“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.

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.

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). 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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s not a pretty picture further north in West Bromwich. A controversial arts centre, ironically called The Public, eats up £2.29 million in taxpayer subsidies, and only manages to generate a profit of £58,801.

Looking at the figures, it appears very few people use this venue. One of the excuses for such a poor financial performance is ticket sales are down, but they are down from £54,850 to £34,267. In what is described as a good year, tickets sales only generated a little over £1000 a week.

Conferences generated an income of £174,893 from 240 events. In a £72 million arts centre, there must be plenty of space, so an average income of £728 per event must mean the conferences were very small.

No doubt I will be described as a Philistine for daring to criticise the arts, although anyone who knows me will tell you I am certainly not. As a musician I fully appreciate the role the arts play in our country. I have been involved with small theatre groups in the past, and they had to balance the books. If they made huge losses, they went out of business.

What appears to be happening here is no-one is taking responsibility. Taxpayers’ cash keeps rolling in – even during tough economic times – and for as long as this continues, the incentive to make this venue pay is not there.

This is a classic example of a grandiose plan gone wrong. I very much doubt there was ever a sound business case put forward for the building of this arts centre. It will have been dreamed up as something to put West Bromwich on the map. As so often happens with these examples, taxpayers are left footing an enormous bill.

I would rather have fewer venues that really succeed, are popular, and are a credit to the their town or city, than countless white elephants gobbling up our money, especially when there are many very worthwhile projects for the money to be spent on.

According to a BBC report, an amazing 20% of councils may increase council tax from next spring. This is despite the government setting aside £805 million from efficiency savings to give to councils to ease our council tax burden. 

One of the main reasons cited in the Local Government Chronicle is that councils fear a sharp rise in council tax in 2013/14, when no government assistance will be available. Hardly the most convincing argument I’ve ever heard. Why should there be a sharp rise? What would cause it? As councils find efficiency savings, they are not going to suddenly spend more from 2013.

Over the last decade we have not seen the quality of council services double, but the same cannot be said of our council tax bills. We have highlighted in many TPA reports ways councils can reduce spending.

Not accepting the government’s offer is wrong, and will unnecessarily increase the burden on families when they can least afford it. To threaten sharp rises for the following year is scaremongering, which is the last thing any of us need at this moment in time.

Today the TaxPayers’ Alliance announces the latest recipients of its monthly awards to celebrate those in power who have sought to save – and waste – taxpayers’ money.

The man, woman or organisation to be congratulated for saving public money or acting in the interests of the hard-pressed taxpayer is named the TPA’s “Pin-Up of the Month”, while whoever is found to have shown the greatest disregard for taxpayers’ cash is shamed as the TPA’s “Pinhead of the Month”.

November 2011’s Pin-Up of the Month is Martin Callanan MEP, the Conservative MEP for the North East of England who also leads his party’s delegation in Brussels.  This month he has consistently put country and constituency before loyalty to his party or the Coalition Government, most recently in his reaction to the closure of the Alcan aluminium smelter in Northumberland. It will shut as a result of soaring energy costs and punishing green taxes – an issue the TPA highlighted last week in a paper, Industrial masochism: The carbon floor price and energy intensive industry.

Mr Callanan observed that the workers being made redundant in his constituency were seeing “their livelihoods sacrificed to the obsession with all things green”, and that alongside the previous Labour administration and Brussels-inspired regulations, “our Government is partly to blame”. On the Eurozone crisis, he has given a refreshingly honest assessment of the situation, calling for Greece to default on its debt and leave the euro, whilst he has also fervently opposed any increase in the EU budget while national budgets are being cut.

Meanwhile, the TPA’s Pinhead of the Month for November is Cllr Jason Kitcat, a Green Party councillor in Brighton and Hove, where he is Cabinet member for Finance & Central Services in the Green minority administration. He has been boasting this month about his administration’s decision to refuse the Government funding which would allow for a freeze in council tax next year and to instead impose a 3.5% increase in council tax for Brighton and Hove residents.

Jonathan Isaby, Political Director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, commented:

“TheTaxPayers’ Alliance has always believed that key to delivering taxpayer value for money is exposing those in power to public scrutiny by ensuring that there is transparency and openness in how they spend our hard-earned cash. And as well as making examples of those who have shown a disregard for public money, it is important to recognise those who have tried to do the right thing by taxpayers.

