Taxation

Comments are off for this post

The Public Accounts Committee has released a new report today looking at how the HMRC works to raise tax from large companies. They have found a number of weaknesses and say that they “have serious concerns that large companies are treated more favourably by the Department than other taxpayers.” Looking at specific cases has led the Committee to conclude that there “needs to be proper separation between the negotiation of tax settlements and the authorization of such settlements. And the Department must address issues of accountability so that Parliament and the public can be satisfied that best value is secured.”

The TaxPayers’ Alliance has produced research on unpaid tax and the complexity of the tax system (along with a video showing the world’s fastest speaker trying to read the tax code) which makes its administration more challenging. Today Matthew Sinclair, Director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, responded:

“This report again calls into question whether HMRC is fit for purpose. Ordinary taxpayers often feel that they are treated harshly when they make genuine mistakes because of our complicated tax system; the PAC findings will increase suspicions that big businesses are treated differently. The taxman will always struggle to effectively enforce a tax code that is one of the longest and most complicated in the world and the only way to ensure that more individuals and big businesses pay their fair share is to simplify the system and reduce the number of loopholes. There may be times when confidentiality is needed, but it would be unacceptable if HMRC was using this as an excuse to avoid being completely transparent about its decisions.”

Pressure continues to grow for action to cut taxpayer funding of trade unions

Dec 19th, 2011

by Jonathan Isaby.

Comments are off for this post

A new dossier of evidence demonstrating how trade unions are abusing the subsidies they get from the taxpayer has today been published by Witham MP, Priti Patel.

Citing our recent research note, Taxpayer funding of trade unions 2011, Ms Patel’s dossier – as previewed over the weekend in the Sunday Express – makes the case for urgent reforms.

Ms Patel has uncovered:

Examples of how unions encourage their members to abuse taxpayer-funded facility time by stretching the definition of what counts as legitimate union activity. She cites a Unison guide to facility time which instructs its members: “…Although you’re entitled to unpaid time off to attend conference, branch meetings, etc., why not try to get those activities covered by your paid time off?”;
Examples of trade unionists with public sector jobs using taxpayer-funded time for political campaigns against the cuts being implemented by the Government. Cases highlighted in the dossier include a PCS union official abusing taxpayer-funded resources to promote the “Blackpool Against the Cuts” campaign (alongside evidence that the PCS trade union has formally advised its reps to abuse facility time);
How the taxpayer subsidy to the unions is increased further when councils or other public sector organisations provide them with free office space. Camden Council has been providing free of charge a disused council building for nine taxpayer-funded union officials organising anti-cuts campaigns – resources worth hundreds of thousands of pounds;
Abuse of the money given to unions by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills via the Union Learning Fund – with over £20,000 now being repaid by the TUC, by order of the Skills Minister, after the cash was found to have been used to publish politically inappropriate material;
Details of the millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money channelled to unions through European Union funds, some of which is merely paying to train trade unionists in organising and activism, and for which they are then awarded Diplomas and Certificates.

Ms Patel’s dossier – which you can download here – has been passed to David Cameron and Cabinet Office Minister, Francis Maude, for further consideration and is an extremely valuable contribution to the ongoing debate about taxpayer funding of trade unions.

The TaxPayers’ Alliance will continue to make the point that while it is perfectly legitimate for trade unions to represent their members’ interests, it is simply unfair and wrong that taxpayers’ money should be subsidising them: all union activities should be funded by their members’ subscriptions.

Pressure continues to grow for action to cut taxpayer funding of trade unions

Dec 19th, 2011

by Jonathan Isaby.

Comments are off for this post

A new dossier of evidence demonstrating how trade unions are abusing the subsidies they get from the taxpayer has today been published by Witham MP, Priti Patel.

Citing our recent research note, Taxpayer funding of trade unions 2011, Ms Patel’s dossier – as previewed over the weekend in the Sunday Express – makes the case for urgent reforms.

