24plusnews.co.uk Rotating Header Image

Tax cut in South Oxfordshire

Dec 15th, 2011
by Darren Rutland.
Comments are off for this post

South Oxfordshire district council are proposing to cut council tax next year by 2.5 per cent. The Henley Standard says that this would reduce the amount paid by a typical Band D taxpayer from £123.73 to £120.64. The council are able to do this because they have outsourced some services, and have also been sharing services with Vale of White Horse District Council since 2008.

Staff are shared between the two authorities, and most services are integrated. This has included shared terms and conditions for staff, and joint department managers between the two councils. Of course, each authority provides different services depending on their local area, but the way they have co-ordinated their operations have allowed South Oxfordshire to pass on the savings to local residents.

This is good news. Individuals have to make savings to their own budgets and councils have to cut back too; why shouldn’t councils look to ease the pressure on their residents? It was disappointing to see Brighton and Hove Council reject central government’s incentive to freeze council tax last week, opting instead to increase it by 3.5 per cent. Their refusal to do so led to Brighton and Hove Council’s Cabinet Member for Finance and Central Services, Cllr Jason Kitcat, being named as the TPA’s November’s Pinhead of the Month. While it’s good to see most local authorities have accepted the freeze, it is even more encouraging to see councils go one step further and reduce council tax for their residents.

Earlier this week, Hammersmith & Fulham council announced they are to cut council tax next year by 3.75 per cent. Due to a variety of cost-cutting measures, including combining services with Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea councils, they have been able to cut management and overhead costs by half. As a result they are able to cut their council tax for the fifth time in six years. It is disappointing that more local authorities do not look to pass on savings to residents through lower council tax bills.. Many could start by ending recruitment to non-jobs, and our research archive contains a whole host of other savings to be made.

Local authorities across the country should take a closer look at tax-cutting councils to see how it can be done, even with necessary spending reductions.

Brighton & Hove Council to increase council tax

Nov 11th, 2011
by Darren Rutland.
Comments are off for this post

A BBC Politics Show South East report last weekend explained how Brighton & Hove City Council plan to increase council tax by 3.5 per cent. They are one of the only councils to publicly admit to rejecting money from the Government to freeze tax instead.

As Helen Drew explains, the council could have accepted £3 million from central government. However, this was turned down in favour of raising council tax to gain £4 million.  The council said that the extra £1 million was necessary in order to maintain local services. This misses the point somewhat. As many innovative councils have shown, it is possible to make savings which don’t affect local services – take Newham for example.

Admittedly it is a little disappointing that councils need an incentive to freeze council tax in the first place, but the measure is a welcome one for struggling families. However, Cllr Jason Kitcat, Cabinet Member for Finance and Central Services at Brighton & Hove City Council, wrote:

“Brighton & Hove is not the kind of place where we want to give up on the elderly, marginalised or vulnerable – those most in need of help. We believe in civilisation, in public service and the greater good.”

This rhetoric does not address how the council can make savings in other areas while prioritising key local services. They could, for example, look at cutting executive pay and leading from the top. Our Town Hall Rich List, released earlier this year, revealed that five council officers, including the Chief Executive, received total remuneration in excess of £100,000 in 2009-10. In addition, the council employs three political advisers and three European Officers. Removing unnecessary jobs like this could save the council around £225,000 per year. They could even shift mileage rate claims down to HMRC recommended levels from the 65p a mile they are at now. These bills currently cost the council over £800,000.

In addition to hitting local taxpayers with a 3.5 per cent rise in council tax, another proposed measure is to increase parking charges. Leaked papers seen by the Brighton Argus disclosed the council’s revised tariff, which will see increases of more than 100 per cent. It could cost £15 at weekends for four hours at one city centre car park – a huge increase on the current £9.50. The measures have united the local Conservative and Labour groups, both describing the idea as an unwelcome blow to business at a time when they are already struggling. As Cllr Kitcat notes, inflation is running at 5.2 per cent, so yes, times are tough, but they are also incredibly tough for taxpayers. With VAT at 20 per cent, as well as staggering fuel and energy costs, the last thing they need is an increase in council tax, and more parking charges on top.

