ConservativeHome carried an article yesterday morning highlighting the salaries of senior staff at the Local Government Group (LGG), an umbrella organisation that comprises the Local Government Association, the Local Government Improvement and Development, Local Government Employers, Local Government Regulation, Local Government Leadership and Local Partnerships. The article links to the salaries of 60 LGG employees, ranging from £40,000 right up to £209,999. There are 15 employees who take home salaries over £100,000, 32 between £80,000 and £99,999 and 13 between £45,000 and £74,999.
Top of the tree is Rob Whiteman, Managing Director of the Improvement and Development wing of the LGG, who receives a salary of between £205,000 and £209,499. The highest earner in the Local Government Association (LGA) in the Deputy Chief Executive, Jo Miller on £175,000-£179,999. Just behind her is the Group Finance Director, Stephen Jones, on £155,000-£159,999. The Chief Executive of the LGA John Ransford can be found slightly further down the list in receipt of the fifth salary bracket of £90,000-£94,999. This is of course following his honourable decision last year to take a severely reduced pay packet in his remaining few months in the job.
Each individual division of the LGG employs a similar number to a large council, but there are huge differences between the LGG and a council. For starters, councils are the main provider of local services. They manage street cleaning, rubbish collections, maintenance of public spaces, social services provision, housing needs, and schools. Many councils themselves have too big a corporate structure and pay their executives too much taxpayers’ money, and it’s even worse that the LGG and LGA mimic such profligacy. Would residents really notice if these trade associations ceased to exist?
LGA subscriptions are easy savings for councils. Taxpayers will be angry to see they are not only paying huge salaries to the executives in their own authorities, but are also contributing to hefty salaries handed out to employees of the Local Government Group too.
Ever found yourself dealing with employees from your council and having no idea what they actually do? Well, they could be carrying out one of 1,294 statutory duties that parliament imposes on local authorities. This week the Department for Communities and Local Government (DGLG) has announced it will perform a review of these duties, which in many cases are the result of centuries old Acts of Parliament and are no longer really necessary. Of course, conforming to them tends to cost taxpayers money.
Amazingly, DCLG acknowledge it is in no way comprehensive. Inevitably within such a huge list of duties some are necessary to perform essential functions, but surely there are many that are now surplus to requirements? DCLG are asking for your help to establish a comprehensive list of any statutory duties that are no longer necessary, which you can do here. As we outlined in our Unnecessary Jobs report last year, these statutory duties spawn whole new departments in council workforces too, such as diversity officers and climate change officers. Another problem is that councils respond differently to the same edicts – Birmingham had 28 Diversity Officers on the list while Leeds made do with just 11. Some had none whatsoever and shared the duties among existing staff.
This is an encouraging measure from the DCLG; let’s hope it removes many of the tiresome, onerous and ultimately expensive requirements Whitehall place on local authorities. Of course, this must be completed with clarity and transparency, as Glyn Gaskarth of the Local Government information Unit points out. He states “Every councillor must be able to find out, easily, exactly what the council is legally required to do. The public must be able to access such information in a clear and accessible format. We should constantly be asking ourselves if each regulation is necessary and if the law’s requirements can be met by less bureaucratic means.”
Today is national No Smoking Day, and to celebrate Andrew Lansley has announced plans to hide cigarettes away under shopkeepers’ counters. A consultation will also be launched on plain packaging. The Prime Minister said only a few days ago that he wanted to ‘declare war on the enemies of enterprise’, but his Government has declared war on shopkeepers. Matthew Sinclair, Director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, co-signed a letter to the Telegraph along with other think-tank leaders this morning to voice their disapproval with the plans:
Enemies of enterprise seek controls on tobacco
SIR – Today, smokers are asked to observe No Smoking Day. They may also finally get to hear Government proposals that could ban the display of tobacco products in retail outlets, and only allow tobacco to be sold in plain, state-prescribed packaging.
If the Coalition is committed to defeating the enemies of enterprise, as David Cameron, the Prime Minister, claims, a good start would be to call a halt to the relentless campaign to “denormalise” smoking through an endless barrage of new controls, directives and diktats.
