24plusnews.co.uk Rotating Header Image

Campaign

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.

Cornwall: Have your councillors been paying their taxes?

Aug 18th, 2011
by Robert Oxley.
Comments are off for this post

Councillors in Cornwall haven’t been paying their council tax. Let me say that again: the people who set the rates of council taxation, who stand on a manifesto of delivering services for residents and who are paid generous allowances from taxpayers’ money, have been failing to pay their council tax.

A Freedom of Information request has revealed that 17 councillors in Cornwall – that’s one in seven of the men and women charged with setting council tax rates – had to be sent payment reminders. It appears only 3 took heed of this, as 14 required a second reminder letter. Councils frequently encourage residents to set up direct debits to avoid this kind of problem, maybe the councillors in questions should practice a bit of what they preach?

Worst of all, one case led to court action, resulting in a farcical situation where Cornwall council instigated court proceedings against its own councillor while they continued to collect their allowances and perks. Maybe they should have used those allowances to pay up?

At first, the identity of the worst offenders was unknown, but two have now been exposed. Councillor Andrew Wallis, representing Porthleven and Helston South, had a court action taken against him for getting into arrears.

On his website, Cllr Wallis explained what happened. “Two years ago I failed to pay my council tax on time which led to court action,” he confessed. “Like many people in Cornwall I was faced with the problem of juggling mounting bills with a limited income and at that time I chose to pay for essentials such as rent, electricity and food rather than pay my council tax bill.” Wouldn’t we all rather do that! “Hindsight is a wonderful thing,” he continued, “but I made that choice of not paying and I will have to live with it.”

Cornwall Council has refused to name any further councillors and the details of their arrears on the grounds that it would breach data privacy laws. This is wrong; standing in a democratic election means a commitment to being held to account for your actions while in public office. Failure to pay your council tax in a timely fashion costs the council money in administration, and ending up in court means further expense. The councillors’ negligence in paying their bills on time will almost certainly have cost local taxpayers money.

Councillors are responsible for spending local taxpayers’ cash, setting the rate of council tax and even deciding policy over tax write-offs. A councillor not paying their council tax is surely compromised when discussing these issues. A councillor taken to court by their own council cannot be a credible representative of the community they wish to represent.

HMRC: Getting tax wrong since 2005… and earlier

Aug 1st, 2011
by Emma Boon.
Comments are off for this post

There was further embarrassment for the taxman this weekend after the Commons Treasury Committee criticised HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) for poor performance and ‘endemic delays’.

HMRC was formed in 2005 when Inland Revenue and Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise were merged. Like the two organisations that were combined to form it, HMRC hasn’t always gotten things right and caused problems for millions of taxpayers in the process. This latest report by MPs was ordered after last year’s PAYE debacle when HMRC had to admit that 6 million people had been paying the wrong income tax in previous years.

Almost 1.5 million people had to pay back an average of £1,500 each, after being told they had been underpaying because of faulty calculations. At the time we were very critical of the tax office, and said that things had to improve. This newest report reveals that the department is in crisis and confirms they still aren’t getting it right – and taxpayers are the ones left to pick up the pieces.

Let’s not forget that isn’t even their biggest mistake, as John O’Connell blogged in February this year when the Public Accounts Committee criticised HMRC for their mismanagement of the tax system and a few years before that the tax office lost 25 million taxpayers’ details that had been copied onto a disc – whoops!

Key complaints raised in this latest report were:

  • The continuing legacy of unresolved tax discrepancies from past years still affecting millions of tax payers
  • Taxpayers had to wait as long as three months just to receive a reply to a letter
  • Excessive reliance on the internet for filing tax returns, or giving information, to the disadvantage of those without good internet connections, such as the elderly
  • “Overly ambitious” IT projects such as plans to make employers submit “real-time” data for the PAYE system
  • Increasingly complex tax laws.
  • Just 48 per cent of telephone calls made to HMRC offices are answered
  • The use of 0845 phone numbers by HMRC for customer queries. The committee suggested that cheaper 0345 numbers are used.

We can't go on like this, with a tax system in total disarray

We cannot go on with the system in total disarray like this, it’s failing millions of taxpayers and we’ve put up with too many mistakes and excuses for too long. Last time it was a new IT system that was blamed, now it is staff shortages. Enough is enough.

At least after this most recent debacle Mike Clasper, chairman of HM Revenue & Customs, came out and apologised. Last year it took Dave Hartnett a full day to put his hands up and say sorry, after initially telling the BBC that he “had nothing to apologise for”. The attitude may have changed, but the problems still remain. It is too hard to make contact with HMRC, and it is often too difficult to understand the information and guidance.

The problem of increasingly complex tax laws, highlighted by the committee, is one that we have been shouting about since our inception. The 2020 Tax Commission (a joint project with the Institute of Directors) will release a report early next year that will look at ways to address this and other problems with our tax system. We released a video featuring the world’s fastest speaker to underline how long the UK tax code now is.

The taxman must get his house in order, taxpayers should not have to tolerate another fiasco.

Help us stop HS2, respond to the Government’s consultation

Jul 27th, 2011
by Matthew Sinclair.
Comments are off for this post

Today we had another sign of how desperate the campaign for the new high speed rail line, HS2 have become.  While the Government are sticking to their guns and backing the scheme for now, the public are clearly opposed to this white elephant.  A YouGov/TPA poll found that 48% would support cancelling funding for it against 34% who would oppose doing so.

Instead of trying to build a more credible case for the new line, or set out more realistic and affordable plans, proponents of HS2 are just upping the ante with ever more ludicrous claims about its potential effects.  We will be keeping up the pressure and you can help by replying to the Government’s consultation on the scheme this week, it closes at the end of Friday.

Arup/Volterra have written a report that is available on the Campaign for HSR website and being parroted by a number of politicians today.  It is utter nonsense.  There is a lot in there, so here are just three examples:

  • On the basis of a few weak, largely unquantified and unsystematic examples they have cherry picked, they claim that high speed rail typically exceeds demand forecasts.  If you instead look at proper systematic research by Danish academics they found that passenger forecasts are overestimated in 9 out of 10 rail projects, with an average overestimation of 106 per cent.  High speed rail is no great exception to that pattern.  The Spanish had to close a service at the end of last month, the Dutch high speed network has recently been facing bankruptcy.
  • Their analysis on jobs seems to consist of an estimate of how many jobs the “Core Cities” connected by the line are likely to generate, and then just arguing that creating those jobs will be harder if they don’t have enough rail capacity.  HS2 isn’t creating those jobs, the cities are!  Given that Chris Stokes has set out a far more affordable plan that could deliver the rail capacity needed this is simply nonsense.
  • They uncritically repeat the Greengauge 21 claim that all sorts of services not on the route will benefit from the capacity released by HS2.  But the Government’s current plan includes billions of pounds of cuts in existing services, not expensive new subsidies to expand them.

The Government’s consultation will be finishing at the end of this week.  The questions are ridiculously misleading and clearly designed to get the ‘right’ answer so a proper, independent inquiry would be a lot more valuable.  That’s why we focused on our response to the Transport Select Committee who we hope will show the independence to call out the weaknesses in these proposals.

