24plusnews.co.uk Rotating Header Image

Transparency in Government

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

Dec 7th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

North Somerset Council is looking for a Waste Minimisation Officer. As far as I can see, the officer will spend a large amount of time either visiting or communicating with schools, community organisations, and other partners showing them how to minimise the amount of waste going into their standard refuse bins.

This is despite the various leaflets already sent out to residents and businesses informing them of what they can and cannot recycle. Does it really need someone to be constantly haranguing them with the same messages? Non-Job of the WeekThe EU landfill directive keeps increasing the burden on council taxpayers, so I can understand why councils are keen to push the recycling message. There does come a point though where you wonder just how far councils will go. With recycling rates already on target to hit 60% this financial year, this is one job North Somerset council taxpayers can do without.

A central government department is looking for a Senior Integrated Communications Officer based in Leeds, paying £180-£220 per day (£900-£1100 per week). This role requires the jobholder “to gather intelligence about the mood, activities, opinions of key stakeholder e.g. staff representative groups and professional bodies, the national media.”

The job description goes on to say they will be “supporting senior members of the team to deliver communications about pensions reform to staff. This will be vital as elements of the reform ratchet up over next 6 months and will also entail feeding into the Departments industry relations policy group.”

When we published our report on the taxpayer funding of trade unions, we were told by union leaders that union reps needed time off on our watch because it promoted harmony in the workplace. Recent strikes don’t back up that message, but leaving that to one side, it could be argued the government needs to communicate its message on public sector pensions reform more effectively. As TPA Research Director, John O’Connell wrote last week, there are many myths about pensions reform still being articulated in the media – mainly by unions.

Take a look at the job advert. This role predominantly involves communicating with staff and stakeholders, which in turn means the unions. We will be paying someone the equivalent of £45-55K per annum on a temporary full-time contract to tell the unions what they already know – or at least should know.

I appreciate there is more to this job, but as it’s a temporary contract on a daily rate, clearly it’s not going to last a long time. Once again though we don’t know which department it is, as the job is advertised through a recruitment agency, which will also incur additional fees.

This job is unnecesary as the government already has a team of negotiators working with the unions. The unions then pass on the information to their members, with additional employer information distributed to staff. This is an additional expense we can do without.

 

Who watches the watchmen? Government credit card agency in its own waste scandal

Dec 5th, 2011
by Tom Welsh.
Comments are off for this post

Who watches the watchmen? Taxpayers will be demanding answers after it was revealed that the very agency charged with delivering ‘significant sustainable cost reductions’ in public sector procurement has splurged £1.7million of taxpayers’ money in nightclubs, five star hotels and on trips to New York.

The Government Procurement Service (GPS) manages a vast scheme of government procurement cards (GPCs), some 133,000 of which have been issued since 1997. Civil servants in departments, agencies and quangos can use these cards to make purchases on behalf of government. In theory, it is a ‘fast and efficient way of purchasing different types of goods and services’, speeding up transactions and ensuring prompt payment to the businesses that supply these services.  Spending on credit cards has got way out of hand.  We need more transparency and accountability and fewer civil servants running up extravagant bills and leaving them to taxpayers. Civil servants have legitimate expenses, but there is no excuse for some of the lavish spending that has been uncovered .

The TaxPayers’ Alliance has attacked wasteful GPC spending many times before:

  • In November this year we revealed the £185,000 credit-card spend at the Sustainable Development Commission between April 2009 and March 2011 – including £10,000 on air travel, and £14,000 in 4-star hotels.
  • In August, we exposed the £20,000 put on government credit cards by the Equality and Human Rights Commission in payments to political parties.
  • In June, we condemned the £25m spent by 18 Whitehall departments, including £60,000 dining at exclusive restaurants.

Today’s news is a stark reminder of how deeply a culture of profligacy can take root. Taxpayers must have trust that there are controls in place to prevent unauthorised and wasteful spending. So when those who should be strict financial guardians indulge their personal fantasies at Newz nightclub in Liverpool (popular with Cheryl Cole) or spend £6,000 in New York hotels, it’s clear that the problem is systemic and won’t be solved by shuffling around personnel.

It’s good news that the Government has begun publishing all spending on GPCs over £500. But £500 is an arbitrary figure and taxpayers clearly can’t trust government watchdogs to be stringent and critical on sums beneath this level. Government should publish GPC and credit card statements in full (personal details redacted, of course) so taxpayers can judge for themselves what is necessary and what is wasteful.

Non-job of the week

Nov 16th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

A non-job of the week with a twist today. Barnet Council do not like criticism, and it seems the council will go to any lengths to make sure it silences its critics.

A local blogger, writing under the pseudonym Mr Mustard, criticised Barnet Council for hiring a Change and Innovation Manager in 2010 on a salary of £47,550 -£50,913.  It sounds very much like the sort of non-job I highlight on here every week. He quoted from the job description, which has to be said is written in perfect gobbledegook, and also quoted from the personal website of the man who got the job – Jonathan Tunde-Wright.

Non-Job of the WeekAlthough I have joked in the past about receiving a letter from Oxford City Council’s solicitor for harassment after all the non-jobs I have highlighted in the past, I have of course never received one. Nor should I. Freedom of speech is something we hold dear in this country, unless you are from Barnet Borough Council.

The council went to the extraordinary lengths of contacting the Information Commissioner claiming Mr Mustard had committed a criminal offence under the Data Protection Act by not registering as a data controller  because he had made critical comments about whether some of its officials have real jobs! The commissioner rightly disagreed, but that didn’t stop the council. It then came up with what can only be described as the most ludicrous description of what he could write about. The One Barnet blog has the full details of the correspondence between the ICO and the Council.

The council said all that bloggers (and that includes us on this website) can write about is their own personal data, their own family defined as people related by blood or marriage and their own household, which is anyone living in their house or flat. Barnet Council claims everything else requires registration and can be subject to a legal challenge.

