Today has seen the publication of the report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life into political party finance. You can read the full 116-page report here, but to cut to the quick, the proposal which will alarm taxpayers up and down the country is for political parties to get a subsidy from the taxpayer to the tune of around £23 million per year.
Here’s how the report summarises its plan:
“Existing public support to the political parties should be supplemented by the addition of a new form of public support paid to every party with two or more representatives in the Westminster Parliament or the devolved legislatures. The public funding should depend on the number of votes secured in the previous election, at the rate of around £3.00 a vote in Westminster elections and £1.50 a vote in devolved and European elections. Income tax relief, analogous to Gift Aid, should also be available on donations of up to £1,000 and on membership fees to political parties”
Quite simply, when the Government and local councils are making cuts to their budgets, the idea that some of those savings should be channelled into the coffers of political parties is monstrous.
The scheme as envisaged by the Kelly Committee would have seen the following amounts thrown at the parties after last year’s general election, based on the idea of a £3 subsidy per vote:
That amounts to a handout of nearly £92 million. And it would mean you pay a fortune to support political parties you don’t support. Labour voters funding the Conservatives and Conservative voters funding Labour, whether they like it or not.
But of course that’s not all; you then have to factor in the grants that would be given after elections to the European Parliament, which would have amounted to the following if the £1.50-per-vote scheme had been in operation after the 2009 elections:
That comes to more than £20 million. And that’s before you factor in the figures to be given after devolved elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
As the report notes, millions of pounds are already given to political parties: opposition parties in the Commons and Lords get financial support to assist them in their parliamentary activities, in recognition that they don’t have the civil service back-up enjoyed by Government ministers. That funding should be cut, not supplemented.
But taxpayers will be aghast at the sums Kelly is now proposing be diverted to parties. The report’s spin is that his plan amounts to “only about 50p a year for each UK elector”. But just the £92 million in core funding is the equivalent of the entire annual pay of well over 4,000 people on average earnings. If Kelly thinks voters are so keen to see their hard-earned cash go to political parties, they should be given the free choice as to whether they make such donations of their own free will out of their own paypackets.
The TaxPayers’ Alliance takes a robust view on this: not a single penny more of taxpayers’ money should be handed to political parties.
Today the Guardian reports that, while the MoD cuts the number of front-line troops, £564m has been spent on consultants in just two years. Spending has increased from £6m in 2006 to £267m in 2011 – a 4,350 per cent rise.
The huge increase has been blamed on the Framework Agreement for Technical Support (FATS), bought in by the Labour government in 2009, which allowed defence officials to hire specialist, short-term help without requiring a minister’s consent.
An MoD internal audit report claims there were “significant weaknesses” in the submission of business cases; that there were “weaknesses in the robustness of scrutiny” by budget controllers; and that three quarters of contracts were awarded without any notion of competition. Despite the laxity of the guidelines the report concludes that there was “no assurance” they were even being followed.
All options must be considered to ensure that services can be delivered at the lowest cost to taxpayers. There may be occasional situations where it is more cost-effective to hire consultants on specific projects than to have them employed full-time. In these circumstances we would expect robust guidelines to be in place; that they be rigorously followed and compliance monitored; and that appropriate sanctions would be deployed against individuals who broke them.
In the context of budget reductions of around eight per cent over the next four years, and the loss of 42,000 posts, we would expect the MoD to be doing everything possible to maximise the value taxpayers’ get for their money, rather than relying on union reps to highlight gaping holes in their financial procedures.
It is disingenuous for the MoD to be claiming to be cutting costs by reducing staff if external consultants are then bought in to do their job instead at a higher cost. They should be taking a more holistic approach to the costs of their projects which are already, in many cases, heavily over-budget.