In the BBC piece, Tony Travers of the London School of Economics suggests that the country’s first Green controlled council wants to “stand out from the crowd to show they are different”. Whether this is the case or not, they have the same responsibility as other local authorities across the country. Councils need to be making savings while at the same time giving taxpayers a break. It is safe to say this deal is anything but a good deal for taxpayers.

Click here to watch the piece on the BBC Politics Show South East (from 38m 30s, available until Sunday 13th November). On this Sunday’s programme, there will be a feature on plans to change the amount councils get from business rates.

 

** UPDATE** Councillor Jason Kitcat has been named the TaxPayers’ Alliance’s Pinhead of the Month for boasting this month about his administration’s decision to refuse the Government funding which would allow for a freeze in council tax next year and to instead impose a 3.5% increase in council tax for Brighton and Hove residents. **

Pension double-dipping

Nov 9th, 2011
by Darren Rutland.
Comments are off for this post

Last week it was revealed that Ron Dobson, Commissioner of the London Fire Brigade, retired to get his £133,000 annual pension allowance only to jump straight back into his old job. The Daily Mirror claims that he may have even received a £700,000 pay-off if, as entitled, he converted a quarter of his pension to a lump sum.

At a time when taxpayers are tightening their belts and public sector organisations look for necessary savings, it is obscene for the Fire Brigade’s Commissioner to quietly make a few tiny contractual adjustments to feather his own nest. I can only imagine that many of Mr Dobson’s colleagues will be livid at his smash and grab raid.

Paul Embery, a regional official for the Fire Brigades Union, also attacked the pay-out, calling it “deeply unethical”.

A spokesman for the London Fire Brigade claimed the move is actually a “cost saving” measure. However, it has been reported that his new salary, combined with his pension, actually totals a similar amount to what he was on before this charade started.

Unfortunately this isn’t the first case of questionable pension activity and so-called “double dipping” in Britain’s fire brigades. In August, Andrew Allison wrote about Humberside Fire and Rescue Service, where one officer received a promotion and after only eight weeks into the job he saw his pension lump sum increase to £29,000 – for just two months’ work!

Earlier this year, Strathclyde Fire Service chief Brian Sweeney pulled a similar trick to gain a £500,000 pay-off before returning to work. He said at the time: “people need to understand it’s not taxpayers’ money – it’s my private pension.” It is the arrogance of the likes of Sweeney and Dobson which needs to be challenged – taxpayers are paying for these lavish pensions. Around a third of all private-sector workers have an employer-sponsored scheme – most do not. And it is those people that are being asked to carry on paying for increasingly expensive public sector pensions. Until we see genuine reform, the least public sector executives can do is not to take advantage of the system.

What a load of bollards

Nov 1st, 2011
by Darren Rutland.
Comments are off for this post

Concerning news from Barry that £30,000 has been spent installing bespoke bollards. The 30 red and black steel poles cost £1,000 each, and were commissioned by the Barry Regeneration Area Programme.  They come in a variety of designs themed on cogs and winches, which, apparently, are meant to represent the town’s industrial past.

A  Vale Council spokeswoman explained the design:

The inspiration for these designs came from Barry’s maritime history and from the idea that Thompson Street itself has had an exciting and multi-layered history. The material speaks of winches and dockside machinery, while the forms have some of these same connotations.

Some of the designs imply movement with the cog rolling up and down the rack as you move from one bollard to the next. Elsewhere the cog seems more like a flower head.

While councils are having to make savings, local taxpayers should be asking themselves whether their council is really being prudent with their money.  Of course bollards may need to be replaced, but there is no need to get them made in a variety of colours and designed by an art studio. Bollards do serve an important safety purpose, however did they even need to be replaced at all? Even if this was part of essential maintenance, replacing 30 bollards needn’t cost anywhere in the region of £1,000 each – or in other terms around 30 people’s entire annual council tax bills.

Vale Council say that the bollards are part of the Welsh Government’s “on-going attempt to revive the seaside town”. But unfortunately this seems nothing more than a council vanity project.  Even in the good times, it would be difficult to defend an expense such as this, however in this current climate it beggars belief that this project ever received council approval. To see the crazy designs, click here.

