starchamber/

(14) Stopping government lobbying government

Proposed by ConservativeHome reader Mara MacSeoinin

The Conservative Party issued a research paper late last year that detailed how public money is spent by government agencies on external PR agencies in order to lobby government itself, often for more money. The paper details almost £10 million spent over a five year period. The Times took up the story here. The comment the Times got from Robbie MacDuff, chairman of the Association of Professional Political Consultants, is all too resonant of the current MP’s expenses scandal: “There is nothing illegal in this. It is part of the democratic process. All businesses and organisations - including public sector organisations - have a right to represent their views to government.” He would say that wouldn’t he?

Bodies spending more than £500K included the National Lottery Commission, Meat and Livestock Commission, Civil Aviation Authority, Crown Estate, Jobcentre Plus and the Health and Safety Executive. Lobbyists and their government customers cover up the true nature of their business with ambiguous terms such as "stakeholder relationship advice", "strengthening of relationships with key stakeholders", "policy tracking" and "strategic communications advice". In the US this type of activity is illegal. There is a ban on public bodies hiring lobbyists. The Byrd Amendment of 1996 prohibits the use of “federal contracts, grants, loans or monies to influence or attempt to influence, the executive or legislative branch”. We propose that the UK government applies such restrictions to itself.

Saving id: Government lobbying government
Area: Various departments
Total saving: £2 million per annum
Traffic light status: TBD

***
Previous idea for saving: (13) Cut the cost of Westminster politics by £200m

(13) Cut the cost of Westminster politics by £200m

Proposed by Phil Taylor

Parliament, seeing itself as sovereign, is unwilling to submit itself to the kind of financial discipline that the Treasury applies to the rest of Government, but you can at least keep track of its finances here (House of Commons) and here (House of Lords).

We have heard a lot about MP’s expenses recently in terms of the detail with further revelations in this morning’s Telegraph. The total cost of MP’s expenses has risen from £94 million in 2000/1 to £159 million in 2007/8; a rise of 69%. Just last Sunday we heard of Baroness Uddin’s £100K claim for her empty flat in Maidstone. This part of the £122 million running cost of the House of Lords, again the 2007/8 number. This number is up 82% on 2000/1. In addition to these two bills the administration costs of Parliament were £228 million in 2007/8. In total Parliament cost £509 million in 2007/8 up 9% on the previous year and up 36% on 2000/1. Our law makers, 646 MPs and 738 Lords, cost us £370,000 each.

MP’s expenses are a matter for MPs and their reputations depend on how they tackle them. The Lords need to wean themselves off the gravy too. The wider issue for us as taxpayers is that Parliament’s spending is a joke. As any visitor to the lavish Parliamentary estate will attest there is ample scope to cut these budgets. Halving the number of members would be a good start. At the very least we should be able to take £200 million out of these budgets.

Saving id: Parliament
Area: Parliament
Total saving: £200 million
Traffic light status: TBD

***
Previous idea for saving: (12) A fairer distribution of UK-wide public spending

(12) A fairer UK-wide distribution of public spending

The figures above are slightly out-of-date but not by much.  Should the inequality between the nations of the UK be reduced during this 'age of austerity' or should adjustment wait until times are easier again?  Or do you believe that the nature of the Union requires that the existing redistribution of resources from relatively more prosperous (southern) England continues?

On Radio 4's World Tonight yesterday evening Simon Jenkins, discussing devolution to Wales, said that it was in the interests of Wales for its government to start thinking in terms of where its next business will come from rather than its next subsidy.

The Conservatives will probably not want to touch this issue if they are elected.  They will probably win a good number of new seats in Wales but progress is likely to be pretty limited in Scotland.  David Cameron is a very committed Unionist but Boris Johnson has already signalled a concern that London is paying more than its fair share to the rest of the UK.  That might be the solution to this question; to take the Scottish-Welsh-English sting out of the discussion as much as possible and review the public spending relationship between all UK regions?

The target could be a modest £1bn of savings by the end of the next Parliament if the rest of the UK is brought a little more into line with South East England.

Saving id: UK-wide share of public spending
Total saving: £1bn pa within four years
Traffic light status: TBD

***
Previous idea for saving: (11) Crossrail

(11) Delaying Crossrail

Today's Evening Standard reports that an incoming Conservative Government could yet postpone or cancel the Crossrail project if elected next year.

Work on Crossrail - which will link Maidenhead in Berkshire with East London and Essex - is not due to begin until the end of next year, so David Cameron could feasibly stop the project before much more is spent on it (already £254 million has been spent on feasibility and development work).

The lion's share of the £16 billion budget is due to be underwritten by Transport for London (£7.7 billion) and the Department for Transport (£5.6 billion), with far smaller amounts coming from Network Rail, the City Corporation and Canary Wharf Group.

The Standard reports confusion on the Tory position on the matter:

"Conservative sources today stressed that no schemes had been ruled out from any cost-cutting measures - but shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers said there was no "current" review of Crossrail, sparking confusion over the Tory stance".

In addition, Boris Johnson, whilst supporting the scheme in principle, has reportedly clashed with the Government over a levy on London businesses to raise £3.5billion of the TfL funding of the project.

Saving id: Ending Crossrail
Total saving: c£13bn
Traffic light status: TBD

***
Previous idea for saving: (10) Scrap Regional Development Agencies

The outrageous uses of British taxpayers' money in EU grants

According to this report published today by the TaxPayers' Alliance, less than half of Britain's £9 billion annual contribution to the European Union Budget comes back to the country in the form of EU grants.