The Information Commissioner disagreed again, saying this would have a hugely disproportionate impact on freedom of expression.

Because Mr Mustard (real name Derek Dishman) regularly holds his council to account on his blog, and sends in freedom of information requests to find out how our money is spent, he is regarded as an inconvenience. This may be so, but as he is not writing anything defamatory, he is within his rights to write about anything he likes – inconvenient or not.

So not only do we have a job with a more than dubious title offering £50K a year, we also have the council employing its staff to actively prevent anyone of us criticising them. If Barnet Council had its way, none of us would be able to speak out against waste and hold councils to account.

Hat-tip: David Hencke 

Non-job of the week

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

The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) has been in the news this past week. The RPA is an executive agency of Defra, and its job is to administer an EU subsidy for farmers for maintaining their land. It was introduced in 2005.

It has faced much criticism over the years for delayed payments to farmers, and although it is questionable why such an agency needs to exist, I will leave that to one side. The post of Interim Finance Director (which was a job share, and has now thankfully been replaced by someone on a much lower salary) cost taxpayers a massive £425K a year. MPs were rightly outraged when they heard this figure. Conservative MP, Neil Parish said his constituents wouldn’t believe that the highest paid post at Defra was an accountant.

Non-Job of the WeekI have regularly highlighted some of the egregious amounts paid to consultants and interim staff. Many of these posts are advertised through recruitment agencies, which of course makes it much harder to pin-point which government department, Quango, health authority, etc, is recruiting. This example though is the worst I have come across, and proves why we need more transparency in the public sector so we can see where our money is going.

Staying on the same theme, the recruitment agency Morgan Hunt is advertising for a Head of Campaigns and Partnerships for a central government department. Once again we don’t know which department, or what those campaigns are going to be. We do know if it for a fixed period of 3 months, and the post pays £250-£400 per day. Is it a non-job? Who knows, and unless there is more transparency, I doubt we ever will.

Morgan Hunt is also acting on behalf of a local government client who is looking for an Interim HR Manager. All we know is this is a London council. The job pays between £150-£200 per day.

This week we can see once again that our money is being spent in large amounts in ways we know very little about. The money spent on the Interim Finance Director’s post at the RPA wasn’t discovered until after the event. The same will apply with the two other posts I have highlighted.

Until and unless there is more transparency this is going to continue. The government will from time to time recruit people to highly sensitive jobs, and for reasons of national security we won’t necessarily know those jobs exist and what those people do. I understand that, but this cannot be said of the examples I have given. We have a right to know how our money is spent.

 

Civil servant credit card spending over £500 set for publication

Oct 27th, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

This morning the Government began publishing all spending over £500 on Government Procurement Cards (GPCs). Earlier this year we launched a campaign against wasteful spending on GPCs and other corporate credit cards, uncovering millions of pounds that was previously insufficiently monitored.

GPCs are credit cards used widely throughout the public sector. For many items they are often the most efficient way to purchase goods and save significant sums in administering expense claims. Previously, civil servants had to pay for items themselves upfront and wait for claims to be signed off. With corporate credit card schemes, there is not the same concern. However the ease of making purchases has resulted in many dubious claims slipping through the net. Of course we are fully supportive of a scheme that if used correctly would save taxpayers’ money, however until now, spending by civil servants on credit cards has gone largely unchecked.

It is great news that the Government has been paying close attention to revelations such as those covering spending in Whitehall Departments, Local Authorities, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, NICE, Ordnance Survey and the Health and Safety Executive. In addition to stricter oversight policies, publishing details of transactions online (in an easy to use format) will hopefully make civil servants think twice before booking into 4 or 5 star hotels, or making dinner reservations at Michelin starred restaurants.

But why only publish spending over £500? While it is consistent with other government spending releases, it is an arbitrary figure that would still exclude a huge number of transactions. Many of the claims made on GPCs are small in value, and indeed so too are many of the egregious claims, all of which would be exempt from publication. Strangely the Government’s own press release notes a couple of transactions to support their policy. Unfortunately one of the items, £258 spent at Puppets by Post which sells “finger puppets, hand puppets and glove puppets”, would clearly go unpublished under these new guidelines.

In our experience of requesting information on GPC/credit card spending, providing information for transactions above a certain threshold is often more expensive and demanding because of the transactions needing to be removed. Instead, the Government should consider revising its policy to cover the publication of entire GPC and credit card statements (personal details redacted, of course). Publishing entire credit card statements must surely be easy than filtering out claims under £500.

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.

Town Hall bosses’ spending on credit cards revealed

Oct 18th, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

The latest in a series of investigations by the Daily Telegraph into public bodies’ use of credit cards exposes the bills run up by local authority chief executives across the UK. Earlier this year we led the campaign to uncover huge amounts being spent by Whitehall civil servants racking up million pound credit card bills, and have exposed similar waste at many of Britain’s biggest quangos.

The findings show that town hall bosses spent £2.6million on luxury perks using corporate credit cards, including concerts, sport events, dining at Michelin-starred restaurants, tailored clothing and fine whiskies. Council chief executives themselves have expenses tens of thousands of pounds, despite many enjoying six-figure salaries, and at a time when councils need to make all of the savings they can.

Some of the biggest expenses claims were from Colin Carmichael, chief executive of Canterbury Council (salary £135,000), who claimed expenses totalling £18,181; Tim Shields, the chief executive of Hackney council (£203,376), claimed £34,186; Andrew Taylor, chief executive of Lincoln City Council (£149,445), claimed £11,403; and John Foster, chief executive of Islington Council (£210,000), claimed £14,815.

