24plusnews.co.uk Rotating Header Image

Public Sector Workforce

Chief Fire Officers Association

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CFOA FoI Response:

Senior police officers lose some perks

Oct 11th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

In April last year, Sir Norman Bettison, the chief constable of West Yorkshire Police said he was paid too much. His basic salary was £163K a year, but when other perks and pension contributions were added his total remuneration package was worth £213K.

In an interview he said “the best leaders are those who can secure long term public value and a vision for their staff. Not some mercenary performance manager peddling a short-term fix”. He went on to say, “My old dad, who was made redundant in the steel industry upheaval of the 1980s, wouldn’t have been able to comprehend it.”

Mr Bettison was praised for his honesty, and I remember being interviewed by BBC Look North at the time agreeing with his sentiments, and saying how important it is that those at the top set a good example.

In an interview for Radio 5 Live, the outgoing chief constable of South Yorkshire Police had something different to say. Med Hughes was apparently concerned that there will not be the right calibre of people putting themselves forward for the role of police and crime commissioner. “I’ve seen decisions recently in my police authority by, perhaps, ambitious councillors who want to be that person, which show their lack of vision for the role.” he said.

When asked to give an example, he admitted the following was almost the most trivial one. South Yorkshire Police paid £1000 a month to lease an Audi A8 for the chief. The deputy chief constable (who is now acting chief constable), two assistant chief constables, and the finance director are each provided with a BMW at our expense. The police authority has decided to scrap these perks. Apparently, this now makes the role of South Yorkshire’s Chief Constable the worst paid in the country. The basic salary is £148K per annum, although when you add on pension contributions, the total remuneration is much higher.

Because of this ‘low’ salary, the job of chief constable has had to be re-advertised again, as initially there were only two applicants.

I am not going to say leading a police force is an easy job, and the person who does it should not be well paid, but at a time when we are all tightening our belts, is it really unreasonable to ask senior police officers to give up their company car? A salary of £148K is not much lower than Sir Norman Bettison’s £163K. You want a chief who is going to lead because they want to make a difference; because they relish the challenge of the job. Although the pay in South Yorkshire is lower than comparable jobs elsewhere in the country, the cost of living is also lower.

The difference between Sir Norman Bettison and Med Hughes is stark. One admits we all face challenging economic times ahead, and the other seems to think senior police officers shouldn’t shoulder any of the pain themselves.

I’m not going to tar all senior police officers with the same brush, as I know the vast majority are dedicated, hard working people. If the reason you don’t want to apply for a job that you have been working hard all your life to get is because you won’t have an all expenses paid Audi A8, however, and your basic salary is a few thousand pounds lower than the neighbouring chief constable, then something is seriously wrong.

NHS clinical watchdog NICE wastes thousands on luxury perks with corporate credit cards

Sep 12th, 2011
by Rory Meakin.
Comments are off for this post

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has spent tens of thousands of pounds on luxury staff perks using corporate credit cards, including bills at 5-star hotels and Michelin-starred fine-dining. The story on NICE spending in yesterday’s Sunday Express is the second in a series of findings following TaxPayers’ Alliance research into quango credit card spending.

The Hilton Hanoi Opera hotel

The body spent £611 at Apple Computer Inc, £2,354 on the Heathrow Express, £512 on Eurostar and £6,294 at various restaurants including Christopher’s American Grill, Le Deuxieme, Café des Amis and the Michelin-starred Deanes at Queens. You can see why quango staff are attracted by fine dining, coffee shop treats and slick Apple design, but they shouldn’t be leaving taxpayers with the bill.

Despite the economic climate and the Government’s drive for austerity, NICE increased credit card spending on hotels from £35,267 to £39,783 last year, including £19,690 at the up-market Marriott chain. Five-star hotels at which NICE staff spent taxpayers’ money included the Hilton Hanoi Opera in Vietnam, the Corinthia Hotel Praguein Czech Republic and £6,880 at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Amman, Jordan.

