24plusnews.co.uk Rotating Header Image

Council saves £10 million by auctioning contracts online

At a time when some councils are squandering taxpayers’ money, it is refreshing to hear that one council has managed to save around £10 million by offering contract jobs to the lowest bidder online. In an example that other councils should follow, Leicestershire county council seem to be taking plans to save £79m over the next four years seriously by making savvy cuts wherever they can.

The thrifty council has made £9.6 million in savings over the past four years by using an e-auction website to find the best value for money. This makes it easier for the council to find the lowest bidder for their services and contracts and creates an open source for quick and efficient competition among bidders; it is also a move towards greater transparency.

Creating this auction website seems like a creative and commendable solution to the council’s money woes, and one that appears to be working quite well for Leicestershire. In fact, the council is using the savings on purchasing costs to help “protect frontline services”.

Councillor David Parsons told the BBC that such protection of priority areas includes money “reinvested in services for children and vulnerable adults”. Finding the right savings are important for councils, but it is important for councils to make savings and work more efficiently; to do more for less while saving money for the taxpayer.

And this isn’t the only example of how Leicestershire is looking to trim the fat – other resourceful solutions include sharing back office functions with Nottingham City Council for another £1 million in savings. In total, the council hopes to save £57 million (out of the planned £79 million) through general ‘efficiency savings’, with another £5.5 million coming from reserves, according to the BBC.

Councillor Parsons explained that £2 million in savings from the council’s communications budget and £7 million from management and administration will also be made. He clarified that by attempting to change how the council is run – by prioritising children and vulnerable adults, and focusing on spending efficiency – the savings have been made without sacrificing things like the education system, for example. According to Parsons, the exam results this year were “the best we’ve ever had in Leicestershire,” and have improved immensely from past years.

Though he also admits the council’s 1,000 redundancies may indeed have to go through over the next four years to make the £79 million mark, it is good to see that at least one council is being serious when it comes to reducing spending. It can do more though. Cutting down on wasteful “back- slapping award ceremonies” is just another way Leicestershire CC could cut costs without affecting front-line services. Perhaps other councils will take Leicestershire’s crafty savings as an inspiration to get creative when it comes to their own budgets.

Council spends £330,000 on severance packages, only to rehire the employees a month later

A Freedom of Information request has revealed that Stoke-on-Trent City Council made 25 members of its staff redundant and offered them a total of £330,000 in severance pay, only to then rehire the workers into different positions approximately a month later.

At a time when most councils are finding savings and making redundancies where they can, it is absurd that a single council could dish out so much of taxpayers’ money only to reassign the workers new roles a short time later.

The revelation is rightfully being blasted as “scandalously wasting vital taxpayers’ cash”. A justifiable criticism, as £330,000 could have been saved by simply moving the redundant employees to different departments straight away instead of creating cost and admin work around making them redundant and paying huge amounts for a month of missed work. Considering a cuts package of £36 million will be required from the authority that, according to Councillor Dave Conway, is “down to its bare knuckles already”, this looks like a massive misuse of funds.

Taxpayers will wonder why HR were unaware there were other roles that departing staff could fill that were about to open up at the council. Sadly, redundancies are likely to be the way to achieve at least part of the savings that Stoke-on-Trent has to make, but the redistribution of the workers within the council should have been the first and most obvious step before redundancies were considered. By skipping it, the workers were given large amounts of taxpayers’ money – effectively giving them a holiday at the taxpayers’ expense.

£330,000 isn’t about to make a significant dent in the national debt, but one wonders where the council’s priorities lie when it is looking at cuts to funding in educational support for deaf children. Helping deaf children seems far more admirable than offering generous redundancy packages to someone who can be hired back a month later.

We’re not talking about a year-long hiatus either. One employee was reemployed at the council just 27 days after his redundancy, and two more waited only 32 days, according to the Staffordshire Sentinel. Further, the notion that these public servants accepted the payments as they walked out the front door only to later come back in through the back door with a new title is offensive and a blatant waste of taxpayers’ funds.

Watchdog charges £6m on hotel, sunbeds, and fireworks

Leather handbags, tattoo ink, sun beds, luxury golf courses and expensive hotels may sound like the spending of A-list celebrities, but what about that of a government watchdog? The Daily Telegraph revealed this week that the Health and Safety executive used government procurement cards to charge an astounding £6 million of extravagant expenditure over a two year period, paid for by the taxpayer.