Our Chief Executive, Matthew Elliot, had this to say:
“It’s appalling that the MoD has been managing its budget so catastrophically badly. This level of spending on consultants is disgraceful and worse still is the face that correct procedures were allowed to be so consistently ignored. Some larger or more technical projects may require consultants to be brought in for their specialist expertise, but this should be in moderation and should certainly be within the department’s own guidelines. Transparency and value for taxpayers’ money should to be at the heart of all Whitehall spending decisions, rather than the poorly planned, wasteful overspend that is plaguing huge swathes of the public sector. “
When questioned by the BBC the Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, claimed claimed that tighter controls and a new framework now in place will ensure these costs are properly scrutinised in future. He compared reforming the MoD to manoeuvring an oil tanker and suggests that the “legacy of mismanagement is deep and will take some time to turn around.”
Without fixing problems like this that ship will soon be heading into a storm.
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.
Although 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
Last week it was revealed that Ron Dobson, Commissioner of the London Fire Brigade, retired to get his £133,000 annual pension allowance only to jump straight back into his old job. The Daily Mirror claims that he may have even received a £700,000 pay-off if, as entitled, he converted a quarter of his pension to a lump sum.
At a time when taxpayers are tightening their belts and public sector organisations look for necessary savings, it is obscene for the Fire Brigade’s Commissioner to quietly make a few tiny contractual adjustments to feather his own nest. I can only imagine that many of Mr Dobson’s colleagues will be livid at his smash and grab raid.
Paul Embery, a regional official for the Fire Brigades Union, also attacked the pay-out, calling it “deeply unethical”.
A spokesman for the London Fire Brigade claimed the move is actually a “cost saving” measure. However, it has been reported that his new salary, combined with his pension, actually totals a similar amount to what he was on before this charade started.
Unfortunately this isn’t the first case of questionable pension activity and so-called “double dipping” in Britain’s fire brigades. In August, Andrew Allison wrote about Humberside Fire and Rescue Service, where one officer received a promotion and after only eight weeks into the job he saw his pension lump sum increase to £29,000 – for just two months’ work!
Earlier this year, Strathclyde Fire Service chief Brian Sweeney pulled a similar trick to gain a £500,000 pay-off before returning to work. He said at the time: “people need to understand it’s not taxpayers’ money – it’s my private pension.” It is the arrogance of the likes of Sweeney and Dobson which needs to be challenged – taxpayers are paying for these lavish pensions. Around a third of all private-sector workers have an employer-sponsored scheme – most do not. And it is those people that are being asked to carry on paying for increasingly expensive public sector pensions. Until we see genuine reform, the least public sector executives can do is not to take advantage of the system.
The Chief Fire Officers Association (CFOA) – according to its website – is the professional voice of the UK fire and rescue service. Reading that, you would think it was a professional organisation for senior fire officers, paid for by them. You would be wrong. This is an organisation paid for by us to lobby on behalf of senior fire officers, and it is an organisation that has grown over the years, once again thanks to our money.
When looking at spending above £500 on Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service’s (CFRS) website, I noticed to payments to the CFOA of £6175 in April this year. I sent a freedom of information request to find out why. It turned out that one of those payments was made in error, however Cambridgeshire taxpayers pay for a corporate membership of the CFOA of £6175 a year. But that’s not all. CFRS also pay the personal subscriptions for the senior management team – eight subscriptions in total. As these subscriptions are below £500, they are not published, and I do not know what the total figure is. What I can say is the figure paid by CFRS to the CFOA is higher than the published £6175.
That example gives you a snapshot of the national picture. I don’t have the time to check the spending of all fire and rescue services in the country, but I can’t imagine the figures quoted will be much different from Cambridgeshire.
Considering taxpayers fund the CFOA, finding out how it spends its money is not easy. The general public can access parts of the website, but much of it is for members only. What we do know is the CFOA is a registered charity that also has created other companies such as CFOA National Resilience Ltd and CFOA Publications Ltd. We also know it intends to expand. If you take a look at Des Prichard’s blog (the Chief Fire Officer of East Sussex) he says he was part of an interview panel for a commercial business and marketing position with the Chief Fire Officers Association.
One of our supporters sent a freedom of information request to East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service asking how much time off from his Chief Fire Officer (CFO) duties he received to carry out work as the CFOA’s Director of People and Organisational Development, but the response was the service didn’t keep a record. Mr Prichard is one of many serving chief fire officers who spend time away from the jobs we pay them for, to act on behalf of the CFOA.