But as we’ve always said we can’t ignore the opportunities politicians do give us to have our say.  It is important that we show we are willing to engage.  You can submit to the consultation here, and you don’t need to provide a substantive answer to all the questions.  The critical question is number two, about whether or not HS2 is the right project.  Please submit to the consultation and let the Government know they should cancel HS2.

Public sector organisations should publish lists of websites visited by staff on taxpayers’ time

Jul 18th, 2011
by John O'Connell.
Comments are off for this post

Yesterday, the Sunday Express reported on our Freedom of Information request about Departmental internet usage. We asked each Government Department to send us a list of websites their staff had visited, in order of frequency, and the amount of time spent on these sites. We also asked for details of disciplinary procedures linked to internet usage. The only Department that provided the information was the Department for Work and Pensions. They provided a Monthly list of the top 100 websites visited, in order of frequency. It didn’t quite fulfil our response, but they at least were able to easily obtain this information from their internet provider.

No other department could answer the main part of this request – what websites, in order of frequency visited, have staff been logging on to. That’s pretty damning. It should be relatively straightforward to hold this information centrally, or do as DWP did and ask their internet provider for a list.

As outlined in the Sunday Express report, DWP staff spent a lot of time on shopping websites. There were also lots of visits to nationalrail.co.uk and numerous holiday websites. Perhaps the civil servants were more keen on getting away then getting on with work.

Staff time is the biggest item of expenditure for most public sector organisations, so it’s crucial that time at work is spent productively to give taxpayers value for money.

We feel that each Department – and eventually all public sector bodies – should publish this kind of information as a matter of course. It’s simply not good enough that no other Department aside from DWP could get this information. How do they know whether their staff are focussed on the job?

Have a look through DWP’s response below and see what websites staff are visiting on taxpayers’ time.

Click here to download

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.

Excessive taxes on holidays are an unwelcome burden this Summer

Jul 11th, 2011
by Matthew Sinclair.
Comments are off for this post

Today the aviation industry has launched a campaign entitled “Hands off our Holiday, Mr Taxman”.  Aviation taxes have risen sharply over the years, particularly when they were doubled in 2007, and Britain now has incredibly high rates compared to other European countries.  That is an unwelcome burden on families looking to get away this Summer.  They need your help to make politicians listen and cut the tax back.

Air Passenger Duty is excessive.  The Department for Transport looked at the tax in their Aviation emissions cost assessment 2008.  They found that after the increase in 2007, “aviation would cover its climate change costs with an excess of some £0.1 billion”.  Since then people have cut back on flights in the recession but Air Passenger Duty revenues have risen to over £2 billion.

From the start of next year things get even worse.  Aviation will be included in the European Union Emissions Trading System.  That will add more to the cost of a flight and should be an alternative way of making people pay the environmental costs of a flight, not an additional stealth tax making the burden even more excessive.

None of this is a good idea in a competitive market.  If people start to transfer via a European competitor like Schiphol then that will mean flights from London that are longer, less frequent and more expensive.  More than that, it is a tough deal for families who are hit with excessive taxes not just when they’re working hard but also when they try to get away from it all.

If you would like to help, the campaign has set up a system for you to write to your MP.  Click here and help to put the pressure on.  Please add your own comment, as well as the standard script, if you have anything to add as it will really increase the impact.

Disability Living Allowance spending is going to go up, not down

Jul 8th, 2011
by Matthew Sinclair.
Comments are off for this post

Last weekend I debated Neil Coyle, from the Disability Alliance, about changes to Disability Living Allowance.  During that discussion he made a lot of very misleading arguments and I just wanted to clear up the facts.

Here is the video of the debate first:

Let’s look at three issues.  Is the benefit being cut?  Is there an ongoing consultation?  And, the testimony of people who might suffer if there DLA is withdrawn.

First, spending is going up in real terms from the level it was at last year, only falling slightly from a peak not expected till 2012-13.  The figures are available here from the DWP benefit expenditure tables.  Here is a graph showing expenditure from 2000-01 to 2015-16 after adjusting for inflation.  At the end of the period spending will still be higher than it was last year.

Disability Living Allowance expenditure, £ million, 2011-12 prices

Spending is being cut from projected levels.  But that just means the Government have decided they need to arrest the rise in the cost of this benefit, which rose a massive fifty per cent over the last decade.  It doesn’t justify any lurid claims about draconian cuts in the benefit or scaremongering about a large proportion of people losing their entitlement to it.

Second, there is a consultation on the criteria for the Personal Independence Payment which will replace Disability Living Allowance to ensure the benefit is better targeted on those who need it most, is less vulnerable to fraud, and supports people in the right way.  That consultation is still ongoing and has been extended to the end of August.

Finally on all the examples given by Neil Coyle of how people would lose out without the Disability Living Allowance.  All this really proves is that people would really suffer if this benefit were withdrawn entirely.  But given that isn’t happening, given that spending is set to rise even after adjusting for inflation, it is simply scaremongering to frame all your questions to people in terms of how they would cope if it did.  Disability campaigners need to keep their rhetoric responsible or their campaigns will look partisan rather than disinterested representation of the real interests of their members.

FiReControl project money up in smoke

Jul 1st, 2011
by Emma Boon.
Comments are off for this post

Remember the last government’s grand plans for regional FiReControl centres? If not let me jog your memory, they were the ones with no staff but luxury £6,000 Brasilia coffee machines.

The idea was to replace 46 fire control rooms in England with nine purpose-built regional centres. The Coalition Government scrapped the project at the end of last year to prevent further loss of taxpayers’ money. It had taken seven years and the NAO has today confirmed that £469 million had been wasted on the project.

One problem was that local fire and rescue services didn’t support the plans from day one.  Add the obligatory expensive and badly managed IT contract into the mix along with lashings of oversights then boil vigorously for seven years… and voila, you’ve wasted almost £500 million!

No computer system was ever delivered. The report lays the blame squarely at the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) for rushing in at the start of the project and then mismanaging “the IT contractor’s performance and delivery”. The NAO must be sick and tired of repeating this phrase in their reports. How many times need they say it before politicians and civil servants finally do something about it?

“Poorly managed consultants” also get a mention. Amyas Morse, head of the NAO, said “essential checks and balances in the early stages of the project were ineffective”.

This costly failure has an expensive legacy. Eight of the new control centres remain empty but taxpayers are still forking out for rent bills and security for these ghost-offices. One in the West Midlands is costing £1.4 million a year to sit empty, according to the Birmingham Post, and the Government is tied into paying rent on the centres for years to come. Worse still they’re paying rent at way over the market rates. A property expert tells me the government agreed to lease the London Fire Control centre in Merton (where rents are about £15 per square foot) for the sort of price per square foot that hedge funds pay for their offices in Mayfair.

The NAO says DCLG is now trying to minimise the future cost of the project by subsidising fire and rescue services to use the buildings. However, all that is certain in the future of these buildings is that taxpayers are still bearing the cost.

