24plusnews.co.uk Rotating Header Image

Public Service Quality

Non-job of the week

Dec 15th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

As this is the last non-job of the week feature of 2011, I have been looking back at the examples of non-jobs and ridiculously high pay I have highlighted throughout the year. I won’t pick a winner as the non-job of the year – I’ll leave it to you, but there is no shortage of runners and riders competing for the accolade.

Some councils have been busy building large change and performance departments. Surrey County Council and Oxford City Council immediately spring to mind. Surrey has advertised for a Performance Manager, Performance Officer, Intelligence Officer, Change Officer, Senior Change Manager, and a Senior Performance and Research Officer (Intelligence). Non-Job of the WeekOxford City Council have recruited similar officers and managers, as well as a Tenants Involvement and Development Officer.

Nottingham City Council (the only council not to publish its spending above £500) ironically recruited a Head of Quality and Efficiency Services, and Walsall Council was looking for a Smarter Workplaces Programme Manager. Also this year, the new Future Shape Programme Manager of North East Lincolnshire Council was revealed.

Reading Council was looking for no less than ten Seasonal Personal Travel Plan Advisers. Their job was to contact residents and discuss with them how they travel to work, school, and go shopping, etc. If you think this is bizarre, then what about Waltham Forest’s search for a Laughter Yoga Teacher?

This year, many councils have scrapped their newspapers, but Hackney (surprise, surprise) has not followed suit. Earlier this year it was looking for a new sub-editor for its propaganda rag newspaper, Hackney Today.

There has also been the usual raft of Climate Change Officers (something I highlighted repeatedly), Political Assistants, and Diversity Officers - including the BBC who was looking for a Diversity Talent Executive!

A London council was looking for a Governance Officer – Openness and Transparency. Ironically, we didn’t know which council this was, as they were recruiting anonymously through a recruitment agency! Those recruitment agencies have been a feature this year. Remember the Interim Head of Parking Services for an unnamed London Council? In March this was yours for £500-£600 a day! This was the most egregious salary of the year. When annualised, a parking manager was due to be paid more then the prime minister.

I could go on, and please have a look through these examples and the others from 2011. It does come with a health warning though. I don’t want your blood pressure to rise to dangerous levels.

I wish you all a very Happy Christmas, and here’s hoping 2012 will be a non-job free year!

Non-job of the week

Nov 23rd, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

Lewes District Council is looking to employ an Equalities Officer whilst the existing officer is on maternity leave. According to the job advert “this post co-ordinates the development of our Equalities work, Impact Assessments and equalities policies. It identifies and introduces practical steps and monitors our success so we make continuous progress with our equality duties.”

It is – and has been for many years – illegal to discriminate on the grounds of religion, gender, disability, race, sexual orientation, etc. Why does Lewes Council need to employ someone to monitor its success in order to make continuous progress with its equality duties? Legislation does change, but not to the extent that you need a full-time officer monitoring those changes.  

Non-Job of the WeekLambeth Borough Council is searching for an Energy Strategy Officer on £32532 – £35055. Perhaps if it installed smart meters in all council premises it would see consumption fall and benefit from lower bills? Not that the installation of smart meters is as easy as you would think. Well, maybe to you and I it is, but not for the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC).

It is looking for a Stakeholder Engagement Manager – Smart Meters Programme, paying £46,975 – £56,597 per annum. Here’s part of the job description:

As our Stakeholder Engagement Manager, you will be responsible for planning and overseeing the programme’s engagement with the organisations outside the smart meters programme who need to be involved in the successful delivery of the programme and its benefits. These include energy suppliers and other industry players together with consumer representatives. You will need to work closely with colleagues across the programme who are dealing with these groups day-to-day through a range of working groups and bi-laterals Your challenge is to ensure that we have the right arrangements in place to capture and share feedback and to ensure consistent messages are being conveyed by the programme.

In addition, there is a need to maintain communications with a much wider group of stakeholders including MPs and Local Government, community groups and special interest groups who all need to be kept aware of developments and can help promote consumer awareness. You will also play a key role in driving forward the communications strategy for the programme, working with the energy industry to develop key messages and communication approaches and providing the main interface from the programme into DECC’s press office. You will be part of the Consumer Engagement, Roll-out and Benefits team within the programme which is headed by the Deputy Programme Director and you will be expected to be flexible and able to contribute to current priorities within the wider team.

Smart meters are an excellent way to help us reduce our bills. As I’ve said before, you can watch in real time which appliances use the most electricity. It’s not complicated, but the DECC seems to have set-up a mini-department to promote something energy companies could do every time they send us a bill!

Finally, when it comes to waste, the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) certainly does it in style. They spent nearly £70 million making nearly 1800 people redundant. I don’t know how generous those payments were, however I do know there are times when you have to take a short term hit for a long term gain. Defra says it can recoup this money in a year. So far, so good then, but it was also revealed whilst making 1800 people redundant, at the same time it was recruiting another 500 staff. You would have thought common sense would prevail and the department would assess its needs before it let staff go. Many of those who received redundancy payments could have moved to those new jobs, thus saving taxpayers money.

Please remember we pay some senior civil servants and council officers six-figure salaries because (we are told) we need the best, and if we didn’t pay them as handsomely, they would quit public service and move to the private sector. This rarely happens, and it is examples like this that prove why.