Here are just a few of their claims:

  •  The chief executive of Hackney council spent £6,000 on flights to the 2008 Beijing Olympics for “training” to which he flew business class.
  • Colin Hilton, former chief executive at Liverpool City council, spent £1,152 taking colleagues to a sold out Coldplay concert.
  • Andrew Taylor, chief executive of Lincoln City Council charged more than £4,000 to his card for flights to Beijing, Frankfurt and Krakow for his assistant, the mayor and his wife. Other items he charged for included £2.17 mini-bar bill and a cash withdrawal of £362.77 which was classified as “unidentified expenditure” when asked by the Telegraph.

Of course many chief executives use corporate credit cards to expense small work-related items, and this is often the most cost effective means of doing so. But evidence suggests that, in practice, taxpayers are footing the bill for much more.

Some of the other favourite destinations include the luxury Dorchester Hotel in London; the Hotel Gray D’Albion in Cannes; the Hard Day’s Night, a Beatles themed hotel in Liverpool; trips to the world renowned Belfry Golf Course; a five star spa in Cardiff Bay; and Lushy Beg, a private 75-acre island.

Many of the items claimed for have little relevance and questionable benefit to the residents council bosses work for. Council chief executives already receive more than substantial salaries that, if they feel they need to stay in luxury hotels, mean they could easily pay for it themselves. This sentiment was echoed by an unidentified chief executive of a UK local authority who said:

“If I spend any money for work I just get it reimbursed but champagne lunches and first class travel is shocking. Chief executives incur costs in their jobs but we are paid well and you should not exploit that. No-one expects a chief executive to stay in a fleapit, but there is a big difference between the Dorchester and a fleapit.”

Unsurprisingly, the LGA has leapt to councils’ defence. They claim:

“It is part and parcel of the job that they have to travel to meet top people from the public and private sectors, and this can involve stays in hotels and the proportionate use of hospitality.”

But they completely miss the point. No-one is claiming council chief executives won’t incur reasonable expenses while carrying out their day jobs, but it is unacceptable for taxpayers to pick up the bill for visits to the Dorchester and luxury restaurants that many can only dream of. Such a staunch defence of irresponsible spending suggests the LGA doesn’t care about the interests of taxpayers or residents. If councils were transparent, residents could decide whether they agree with this sort of spending. The LGA claim that the spending is “properly audited and transparent”, but if it weren’t for newspapers like the Telegraph and bodies like ourselves, such waste would go unnoticed.

While they are one of the more cost-effective means of paying for items, corporate credit cards are inadequately monitored. Far too many dubious claims slip through the net and must be brought under control. If chief executives had to pay for the items up-front and then wait before being reimbursed, the number of lavish claims would almost certainly fall considerably.

Procurement cards were supposed to improve this more inefficient system of claiming expenses, but our research, along with the Telegraph’s inquiry, shows that this system needs to be tightened up to stop taxpayers picking up the bill for unnecessary luxuries.

Non-job of the week

Oct 12th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

On 29 September, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) announced the final Code of Recommended Practice for Local Authorities on Data Transparency. In a written statement to the House of Commons, Eric Pickles said:

The code of practice calls on local authorities such as councils and fire and rescue services to shine a light on every part of their business, from employees’ salaries over £58,200 and details of all their contracts and tenders to details of grants to voluntary organisations, spending data and the locations of public land and building assets.

Non-Job of the WeekMore transparency in local government is great news for taxpayers, although a London council could learn a thing or two about it. I say ‘a London council’ because I don’t which one, as it is using the recruitment agency Morgan Hunt to advertise, of all things, a Governance Officer – Openness and Transparency!

Perhaps the first action of the new Openness and Transparency Officer will be to make sure all jobs at the unnamed council are advertised in an open and transparent way!

The accolade this week though goes to Lambeth Council. Lambeth wishes to employ an Energy Efficiency Manager, paying between £40506 – £43152 per annum. Now, energy efficiency is, of course, a good thing. With energy bills rising dramatically, we are all looking for ways to reduce our energy consumption and councils should not be the exception.

I am sure many of you who have worked in offices will have seen stickers next to light switches reminding you to switch off the lights if they are not needed. These days we also have things like smart meters that tell us exactly how much energy we are consuming. If you have seen one in action you will know that as soon as you switch on a kettle, the energy consumption rises. It doesn’t stop me making a cup of tea, but I know exactly which appliances at home use the most electricity, and if I can find ways of using those appliances less I will save money.

Councils can reduce energy consumption by doing the same. If you are about to go into a meeting for a couple of hours, does your computer still need to be switched on? It may have been dark when you started working this morning, but do the lights still need to be switched on? Letting council workers see how much energy they are consuming will result in a reduction of energy consumption, as happened at Windsor and Maidenhead Council.

In a report last year we highlighted how councils reacted differently to government legislation. Although all councils have to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions, there are councils who manage to do it without creating mini-departments like Lambeth do.

By adopting simple strategies that we all use at home, councils can dramatically reduce their CO2 emissions and save taxpayers’ money.

New LGA Chief hired on package worth nearly £200,000

Sep 20th, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

The new head of the Local Government Association (LGA) has been hired on a package worth nearly £200,000 a year. Carolyn Downs will replace outgoing interim Chief Executive John Ransford and enjoy a salary of £169,000 plus a generous pension amounting to almost £27,000 per year.

Our Campaign Director, Emma Boon offered her reaction to the news:

“The LGA lobbies government to further its own political interests and

 agitates for higher pay for senior council staff, so it’s unsurprising to see them giving their own chief executive such a great deal. This salary is an insult to ordinary families and shows how out of touch the LGA is with taxpayers who fund it and with public sector workers who are subject to a two-year pay freeze.”

Eric Pickles has urged pay restraint across all councils, however the size of this package shows the LGA think such control does not apply to them. This local government lobbying organisation does not act in taxpayers’ interests. Councils spend millions of pounds in total each year in subscriptions to the LGA for supposed benefits many rarely use. Earlier this year Windsor and Maidenhead council concluded they could put their £40,000 annual subscription to better use. As for the services they receive in return, they decided that it would be cheaper for them to source them on an ad hoc basis.