HS2 isn’t a North versus South issue, Northerners don’t want it

Jun 27th, 2011
by Matthew Sinclair.
Comments are off for this post

Last week we released a new opinion poll and one of the results was that there is strong support for cancelling funding for the Government’s high speed rail plans. 48% supported cutting HS2 against 34% opposed. It isn’t just the headline figures that are interesting though. YouGov asked 2,732 British adults for the poll so we can be pretty confident about the regional breakdown too. They show that the region which most strongly backs scrapping HS2 is Scotland (59%) followed by the Midlands and Wales (56%). The South (49%) and the North (43%) of England are also opposed with only London backing HS2 (by 41% to 37%).

Net support (support-opposition) for cancelling funding to HS2

The map above shows the results. They just make a complete mockery of the ugly adverts being launched by the proponents of the new line last week trying to pitch families in cities like Manchester against caricatured Southerners wearing bowler hats and preoccupied with the idea of the new line messing up their garden. That’s a bit hard to square with Scotland being the area most willing to scrap the new line, or the Midlands and Wales being the next most opposed.

Scotland is presumably opposed for the same reason people should be in places like Hull. They will pay for this incredibly expensive upgrade to what is already the fastest line in the country and it will do nothing for them. That is true across the country as a fortunate minority of passengers will do well at everyone from struggling families paying for it through their taxes to commuters who get a worse service or delays in vital upgrades to reduce overcrowding.

The Midlands and Wales are also strongly opposed despite the Government focusing particularly hard on lobbying in the region and promoting HS2 as a way of revitalising their stricken economies. People clearly aren’t persuaded and quite rightly so as there are much better ways of helping business in the regions – by addressing issues from high taxes and burdensome regulations on manufacturing industry to investment to directly address congestion on the roads – instead of just speeding up the journey to London. It it particularly telling that the Midlands and Wales is the area where the the fewest people “don’t know” what they think (16%). In London that figure is much higher (22%) which might explain why it is more supportive of the scheme. It sounds like a nice idea to have faster journeys and new railway lines, no one objects to that in itself, but as people hear about the massive cost and dubious benefits of the scheme they turn against HS2.

As the debate is far from over and groups like the TPA are going to keep getting the message out there about the problems with this white elephant, there is every reason to expect opposition will grow and grow. The Government should abandon HS2 now rather than keeping this expensive millstone around their neck.

No more secrecy on civil servants’ pay

Jun 23rd, 2011
by Emma Boon.
Comments are off for this post

The man in charge of deciding what information should ultimately be made public has ruled that high paid civil servants pay must be made public. The Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham has decided that the names of 24 high-earning public sector workers, who previously tried to avoid being named, must be published.

We have always campaigned for greater transparency in public sector remuneration, enabling public opinion and the media to act as a check on over generous pay rises, bonuses or pensions deals. For several years now, we have published our Town Hall Rich List and Public Sector Rich List, a comprehensive and easy to digest guide to the highest paid public sector workers. For the first time, people all over Britain could see what the senior officers in quangos and at their local council were earning, and they could hold them accountable. Public sector fat cats could no longer keep their pay a secret.

The day after the publication of the 2009 Public Sector Rich List, the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, attacked the “culture of excess” in public sector pay and said that any salary above £150,000 would now need formal ministerial approval, this was a good start but still wasn’t full transparency.

Topping the 2007 Town Hall Rich List was Kent County Council’s chief executive, Peter Gilroy. After publication he received complaints from the public that he wasn’t value for money, and KCC subsequently tried to block our FOI request for the 2008 Town Hall Rich List. We fought the decision, defending the idea that it was taxpayers’ money and there is a legitimate public interest in taxpayers knowing how that money is spent. Eventually the Information Commissioner’s Office conceded that the public interest trumped all other considerations and ruled in our favour. New ICO guidance on salary transparency was issued and all public bodies (including local authorities) were recommended to provide salaries of significantly senior staff as a matter of routine, in bands of £5,000.

This latest decision extends similar rules to others in the public sector who have previously tried to avoid being named. The ruling was needed after the Cabinet Office last year published lists showing that 332 civil servants and quango chiefs have salaries of more than £150,000. Of these, 49 were paid over £200,000. David Higgins, the chief executive of the Olympic Delivery Authority had the largest pay cheque at £390,000. The names of 24 people receiving taxpayer-funded salaries of more than £150,000 were withheld from the list after the individuals involved refused permission to reveal their identities. The Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, has ordered the Cabinet Office to identify them. He said:

“If you are earning over £150,000 working for a body that is funded by the public purse, then there is now a legitimate expectation that your name and salary details will be disclosed.
“Being open and transparent is an integral part of being accountable to the taxpayer and, like it or not, this level of disclosure goes with the territory.”

The Cabinet Office has 35 days to appeal against the decision or reveal the names.

Surrey County Council get the latest toy

Jun 10th, 2011
by Emma Boon.
Comments are off for this post

It’s great to see councils trying to find ways of working more efficiently. Technology absolutely has a role to play, with laptops and mobile phones (both now can be bought relatively cheaply) meaning staff aren’t tied to their desks and can do more work on the go. But sometimes I get the sneaking suspicion that councils are trying something new out because it’s the latest toy, not because it’s actually going to be more efficient than what they’ve already got.

Surrey County Council has perfectly demonstrated this approach with a video recently posted on their You Tube page. It features a demonstration of an app developed for the new BlackBerry® PlayBook™ tablet. The council’s own website proudly announces that this tablet has yet to even be launched in the UK yet social workers are trialling this new technology for two months.

Not very good, apparently

Surrey County Council Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health, Michael Gosling, hopes that this new app will “help save time and money by reducing the burden of paperwork, allowing social workers to focus on caring for the elderly.”

A noble ambition indeed, but do they really need Blackberry Playbooks and apps to reduce paperwork? Never mind the fact that the tablets have been slated as rubbish with a battery life so short staff will be popping back to the office to charge it up, they are going to cost a small fortune. Councils should embrace new ideas and should looks at ways of improving care for the elderly and providing better services, but they must be wary of the temptation to throw money at the latest gadget as a means to achieving this. We don’t know whether Surrey CC has any Playbooks or plans to buy any, and there is probably no cost for this trial, but taxpayers should consider firing a warning shot across the council’s bow now if they think this trial could be paving the way for extravagant spending.  We’ve said it before on this blog, councils shouldn’t spend taxpayers’ money on frivolous nonsense just to make themselves appear innovative and revolutionary.

All that aside I should mention the reason that this came to my attention is because I encountered their You Tube channel. Aside from the danger that they’re about to splurge (or have already splurged) huge sums of money on tablet devices, someone at Surrey CC took the time to film a video about this ground-breaking (ahem) news and upload it to web. Seriously fellas, you have too much time on your hands.

