In an interview given to BBC Radio Humberside last week, the leader of North East Lincolnshire Council, Cllr Chris Shaw, accused the TPA of costing the authority £70K a year in freedom of information (FOI)  requests. This, of course, was untrue, as were his accusations that we issue FOIs for information we can already find on the council’s website. By his own admission, each FOI request costs an average of £75. We sent eight FOIs in the last two years. Instead of costing £140K over two years, the real cost was in the region of £600, and of course, if the council published this information on its website the cost would be zero.

As you will hear from the robust debate I had with him, Cllr Shaw doesn’t think much of freedom of information. He would prefer to keep local taxpayers in the dark, and instead spend the money of what he terms council services. What he couldn’t grasp is the purpose of our reports. They are there to give local residents an opportunity to see how their money is spent. They also inform councillors how their authority compares with others across the country.

One of the issues I took him to task on was paying staff mileage rates of 65p per mile. As mileage rate information is not published on North East Lincolnshire Council’s website, we were forced to send an FOI to get the figures. In a national report published in April 2011, we revealed the extent to which council workers were benefiting from this perk. Even in good times you cannot justify paying staff 20p per mile above HMRC’s recommended rate, but at a time when council budgets are being reduced, they can collectively save millions of pounds by paying a fair mileage rate.

In May 2011, a month after we published our report, Cllr Shaw became leader of North East Lincolnshire Council. He has had twenty-one months to address this issue, however as you will hear in the interview he still says he is in negotiations with the unions. How long does it take? Clearly, ending costly perks is not a priority, yet he accuses us, and local taxpayers, of wasting money trying to find out information that should be freely available on the council’s website.

What Cllr Shaw did not mention were plans revealed today in the Grimsby Telegraph regarding parking charges. A series of recommendations have been presented to councillors which include raising charges and introducing charges in some car parks, and ending free parking for blue disabled badge holders. If councillors agree, these changes will take effect in September.

So instead of reducing generous perks like paying staff 65p per mile, Cllr Shaw would prefer taxpayers not request information on how their money is spent and is also considering raising parking charges which could drive trade away from businesses who are already struggling through these difficult economic times. At least we know where his priorities lie.

A Cornish barber who used a loudhailer to warn drivers when he saw traffic wardens has been put on a ‘cautionary list’ of people viewed as a threat to council workers’ safety. Liskeard barber Andy Blackwell decided it was his civic duty to help local taxpayers avoid paying more money to the council in parking fines. When he saw parking wardens approaching, he switched on his loudhailer, which emitted a siren and then repeatedly announced ‘Traffic warden alert.’

On one occasion, he was confronted by two wardens who took a photograph of him.  ‘How come there’s two of you doing your job?’ he said to them. ‘Does one do the reading and one do the writing?’ ‘I never threatened, or cursed or swore,’ he continued. ‘As far as I was concerned I was doing a public service.’

Cornwall Council, however, took a different view. They sent him a letter saying he had ‘verbally abused’ council employees and caused them ‘extreme distress’ and they would be putting his name on a cautionary list.

‘The cautionary contacts list,’ said the council, ‘is an internal system which aims to protect council staff from potentially harmful situations, including physical assault and verbal abuse. Many local authorities around the country have similar schemes in place. This information is only used within the council and is only available to those employees who may potentially be exposed to such risks.’ Sounds like taxpayer funded intimidation to me!

The Liskeard barber has said he does not wish to antagonise the council further but the loudhailer is available for the use of his customers. ‘It’s a little bit of fun, and people have thanked me,’ said Mr Blackwell.