They are not the only ones though, Barking & Dagenham and Greenwich in London, Test Valley, South Cambridgeshire and Rutland councils have all served notice to leave. This is in addition to Rochford, Doncaster, Slough, Barnet, Kingston upon Thames and Sutton councils, who have all served out their notice.

While the eye-watering pay packet is hardly the act of an organisation in touch with ordinary taxpayers, the LGA can at least be commended for displaying the remuneration package of their incoming Chief Executive on the front page of their website. Despite being an organisation funded by taxpayers and entirely concerned with local government, it does not fall under the Freedom of Information Act.

Innovative councils do not need spoon-fed assistance from the LGA and are beginning to leave. The size of the pay packet for its new chief should provides another reason for councils across the country to reconsider their membership of this costly organisation.

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.

What checks are in place?

Aug 17th, 2011
by John Martin.
Comments are off for this post

TPA supporter John Martin is worried about Norfolk County Council’s officers spending his – and other taxpayers’ – money

We all have to accept that if every single decision taken on behalf of a local authority had to have the prior approval of the Cabinet, let alone the full Council, life in local government terms would come to a standstill (please restrain yourselves, those at the back of the room who believe that this might be no bad thing). Clearly, powers have to be delegated not just to sub-committees but also to officers.

The constitution that governs Norfolk County Council (NCC), for instance, contains some pretty detailed provisions on what officers are empowered – and not empowered – to do. But the problem that I have is this. What if an officer takes a decision that on the face of it is within his other delegated powers, but the motive for that decision is flawed. Are there procedures in place to spot the problem? Is there scrutiny machinery in constant operation?

Late in 2008, NCC applied to Broadland District Council, jointly with a company named Ifield Estates Ltd, for outline planning permission for the construction of a huge business park comprising some 64,000 square metres of built development over an area of about 30 hectares just outside Norwich, together with related works to provide a new junction on the A47 road. That intended junction has become known as the Postwick Hub (for the language purists among you, in this part of the world “Postwick” is pronounced “Possick”).

So far so good. But clearly, although the planning application was made in joint names, the Postwick Hub is very much a minor and ancillary part of the overall development scheme, and it is the only part in which NCC has any interest (see below). Furthermore, there is no evidence that either the full Council or the Cabinet at NCC agreed to fund any of the costs incurred by Ifield Estates Limited in seeking outline planning permission.

Green Party councillors have now discovered that the NCC Director of Environment Transport and Waste, relying on delegated powers, sanctioned payment over a period of time of invoices totalling £170k from Mott MacDonald for consultancy work in relation to the preparation of the necessary environmental statement – in its original form running to well over five hundred pages – to support the planning application.

NCC’s interest in seeing the Postwick Hub constructed is very much a discrete one. The Postwick Hub is a key element in an entirely separate and controversial road scheme known as the Northern Distributor Road (NDR), proposed some time ago by NCC. But in the eyes of many, the NDR is a pipe dream and it may never be constructed. The Department of Transport has yet to confirm financial support from the government for the NDR.

And even if an argument could be made, on the basis of that discrete interest, for NCC to meet a proportion of the cost of preparing the environmental statement, the fact remains that a private developer still stands to benefit hugely from the expenditure of a large sum of public money, all on the say so of a chief officer at NCC. The official response from NCC, unsurprisingly, has been to state that all expenditure associated with the development of the Postwick Hub has been properly authorised. But can that be so without any scrutiny by members of NCC having taken place?

The Green Party councillors have now called on the Audit Commission to carry out an independent investigation, leading to the publication of a public interest report. Cllr Andrew Boswell had this to say:

“Taxpayers expect their money to be spent in an accountable and transparent way, with large expenditure fully agreed by councillors. I am very concerned that a sizeable sum of money has been spent by the council with benefits to a private company and only authorised by an officer. Norfolk taxpayers will think that this takes powers delegated to chief officers too far.”

I fear, however, that Cllr Boswell and his colleagues may not be successful. I understand that the initial reaction of the Audit Commission is that the NCC internal audit team might be well placed to conduct an investigation. If that is the Audit Commission’s final word, it is extremely regrettable. And it conflicts completely with the views that the Audit Commission stated in a document that it recently published entitled “The Future of Local Public Audit” in response to the March 2011 DCLG consultation. All does not bode well.

Bradford Council’s £4 million overspend

Aug 12th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

Bradford Council is currently building a new city park, funded largely from the sale of Leeds-Bradford Airport, which was until recently jointly owned by both Leeds and Bradford Councils. It’s not just going to be a place for recreation though. No, it’s going to be ‘all singing and all dancing’ including a mirror pool containing 100 fountains. The estimated bill for this venture was £24.4 million.

You will not be surprised to hear that not only is building work behind schedule, but the costs have also risen. According to Andrew Mallinson, chairman of Bradford Council’s regeneration and economy overview and scrutiny committee, the overspend could be as much as £4 million, and we know from experience that these overspends can and do increase further. Of course, all of this is happening when the council is trying to rein-in its spending.

Councillor Ian Greenwood

I’m not saying creating a new park is a bad idea. We all like green spaces to spend time with our families, or to eat our lunch on a pleasant summer’s day, but why turn this into a grandiose project, with all the expense involved? It’s as if we have gone back to the nineteenth century when large towns and cities used to compete with each other as to who could build the grandest town hall.

Many councillors are naturally demanding answers. Who signed off this overspend is one of them. If you have read some of my posts to do with Bradford Council you will not be surprised that answers are not forthcoming. In a way that optimises this council, the leader, Cllr Ian Greenwood, had this to say to the Bradford Telegraph and Argus:

“Discussions about any issues surrounding the cost of construction are still commercially confidential and it would be inappropriate for anyone on any side to comment further at this time.”