Despite the disappointing waste identified, there are glimmers of hope for taxpayers. While NICE spent £2,419 on taxpayer-funded politics in 2009-10 (payments to political parties, presumably fees paid to attend party conferences to lobby politicians for more of our money), they did not spend any money on this in 2010-11 – at least not using credit cards – and they should be applauded for releasing their credit card spending data for public scrutiny. Many quangos have managed to dream up excuses to keep their spending of taxpayers money secret. Quangos should publish their spending automatically on their websites, and they should stop wasting taxpayers money on luxury perks that aren’t necessary for the job.

Download the data (XLS)

FOI reveals Department for Work and Pensions still expanding its bureaucrat headcount

Sep 2nd, 2011
by Rory Meakin.
Comments are off for this post

Far from the rhetoric of “savage cuts” hyperbole being bandied about by commentators and politicians, in the real world staff numbers in the Department for Work and Pensions rocketed last year.

A Freedom of Information request by the TaxPayers’ Alliance has revealed that staff numbers rose from 96,066 in 2009-10 to 108,856 last year. The figures speak for themselves, and the contrast with the hot air about cuts could scarcely be more stark: 12,790 more staff, a 13.3 per cent increase in the headcount. George Osborne should mull over these figures the next time he wonders why the UK’s growth rate is so disappointing and then read the point Daniel Hannan MEP made yesterday in his Telegraph blog.

Here’s the thing: the relative prosperity of the South East comes, not despite the fact that it is getting less public subsidy than the other regions, but because of it. Government subventions can become like narcotics, debilitating their recipients, encouraging them to arrange their affairs around the next fix. In parts of the country where the state controls most of the economy, school leavers who might otherwise have become entrepreneurs instead join the public sector. A vicious circle is established.

The Government should start to cut overall spending now. Britain’s faltering economy needs less regulation and lower taxes. But with the deficit at such an unsustainable level, the Chancellor has no room to cut taxes without matching spending cuts. It’s time for the Government to find its reverse gear and bring back down swelling departmental staff numbers.

Anger over fire officer’s increased pension

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

When the Chief Fire Officer of Humberside Fire and Rescue Service retired, the Fire Authority took the decision to temporarily promote four officers. All four were eligible to retire.  Anyone who understands the way public sector pensions work (and those councillors on the Fire Authority Board should) will tell you this temporary move was going to cost taxpayers dearly, because when these officers retire their pensions will be calculated using the higher salary.

Mark Rhodes (temporarily promoted to Assistant  Officer) applied to retire just one day after he had completed two months in his new job, and today has left the fire service.  As a result of his promotion, he has seen his lump sum increase by £29,000, and his yearly pension will be around £3,000 higher. 

This story not only infuriates taxpayers, it also infuriates firefighters too, who see those at the top cashing-in on their senior positions. In my opinion, what it worse than the increased payments themselves is the sheer incompetence of the fire authority board members. You won’t be surprised to read that the chairman of the fire authority has refused to comment. Instead, a statement was issued.

“The Fire Authority, like some other services, decided to make temporary appointments of senior uniformed fire officers to fill  vacancies in preparation for the retirement of the then Chief Fire Officer.”

Tell us something we don’t know as the chairman of the fire authority retreats to his bunker as soon as the heat is turned up. Taxpayers have a right to know if board members were aware of the financial cost of making these temporary promotions. If not, why not? Who advised them? Was their advice taken?

Members of the fire authority are paid a basic allowance of £4,457.04. The chairman, John Briggs, also receives a special responsibility allowance of £10,703.46. In addition to this, as a councillor on North Lincolnshire Council he receives a basic allowance of £7,638. As deputy leader he also receives a special responsibility allowance of £14,544. A grand total of £37,072.50. He is paid enough to answer difficult questions. He needs to start answering them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Southampton’s wave of strikes

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

Last month John Henvest, our coordinator in Hampshire, wrote about taxpayers being taken for a ride in Southampton. Many council workers were hiring taxis, rather than using their own vehicles because the council reduced the mileage rate paid from a very generous 54p per mile to the HMRC recommended 45p. At a time when the council is trying to reduce its costs, some workers deliberately wasted our money in a futile bid to get generous perks reintroduced.