Ms Patel has uncovered:

Examples of how unions encourage their members to abuse taxpayer-funded facility time by stretching the definition of what counts as legitimate union activity. She cites a Unison guide to facility time which instructs its members: “…Although you’re entitled to unpaid time off to attend conference, branch meetings, etc., why not try to get those activities covered by your paid time off?”;
Examples of trade unionists with public sector jobs using taxpayer-funded time for political campaigns against the cuts being implemented by the Government. Cases highlighted in the dossier include a PCS union official abusing taxpayer-funded resources to promote the “Blackpool Against the Cuts” campaign (alongside evidence that the PCS trade union has formally advised its reps to abuse facility time);
How the taxpayer subsidy to the unions is increased further when councils or other public sector organisations provide them with free office space. Camden Council has been providing free of charge a disused council building for nine taxpayer-funded union officials organising anti-cuts campaigns – resources worth hundreds of thousands of pounds;
Abuse of the money given to unions by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills via the Union Learning Fund – with over £20,000 now being repaid by the TUC, by order of the Skills Minister, after the cash was found to have been used to publish politically inappropriate material;
Details of the millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money channelled to unions through European Union funds, some of which is merely paying to train trade unionists in organising and activism, and for which they are then awarded Diplomas and Certificates.

Recent coverage of Let them eat carbon

Dec 17th, 2011

Comments are off for this post

Over the last week we have seen the end of the Durban summit and a new report from the Committee on Climate Change, trying to play down the extent climate policies are set to push up energy prices. At the TaxPayers’ Alliance, we’ve been arguing online and in the media that the Government shouldn’t ignore the pressure being placed on families and needs to put in place reforms to give families a better deal, building on the case set out in Let them eat carbon. Here is a round-up:

In the immediate aftermath I wrote for the ConservativeHome and Spectator websites about how little progress the Durban summit had made, and the implications for policy here.
I debated climate policy in the aftermath of the Committee on Climate Change report and the Durban summit with environmentalist and Guardian columnist George Monbiot on Radio 4′s flagship Today programme. The debate is available online.
I looked at the Committee on Climate Change report and found that many of the assumptions hadn’t been made clear, but what we could see suggested there were some problems. I set out the issues with the quango producing such an opaque report in an article for the Spectator website.
Finally, yesterday I wrote for this website that, as the dust settled after the Durban summit, it was clear that the EU strategy hadn’t worked. We are left pressing ahead unilaterally to no end.

It is clearer than ever that climate policy needs to change. We will keep making the case.

A little festive cheer from Nottingham

Dec 16th, 2011

by Anna Bailey.

Comments are off for this post

Christmas greetings from the Midlands, where long-suffering Nottingham taxpayers have been brought a little bit of festive cheer. Nottingham City Council has opted for more frugal celebrations after last year’s splurge on a £5,000 Christmas tree for its headquarters building.

According to the Nottingham Post the 2010 tree was rented for just 35 days, meaning it cost nearly £143 per day. Now where would Nottingham City Council, which likes to tell us it is too cash-strapped to publish its spending over £500 like every other council in the country, get that kind of money to burn?

At the time, council leader Jon Collins rushed to tell his Twitter followers that the tree was sponsored and so did not cost Nottingham taxpayers a penny. But a recent Freedom of Information request revealed that only £550 of sponsorship was received. The council’s FOI response claimed that this was used to buy presents for needy children, but the council later told the Nottingham Post that this was incorrect and the £550 was actually set against the cost of the tree (meaning that Nottingham taxpayers footed the bill for the remaining £4,450).

Confused? Probably not as confused as NCC’s Information Governance staff at the misinformation apparently fed to them by their council colleagues. If the council’s long-winded sign-off procedure for FOIs – inadvertently revealed by a council worker earlier this year to cause delays to issuing responses – isn’t picking up fundamental errors like this, what is it doing?

Nevertheless, thank goodness for Freedom of Information or cases like this might never be exposed in the first place. Not to mention that the leader of Nottingham City Council might never find out what his council is actually spending. Except Mr Collins doesn’t like FOI much. A few months ago he tweeted that FOIs cost the council £500,000 per year, and that ‘you could save a lot of services with that’.

Is that figure any more accurate than his Christmas tree tweet? Not if the council’s accounts are anything to go by. In 2010/11 the council’s Information Governance department spent £236,000, actually coming in under budget by nearly £67,000. And remember that FOI is only one of Information Governance’s responsibilities, along with data protection, access to personal data and licences for public sector information. Of course, this figure does not include the cost to other departments of gathering data for FOI requests. But it is hard to believe that that cost amounts to more than the entire budget of the Information Governance department.