DFID under fire from Commons Committee

Oct 26th, 2011
by Darren Rutland.
Comments are off for this post

Last week MPs criticised the Department for International Development’s “poor understanding” of the scale and possibility of aid being lost to fraud. This is all the more troubling given DfID will see its budget increase by a third over the course of this Parliament. We’ve said before that the Government had a good opportunity to set out priorities at the Spending Review that would have eased pressure in other budgets, and enjoyed support among the British public. Instead, they decided to increase spending by nearly £4 billion.

The Public Accounts Committee said:

“We questioned whether the culture within the Department was sufficiently focussed on value for money…While the Department had increased its focus on value for money, it acknowledged that it had not yet maximised value for money in everything it was doing and could do more.”

Time after time, the British public show their generosity – best highlighted by their amazing response to natural disaster appeals. But when it comes to how the Government spends taxpayers’ money, things are less rosy. Previous TPA research has shown that 13 per cent of DfID’s budget is spent on non-front line costs. And for every pound of taxpayers’ money spent by DfID through multilateral organisations such as the UN and the EU, 5 pence of this goes to the administration of DfID. A further 15 pence (on average) then goes on the administration of the multilateral organisations. That’s a fifth of the money not directly helping the people it’s supposed to reach.

And it’s these external multilateral organisations that the Public Accounts Committee has warned against giving more funds to, as DfID had planned. If too much money is being spent on administration, it is only right that DfID must look to cut these costs. The Committee indicates that it is more transparent if DfID spends the money itself, rather than giving it to organisations such as the World Bank and the EU. It must not be forgotten that how money is being spent is important, as well as the total amount.

British aid undoubtedly saves lives across the world, and DfID’s work on crisis appeals is admirable. But it is vital that aid spending is transparent, so that taxpayers can be assured it is effective for those it is intended to help. Simply hiking DfID’s budget at a time when public spending needs to be brought under control does not guarantee greater efficiency and could mean more money lost to administration and fraud.

Further EU waste exposed ahead of Commons referendum vote

Oct 24th, 2011
by Darren Rutland.
Comments are off for this post

Disappointing but not surprising news from Brussels has revealed a discrepancy of over £80 million in expense claims for European Union bureaucrats in 2006 alone.

Robert Galvin, a British accountant who looked over the EU’s books, found a discrepancy of £81 million in “personal entitlement” payments to EU civil servants in 2006, and saw there was “considerable risk” of further abuses. For the EU to misuse taxpayers’ money like this is simply unacceptable.

David Lidington, the Minister for Europe, has responded to the findings by saying that “reports such as these are worrying and further emphasise the need for increased transparency across all EU institutional budgets”.

That’s very easy for him to say, but will anyone ever really be held to account for these failings? I fear we all know the answer to that one, given the EU’s record on dealing with financial mismanagement.

It’s not as if this is the first financial controversy to hit the European Union. In 1999, the entire European Commission, then led by Jacques Santer, resigned following a report “exposing fraud, corruption and mismanagement at senior levels”. While then-Shadow Foreign Secretary (and now Cabinet Office Minister) Francis Maude said that “British taxpayers need to be protected from being short-changed in Europe”, it is a disgrace that this warning still applies today.

Last year the European Court of Auditors refused to sign off the EU’s accounts. For the 16th year in a row. Yes, that’s right – EU accounts haven’t been cleared for 16 years. The two largest areas of EU expenditure – agriculture and regional spending – continue to be “materially affected by error”. Yet the Brussels machine still has the audacity to be demanding even more of our money.

I have previously written about how Members of the European Parliament and EU civil servants don’t seem to live in the real world – and they don’t seem like returning to reality any time soon.

MPs will today vote on a motion to give the British people a say on our relationship with the European Union for the first time in over 36 years. Given the waste that continues to come from Brussels (and Strasbourg), can they afford not to listen to the people?

More privileges for prisoners

Oct 17th, 2011
by Darren Rutland.
Comments are off for this post

The Ministry of Justice has spent £5.4 million to ensure prisoners can watch digital television on 42 inch plasma screens. A Freedom of Information request has revealed the extent of just some of the excesses of Justice Secretary Ken Clarke’s department.