They aren’t the only ones using such cards. According to the Telegraph, there are 141,000 Government procurement cards currently in use, costing the taxpayer approximately £1 billion pounds annually.

The Government must begin automatically publishing the bills of these cards. They are an important way of tracking how taxpayers’ money is being spent by Whitehall and quango bureaucrats. Transparency in government spending is essential if taxpayers are to properly scrutinise how their money is being spent.

Sure, a few charges here and there are to be expected, but we’re not talking about office supplies or even the odd staff lunch. Many of these cards are being used by government organisations who consider expensive trips, lavish dining and unnecessary frills to be entirely acceptable items of expenditure.

After the Telegraph’s accusations of excess, the Health and Safety executive responded that all of its spending was “properly incurred with no individual staff gain involved.” They claimed that purchases such as tattoo ink (£1,100), tanning beds (£1,394) and fireworks (£2,349) were used for various research projects and studies – all in the interest of keeping the public safe.

But that is not all that was charged to such Government procurement cards. A huge amount of taxpayers’ money was also spent on frivolous amenities such as luxurious company away days and high street shopping.

According to the Telegraph, approximately £18,000 was spent on company away days at venues such as Edgbaston cricket ground, Aintree Racecourse and a golf and spa resort. Around £23,000 was also spent on “shopping sprees at high street and online stores including John Lewis, Marks & Spencer, Clarks, Boots, Apple and Amazon”. If government watchdogs use these cards they should be exercising restraint and looking to get the most by spending the least. Buying designer leather bags from high street shops and spending thousands to stock office coffee machines do not qualify as ‘thrifty’ when less expensive versions would do just fine.

I mean, this watchdog spent around half a million on hotel bills across the two years alone! The HSE’s spokesman claimed these costs were due to training and conferences too large to fit at their own office, however the article noted venues such as a 17th Century country house hotel complete with a Michelin star restaurant (hardly an Ibis or Holiday Inn).

Earlier this week the Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles, attacked such unnecessary spending through company credit cards. In his speech at the Conservative Conference, he even gave an example of how his own department’s officials blew £5,000 “to have a staff away day at a club”, complete with “showgirl sensation Amber Topaz and her exotic chum, Lady Beau Peep”.

Clearly a better definition of ‘properly incurred’ needs to be sought out in regards to such credit card spending. These charges are simply unreasonable, and such spending should be reduced through a focus on efficiency and justification. More so, if government credit card bills were made regularly available to the public, government organisations would have to think twice before treating themselves to fancy away days with burlesque dancers and luxury golf courses.

Welsh prisoners claim Sky Sports as human right

Prisoners in Wales are alleging their human rights have been violated – not due to vermin or filth, but because they only have access to Sky Sports 1. That’s right, this week it was publicised that a group of Welsh prisoners are threatening legal action if Sky Sports 2 and 3 aren’t added to their sets. Apparently merely watching one subscription sports channel – in the privacy of their own cell I might add – is no longer a good enough treat for ‘good behaviour’.

Good behaviour or not, the notion that taxpayers ought to pay for premium TV in prisons is absolute insanity. The fact that these prisoners assert a refusal to do so as a ‘violation of human rights‘ confirms the notion that perhaps they should watch less sport, and spend more time reading up on the world around them.

Prisoners should be reminded that their time in jail is not about luxury at the taxpayers’ expense, but reflection and rehabilitation. At a time when most households are looking for savings, there are no doubt many law-abiding families whose budgets do not stretch to premium sports packages (mine certainly does not). What then makes prisoners think they should get it at taxpayers’ expense?

And if paying for Sky wasn’t enough, if this ludicrous request makes its way to court it will be taxpayers who foot the legal bills too. I am all behind people sticking up for genuine human rights, but to say Sky TV falls into that  category is twisting the definition beyond all recognition.

According to Wales Online, the cost of a Sky Sports One package in a prison costs approximately £100 per month already - that’s £1,200 per year for one prison. The full Sky Sports package would cost an extra £78 per month, bringing the total to about £2,100 a year for each facility!

Clearly prisoners are getting too comfortable with their lives inside and have lost sight of what the purpose of jail time is to begin with if they think a Sky subscription is a right worth fighting for. Conservative MP David Davies has echoed similar sentiments in the media this week, claiming “it beggars belief they are complaining about this…”

Beggars belief indeed! These Welsh prisoners should quit their belly aching and consider themselves lucky to have TV privileges at all. The focus should be on more constructive activities that use inmates’ time to educate them or teach them a new skill that will be useful to them once they are released (charities like Fine Cell Work offer excellent opportunities for prisoners to learn). Sitting in a cell watching the footie at taxpayers’ expense ticks none of these boxes.