“Martin Callanan has shown himself to be a doughty defender both of British interests when it comes to fighting increases in the EU Budget and also of his constituents in the North East, whose jobs are being destroyed by the Government’s misguided green taxes. It has also been refreshing to hear a British politician saying about the Greek economy what so many others are thinking but have dared not say. He is a worthy Pin-Up of the Month.

“Sadly, Jason Kitcat seems to revel in being part of the only council administration anywhere in the land currently planning to increase council tax next year, when most others are seeking to implement a freeze or a cut. Council tax payers in Brighton and Hove have every right to feel dismayed that their civic leaders have so little regard for their hard-earned cash that they want to snatch even more of it.

“Council tax virtually doubled over the last decade – without an equivalent increase in quality or quantity of services – so Cllr Kitcat and his colleagues should be looking at how to make savings from what they are already taking. Earlier in the year we found the council’s mileage rate to be 65p, rather than the HMRC-recommended level of 45p, whilst it was still employing three “European Officers” and three political advisers. Has anything been done to rectify that waste of taxpayers’ money? Other councils are cutting their coats according to their cloth: Brighton and Hove should follow suit.”

It is – and has been for many years – illegal to discriminate on the grounds of religion, gender, disability, race, sexual orientation, etc. Why does Lewes Council need to employ someone to monitor its success in order to make continuous progress with its equality duties? Legislation does change, but not to the extent that you need a full-time officer monitoring those changes.  

Lambeth Borough Council is searching for an Energy Strategy Officer on £32532 – £35055. Perhaps if it installed smart meters in all council premises it would see consumption fall and benefit from lower bills? Not that the installation of smart meters is as easy as you would think. Well, maybe to you and I it is, but not for the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC).

It is looking for a Stakeholder Engagement Manager – Smart Meters Programme, paying £46,975 – £56,597 per annum. Here’s part of the job description:

As our Stakeholder Engagement Manager, you will be responsible for planning and overseeing the programme’s engagement with the organisations outside the smart meters programme who need to be involved in the successful delivery of the programme and its benefits. These include energy suppliers and other industry players together with consumer representatives. You will need to work closely with colleagues across the programme who are dealing with these groups day-to-day through a range of working groups and bi-laterals Your challenge is to ensure that we have the right arrangements in place to capture and share feedback and to ensure consistent messages are being conveyed by the programme.

In addition, there is a need to maintain communications with a much wider group of stakeholders including MPs and Local Government, community groups and special interest groups who all need to be kept aware of developments and can help promote consumer awareness. You will also play a key role in driving forward the communications strategy for the programme, working with the energy industry to develop key messages and communication approaches and providing the main interface from the programme into DECC’s press office. You will be part of the Consumer Engagement, Roll-out and Benefits team within the programme which is headed by the Deputy Programme Director and you will be expected to be flexible and able to contribute to current priorities within the wider team.

Smart meters are an excellent way to help us reduce our bills. As I’ve said before, you can watch in real time which appliances use the most electricity. It’s not complicated, but the DECC seems to have set-up a mini-department to promote something energy companies could do every time they send us a bill!

Finally, when it comes to waste, the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) certainly does it in style. They spent nearly £70 million making nearly 1800 people redundant. I don’t know how generous those payments were, however I do know there are times when you have to take a short term hit for a long term gain. Defra says it can recoup this money in a year. So far, so good then, but it was also revealed whilst making 1800 people redundant, at the same time it was recruiting another 500 staff. You would have thought common sense would prevail and the department would assess its needs before it let staff go. Many of those who received redundancy payments could have moved to those new jobs, thus saving taxpayers money.

Please remember we pay some senior civil servants and council officers six-figure salaries because (we are told) we need the best, and if we didn’t pay them as handsomely, they would quit public service and move to the private sector. This rarely happens, and it is examples like this that prove why.

Initially my FoI request was turned down by B&NES council, but I appealed and the Head of Audit, Risk and Information stated that the original refusal by the council ‘was applied incorrectly and the requested information should be provided to you.’ The information he passed on reveals that over the last two years a total of eight B&NES councillors have been sent reminder letters for late payment of their council tax—an amount totalling £3,429.55. Three of these councillors then had to be sent a second reminder letter—at taxpayers’ expense—for a total of £491. One of these then had to have legal action taken against them to recover the outstanding tax.