With the building of the park almost complete, and taxpayers facing an additional bill of at least £4 million, how can it be commercially confidential? In other words, Cllr Greenwood is refusing to comment, and hopes to kick the issue into the long grass. Just as he dodges the issue of over £500K of our money being spent on trade union activities, whilst campaigners fight to save their local libraries.

As previously reported, the secretary of our West Yorkshire branch has been in a battle with Bradford Council over a Freedom of Information Request. I have also had problems accessing information which may be embarrassing to the council. This £4 million potential overspend may be embarrassing too, but it does not give the council an excuse to bury information which should be in the public domain.  If something has gone wrong with the building of the new city park, we have a right to some answers. Hiding behind the guise of commercial sensitivity is an insult to the intelligence of Bradford taxpayers.

DCLG are right to urge local authorities to publish asset registers

Aug 5th, 2011
by Chris Daniel.
Comments are off for this post

The Department for Communities and Local Government has published a list of all assets owned by more than 600 public sector bodies. Many are schools, health centres and leisure centres as you would expect, but what is more astonishing is the sheer number that are shops, theatres, golf clubs, hotels, stables and even football clubs. A map released by DCLG shows where more than 180,000 assets worth more than £385bn are located. More than two thirds of these assets are held by councils, which emphases how important is it that all councils publish their assets register so residents can use it alongside new powers in the Localism Bill to get better value and engage in local decisions. Perhaps what is more disappointing is that councils do not publish this information themselves and the task has fallen to a central government department, as it so often has.

Listed in the disclosure are over 130 cafes and restaurants; more than 100 pubs; 60 theatres; over 40 hotels, 3 of which are Holiday Inns; 20 cinemas and an airport. Estimates show annual running costs top £25bn each year and the backlog of maintenance costs exceeds £40bn. All public bodies must first make their asset registers available to the public which will help them to use them more efficiently. Our Research Director John O’Connell wrote in his weekly ConHome column about the benefits of having this information made public: “A report by the Westminster Sustainable Business Forum (WSBF), led by Matthew Hancock MP, made a range of recommendations about local government estate management, including reducing asset lists by 20-30 per cent and handing control of property management to one central department in the council. It makes clear that although the money gained from sales is a one off, the reductions in running costs gained by merging services into fewer buildings will save money in the longer term too.”

There are huge savings for councils to make, whether through selling off assets or running them more wisely, helping to provide the best possible value for money to taxpayers and contribute to lowering council tax.

Civil Servants get their school report

Aug 3rd, 2011
by Robert Oxley.
Comments are off for this post

It’s the summer holidays for a lot of people, the children are out of school and MPs are on recess (I’m sure there are a few jokes to be made with that comparison). The end of the school term was always something to look forward to, six weeks of summer and driving the parents crazy, but for children across the land it also meant your school report. In it you would read about things that you did well that year and things that you “must try harder on”. So with this in mind, I have decided to do a mini-school report on the Government and its policy towards civil servants. The pay as well as the number of civil servants and senior executives of non-governmental public bodies (quangos to you and me) have been in the news recently so let’s have see how the issue is progressing.

First is the news last week that the Government had been forced by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to disclose the pay details of 28 highly-paid civil servants and quango chiefs who had previously resisted the moves to disclose the details of their pay packages. I blogged on this in my first post for the TPA, at the time I called for the publication of top pay packages to be automatic. The fact that it took the ICO to force the Government’s hand (although I secretly suspect they were glad of it) means they only get a C plus for this. They got the result in the end but it took far too long getting there.

Image via rich115 on flickr

On Monday the FT ran a piece on the number of new pay deals over £150,000 that the Government had approved. There were two bits of disappointing news: the fact that the Government had approved what appear to be nearly 40 new pay deals worth more than £150k, and that George Osborne didn’t seem to want to tell us about the ones that he had turned down. Sorry George, but that’s a big fat D minus for that one. The Government should be automatically publishing the details of top earners including the salary packages that they have rejected. Transparency on this issue is important; it allows us to see the workings behind the rhetoric and if an organisation’s pay agenda is in line with Government policy.

But it looks like someone might have been listening; yesterday the Government published the full list of senior officials that earn more than £150,000. You can see the list here. The Cabinet office were quick to highlight that the number of civil servants and quango bosses earning more that 150k had been cut by 50, a sure sign that they – and Whitehall – were taking austerity seriously. For that good work, the Cabinet Office gets a B plus for achievement. If they want to achieve an A grade they need to make the publishing process automatic, continue to reduce the number of civil servant earning more than 150k and make the information easier to find.

Unfortunately the rest of the class has not been doing so well. The news this morning is that, despite the Coalition’s promise for a civil service recruitment freeze, a series of parliamentary questions from John redwood MP have revealed that the rest Whitehall have not been listening to the teacher.  The Mail has the scoop that, despite the Government policy to halt recruitment in Whitehall, Government departments and quangos have taken on over 4,500 new staff – far more than have been made redundant in the same time. Even more aggravating, the figures reveal that quangos such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which should be scrapped altogether, have been able to take on new staff.

TPA Chief Executive Matthew Elliott said in response to the news, “these figures will reinforce taxpayers’ feelings that many in Whitehall believe they can continue on as if it’s business as usual.”

Whitehall cannot be allowed to carry on as normal while taxpayers and businesses up and down the country have to adjust to austerity. The bloated machinery of the civil service and pointless quangos cannot be immune to the austerity drive and moves towards leaner, more efficient government.

This revelation does not bode well for Whitehall or the Coalition’s school report. They need to go back, do their homework and take the test again. It’s time that the Government deliver on its promise of a recruitment freeze as part of its efforts to tackle the deficit. If not, voters will offer their own assessment in 2015, and the Coalition might not like what they have to say.