North & North East Lincolnshire Councils save £1.3 million

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

North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire Councils have announced a deal to share housing and council tax administration. It is expected this will save taxpayers around £1.3 million.

This is a very welcome move, and it again proves what we have been saying that when councils share back-office functions, significant savings can be made. If is also worth noting that each council will maintain its own records, and only designated employees will be able to access information from both councils, so data protection laws are adhered to. 

The £1.3 million savings are possible because 21.4 full-time equivalent posts will no longer be needed, and those staff will be offered redeployment elsewhere. Overall in time this will bring down staff numbers, and importantly, will avoid redundancy payments as staff leave of their own accord, or retire.

I have spoken to many people over the last few months who worry that sharing services means the end to their council. They fear that it will mean the creation of super-councils who will not understand and appreciate local concerns. I hope this news will allay some of their fears. Deals like this one help protect those important, local, front-line services that many in our communities rely on.

What this deal also proves is it is possible for opposing political parties to work together. North Lincolnshire is controlled by the Conservatives, and North East Lincolnshire is controlled by Labour, where it is the largest single party. By putting political differences to one side, these councils have proved taxpayers can get a better deal for their money.

Turn that light out!

Oct 24th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

It’s around 10 o’clock in the evening, and it’s been a long day, so you decide to go for a couple of beers at your local pub to unwind. You get chatting to some friends, and you leave at midnight. Because you are a responsible citizen, you left your car at home, and made the 15 minute journey there and back on foot.

Sound familiar? I’m sure many of us have done this before. The only problem if you live in Derbyshire is next year the council may have decided to switch off the street lighting, so you may need a torch to find your way back.

(but not after midnight!)

This is the latest wheeze from Derbyshire County Council to save money, although when you read comments from Cllr Simon Spencer, cabinet member for highways and transport, it seems he is more interested in reducing carbon emissions than protecting the safety and security of council taxpayers.

According to a report in the Yorkshire Post, Derbyshire County Council is responsible for 89,000 street lights, but the council has drawn up proposals to turn off 40,000 of them between midnight and 5.30 am, and around 900 permanently. Senior councillors have stated this will save 2,000 tonnes of carbon every year – the equivalent of taking 625 cars of the road. With costs of motoring rising, and drivers collectively being overtaxed by £17.9 billion a year, I imagine those 625 cars will come off the road anyway, as people struggle to pay their bills.

It is estimated switching the lights off will save £200K a year. If the council would like any suggestions on how to save that amount, it can look at our Town Hall Rich List, or its own accounts. In 2009/10, there were 103 council officers earning in excess of £50K a year. This figure rose in 2010/11, to 126, despite a pay freeze. Rather than looking inside its organisation, and reducing the tiers of management, it instead looks at ways that will impact on front-line services – and street lighting is surely one of the most basic front-line services there is.

If you want to have your say on this matter, you can do so by contacting the council. You have until 6 December.

Armchair auditing in Hull

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

Transparency in government spending is something we have been campaigning about for many years. Councils publishing their spending above £500 was a major policy victory for us, but it does have to be said that looking through hundreds of pages of council spending on your computer could be made easier.

A new website has just been launched that does just that for residents in Hull. With a few clicks of the mouse, you can find spending details in areas that most interest you. This makes the job of an armchair auditor much easier. Let me give you two practical examples. 

In April, I wrote about the demise of ‘Hull in Print’ – Hull City Council’s newspaper. Using this website, in under a minute I found out that from March to August, taxpayers funded this newspaper by £45,048.

With a few clicks of a mouse, I found out that from 1 March – 31 August this year, the council made a total of 2014 payments totalling £1,197,927 in council tax computer refunds. Why this is, I don’t know, but it’s very easy for me to send a freedom of information request to find out. Without this website, it would have been much more difficult to spot this information, never mind collate all the figures.

The website has nothing to do with Hull City Council, although the council must be congratulated for publishing all spending online – not just spending above £500. It has been created by a member of the public called Adam Jennison. Adam is to be congratulated for doing this. It is a valuable tool for taxpayers who can easily find out how their money is spent. It is also useful for the council itself, as well as local businesses who may be able to spot an opening in the market and deliver services at a better rate.

As this program can be adapted for use across the country, all councils can be covered. If this was so, all of us would be in a better position to scrutinise them more effectively.

Regeneration Failure

Oct 14th, 2011
by Colin Cameron.
Comments are off for this post

Even while the Government is trying to apply the brakes, the public sector gravy train rolls on for some overpaid executives.

On Tyneside, 1NG (it stands for Newcastle-Gateshead), the regeneration company handed £4m of funds, has been closed down after just three years over concerns about its success rate. Even the Newcastle city councillor who chaired the scrutiny panel during the company’s existence has condemned its failure.

And as a reward for this lack of success, 1NG’s Chief Executive, Jim McIntyre, has been handed an £80,000 pay-off, equivalent to his six-month notice period. And there’s more to come – the rest of the organisation’s 14 staff will receive pay-offs in March, or be re-employed by Newcastle or Gateshead Councils.

This public sector largesse raises (again) some pertinent questions:

  • Why does the boss of a failed organisation deserve a pay-off, as opposed to replacement or dismissal?
  • How many other companies do you know of with only 14 employees where the boss is paid a whopping £160,000 salary?
  • Was it really necessary to put Mr McIntyre on a six-month notice period?