The news has already been criticised by Mark Freeman, Deputy General Secretary of the Prison Officers Association. He said it was “shameful so much money has been wasted on upgrading the television system in prisons”. The priorities of the Ministry of Justice must be questioned. Taxpayers would rather see their cash funding prison places, especially with prison numbers at a record high in England and Wales.

Recently it was revealed that inmates in Wales are to claim that access to Sky Sports 2 and 3 is a human right – a claim that was rebutted by our Campaign Director Emma Boon on BBC Radio Humberside last month. The Ministry of Justice’s budget is coming under greater scrutiny, so excessive spending on entertainment for inmates cannot continue.

Inmates are in prisons because they have committed crimes. Prisons are there to punish criminals, not entertain them. It can’t be right to give prisoners a whole range of channels to watch on a large plasma screen, especially when taxpayers across the country cannot afford such luxuries themselves. While prison must help rehabilitate offenders, it should not be a place to enjoy things that law-abiding people can’t always afford. Digital television on big screens isn’t likely to cut reoffending rates, but it will leave taxpayers with a large, unwelcome bill.

Even more money for the EU

Oct 14th, 2011
by Darren Rutland.
Comments are off for this post

MEPs have voted to increase their budget by 4.2 per cent compared to last year, to €132.7 billion (£116 billion). That is what the European Commission originally proposed – before it was cut back to €129 billion by member states in July.

A spokesman for the British Government said, “In such challenging economic conditions, high growth in EU spending is both unaffordable and out of kilter with the tough measures that many countries are taking to consolidate public finances.” Nice words, but it is vital they don’t acquiesce to increases in the budget again when it is discussed by MEPs and EU ministers later this year.

The European Union’s bloated bureaucracy will be a big winner – in particular, its diplomatic service. Earlier this year, Foreign Secretary William Hague had to warn against a power grab by the European external action service, which might try to “usurp the functions and powers of national foreign ministries”. A report by Dr Lee Rotherham for the TPA in September 2009 warned that this was already happening. Baroness Ashton, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, has been working hard to expand her budget and powers.

Last month I wrote about how EU officials have refused a minor change in their working hours which would have saved £870 million. MEP Lajos Borokos summed up what many taxpayers would have felt on hearing the news: “The European Parliament is once again showing itself to be out of touch with the real world”.  Sadly, at a time when ordinary taxpayers face tax rises and inflation, and EU member states are making difficult budget decisions themselves, this vote for a budget increase only goes to confirm Mr Borokos’ point.

When will Eurocrats get it?

Sep 29th, 2011
by Darren Rutland.
Comments are off for this post

The European Commission has asked its staff to work an extra half hour each day in order to save €1 billion – around £870 million – by 2020, but trade unions representing the EU’s 55,000 staff have not accepted this minor change. Extravagant salaries, generous holiday, gold plated pensions and free lunches; it’s a tough life, working for the European Union.

With the crisis in the eurozone, and the situation in Greece only likely to get worse, this is another slap in the face for hard-pressed taxpayers. The extra 30 minutes per day would increase their working week to 40 hours – still below the average British full time worker’s 41.5 hours. Even so, there is talk that EU workers could strike.

A letter from Equipe d’Union Syndicale, the European Parliament’s trade union, has rejected the idea. They complain that “the attractiveness of the European civil service would deteriorate”. Further proof that they don’t realise the EU gravy train needs to stop.

It is said often enough, but this is yet another example of civil servants in Brussels living in an entirely different world to the rest of us. They don’t understand that ordinary taxpayers simply cannot afford to continue funding cushy working practices they don’t enjoy themselves.

£15,000 for cardboard boxes?

Sep 23rd, 2011
by Darren Rutland.
Comments are off for this post

Waltham Forest Council have spent £15,000 taking a company to court after a cardboard box bearing its name was found among fly-tipped rubbish. The boxes had been given to a passer-by who said he could make use of them. However, one ended up being dumped and the council wasted little time in taking action against the company whose name and address was listed on the packaging. It went to court and Judge Alex Milne QC described the case as a ”monumental waste of public time and money”.

Fly-tipping is a problem. But instances such as this shows councils should apply discretion, proportionality and common sense. To spend such a large amount on a small non-case is a waste of Waltham Forest taxpayers’ cash.

