24plusnews.co.uk Rotating Header Image

Quangos

Non-job of the week

Oct 5th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

Former cabinet minister, John Redwood, said on his blog that he nearly choked on his coffee when he looked at the appointments section of a leading newspaper. Some of the public sector jobs on offer even surprised him. We may have been promised a bonfire of the quangos, but the vast majority are still there, and offering very generous remuneration packages. Mr Redwood highlighted a few, however this one really caught my attention.

The Marine Management Office (MMO) is looking for a new chief executive, paying £110K a year plus a bonus of up to 10%. The job advert says this is a pivotal, high profile role. This is so pivotal, and so high profile that I couldn’t tell you who the last chief executive was!

Non-Job of the WeekThe fishing quotas we have are set by the EU, yet the MMO states it ‘enables sustainable development in English waters’. It’s job is to ‘plan, regulate and license activity in the marine area.’ So we have an army of bureaucrats in Brussels regulating the fishing industry, and another quango here too doing what must be some duplication of work. It’s amazing that as soon as you appoint a chief executive of a quango, no matter how small or large it is, a six-figure salary automatically comes as part of the prize.

The Tenants Services Authority (TSA) is the regulator for social housing. At the beginning of last year, it was revealed in the News of the World that in the last year the TSA had received 396 complaints from members of the public about their landlords. It passed 384 to other authorities, and dealt with 12 themselves. Hardly run of their feet, were they? Despite this lack of work, the chief executive still managed to pick-up a total remuneration package of £196,906 in 2009/10. The most recent accounts reveals the amount of cases it received certainly rose. There were 1203, but when you take a look at how much work was passed on to other agencies (look at the bottom of page 12), you can see that life in the TSA is not a helter-skelter existence.

Despite this, although the chief executive’s salary has reduced, his total remuneration was still £171,157.

Let me make it clear, if tenants do have a legitimate complaint against their landlord, they have a right to get the complaint investigated. But does it really need a quango to do it? Does it really need a chief executive on a more than generous salary, plus bonus, plus a gold plated pension?

There is still much fat to trim.

 




  

			

		

		
				
		

			
			
Civil Servants get their school report

			
			

				Aug 3rd, 2011
				
by Robert Oxley. 

				Comments are off for this post							

			
			

								
It’s the summer holidays for a lot of people, the children are out of school and MPs are on recess (I’m sure there are a few jokes to be made with that comparison). The end of the school term was always something to look forward to, six weeks of summer and driving the parents crazy, but for children across the land it also meant your school report. In it you would read about things that you did well that year and things that you “must try harder on”. So with this in mind, I have decided to do a mini-school report on the Government and its policy towards civil servants. The pay as well as the number of civil servants and senior executives of non-governmental public bodies (quangos to you and me) have been in the news recently so let’s have see how the issue is progressing.




First is the news last week that the Government had been forced by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to disclose the pay details of 28 highly-paid civil servants and quango chiefs who had previously resisted the moves to disclose the details of their pay packages. I blogged on this in my first post for the TPA, at the time I called for the publication of top pay packages to be automatic. The fact that it took the ICO to force the Government’s hand (although I secretly suspect they were glad of it) means they only get a C plus for this. They got the result in the end but it took far too long getting there.


Image via rich115 on flickr
On Monday the FT ran a piece on the number of new pay deals over £150,000 that the Government had approved. There were two bits of disappointing news: the fact that the Government had approved what appear to be nearly 40 new pay deals worth more than £150k, and that George Osborne didn’t seem to want to tell us about the ones that he had turned down. Sorry George, but that’s a big fat D minus for that one. The Government should be automatically publishing the details of top earners including the salary packages that they have rejected. Transparency on this issue is important; it allows us to see the workings behind the rhetoric and if an organisation’s pay agenda is in line with Government policy.


But it looks like someone might have been listening; yesterday the Government published the full list of senior officials that earn more than £150,000. You can see the list here. The Cabinet office were quick to highlight that the number of civil servants and quango bosses earning more that 150k had been cut by 50, a sure sign that they – and Whitehall – were taking austerity seriously. For that good work, the Cabinet Office gets a B plus for achievement. If they want to achieve an A grade they need to make the publishing process automatic, continue to reduce the number of civil servant earning more than 150k and make the information easier to find.