Mr Cameron claimed last weekend that he would wage war on bureaucrats who concoct ridiculous rules and regulations. Banning the branding of tobacco products or making cigarettes an under-the-counter product would be yet another victory for these very bureaucrats. Life would become more difficult for newsagents and tobacconists and easier for the providers of illicit tobacco to pass off their wares as legitimate.
We cannot yet be sure about whether the Prime Minister’s commitment to combating regulation and red tape is truly serious. If his Government now unveils proposals to further restrict the sale and purchase of tobacco, it will be a clear sign that his new commitment to enterprise is little more than political rhetoric.
Director, Democracy Institute
Dr Eamonn Butler
Director, Adam Smith Institute
Director of Research, Progressive Vision
Dr Helen Evans
Director, Nurses for Reform
Dr Tim Evans
Chairman, Economic Policy Centre
Director, Big Brother Watch
Executive Director, Liberal Vision
Acting Director, Centre for Policy Studies
Director General, Institute of Economic Affairs
Director, The TaxPayers’ Alliance
Director, The Freedom Association
At long last the trend of council tax increases has come to an end. Taxpayers will be relieved to learn that they are not facing an increase in council tax for the coming year as councils across England have taken up the Government’s offer to freeze council tax in 2011-12 in return for a financial incentive to offset the costs. This move was announced last October in the Comprehensive Spending Review and it is not surprising to hear few councils have declined this offer. Steve Freer, the Chief Executive of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accounting, claimed “The Government and councils have a shared interest in avoiding a public relations disaster of local people paying more for reduced services.” But this far more important than a PR exercise, as the Government estimates that the average family in a band D property will be about £72 better off, a much needed boost to already squeezed household budgets. Of course, it must be acknowledged that taxpayers’ money is being used to incentivise councils to freeze tax rises so one could argue that we’ve already paid for it, but it’s a far better use of public money than the numerous stories of waste that we report on this blog every week. Also, legislation has already been passed that means, from next year, all councils who want to increase council tax over a certain threshold will have to hold a local referendum beforehand. A welcome stipulation as turkeys tend not to vote for Christmas.
But why stop there? If you are fortunate enough to live in Windsor and Maidenhead, Thurrock or Brighton you will be receiving a cut in council tax in the coming financial year. They have achieved this by running services effectively and cutting out waste when times were good. Now times are a little tougher financially they are far better prepared to protect taxpayers’ interests. Other councils are struggling with the adjustment, and complaining about it too, following mass over-spends and living way beyond their means. Huge pay increases for senior staff and the approval of wasteful projects shows a total disregard for taxpayers’ money and finally councils are having to face the consequences of their poor decisions over the last decade, but unfortunately it is not always those at the top of the executive tree who feel these effects. We welcome councils’ move to freeze rates and we hope they show responsibility and humility when making necessary financial savings.
It was almost 12 months ago that Windsor and Maidenhead council gave notice to leave the Local Government Association. After meeting the LGA’s peculiar rule to provide a year’s notice, many councils regularly give notice of leaving just to keep their options open, but they are going to follow through and actually leave. Over the past year officials in the council have been weighing up exactly what they get in return for their massive £40,000 annual subscription. The Corporate Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel wanted to be sure that any cancellation of the subscription wouldn’t impact on residents. But when assessing potential successes they concluded that:
“It is difficult to ascertain whether the impact of lobbying by the LGA has enabled these activities and changes to take place or whether they were the result of action already underway, from representations made by councils themselves or from action agreed by the newly elected government. Certainly it is known that points 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 [in the report] are areas where direct intervention by the Borough or new Ministers has made the headway required.”
Additionally many of the benefits of being associated with the LGA can be obtained elsewhere at greatly reduced costs on an ad hoc basis. Windsor and Maidenhead paid over £40,000 last year and they have confirmed continuing that membership doesn’t represent good value.
Councillor Liam Maxwell, a cabinet member, has singled out a particular piece of evidence in the report: “Email alerts are issued by the LGA with advance notice of potentially negative stories, highlighting potential ‘knocking’ stories and preparing robust responses.” He responds – “Yes, our membership fee pays for advice on how to defend ourselves from criticism. Surely councillors and officers who are on top of their briefs can do this for themselves and don’t need to be spoon-fed by a publicly funded lobbying organisation?” Absolutely right.