The Presidential Team is made up of the following: Lee Howell, CFO, Devon and Somerset, is the president. The Vice President is Vij Randeniya, CFO, West Midlands, and the Vice President Elect is Paul Fuller, CFO, Bedfordshire and Luton.
This is another example of an organisation funded by taxpayers that’s job is to lobby ministers, but not only are we paying for that, we are also paying to fund business and commercial enterprises to give it more money to lobby and campaign on behalf of those at the top of the fire service. Instead of heading operations in their own areas, many CFOs are leaving those duties behind to work for the CFOA completely at our expense. If the example of Cambridgeshire is the norm throughout they country, they don’t even have to pay their own subscriptions.
It is in everyone’s interests that we have a first class fire and rescue service throughout the country, and there will be times when senior fire officers will be required to meet ministers to discuss possible changes in legislation. This is to be expected. Questions must be raised though as to why taxpayers have to fund an organisation like the CFOA, not only directly, but also indirectly with time off from their normal duties.
CFOA FoI Response:
The Transport Select Committee report on proposals for a new high speed rail line this morning is supportive of the case for the new line on balance but, as Benedict Brogan wrote this morning “its backing is so lukewarm it is almost as bad as a condemnation.” There are a whole series of issues that the Committee argues need to be dealt with before a decision is made, and a whole lot of problems they haven’t dealt with properly that also need to be addressed. The final picture is clear: a project of this scale can’t go ahead without a proper review that answers these questions, and offers a complete idea of the costs and benefits so taxpayers can decide if the scheme offers proper value.
There would be a number of areas a review would need to address. The Committee call for better analysis of “the policy context, the assessment of alternatives, the financial and economic case, the environmental impacts, connections to Heathrow and the justification for the particular route being proposed.”
The new line needs to be properly assessed against realistic alternatives like the plan set out by Chris Stokes for the local authority group 51M. The Committee accept that would meet forecast demand. They call for the economic case is updated on the basis of reduced crowding and a lower value for time savings. That update also needs to apply to alternative proposals.
What they don’t address seriously is all the ways that this project might lead to fresh demands for taxpayers’ money. They note that the London Underground won’t be able to cope with so many more passengers being routed into London Euston, but don’t properly reflect on the huge amounts that could add to the cost. They argue that new services on the current network could compensate for the reduction in services that places like Coventry and Stoke will face under the existing plans. But don’t ask what the bill will be to subsidise those trains (it will take a substantial subsidy to maintain a regular service when most passengers to Birmingham and beyond travel on the new high speed line) and how that can be reconciled with the existing budget including billions in cuts to existing services.
We looked at the potential additional costs in a research note. It is only possible to get a rough estimate without the resources available to the Government investigating this sort of decision. But we produced a research note with reasonable estimates. Meeting Ministers’ promises that towns and cities currently set to lose out won’t, and stopping rises in fares expected under current plans will increase the cost to taxpayers. So will burying parts of the line to address environmental concerns, and building new capacity to cope with the huge number of additional journeys being routed into Euston. Rail expert Chris Stokes estimates that would increase the cost to taxpayers alone from £17.1 billion to £45.5 billion.
And that’s leaving aside the potential problems with the demand forecast. The Committee cite how “some major transport schemes have proved to have had greater economic impacts than their pre-implementation appraisals predicted” but not how passenger forecasts are overestimated for nine out of ten rail projects. In most cases these lines don’t live up to their billing.
If Parliament doesn’t insist that Ministers either come clean about the true cost of HS2, or the many people who may get a worse service, MPs will have completely let down taxpayers. We can’t let this huge project go ahead without proper scrutiny. Politicians should be extremely careful about taxing the poor to pay for a rich man’s train.
Sir Richard Leese, Leader of Manchester City Council, has splurged £4,000 on a back-slapping dinner for a new member of staff, Lib Dem councillors have claimed. According to Cllr Paul Shannon, Sir Richard issued 270 invitations to wine and dine Manchester’s ‘cultural elite’, with ‘supper amongst Ford Madox Brown’s Great Hall Murals’ to toast the appointment of a new head of the Council’s art gallery. Diners included former MP Lord Bradley, City councillors, the Lord Mayor and his wife, and council chief executive Sir Howard Bernstein. Taxpayers will be shocked that town halls still feel able to indulge in extravagant dinners at a time of supposed budget restraint.