Unfortunately the rest of the class has not been doing so well. The news this morning is that, despite the Coalition’s promise for a civil service recruitment freeze, a series of parliamentary questions from John redwood MP have revealed that the rest Whitehall have not been listening to the teacher.  The Mail has the scoop that, despite the Government policy to halt recruitment in Whitehall, Government departments and quangos have taken on over 4,500 new staff – far more than have been made redundant in the same time. Even more aggravating, the figures reveal that quangos such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which should be scrapped altogether, have been able to take on new staff.


TPA Chief Executive Matthew Elliott said in response to the news, “these figures will reinforce taxpayers’ feelings that many in Whitehall believe they can continue on as if it’s business as usual.”


Whitehall cannot be allowed to carry on as normal while taxpayers and businesses up and down the country have to adjust to austerity. The bloated machinery of the civil service and pointless quangos cannot be immune to the austerity drive and moves towards leaner, more efficient government.


This revelation does not bode well for Whitehall or the Coalition’s school report. They need to go back, do their homework and take the test again. It’s time that the Government deliver on its promise of a recruitment freeze as part of its efforts to tackle the deficit. If not, voters will offer their own assessment in 2015, and the Coalition might not like what they have to say.



  

			

		

		
				
		

			
			
Civil Servants get their school report

			
			

				Aug 3rd, 2011
				
by Robert Oxley. 

				Comments are off for this post							

			
			

								
It’s the summer holidays for a lot of people, the children are out of school and MPs are on recess (I’m sure there are a few jokes to be made with that comparison). The end of the school term was always something to look forward to, six weeks of summer and driving the parents crazy, but for children across the land it also meant your school report. In it you would read about things that you did well that year and things that you “must try harder on”. So with this in mind, I have decided to do a mini-school report on the Government and its policy towards civil servants. The pay as well as the number of civil servants and senior executives of non-governmental public bodies (quangos to you and me) have been in the news recently so let’s have see how the issue is progressing.




First is the news last week that the Government had been forced by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to disclose the pay details of 28 highly-paid civil servants and quango chiefs who had previously resisted the moves to disclose the details of their pay packages. I blogged on this in my first post for the TPA, at the time I called for the publication of top pay packages to be automatic. The fact that it took the ICO to force the Government’s hand (although I secretly suspect they were glad of it) means they only get a C plus for this. They got the result in the end but it took far too long getting there.


Image via rich115 on flickr
On Monday the FT ran a piece on the number of new pay deals over £150,000 that the Government had approved. There were two bits of disappointing news: the fact that the Government had approved what appear to be nearly 40 new pay deals worth more than £150k, and that George Osborne didn’t seem to want to tell us about the ones that he had turned down. Sorry George, but that’s a big fat D minus for that one. The Government should be automatically publishing the details of top earners including the salary packages that they have rejected. Transparency on this issue is important; it allows us to see the workings behind the rhetoric and if an organisation’s pay agenda is in line with Government policy.


But it looks like someone might have been listening; yesterday the Government published the full list of senior officials that earn more than £150,000. You can see the list here. The Cabinet office were quick to highlight that the number of civil servants and quango bosses earning more that 150k had been cut by 50, a sure sign that they – and Whitehall – were taking austerity seriously. For that good work, the Cabinet Office gets a B plus for achievement. If they want to achieve an A grade they need to make the publishing process automatic, continue to reduce the number of civil servant earning more than 150k and make the information easier to find.


Unfortunately the rest of the class has not been doing so well. The news this morning is that, despite the Coalition’s promise for a civil service recruitment freeze, a series of parliamentary questions from John redwood MP have revealed that the rest Whitehall have not been listening to the teacher.  The Mail has the scoop that, despite the Government policy to halt recruitment in Whitehall, Government departments and quangos have taken on over 4,500 new staff – far more than have been made redundant in the same time. Even more aggravating, the figures reveal that quangos such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which should be scrapped altogether, have been able to take on new staff.