After all the negative publicity surrounding the infamous giant tree in the local press, Nottingham City Council has decided to do without a similar tree this year. A small victory for Nottingham taxpayers brought about by a simple FOI request. Now how much more money could be saved if the council actually answered all the FOI requests it receives, rather than using every means possible to block and delay them?

Parking anger in Yarm

Dec 16th, 2011

Comments are off for this post

As we enter the festive season, Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council has given residents and businesses in Yarm a very unwelcome early Christmas present. This council is another in the long list of councils who think introducing parking charges is a great revenue raising opportunity. They just assume that everyone will cough up and not change their shopping and driving habits. They only have to look at examples we have quoted from around the country to know this is not true.

“An ignorant and short-sighted decision that seems solely about raising money for the council regardless of the impact on Yarm High Street”, is what one resident said on a local newspaper’s website. Unsurprisingly the council disagrees, and said pay and display will give more flexibility to motorists! As defences go, that must be the most bizarre one I’ve heard all year. All pay and display will do is take money out of the local economy to fill the council’s coffers, but I guess when you are desperate you will say anything to justify your position.

When I wrote about parking issues last week, I suggested councillors and council officers should try running a small business for a week. They should experience first hand what it’s like being a small independent trader. They may then appreciate how difficult it is trading in the current economic climate. It looks like Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council is another to add to the list of councils who fail to appreciate just how much parking charges can wreck the local economy.

What does the Durban summit last weekend mean for taxpayers?

Dec 16th, 2011

Comments are off for this post

Early last Sunday morning Connie Hedegaard, the European Commissioner for Climate Action, wrote on Twitter that: “We made it. EU’s strategy worked.” It was the end of another climate summit in Durban where the parties had been starkly divided into two camps: the European Union and lots of smaller countries pushing for rapid decarbonisation; and major emitters like the United States, China and India who were unable and unwilling to commit to binding limitations on their own emissions. The same divisions meant that Copenhagen collapsed in acrimony and the negotiators at Cancun limited themselves to addressing details. Was it really the “breakthrough” that Hedegaard claimed? Did the EU’s strategy really “work” and secure the global deal to ration greenhouse gas emissions they want?

Taken for a ride...

No. The EU’s negotiators were willing to accept new commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, which doesn’t include the major emitters. But in return they initially wanted all the parties to commit to agreeing a legally binding deal covering everyone by 2015. The major emitters wouldn’t do that and so it looked like the talks were going to break down. Instead they got creative with the language and now the major emitters are only committed to an “outcome with legal force”.

Enthusiasts in Europe can claim that is basically the same thing, but the reality is that just about anything can be described as “an outcome with legal force”. If the major emitters don’t want a legally binding deal to limit their emissions in 2015, nothing will stop them rejecting it. That is why they would sign a deal with the vaguer language but not when it was more specific.

So the EU has committed itself to emissions cuts in return for a Durban Platform that pledges a deal by 2015, but that Platform isn’t made of much stronger stuff than the Bali Roadmap back in 2007 which pledged a deal by 2009. That certainly isn’t a triumph. It would be better described as a disastrous performance if it wasn’t for the fact that the EU was planning on going ahead unilaterally anyway with the existing 2020 targets. The result in Durban was another breakdown, not a breakthrough.

Canada added to the environmentalist gloom by dropping out of the Kyoto Protocol on Monday. Their Environment Minister Peter Kent said that complying would mean the equivalent of taking every motor vehicle in Canada off the roads, or shutting down their entire agricultural sector and cutting the heat off in residential, industrial and commercial buildings. The leader of the Canadian Green Party was apparently almost in tears at a press conference responding to the announcement but there is no sign ordinary Canadians care much either way.

The European Union is now the only major economic area still committed to rationing fossil fuel energy. It has been going ahead without the largest emitters taking equivalent action since the Kyoto Protocol came into effect in 2005. Even if a new deal is built on the Durban Platform it won’t start until 2020. Our leaders have already pressed ahead for six years in the vain hope a global deal was just around the corner. There is nothing to show for it. The global increase in emissions in 2010 was, according to the US Department of Energy, the largest ever. Can politicians here really sustain that for almost another decade?