Emma Boon also discussed this on BBC Radio Humberside yesterday, you can listen to the interview below:

Stopped, dropped, and rolled: half a billion squandered on failed fire control scheme

The last Government’s scheme aimed at merging fire control rooms crashed and burned last year, leaving the nine regional fire centres it created unable to stop £469 million of taxpayers’ money from being burnt in the process, according to a recent report. The six-year old plan began in 2004, was scrapped by December 2010, and in essence became a poster child for Murphy’s Law.

Originally, “FiReControl” sought to create nine regional centres as opposed to the 46 local control rooms previously in place. Though the then Labour Government  pledged the change would increase reaction time toward major events, such as national floods, fires, or terror attacks, in the end it did little more than waste time and taxpayers’ money.

The debacle of a scheme was “branded as a ‘white elephant’ in Parliament”  for its “bungled budget” and “wasteful spending”. According to a June 2010 article in the Yorkshire Evening Post £6,000 coffee machines were even put in to at least one of the buildings.

Costly caffeine fixes for ghost buildings were just the tip of the half a billion pound FiReControl iceberg – it gets worse. The Daily Telegraph has claimed that the up-keep of these tailor-made centres, eight of which sit empty, is £4 million a month. With such absurdly uneconomical decisions made, it is no wonder the Commons Public Accounts Committee said the disastrous scheme was “’flawed from the outset’ and ‘one of the worst cases of project failure’ seen for many years”.

It is this lack of planning, budgeting, and general failure that is intolerable when taxpayers’ money is being sunk into any scheme. Planning and execution should have been overseen more closely. Heads should roll for such egregious waste

Yet no one has been held to account and the careers of most of those involved in this debacle have carried on as if nothing had gone wrong. John Prescott, former deputy Prime Minister, has been doing the rounds in the media today, quickly thrusting the blame toward the civil servants involved in the scheme. He told The Daily Mail, “They spent a lot of money on managing this project, a lot on external consultants. Nobody did a proper job of management.” In fact, Lord Prescott claims some have even since been promoted, though failing to point any resulting hindrance to his own career.

Unfortunately while some blame civil servants, some the Labour Party, and some technical failures; the fiasco has snowballed into a political game of hot potato. Had all of the smoke and mirrors encompassed in this scheme, not to mention political hot air, rightly set off some kind of alarm, a substantial loss of taxpayer money and political embarrassment could have been prevented.

When a half a billion of taxpayers’ money is being used to do something, people want to believe the Government will make sure it is worth it, and not to muck it up. If they do so, we expect someone to take the blame, and apologise. In the case of FiReControl, we’re all still waiting…

 

Crackdown on illegal sublets cashing in on councils’ goodwill

Illegal subletting of social housing in Britain is much more common than originally thought—three times higher in fact. According to a new study, the fraudulent practice is costing taxpayers upwards of £2 billion a year – money that could be saved, or spent helping those truly in need.

Tower BlockThe fact that tenants are taking such advantage of the system is particularly troubling considering the current long waiting lists for social housing in the UK. In the London Borough of Hillingdon, for example, 600 more people were added to the council housing register this year compared to last. That means, in just a single London borough, there are a total of 7,856 individuals waiting to be housed.

Experian Public Sector put out the study and claimed an upwards of 160,000 council homes were being illegally sublet – roughly 3 per cent of the total UK social housing. Apart from the fact it is against the rules, if you are in a position to sublet your council house and still have somewhere else to live, you probably don’t need it in the first place. These are homes that could be offered to someone else.

Not enough is being done to deter such blatant disregard for the concept of social housing and it is regrettable that the taxpayer is bearing the monetary brunt. Worse still, the abusers face merely a slap on the wrist and a boot out the door should they get caught – though not before earning an estimated £20,000 a year from illegally renting out their social housing. The tenancy cheats can also currently rest assured knowing that criminal sanctions cannot be brought against them.

Eviction is not enough; councils should be more rigorous in their checks and must improve the way they manage the system. The council must do a better job ensuring that benefactors actually live at the address they were given. According to an article published in The Telegraph last month, the government is entertaining the notion of upping the ante should offenders be caught. Under the new guidelines, council housing abusers could also face jail time in addition to eviction. Certainly a step in the right direction, but it still does not close the loophole allowing tenants to abuse the system in the first place.