Had the company been found to be in the wrong, it would have set a dangerous precedent for businesses wanting to get rid of their empty boxes by giving them to someone who can make better use of them. Everyday, community-spirited gestures might have stopped for fear of future prosecutions. If, say, someone is moving house and asks their local shop or pub for unwanted boxes, they may be loath to cooperate. And anyway, local authorities taking firms to court in cases as ridiculous as this just isn’t the best way to say that their area is open for business.

The Telegraph’s David Hughes points out the local authority’s Band D council tax payment is almost £1,500 per year, meaning that ten households’ council tax for the year has been blown chasing after a cardboard box. The council should be finding the best value for taxpayers’ hard-earned money, not prosecuting businesses on pointless cases that serve no legitimate purpose.

Health and safety gone mad (with our cash)

Sep 22nd, 2011
by Darren Rutland.
Comments are off for this post

Another week, another example of wasteful spending on Government Procurement Cards (GPCs). This time, it’s the Health Protection Agency who have indulged at taxpayers’ expense. Their spending on GPCs cost taxpayers over £3 million in 2008-09 and 2009-10. At a time when families are cutting back on luxuries, the HPA spent £1,200 at a four-star mansion.

When a government health body spends £60 on golf equipment, and almost £600 at a garden centre, it is easy to see why taxpayers are so frustrated with the lack of accountability that quangos face. Spending transparency will help improve this and research like ours will help inform the debate.

As we’ve mentioned before, GPCs are meant to be more efficient than asking staff to buy products themselves and claiming back the money. It is disappointing to see that this system is being taken advantage of and it simply can’t continue.

Public bodies need to take Freedom of Information more seriously

Sep 16th, 2011
by Darren Rutland.
Comments are off for this post

Freedom of Information (FOI) laws help expose wasteful spending. They have also helped to put pressure on public bodies to publish spending data. Organisations subject to the Act are obliged to respond to requests within 20 working days of receiving them.

However, such laws continue to be ignored by a number of bodies, and they sometimes deliver incorrect or late information.

Most FOI officials are helpful, and do their best to send the correct information out on time. But our friends at Big Brother Watch wrote about some frustrations they encountered earlier this year, citing the example of Northamptonshire Police.

In late 2010, the Information Commissioner’s Officer named and shamed more than 30 public bodies, including the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence, for their continuing lack of adherence to FOI rules.

I recently submitted an FOI request about a local GP surgery in Crawley which is due to close over the next few weeks. I wrote to the local Primary Care Trust, as well as the surgery itself. It was public knowledge that the surgery had building work done on it over the last few years, so I asked the PCT how much money they had given the surgery for this – making it crystal clear the building I was referring to.

At the same time, I asked the surgery how much money they had spent refurbishing their building. The request was submitted on 1st August, but to date, I have not received a response. What was more interesting was the reply from the PCT. They said that they over the last three years, they had given almost £55,000 to the surgery for building work, which is now due to shut.

However, when this figure was questioned by a local newspaper, it turns out that the PCT had actually given the money to a nearby surgery operated by the same group. With seemingly little contrition, they issued a statement seeking to clarify the matter. But such errors can cause confusion and misinform debate.

It is disappointing that many organisations funded by taxpayers still do not take their Freedom of Information responsibilities and obligations as seriously as they should do. Mistakes happen, and it’s good that they explained their error, but in the interests of the transparency which public bodies speak of, this situation must improve.

SEEDA’s parting gift

Sep 9th, 2011
by Darren Rutland.
Comments are off for this post

In 2007, The Argus asked whether taxpayers in Sussex were getting value for money from SEEDA, the South East England Development Agency. They returned to the topic last week, to coincide with the agency’s closure, and SEEDA’s apparent desire to make the most of it.

Staff are being given pay-offs totalling £5.7 million, an average of £51,000 each. To compound this, the organisation spent £17 million on three offices between 2005 and 2010. Throughout its existence, SEEDA and its counterparts across England have been dogged by accusations of complacency and incompetence. The organisation spent £350,000 on government credit cards during the last two years; their flexible friends funded extravagant trips around the world as well as hundreds of lunches using taxpayers’ money. Its former chairman even spent over £50,000 on travel in a single year.