The LGA is the embodiment of taxpayers’ money chasing more taxpayers money. It is a well fed organisation that claims to represent the interests of local councils yet over the years has too often thoughtlessly defended councils at every juncture whatever the situation or incident, as Cllr Maxwell points out. Good councils are sold short. This is not an organisation that acts in the interests of taxpayers, whose local authorities blindly continue to throw tens of thousands of pounds its way every year. It is fundamentally unfair and undemocratic for taxpayers’ money to be spent supporting lobbying for the interests of staff and politicians who have the power to hand it out.
At a time when councils should be looking carefully at their budgets to save money, councils can and should follow the example set by Windsor and Maidenhead and leave the LGA. Membership should be one of the first things to trim back on. If your council has not considered this as a possible saving then you should write to your councillors to see why not. You can do that through this website.
“It’s very sad that the Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC) seem to have completely missed our point about supply teachers. As we said, we fully understand that they are a necessity to cope with disruptions such as staff on sick or maternity leave and there is absolutely no suggestion in the report that they are not committed and talented teachers. A knee-jerk defence of the industry was not necessary, and doesn’t alter the fact that they cost English schools more than £290 million last year.
What our research showed was that there was a significant increase in the use of supply teachers in more deprived areas. This is a worrying trend as it suggests that these pupils tend to have more discontinuity in their teaching. We’re sure that the REC would agree with us that, however experienced the teacher is, it is better for pupils to have the same teacher every day, rather than temporary teachers.
This report does not seek to provide answers to why this trend exists but rather to challenge education experts and policy makers to investigate the reasons for these statistical findings, so that young people, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, have the best possible start in life.”
Government run services will be expected to open up to private sector competition with payment-by-results contracts giving providers incentives to improve service quality, the Prime Minister has said in the Daily Telegraph. Downing Street has said the plans will go further than previous similar reforms in specific areas of the public sector because they will be generic, introducing a general presumption for being open with specific exemptions for areas such as defence and the judiciary. The state, David Cameron said,
“Should be open to real diversity, open to everyone who gets and values the importance of our public sector ethos. This is a transformation: it ends the state’s monopoly over public services.
“Instead of having to justify why it makes sense to introduce competition in individual public services – as we are now doing with schools and in the NHS – the state will have to justify why it should ever operate a monopoly.”
If Mr Cameron’s strong rhetoric is matched by suitable legislation, this proposal should be hugely beneficial to users of public services and taxpayers alike. Allowing private operators to reformulate service provision, motivated either by charitable zeal or profit-seeking efficiency to strip out waste and tempt the public to use their offering has obvious advantages. The pressure to cut elements of spending that people simply do not value will certainly be greater on charitable organisations or private sector companies than on state officials, whether the money saved will be redeployed into spending on something new managers think is more worthwhile (in the case of the charity) or possibly for private profit (in the case of a private sector provider.)
An important detail the Government must get right is the question of for whose custom the operators will be competing. Introducing external competition so government agencies can ‘outsource’ their operations is certainly a step in the right direction but will not always be the appropriate design. It would still leave an official standing between the public service user and the service provider. To reap the full reward of competitive forces, drive up quality and give the public what they want from public services the Government must pay attention to when it should allow new operators to compete directly for end users rather than for contracts with commissioning officials.
Taxpayers will not be happy about private companies making excess profits from cushy contracts or charities using taxpayers’ money to advance their own agenda. But as long as there is open competition taxpayers should benefit. Private companies must remain nervous that they will lose their contracts and customers to more efficient competitors and go out of business unless they keep the service quality they deliver high and their charges low. As long as the government keeps operators on their toes, it may just be able to inject some much-needed private and voluntary sector efficiency and vigour into our public services.
A couple of weeks ago, we blogged about councils looking to pass the buck for necessary spending reductions. Lambeth council put posters up carrying the slogan “The Government has cut our money, so we are forced to cut services”. Today, Communities Secretary Eric Pickles came out strongly against such overtly political ads, calling them a “blatant misuse of public funds”. And they absolutely are; Lambeth’s poster cost them £600, plus lost revenue of not renting the advertising space.