The problems in Southampton, however, have not just been restricted to taxi rides. Southampton City Council have decided to introduce new pay and conditions for its workers, and want them to accept a pay reduction of between 2% and 5.5%. No-one wants a reduction in pay, but at a time when many in the private sector are losing their jobs through forced redundancies, and are also having to accept pay cuts to keep themselves in work, council workers have to accept the economic realities of life.

Southampton's refuse collectors are currently on strike

Instead, a wave of strikes have taken place. In an attempt to hold the council to ransom, bin men have walked out, leaving over a million bin bags to litter the city’s streets. If many of the workers at your council took a month off work at the same time, you probably wouldn’t notice the difference. Bin men go on strike and everyone notices, as rubbish is piled high and vermin starts increasing.

On Wednesday last week, more than 600 workers went on strike, and a protest march and rally took place. To compound the council’s problems,  unions have also launched a £12 million legal battle. In scenes reminiscent of the 1970s, the lives of ordinary council taxpayers have been left a misery, yet despite the continuing strike action, around 90% of employees have signed new contracts in order to protect their jobs, and the council estimates reducing salary costs will protect 400 jobs.

A similar proposal was put forward by the Labour group on Hull City Council before the elections in May. It felt by asking the unions to accept a 5% pay cut, jobs would be protected. Surely union leaders want as many of their members in employment as possible? Compared to the private sector, a job in the public sector is still relatively safe, better paid, and even after proposed government reforms, will still have generous pension entitlements.

This is something the unions and those striking in Southampton need to think about, and in the meantime get back to work.

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

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

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

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

Bradford City Hall

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

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

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

How much do ‘Pilgrims’ cost you?

Jun 9th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

Jane Pilgrim is a nurse, and is employed by the NHS, however she doesn’t spend her day tending the sick. She spends her day working full-time for her union.

Last week, Liam Billington wrote on how union funding at Tameside Council has risen by 48% and I highlighted how in Hull UNISON had a ‘countdown to power’ before the recent local elections.

In our report on union funding last year, we showed how much YOU PAY for union activities in your local council, NHS Trust, and other public bodies. Here are some figures from 2009/10:

  • Ofsted are charged with inspecting schools, but we also contribute around £175K to union representatives.
  • Over £600K of our money assists unions in the Valuation Office Agency.
  • The next time you pay your taxes, remember over £6 million of our money pays for union activities in HMRC.
  • Union activities in councils cost over £22 million, and this is a conservative estimate, as many councils (like many Quangos, NHS Trusts and government departments) do not record the amount of time spent on union business when they should be working for us.

In a written answer to a question in parliament, DCLG minister Bob Neil said:

“I am aware of the public and parliamentary concern expressed in recent weeks over trade union officials paid for from the public purse. The coalition Government’s transparency agenda will help ensure that cash payments to trade unions and the titles of staff posts in local government are open to public scrutiny. At a time when all local authorities need to make sensible savings to help pay off the budget deficit, councillors will rightly wish to review the merits of (full-time) union officials funded by the taxpayer and the provision of the office facilities to trade unions.”

The more pressure that can be exerted on these pilgrims, the better. If you feel that the taxpayer funding of union officials has to stop, here’s what you can do:

  • Read our report to find out how many union representatives there are in your local council, NHS trust and fire service.
  • Write to your MP to insist that the taxpayer funding of union activists has to stop.

Any responses you get, please forward them on to us. We pay our taxes for legitimate government services, not for officials union members should be paying for themselves.