Civil Servants get their school report

Aug 3rd, 2011
by Robert Oxley.
Comments are off for this post

It’s the summer holidays for a lot of people, the children are out of school and MPs are on recess (I’m sure there are a few jokes to be made with that comparison). The end of the school term was always something to look forward to, six weeks of summer and driving the parents crazy, but for children across the land it also meant your school report. In it you would read about things that you did well that year and things that you “must try harder on”. So with this in mind, I have decided to do a mini-school report on the Government and its policy towards civil servants. The pay as well as the number of civil servants and senior executives of non-governmental public bodies (quangos to you and me) have been in the news recently so let’s have see how the issue is progressing.

First is the news last week that the Government had been forced by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to disclose the pay details of 28 highly-paid civil servants and quango chiefs who had previously resisted the moves to disclose the details of their pay packages. I blogged on this in my first post for the TPA, at the time I called for the publication of top pay packages to be automatic. The fact that it took the ICO to force the Government’s hand (although I secretly suspect they were glad of it) means they only get a C plus for this. They got the result in the end but it took far too long getting there.

Image via rich115 on flickr

On Monday the FT ran a piece on the number of new pay deals over £150,000 that the Government had approved. There were two bits of disappointing news: the fact that the Government had approved what appear to be nearly 40 new pay deals worth more than £150k, and that George Osborne didn’t seem to want to tell us about the ones that he had turned down. Sorry George, but that’s a big fat D minus for that one. The Government should be automatically publishing the details of top earners including the salary packages that they have rejected. Transparency on this issue is important; it allows us to see the workings behind the rhetoric and if an organisation’s pay agenda is in line with Government policy.

But it looks like someone might have been listening; yesterday the Government published the full list of senior officials that earn more than £150,000. You can see the list here. The Cabinet office were quick to highlight that the number of civil servants and quango bosses earning more that 150k had been cut by 50, a sure sign that they – and Whitehall – were taking austerity seriously. For that good work, the Cabinet Office gets a B plus for achievement. If they want to achieve an A grade they need to make the publishing process automatic, continue to reduce the number of civil servant earning more than 150k and make the information easier to find.

Unfortunately the rest of the class has not been doing so well. The news this morning is that, despite the Coalition’s promise for a civil service recruitment freeze, a series of parliamentary questions from John redwood MP have revealed that the rest Whitehall have not been listening to the teacher.  The Mail has the scoop that, despite the Government policy to halt recruitment in Whitehall, Government departments and quangos have taken on over 4,500 new staff – far more than have been made redundant in the same time. Even more aggravating, the figures reveal that quangos such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which should be scrapped altogether, have been able to take on new staff.

TPA Chief Executive Matthew Elliott said in response to the news, “these figures will reinforce taxpayers’ feelings that many in Whitehall believe they can continue on as if it’s business as usual.”

Whitehall cannot be allowed to carry on as normal while taxpayers and businesses up and down the country have to adjust to austerity. The bloated machinery of the civil service and pointless quangos cannot be immune to the austerity drive and moves towards leaner, more efficient government.

This revelation does not bode well for Whitehall or the Coalition’s school report. They need to go back, do their homework and take the test again. It’s time that the Government deliver on its promise of a recruitment freeze as part of its efforts to tackle the deficit. If not, voters will offer their own assessment in 2015, and the Coalition might not like what they have to say.

Kirklees Council leader accused of meddling with information

Jul 26th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

After I wrote yesterday about some councils not complying with Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation, a supporter left a comment alerting us to a story in Kirklees.

It was reported in March in the Huddersfield Daily Examiner that the leader of Kirklees Council, Cllr Mehboob Khan, had been meddling in public information. Cllr Khan instructed staff to let him see FOI responses going to members of the public so he could amend them if necessary, and the newspaper obtained e-mails proving this. Cllr Khan says freedom of information is important and he only wanted to ensure the correct responses were going out, although the opportunity for him to make politically motivated amendments is there, something he vigorously denies. 

Leader of Kirklees Council, Clr Mehboob Khan

To give you an example, one of the newspaper’s reporters, Katie Grant, issued an FOI asking how much council tax is currently owed by people living in Kirklees – including all overdue payments. The FOI officer prepared a thorough report going back to 1993, which was then sent to Cllr Khan. He refused to let it go out, and instead told officers to prepare a report covering 2010/11 – a financial year which at the time had not finished.

When asked by Katie Grant why he had interfered in such a way, he responded by saying:

“This area falls into the portfolio shared by myself and Clr Shabir Pandor and we would want to see this kind of information as a matter of course. In terms of this particular response, after discussing with colleagues, I felt that the figures were less clear when they covered several years all the way back to 1993 and masked the real facts which was about how much as a council we had outstanding and how much we had collected in council tax in 2009/10. I think the picture given in the response was a clear one about the current situation.”

If there are still outstanding council tax payments owed covering previous years, it reflects badly on the council. I don’t think the initial report prepared was ‘less clear’. Nor do I think it ‘masked the real facts’. It strikes me that Cllr Khan was using his position to act as a spin doctor, ensuring the council was painted in the best possible light.

Bringing this story up-to-date, is has now been reported Cllr Khan is being investigated for misconduct, and rightly so, although the process will be conducted behind closed doors! I’m sure the irony isn’t lost on you. We have a council leader who has interfered in the FOI process being investigated behind closed doors, and the council will not even supply any information about it, including the date of the hearing. All the council will say is, “Due process is now being followed and we will not comment further until completion.”

When the newspaper informed the council they would be running a story about this non-transparent process, the Head of Legal Services said they would explain why. They then promptly pulled out of the interview, without giving an explanation.  I have spoken to the newspaper this morning, and the council’s position has not changed.

The way some councils abuse the FOI process is nothing short of criminal. They don’t respond in time, or give wholly inadequate responses. They manipulate data to suit their own ends, and try to limit our right to freedom of information. Barely a day goes by without a supporter or a journalist contacting me about problems they are encountering or a story they want giving a wider airing.