Taxpayers shouldn’t be funding South Tyneside councillors to sue Twitter, and catch Mr Monkey

Jun 7th, 2011
by Matthew Sinclair.
Comments are off for this post

The Mr Monkey blog was a colourful account of local politics in South Tyneside.  It is hard to say how much was accurate and how much was mudslinging, but it seriously upset the council.  They initially banned access to the site from computers in their offices. When that simply drew more attention to it they resorted to legal action. Unfortunately they ran up against the Giggs Conundrum: you don’t know who to sue unless you can get the identity of the person you’re going after from companies like WordPress and Twitter. They are over in the United States and protected by the glorious First Amendment so that is quite hard. If you’re South Tyneside Council though, with recourse to the pockets of taxpayers, then it is possible.

Is this Mr Monkey?

The first thing to note is that councils themselves can’t sue for libel.  In the 1993 case of Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers the Law Lords ruled that it was vital that people were free to criticise public bodies:

“It is of the highest public importance that a democratically elected governmental body, or indeed any governmental body, should be open to uninhibited public criticism.”

For that reason, all these cases are being brought by a collection of councillors and staff.  But taxpayers have no stake in whether or not a blog has hurt the reputation of Iain Malcolm, the leader of South Tyneside Council, and his three colleagues and fellow litigants.  It is about their personal interests in defending their reputation.  The best excuse the council come up with for spending taxpayers’ money on that is an analogy to harassment cases, and their duty to look after their staff.  But there is no duty of care for someone’s reputation and there is no clear right and wrong as there is in a harassment case.  If someone in a public role, and councillors and senior staff definitely fit that bill, is insulted by someone suggesting that they have done something wrong, that is a matter for them to defend.  They can choose to ignore it in a way that people obviously can’t in harassment cases.  If they don’t want to do that then the public body shouldn’t be funding one side in a dispute over whether someone has lied and defamed another.  The parties should settle that themselves.

Or is this Mr Monkey?

What the council have bought with the taxpayers’ chequebook is the help of a high powered US law firm.  The Daily Mail thinks the cost could be as high as £250,000.  An independent councillor, who has exposed wrongdoing at the council and who they suspect of being Mr Monkey – though he denies it, Cllr Ahmed Khan isn’t really well placed to defend the case in the States.  We aren’t talking about a major newspaper group, though even they would have to think twice about trying to match South Tyneside’s profligacy.  So his privacy was violated by a court order it was never really going to be practical for him to defend, releasing his Twitter accounts, mobile phone numbers and e-mail addresses.  He has described his situation as “Orwellian”, and it’s hard to argue when you read this description of what he has faced, from the BBC report:

“Mr Khan, who denies being the author, said he was first contacted by Twitter in April about a subpoena lodged with the Californian court.

This could be Mr Monkey, that's definitely a guilty look

He said he was told he had 21 days to lodge a legal argument against the action, otherwise the details would be released.

The councillor said he was told by Twitter that the information included IP identities, mobile phone numbers and e-mail addresses.”

That isn’t just important for this case.  South Tyneside have pioneered a new way for the rich and powerful to restrict the free speech and invade the privacy of their critics.  While anonymity can be abused, it can be essential to stop dissenters and whistleblowers being stamped on.  That means the problem is bigger than taxpayers’ money being wasted supporting essentially private legal cases (if they aren’t private, they are even less legitimate).  We are funding a case that undermines free expression and, whether or not Mr Monkey’s claims were genuine, will have a powerful chilling effect deterring future, important criticism of public bodies.

One of them is bound to be Mr Monkey

Either South Tyneside council are funding this case because it is really their case, and they’re using a backdoor to avoid the proper restrictions on public bodies suing for libel.  Or, they are putting taxpayers’ money behind a case for their officers.  Both of those options constitute a gross abuse of taxpayers’ money.  Even if all Mr Monkey’s claims were fictitious, the anonymous blogger has exposed an absolutely cavalier attitude to our money.  There were other options open to them: ignore the anonymous blog, reply setting out why it was wrong, if they really felt offended launch their own libel case.

Maybe the legal case we really need is against the council, for misuse of public money?

Say no to eurozone bailouts with British taxpayers’ money

May 24th, 2011
by Matthew Sinclair.
Comments are off for this post

Call to action graphicAt the Rally Against Debt we started a petition against eurozone bailouts.  Here is what it says:

Contrary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s comment that we “have to live with” the Portuguese bailout, as Alistair Darling signed us up to the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism, we believe it must be challenged.  If necessary, in the courts. The European Scrutiny Committee has referred to that mechanism as “legally unsound”. But otherwise the Government should simply refuse to accept British taxpayers’ money being used to delay the inevitable reckoning for the economic failure of the euro.  With huge pressure on our finances, we do not believe we can afford to bail out others for mistakes we have not made.

We the undersigned do not accept that British taxpayers’ money should, or has to be, used to bail out eurozone economies.

Click here to sign the petition.  There is a debate on the issue in Parliament today and the next few weeks and months are absolutely critical.  Our money shouldn’t be spent kicking the can down the road and delaying a reckoning for the euro’s failure.  While the consequences of a default in a country like Greece could be dire, that is unavoidable as a result of the financial disaster brought on by monetary union.  Keeping up the pretence that the current strategy is viable is more about the political interests of politicians in France and Germany than the needs of people living with the crisis in peripheral eurozone economies.  Please sign the petition, and pass it on to your friends and colleagues.

Rally Against Debt greek bailout

The effectiveness of speed cameras, what the numbers do and don’t show

May 20th, 2011
by Matthew Sinclair.
Comments are off for this post

George Monbiot has written a column this morning about the increase in road casualties in Oxfordshire following the deactivation of speed cameras. The critical point, as he notes is that you can’t learn much from such a small sample:

“So far, the sample size is too small and the period too short to be sure that the deaths and injuries around the county are linked to the switch-off. The experiment would have to run for longer and be conducted over a wider area. Any volunteers?”

After all, Swindon switched off their cameras and saw no increase in accident rates. The problem is that he casts speed cameras the safe option, and switching them off as the experiment. But in many ways speed cameras are themselves an experiment as road safety policy was focused overwhelmingly on enforcing speed limits, with less attention paid to other problems. We wrote a report last year aiming to test how that experiment had worked out.

If you look at the pattern of casualties before and after cameras were introduced, it looks very much like it didn’t go well:

To see if there was a significant change in the trend, we used a statistical test called a Chow Test. The results suggested there was.

Some people got very overexcited when we released our report. They looked at the graph and imagined extrapolating forward the blue pre-1990s trend line to a time when there would be negative deaths. Of course, at some point improvement was going to slow and then stop. But there is no sign that is what had happened in the early nineties. If it was, you would expect improvement to be slowing before speed cameras were introduced – it wasn’t – and to continue to slow afterwards – it didn’t. There is no particular reason to think that, in the early nineties, diminishing marginal returns drove the slowdown in road safety improvement. The line is on that graph to show the extent to which the two trends differ, not to make any grand prediction about an inevitable and eternal trend of road safety improvement.

Just switching speed cameras off doesn’t constitute a road safety policy. But there is good reason to think that the cameras, and the associated monomaniacal focus on speed limits, have been a mistake. We got better results before with a more balanced approach which we should try to reconstruct over time.