Southampton taxpayers being taken for a ride

Jun 7th, 2011
by John Henvest.
Comments are off for this post

On 6 June, headlines in Southampton read City Council billed for 80 taxis a day in mileage rate row. One round trip to Lee-on-Solent alone reportedly cost taxpayers £140. This has come about because Southampton City Council has reduced the mileage costs employees can claim from 54p per mile to the standard HMRC rate of 45p per mile. Southampton was one of the councils we highlighted in a report earlier this year as paying well over the recommended rate. It is also worth remembering HMRC increased the rate from 40p, to 45p a mile this April.

With that in mind it seems fair to both employees and taxpayers, with the current state of public spending, that staff at Southampton City Council should accept the 45p rate. Unfortunately they haven’t and instead have taken industrial action.

They are refusing to use their own cars and are instead hiring taxis at great expense to Southampton taxpayers.

Never made so much money in their lives

Just because they have been enjoying 54p per mile in the past doesn’t mean they are being treated unfairly now.

It is unreasonable for them to group together and refuse to use their private vehicles knowing this will force up the council’s cost by the need to hire taxis.

Extra costs will further endanger the long-term services able to be provided by the council. This appears a little like blackmail!

 

John Henvest, Hampshire TPA

Rising cost of council pensions eating up local government budgets

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

The Local Government Finance Statistics out today show the steady rise in the cost of employers’ contributions to council pensions as a share of local government income.  Those pensions consumed over 22 per cent of income from council tax in 2009-10, which shows the extent to which savings in this area could mean lower bills for hard pressed taxpayers.  That is up from around 19 per cent in 2005-06, which is a significant rise in such a relatively short period of time.

In our last report on this issue – which found councils were facing a £53 billion pension deficit in 2008-09 -  we discussed some options for reform to cut costs.  If the Government wants to make it a bit easier for councils to balance the books then they should consider action in this area.

Here are the statistics on the rising cost of employer’s contributions to local government pensions:

 

Councils splash-out over £2 million on away days

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

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

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

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

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

Is this really the best venue for an away day?

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

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

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

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.

Lord Sugar says government has twice as many civil servants as it needs

May 3rd, 2011
by Rory Meakin.
Comments are off for this post

Labour peer and star of television series The Apprentice, Baron Sugar of Clapton, told the Radio Times that the Civil Service has twice as many staff as it needs to do the job compared to what it would need it if employed private sector working practices. He also suggested the government could save £1 billion annually in procurement with a more hard-nosed approach. The claims signal a hardening consensus on the scale of waste in government following Sir Philip Green’s recent Efficiency Review and evidence given by Lord (Digby) Jones to the parliamentary Public Administration Committee that only half of civil servants are needed. Lord Sugar said:

“They employ God knows how many million civil servants, and if you spent the time that I spent in Whitehall, you do have to ask yourself sometimes what half of them are doing. When I compare it to my commercial organisation, we have people who multi-task, and if you applied that multi-tasking philosophy within the civil service you would cut the labour force by half”

Most people who have had dealings with the public sector can attest to this. Co-ordinators, officers and facilitators abound and managers receive very little reward for cutting back waste. Far easier to let things tick over as they are while the world changes around them. And Lord Sugar’s comments echo those of Lord (Digby) Jones in back in 2009:

“The civil service, which is honest, stuffed full of decent people who work hard, but frankly the job could be done with half as many. It could be more productive, more efficient, it could deliver a lot more value for money for the taxpayer. And the levers of change, the ability to effect change, are so rare because of the culture. I was amazed, quite frankly, at how many people deserved the sack and yet that was the one threat that they never ever worked under, because it doesn’t exist as long as they have not been criminal or whatever”

£73, please

It’s not just overstaffing in Civil Service offices where taxpayers are having to pay far more than they need to. Lord Sugar also suggested Sir Terry Leahy (of Tesco fame) and Sir Stuart Rose (of Marks & Spencer) ought to be hired to improve purchasing.