The hidden perks inside Hull City Council

Oct 14th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

In a report earlier this year, we revealed that many councils pay mileage rates to staff well above the HMRC recommended rate of 45p per mile. Hull was one of those councils.

In a report in the Yorkshire Post this week, it was revealed that not only are staff benefiting from generous rates of 65p per mile, but staff can also claim a petrol allowance on top of the mileage allowance of up to 11.3p per mile. This was news to me, and to the journalist I spoke to about it. I described it as another of the hidden perks inside Hull City Council, and something that needs to be rectified. Scrapping this allowance and reducing the mileage rate to 45p per mile will bring considerable savings to the council’s budget.

It was also revealed that officers on Grade 12 or higher benefit from 33 days annual leave. Those on lower grades receive 25 days, rising to 26 after ten years service. The council also award two extra days leave to all staff in addition to the statutory public holidays. This means those earning above £42,066 a year are not only benefiting from hugely generous mileage rates when they travel on council business, they also receive 35 days holiday every year.

It is impossible to work out exactly how many officers there are benefiting from these additional days, as the council’s accounts only list those earning above £50k. Instead of providing two lists of teaching and non-teaching staff (which many councils do), Hull does not list them separately. There are, however, over 300 staff listed in the accounts (page 61) who earn in excess of £50k. We can easily add many more who will be earning above £42,066. It is therefore safe to assume that the council would not need as many managers as it currently employs if only the amount of annual leave was reduced.

I’m pleased to say that the leader of the council, Cllr Steve Brady, is negotiating with the unions on these matters. However, this is not a guarantee that these perks will end, or that other perks won’t be substituted for them. Hopefully everyone will see sense and realise that by reducing the mileage rates paid and reducing the amount of annual leave many officers receive, a significant contribution can be made towards balancing the books.

I would love to know if there are similar hidden perks in your council. If you know, please e-mail me. If you don’t know, you can always send a freedom of information (FoI) request to find out. If you would like me to send you a FoI template, please do get in touch.

Non-job of the week

Sep 21st, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

What is a Regional Reputation Manager? I’m not sure, however I know Calderdale Council employs one, thanks to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request sent by one of our supporters.

The FOI also revealed the Marketing and Communications Team includes four graphic designers, a Campaigns Officer, a Marketing Officer, a Principal Communications Officer, and a PR and Public Information Officer. Some of these jobs must be part-time as the salary bill for 2010/11 was £199,900, and for the current financial year, the bill is set to rise to £216,800.

Non-Job of the WeekThe FOI also revealed there are 11 personal assistants employed by the authority, and a further two secretaries who carry out the functions of a PA. When you add on costs for council newspapers and other publications, you can see that there is plenty of fat to trim.

The accolade this week though goes to Surrey County Council, which is looking for a Senior Campaign Communications Officer paying £36,615 per annum. Here is part of the job description:

Want to work as part of an award winning team communicating with an audience of over one million people? Join our team of communications professionals who are constantly delivering new and creative ways of talking to our residents and staff.

We have some experience of the new and creative way Surrey County Council communicates. Take a look at this video. There’s no need to adjust the volume settings on your computer. There’s no sound.

If you are left scratching your head after watching that, here’s an explanation from the council:

The proposal to develop an Eco Park at Charlton Lane, Shepperton is a key element of Surrey County Council’s World Class Solution for the county, which aims to manage Surrey’s waste in the most efficient, sustainable and cost effective way possible. 

So that’s what it’s all about. The council wants to develop an Eco Park, and decided to produce a video. Through a FOI we discovered the cost of producing it was £15,080. If that’s what campaign professionals come up with, taxpayers can certainly do without them.

Surrey CC FoI Response

Non-job of the week

Sep 14th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

The recruitment company, Parkhouse Bell, is searching for part-time Interim Business Development Managers for ‘a number of primes and subcontractors delivering variety of government services’. It seems the consultants bill is set to rise considerably, as those recruited will be rewarded with anything between £200-£600 per day! So much for bringing the consultants bill down.

Not wishing to be outdone, the City of London Corporation is also looking for a new Business Performance and Improvement Officer, earning £34,550 – £39,270. The successful applicant will be part of the Business Performance and Improvement Division based in the City Surveyor’s Department.Non-Job of the Week It seems there are improvement officers in just about every council department these days, as Hackney Borough Council is on the lookout for a Knowledge and Service Improvement Manager based in its new Business and Service Improvement Unit. I can give Hackney Council a tip: stop publishing your newspaper, Hackney Today,  every fortnight, and you’ll save a fortune, and in doing so you’ll help local newspapers who are struggling in the current economic climate.

If none of the above are your ‘cup of tea’ then you can always take up Lewisham’s offer and become a Political Assistant. Here’s part of the job description:

A full time political assistant is needed to provide the Council’s 12 strong Liberal Democrat Group of Councillors with invaluable administrative, policy and political support. It is a wide ranging role, with duties ranging from planning agendas and recording the salient points of meetings to assisting the Group in dealing with press and media enquiries. To be effective, you will need to be acutely aware of new legislation and political developments (on a national as well as local basis) and have an empathy with Liberal Democrat policies. 

