An 11% fall in number of Council bureaucrats earning over £100,000

The Taxpayers' Alliance annual Town Hall Rich List is out and it shows a quite significant fall in the number of council staff on six figure salaries (or rather "remuneration" as the TPA rightly includes the cost of pension contributions.) There were 2,525 council employees who received total remuneration in excess of £100,000 in 2011 -12. This is a fall of 11% on the previous year when the total was 2,839.

Also included within that figure of 2,525 are dozens of posts where the salary cost is split between more than one council. That is trend I expect will continue. If two neighboring district councils share a chief executive and he is paid £110,000 isn't that likely to be better value than them each employing their own at £95,000? There is a saving of £80,000. Yet that would show up on the TPA survey as an increase in fat cat pay.

There is no simple equation between Town Hall pay for senior executives, and the Council Tax and quality of services. The two councils with the lowest Council Tax - Westminster and Wandsworth - pay their senior people very well indeed. These councils also have high satisfaction from their residents with the standard of the services they provide.

Let's judge by "outputs" rather than "inputs." If the Council Tax is low and the services are good then so what if the chief executive is paid more than the Prime Minister? However councils that are charging higher Council Tax and pleading they have "no alternative" are rather more open to challenge.

London councils spend £200 million on pay-offs - how much did gagging clauses cost?

The Daily Telegraph follows up this morning - on an Evening Standard report yesterday - with the story that London councils have spent £200 million on redundancy payments over the last two years.

The startling aspect is how high some of the individual payments are. Topping the league was Andrew Kilburn, the former chief executive of Waltham Forest council who left after less than two years in the job, with a total of £432,000.

The Freedom of Information requests by the Evening Standard show a pattern of Labour boroughs, often in the poorest parts of the capital, splashing out the most. Tower Hamlets has spent £15.8million, Lewisham £14.5million, Haringey £12.4million, Hackney £10.5million, Barking and Dagenham £11million, Lambeth £10.3million, and Greenwich £9.5million.

Brandon Lewis, the Local Government Minister, has criticised "eye-watering sums being shelled out which in some cases would make a Premiership manager blush."

Staffordshire Council slashes sickness absence

The Municipal Journal reports(£) on some good progress made by Conservative-run Staffordshire County Council in reducing sickness absence by 8%. That amounts to 9,000 fewer sick days a year.

The new policy means the council’s absence rate is an average of 7.68 days per employee, the same as for the private sector. It estimates the fewer sick days are equivalent to 36 full-time employees or £540,000 worth of productivity.

The new policy was launched last February, with every tier of management receiving monthly absence reports for their teams. A pilot physiotherapy service was also established for staff with musculoskeletal conditions.

Cllr Ian Parry, Cabinet Member for Finance and Transformation, said:

What kind of local government do we want?

Cllr Nicholas Rogers, a councillor on Tunbridge Wells borough council, calls for unitary authorities, fewer but higher paid councillors and local sales tax revenue to replace grants from central government

The halfway point of my first term of office as a Tunbridge Wells borough councillor is fast approaching. It’s been challenging, fun, frustrating and exciting in equal measure. I’ve had the privilege to meet many dedicated and talented people and I have relished the opportunity to stand up for Tunbridge Wells residents. It has been an interesting two years and now seems like an opportune moment to reflect on my experience in local government thus far.

My council has courted controversy of late with the news that allowances paid to the leader and cabinet members will increase. Little-reported is fact that the overall amount paid in allowances will actually decrease. I don’t want to dwell on the specifics of the Tunbridge Wells proposals. It’s never the right time to raise allowances and there are compelling arguments on both sides. Discussions with residents and colleagues have, however, caused me to think about exactly what kind of local government we want.

Residents are often of the opinion that councillors should receive no allowances at all. That’s a valid view and local government operated that way for many decades. I doubt the wisdom of returning to those
days, though. A Tunbridge Wells colleague who, some years ago, worked in housing for a London borough, tells the story of how the leader of that council was so poor as a consequence of his dedication to the council that his credit card was taken away. Of course, the usual ‘get around’ was for members to take a non-job in a friendly neighbouring borough, a practice bordering on corruption.

Council award ceremony makes false claim of approval from Pickles

A strange email arrives from the Local Government Chronicle. It's subject heading says:

Would Eric Pickles agree with you attending?

Then the email itself continues:

The answer is yes he would!

It concerns the LGC Awards at the Grosvenor House Hotel on March 13th and tells me "tables are going fast." It doesn't tell me how much the tickets cost. I would have thought that would have been relevant information. Still the Daily Telegraph reported last year that tickets ranged between £1,700 and £7,200 per table of ten. The cost may seem high but the idea is that the people going to the dinner don't pay it. The Council Taxpayer pays. The Chronicle makes a tidy profit and hands out awards to those who buy tickets. Everyone is a winner - except of course the unfortunate Council Taxpayers in the "winning" councils.