Given its history, it comes as no surprise that SEEDA plan to splash even more cash as they close down. Despite the numerous failures to live up to the claim, one boss received a golden goodbye of at least £450,000. Another boss, chief executive Pam Alexander, has a £1.3 million pension to look forward to. Profligate in operation, and equally profligate when winding down.

Non-job of the week

Sep 7th, 2011
by Darren Rutland.
Comments are off for this post

The London Borough of Havering is still looking for a Programme Office Manager. It isn’t the first time that Havering has been under the microscope. The council has recently been searching for a Performance Improvement Officer. The vacancy for the former says that an “exciting opportunity has arisen to manage the programme office for two programmes”. The description suggests that the successful candidate will work with the existing Transformation Manager. Which makes you wonder why, if the position is so critical to providing taxpayers with a good service, is it only being created now?

Mole Valley District Council is on the lookout for an Environmental Services Monitoring and Enforcement Officer. One of the key objectives will be to ensure “the district looks great when it hosts the Olympic cycling road race next year”. Taxpayers expect to receive an efficiently-run service anyway, and the Olympics should not have any effect on the council’s determination to provide excellence and value for money.

Non-Job of the WeekOnce again, Oxford City Council get a mention, and they provide this week’s winner. This time, it’s for an Environmental Control Service Manager. The £41,000 a year post has a large number of requirements, ranging from “experience of successful partnership working” to “a clear understanding of the major challenges in local government and of the social policy issues to be faced in a multi-cultural city when delivering the services in the job portfolio”. It also lists “experience of developing and maintaining lean and efficient systems”. Considering some of the vacancies, this is painfully ironic.

The essential and desirable criteria in full:

Degree or equivalent qualification in a relevant subject (E)
Post graduate management qualification or equivalent (D).
Evidence of continuing professional development (E)
Demonstrable experience in environmental work (E)
A proven track record/experience of operational, financial resource and people management (E)
Experience of integrating services to ensure efficient delivery (D).
Experience of successful partnership working (E)
Experience of developing and maintaining lean and efficient systems/ structures (E)
Expert knowledge of the key legislative framework and best practice for Environmental Control work (E)
A clear understanding of the major challenges in local government and of the social policy issues to be faced in a multi-cultural city when delivering the services in the job portfolio (E).
A sound understanding of the business community and interface issues (E)
Experience of best practice capital & revenue management (E).
A high level of understanding and commitment to diversity and community cohesion (E).

Taxpayers’ money wasted on government credit cards. Again.

Sep 6th, 2011
by Darren Rutland.
Comments are off for this post

We’ve heard it all before. I wrote about it only last week. But once again, there’s news of another public body making the most of taxpayers’ cash thanks to Government Procurement Cards (GPCs).

The Government Offices for the Regions, which are being closed down, spent a total of £5 million of taxpayers’ money on credit cards in the three years from April 2007 to March 2010. This includes over £1,500 at the theatre and more than £35 on chocolate buttons.

Ben Dodson via Flickr

These figures expose the taxpayer-funded over-indulgence for which quangos have become renowned. Why would a quango need to pay £1,300 for a trip to the zoo? They could have looked in the mirror to see snouts in the trough.

A further example of this extravagance was the £400 used to go to a ski resort on the west coast of America. An additional £3,000 was spent on skiing and ski wear. I doubt much work for the regions was done on the slopes.

I’m sure I’m not the only one who would be interested to know how £275 spent at joke and party shops provided us with value for money. Dare I suggest they may have wanted to look the part while clowning around with our cash?

What are the priorities of the NHS?

Sep 1st, 2011
by Darren Rutland.
Comments are off for this post

It has been revealed that English primary care trusts and strategic health authorities have spent more than £180 million on ‘media professionals’ over the last four years. There is non-stop debate about the future of the National Health Service and how it should be funded, yet I have heard no one back up their argument by saying that NHS bodies should spend vast sums of taxpayers’ money on spin doctors. The last financial year saw a total of £44.3 million spent on public relations officials. In 2009-10, this cost to the taxpayer was a staggering £50 million.

“The spin doctor will see you now”

The Daily Telegraph cites one example where Karl Milner, the director of communications for the Yorkshire and the Humber Strategic Health Authority, was paid more than £128,000 in 2009-10. By contrast, two senior staff actually involved in treating patients, the national cancer screening director and the director of patient care, were paid £106,000 and £127,000 respectively. While remembering this is just one authority, it is a damning insight into the thinking behind large parts of NHS spending.