Indeed, just a few month’s earlier his very own town mayor was taking on Cornwall Council for raising parking charges in Liskeard. The rise was causing ‘death by car parking charges’ to local businesses and the mayor wanted to lease back the council car parks to establish a fairer regime. ‘We are interested in trying to promote people coming to the town,’ argued the mayor. Quite right. Maybe he should hand round more loudhailers then…

**Updated 15/02/12**

Labour-run Salford City Council has announced it intends to freeze Council Tax for 2013-14. Conservative-run Trafford is the only other Greater Manchester authority to announce a freeze. Manchester has announced an increase of 3.7 per cent, and both Oldham & Rochdale have announced rises of 3.5 per cent. Later this month, we will be protesting against those councils who are increasing Council Tax bills. (Full details are at the bottom of this post)

York City Council has formally announced it intends to increase Council Tax by 1.9 per cent in 2013-14. This didn’t come as a surprise as the council leader, Cllr James Alexander, announced his intentions three months ago. Whilst other councils like Salford and Trafford have been working hard to find extra savings, York appears to have given up. Not that this stops Cllr Alexander from ‘living it up’ at taxpayers’ expense.

Last month it was announced the 2014 Tour de France will start in Yorkshire and part of the route will go through the city. Along with representatives from other Yorkshire councils, Cllr Alexander and chief executive, Kersten England, travelled to Paris for the announcement. Whilst representatives from other councils travelled there and back on the same day, with their expenses paid for by the largely taxpayer funded Welcome to Yorkshire, Cllr Alexander and Ms England opted to for an overnight stay, and charged the council for their outward journey costs and hotel bills. After some research, the only thing I can see they managed to achieve from travelling to Paris a day earlier than everyone else was to get their photograph taken holding a banner in front of the Arc de Triomphe!

In an interview for a local radio station, Minster FM, I suggested that Cllr Alexander should speak to the council leaders who have succeeded in freezing or reducing Council Tax bills to get ideas where he could make further practical savings. Perhaps one of the first calls he should make is to Salford or Trafford.

What: Greater Manchester Council Tax Protest
When: 12.00 noon, Saturday 16th February
Where: Albert Square, Manchester (Outside Manchester Town Hall)

**BLOG UPDATE**

Although we were initially informed by an employee of Welcome to Yorkshire that as far as they were aware the delegates from other Yorkshire councils travelled to and from Paris on the same day, we have received an e-mail from Welcome to Yorkshire saying this is not true. As the press conference started at 08:30 GMT, it was not possible to travel there and back on the same day, therefore all delegates travelled on the eve of the press conference and stayed overnight in Paris; not just the delegates from York. The cost of the trip for the leader and chief executive of York City Council was £675.  The article was written in good faith and we are happy to correct the error.

Yesterday, Matthew Grove, Humberside’s Police and Crime Commissioner, announced he intends to freeze the police precept for 2013-14. Good news, especially as last year the precept was hiked by 4 per cent, and in the last decade it has gone up by over 80 per cent.  Hopefully next year there will be room for reductions as Mr Grove gets his feet under the table and really looks closely at all spending by Humberside Police.

It’s not all good news for Mr Grove though. A couple of weeks’ ago, I wrote about his draft police and crime plan, which I described as being filled with public sector buzzwords and gobbledegook. It wasn’t just me who thought this as the plan has the dubious honour of being nominated for a ‘Golden Bull’ award from the Plain English Campaign! Not a great start.

The bad news is it looks like Hull City Council is set to reject the Government’s offer of a grant and increase Council Tax by 1.95 per cent. Some councillors had wanted an increase of around 3 per cent, however as this would have triggered a local referendum, it was dismissed by deputy leader, Daren Hale, as being too expensive.

On a related issue, I have written extensively about the battle the council leadership is having with UNISON. In our report on mileage rates, published nearly two years’ ago, we revealed that Hull City Council paid many of its employees 65p per mile – 20p more than HMRC’s recommended rate of 45p. The council leader, Steve Brady, has been promising for well over a year to end this perk, and yet we are still waiting. Last October, I commented how the unions were flexing their muscles, and this week UNISON was at it again.

Speaking to the Hull Daily Mail, Adrian Kennett, UNISON’s branch secretary at the council, said:

These are not perks. These are terms and conditions that have been negotiated over decades. Prior to the financial crisis, no Labour leader in the city had referred to them as generous or a perk.