Rural broadband is necessary, but doesn’t need to be government funded

May 19th, 2011
by Dominique Lazanski.
Comments are off for this post

In a debate today in the Commons, Rory Stewart MP will argue that the government target for rural broadband deployment needs to expand to include an additional 2 million people. The motion that will be introduced says, “rural businesses and rural communities across the UK are isolated and undermined by slow broadband … (we) urge Ofcom to increase the coverage obligation attached to the 800MHz spectrum license to 98%”.

Rural broadband rollout – both fixed and wireless – is a priority of the Coalition Government. They are committed to supporting and funding the rollout out by investing £530 million. £300 million of this will come from TV license fees while the rest will be made up from the government’s own purse.

Access to broadband is an absolute necessity to ensure growth, innovation, and economic success in this country. The Government, however does not need to pay for rural broadband. By creating a competitive market environment in which broadband operators can compete, broadband rollout would come through private sector investment.

Coming to a rural community near you, eventually

There are three key factors for private sector investment in broadband rollout. First, the government needs to lift the burdensome fibre tax. As I discussed in a previous post tax is collected for the laying for fibre and for the ‘lighting’ of dark fibre. Considering the taxes that these firms are paying to operate in the UK, it would seem a simple solution to remove the fibre tax in order to allow for more fixed line broadband access. Second, coupled with this issue, the access to ducts and poles owned by BT should be offered for a low or no cost to other Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Currently ISPs and BT are in discussion to set a market price for this access. To date the discussions have been unsuccessful and Ofcom is set to intervene and set the price itself. Ed Richards of Ofcom said recently that if this happens then access to ducts and poles would be delayed because Ofcom would be required to manage the entire process. This delay is something the UK economy can’t afford.

Third, access to next year’s mobile spectrum auction should not be limited to four major companies, but should be open to all who want to operate mobile broadband. Ofcom is attempting to deal with many various and complex issues around the spectrum auction and in doing so they are trying to correct distortions from previous spectrum allocations. In doing this, though, they have set spectrum caps which may limit the rollout to certain areas. The opening up of this auction and licenses provided in it could improve competition and speed up mobile broadband rollout.

I have only touched the surface of the complexity of fixed and broadband rollout in the UK. There are many other factors impacting the rollout. However, it is clear that if competition increases in the fixed and mobile broadband market we would not need government to pay for new broadband. Private sector companies from the UK and abroad have the technology and the investment needed and they are ready to participate only if and when the Coalition Government makes the environment more business friendly.

Deja vu, another London mayoral candidate says High Speed Rail doesn’t deliver benefits

May 16th, 2011
by Charlotte Linacre.
Comments are off for this post

Next year Londoners will have a sense of déjà vu when they go out to vote in the Mayoral elections: among a range of candidates, Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone will be fighting each other again. And Ken has kicked off his mayoral campaign by opposing the current plans for HS2. On this we agree with him, as our past research indicates (on the business case, on jobs and on capacity). Having said that, he’s also hedged his bets if it the project does go ahead. He wants the trains to go to Waterloo instead of Euston. Livingstone said:

“The obvious thing to do is that HS2 should follow the existing line into Euston and then just before it reaches Euston it should go into a tunnel and come out at Waterloo. You’d save all the houses from demolition, you’d have 25 trains an hour going through central London, and all for the cost of building two and a half miles of tunnels between Euston and Waterloo and opening an interchange at Tottenham Court Road. Crossrail opens in 2013 – people will get off at Heathrow and in 20 minutes they will be at Tottenham Court Road. There could be an interchange with HS2 taking people north.”

Understandably, he’s based his objections on what will impact residents in London, and is hoping to position himself as a defender of those in social housing in North London who may have their homes bulldozed and those who are concerned about the noise. But Ken’s idea of a dramatic re-route to Waterloo sounds like it was made up on a whim just in case the project goes ahead, without any idea of how it could work or how much it would cost. The line between London and Birmingham will cost at least £17 billion so such a dramatic would undoubtedly be expensive and after checking with a rail expert the concept doesn’t seem viable either.

That said, he makes some interesting points about the pressure faced by commuters, which is where spending on infrastructure should be focused. Livingstone understands that HS2, for all the money it will cost, doesn’t actually address the current demand in London, he mentions the need for better lines and capacity between North London and South London. Many lines are already overcrowded and should have their capacity increased, rather than lose out to government pet projects. This doesn’t only apply to London though; the priority should be better transport links (soon not delayed until after 2026) for commuters on already overcrowded and expensive routes across the country, particularly on suburban commuter routes. HS2 doesn’t address this need, in fact it will diminish services for many towns and is little more than a vanity project.

Ken is right to be concerned about the line running to Euston. He shouldn’t only be concerned about those living on the route though. The concern for Londoners should extend to the impact the new funnelling into Euston will have on the tube lines there that won’t be adaptable to the change. Anyone that takes the Victoria Line at rush hour should be horrified at the thought of even more passengers flooding into to this station thanks to HS2. Any future London Mayor might want to suggest the knock on costs to be factored into HS2 proposals rather than hidden.

High Speed Rail is supposed to be a project that closes the North-South divide, according to the Government. But analysis shows that 70 per cent of the new jobs created would be in London. The train would simply make it easier for well off people living in Northern city centres to get to London. Those still trying to make their way to work in Birmingham, Manchester and the rest will still be constrained by poor services. This somewhat obliterates the claim that the line is about regenerating northern cities.

A mayoral candidate with considered concerns about the flaws in the project is Jenny Jones of the Green Party, who was a speaker at our conference against the HS2 proposals last week. Her concerns were not only about Londoners, or taxpayers.  She believes that the project, will not be carbon neutral, as HS2 Ltd sums say it will be – she believes it will have a negative impact on the environment. Jenny Jones said:

“This HS2 scheme fails the two green tests, environmental and social justice. It will be environmentally damaging in its construction, its operation and its ongoing maintenance. It will be fuel and carbon hungry and also regressive: with the many paying for the few. HS2 would be billions of taxpayers’ money badly spent.”

Originally the train was pitched as an eco-train but we don’t hear that claim now, as even those lobbying for it to go ahead have only managed to come up with figures that show the different in emissions between HS2 and existing lines as negligible. So there we have it. The TPA object on the grounds it is bad for taxpayers. The Green Party have environmental concerns. Other speakers at our event objected too, for a variety of other reasons, click here to watch the speeches. The RAC foundation explained that transport projects don’t normally go ahead with such a poor return on investment. The Countryside Alliance made an interesting point about the line destroying more public woodland (474 hectares) than any proposed transfer of ownership from the Forestry Commission.
Ken is objecting to the current proposals on the grounds it isn’t a good deal for Londoners, but adds a vote-grabbing get-out clause. He needn’t bother with the caveat though. A quick look at our research on the business case, on jobs and on capacity should broaden the scope of his objections.

EU bailouts remind us to Rally Against Debt on Saturday

May 10th, 2011
by Rory Meakin.
Comments are off for this post

It’s party hats all round at TaxPayers’ Alliance HQ this week as we celebrate EU Week, kicking off yesterday with EU Day. To help us get in a suitably joyous mood, all but one of the Union Flags on Parliament Square have been replaced by the flags of our various European partners and, of course, the EU’s own yellow-starred blue number. Sadly, the euphoria has been tempered by news that Greece is likely to default on the EU bailout agreed just over a year ago while Portugal is negotiating the interest rate on its own EU bailout.

