’s entry, this explained that the 2008-09 figure was taken from our last Rich List and was taken from a provided band.

This example highlights three important points. First it draws attention to the inconsistent and selective disclosure in the councils’ 2009-10 statements of accounts. The second is with councils’ inaccuracy or reluctance to respond fully to Freedom of Information requests. Third is that we had to appeal to Lincolnshire to get these figures, which they now say are wrong; this reluctance to be open and transparent last year has clearly not helped. True, they now publish pay online, and with good detail, but this is not retrospective. Lincolnshire provided us with both figures, through FoI and through their own accounts, and this was the most detailed publicly available information.

Our Campaign Manager Charlotte went on the radio to talk about the THRL with a councillor from Lincolnshire County council. Rather than discussing the issues at hand, the councillor just focussed on the “wrong” figures. Of course, Charlotte was quick to point out to him that they were the council’s very own figures. If they’re wrong, then Lincolnshire have provided the wrong figures. It is so disappointing that taxpayers in Lincolnshire were denied genuine debate about savings at the council. Staff and councillors at Lincolnshire should check our sources, then their own accounts and FoI responses.

Usefulness of transparency

Mar 25th, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

It is so often claimed by opponents of transparency that it does not have a purpose, that it is meaningless to the average man on the street or that it puts an additional burden on already stretched departments or councils. This is all nonsense. An overused cliché issued by proponents of transparency is that “sunlight is the best disinfectant”, but it is an overused cliché for a reason: it’s true. Councils across the UK have been dragged kicking and screaming into complying with publishing all spending over £500 online. And one – Nottingham City council – still arrogantly refuses to budge.

There are others that have released documents in an unreadable format but transparency has to be useful, too. This week, data analysis companies Rosslyn Analytics and QlikTech have offered assistance to HM Treasury in “obtaining an accurate view of UK Government Department Spending Data.” And this is precisely why public data should be useful. It’s true that Government data releases can often overwhelm in their volume and complexity, however with companies like this stepping into the fold – and there’s many more out

The best disinfectant?

there too, see here, here and here for example – the figures can be crunched down into simple statistics and interesting graphics. In partnership, these companies propose to “aggregate public sector expenditure data from all major departments in April for free within a record-breaking two week period.” So at no cost to the taxpayer either.

This will not just be of benefit to taxpayers but also departments as they look for savings. Take this parliamentary question for example:

Charlie Elphicke, MP for Dover & Deal, “how much government departments budgeted for expenditure on IT in 2010-11, and what changes to forecast expenditure there have been as a result of his policy on IT procurement since May 2010,” Francis Maude responded by stating: “We don’t collect total spend on IT.”

No doubt a third party could have knocked this together into handy graphs at no cost to the taxpayer if usable data was out there, in the open. Data transparency is not just for the benefit of taxpayers but also the entire public sector, right from central to local government.

← Earlier Posts

Switch to our mobile site