Taxpayers in Kirklees do not have faith in a process that hides itself away. By refusing to give the names of those investigating Cllr Khan’s alleged misconduct, and by also refusing to give a date when the hearing will take place, it further undermines the trust it has with the people it’s supposed to serve.

Cabinet Office order to reveal top earners details

Jul 26th, 2011
by Robert Oxley.
Comments are off for this post

The Cabinet Office has published an updated list of the top earners in the civil service and government quangos. Martin Rosenbaum has the full list of new additions on his blog here. The updated list includes 27 officials who did not appear on the original Cabinet Office release on July 1st of this year. The officials are all civil servants and high-flyers at quangos such as the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority. Including the 27 on this list, there are 359 public sector employees who earn more than £150,000 (£8,000 more than the Prime Minster is paid).

We have been at the forefront campaigning for transparency in public sector pay. We published our Town Hall Rich list earlier this year and will continue to campaign for transparency in all central and local government staff pay packages. While it is a positive step forward to see that this data has been published it is a shame that it took an intervention from the Information Commissioner to get the full list released. Civil servants should not be resisting the moves for greater transparency. Openness delivers more efficient public services and is an important part of the democratic process.

It’s worth noting though there are still some public bodies that are excluded from publishing their pay packages. The BBC, Royal Mail and the FSA haven’t had to publish their top salary packages and they should follow suit.

Nottingham City Council fails again on transparency

Jul 21st, 2011
by Anna Bailey.
Comments are off for this post

Transparency watchers are all too well aware that Nottingham City Council is the only local authority in England refusing to publish all spending over £500. What is less well known is the accountability-dodging council’s repeated flouting of Freedom of Information legislation (FOI), and the role the council’s leadership plays in blocking FOI responses.

Nottingham City fails to answer an astonishing 40 percent of FOI requests within the statutory deadline of 20 working days. These figures were revealed by an FOI request which, ironically enough, took the council 36 working days to respond to, and only then when the requester had asked for the case to go to internal review.

Of the 623 cases that were responded to late, a ‘clerical error’ was listed as a factor in eighteen of them. What then of the other 605 cases? A brief glance over Nottingham City’s FOI responses on the What do they know? website reveals the following introductory passage appearing with alarming regularity:

‘Initially, I would like to take this opportunity to apologise for the delay in responding to your request. This is due to us encountering problems obtaining the information from the relevant department(s).’

One can sense the frustration among NCC’s FOI officers in this little paragraph. Trying to extract information from their City Hall colleagues is clearly like pulling teeth; the fact that the council is legally obliged to provide requested information does not seem to count for much. Publically placing blame on another department in your organisation is generally considered a cardinal sin in the public sector. If Nottingham City’s information officers are forced to publically reveal the difficulties they have in getting other departments in the council to hand over information, you can be sure the problem is endemic.

NCC make no secret of their disdain for FoI legislation

In fact, evidence is beginning to grow that the council’s leadership is blocking the work of its own information officers. It has emerged that in December last year council leader Jon Collins refused to let Information Governance staff carry out an automated search of his e-mail account to answer an FOI request from a Liberal Democrat councillor.  The council’s head of communications Stephen Barker also blocked the publication of council publicity plans alleged to show publicly-funded publicity for the council and the Labour party in the run-up to the 2007 elections. The spin chief denied the council held such plans, then handed them over once the legal deadline to respond to the FOI had passed. An angry information officer emailed the council’s head of legal services, pointing out that the council was in danger of committing a criminal offence:

‘I found the actions of communications colleagues particularly unhelpful on this matter, with Stephen’s actions potentially placing him as the individual, or the council, at risk of committing a criminal offence by asserting information isn’t held and then subsequently disclosing it.’

Collins himself has made no secret of his disdain for FOI, recently tweeting, ‘£500,000 a year on FOIs – could save a lot of services with that.’ It would be interesting to know how much of this supposed cost is self-inflicted by the council’s persistent attempts to block the FOI process. The time wasted by information officers having to repeatedly chase up officials who do not provide information; the large number of cases that go to internal review and the Information Commissioner because the council has refused to answer them; lawyers’ time spent concocting dubious uses of exemptions to avoid releasing information… these must be significant costs.

One instance of the latter tactic is the council’s attempt to silence a local blogger, Andy Platt, who uses FOI to scrutinise the council’s leadership and spending. When Platt asked for copies of internal reports on the housing allocations scandal in the council (which Notts Police controversially agreed to let the council investigate for itself), the council invoked Section 14 of the Act, accusing Platt of making ‘vexatious’ requests. The basis for the ‘vexatious’ claim was that Platt had made twenty FOI requests in a year (which it classed as ‘obsessive’, despite the fact that they were on unrelated subjects), and that he often publishes findings from his requests on his satirical blog mocking NCC’s leadership (by some mysterious tenuous link his requests are thereby said to be ‘harassing the Authority and distressing its  colleagues’).

This contradicts FOI guidance, which clearly states that it must be the requests themselves which are vexatious, not the requester and not any use to which the information may be put. Unfortunately for the council, no sooner had it brushed off Platt than another – presumably less vexatious – requester asked for copies of the same internal reports. The council reverted to its default tactic for dealing with FOIs. It simply ignored the request.

Nottingham City’s repeated flouting of FOI legislation has caught the attention of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which placed the council under a period of special monitoring that came to an end on 30 June (at least it had company – 11 other councils were also on the monitoring list). The council, however, is as contemptuous of the ICO as it is of the general public. On numerous occasions the ICO has ordered NCC to release requested information, and on numerous occasions NCC has simply ignored those orders. Given the repeated and systemic violations of FOI legislation at Nottingham City Council, it will be interesting to find out just how sharp the ICO’s teeth really are and what action it will take against the council. We will certainly keep you posted.

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.