For those familiar with the TPA’s research into council spending on award ceremonies, Sir Richard’s justification was typically self-congratulatory. This dinner on the taxpayer was ‘to celebrate the beginning of the innovative new partnership’ between the City and the University of Manchester. Sir Richard had negotiated a money-saving deal for both institutions’ art galleries to share a director, a practical response to the need to cut costs. But local government savings don’t need to be toasted with champagne.
This dinner is even more astonishing given Manchester is cutting £109 million from the budget this year. Sir Richard Leese has called the cuts ‘unpalatable’ and entirely blames the Government for the ‘financial position in which we have been placed’. Sir Richard has shirked responsibility for taking appropriate and necessary action to cut spending while wasting Manchester taxpayers’ money on an unnecessary dinner. He said he had no option but to cut 2,000 council jobs, but ending taxpayer-funded dinners would be a start.
We shouldn’t be surprised that Sir Richard Leese is out of touch. When asked whether his chief executive, Sir Howard Bernstein, would take a pay-cut (his 2009-10 remuneration was £232,326), he called it a ‘red herring’, a distraction. By his reckoning, it would hurt morale to cut pay for the council’s top brass, even while 2,000 council workers are being made redundant. Perhaps this was his rationale for putting on a lavish reception for Manchester’s cultural elite – he didn’t want to hurt their morale.
Sir Richard has been hoisted by his own petard. According to Lib Dem councillors he has demonstrated that he is free to spend without restraint. This kind of spending, like that in our award ceremonies paper, shows that councils do have some easy choices to make when it comes to making spending cuts. Councils can prioritise the services residents value most if they are willing to sacrifice elsewhere. Not everything can be blamed on the Government.
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.
I 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.
Concerning news from Barry that £30,000 has been spent installing bespoke bollards. The 30 red and black steel poles cost £1,000 each, and were commissioned by the Barry Regeneration Area Programme. They come in a variety of designs themed on cogs and winches, which, apparently, are meant to represent the town’s industrial past.
The inspiration for these designs came from Barry’s maritime history and from the idea that Thompson Street itself has had an exciting and multi-layered history. The material speaks of winches and dockside machinery, while the forms have some of these same connotations.
Some of the designs imply movement with the cog rolling up and down the rack as you move from one bollard to the next. Elsewhere the cog seems more like a flower head.
While councils are having to make savings, local taxpayers should be asking themselves whether their council is really being prudent with their money. Of course bollards may need to be replaced, but there is no need to get them made in a variety of colours and designed by an art studio. Bollards do serve an important safety purpose, however did they even need to be replaced at all? Even if this was part of essential maintenance, replacing 30 bollards needn’t cost anywhere in the region of £1,000 each – or in other terms around 30 people’s entire annual council tax bills.
Vale Council say that the bollards are part of the Welsh Government’s “on-going attempt to revive the seaside town”. But unfortunately this seems nothing more than a council vanity project. Even in the good times, it would be difficult to defend an expense such as this, however in this current climate it beggars belief that this project ever received council approval. To see the crazy designs, click here.
Based on the premise that you have to keep repeating yourself over and over again before people will start listening, here are some words I wrote two weeks ago regarding Lambeth Council’s search for an Energy Efficiency Manager:
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.
This week, Nottingham City Council is searching for a Carbon Development Officer who will be ‘tasked with improving Nottingham’s resilience to fossil fuel depletion and climate change, and identifying opportunities for securing investment to support this agenda.’ No prizes for guessing who is likely to be paying for the ‘investment to support this agenda.’
The London Borough of Redbridge is also looking for an Energy Management Officer, who needs to have the skills to forecast the quantity of Carbon Allowances required by the Council each year.