DCLG also announced crackdowns on council newspapers and lobbyists. This is more good news – council newspapers provide direct competition to local media, affecting genuine scrutiny and accountability of the local authority. Plus they cost taxpayers money; they’re easy fat to trim.
Taxpayer funded lobbying is a particularly egregious practice, and we would like to see a complete end to this practice. Taxpayers pay for government to lobby government for more money, and pay handsomely too, as our research paper last year showed.
On today’s news, TPA Director Matthew Sinclair said:
“Councils claiming that they need to cut frontline service would have more credibility if they weren’t wasting money so extravagantly. Council newspapers that are an exercise in propaganda rather than honest journalism are a particularly awful example of town hall waste. The posters in Lambeth are a disgrace, and reflect a local authority that is more interested in making political excuses than working to deliver greater value for taxpayers’ money, which other London boroughs have shown is very possible. Councils should work to cut spending on bloated bureaucracies, not lazily try to throw blame around as a decade of profligacy comes to a painful end.”
Councils across England had until midnight last night to publish online, details of all their spending over £500. The Communities and Local Government Secretary told councils last June to declare details of spending over £500 and gave them the deadline of 31st January 2011 to do so. Thereby enabling local taxpayers’ to see exactly how councils spend their money. It’s vital that residents have the opportunity to scrutinise every area of spending to ensure proper accountability.
Last week Public Service reported that up to 39 councils would fail to meet the deadline; however a cursory glance on the DCLG website this morning reveals that in fact 299 out of the 354 councils have now fulfilled their responsibility, meaning more than 50 haven’t. Councils have had since June to publish their spending, an eight month period which the majority of councils saw as sufficient time to get the information online. The councils have not only failed to meet the standards set out by the Communities Secretary, they have failed their residents, who have a right to see this information.
Last Friday, anticipating that many councils would not meet the necessary standard, David Sparks from the Local Government Association said:
“Local government is the most directly accountable part of the public sector and councils work hard to stay in close touch with residents to ensure they provide the best, most efficient services possible. With local authority budgets being cut by 28 per cent over the next four years, councils are aware that they have to demonstrate that the money they spend is going on the things their residents want and need the most. The vast majority of councils have invested considerable time and staff resource to make their spending information available to their residents. This is an excellent effort by the sector at a time when councils are having to find efficiencies and savings in all areas.”
As the council trade association their defence is not surprising, but councils should be more up front – if they are going to be late publishing the data, say so and say when it will be ready. The attitude of councillors like David Lee, the Leader of Wokingham Borough Council, is contrary to this. Last month he was quoted as saying:
“Publishing the historic information is not a number one priority but it will be done. But I have a fear it will give fuel to people who have nothing better to do.”
This outlook is seemingly not that rare. As our National Grassroots Coordinator Andrew Allison wrote last week, the leader of Bradford Council Ian Greenwood has a similar lackadaisical attitude to publishing his councils spending. He claimed:
“There’s an obligation been put on us by the Communities Secretary to disclose all bills of £500 or above. We won’t be doing that until all the invoices have been purged of commercially-sensitive information that could enable Bradford suppliers to be undercut by firms elsewhere once the details are published.”
While he has to “purge” the data for commercially sensitive information, he fails to mention he has had the same eight months all councils have had to meet this deadline.
You can check if your council has published their spending here. If they have not yet done so then write to your Councillor here and ask them why. Accountability and transparency are vital and the sooner councils get on board with this the better
In a post on Tuesday Chris Daniel pointed out that public spending cuts are vital. Which they are. And that councils should try to run leaner operations instead of passing cuts in central government grants straight to taxpayers. Which they should. You can’t run a £100 billion structural deficit indefinitely and, after a decade in which tax rates have gone up not down you aren’t going to fill that hole with more revenue.
He then made the simple point that it wouldn’t be possible to make substantial cuts without some effect on employment. Again, very realistic. To support that point he provided a graph showing that under the last Government there was a substantial increase in public sector employment.
For making those simple points he is castigated on Liberal Conspiracy. Essentially, Tim Fenton uses the term “clear inference” to set up a complete straw man. Fenton claims that the graph was really a claim about local government employment, which it wasn’t – it was an attempt to provide the broader context in a post about local government, and that actually the recent increase was due to the banks and earlier increases driven by expansion in services like the NHS.