While negotiators in Durban were committing their countries to expensive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, others in Brussels were trying to save the euro. If they are going to have any chance, they will need to credibly commit to fiscal austerity. And that will be much harder if low and middle income families are struggling to pay higher energy bills, at the same time as benefits are cut or taxes are hiked. If Europe could ever afford a vain attempt to lead the world into cutting greenhouse gas emissions, it can’t now.

That is why many countries are making cuts in some particularly inefficient climate policies. Britain recently cut subsidies for small solar installations under the feed-in tariff scheme roughly in half, from 43p per kWh to a still extravagant 21p per kWh. Environmentalists and lobbyists are up in arms but the Government insist it is needed to keep feed-in tariffs affordable.

Lots of other countries from Spain to the Czech Republic have taken similar steps, but they need to go further and consider a more realistic approach to climate policy overall. Right now too many European politicians are still trying to work out what their allotted share of the burden would be if some disinterested world Government set climate policy. Instead they should be asking what their country can usefully do in the real world, where even when treaties can be arranged they are invariably limited and messy products of self-interested negotiation.

Britain is a good example. Given that less than two per cent of world emissions are produced here we can make a limited contribution by cutting the amount we emit. But we do still have significant financial and technical resources at our disposal. Instead of investing £200 billion in our energy sector alone, as Citigroup argue we would need to in order to meet environmental targets, squandering a large part of it on exorbitantly expensive offshore wind turbines, why not put a far smaller amount of money into directly supporting research that can make low carbon energy more affordable?

Durban definitely wasn’t an example of the EU’s approach to climate policy working, quite the opposite. The only question now is whether or not the politicians are honest enough to admit it, and flexible enough to consider other options.

What does the Durban summit last weekend mean for taxpayers?

Dec 16th, 2011

Click here to read the full report including a full breakdown of local Police Authorities

Comments are off for this post

Taken for a ride...

New Research: High costs of unaccountable police authorities revealed

Dec 16th, 2011

by Robert Oxley.

Comments are off for this post

The TaxPayers’ Alliance today reveals that, on average, 9 per cent of each Police Authority’s budget is spent on the Chief Executive’s salary and pension – including an average salary of £90,000 – and members’ allowances cost over £10 million in 2009/10.

Click here to read the full report including a full breakdown of local Police Authorities

The Government plans to replace the current Police Authority structure with local elected Commissioners. They would set targets for forces and control their own budgets. Some have claimed that this change will be expensive but it is important to look at the context and the fact that there are already significant costs with the current arrangements.

The key findings of this research are:

In 2009-10, the total bill for members’ allowances was over £10 million, with an average payment to members of £14,100
In 2009-10, the average salary for a Police Authority Chief Executive was £90,000;with pension payments, this increases to nearly £103,000
Police Authority budgets averaged £1.7 million in 2009-10
On average, 9 per cent of an Authority’s budget was spent on the salary and
pension of the Chief Executive
The average number of staff at a Police Authority was 13 in 2009-10
Police Authorities paid £1.3 million in subscriptions to the Association of Police Authorities in 2009

Click here to read the full report including a full breakdown of local Police Authorities

Matthew Sinclair, Director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said:

“Police Authority Chief Executives enjoy generous pay and perks at taxpayers’ expense. But despite the cost, Police Authorities aren’t properly accountable to the public who pay for them. The introduction of elected police commissioners will ensure that the police are taken to task by elected representatives, and have to respond to the public’s priorities, which doesn’t always happen under the current system. There will be a cost but that is far better than sticking with the status quo. “

New Research: High costs of unaccountable police authorities revealed

Dec 16th, 2011

by Robert Oxley.