I’m not singling out the Liberal Democrats (as all parties do this), but why does the 12 strong Liberal Democrat Group of Councillors need policy and political support? They are elected councillors, who presumably have their collective ears to the ground (there’s a picture) and understand what’s happening in their wards. Do they really need their hands holding during a radio interview? Are they so fearful of the press that they need someone to whisper in their ears what and what not to say? Are they incapable of answering calls on their mobile phones if a journalist wants a quote? When they have group meetings, can’t one of them record the minutes?

I am not saying councillors don’t need some secretarial help from time to time. They do, and this can easily be provided by existing council officers. They don’t need to employ someone to do their work for them, which is what Political Assistants do.

Association of Police Authorities

Aug 23rd, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

The Association of Police Authorities (APA) is not a well known organisation, although it does swallow-up over £1.5 million of our money from subscriptions from police authorities around the country, and an additional £282K in Home Office grants. In total over £1.8 million.

It has a council which consists of 80 members, drawn from the 49 member authorities, and it also has a board, which consists of 17 members. Hardly surprising then that in 2009/10 members’ allowances were a total of £294,150 – an increase from the previous year’s total of £253,426.

A supporter (who serves on a police authority) sent me a press release from the APA, which calls for the government to re-think its policy on elected police and crime commissioners. It states that ‘the Government’s proposals risk putting the police under partial, inappropriate political control, diverting time and resources and creating disruption at a time of unprecedented pressure and upheaval just before the Olympics– who knows what impact this ‘perfect storm’ will have on public safety.’

So once again we have an organisation paid for by taxpayers whose prime motivation is to protect its members: police authorities. It then uses our money to lobby ministers to preserve the status quo, arguing the introduction of police and crime commissioners before the Olympic Games will have an impact on public safely. It doesn’t know if there will be an impact, so it leaves those words hanging in the air, when we know its main objections have nothing to do with public safety. It is using our money (which could pay for dozens of police officers) to preserve a system of police accountability that has failed because it is in its members’ interests.

Very few know who serve on police authorities. I would wager that the majority of people couldn’t name their chief constable. Elected commissioners will give the public a direct say in the say they want to be policed. There will be safeguards in the system, such as the Police and Crime Panels. As Blair Gibbs, Head of Crime and Justice at Policy Exchange, pointed out last year, they sound suspiciously like police authorities, but if their numbers are kept low, and they do not receive funding from central government, the panels should not override the commissioners democratic mandate.

Trade unions receive millions of pounds of our money each year, which is then used to help organise marches and demonstrations against the necessary cuts in public spending. The APA also receives our money, and just like trade unions, campaigns against government policy, albeit in a much subtler way. No doubt we will see representatives on our television screens, and will hear them on the radio making the same suggestions as they have done in their press release. As we can see, it is not done for altruistic reasons; it is done out of self-interest and self-preservation. One thing is for certain though: we pick up the bill!

UPDATE: The Association of Police Authorities have been in touch with a number of criticisms of this blog, see the comment below.  Two members of their board are apparently advisers and not board members, so we have corrected the size of the board from 19 to 17.  However all of the other information is drawn from their annual review or website and, as far as we are aware, accurate so those facts they have challenged stand.

Bolsover councillors vote to keep pay high

Aug 2nd, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

Many parts of the UK are covered by unitary authorities, who have responsibilities for all council services. In other areas, there are two-tiers of local government, where districts and boroughs provide services such as bin collections, and county councils are responsible for things like highways and education. Derbyshire is a county where the latter applies.

District councils cover smaller geographic areas, and provide fewer services than unitary authorities. Councillors are not expected to devote as much time to their council work, and are therefore paid a smaller allowance. In North East Derbyshire Council, councillors are paid a basic allowance of £5,010 per annum, however in neighbouring Bolsover councillors are paid £10,047 – more than twice as much.

Both sets of councillors have the same responsibilities, and as a result, the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) in Bolsover has recommended the basic allowance should be cut to £5,354. They haven’t plucked this figure out of the air either. This figure is the average paid to councillors across similar authorities.

Unfortunately, the IRP can only make recommendations. It cannot enforce its will on councillors, who ultimately decide their own pay and perks. It will therefore not surprise you to learn that the turkeys have chosen not to vote for Christmas. Out of thirty-seven elected councillors, only one was in favour or reducing their pay. Instead, they have voted for a four-year pay freeze. The deputy leader of the council described the panel’s recommendations as flawed. He said they have no consideration to the amount of time and effort that is put in.

Although I accept there are fewer councillors than in the example I have given in North East Derbyshire, as the council tax is still roughly the same, they are not scrutinising more ways to get better value for money for council taxpayers and their work certainly doesn’t warrant twice the pay. I have written before about reducing the number of councillors in general, and how much this would save. Scrutiny is important, but take a look at many councils’ websites and you will see scrutiny committees packed to the rafters. It doesn’t take that many councillors to scrutinise decisions. Paul Francis, the political editor of Kent Online said this on his blog about Kent County Council:

So do we get value for money and would KCC be any different if it was represented by say, 60 county councillors, rather than 84? Democracy needs strong political advocates and it is vital that there are strong checks and balances in the system but I do sometimes sense that County Hall would get along just as well with fewer politicians.