Yes, the nationalisation of the banks did create a significant recent increase in public sector employment. That doesn’t mean the graph and trend Chris presented was misleading though.
Over the decade before the bank bailout there was a far more significant increase that came just from the public sector hiring a lot more people. While all that hiring was often in services like the NHS, there is good reason to think that it has not translated into results. There has been no discernable improvement in the pattern of the NHS slowly closing the gap with other European healthcare systems since the early eighties, for example. The number of managers in the NHS has been increasing at a much faster rate than the number of qualified clinical staff. Cost pressures, particularly on the staffing side, absorbed a lot of the additional money. We can definitely get better value.
On the other hand, if you want to look at the numbers for well-paid staff in local government, then fine. TPA research in 2009 looked at records in local authority accounts and found that:
- Over the past eleven years, the average local authority has increased the number of people on £50,000-plus packages dramatically; an average of 7 people in 1996-97 has increased to an average of 81 people in 2007-08. This means, the number of staff earning more than £50,000 is more than eleven times higher than it was in 1996-97.
- By contrast, in the economy as a whole, the number of people earning more than £50,000 has increased by only 3.2 times over the past ten years.
It was a shame Fenton wrote his rather smug post, instead of actually trying to get to grips with the data.
Cuts in central funding will affect councils’ budgeting decisions over the coming years. But taxpayers will have to be wary of councils conjuring up new ways to raise money to plug the gap. We’ve seen stories of councils hiking the cost of burial plots and allotments for example, with taxpayers already paying record levels of council tax. It would be wholly wrong for councils to offset the reduction in their central grant with increases in such charges when there are so many areas of waste remaining. What’s happened over the last ten years is akin to what many people go through at Christmas – we eat and drink too much and put on weight. How do we lose it again? We exercise and eat well; we do the hard work. Councils that have gorged on taxpayers’ money are ducking the responsibility of making vital cuts. They’d rather keep feasting by ramping up charges on other services, buying a new belt instead of shedding the pounds.
It is worth keeping a close eye on your own council for similar schemes. There are ways for councils to reduce their spending sensibly, it just requires more imaginative thinking.
Equally pernicious is the attempt by some councils to blame others instead of working at improving their efficiency. For example, Lambeth council have an advertising campaign with the slogan “The Government has cut our money so we are forced to cut services.” This highly provocative and shamelessly political advert is a pathetic attempt to divert the blame towards central government, deflecting attention away from years of unsustainable growth in the public sector and misspending by councils. Rather than making proper cuts in bloated areas – many of which the TPA has repeatedly highlighted – Lambeth have chosen to use taxpayers money for a political ad trying to blame someone else. Indeed, the government is complaining to a financial watchdog about the posters, which cost £600 to produce. While they had free use of advertising space they missed out on private revenue for ads that could have taken it otherwise. Other nearby councils have shown it possible to deliver greater value for money, like neighbouring Wandsworth.
And some are using front-line workers as political pawns too. National newspapers and major broadcasters covered the news last week that Manchester City Council was being “forced” to cut 2,000 jobs as a result of their latest financial settlement, reducing their enormous 23,340 headcount. In response Harry Phibbs posted numerous other ways the council can adapt to lower central government funding. He suggests that, rather than letting go of front-line workers, maybe Manchester City Council could begin with the 383 middle managers on over £50,000.
We need to remember that spending cuts have to be made. The public sector grew by over 0.9 million between 1997 and 2010, a staggering 17 per cent, so it would be irresponsible to suggest that there will not be job losses, there has to be. Paying staff is the main cost for many public sector organisations and this has increased to an untenable amount. And some services will have to be pared back, too. Cuts and a reduction in staff numbers will be uncomfortable so we need strong economic growth so there are jobs for people to go to in theprivate sector and to ensure that the cuts are focused to minimise the impact on the services people rely on most.
Local authorities have to work hard to cut the genuine waste. From April all ring fencing around all revenue grants except for schools will be removed. That will give councils more freedom to make financial decisions, meaning they have even less of an excuse to pass the buck when making savings.