The changes he is referring to would save the council £7 million a year and could also save 400 jobs. Instead of working with the council, Mr Kennett prefers to defend the indefensible. We live in tough times, and mileage rates of 65p per mile cannot be described as anything but a perk. As we approach the budget-setting full council meeting, which takes place at the end of this month, it will be interesting to see if the unions back down, or attempt to send the council over a cliff.

Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles, has today announced a crackdown on what he describes as a “secret state” of unelected quangos pushing up Council Tax bills for householders. This is partly in response to the decisions of Manchester, Oldham, and Rochdale councils to increase Council Tax bills in 2013-14 by 3.5 – 3.7 per cent. They have denied local people a referendum by exploiting a loophole in the Localism Act that excludes precepts to such bodies like the Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority (GMWDA) and Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM). We will be protesting against those councils in Albert Square, Manchester on 16 February at 12 noon.

Mr Pickles also went on to say:

 Local authorities should be on notice that we will pay close attention to increases in their basic amount of council tax in 2013-14 and we are prepared to take action in response to any large increases. Authorities should have no doubt that we will consider setting principles in future years which are specific to authorities that increase their basic amount of council tax in 2013-14 by more than 2 per cent without having sought the approval of the local electorate in a referendum.

These proposals will increase the accountability of large numbers of elected public bodies for their money-raising and spending decisions; and, secondly they will encourage these bodies to focus on better delivery and value for money.

The only Greater Manchester authority not to announce a rise so far is Trafford. They too have had to absorb increases from GMWDA and TfGM, and Cllr Sean Anstee, Trafford’s Executive Member for Finance was named earlier this week as our latest “Pin-up”. We are calling on all Greater Manchester councils to follow Trafford’s lead and announce a freeze.

Please join us if you can in Manchester on 16 February. If you are on Facebook, to can register to attend by clicking on this link. If you use Twitter, send me a tweet. If you prefer, you can contact me by e-mail. You can of course just turn up on the day, and please bring along your family and friends too.

What: Greater Manchester Council Tax Protest
When: 12.00 noon, Saturday 16th February
Where: Albert Square, Manchester (Outside Manchester Town Hall)

While Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles blasts some councils across England as ‘democracy dodgers’ by raising council tax just below the 2% required to trigger a referendum, other councils are quietly going about the business of freezing their council tax. In the South West, Somerset County Council (SCC) is freezing its residents’ Council Tax for the fourth year running and yet is still spending on vital frontline services.

By reducing bureaucracy in the council and reorganising working practices with schools and early years providers, SCC hopes to save enough money to invest £4.8m on services for vulnerable children and adults. Despite having to cut its expenditure by £20m, it will find further cash to fix damaged roads and keep libraries open.

‘It is extremely difficult and challenging when our income goes down, but the number of people needing our help is going up,’ says Somerset’s council leader. ‘We will continue with our priorities, to care for people who need it, and to deliver all our services with the best possible value for money.’

A similar story is told in West Dorset District Council (WDDC), which is pledging to freeze Council Tax for the coming year. Despite a cut of nearly £600,000 in the money it receives from central government, WDDC also intends to keep parking charges at their current level, as well as freeze Council Tax and continue to provide its frontline services.

‘These are challenging times for local councils,’ says West Dorset’s council leader. ‘The national picture means our government grant continues to fall, many of our traditional income streams are under pressure and, like householders, we have seen energy and fuel costs rise way ahead of inflation. But careful financial management, savings from working in partnership, continuous efficiencies and the move to smaller, greener and cheaper offices in Dorchester means we aim to freeze Council Tax and parking charges in 2013/14.’

WDDC also plan to set up a budget-working group to look at areas where the authority can achieve efficiencies to protect against future cuts in central funding. So it can be done! Other councils take note and don’t become ‘democracy dodgers’…

Trafford Council has today announced it will freeze Council Tax in 2013-14 and aspires to a freeze again the following year. This is great news for local residents, especially as many other Greater Manchester councils have announced plans for an increase. Rochdale and Oldham have announced a 3.5 per cent rise, and Manchester has announced a hike of 3.7 per cent. We will be protesting against those those councils on Saturday 16 February in Albert Square, Manchester, at 12 noon.