TPA Chief Executive Matthew Elliott said in response to the news, “these figures will reinforce taxpayers’ feelings that many in Whitehall believe they can continue on as if it’s business as usual.”


Whitehall cannot be allowed to carry on as normal while taxpayers and businesses up and down the country have to adjust to austerity. The bloated machinery of the civil service and pointless quangos cannot be immune to the austerity drive and moves towards leaner, more efficient government.


This revelation does not bode well for Whitehall or the Coalition’s school report. They need to go back, do their homework and take the test again. It’s time that the Government deliver on its promise of a recruitment freeze as part of its efforts to tackle the deficit. If not, voters will offer their own assessment in 2015, and the Coalition might not like what they have to say.



  

			

		

		
				
		

			
			
How many tickets to the Olympic Games are councils and Quangos snapping up?

			
			

				Jun 2nd, 2011
				
by Andrew Allison. 

				Comments are off for this post							

			
			

								
This week, those who applied for tickets for next year’s Olympic Games in London, found out if their application was successful. Many people have spent hundreds of pounds to attend major events, but some councils have also been spending large sums to ensure they have tickets too.


Looking at recent press reports, Merton Council has spent £4000 of our money on two tickets for the opening and two tickets for the closing ceremonies, so the Mayor and his consort can attend.


A report this week highlighted how the government has ordered 9000 tickets for itself. Civil servants will have the chance to buy 3000 of those from a reserved pool, while the remaining 6000 will be reserved for ministers to entertain guests.


We understand this is just the tip of the iceberg, and would like to know how many councils and other public bodies are snapping up tickets to hand out to their staff. This is where we need your help. Below you will see a template for a Freedom of Information (FoI) request you can send to find out if your local council or Quangos are spending our money on freebies for staff.


To get you started, here are some suggestions. We know 10 out of the 33 London boroughs have not bought tickets. They are: Barking and Dagenham, Barnet, Bromley, Camden, Kingston, Croydon, Harrow, Havering, Redbridge and Westminster. The rest, however, are keeping quiet, but many councils across the country could be buying tickets, not just those in or close to London.


You can also contact quangos, such as the Arts Council, UK Sport, and Visit Britain, as well as various regional tourist bodies, such as Visit Yorkshire, and of course Regional Development Agencies like Advantage West Midlands. Click here for a full list of Quangos.


When you get the results back, send them to us, and we will collate the information. Taxpayers have already subsidised these games. It is not right they should be paying again.


Click here to download the Freedom of Information request template



			

		

		
				
		

			
			
Local Government Group senior salaries revealed

			
			

				Mar 22nd, 2011
				
by Chris Daniel. 

				Comments are off for this post							

			
			

								
ConservativeHome carried an article yesterday morning highlighting the salaries of senior staff at the Local Government Group (LGG), an umbrella organisation that comprises the Local Government Association, the Local Government Improvement and Development, Local Government Employers, Local Government Regulation, Local Government Leadership and Local Partnerships. The article links to the salaries of 60 LGG employees, ranging from £40,000 right up to £209,999. There are 15 employees who take home salaries over £100,000, 32 between £80,000 and £99,999 and 13 between £45,000 and £74,999.
Worth it?
Top of the tree is Rob Whiteman, Managing Director of the Improvement and Development wing of the LGG, who receives a salary of between £205,000 and £209,499. The highest earner in the Local Government Association (LGA) in the Deputy Chief Executive, Jo Miller on £175,000-£179,999. Just behind her is the Group Finance Director, Stephen Jones, on £155,000-£159,999. The Chief Executive of the LGA John Ransford can be found slightly further down the list in receipt of the fifth salary bracket of £90,000-£94,999. This is of course following his honourable decision last year to take a severely reduced pay packet in his remaining few months in the job.
Each individual division of the LGG employs a similar number to a large council, but there are huge differences between the LGG and a council. For starters, councils are the main provider of local services. They manage street cleaning, rubbish collections, maintenance of public spaces, social services provision, housing needs, and schools. Many councils themselves have too big a corporate structure and pay their executives too much taxpayers’ money, and it’s even worse that the LGG and LGA mimic such profligacy. Would residents really notice if these trade associations ceased to exist?
LGA subscriptions are easy savings for councils. Taxpayers will be angry to see they are not only paying huge salaries to the executives in their own authorities, but are also contributing to hefty salaries handed out to employees of the Local Government Group too.
 			