Comments are off for this post

Click here to read the full report including a full breakdown of local Police Authorities

The key findings of this research are:

In 2009-10, the total bill for members’ allowances was over £10 million, with an average payment to members of £14,100
In 2009-10, the average salary for a Police Authority Chief Executive was £90,000;with pension payments, this increases to nearly £103,000
Police Authority budgets averaged £1.7 million in 2009-10
On average, 9 per cent of an Authority’s budget was spent on the salary and
pension of the Chief Executive
The average number of staff at a Police Authority was 13 in 2009-10
Police Authorities paid £1.3 million in subscriptions to the Association of Police Authorities in 2009

Matthew Sinclair, Director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said:

Tax cut in South Oxfordshire

Dec 15th, 2011

by Darren Rutland.

Comments are off for this post

South Oxfordshire district council are proposing to cut council tax next year by 2.5 per cent. The Henley Standard says that this would reduce the amount paid by a typical Band D taxpayer from £123.73 to £120.64. The council are able to do this because they have outsourced some services, and have also been sharing services with Vale of White Horse District Council since 2008.

Staff are shared between the two authorities, and most services are integrated. This has included shared terms and conditions for staff, and joint department managers between the two councils. Of course, each authority provides different services depending on their local area, but the way they have co-ordinated their operations have allowed South Oxfordshire to pass on the savings to local residents.

This is good news. Individuals have to make savings to their own budgets and councils have to cut back too; why shouldn’t councils look to ease the pressure on their residents? It was disappointing to see Brighton and Hove Council reject central government’s incentive to freeze council tax last week, opting instead to increase it by 3.5 per cent. Their refusal to do so led to Brighton and Hove Council’s Cabinet Member for Finance and Central Services, Cllr Jason Kitcat, being named as the TPA’s November’s Pinhead of the Month. While it’s good to see most local authorities have accepted the freeze, it is even more encouraging to see councils go one step further and reduce council tax for their residents.

Earlier this week, Hammersmith & Fulham council announced they are to cut council tax next year by 3.75 per cent. Due to a variety of cost-cutting measures, including combining services with Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea councils, they have been able to cut management and overhead costs by half. As a result they are able to cut their council tax for the fifth time in six years. It is disappointing that more local authorities do not look to pass on savings to residents through lower council tax bills.. Many could start by ending recruitment to non-jobs, and our research archive contains a whole host of other savings to be made.

Local authorities across the country should take a closer look at tax-cutting councils to see how it can be done, even with necessary spending reductions.

Public Data Corporation Killed

Dec 15th, 2011

by Dominique Lazanski.

Comments are off for this post

Today I attended the Government’s meeting on their open data plan. The measures were announced in the Autumn Statement and include opening up more data, allowing for the releasing of transport and health data as a priority, and the creation of the Open Data Institute. The Government made even more of a commitment to open already created data that it holds in various forms. This is good news for many reasons, including public service efficiency and the growth of the innovation economy.

The most important aspect of the Autumn Statement was the omission of the Public Data Corporation. A consultation was launched late in the summer to discuss the proposal to set up a fee charging organisation which would aggregate government data and charge for open data which we the taxpayers have already paid for. The Public Data Corporation proposal would also seek out private sector investment to eventually privatise a public body with open data. There were many other details discussed in this consultation, but the bottom line was that the government sought a way to seek direct revenue from open data instead of indirect revenue through innovation of free and freely available open data.

In our consultation response we made the argument for the free release of open data and discussed the fact that the Public Data Corporation did not need to be created. We cited a number of compelling case studies in our argument – further details can be found in our report here.

So today at the Government meeting Francis Maude said that the government itself is moving away from the charging model proposed in the Public Data Corporation consultation. Instead, the Open Data Institute has been created to bring together academia, public sector, and private enterprises so that new ways of opening up data can be discussed and implemented. We will need to keep close watch and make sure that any vestiges of the Public Data Corporation don’t creep into the Open Data Institute or the newly announced Open Data Group. But for now the Public Data Corporation will not be created.

Non-job of the week

Dec 15th, 2011

Click here to read the full report, including a breakdown by council

Comments are off for this post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filton Council’s costly container

Dec 14th, 2011

by Tim Newark.

Comments are off for this post

Filton Town Council continues to be troubled by a mysterious container. Sited opposite the council’s Cycle Speedway track, it costs the taxpayer £600 a year to rent and yet no one knows exactly what is inside it. The puzzling container was mentioned at a recent cost cutting meeting. Filton Councillor Roger Hutchinson claimed it contained pedal Go Karts as part of an intended recreational fitness initiative. This scheme, however, has failed to excite the public and in the last year the Go Karts raised only £60 against an expected revenue of £1000. The container has cost the Filton taxpayer £3000 in rent so far.