Councillors in Bolsover are paid more than their counterparts in any other comparable council in the country. They had an option to reduce their allowances, even if it was not by the amount the panel recommended. They should be leading by example. Instead they are using their position to maintain the status-quo. If I had served on the IRP in Bolsover, I would feel my time had been completely wasted, and if I was a resident and council taxpayer, I would be asking councillors why they deserve to be paid twice the average. If you feel like me, you can write to the deputy leader, Alan Tomlinson. He seems like the man who does all the talking, and I’m sure he will value your views!

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.

Salisbury Parking Charges – Update

Jul 28th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

A few weeks ago I wrote about the Show Some Sense campaign in Salisbury. I will now bring you up-to-date with the latest developments. I must warn you that you should only read this if you are feeling calm, and please ensure you don’t have anything to hand that you can throw. I cannot be held responsible for any damage you do to your property!

The good news (if you can call it that) is Wiltshire Council has recognised the changes it made to parking charges in Salisbury has been a mistake. However, what follows is a tale of incompetence and bureaucracy that has surprised even me.

The Leader of Wiltshire Council, Cllr Jane Scott, has said the decision to introduce a minimum two hour stay will be scrapped and the one hour charge will be reintroduced, but this will take up to 20 weeks or more to happen. The usual legal reasons have been cited, and council representatives will meet with business groups, the city council and the Salisbury Journal, who have been running the campaign against the increases. Here we are in July, a time when businesses should be getting plenty of customers through their doors, and the council (which freely admits it has made a massive error) cannot reverse its decision until the middle of December at the earliest! Traders are also campaigning for the increased charges to be reversed, but the council is unable to review this until next Spring. How many businesses does it want to go bankrupt in the meantime? We all know the wheels of bureaucracy move slowly, but this isn’t rocket science. I hate to think how long it takes to make really difficult decisions.

This is only part of the story though. You will not be surprised to hear that Wiltshire Council’s takings are substantially down.  Cllr Scott, who must be in line for the ‘most incompetent council leader of the year’ award, has now asked shop owners if they want to participate in a redemption scheme. This would allow traders to offer money back discounts to customers on production of a parking ticket. Unsurprisingly this has not gone down very well, and Cllr Scott said, “I’m getting the impression that perhaps it’s not wanted, and if so, that’s fine, it was purely an offer to try to help people through a difficult time.”

Does she seriously expects traders, who are already struggling as the result of her decisions, to welcome with open arms a scheme that’s going to cost them, in the vain hope it will attract more customers? All they want are the original decisions overturned. Life was hard enough for them already without the council making them ten times worse. They already pay high businesses rates, and they want the council to work with them, not against them.

If Wiltshire Council (under the current leadership) was a private business it would have already filed for bankruptcy. If you make mistakes, you rectify them, move on, and hopefully learn from them. Wiltshire Council has caused this mess, and its attempts to rectify the situation are pathetic. If it had said it was going to reverse its decisions, and then review them in the Spring, everyone would have been happy. Instead, it has managed to anger people in Salisbury even more. How often are we told councils pay high salaries because they want to attract and retain the best people? If this is the best they can do, I would hate to see their worst!

Accessing information

Jul 25th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

Last week, Anna Bailey wrote about Nottingham City Council’s cavalier attitude to transparency. Unfortunately, this council is not alone. One of our supporters from Hertfordshire has been experiencing difficulties with his local council, and the secretary from our West Yorkshire Branch, Nigel Shaw, and I have been in a battle with Bradford Council.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 clearly states public authorities must reply promptly, and in any event not later than the twentieth working day following the date of receipt. In all fairness, most of them do, and give you full answers to your questions. The councils I am concerned about are the exceptions to the rule, but unfortunately these exceptions seem to be growing and perversely are trying to use the Act to prevent you from accessing information.

For example, Nottingham City Council is trying to prevent individuals from issuing more than one FOI request every 60 days, saying such requests may be regarded as vexatious. This is nonsense, not least because a vexatious request is one intended to disrupt an authority, irrespective of when the applicant last submitted a request. Nottingham might be confusing ‘repeated’ requests and ‘aggregating’ requests for the purposes of the 18 hour limit.

In the case of Nottingham, if they published spending above £500 online, they wouldn’t receive as many FOIs. There are also those who are more interested in council spending than others. Eric Pickles wants armchair auditors around the country to examine their council’s accounts. If they cannot send more than one FOI every 60 days, this seriously hampers their efforts.

East Herts Council has failed to respond to 165 FOIs in the last six years within the statutory 20 working days. In percentage terms, the council has gradually got worse year-on-year.

On a recent FOI sent to Bradford Council, I received a completely unsatisfactory response, and asked for the decision to be reviewed. The council promised a response within 20 working days. This is now over a week late. Not only has Bradford Council refused to give me information other councils have freely given, it also can’t be bothered to review its decision and get back to me in the time scale the law stipulates.

Councils who keep on thwarting the public’s right to access information need naming and shaming. They may not have anything to hide (although I doubt it) but by acting in the way they do, they give the impression they have something to hide.

Last week the Department for Communities and Local Government launched a new website. It is not widely known that councils must make their accounts available to the public for twenty days a year, and if you enter your postcode, or address, or the name of your council into the search engine, you can find out when your council’s accounts from the last financial year are open for public scrutiny. Please remember you will be able to check all spending, not just spending above £500. This is your once in a year right, so please use it, and if you find anything interesting, make a note of it, and get in touch.