		

		
				
		

			
			
£3.5 million paid to interim staff and consultants in Sheffield

			
			

				Mar 10th, 2011
				
by Andrew Allison. 

				Comments are off for this post							

			
			

								
As councils look to make savings in their budgets, the use of consultants is one area they should look at first. It has come to my attention that Sheffield City Council is currently spending £3.5 million in this area. Although I accept some outside assistance will be needed on an ad hoc basis, £3.5 million is far too much, especially when you look at what it is being spent on.
In our non-job of the week feature last week, I highlighted how a borough council in London plans to pay an Interim Head of Parking Services £600 a day. It seems Sheffield Council is also willing to pay excessively high rates of pay.
The Sheffield Star last week revealed how the Interim Director of the Customer First Programme didn’t put taxpayers first when they earned £131K for ten months work – the equivalent of £157K a year. The council’s development agency quango, Create Sheffield, paid £116K to an interim chief executive for just nine months work – the equivalent of £154K a year.
The council also paid £80K to a PR firm for an environmental campaign, and £74K to a consultant to advise them on rebuilding secondary schools. Nice work if you can get it although, as usual, hard pressed taxpayers are the ones who have to foot the bill.
I know Sheffield is not an isolated example. There are too many councils who are willing to pay eye-watering pay packets to interim staff, PR firms and consultants while at the same time complaining that the government is cutting grant money paid to them. The leader of Sheffield City Council says he has already cut 30% off the consultants bill, and plans to reduce it by a further £1 million next year. This begs the question: if he can reduce spending by £1million next year, why hasn’t he done so already? Sheffield Council must try harder.
 			

		

		
				
		

			
			
Advantage West Midlands

			
			

				Mar 4th, 2011
				
by Jago Pearson. 

				Comments are off for this post							

			
			

								
Some stories relating to public sector waste in recent years have been been hard to believe. However, this one takes the biscuit.
It involves the RDA, Advantage West Midlands, which is due to be scrapped in 2012. Despite this, it seems it continues to fritter away taxpayers’ money with only its own interests at heart. This particular story has a few different strands, so I suggest that you buckle in tight.
First of all, it emerged last year that the boss, Mick Laverty, received a bonus of £21,000 on top of his salary, which surpassed that of the Prime Minister’s. In total, there are four directors on a six-figure salary, with twenty-seven other senior staff receiving between £61,000 and £85,000 per year. In fact, only one such individual took voluntary redundancy in response to a widespread call to preserve valuable public money at the same time as they were asking their lower-end staff ‘to show restraint’. We may just have found one of the reasons why.
When you log on to the AWM website, you are greeted with a picture of Mr Laverty and his colleagues collecting a prize at the Midlands Excellence Awards 2011. This is particularly interesting. In the words of Midlands Excellence themselves, the awards are “open to private, public and voluntary organisations of all sizes” and provide “a rigorous and cost-effective assessment of performance in nine key areas ranging from customer satisfaction to people management, leadership, processes and impact on society.” Winning an award such as this would, at first sight, seem to be an excellent indication of the supposed exceptional work carried out by the RDA. Unfortunately, things are a little more complicated than that.
Midlands Excellence has a Board of Trustees comprising 5 people, plus a Chairman. One of these five is none other than Mick Laverty himself.  So hang on one minute: the CEO of AWM, which applauds itself for winning this esteemed award, is on the Board of Trustees of the organisation that gave it them? Yes, but it gets worse.
How it works. We think...
To enter the awards, you have to pay a fee, amounting to a value in excess of £1,000 in AWM’s case. But, as our research into RDA grants revealed, Midlands Excellence are already recipients of funding from Advantage West Midlands – over £400,000 between 2007 and 2009. Taxpayers’ money, allocated to AWM by the Government, was paid to an organisation that later commended AWM for its ‘excellence’. It really does beggar belief.
The idea is that receiving an award like the one from Midlands Excellence makes the RDA look good, but most importantly makes its directors look good, all of whom will of course be looking for a job come next year. Undoubtedly, they see this as an excellent addition to their CV, and they have said that themselves in the minutes of a board meeting in July 2010!
Note: A keen-eyed supporter alerts us that AWM have removed their July 2010 minutes from their website – so we’ve included a copy below:
 			