Trafford is the lowest funded Greater Manchester authority, yet it has the lowest Council Tax. Over a number of years, Trafford has demonstrated that keeping Council Tax bills low doesn’t mean that services will be decimated.  The borough is keeping all of of its libraries open, is investing in adult social care, and crime continues to fall.

Today we are pleased to name Cllr Sean Anstee, Executive Member for Finance at Trafford Council, as our first “Pin-Up” of 2013. We occasionally anoint someone a TPA Pin-Up when they have saved public money or acted in the interests of the hard-pressed taxpayer (whereas TPA “Pinheads” have done the opposite). Cllr Anstee certainly makes a worthy Pin-Up.

Rochdale Council is planning to increase Council Tax in 2013-14 by 3.5 per cent. It is refusing to let residents decide in a local referendum if they approve or disapprove of this rise. As I wrote last week, Rochdale is not the only Greater Manchester authority to act in this way and we are holding a protest in Manchester City Centre on 16 February to oppose these rises.

It was revealed earlier this month that Rochdale Council has paid the Town Centre Management Company over £700,000 on the past three years. Tens of thousands of this money has been paid to so-called celebrities for their services. One example is a payment made to celebrity chef, Levi Roots. He managed to turn up late, give a short speech, and was paid £7,000 plus expenses for his trouble. With all this cash being spent, you would think there would be some noticeable improvements in the town centre. Not so. Here is what one local trader thinks:

Can anyone say that Rochdale town centre is any better for this huge amount of money being spent? In fact, it is worse now than it has ever been. The events bring at best a very short-lived increase in footfall to a minority of businesses, and we are ‘sold’ the events on this basis, however, lots of businesses find takings drop and some of the events actually bring direct competitors to take away revenue, such as the Christmas market.

The payments to celebrities are scandalous. It is an ego boost for Town Centre Management and certain members of the Council and is indefensible given they are cutting essential services and raising council tax by so much.

This is the only recent example of waste either. New council offices have been built at a cost of £50 million. Even though the building hasn’t been officially opened, the lights are switched on every night, increasing the council’s electricity bill. And talking of lights, one of the new light fittings in the main entrance to the building cost over £16,000. As you will see in this picture, it consists of five tubes – £3,250 a tube! Hardly essential spending.

Please make a special effort to join us if you can at our protest on Saturday 16 February. If you are on Facebook, you can register to attend by clicking on this link. If you use Twitter, send me a tweet. If you prefer, you can contact me by e-mail.

What: Greater Manchester Council Tax Protest
When: 12.00 noon, Saturday 16th February
Where: Albert Square, Manchester (Outside Manchester Town Hall)

Getting back to basics is what one lone campaigner in Swanage, Dorset, is calling for. As councillors spend taxpayers’ money on fact-finding jollies to far flung parts of the world, it is good to be reminded that what we expect for our money is simple, basic services, like filling in potholes. In Swanage, our hero has gone round the town circling holes in roads with white paint and adding a tag saying ‘Fix me’!

Dorset County Council has, needless to say, taken a stern view of this. ‘We have found several potholes in Swanage that have been marked in this way,’ says a council employed maintenance manager, ‘and anyone caught doing it could be prosecuted. It’s important to note that the roads in Swanage are in no worse state than the rest of the county or the country.’

Local residents, however, are more sympathetic to the pothole crusader. ‘If anyone on a motorbike hit one, they’d be a goner,’ said one. ‘Let’s hope the powers-that-be get the message.’

It is worth noting that the lone pothole marker may well be saving taxpayers’ money too as the amount paid out by councils in compensation has rocketed. For the first time in the South West, says a recent report, more than £1 million has been paid out by councils to drivers whose cars have been damaged by potholes.