If you are also experiencing difficulties accessing information through the Freedom of Information Act, please let us know. We need more transparency, not less of it. Exposing waste and getting better value for money for taxpayers is something councils should welcome, not discourage.

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.

Non-job of the week

Jul 6th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

Yesterday, the BBC reported that according to the Office of National Statistics (ONS), public sector workers are paid on average 7.8% more than their private sector counterparts. This is an increase of 2.5% in the last three years. When you factor in generous pension entitlements, the gap will be wider. Faced with tough spending choices, and a need to bring down the public sector wage and pension bill, why is Waltham Forest Council employing a Laughter Yoga Teacher? Here’s what Liza Moon, the aforementioned teacher has to say about her job:

“It can help with depression and reduces pain and stress. At a time when people are going to be affected because they are losing their jobs, this is something that can help with depression and lift up people’s mindsets. It is such a simple thing but it can do so much for a person’s health.

Laughing can be contagious and when people are watching other people laugh, they will start laughing as well. When a person starts to laugh, the brain tells the mind that a person is happy, thereby releasing those chemicals.”

I enjoy a laugh, although I am told my jokes are hopeless! There are many classes you can attend to make you feel better, and support groups run by charities to help people with depression. During times of reining in spending, this is not a justifiable expense. As someone said on the local newspaper’s website:

Laughter is the best medicine, they say, but when the medicine being handed out to the public services at present is so bitter I think strories like these, which in the past would be seen as ‘silly season’ fillers, are, like the medicine itself, increasingly hard to swallow.

Non-Job of the WeekThree months ago, I highlighted Morgan Hunt were advertising for a Programme Manager for a healthcare provider in the South West, paying £200-£300 a day. The same company are now advertising for a Programme Manager in the South West, but this time for a local government client. Once again this is a temporary position, and once again we don’t know who the local government client is. What we do know is the job pays between £550-£750 a day – or £2750-£3750 a week!

To give this some perspective, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is looking to recruit a Counter Terrorism Senior Research Analyst. The successful candidate ‘will advise senior officials and ministers helping to inform and influence overseas Counter Terrorism strategy’. Helping to protect the nation from terrorist threats is a very important role, and whoever gets this job will receive a salary of £35K a year. Yet a Programme Manager for an unnamed local government client in the South West is set to pocket more per day than a Counter Terrorism Senior Research Analyst will earn in a week. They will (on a temporary basis) earn more than cabinet ministers, the prime minister and some of the permanent secretaries of many government departments.

This ‘local government client’ must have money to burn – our money, yet the council taxpayers in this unknown part of the South West will have to pay for it out of their taxes. If anyone knows who this council is, please get in touch. Any information you give us will be treated in the strictest confidence.

£662K for ‘free’ laptops in Wales

Jun 22nd, 2011
by Lee Canning.
Comments are off for this post

As reported in the South Wales Echo 21st June, a scheme to provide free laptop computers to children throughout Wales is to be scrapped. The previous Welsh Assembly Government had earmarked funding that would have seen 1200 laptops provided to children within areas of deprivation in South Wales.

However, like many similarly well-intentioned schemes, this project has seen Welsh taxpayers’ money simply frittered away. It was revealed through written answers to the Shadow Education Minister that £662,364 had been spent on 943 laptops, a figure that equates to just over £700 per laptop. 

Let's not go giving them any ideas now

When you consider the bulk buying power of the Welsh Assembly Government, £700 per laptop is far too high. Go on to any major electronics retailers’ website and you can find deals for good quality laptop computers for considerably less. If you are placing an order for 1200 laptops over the space of a couple of years, further discounts will be available.

Is it surprising, then, that last year Sir Philip Green reported that central government procurement processes were not fit for purpose? He discovered laptops and desktops cost £61 million a year from 13 different providers, with prices ranging from £2,000 to £353, a difference of 82 per cent.

To make matters worse for the people of Wales, this scheme has been taking place at a time when educational standards and funding within Wales lag behind the rest of the UK. On average, local authorities in England spend £604 per pupil more than in Wales.

The intentions of the Welsh Government have to be questioned and those who have control of public finances need to be held to account. As Sir Philip said last year:

“If you don’t have consistent pricing for products that your staff buy with their own money, how is your business going to be efficient?”

Hopefully this is something that will reverberate its way to Cardiff.

Hull City Council is storing up problems for the future

Jun 20th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

Earlier this year, the Labour group on Hull City Council asked officers to look at their proposed budget. This was done, and officers signed-off the proposals, saying the books balanced.

As I have previously reported, Labour won a surprise victory and took control of the council. Last Thursday, it passed its emergency budget, but as I predicted on election night, the budget is nothing more than a fantasy. It is based on saving money on redundancy costs. The argument goes, if you don’t make people redundant you don’t have to  pay them off.  Anyone can see that although you may save money on redundancy costs this year, you will still have those employees salaries to pay next year. Well it seems as if the new leader and his colleagues are going to worry about next year when next year arrives.