Bath TPA supporters protest outside B&NES Guildhall, with Tim Newark (centre) displaying his Freedom of Information request

We are all human and we all make mistakes, but councillors are elected by us to represent us and we are entitled to expect them to act with due responsibility when it comes to paying their council tax—the money that funds our local government. They should display leadership and lead by example—not delay or avoid paying their council tax. Can they not set up a direct debit payment?

Such information is only being revealed by FoI requests and yet elsewhere in the South-West there are signs that councils are trying to close down these avenues of legitimate enquiry. North Devon Council is introducing charges for material printed as part of FoI requests, as well as charging £25 per hour for public access to environmental information.

North Devon councillors say they are levying the charges to curb excessive requests made under the information laws, but their decision comes a month after the North Devon Journal used FoI requests to reveal that some of these councillors had made late payments of council tax. ‘They are obviously smarting from this exposure,’ says Bideford TPA supporter Graham Jones, ‘particularly as they were also claiming allowances at the same time.’

Tim Newark, Bath & South-West TaxPayers’ Alliance

The recycling rate in Hull is currently at 50%. This is above the target 45%, and residents of the city are regularly told to ‘Recycle for Hull.’ Not content with this, some councillors recently went on a fact-finding mission to Oslo to see how Norwegians dispose of their rubbish. They have already visited Rotherham, Sheffield and Swindon to see how its done there.

This had angered Cllr John Fareham, the leader of the Conservative Group, as the councillors who travelled to Norway are a sub-committee of the environment scrutiny commission. This means they can only recommend. They cannot make decisions.

The cost of the trip was under £1000, but to defend it as cheap (as a councillor has done) is missing the point.

A group of councillors and officials drove to Stansted Airport, stayed overnight, then flew to and from Oslo in the same day, and then drove back to Hull. The people who can make decisions about this were not present. It has to be asked what did they find out that they couldn’t find out by research on the Internet, and a conference call on Skype?

If councillors spent our money in the same way they would spend their own, trips like this would not happen. All it achieves is two things. It makes councillors the butt of jokes, and gives the impression they have their snouts in the trough. I know that’s not true of the majority of councillors. If they don’t want to give the public that impression, they know what to do next time.

“big expenditure cuts are always hard but auditors feel that well-managed councils can deliver their 2011-12 budgets. Facing big cuts is not, on its own, enough to worry auditors. It is councils with big cuts and weak management that are at higher risk of not achieving their budget. Good financial management is helping most councils cope in 2011-12.”

The report explains three ways councils can help plug the financial gap. They can either raise charges and/or council tax, dip into reserves or make reductions in spending.

Many families are struggling, making savings to household budgets and coping with increasing fuel and energy bills. That means raising council tax or charges is unacceptable. It’s a lazy option.

At the start of the 2011-12 financial year, councils held £11.8 billion in reserves. This was equivalent to 30 per cent of total revenue spending in 2010-11. According to the report single tier and county councils held unallocated reserves equivalent to two-thirds of their central government reduction in funds, and district councils around twice the value. If earmarked reserves are included in this figure then the picture is markedly different: district councils reserves are then six times the value of their cuts and single tier and county councils nearly three times.

But when it comes to using reserves, Sir Merrick Cockell, Chair of the Local Government Association makes a strong point: that councils should only consider dipping into their reserves in extreme measures and only for use in the immediate term.

The final way of making up the shortfall – cuts to spending – is something the Audit Commission says is essential. Once falls in income and reserves are taken into account there is a net gap of 7 per cent in total income available to fund services for single tier and county councils and 8 per cent for district councils. But those figures relate to existing services. Councils must consider the difficult but necessary options of scrapping services or departments that are not a priority, or can be performed by someone else.

Besides, the report states that there was no identifiable link between the extent of impact on services and the size of cuts. It is something that is more affected by local decision making and individual council priorities, meaning many councils’ excuses don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Much of this report confirms what the TPA has been claiming for some time – that spending cuts are achievable through good management and the willingness to make difficult decisions. Councils should look through our research archive for suggestions on what to cut. Harry Phibbs’ list of 100 ways to cut council tax without cutting key services also has some excellent suggestions.

The Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) has recommended his salary rise to £100K. His deputy is also in line for a large rise, as are the city’s forty seven councillors. It has recommended some savings too, such as scrapping vice-chairs of committees and the extra cash they receive. 

All of this is happening at a time when the council is looking to make savings of £100 million in the next four years. Sir Peter said, ”It’s right that an independent panel reviews pay, rather than myself and councillors.” He also went on to say, “It’s important to remember we now also save £250,000 a year due to no longer having a chief executive.”

I can’t disagree with anything he’s said. Scrapping the chief executive’s role has proved the council can operate without one. This still isn’t a justification for whopping pay rises for him, his deputy and councillors. It sends the wrong message to those 1000 council staff who have either been made redundant or are facing redundancy.

Councillors will vote on these pay rises next week. Hopefully, they will vote against them, and send the right message to Leicester taxpayers. If you live in Leicester, contact your councillor and tell them what you think. It is hard to justify these increases at the best of times. We are not living in the best of times. We are facing the most difficult economic challenges we’ve seen for decades. Leicester taxpayers cannot afford these increases, and for councillors to accept them would be a kick in the teeth for them, and for other council employees.

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 

As Helen Drew explains, the council could have accepted £3 million from central government. However, this was turned down in favour of raising council tax to gain £4 million.  The council said that the extra £1 million was necessary in order to maintain local services. This misses the point somewhat. As many innovative councils have shown, it is possible to make savings which don’t affect local services – take Newham for example.

Admittedly it is a little disappointing that councils need an incentive to freeze council tax in the first place, but the measure is a welcome one for struggling families. However, Cllr Jason Kitcat, Cabinet Member for Finance and Central Services at Brighton & Hove City Council, wrote:

“Brighton & Hove is not the kind of place where we want to give up on the elderly, marginalised or vulnerable – those most in need of help. We believe in civilisation, in public service and the greater good.”

This rhetoric does not address how the council can make savings in other areas while prioritising key local services. They could, for example, look at cutting executive pay and leading from the top. Our Town Hall Rich List, released earlier this year, revealed that five council officers, including the Chief Executive, received total remuneration in excess of £100,000 in 2009-10. In addition, the council employs three political advisers and three European Officers. Removing unnecessary jobs like this could save the council around £225,000 per year. They could even shift mileage rate claims down to HMRC recommended levels from the 65p a mile they are at now. These bills currently cost the council over £800,000.

In addition to hitting local taxpayers with a 3.5 per cent rise in council tax, another proposed measure is to increase parking charges. Leaked papers seen by the Brighton Argus disclosed the council’s revised tariff, which will see increases of more than 100 per cent. It could cost £15 at weekends for four hours at one city centre car park – a huge increase on the current £9.50. The measures have united the local Conservative and Labour groups, both describing the idea as an unwelcome blow to business at a time when they are already struggling. As Cllr Kitcat notes, inflation is running at 5.2 per cent, so yes, times are tough, but they are also incredibly tough for taxpayers. With VAT at 20 per cent, as well as staggering fuel and energy costs, the last thing they need is an increase in council tax, and more parking charges on top.

In the BBC piece, Tony Travers of the London School of Economics suggests that the country’s first Green controlled council wants to “stand out from the crowd to show they are different”. Whether this is the case or not, they have the same responsibility as other local authorities across the country. Councils need to be making savings while at the same time giving taxpayers a break. It is safe to say this deal is anything but a good deal for taxpayers.

Click here to watch the piece on the BBC Politics Show South East (from 38m 30s, available until Sunday 13th November). On this Sunday’s programme, there will be a feature on plans to change the amount councils get from business rates.

** UPDATE** Councillor Jason Kitcat has been named the TaxPayers’ Alliance’s Pinhead of the Month for boasting this month about his administration’s decision to refuse the Government funding which would allow for a freeze in council tax next year and to instead impose a 3.5% increase in council tax for Brighton and Hove residents. **

Most reporters have focused their write-up on eye-catching cons like the local government officials tricked into paying £7m into false bank accounts. But of far greater significance are the everyday, bread-and-butter frauds that make up the vast majority of the stolen money. Of the £185 million detected, £110 million was lost in illegal claims for council tax and housing benefits, and £22 million in false claims for student and single person council tax discounts. The value of the 1,800 homes recovered from social-housing fraud stood at £266 million.