Finally, Broadland District Council needs a Climate Change Advisor who will be raising awareness and promoting sustainable sources of energy and will be required to be inspiring, but credible, and must therefore have sound knowledge of energy and sustainability issues.
My response? As it is often said in the House of Commons: I refer the honourable member to the reply I gave some moments ago!
The Adam Smith Institute has released a report this morning on High Speed 2. What they think about the project is summed neatly by the title of the paper: High Speed Fail. It’s yet another voice added to a growing body that believes the project is flawed.
Alongside the TPA are groups like the Green Party, the Countryside Alliance and the RAC Foundation. Other think-tanks in Westminster like the Institute of Economic Affairs – and now the Adam Smith Institute – also have voiced their concerns. The Economist newspaper had a special editorial and feature on how the project won’t bring the benefits that it’s supposed to.
The groups are opposed to the scheme for different reasons, too. We have raised concerns about the business case, the job creation claims and the potential hidden costs of the scheme. The Green Party have questioned the environmental credentials of the project. The RAC Foundation feel that HS2 won’t do anything to ease congestion on existing roads, which are used by the majority of Britons to get to work in the morning. They also feel that HS2’s cost-benefit ratio is not as strong as other projects. The Countryside Alliance has concerns about the impact of installing a brand new line through the heart of the Countryside. And The Economist questions whether HS2 will correct regional disparities, as is claimed. Indeed, the newspaper believes they could be exacerbated.
Today’s report by the ASI worries that HS2 will be considered a Government liability by debt markets, at a time when Britain’s net interest payments are rapidly increasing. It also says that the chances of a worthwhile commercial return are slim. With this report, the ASI join those that have concluded that the Government has not put forward a persuasive case for the project at all. It should be scrapped at the next available opportunity.
At the end of last year, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) appointed Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti as the UK’s Climate and Energy Security Envoy.
It is important to note that this doesn’t appear to be his only duty, he seems to have a real job too. But it clearly takes up a substantial part of his time and you may ask what climate change has to do with the MoD, and why it feels the need to appoint a Rear Admiral to such a role. During an interview to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, this is what he had to say:
I think we – the reason we think that the implications of climate change have broadened from just environmental, socio-economic and political is that we’re beginning to recognise – and this is on a global basis – that the – not the physical changes that occur with climate change, but the second and third-order consequences, the result of rising temperatures, sea levels, increased acidity of the ocean is that we’re seeing the potential for loss of land, of loss of livelihood for people.
And that, on top of all the other stresses they’re facing, many of them related to resources, food, energy, water, etc., has the potential to increase the likelihood of conflict. So, climate change isn’t necessarily something that’s going to start a conflict on its own, but it is what I would call a threat multiplier or a catalyst of conflict.
I still can’t see what he and presumably his team are going to do. If there is conflict as the result of a water shortage, which Rear Admiral Morisetti mentions later in this interview, how is he going to prevent it? What does he do all day? Talk to governments about potential threats they already know about? Rising temperatures (and indeed falling temperatures) are not something that happen overnight. No-one predicted the earthquake in Japan earlier this year, which has contributed to energy supply problems there.
Later in the interview he talks about Afghanistan:
One of the challenges we have to look at, for example, is operating in Afghanistan, where we’re dependent on convoys to bring our fuel in from Karachi through to our operating bases and a lot of that convoy’s taken up with carrying the fuel.
So we’ve been looking at ways at which we can reduce our dependency on fuel by being more energy efficient, optimising the way we operate our equipment, perhaps changing our behaviour in circumstances whilst still being able to deliver the operational capabilities that we need.
Adapting to the new challenges facing our armed services is of course important work. No-one is going to dispute that, but surely there are already people inside the MoD who are trying to use fuel more efficiently? Is a Rear Admiral acting as a Climate and Energy Security Envoy – i.e. tasked with engaging with others outside the military – really the right person to get involved in that kind of operational planning?
There are already pressing problems around the world for a man with his experience to deal with. Pirates off the coast of Somalia are regularly hijacking vessels. Wouldn’t his time be better spent concentrating on immediate problems like these, rather than talking to politicians and think tanks about the importance of climate change?