		

		
				
		

			
			
TPA campaign against Carbon Trust bears fruit

			
			

				Feb 15th, 2011
				
by Matthew Sinclair. 

				Comments are off for this post							

			
			

								
Over at Left Foot Forward Guy Shrubsole is very upset about the decision to cut the Carbon Trust budget by 40 per cent.  He blames us for saving taxpayers £33 million that would otherwise have been spent on this inscrutable, wasteful and unnecessary quango.  He even says that:
“It is to be hoped the government has back-up plans to replace this lost funding, perhaps through the Green Investment Bank – although simply moving money around into different pots won’t grow the green economy. But for now its plans remain opaque, and it appears to be listening more to the likes of the Taxpayers’ Alliance than to its most sage advisers.”
If only.
As he says, we wrote to Chris Huhne, Secretary of State at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, calling for the Carbon Trust to be abolished back in September.  We argued that:
“The Carbon Trust is therefore subject to considerable mission creep, its main work does not address an actual market failure, it is extremely generous in how it remunerates its staff and fails to match up to the principles of transparency and accountability articulated by the Government. While it is possible to conceive of reforms that might improve the organisation, the best way of securing value for taxpayers is to abolish it outright.”
You can read the letter yourself here.  At the time we asked our supporters to write in, adding your voice to calls for the Trust to be scrapped.
The best Mr. Shrubsole can come up with to defend the Trust is this:
“The Carbon Trust was set to commit £10m for research and development into algal biofuels over the next 5 years – with the aim of developing a fuel with 80% lower emissions than conventional transport fuels, and avoiding the deforestation resulting from first generation biofuels like palm oil.”
Okay, let’s compare the Carbon Trust to enviro-villains ExxonMobil.  The Carbon Trust claim they were “set to commit” £10 million.  Exxon “expects to spend more than $600 million” (£372 million at current exchange rates).  Try putting that in a graph:
Investment in algal biofuels, ExxonMobil vs. the Carbon Trust, £ million
Now I’m sure some Carbon Trust booster will tell me that their spending is different, that they are filling a critical gap the market has missed.  My guess though is that the people whose business relies upon selling fuel will do a better job identifying the right research opportunities than people whose organisation survives if they convince Chris Huhne to give them our money.  They could argue that the Exxon claims are just corporate PR, but that is exactly what the Carbon Trust is engaged in.  If British taxpayers want to support algal biofuels they don’t need the Government to spend their money on the Carbon Trust, they can invest in ExxonMobil stock themselves.
Even if there is a better example of the Carbon Trust doing something worthwhile, and with the amount of money they’ve sprayed around they would be very unlucky to have not hit the right targets once or twice, that isn’t worth huge amounts being wasted on generous compensation for staff and absurd projects like lobbying for the creation of  Carbon Trust USA.  And the fact they are above the Freedom of Information Act is an awful oversight which means much of their spending can’t be effectively scrutinised.  They should be abolished, and if we’ve done anything to help that happen then good.
Unfortunately Chris Huhne is still pushing through expensive regulations that are increasing the price of energy for hard pressed families, hitting the poor and the elderly particularly hard.  He won’t even tell us how much the 42 per cent by 2020 emissions cut pledge he wants to sign the UK up to will cost.  New programmes, like the Green Investment Bank, are being established faster than old ones like the Carbon Trust are being cut.  There is a lot of work to do.
 			

		

		
				
		
	

			
		
			


		
			

	

	














	


	
	



Switch to our mobile site