I am surprised to hear that Mr Pickles approves of the arrangement. In his 50 Ways to Save Money he says:

“Cancel away days in posh hotels and glitzy award ceremonies: Use a council-owned property to hold any away day. Or borrow a room from a neighbouring council at no cost, and offer a free room to them for their away day. Similarly, stop paying to attend glitzy ‘award ceremonies’ which are just an excuse to make money from local government; councils spend an estimated £1.2 million a year on such ceremonies.”

I gather Mr Pickles is also surprised to hear that he endorsed the event.

Huge increase in council leader's allowances in Tunbridge Wells

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council is planning to increase its share of the Council Tax - by a referendum dodging 1.9%. Where is the money going? One item is a sharp increase in the Special Responsibility Allowance for the council leader, Cllr David Jukes. Sometimes when this sort of thing happens there is the that it is a recommendation of an independent panel. Not in this case. The hike that the council leader and Cabinet members are planning to give themselves is higher than the amount the panel proposed.

The Ken and Sussex Courier report:

The increases are proposed for the Council A council advisory board, which Mr Jukes sits on, rejected proposals by the Independent Remuneration Panel for him to receive a £2,186 rise and instead opted for a £2,500 hike. Members also said cabinet members should receive £2,010 extra – or 22 per cent – rather than the £478 suggested.

There is some good news. The total budget is not rising as there have also been some savings. The council says: "There are now only five Cabinet members rather than six as the Leader has continued to be responsible for his portfolio without the need for another Cabinet member; this has saved £8,990. The abolition of the Standards Committee has saved £5,600;  The decision to pay all mileage allowances at the HMRC official rate also saved a further £6,000. Following a review of the governance arrangements and the running of Cabinet Advisory Boards it is further proposed to reduce the two planning committees to just one which will further save £7,320."

Labour council leader takes 54% increase in allowances

Councillors on Labour-run Norwich City Council have voted through an 11% increase in allowances - including a 54% increase for the leader Cllr Brenda Arthur with her special responsibility allowance increasing to £10,000. Opposition Green Party councillors backed the increase saying it represented "terrific value for money."

Remember that Council Taxpayers in Norwich also pay for another batch of councillors on Norfolk County Council. The report proposing the increase in allowances for offered the justification the leader of Cambridge City Council gets £10,433 on top of the basic allowance, the leader at Ipswich Borough Council £11,235 extra and the leader of the City of Lincoln Council an extra £9,519. 

Certainly it is also interesting for councils to "benchmark" against what others are doing. But at a time of spending cuts would not "best practice" have been for council leaders in Ipswich and Cambridge to be reducing their allowances?

Labour propose legal challenge to defend councillor pension subsidy

The Local Government Chronicle reports (£) that Labour council leaders are demanding a Judicial Review to defend subsidied councillor pensions. It says that the  Local Government Association  Labour group leader Cllr David Sparks said it was “extremely important that we do not just roll over on this [pension] issue” and suggested a legal challenge, adding: “I am expecting that the report we get in February will look seriously at the whole issue of judicial review.”

Who would pay for the legal challenge? The Local Government Association - which means the Council Taxpayers (apart from in Bromley where the council isn't a member.) 

Jules Pipe, the directly elected Labour Mayor of Hackney claimed that the government thought councils “with £1bn-plus turnover can be run by an occasional few evening meetings.” Is Mayor Pipe claiming that when Eric Pickles was leader of Bradford Council that Mr Pickles refused to attend any day time meetings? Or that Brandon Lewis reused to when leader of Brentwood Borough Council? What basis does Mayor Pipe have for such a silly misrepresentation.

Councillors allowances should be abolished not increased

The Labour MP Clive Betts, who is "Chair" of the Communities and Local Government Committee, has taken to the airwaves today demanding an increase in councillor allowances. This reflects a report from his committee. As the blunt speaking folk of Sheffield might put it: "What planet is he on?"

We could have an interesting debate about whether allowances should be abolished. Abolition would mean we would save Council Taxpayers a few hundred million pounds a year. We would have more independently minded councillors. They would identify more with residents, less with Council employees - which they would cease to be.  Deadbeats clinging on just for their allowances would have an inclination stand down. Civic pride would be enhanced.

For my part, I would still wish to be a councillor if the role was unpaid, regarding it as an enjoyable and important role. However, I would not be able to afford to spend as much time on it which would reduce my effectiveness. But then it is not all about me. Probably the abolition of councillors allowances would overall provide better as well as cheaper local administration.

Good news as gold plated councillor pensions to end

On September 11th 2001 Jo Moore, Special Adviser to Stephen Byers, the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Region, sent the following email:

"It is now a very good day to get out anything we want to bury. Councillors expenses?"

The bad news, which was press released the next day, was that councillors should be allowed to join their council's pension scheme - and thus have gold plated pensions subsidised by their Council Taxpayers. This came into force in 2003. Research by the Taxpayers Alliance suggests nearly a quarter of councillors signed up.

The arrangement is being scrapped. From April 2014 councillors will not be eligible to join the Local Government Pension Scheme, those councillors who are members will not be able to mae further contributions. This will save £7 million a year. But there is also  a wider point. Councillors should put the interests of residents first rather than council staff. If councillors are themselves members of staff this gives the wrong mentaliity. Those having a ride on a gravy train are not going to keen to bring it to a halt.