One of the new spending decisions is to reduce the cost of primary school meals by 50p a day. This will cost £500K to implement. Hardly protecting front-line services, but working towards an existing pledge of providing free school meals to all primary school children in the city. As far as I’m concerned, it is not my responsibility to feed all of the primary school children of Hull. There are many families who already receive free school meals due to their current financial circumstances, but what about those people who can easily afford it? They should be paying for it themselves, but this argument doesn’t resonate with the new ruling administration.

It looks like there will be a £6 million black hole in the budget next year that will need to be plugged. How do they plan to do it? My guess is they will rely on two things. Firstly, the government has promised to reward councils again for not increasing council tax. This could get the council through 2012/13, but will of course be storing up problems for the future. A source told me the administration is hoping it can limp through until the time of the next general election, hoping that a new government will give it a generous settlement. It is also likely to increase charges through the back door. Look out for increased parking charges, burial charges, planning application fees. You name it, the council will increase the charges for it.

Is this the leader of Hull City Council?

Instead of responsible local government, and making tough decisions, the administration is burying its head in the sand, hoping for jam tomorrow. It should be looking to provide the best front-line services, for the best possible price. It could look at cooperating with neighbouring East Riding Council. Both councils could merge some back-office functions. Although it has taken on my my suggestion to seek more private sponsorship for the city’s Freedom Festival next year, it can expand this policy, engaging the private sector more. There are always savings to me made. Some are big; some are small, but they are there, and they require the political will.

Spending half a million pounds to reduce the cost of meals for all primary schoolchildren is a waste of money. Pretending you are really saving money by not going through with the planned voluntary redundancies is putting your head in the sand. The new leader, Cllr Steve Brady, needs to face reality and stop being an ostrich. Pretending the problem doesn’t exist won’t make it go away.

 

Aylesbury Vale District Council shoots itself in the foot

Jun 17th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

The normally quiet market town of Winslow, Buckinghamshire, has become the centre of heated debate in recent months. Last year, Aylesbury Vale District Council (AVDC) decided to reintroduce parking charges at the Greyhound Lane car park. Those people who work in the town but have to commute by car are facing additional costs of £12.50 per week. Many of those people are on low incomes and can’t afford these additional charges, while local shopkeepers fear the charges could kill their businesses as they lose valued and trusted members of staff.

The charges could easily encourage people to shop elsewhere too, and will no doubt create additional parking problems in side streets. One local resident, Ruth Ash, decided to take action and started collecting signatures on a petition. She managed to get around half the residents to sign it and also enlisted support from the town’s MP, John Bercow. Despite this obvious opposition, AVDC has pushed ahead with a consultation that will no doubt cost more than the council will receive in revenue from parking charges.

AVDC blames the town council for this problem, claiming that an agreement reached in 2005 for Winslow Town Council to contribute £2000 per year + RPI had expired, and the town council refused to negotiate. The Town Council has stated AVDC made unreasonable financial demands when trying to negotiate a new agreement, demanding the contribution increase from £2000 a year to £16,000

Stomping off home in a sulk

Now events have taken a sinister turn. As a result of negative publicity in the local press on various issues, AVDC has banned local reporters from speaking directly to cabinet members and officers. Instead, residents will be drip-fed a diet of press releases coming from the council’s communications department. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! If AVDC thinks the previous coverage was negative, it ain’t seen nothing yet!

I am not saying the council has anything to hide, but by taking this course of action, it is surely implying it has. AVDC has shown no regard to public opinion, and when the going got tough, retreated to its bunker like a spiteful child unwilling to share his football.

Councils should be listening to what their employers – us – want. They should stop treating us with disdain, and should certainly stop engaging in adolescent games like preventing the press from talking to cabinet members and officers of the council. Taxpayers in this part of Buckinghamshire certainly deserve much better.

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.

Merseyside councils working together to reduce costs

Jun 3rd, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

In February, the leader of Liverpool City Council, Cllr Joe Anderson, wrote to the prime minister withdrawing the city’s involvement in the big society pilot scheme. He said it would not work as a result of spending cuts.

I was therefore pleasantly surprised to read that the same council leader has been brokering a deal with other council leaders in Merseyside to reduce back-office costs. In a quote to the Liverpool Daily Post he said:

“I raised the issue of procurement and sharing services together with a view to save money because we need to save money. I called on all the leaders of the councils on Merseyside to look at it.

We are looking at options to save money between us. They were all certainly up for it. If it’s legal services, Sefton could save money by using ours (Liverpool city council’s). Why have six different payment roll departments?

It’s to do with saving money. If you can do this through procurement you can save money.”

It’s good to read these councils have been listening. This is something we have been continually saying, and other councils have been involved in the same exercise as these councils in Merseyside. Last year, South Holland and East Lindsey District Councils in Lincolnshire agreed  to merge five back-office services. They estimate it will save  £30 million over the next ten years. Last month is was reported Oldham and Rochdale Councils are set to merge services, and this week is has been reported Wokingham Council has merged its legal services department with the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead.

All of this proves when councils work together and explore new ways of working, there are considerable benefits for taxpayers. They need to go further though, and ensure they cut the number of directors and chief executives. When you factor in pension contributions, many senior council officers are costing taxpayers in excess of £200K a year

To give you some examples from our Town Hall Rich List this year, the chief executive’s remuneration package in Liverpool was worth £278K, with two directors costing over £240K,  another costing £212K, not to mention the many other officers on six-figure packages. In the Wirral (one of the Merseyside councils looking at merging services) the chief executive and seven directors all earn six-figure salaries.