Tony Blair said in his autobiography that the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act was one of his greatest mistakes. It wasn’t. It was his biggest legislative achievement. It has allowed taxpayers to get information on how their money is spent, and how their public services are run. Before the election last year, the TaxPayers’ Alliance produced a manifesto which called for the strengthening of the FOI Act within the first year of a new Government taking office.
So it was extremely welcome news this morning that the coalition is planning to extend the UK’s Freedom of Information laws. Nick Clegg has announced plans to make bodies such as the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Advertising Standards Agency, Network Rail and the Local Government Association subject to the legislation. The Act has provided ordinary members of the public with unprecedented access to data that they have always deserved to see, without obfuscation. In this long overdue move, the coalition will extend it so taxpayers can delve into the books of many more organisations that receive vast sums of their money, and are really extensions of government. According to Mr Clegg the scope of the act will be extended to include “potentially hundreds more bodies.”
When we’ve carried out our quangos surveys we’ve seen that some bodies are nearly completely funded by the public purse but are not subject to the FOI act. For example, the Carbon Trust receives over £100 million a year from taxpayers who currently have no right to find out how they spend it, it should clearly be among the bodies the Act is extended to. And when we completed our report on where Regional Development Agencies’ (RDA) grants were going, we uncovered a whole pseudo public sector: bodies set up and nearly entirely funded by the RDA and the local council but completely closed off to scrutiny by taxpayers, or seemingly even the relevant government department. Our report on Taxpayer funded lobbying and political campaigning found that many organisations like Alcohol Concern were dependent on the Department of Health for the vast majority of their funding. Nick Clegg should be commended for this move but it’s crucial that bodies such as these are included in the broadened scope of the Act if taxpayers are to be given full information on public spending.
Along with the scope of the Act it’s just as important it can function effectively. Changes are also required to make it easier for the public to submit requests and making it more difficult for public bodies to refuse or delay the provision of information. From our experience, the 20 day statutory time limit organisations have to respond is not always adhered to, with no consequences for a delay some organisations put requests off almost indefinitely. The current ICO procedures for not replying to a request can carry an unlimited fine, however with investigations often taking in excess of 12 months, they rarely materialise because a prosecution must be made within a six month limit as outlined in the Act. The most notorious example being the ‘Climate-gate’ scandal. On top of this, it would be a good idea to directly fund the Information Commissioner’s Office – the gatekeepers of the legislation – from Parliament, as currently happens with the National Audit Office.
In time more proactive transparency from Government, both local and national, should mean that the public will not have to submit FOI requests for certain pieces of information. For example, we won’t need to submit FOIs to compile the Town Hall Rich List in England and Wales this year (though it will still be necessary in Scotland and Northern Ireland). I’ve heard arguments to the contrary – transparency will pose more questions than it answers. This may be true in the infancy of transparent government, but once the system is more open, clear and sophisticated – and a culture of transparency is properly engendered – we should start to see the need for submitting FOI requests drop off. Robust FOI legislation should be maintained, improved and work alongside this, of course.
Nick Clegg has said that if an organisation’s behaviour and decisions had “clear consequences for the public good, people must be able to see right into the heart of them.” He’s right, and he should be applauded. And Tony Blair was right too. Back in 2000, that is.
Matthew Sinclair, Director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said:
“It is great news that the coalition are planning to extend the greatest legislative achievement of the last Government. There are a range of organisations – from the Carbon Trust founded and funded by government to Alcohol Concern, who are also overwhelmingly dependent on public money – where taxpayers have a right to find out how their cash is being spent. The Government should also look at introducing sanctions for unwarranted delays, an unacceptable tactic used to evade FOI requests, and getting rid of the bizarrely short statute of limitations that means most offences under FOI law are exempt because it takes longer for the offence to become apparent and be processed by the Information Commissioners’ Office. Another sensible reform would be to fund the ICO directly from Parliament like the National Audit Office, so ministers who resent FOI requests can’t block up the system by starving it of resources. Finally, some exemptions need to be clarified so that, for example, there can be proper democratic scrutiny and debate before treaties are signed. Nick Clegg deserves huge credit for launching this move towards fresh transparency, hopefully the Government will follow through with an ambitious extension of FOI sooner rather than later.”