The bail outs are unpopular. In December last year 62 per cent opposed giving loans to Portugal, even if they are “in the national interest”, according to a Populus poll. It didn’t say how many opposed the loans if they were against the nation interest. And it’s not just in Britain where they’re unpopular. The True Finns party in Finland jumped from 4 to 19 per cent in the recent election, largely on the back of opposition to bail outs. As Tony Barber said in the Financial Times, reported in this Irwin Stelzer article:

“Finns are angry because, like the Austrians, Dutch, and Germans, they dislike rushing to the aid of countries that in their eyes have cheated, idled, lied, lived beyond their means, and let reckless bankers run amok.”

Hip hip, hooray!

In a thoughtful piece for the Irish Times, Morgan Kelly explains why Ireland’s bailout is of little use to the Irish. Rather, it exists to prop up confidence in the Euro currency. Quite why this should be of much concern to German taxpayers is unclear, let alone the British. Why should taxpayers in Germany, Britain and other EU countries’ pay for so-called ‘loans’ to fund public spending in Portugal that the Portuguese aren’t willing to pay for themselves? Calling the bailouts ‘loans’ is being pretty polite, too. The very reason a bailout is required is because professional money-lenders don’t believe Portugal will pay the money back. If they don’t believe it, why should taxpayers?

Right now the EU is negotiating with the Portuguese government on the rate of interest, in other words just how much of a hand out it will get from taxpayers in the form of subsidised loans to make repayments less unrealistic and more affordable. But this is treating the symptoms rather than the cause. The cause is unrealistic, unaffordable spending and the answer for Greece, Portugal, Ireland and, indeed, Britain too is to cut spending down to an affordable level, not least by resisting the pressure to carry on bailing out irresponsible banks, a policy which has caused so much of Ireland’s current mess. We’re not far behind (less debt now but a greater deficit) but at least Britain appears to be starting to get a grip on its fast-growing debt mountain with the planned freeze on spending (it’s still growing fast, despite the ‘cuts’ rhetoric).

The ugly fate of the PIGs (Portugal, Ireland, Greece) will pale in comparison to what would await Britain if markets lose confidence in the Government’s willingness to make tough decisions on spending. While small economies on the European periphery can be bailed out, who could bail us out if we carried on spending recklessly? We’re several times bigger than the combined size of the PIG economies. And that’s why the Rally Against Debt this Saturday is such a good idea. Come along and join us to show your opposition to irresponsibly piling up debt for the next generation. You needn’t worry about our party hats, we’re not really wearing them at the TPA. So if you’re on Facebook, register here for the event. If not, just turn up at Old Palace Yard at 11am on Saturday 14th May. Have a look at the Rally Against Debt website for more details.

Evidence continues to show the taxpayer picks up too big a bill for the public sector payroll

May 9th, 2011
by Charlotte Linacre.
Comments are off for this post

A study out today from Policy Exchange shows that public sector workers are better paid, and on average earn more for shorter hours. This study shows that the public sector ‘premium’ – the additional pay a typical public sector worker receives over a private sector worker – is now 35 per cent more calculated on hourly pay. Because those on salaries in the public sector tend to work shorter hours, for typical annual pay the premium is up to 16 per cent. Regular readers will know this is something we’ve blogged about for a number of years now, for example here, and our Public Sector and Town Hall Rich Lists have highlighted the huge growth of the number of executives on six-figure salaries and ludicrous pay hikes. Our Research Fellow Mike Denham has also written extensively on public sector pay on his blog.

While many workers in the private sector faced pay cuts in the recession, pay continued increasing in the public sector, ignoring the urgent and obvious need to better control costs. It’s totally at odds with the reality faced by the vast majority of private sector workers who can’t reach into that seemingly inexhaustible source of money – taxpayers’ pockets. It’s often said that public sector workers are more likely to be professional and have more qualifications, but that doesn’t explain this pay gap either.

A tale of two wallets

 

The report also talks about other superior benefits enjoyed by public sector workers, such as shorter hours, more holidays and better pensions. On top of the stats bearing these facts out, I’m sure everyone can relate to this anecdotally. I know several people who have worked for councils and admit to counting down the hours until their lunch break and then again until 5pm. There isn’t a desire to go the extra mile, or the push to from management. What’s more, there is barely any threat of being fired if you don’t pull your weight. It’s not simply down to these individuals being lazy either; they had so much potential and did go on to be engaged and productive for less money in the private sector. Of course there are many thousands of hard-working and talented workers in the public sector, but although it pays generously pay isn’t the defining factor in employee engagement and so good value for taxpayers. All of this contributes to lower productivity across the public sector, which dropped 0.3 per cent between 1998 and 2007: a period of record hikes in public spending. During the same period productivity in the private sector went up 2.3 per cent. As we’ve said before on these pages, Governments too often confuse taxpayers’ cash – or what politicians call “investment” – with commitment. Improving things doesn’t mean chucking a load of money at them and hoping some of it sticks.

Another report out recently, from PricewaterhouseCoopers, on absenteeism is also worth looking at. It shows the number of days taken off varies greatly by country and between those working in the public and private sector. The report has some interesting figures and also some conclusions on what impacts on the level of sickness. In the UK the average worker takes 10 days off a year because of sickness, this is comparable with Europe but dramatically higher than Asia-Pacific at 4.5 days and the US at 5.5 days. PwC commented that in the US there are shorter holidays and longer hours which you might expect to impact on stress and sickness rates, in fact it seems that motivation engagement and desire to be at work are actually bigger factors.

Absenteeism is costing the British economy £32 billion per year. And this disproportionately hits the taxpayer. As in similar recent revelations on council staff sickness, PwC found the average absenteeism rate is brought up by public sector workers who average 12.2 days a year compared to the lowest rates in technology companies at 7.6 days.

As I commented at the time: “It’s scandalous that yet more research confirms public sector staff are pulling more “sickies” than those in the private sector. Of course employers should be sympathetic to genuine illnesses but there seems to be a different approach when taxpayers’ pockets are raided to foot the bill. These findings also suggest that a lack of commitment will lead to more absenteeism, which means taxpayers are getting a bad deal twice, both by funding extra days off and picking up the tab for disengaged staff.”

The conclusion of Policy Exchange’s report comes up with three solutions: local pay-bargaining and an end to national strike ballots; replace the two-year pay freeze on individual salaries with a freeze in the total pay bill for public sector organisations; reforming public sector pensions. We’ve said before that local pay-bargaining should come to an end. It’s very destructive and in some cases in the NHS it can actually put patients at risk. The two year pay freeze was something we recommended in our book How to Cut Public Spending, and was subsequently implemented by the Government. Freezing the overall pay bill would have much the same effect fiscally, though it might be harder to enforce politically. We’ve discussed how we would reform public sector pensions at length, and the scale of the problem is not recognised by official debt figures either, so the report is right to flag this up as a pressing issue.