£500K taxpayer subsidy to Aylesbury Theatre

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

When you scratch the surface, it’s amazing what you find. Last week I wrote about Aylesbury Vale District Council (AVDC). As they had some negative publicity from the local press, they prevented officers and cabinet members from speaking to local journalists. They really did shoot themselves in the foot, as more negative publicity has come their way.

The locals don't want it, but still have to pay

One of the negative stories they complained about was the hiring of the Waterside Theatre in Aylesbury for the local election count. That cost taxpayers almost £20k! To add insult to injury, it has been revealed this week that the council is subsidising the theatre at a cost of £36,400 a month. This has got local residents’ blood boiling. Whilst AVDC fights a protracted war to introduce car parking charges in Winslow, they prop-up this theatre with almost £500K of our money every year. It’s not that it’s popular with the locals either. The Buckinghamshire Advertiser has discovered out of 120,000 ticket sales from March to October last year, only 3547 were bought from people with a MK18 postcode.

I don’t know about you, but I get very tired of listening to councils complain how hard-up they are, and then read about stories like this one. AVDC would rather risk putting people out of business in Winslow than get a better deal for taxpayers. They would rather pay over the odds to hire the already heavily taxpayer funded theatre for election night than give the grossly overtaxed motorist a break. When it comes to breaks though, unsurprisingly the council still manages to award bonuses to the chief executive and two directors. On 2009/10 the chief executive trousered an extra £11,375 and two directors got an extra £4,587.

If the council wants to find savings, perhaps it can start here? Then it can look at the cash it injects into a theatre locals don’t want to visit, and perhaps it will then be able to agree to residents’ wishes, and not start charging £12.50 a week for workers to park their cars in Winslow. We live in hope.

Tameside’s jobs for the boys

Jun 23rd, 2011
by Liam Billington.
Comments are off for this post

Back in 2010 in Tameside, we had a leadership battle between Labour councillors with the then incumbent leader Roy Oldham and Councillor Kieran Quinn. At the time Roy was suffering from cancer and had little time to rally support and ended up losing the leadership in May last year. He died just two months later. I always had respect for Roy, but we also had our disagreements. One of them was over political assistants, a position highlighted by the TPA as a non-job.

I remember Councillor Kieran Quinn’s first speech as leader where he promised that he’d change several things which would please Tameside’s bloggers who, at the time were questioning the need for political assistants in the face of incoming budget cuts. To Councillor Quinn’s credit, he removed both Labour and Conservative political assistants which saved the council £67,438 per year.

Mike Kane (right) with Ed Balls

However, a year later it seems political assistants are creeping in under a different name. Tameside Council has just appointed Mike Kane as a “Senior Executive Assistant” to work in the leaders office. Kane has moved from working for Stalybridge and Hyde MP, Jonathan Reynolds as his office manager, a job he inherited when former Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell stepped down from the seat. He also briefly served as a Labour councillor for the Northernden Ward at Manchester City Council.

Mike Kane is a political assistant all in name. Senior Executive Assistant may sound like a jumped up PA (which is probably what he is), but there is no denying Kane’s close links with the Tameside Labour Party and you have to ask if this was the reason he was brought in to work for the council. It stinks of jobs for the boys. It clearly shows the lack of judgement shown by Tameside’s Executive Council Leader, Kieran Quinn. On one hand he complains about the lack of money for frontline services, yet somehow he can find the money for more backroom staff for his own personal benefit and increased trade union funding.

Non-job of the week

Jun 22nd, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

How well is your council performing? Given the number of performance managers and change managers there are, they should be performing well. Councils tell us they need to bring in people from outside of their organisations to help them become more efficient. Then they tell us they need to pay salaries greater than the prime minister to attract the best. They want it both ways, and this week’s selection includes a variety of dubious jobs and inflated salaries.

Here’s your starter for ten. The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham requires a Group Manager – Policy and Performance. From the job advert we now know there is a new Corporate Policy and Public Affairs division, with a new Divisional Director, which signals a fresh emphasis on the importance of quality policy and performance support to Members in making key decisions. So what about all the other highly paid managers previously responsible for this? Are they surplus to requirements? Were they so poor at their jobs that the council felt the need to create a new division?

Non-Job of the WeekI have written before about public sector bodies using the employment agency Morgan Hunt. This is a nice little way for them to hide their identities so taxpayers don’t know the inflated salaries they are paying. Take this one: a growing regulatory body in the South East is looking to employ a temporary Procurement Manager. This job pays between £275-£325 a day. Similar jobs are being offered by Morgan Hunt, like the role of a Chief Press Officer for one of their government clients, paying £250-£300 a day. What troubles me, more than the salaries being paid, is the fact we don’t know which regulatory authority or government department is recruiting.  If the government wants true transparency, this is something it must address. This is our money being spent by government, and we have a right to know how it is being spent and by whom.

Thanks to a supporter, this week’s winner isn’t a non-job – it’s a non-contract awarded by the City of Westminster Council. The cabinet member responsible for Customer Services and Transformation awarded a contract to PWC to provide the council with transformation and change management consultancy support. This contract is worth up to £960K. I checked with the council yesterday to make sure councillors had called in this decision for scrutiny. They had not, and I was informed the contract is going ahead as planned.

It seems that all the senior officers earning six-figure salaries can’t do the job. Go on to the council’s website and you will find (excluding pension contributions) that the chief executive earns £200K, while the Director of Finance earns £185K. Westminster Council also has around twice the number of directors as most other comparable councils, and the total number of officers earning above £100K is an amazing 33! In total there are 169 officers earning over £60K, a salary which puts them in the equivalent senior civil service pay band.

Westminster, along with Wandsworth, continue to provide the lowest council tax bills in the country. Last year Westminster froze council tax, but so did other councils as a result of receiving a government grant. With the sheer amount of high earning officers, it should not be spending £960K on change management consultancy support. It should not be resting on its laurels, it should be looking at reducing council tax further.

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.

← Earlier Posts

Switch to our mobile site