There is still scope for many more savings in councils throughout the country. I am pleased many councils are merging, or are considering merging services. More councils need to do this, and reduce the number of senior officers in the process.

 

Non-job of the week

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

On 19 January, my non-job of the week was a Performance Improvement Manager at Oxford City Council. It appears something has gone wrong, as the same job has been advertised again. You will see by clicking on the links, it is exactly the same job advert. In addition, the council is also looking for a Business Improvement Partner, on exactly the same salary, £33,661 – £37,206.

In Brent, the Liberal Democrat group is looking for a Political Assistant, paying £34,986. This was one of the non-jobs we identified in a report last year. There were 141 full time equivalent council employees working as Political Advisors at a cost of nearly £5 million in 2009-10. It seems the Lib Dems in Brent are going to add to this figure. As we said in our report:

The question has to be asked: why do local councillors require such advice? Councillors – who generally operate on a part-time basis – should be well  accustomed to their  ward and issues concerning their local residents. If there is a need to elect a better standard of councillor, then that is a separate question.

Councils should stick to  providing key services,  such as keeping streets clean and maintaining  vital  infrastructure. Paid professional political advice  could mean that councillors become too ambitious above and beyond these fundamental goals.  It is an unnecessary role, proven by the fact that many councils operate perfectly well without them.

The non-jobs of the week this week though are in Camden. The council is looking for a Sustainability Manager (Community Engagement) and a Sustainability Officer to help Camden become a low carbon and low waste borough. Here is a snippet from the manager’s job advert:

You will be responsible for leading on green community engagement projects and act as the Council’s expert advisor on green community engagement matters. Whilst successfully managing a small team, you will ensure the council uses effective, evidence-based approaches and initiatives to drive green behavioural change across the whole community in Camden. You will work across a number of different teams and in partnership with senior managers, external agencies and community groups to increase green actions taken by residents.

Since when did we pay our council tax to have our behaviour changed? In a report last year, we highlighted the business of ‘Taxpayer Funded Environmentalism‘. As you can see, this also happens at your local town hall. We expect our taxes to be spent wisely, and in the case of councils, we expect them to use our money providing quality front-line services.

We do not pay our taxes to be preached at and have our behaviour changed, or pay for political advice to councillors, or pay for performance managers – especially when councils are full of highly paid managers already. Unfortunately, as we see every week – we do!

Nottingham City Council shoots itself in the foot (again)

May 19th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

It is now common knowledge Nottingham City Council is the only council in England not to publish spending above £500 online. It also paid for posters to be printed like the one in the photograph, which in itself was a complete waste of money. Now its business acumen is under question again.

They should have cut the posters

The one thing this council does not understand is the free market. If it did, it would not have made this schoolboy error. In an attempt to increase taxes by the back door, it has decided to increase charges for private hire licences in the city.

Many private hire companies are now thinking about voting with their feet, and registering their cars with other authorities, where the fees are cheaper and the service is better. As the owner of one firm said:

“Fees have gone up and they have gone up quite a lot. We objected to that but it fell on deaf ears. We do not think we are getting value for money, as there’s been no increase in the service”

So once again Nottingham City Council has shot itself in the foot. Not only does it waste taxpayers’ money, and refuses to publish spending above £500 to see what we get for our cash, it also manages to lose more money by increasing fees by an unreasonable amount.

If there are any supporters in Nottingham who would like to campaign for us, please contact me. This is one council we need to look at carefully. Taxpayers are not getting a fair deal, and this needs to change.

Farewell to Hull in Print

Apr 4th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

Many councils have announced the abolition or their newspapers and magazines – or propaganda rags as they have become known.  Hull has abolished ‘Hull in Print’ completely, and ‘East Riding News’ is now going to be published on a quarterly basis. This is something we have been campaigning for and is welcome news.

What I found amusing more than anything else was an article on page 8 of the final edition of ‘Hull in Print.’ The headline read: Hull in Print magazine is coming to an end, however residents can get the same information and more on the council website. The article then goes on to say Hull City Council’s website is now in the top 20% of local authority websites across the country when it comes to usefulness and usability.

So finally the council admits its monthly magazine was a waste of money. Why did it take so long?

Costly consumables

Mar 30th, 2011
by Jago Pearson.
Comments are off for this post

Courtesy of a Freedom of Information Request, it has been established that Leicestershire County Council spent in excess of £600,000 between 2009/10 procuring paper, stationary, printers and ink.  In these times of austerity and technological innovation, it is time for figures such as these to be radically reduced.

In February, I blogged about Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council, who have been trialling a system of transferring all of their work over to taxpayer provided laptops. Although at first glance this looked like a monstrous waste of money, financially the scheme stacked up, promising £70,000 of total savings.

It all adds up

Being a much larger body, Leicestershire County Council has the potential to make a large swathe of savings with a bit of initiative and innovation. At present, they spend £201,122 on paper, £180,246 on stationary and more than £250,000 on printers and ink cartridges.

Granted, they do have a target of reducing this expenditure by 20% over the next four years. Surely though, for the benefit of taxpayers, these changes can go much further and happen much quicker in an attempt to help reduce the burden of cuts on frontline services?

← Earlier Posts

Switch to our mobile site