And the report's author, Dr Lee Rotherham, has been rifling through the information for the latest year available, 2007, to identify the kinds of projects on which this money is used.

Here are just a few of the examples he has uncovered of where EU money is being distributed in Britain:

• Oxford University received a number of EU grants, one of which was towards its Explaining Religion programme (EXREL), which “seeks to understand both what is universal and cross-culturally variant in religious traditions as well as the cognitive mechanisms that undergird religious thinking and behaviour”. Value of grant: £1,369,677.
• Consilia  has been given considerable EU funds for "the Implementation of the Eures Information and Communications Strategy", which amounts to training in spin for EU officials. Value of grants: £458,565.
• The Centreprise Trust was part of a consortium awarded a grant to run a carnival "to enable European citizens to better access and understand the history and creativity of people of African descent, and will thus foster intercultural dialogue through enjoyment”. Value of grant: £136,678.
• A considerable number of organisations have been given money for promotional free gifts in
  connection with EU PR campaigns. These include pin badges, pencils, rubbers, T-shirts, clocks, mousemats, keyfobs, stickers, tote bags, rulers, USB memory sticks etc. Value of grants: Over £68,000.

Jonathan Isaby

Boris: "You can cut public spending if you really want to"

Speaking to ConservativeHome to mark his first anniversary as London's Mayor, Boris Johnson declared that "you can cut public spending if you really want to".  His office has provided us with a list of the economies he has made, totalling £180m:

• Cancellation of The Londoner newspaper.  Saving: £2.9m
• Cancellation of the ‘Beijing Bus’ - The previous administration committed Transport for London to spending £300,000 on this, of which £140,000 had already been spent.  The Mayor cancelled the project and stopped all further spending on it.  Saving: £160,000
• Closing down of GLA office in Venezuela and scaling down of other overseas offices.  Saving: £100,000
• Income from the hire of London’s Living Room has increased from £145k in 2007-08 to £167k in 2008-09- as a result of stopping policy of allowing preferred groups and organisations to use it for free.  Saving: £20,000
• Reduction in expenditure on GLA consultants - reduced from £4.7m in 2007-08 to £2.8m in 2008-09.  Saving: £1.9m
• 10 delegates attended party conferences in 2008-09, at a total cost (including attendance, advertising, stands, etc.) of £9,000, compared with 19 delegates in 2007-08 at a cost of £43,000.  Saving: £34,000
• Foreign travel costs for the Mayor’s office were reduced from £107,000 in 2007-08 to £30,000 in 2008-09, while the rest of the GLA reduced its costs from £102,000 to £28,000.  Saving: £151,000

Other, more substantial savings include:

• 20% reduction in the GLA’s Media and Marketing budget.  Saving: £700,000
• Restructuring of the Mayor’s office and reduction in stakeholder programmes.  Saving: £1.7m
• Organising for Delivery – aimed at ensuring that City Hall provides value for money (full year saving £3.5m).  Saving in 2009-10: £1.3,
• Securing cost savings in the police forensic service by negotiating better deals with suppliers and improving internal business processes.  Saving: £10.6m
• Reorganising administrative support functions to improve effectiveness and securing reductions in rents, ICT project and building maintenance costs at the Metropolitan Police.  Saving: £29m
• Streamlining administrative and project support at the Fire Brigade to improve value for money.  Saving: £4.2m
• Transport for London has begun a further major review of operating costs, focusing both on the control of overheads and further exploitation of efficiencies within its operations.  The review has focused explicitly on identifying opportunities to reduce or remove operating cost from the business, with items prioritised for the initial phase focusing primarily on back-office and non-operational expenditure areas.  The review has identified opportunities that could realise some £2.4bn net savings by 2017-18.   Saving in 2009-10: £62m
• The LDA has introduced a more streamlined staffing structure enabling it to release resources to support priority projects such as the Mayor’s Economic Recovery plan.  Saving: £6.6m.

Keep up the good work Boris.

"The NHS cannot be immune" from cuts

Those are not ConHome's words.  They are not from The Telegraph or Mail.  They are not from John Redwood's blog or from the TaxPayers' Alliance.  They are certainly not from David Cameron!  "The NHS cannot be immune" from cuts is the verdict of Niall Dickson of the King's Fund.  He writes in today's Independent:

"The NHS cannot be immune. There is an opportunity now to redesign it. Length of stay in hospital will have to be reduced to push down the cost per patient; day surgery can be increased. We need to do a lot more to stop people being admitted to hospital unnecessarily. They could be better treated in their communities, allowing a reduction in the number of beds. We have too many centres in London for stroke care. Politicians are nervous about anything that looks like closure of a hospital. But if it creates a more efficient service, we ought to get on and do it."

The Conservatives are currently pledged to safeguard NHS funding.

Andrew Haldenby of Reform has recommended a 10% cut in doctors' pay.  Most ConHome readers were unhappy at the suggestion but it would save £1bn pa.

(10) Scrap Regional Development Agencies

Regional Development Agencies are ineffective.  The TaxPayers' Alliance's Ben Farrugia wrote:

"In the vast majority of measures, across the vast majority of regions, the English regions were developing faster before RDAs were introduced. In many areas, development and growth has slowed in 1999-2006 compared to 1992-1999. In some, the regions are actually worse off than before. Overall the gap between England’s richest regions and the poorest has grown – hardly a testament to the success of the quango-based strategy."

They cost £2.2bn a year.

Saving id: Regional Development Agencies
Total saving: £2.2bn pa
Traffic light status: TBD

***
Previous idea for saving: (9) End the Government Car Service