Public sector bodies must find savings and pay is usually their biggest expense. Having implemented a two year pay freeze, the Government have to look at longer term solutions to ensure that well these pay ‘premiums’ do not get back out of control.

Council to start charging for exercising in the park

May 5th, 2011
by Frank Manning.
Comments are off for this post

Council chiefs in Hammersmith and Fulham will charge people to operate a business in parks, as reported by the BBC, the Daily Mail and the Evening Standard.

The new rules, introduced in April this year, state that anyone making money by being in a park should pay a fee. This means the council will now use patrols to check if anyone suspected of personal training, dog walking, nannying or even teaching for money has got the requisite license.
Conservative councillor Greg Smith, cabinet member for residents’ services, defended the fee, saying:

“Taxpayers do not expect businesses who are trying to make money out of our parks to get a free ride on the back of their taxes and these businesses do need to pay for the necessary licence.”

Fees can range from £350 to £1,200 per year. Some small business owners fear they could end up paying £3,500 per year, effectively putting them out of business or forcing them into making unsustainable price rises. With such wide scope for applying this new rule it could lead to a heavy handed approach as councils attempt to extract as much money as possible. If Hammersmith and Fulham are successful in raising revenue there’s no doubt other councils will follow suit.

Of course for big events like concerts, organisers should pay but there is not one clear point at which councils should introduce a fee.  A good guideline could be the number of people involved in the activity, but there is also clearly a distinction to be drawn between commercial activities and community activities.  There is a spectrum here, not one simple point at which is right or wrong to charge, yet the danger is that Hammersmith and Fulham Council have cast the net too wide in this case.

Local residents already pay for their parks and their upkeep through taxes, they should be free to use them for leisure and community purposes in return, it’s unfair to foist this extra charge on individuals who happen to conduct a small part of their business in the park.  This fine is also unenforceable in many cases, how will the council prove that a couple running together are personal trainer and client and not simply friends?  What if two friends are out for a jog, will they be harassed by park police for a license?

Some councils seem loath to look at ways of increasing efficiency and reducing spending, although Hammersmith and Fulham have done plenty in the past.  Councils shouldn’t be using inane fines to try to generate further revenue, hitting ordinary taxpayers who are already feeling the pinch.  The last thing anyone wants while relaxing or exercising in the park is to be hassled for a license which few will be aware they even need.

Councils should stop taking taxpayers for a ride with mileage rates

Apr 18th, 2011
by Guy Bates.
Comments are off for this post

Last week’s report on mileage payments highlights a significant issue in local government spending decisions. The amounts paid out to staff are high, but are only part of the problem. Sandwell Council claim they could save £1 million a year if they reduced their mileage rate to the HMRC rate of 40p per mile. £1million would fill a lot of potholes!

We have not for one moment suggested that council staff should not be reimbursed for travelling. But perhaps the most revealing thing to come out of the research was that many councils blindly follow Local Government Employers’ (LGE) recommendations. In 2010-11 LGE recommended that local councils pay 65p per mile for casual users driving a car with engine size 1200cc. Not only do they suggest higher rates, but the payments of variable rates to different drivers doing different jobs in different cars can make payments unnecessarily complex. Over 80 per cent of councils pay these rates.

LGE claim that they “work with local authorities, regional employers and other bodies to lead and create solutions on pay.” But it sounds like the LGE work more on behalf of council employees than employers. And they certainly don’t seem to have taxpayers’ interests at heart when negotiating these rates. Councils should ignore this sort of advice and focus their resources on protecting and improving the quality of their front line services. They have a duty to use taxpayers’ money efficiently.

60p per mile: slow down!

The average mileage rate went up 2.78p between 2009-10 and 2010-11. Now that councils have to rein spending – and not before time too – they should reduce the amount they pay out in mileage allowance rates.

Not only will it save taxpayers’ money, it is also unfair that someone who is self employed, or working for most other organisations across the UK, receives a tax free payment of 40p per mile (and often a lot less) whilst a council employee can claim back 25p a mile more.

It is clearly possible to reduce the amount councils pay out in mileage payments and some councils have. By far the easiest way would be to reduce all mileage rates paid to the HMRC approved rate (now 45p per mile after the Budget). It strikes me as odd that LGE should advise a different mileage rate to HMRC; 25p per mile is a large and expensive inconsistency.

It is encouraging that LGE say they are looking at entirely reforming the system. But why bother? If all councils paid the HMRC rate from tomorrow the savings would be considerable.

A different rule for MPs?

Apr 12th, 2011
by Guy Bates.
Comments are off for this post

Despite the expenses scandal, the creation of IPSA and the immense pressure put on MPs to become entirely honest about their remuneration, there is a real danger that they haven’t learned the right lesson from the scandal. Ian Cowie recently reported in his Daily Telegraph Blog that:

After Budget promises to tackle tax avoidance, Parliament is passing legislation to block several loopholes – but an obscure clause specifically exempts MPs from these new restrictions.

Cowie claims the expenses scandal stemmed from a tax exemption on expenses for second homes, which allowed MPs to claim more than twice the parliamentary wage.

parliament

They still haven't learnt

After the main scandal politicians unanimously said that this would never happen again. But now another little loophole has appeared. This government claims that it will save £985 million through stamping down on tax avoidance. They want to clamp down on all tax evasion and avoidance, but for some reason exclude themselves.

If the legislation is fair and proportional, what is the need for a specific exemption for members of the House of Commons? Why don’t they rely on the same arrangements that every other employer and employee in this country has to rely on?

Ian Cowie asks and no one seemed to be able to answer. Richard Mannion of Smith & Williamson is pretty representative of other tax experts cited in the article when he says:

“The honest answer is that I don’t know why this clause has been inserted into the Bill, but I suspect it’s a question of MPs getting their retaliation in first.”

Steve Baker MP writes for the ConservativeHome blog that:

There should be no special treatment for anyone before the law, least of all those who make it.

If they genuinely believe that the rules they lay down for the rest of us are fair then why can they not abide by themselves?  There might be a legitimate explanation but this little clause needs a lot of explaining.

Bye bye bin police

Apr 11th, 2011
by Emma Boon.
Comments are off for this post

The Government has sent a shot across the bows of councils that are issuing fines to people for breaking bin rules.  We have always opposed these penalties, viewing them as a mean-spirited stealth tax on households, thinly disguised as a green measure.  We recently flagged up the problem of fines again in our widely reported research paper on the number of bins each council collects.

A letter from Environment Department Minister Lord Henley and Local Government Minister Bob Neill has warned councils that they are not allowed to impose charges for collecting mainstream rubbish, only for things such as garden waste or bulky rubbish.  It also clarified rules on call-out charges, official council rubbish sacks or special receptacles and general policy on ‘backdoor’ bin charging.  Lots of people want to recycle but slapping fines on people for putting bins out on the wrong day or for not separating their rubbish could be putting people off recycling.  It would be nice to see more carrot and less stick to encourage recycling, the use of ‘bin police’ is unnecessary and heavy handed.   Of course part of the problem is the EU Landfill Directive, which sees councils having to pay if they send too much household waste to landfill, and Government driven targets for recycling.  But this is no excuse for dishing out fines and variations across the country show that councils are interpreting the same rules in different ways.