Before the study was revealed this week, the government thought 50,000 homes were being illegally sublet in the UK, a high number, but nowhere near the 160,000 that is now being claimed. Temporary housing costs approximately £18,000 a year for every tenant, according to the report, and that is on top of the cost of council housing.

The money saved moving those in temporary housing to the council housing currently being wasted by fraudsters would be an excess of £2 billion every year. With councils looking for big savings in the coming years, £20 million in Hillingdon alone, such a misappropriation of taxpayers’ funds is both alarming and unacceptable.

The People vs Potholes: A court forces Coventry to pay for vehicle damage

Each year motorists spend nearly £320 million on vehicle damage caused by potholes. This week one driver took his council to task for such damages to his car – and ultimately won. The victory left local authorities vulnerable to other motorists seeking damages.

Hamilton Bland, a former BBC sports commentator, sued Coventry council for damages after the council refused to foot the £2,000 repair bill to his car. Mr. Bland was driving through the Coventry suburb of Canley when his car hit potholes that left three of car’s wheels totalled.

The fact that the incident happened in January 2010, when bad weather conditions affected the roads, shouldn’t be an excuse. Coventry council refused to accept any responsibility at all for the event, and the council’s lawyers even sent Mr. Bland a letter threatening a £3,500 counter claim should he lose in court.

If driving over a few potholes can result in tyre damages “beyond repair” something needs to be done. Motorists are taxed excessively with Fuel Duty, Vehicle Excise Duty (that’s ‘road tax’ to you and me), not to mention VAT. At the very least that money should mean that you can drive down the road without causing thousands of pounds worth of damages to your vehicle.

Our 2010 report found that motorists paid approximately £30.2 billion in motoring taxes two years ago. With this huge sum, taxpayers rightly expect that roads are maintained to a decent standard. This is especially true considering our report found that £17.9 billion of that tax revenue was excessive beyond what they might be expected to pay for road maintenance and carbon emissions.

Current rules permit councils to ignore smaller potholes, claiming holes smaller than 4cm deep or 15cm wide are not flagged for immediate repair (within 24 hours). Clearly standards of maintenance in this case came down to a difference of opinion.

The court win may now open the door for other motorists seeking reimbursement for pothole repairs. This is unfortunate, as the council could have prevented this ordeal by keeping roads well maintained.

Actions like these could cost councils – and therefore taxpayers – a lot of money at a time when they are necessarily cutting back on spending. But the key lesson here is that councils have to get their priorities right in order to handle smaller budgets. Key services like bin collections and road maintenance are what the majority of taxpayers pay their council tax for. Politicians and council executives have to look a lot harder at other areas of spending instead of leaving potholes unfilled or switching to fortnightly bin collections.

Further evidence green policy will push up household energy bills

A cautionary, yet familiar, tale on how Coalition energy policies will affect homeowners was published this week in The Daily Telegraph. The article centres on a six-page document, entitled the “impact of our energy and climate policies on consumer energy bills,” and suggests that the Government’s move to increase alternative energy (like wind turbines and nuclear power) will increase the average family’s yearly energy bill 30 per cent by 2020.

The figures in the paper, written by David Cameron’s senior energy advisor, Ben Moxham, reportedly now have the PM “very worried.” The document asserts the simple logic that increasing energy bills, at a time when most household budgets are already tight, might not leave voters at their happiest.

The notion that Coalition green policies will increasingly impact consumer household bills in the long-term is not new. Our Director, Matthew Sinclair, has been imploring the Government “to give families a better deal and cut unfair green taxes” for quite some time now. The threats of green taxes and subsidies on taxpayers are covered in details in Sinclair’s new book ‘Let them eat carbon’ In the book he discredits the claim that green taxes were “justified by the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions,” with new figures that show the taxes as “excessive compared to the harms they are meant to address”.

It looks like the message may have finally gotten through to Cameron and his team. The Daily Telegraph reports that “Ministers and officials from the Treasury, DECC [Department of Energy and Climate Change] and the Department for Communities and Local Government are expected to be called into No 10 for a high-level meeting to discuss how to pursue the policies.”

However, whether or not Cameron will finally heed the warnings have yet to be seen. Perhaps he should pick up a copy of ‘Let them eat carbon’ before taking the meeting.

Switch to our mobile site