But these are just the amounts detected. It’s welcome news that detection is up 37 per cent, but from such a low starting point the rise is minuscule. £185 million is still less than 10 per cent of the total estimated local government fraud.

The figures also reveal sharp contrasts across the country, with some councils performing much worse than others in their counter-fraud efforts. The Audit Commission estimates that 1 per cent of social housing is occupied by illegal subletters and other fraudulent tenants, but the North East councils recovered only 3 properties – less than 0.002 per cent of their total housing stock. The picture isn’t good anywhere. Even if London councils did proportionally better – they clawed back 0.306 per cent of their housing stock – the Audit Commission estimates housing fraud is also more of a problem in London, with fraud accounting for 2.5 per cent of the housing stock. Some experts put the figure as high as 5 per cent.

So what can be done? Councils have responded to the report by complaining about staff and budget cuts. This ignores the highly successful measures taken by some local authorities at very low cost. Ashfield Council spent £10,000 on a whistleblowing and investigation campaign and recovered 8 council houses which would’ve cost £1.2 million to replace. Havering Council spent £40,000 investigating single-person discounts for council tax and saved £300,000. Effective anti-fraud measures can save councils money.

The Audit Commission has provided a long list of excellent measures councils can easily take to tackle fraud. They range from pooling resources to improved risk assessment. There are more general, but no less important recommendations like highlighting vulnerable spending and a ‘zero tolerance culture towards fraud’.

But these huge lost sums suggest a deeper problem with the benefits system itself. Labyrinthine layers of tax discounts and benefit hand-outs create opportunities for fraudsters and administrative difficulties for local authorities. A simpler tax and benefits system would close those opportunities, and increase the ability of local authorities to detect abuse.

It’s in taxpayers’ interest that fraud is attacked at both ends – restricting the ability of criminals to play the system, and ensuring that authorities notice fraud and consistently prosecute against it. Local government fraud forces up council tax, hinders legitimate claimants, and limits the money that can be spent on services residents want most. With the extra £50 million detected this year local councils could pay off debt, fund 700 libraries, or 11,000 care workers, for example.

Conservative councillor Paul Robinson was censured not for something he said, but for two comments he allowed to be posted on his blog. One of the comments described Mike Whitley –  a political rival of Cllr Robinson – as an “absolute idiot” and another one said that in Mark Twain’s day, troublemakers were stripped, tarred and feathered before being ridden out of town. The person who made the comment then said that was not something he was advocating. A little tongue in cheek perhaps, but nothing that can be described as defamatory. Mr Whitley took exception to those comments, and reported Cllr Robinson to ERYC.

The case should have been thrown out immediately. It was clearly vexatious, but instead ERYC – which has form when it comes to wasting our money – took this case all the way to a standards committee hearing. The cost of this is unknown, although I will be sending a freedom of information request to find out. The punishment meted out was merely a wrap on the knuckles, and under the circumstances even that was a nonsense.

This case is very worrying on many levels. We elect councillors to speak their mind. If we don’t like what they say, we always have the opportunity to kick them out next time they stand for election. Councillors who do blog about their work and local issues are opening up channels of communication and debate, which is the hallmark of a free society. We may not like what other people write about us, but it is their right to do that. If I took exception at everything that is said about me, there wouldn’t be enough hours in the day for me to get on with my job.

Cllr Robinson was not accused of saying anything defamatory himself, which is why this charade is breathtaking in its nonsense. It eats at the heart of our democracy. It turns councillors into automatons, fearing if they say anything or allow people to leave comments on their blog, they will be hauled before the standards committee. It closes down channels of communication, and makes councillors less accessible. It makes them less likely to speak out, and stand up for what they believe in.

In a press release sent to me yesterday, Cllr Robinson ended by saying:

If ever there was an example of why the Government is right to abolish this expensive and misused system, this is it. Absolutely nothing has been achieved and no difference has been made apart from the taxpayers get the bill for someone to pursue a personal, vexatious political agenda. 

He is correct. Taxpayers are being forced to pick up the tab for another nail being hammered into the coffin of democracy.