Heavy rain and severe winters has increased the amount of potholes appearing on roads and drivers are more aware that they can now claim money back for damage caused by councils not fixing roads more promptly. The Swanage protestor is right to remind his council that they need to get back to basics, cut out wasteful spending elsewhere and get on with fixing our roads—before they have to pay out any more taxpayers’ money in compensation!

Tim Newark, South West TaxPayers’ Alliance

On Saturday 16th February, the TaxPayer’s Alliance will be holding a protest against proposed hikes in Council Tax across Greater Manchester. At the end of last year, Rochdale Council announced plans to increase Council Tax by 3.5 per cent. The Localism Act requires councils to hold a local referendum if they propose increases above 2 per cent, however Rochdale will not be asking the voters what they think. Local news website, Rochdale Online, explains why:

The council believes it has spotted a loophole. This threshold doesn’t apply to precepts or levies which the council does not directly control and therefore plans to use the Localism Act to exclude hikes to waste and transport bills from the headline rate of council tax increases.

The unelected Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority is planning a 19 per cent increase in its levy, and the unelected Transport for Greater Manchester a 5.8 per cent increase. The decisions are made by (mostly Labour) councillors appointed from the local authorities that constitute their membership. A satisfactory arrangement for the councillors who are paid an array of special responsibility allowances to sit on the assorted committees.

Since then Manchester City Council has announced an increase of 3.7 per cent, and now Oldham has followed with a proposed rise of 3.5 per cent. Many other councils in Greater Manchester are expected to follow suit. Even though elected councillors sit on the Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority and the Transport for Greater Manchester Committee, and have collectively agreed to such large hikes, they are now trying to wash their hands of those decisions and instead inflict large tax increases on local residents.

At a full council meeting last night, leader of Rochdale Conservatives, Ashley Dearnley, proposed a motion calling for a Council Tax freeze. This was supported by opposition councillors, however was defeated by the ruling group. The Budget will be formally agreed next month.

To make matters worse for Greater Manchester residents, newly elected Police and Crime Commissioner and former MP, Tony Lloyd, is proposing a rise which will further increase Council Tax bills.

On Saturday 16 February, the TPA is holding a protest in Albert Square, Manchester (outside Manchester Town Hall) at 12 noon. We will be protesting against all Greater Manchester councils who propose a rise in Council Tax, and it will be taking place on the weekend before councils across the area start holding their budget setting meetings.

Please make a special effort to join us if you can. If you are on Facebook, to can register to attend by clicking on this link. If you use Twitter, send me a tweet. If you prefer, you can contact me by e-mail. You can of course just turn up on the day, and please bring along your family and friends too, although we would like an idea of the numbers of people attending so we can inform Greater Manchester Police.  We will also publish a full list of speakers closer to the event.

What: Greater Manchester Council Tax Protest
When: 12.00 noon, Saturday 16th February
Where: Albert Square, Manchester (Outside Manchester Town Hall)

The Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) for Humberside, Matthew Grove, unveiled his draft Police and Crime Plan this week. The consultation period lasts for the next six weeks, and Mr Grove would like the public to send him their feedback. So far, so good; although for the public to fully understand his proposals the plan has to be written in plain English. None of the jargon, buzzwords, and gobbledegook we are used to reading. This is where the plan falls at the first hurdle. Here is an extract from section 5.2, explaining Mr Grove’s objectives:

Each of the above outcomes is underpinned by more specific objectives which have been developed in conjunction with the public and partner organisations. They address the critical issues and are effectively the means to achieving the end results. These objectives are the ‘road map’ that defines the approach for how the outcomes or ‘destination’ will be achieved and are the crux of the Police and Crime Plan. These objectives provide the focus, as well as the constraints, for the Chief Constable, partners and I, which in turn will drive the activities and behaviours that will deliver the above outcomes.

It really doesn’t get any better, and a local journalist told me they had received an e-mail from the Commissioner’s Office saying the plan was primarily aimed at ‘public sector partners’. But surely ‘public sector partners’ can read plain English too? There isn’t an excuse for publishing a jargon-filled document such as this.