“If you look at Philip Green’s Efficiency Review, he uncovered things like one department paying £73 for a box of paper that you can go into a shop and pay £8 for”

Lords Sugar and Jones are right. Taxpayers deserve a better deal. Our recent proposals to the government for HR Transparency in local government should be adopted in national government too, so people can scrutinise what officials do and how many of them are being employed to do it. Trimming back the waste in government requires bold political leadership and robust management to make the tough decisions which will be unpopular with those whose jobs waste taxpayers’ money. But it also needs new systems that provide an intrinsic deterrent to waste building up over time in future. Overhauling the gold-plated redundancy deals which mean officials are kept on at full salary with nothing to do because it is cheaper than making them redundant, and HR Transparency – publishing online job descriptions and structure charts for all civil servants would be great first steps in that direction.

Cornish health waste

Mar 21st, 2011
by Tim Newark.
Comments are off for this post

The Chief Executive of the Royal Cornwall Hospitals Trust (RCHT) has warned its 5,000 staff that they need to make savings this year of £26 million. That means losing 200 jobs and cutting the budget by 15% in back-room departments and a further 10% in front-line services. Unions are up in arms because they fear that many of their members are being downgraded as they are told to reapply for less senior jobs. Said one radiographer: “We suspect people will be downgraded to Band 6 but still doing the Band 7 role, on less money.”

But not everyone seems to be onside with the savings message. A Cornish TPA supporter passes on the discontent of a Truro nurse. Despite the impending cuts, the RCHT hospital at Truro is investing in a computer programme designed to allow nurses and other front line staff to upload their thoughts and written reports on a screen above their desk ‘to flash the news for all to see’.

“Another unnecessary job to add to the workers’ day. What fun the desk-bound management section have,” noted our informant. “I am not sure how this new project works, but to cut staff and install expensive equipment that create work seems to be unproductive, unnecessary, or silly.”

If it is anything like Truro’s 49-page ‘Policy and Procedure for Being Open’, highlighting the need for interpersonal skills in a hospital, or the 10-day management jolly disguised as ‘New Horizon Thinking’ to promote leadership skills among middle and senior hospital managers, it really should be the first in line for the chop.

It is certainly fascinating to note the cost of computer equipment and services last month at the RCHT—a total of £201,867.41 in just one month. Just when the Chief Executive is asking for cuts in staff and wages.

Tim Newark, Bath & South-West TaxPayers’ Alliance

DCLG announce review of statutory duties placed on local government

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

Ever found yourself dealing with employees from your council and having no idea what they actually do? Well, they could be carrying out one of 1,294 statutory duties that parliament imposes on local authorities. This week the Department for Communities and Local Government (DGLG) has announced it will perform a review of these duties, which in many cases are the result of centuries old Acts of Parliament and are no longer really necessary. Of course, conforming to them tends to cost taxpayers money.

Amazingly, DCLG acknowledge it is in no way comprehensive. Inevitably within such a huge list of duties some are necessary to perform essential functions, but surely there are many that are now surplus to requirements? DCLG are asking for your help to establish a comprehensive list of any statutory duties that are no longer necessary, which you can do here. As we outlined in our Unnecessary Jobs report last year, these statutory duties spawn whole new departments in council workforces too, such as diversity officers and climate change officers. Another problem is that councils respond differently to the same edicts – Birmingham had 28 Diversity Officers on the list while Leeds made do with just 11. Some had none whatsoever and shared the duties among existing staff.

This is an encouraging measure from the DCLG; let’s hope it removes many of the tiresome, onerous and ultimately expensive requirements Whitehall place on local authorities. Of course, this must be completed with clarity and transparency, as Glyn Gaskarth of the Local Government information Unit points out.  He states “Every councillor must be able to find out, easily, exactly what the council is legally required to do. The public must be able to access such information in a clear and accessible format. We should constantly be asking ourselves if each regulation is necessary and if the law’s requirements can be met by less bureaucratic means.”

Switch to our mobile site