The Filton container controversy has sparked doubts about the value to the taxpayer of the nearby Cycle Speedway track completed in 2006. Costing approximately £50,000, the track has been barely used by locals and is only occasionally utilised by clubs outside the area, leaving it unused for 350 days a year. Councillor Hutchinson, who also happens to be Filton Cycle Speedway Secretary, explains on its website that the track was built in an effort to re-introduce the sport of Cycle Speedway to the Greater Bristol area, but sadly the club has hit difficulties in recent years and has failed to enter the speedway league in the last two seasons.

A leisure centre manager, however, disagrees with Cllr Hutchinson and says that the costly container holds a large amount of cycle club equipment, for which the club members pay no fee towards its storage. When a recent boules competition spilled over onto the controversial cycle track that, in turn, ignited another debate about Filton Council’s loose use of taxpayers’ money

The latest Filton council uproar concerned a boules court being used regularly by players for free. Recently, the court was given a new sign costing the taxpayer £300 and yet no fee is charged for using it, unlike other council provided sports facilities. In a lively debate at a packed council meeting, one councillor argued ‘There was no point on spending money on looking after the courts if you don’t get income in return.’ Quite, but at least it’s being used…

Tim Newark, Bath and South-West TaxPayers’ Alliance

New Research: TPA estimates 7,852 council staff suspended for 2,500 working years

Dec 14th, 2011

by Robert Oxley.

Comments are off for this post

The TaxPayers’ Alliance estimates that around 7,852 council staff could have been suspended for a total of 2,500 working years since 2009. The is a projection based on a sample of 78 authorities in the Midlands which were asked how much had been spent paying the salaries of employees suspended on full pay as well as detailing the reasons they were ordered off work.

Click here for the full press release

The key findings of this research are:

Of the 78 councils across the Midlands, 69 responded and of these: 57 paid suspended employees around £8 million since April 2009. Six councils refused to provide any information, twelve did not provide salary details, one did not respond to our request and two did not record requested details of any suspended staff.
Since April 2009, there have been 1,328 members of staff suspended on full pay across the Midlands, totalling more than 100,000 days. The average suspension lasted 76 working days.
If these figures were replicated nationally in line with the spending power of Councils in the Midlands, we estimate that since April 2009 7,852 staff would have been suspended for a total of 594,816 days, or almost 2,500 working years.
In 876 cases the outcome was disclosed. Of these 47 per cent left the organisation, 45 per cent were retained and 8 per cent of cases are on-going.
Leicester City Council paid out the most in salaries to suspended staff at almost £1.5 million for a total of 107 incidents. This is the equivalent to 16,000 working days.
Nottinghamshire Council had 167 cases of suspension since April 2009, the highestin the Midlands, but refused to provide any further information.
78 employees across the Midlands were suspended on full pay for more than 12 months (based on a 240 working day year).
A manager on over £67,000 a year at Newark and Sherwood Council was suspended for 77 days before leaving the authority.
An employee of Leicester City Council on a salary of £48,642 was suspended for 872 days. The total wages paid during suspension was in excess of £176,000. This was the largest amount paid during suspension.
An employee at Lincolnshire Council on a salary of almost £65,000 a year received over £92,505 during a suspension of 523 days, before being dismissed. An employee of Nottingham City Council was suspended for 950 days – almost four years. However, no cost was provided.
At least 21 cases across the Midlands resulted in criminal charges. Of these, 18 members of staff did not continue in their employment, and were paid over£170,000 while suspended.
Of the 1,328 recorded cases of suspension, two were for sleeping whilst on duty and two for having other employment whilst on sick leave from the council. A further 15 cases were for theft including theft from service users and one incident of theft from the council and misuse of a council vehicle.
There were nine recorded cases of sexual misconduct, assault and/or harassment. There were an additional 13 cases of assault and two involving violence. There was also one alleged kidnap.