And the disparities between organisations are stark. According to Richmond and Twickenham Primary Care Trust, their annual communications budget stands at £15,000. However, their counterparts in Solihull have allowed £1.2 million per year to be spent on communications. These examples give the impression that some NHS chiefs appear to be more interested in gaining good publicity than actually supporting care for their patients. Their priorities must be reassessed to ensure the best value for taxpayers, and the greatest care for patients.

More quango waste on GPCs

Sep 1st, 2011
by Darren Rutland.
Comments are off for this post

There has been further controversy regarding Government Procurement Cards (GPCs) this week. They were used regularly at the Electoral Commission to buy food for the office staff, with days titled ‘fruity Fridays’ and ‘munchy Mondays’. Additionally, they spent almost £60 on pedometers for ‘walking Wednesday’, when workers were encouraged not to take other forms of transport. While employees may have enjoyed indulging in munchies one day and then being asked to walk them off a few days later, taxpayers shouldn’t have paid for this.

The Electoral Commission also spent £3,370 on an ‘integrity meeting’ with police officers at a four-star hotel – which is less than 100 yards away from Scotland Yard. Couldn’t the Met have housed the meeting somewhere in their offices? Or why couldn’t the Electoral Commission have housed staff from the Met? Either way, they should have worked harder to prevent taxpayers’ cash being spent so profligately.

Some of the smaller-value items billed at the taxpayers’ expense were done so in plain bad taste too. For example, upon a staff member’s retirement, their colleagues even charged the £2.85 cost of a retirement card to the public purse – members of staff didn’t even want to pay for a colleague’s card themselves, and preferred having taxpayers buy it for them.

And it’s perhaps this last item that sums up a lot of what’s wrong with GPCs. They are supposed to be more efficient than staff using their own money to pay for items which are then expensed at the end of the month. But a similar kind of caution as the old system – from the card user and the payroll department – must be applied with GPCs. At present, there isn’t an appropriate attitude to match the responsibility of having taxpayers’ cash so readily to hand. Other examples abound, like when the TPA uncovered GPC use by Government Departments and also exposed GPC abuse at the Equality and Human Rights Commission. There must be a wholesale culture change to how staff use GPCs, before more taxpayers’ money is unnecessarily squandered.

Why does our money go to trade unions?

Aug 22nd, 2011
by Darren Rutland.
Comments are off for this post

Another shocking story of public sector staff working for unions at the taxpayers’ expense has emerged today. Dominic Raab MP has found out that £7 million of our cash has been wasted on 1,200 Home Office employees, police officers and border guards to work for trade unions and Police Federations.

This is a disgraceful misuse of public money, not least because £7 million is a huge sum. Mr Raab goes on to calculate that an extra 300 officers could be paid for with the money going to trade unions. With necessary spending reductions being made, the policing budget savings are among the most controversial. But there’s money being wasted on funding union work. This shows that there are easy savings to make that won’t damage frontline policing.

Many UK Border Agency staff are represented by the Public and Commercial Services Union, who recently assisted in organising a national 24-hour strike against the cuts. Taxpayers should not be paying for staff to do union work, particularly when unions play such a blatant political role.

This is just another in a string of recent stories on this topic – last week it was revealed that almost half a million pounds of taxpayers’ money is given to trade union officials representing Edinburgh City Council staff. A member of that council has called for an investigation by the council’s leader following the release of figures detailing the £473,965 cost. It is an especially alarming figure seeing as it is more than double the amount spent on union work by Glasgow City Council, even though it is a smaller city.

Previous work from the TaxPayers’ Alliance has shown that during the 2009-10 financial year, almost 2,500 full time equivalent public sector employees undertook trade union duties while being paid with our cash. If union officials who work for public bodies wish to undertake their union responsibilities, it must be in their own time, and should not be at taxpayers’ expense.