Mr Grove has also said he wants our opinions on a possible 2% increase in the police precept. I asked him on Twitter if he was in favour of such an increase, and he didn’t reply. Discovering he was due to be interviewed on BBC Radio Humberside this morning, I asked the presenter if he could get an answer for me.

Mr Grove said he has a duty to consult the public and get support from local residents, or the Police and Crime Panel could veto his proposals and force him to increase the precept. He went on to say he personally wants to freeze the precept, but he would not rule out an increase. I suppose I got a straight answer to my question: does he want an increase – yes or no? But whether he will propose an increase will depend on what the public tells him, and crucially the public don’t know what he would spend an extra £800,000 on if he rejects a Government grant equivalent to 1% of the budget (£400,000).

Despite his assertion that he wants to freeze the precept, what he said looks like a back-door way of grabbing more of our cash. He has given himself enough wriggle room based on residents’ views, although of course we will never read exactly what residents tell him. If officers convince him a rise is needed, how closely will he question what they say?

The public also need to be reminded that under the old police authority, the precept increased by 4% last year. A local supporter, who has kept their Council Tax bills in recent years, also informed me the precept has increased by over 80% in the last decade. So what has the money been spent on? There must be some fat to trim. Shouldn’t Mr Grove be advocating a reduction in the amount we pay?

The PCC’s staff have asked me to send them my feedback. What I’ll do is send them a link to this blog, however unless they explain the Police and Crime Plan in plain English, tell us how they are going to spend our money and get value for money for taxpayers, it’s not worth the paper it’s written on.

It is fascinating to get a snapshot of what our councils spend taxpayers’ money on. A TPA supporter in Bath recently made a Freedom of Information request to Bath & North East Somerset Council (B&NES) asking to see invoices over £500 for December 2011 categorised under the title ‘Leader’.

At first, the council were vague about what that title meant but then they agreed it meant ‘Leader of the Council’. Then they declared that their invoices had no relation to the leader of the council at all. ‘I do not think that I believe this,’ said our investigator. ‘There are invoices for three new iPads, a new bike, 16k from BUPA, and huge sums for support services.’

‘I am intrigued and think it must be the leader of the council,’ continues our supporter, ‘since these expenses were categorised as ‘LEADER’ and they did initially admit they were expenses made by the leader’s office. Also one of the bills is from the leader’s personal driver, so why would this be in that category if ‘LEADER’ did not mean leader of the council?’

Intriguing indeed. Looking at the invoice for local chauffeur services, it is amazing to see how costly it can be to ship around a leader of the council and to wait for them during numerous events. For example, delivering the council leader to a local theatre and waiting four hours for them costs taxpayers £120, attending the turning on of Christmas lights in the centre of the city and waiting for six hours cost £180, attending a Home Coming parade and hanging around for 10 hours costs £300, joining a function at the American museum and waiting six hours costs £180 and so it goes on, making a monthly bill of £1,620. It makes you wonder if it might be cheaper just to call up a mini-cab rather than expecting drivers to wait for hours sitting in their car.

Then there’s a monthly Vodaphone bill for 31 mobiles at £2,154.60. If this is not for the leader of the council, why is it being charged to that office? Further on is an eye-watering bill for IT services of £344, 108.  Then there’s the mysterious bill for £929 for bikes and equipment. Is this suggesting a new mode of transport for the leader from chauffeur driven car to bicycle? But what about the BUPA bill for £16,512? What is the taxpayer doing paying for private healthcare for the council leader’s office?

‘The council have flipped between originally saying that “Leader” does mean leader of the council,’ says our investigator, ‘to now saying that none of the invoices I highlighted were anything to do with the leader of the council. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between. Perhaps “Leader” on the mobile phone bills does refer to the lead handset of that group. However, I am sure that other invoices must relate to the leader, as one of them is the leader’s personal driver and who else would get the nice new bicycle and helmet—if not the leader?’

We await the council’s further response to this enterprising investigation by a TPA supporter.