Matthew Sinclair, Director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said:

“Taxpayers will be shocked that so many employees were paid for months on end whilst suspended and waiting for a decision about their future. This isn’t good for taxpayers, the council or the individual involved. Local authorities must ensure that action is taken and suspensions are dealt with swiftly and cases don’t drag on, leaving taxpayers picking up the bill for staff who are off work for long periods and temps to cover their absence.”

Click here to read the full report, including a breakdown by council

Click here for the full press release

Hammersmith & Fulham Cuts Tax

Dec 13th, 2011

by Paul Harwood.

Comments are off for this post

Hammersmith & Fulham council (H&F) has announced that they are proposing to cut council tax next year by 3.75 per cent. This will be the fifth year in six where the council has managed to cut council tax. This saving is due to several cost cutting measures including combining services with Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea councils in order to cut management and overhead costs by half.

This tax cut will be realised without resorting to the kind of ‘bleeding stump’ approach of shutting libraries and cutting services that some councils have taken, say H&F:

“While planning to cut [council] tax, H&F is intending to freeze parking charges, keep all its libraries open, maintain weekly or even twice-weekly refuse collection and plough £1.3 million into extra town centre police. It is also one of just two councils in London offering homecare to people in the ‘greater moderate’ as well as ‘substantial’ or ‘critical’ banding.”

Further savings are to be made by selling off underused property, co-locating services among other measures in order to pay off about half the council’s debt and reduce annual interest payments.

We are pleased to see that some councils are giving taxpayers a break. The dramatic savings that H&F are proposing show that other councils can follow suit with tax cuts by cutting out waste. Sharing services can be a sensible way forward, too. It’s a shame that other councils are choosing to increase council tax, like Brighton & Hove who are looking to impose a 3.5 per cent hike.

The welcome move by the Department of Communities and Local Government to use money generated through other taxes to help councils freeze council tax bills cannot compete with genuine tax cuts. Funding from central government grants may be falling but since council tax has doubled over the last ten years, there is plenty of space for efficiency savings and for more creative solutions.

Cllr Stephen Greenhalgh, Leader of Hammersmith and Fulham council, spoke at a TaxPayers’ Alliance fringe event at the 2011 Conservative Party Conference. He explained the position they were in when they took over and how things have changed since then. Council tax has fallen from one of the highest levels in the country to one of the lowest, while debt levels have been reduced at the same time.

Other councils should look at how tax cuts across the country have been achieved and copy good ideas.

TPA reaction to Government proposals on the recall of MPs

Dec 13th, 2011

by The TaxPayers' Alliance.

Comments are off for this post

Responding to the Goverment’s Recall of MPs Draft Bill, Matthew Sinclair, Director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said:

“The public were promised that they would be given the power to kick out bad MPs but now we find out that isn’t really happening. So long as they have enough friends in Parliament, and avoid doing anything so flagrant it actually gets them sent to prison, they will be safe from these toothless provisions for a recall. Outside of elections every four or five years MPs are still going to answer only to themselves, or the police in the most extreme cases, and not to their constituents. Many voters will feel let down as the Government buries serious reforms that were promised after the expenses scandal.”

TPA reaction to Government proposals on the recall of MPs

Dec 13th, 2011

by The TaxPayers' Alliance.

Comments are off for this post

Responding to the Goverment’s Recall of MPs Draft Bill, Matthew Sinclair, Director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said:

Rotherham councillors booted out

Dec 12th, 2011

Comments are off for this post

How much work do your councillors do? This is a question being asked in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, today. All councillors in Rotherham are paid an annual allowance of £12,130. This is to compensate them for their time, and for any income lost from their normal business activities or job whilst fulfilling their council duties. Yet what about councillors who don’t do any work but continue to claim allowances?

John Gamble was elected to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (RMBC) in May 2008. Mr Gamble is something of a Scarlet Pimpernel. He rarely attended meetings, and the last one he did attend was a full council meeting at the beginning of February this year – ten months ago. According the Local Government Act 1972, a councillor is automatically disqualified if he/she fails to attend any meeting for six months. As Mr Gamble did not give any reasons for his absences, such as ill health, this disqualification should have taken place in August.