Scottish Finance Secretary makes a profit at taxpayers’ expense

Aug 19th, 2011
by Darren Rutland.
Comments are off for this post

John Swinney, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth in the Scottish Government, has made a large profit on his taxpayer-funded apartment. The two-storey terraced property was recently sold for £430,000, after being bought for £355,000 in December 2003, while he was Leader of the Scottish National Party. After capital gains tax, his total profit was around £57,000.

But between the purchase and the sale, Swinney claimed more than £60,000 of taxpayers’ money to pay for the interest on his RBS mortgage. Right now, Mr Swinney is overseeing the implication of necessary spending cuts and a public sector pay freeze, but saw no problem in claiming this huge sum of money from taxpayers.

Let us not forget that Mr Swinney already earns a six-figure taxpayer-funded salary, which only serves as another kick in the teeth for hard-working families. The TaxPayers’ Alliance has previously condemned the way politicians are able to make a profit from taxpayer-funded homes; it is a scandal how they can enjoy personal gain from property paid for by ordinary families. If one of Mr Swinney’s constituents was to try something in their place of work with their employer’s money, does anyone really think they’d be able to get away with it?

Last month, I wrote about how some MPs in Westminster were opposed to having to explain their expense claims. Now it appears that in Holyrood, John Swinney may have some explaining to do himself, not least because of the irony of his position as Finance Secretary. He’s made a handsome profit from the taxpayers who are finding it hard enough as it is.

The scandal of rewarding thugs must stop

Aug 10th, 2011
by Darren Rutland.
Comments are off for this post

Think of the scenes in London and other major cities over the last few days: Mindless theft and destruction, which only hurts local residents, the local community, and local businesses.

Now imagine if people committing such crimes had been rewarded with an all-expenses paid trip to a theme park.

This ride will cost one token and one electronic tag

Thankfully this hasn’t happened – however it has emerged that the West Yorkshire Youth Offending Team decided to reward five young thugs for their criminal behaviour with a trip to Alton Towers. They even went to the trouble of asking magistrates for permission to allow one of the youths to attend, as they needed to change the conditions of his electronic tag. The Youth Offending Team apparently told the court that the trip was for ‘group activity’ with ‘educational elements’ – but they conveniently omitted to say where they were going.

It is a disgrace that our money has been spent treating burglars and knifepoint robbers like this. It is thought that one of the individuals has a conviction for robbing an elderly man. Taxpayers have every right to feel outraged that our money is being squandered in rewarding the behaviour of violent criminals.

Usually these sorts of trips are organised by schools at the end of the year, to celebrate pupils’ achievements – but even then parents are asked to foot the bill. It’s as if these youths have been given a prize, costing the taxpayer around £250.

To reward thugs and criminals with such a day out is an absolute scandal. To do it with our money is insulting. Of course rehabilitation is important, but can we seriously say that a trip to a theme park is the best way to achieve this – either for them, or for us?

Out of touch politicians still think the old expenses system worked

Jul 12th, 2011
by Darren Rutland.
Comments are off for this post

While most Members of Parliament accept that the expenses scandal meant that reform of the system was needed, there are some in Westminster who long for a return to the ‘good old days’. Following the Telegraph’s revelations in 2009, it was widely hoped that all Members would accept change as necessary. But a new survey has shown that nearly a fifth of MPs still believe they shouldn’t be made to show receipts when submitting expense claims.

A report by the National Audit Office also revealed that 23% of Members felt the pre-2009 free-for-all system was fit for purpose. Over 90% of MPs who responded said that they had to subsidise constituency work themselves. While of course they shouldn’t be abusing the system, they should be able to work in a system where they can claim, and receive, what is owed to them. However, given the scale of the important national issues MPs are dealing with, those who feel they should be entitled to abuse the system must accept that they should be no different to their constituents, who provide receipts for work-related expenses with no fuss at all.

Not a metaphor

This all coincides with the news that MPs on the Commons Members’ Expenses Committee are set to look into the work of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA). IPSA can operate more efficiently to help MPs who do want to behave responsibly to do so. Stories of how difficult it has been to work with them, particularly from the early days, are extremely disappointing. We can also look at changing the system with payment cards that can combine almost instant transparency with administrative efficiency.

A few MPs want to get their snouts back in the trough and go back to the expenses dark ages. We need to make sure the rest can get on with the job and taxpayers can be reassured their money isn’t being abused.

Switch to our mobile site