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:

This is a very welcome move, and it again proves what we have been saying that when councils share back-office functions, significant savings can be made. If is also worth noting that each council will maintain its own records, and only designated employees will be able to access information from both councils, so data protection laws are adhered to. 

The £1.3 million savings are possible because 21.4 full-time equivalent posts will no longer be needed, and those staff will be offered redeployment elsewhere. Overall in time this will bring down staff numbers, and importantly, will avoid redundancy payments as staff leave of their own accord, or retire.

I have spoken to many people over the last few months who worry that sharing services means the end to their council. They fear that it will mean the creation of super-councils who will not understand and appreciate local concerns. I hope this news will allay some of their fears. Deals like this one help protect those important, local, front-line services that many in our communities rely on.

What this deal also proves is it is possible for opposing political parties to work together. North Lincolnshire is controlled by the Conservatives, and North East Lincolnshire is controlled by Labour, where it is the largest single party. By putting political differences to one side, these councils have proved taxpayers can get a better deal for their money.

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!

Sound familiar? I’m sure many of us have done this before. The only problem if you live in Derbyshire is next year the council may have decided to switch off the street lighting, so you may need a torch to find your way back.

(but not after midnight!)

This is the latest wheeze from Derbyshire County Council to save money, although when you read comments from Cllr Simon Spencer, cabinet member for highways and transport, it seems he is more interested in reducing carbon emissions than protecting the safety and security of council taxpayers.

According to a report in the Yorkshire Post, Derbyshire County Council is responsible for 89,000 street lights, but the council has drawn up proposals to turn off 40,000 of them between midnight and 5.30 am, and around 900 permanently. Senior councillors have stated this will save 2,000 tonnes of carbon every year – the equivalent of taking 625 cars of the road. With costs of motoring rising, and drivers collectively being overtaxed by £17.9 billion a year, I imagine those 625 cars will come off the road anyway, as people struggle to pay their bills.

It is estimated switching the lights off will save £200K a year. If the council would like any suggestions on how to save that amount, it can look at our Town Hall Rich List, or its own accounts. In 2009/10, there were 103 council officers earning in excess of £50K a year. This figure rose in 2010/11, to 126, despite a pay freeze. Rather than looking inside its organisation, and reducing the tiers of management, it instead looks at ways that will impact on front-line services – and street lighting is surely one of the most basic front-line services there is.

If you want to have your say on this matter, you can do so by contacting the council. You have until 6 December.

A new website has just been launched that does just that for residents in Hull. With a few clicks of the mouse, you can find spending details in areas that most interest you. This makes the job of an armchair auditor much easier. Let me give you two practical examples. 

In April, I wrote about the demise of ‘Hull in Print’ – Hull City Council’s newspaper. Using this website, in under a minute I found out that from March to August, taxpayers funded this newspaper by £45,048.

With a few clicks of a mouse, I found out that from 1 March – 31 August this year, the council made a total of 2014 payments totalling £1,197,927 in council tax computer refunds. Why this is, I don’t know, but it’s very easy for me to send a freedom of information request to find out. Without this website, it would have been much more difficult to spot this information, never mind collate all the figures.

The website has nothing to do with Hull City Council, although the council must be congratulated for publishing all spending online – not just spending above £500. It has been created by a member of the public called Adam Jennison. Adam is to be congratulated for doing this. It is a valuable tool for taxpayers who can easily find out how their money is spent. It is also useful for the council itself, as well as local businesses who may be able to spot an opening in the market and deliver services at a better rate.

As this program can be adapted for use across the country, all councils can be covered. If this was so, all of us would be in a better position to scrutinise them more effectively.

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

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

Here are just a few of their claims:

•  The chief executive of Hackney council spent £6,000 on flights to the 2008 Beijing Olympics for “training” to which he flew business class.

• Colin Hilton, former chief executive at Liverpool City council, spent £1,152 taking colleagues to a sold out Coldplay concert.

• Andrew Taylor, chief executive of Lincoln City Council charged more than £4,000 to his card for flights to Beijing, Frankfurt and Krakow for his assistant, the mayor and his wife. Other items he charged for included £2.17 mini-bar bill and a cash withdrawal of £362.77 which was classified as “unidentified expenditure” when asked by the Telegraph.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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