Instead, RMBC has let this drag on a further four months until they finally took action. As a result of this inertia, Rotherham council taxpayers are over £4K out of pocket, although with such a poor attendance record since he was elected, it could be argued they were out of pocket the moment he was sworn in.

Attendance at meetings is one of the few ways we can judge a councillor’s performance, but councillors will also point to the other work they do in their communities. A supporter has told me that Mr Gamble did not even hold surgeries. Looking at the council’s website, this seems to be true. On his profile page, under the heading of ‘Surgery Details’, nothing is listed.

I contacted RMBC to find out if we are going to get our money back for the last four months when he shouldn’t have been a councillor. I am still waiting for an answer, but this is not the only Rotherham councillor who has acted in a similar way,

In March this year, former Tory councillor, Gavin Sharp resigned his seat just a few weeks before he was due to stand for election. Since being elected in May 2007, he had been absent from 80 percent of meetings. He hadn’t attended a full council meeting since May 2009, and had made appearances at just enough meetings to allow him to receive his allowance.

According to press reports at the time, his fellow Conservative councillors tried to persuade him to stand down and asked to him to pay the money back, but without success. You would have thought that as a bank manager and magistrate, Mr Sharp would have done the right thing at the time, and it is not known if since his resignation he has paid back all or some of the money he claimed.

These two lazy, (now thankfully) former councillors pocketed money from Rotherham residents, many of whom are on low incomes, without batting an eyelid. Not that they are the only ones at fault. RMBC should have acted sooner to remove John Gamble, and the Conservative group should have taken action against Gavin Sharp.

We elect councillors to make decisions on our behalf. For them to do this, they have to attend meetings. We also elect them to represent our views. Unless they regularly meet their constituents, it is impossible for them to do that effectively. Both of them should hang their heads in shame.

Some councils double parking charges

Dec 8th, 2011

Comments are off for this post

In last week’s bulletin sent out to all our supporters, I asked for examples of increases in parking charges across the country. Many thanks to those who got in touch. (If you would like to receive our weekly bulletin, sent out every Friday, click on this link to sign-up)

It appears that many councils are planning increases, or are considering charges on evenings and weekends. Some councils regard motorists as the gift that keeps on giving, however as we have highlighted this year, some councils – Wiltshire Council in particular – have found themselves in the eye of a storm as drivers desert town and city centres to visit and shop in other places that are cheaper to park.

Brighton and Hove Council has been in the news lately because the ruling Green administration is planning to refuse the extra cash from the government to help freeze council tax. It instead plans to increase it by 3.5%. Cllr Jason Kitcat, the finance portfolio holder, was awarded our Pin Head of the Month prize in November for this action that will increase the burden on council taxpayers. But it’s not just council tax bills that will increase. Car parking increases are on the way too.

Last week the council approved to advertise price hikes of more than 100%! The Green Party has said this is to reduce congestion, improve air quality and promote the use of sustainable transport.

Not surprisingly this has been greeted with opposition. At a time when when residents, visitors and traders can least afford it, these increases would have a devastating effect. If you wish to object to these plans, you have been allowed 21 days from 29 November (the day the meeting took place) to lodge your complaint.

There are also plans to double the cost of parking in Gravesend, and introduce charges on a Saturday. Free parking on a Saturday was one of the town’s selling points, but that seems to be lost on Parking Manager, Paul Gibbons, who told the cabinet, “We seem to be the only town in the county which offers free parking on Saturdays.”

Local trader, Bob Atkinson, said, “It is disgusting what they are doing. If you really, really want to drive everyone to Bluewater, put the prices up.” There are many more comments along the same lines.

There are planned increases in Chichester, and a petition has been set-up to oppose the introduction of charges on Sundays, and Oxford City Council has introduced charges at park and ride car parks. This must be to pay for all the non-jobs they have advertised this year!

What amazes me is the reaction from some councillors. You would think they would be acutely aware of how many shops are closing in their high streets, and how difficult it is for everyone during these hard economic times. Instead they defend increases by saying ‘our charges are favourable compared to other towns in the area’. They justify increases by saying ’50p isn’t much.’ They seem to be completely divorced from reality. Perhaps they should trade places for a week with a small independent trader. Perhaps that’s the dose of reality they need.

Non-job of the week

Dec 7th, 2011