The front page of today’s Daily Mail highlighted a related issue and another common bin gripe, fortnightly collections.  According to the newspaper more than half of households now have to wait two weeks to have their rubbish collected.  Lots of local councils claim they cannot afford to empty bins weekly, clearly they could if they cut wasteful spending elsewhere.  Bin collections are a key service and residents have a right to expect councils to focus spending on this before other priorities. Many councils that only collect fortnightly say that it helps to encourage recycling rates, however the rules could actually be worse for the environment as those who can’t or won’t abide to them could choose to burn rubbish or resort to fly-tipping.  Fortnightly bin collections are also unfair on those who generate more waste through no fault of their own, like large families.

Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles, promised to tackle Britain’s “barmy bin policies” when took office.  He’s made a good start but there is still much more to do to persuade councils to make rubbish collection simple and efficient for everyone.

How many cats does it take to rip up red tape?

Apr 8th, 2011
by Charlotte Linacre.
Comments are off for this post

David Cameron has announced a ripping up of red tape. Yesterday we saw a new website appear called The Red Tape Challenge. Less bureaucracy is a good thing and listening to people from the real world is also welcome. But previous attempts and promises to decrease regulation have not been followed through, and evidence suggests that in fact more regulations are being created than abolished. Also, earlier attempt to listen to people online – like the spending challenge website – haven’t been a resounding success. So we’ll wait to see if this idea will fare any better, hopefully one of these ideas will have a significant impact on the mount of bureaucratic tasks that hinder rather than help any real output.

The private sector – and especially small entrepreneurs – can grow and employ more people once needless layers of forms and rules are stripped out. But who will be deciding which ideas to progress with? And will there be a resolve to implement good ideas? Because the truth is that bureaucrats are in the way of abolishing bureaucratic rules. It’s difficult to see some civil servants admitting that the public think half the tasks their office undertakes are pointless, and that significant change might lead to a smaller, more efficient and less costly back office. Ideally the task will be given to optimistic, dynamic staff who will be allowed to push for change. But there was a pretty successful programme that aired in the 80’s that made a satirical comedy of these very same challenges. Times haven’t really changed.

It will be interesting to watch how this website progresses. However if the government wants to being taken seriously on reducing insignificant, costly tasks, then as well as lifting burdens imposed centrally on the private sector, they need to focus on the public sector back office too, and work out how many people are creating work for themselves and are trying to look busy.

Metro Front Cover
However, one heroic cat managed to cut some red tape this week. You might have seen this story. Five fire crews from up to 30 miles away were sent to rescue one tabby cat from a two-storey roof. I actually didn’t believe the story when I first heard about it; even when it was confirmed it still seemed like a silly mistake. It turned out to be a matter of procedure; they were complying with working at height regulations. Yes, fireman should be safe but some ladder climbing does come with the territory. This wasn’t a skyscraper, it was a two-storey house. And five fire engines from different towns and 22 firemen being sent out is clearly excessive and a waste of money and resources.

I criticised the excessive red tape, saying:

“It’s almost laughable but wasting resources is bad news for taxpayers and others who might have needed to be rescued, so it’s not funny. Of course we want firemen to be safe, but health and safety and red tape has resulted in an excessive and costly response.”

I added on ITV Anglia that surely fire chiefs should be allowed to exercise some common sense. And to their credit, they decided to act and change policy. Great. The cat is also safe too, apparently it found it’s own way down anyway. So a happy ending all round? Not quite, although Senior Fire chiefs had responded to calls for commons sense with a promise to change rules, Union bosses had a different perspective. The local chairman of the FBU agreed that sending five crews was excessive, but in a move almost as ridiculous as the initial story, he used the opportunity to say they needed more staff.

Andy Vingoe, Suffolk branch chairman of the FBU, said:

“Health and safety says that if we go up on to a roof, it brings into play our working at height procedures and safety system. If a cat is stuck on a roof there is a chance the owner could get distressed and try to rescue it themselves and we would end up having to rescue them as well. It is crazy and it’s overkill and if we are having to send five teams to an incident like that, what happens if there is a serious incident elsewhere? It strengthens our case that we need more people to make sure we have enough cover to cope with the demands of the service.”

But at least fire chiefs have reviewed their policy. Now all we need to do is get that cat on the Red Tape Challenge website. He seems pretty adept at getting rid of bureaucratic rules.

Response to Phillip Hammond and others on HS2 capacity

Apr 1st, 2011
by Matthew Sinclair.
Comments are off for this post

There have been a number of responses to our research note on the impact of HS2 on capacity.  Chris Stokes has looked at the purported rebuttals and find that none of them credibly challenge our findings.

Theresa Villiers promised a Parliamentary debate yesterday that no services would be cut as a result of the development of HS2. But that’s not what their own consultation documents say.  Those documents report that “we have also assumed an adjusted service pattern on the WCML,with the withdrawal and adjustment of some long distance services…  In addition we can reasonably assume that there would be a reduction in long distance services on the Midland and East Coast Main Lines as the new high speed services were introduced”.  Significant savings in operating costs as a result of these service reductions are included in the overall business case for the full network, at a total Net Present Value of £3.1 billion.  So have Ministers just committed to not making any service cuts? If so, the Benefit Cost Ratio for the scheme is heading even further down the drain.

I’m told I’ve got the capacity to Manchester wrong. But again, this came from HS2′s own documentation (The Economic case for HS2, Page 59 ), which sets out that Manchester will have three trains an hour, no more capacity than now, but carrying about three times as many people. A modern version of feeding the five thousand?. So we must assume their own consultation material is “flawed” and “spurious”?

It’s true that HS2 potentially delivers more capacity for commuters from Milton Keynes and Northampton, who are travelling in grossly overcrowded trains now.  But the 90% increase in capacity Hammond promises for Milton Keynes won’t happen until 2026 at the earliest. Buried in the HS2 documentation on potential alternatives, DfT have costed a flyover south of Milton Keynes at £243m which would enable the peak service to be doubled (i.e. an 100% increase) in just five years time.  That means commuters won’t be waiting on steadily more overcrowded trains for fifteen years and offers much better value for money than the £750m earmarked in the spending review just to develop the plans for HS2.

None of the claims made today are incompatible with our report.  But as we pointed out building HS2 instead of getting better use out of existing lines will mean more overcrowding and waits of years or decades for new capacity that some routes need now.  It will mean less capacity on the key routes that we highlighted in our original note.

On another issue, Philip Hammond was challenged by the Guardian on modal shift from air to HS2. His answer was “we’re not just going to Birmingham. We’re going to Manchester and Leeds”. But rail already has 85% of the Manchester – London air/rail market, and there are no flights from Leeds to London. In fact, Manchester is the only city served by HS2 with a London air service. So how will the link take traffic out of the air?

← Earlier Posts Newer Posts →

Switch to our mobile site