The TaxPayers' Alliance - Media Coverage

Daily Express: 'Sinister survey' protest

by Jane Wharton

Personal information about local residents is to be demanded by "big brother" councils. People will be asked about mortgages, ethnic background, religion and sexual orientation as part of a new survey.

The New Place Survey is revealed in a consultation paper from the Department for Communities and Local Government and will cost a reported £15 million by 2012.

Individuals will be asked to provide a raft of personal information, including details about their mental health, which civil rights campaigners have called "sinister".

The Government said the survey will be a significant tool for local authorities to see if targets are being met. But there are fears that the questionnaire is too intrusive and the information could be used by third parties.

Other questions set to be asked in the questionnaire include opinions on anti-social behaviour. The survey solicits information about whether people think local parents are controlling their children, whether neighbours are rowdy and if drugs or vandalism are problems.

Although returning the form is not expected to be compulsory, it is thought residents will be pressured to comply by being sent multiple reminder notices.

Last night Matthew Elliott of the TaxPayers' Alliance reportedly said:

"Councils should be trying to make people's lives better by reducing the burden of taxes and improving crumbling services, not poking their noses into our lives."

Daily Mail: How much do you earn? Are you gay? Town Hall Big Brother wants to know

by Steve Doughty

EVERY town hall has been ordered to send out surveys demanding local residents' personal information and opinions.

The forms will ask householders to give details of their children, mortgage, ethnic background, religion and sexual orientation.

Civil rights campaigners yesterday called the survey 'intrusive and very sinister', pointing out that any information handed over will not be kept confidential.

Ministers have even given instructions that local councils must try to disguise their involvement in the survey to avoid attracting criticism.

And they have ruled that the questioning must be paid for out of council tax and carried out every two years.

The New Place Survey - which is expected to be launched next autumn after trials in the spring - is likely to cost at least £15million by 2012. According to a consultation paper distributed by Communities Secretary Hazel Blears, the justification for the survey is that it will let the Government know if councils are hitting scores of new targets imposed on them in the last six months.

But the questionnaire does not ask about householders' attitudes to libraries, rubbish collections or schools - all of which are the responsibility of councils. Instead, it solicits information on whether people think local parents are controlling their children's behaviour properly and whether different ethnic communities in the area are getting on with each other.

Questions on ethnicity and sexuality are intended to be used in Government initiatives to promote greater numbers of local councillors from minority groups.

But the demand that individuals and families supply a huge raft of personal details for the survey comes at a time of deepening concern about the State's thirst for ever-greater amounts of private information - and worries over how that information is stored and used.

Town halls are already assembling a database called ContactPoint which will contain details of every child in the country, including information on their health and education.

Yet more vast amounts of personal information will be stored on the NHS and identity card databases.

Whitehall has given no details on what proportion of the population will receive demands for information.

But many thousands in each borough are likely to get forms to ensure the target numbers of replies is reached.

Unlike the ten-yearly national census, it will not be legally compulsory to fill in and return the form.

However, those who do not comply are likely to be sent multiple reminders.

Information provided for the new council survey will not be protected by basic confidentiality rules.

The Department for Communities and Local Government has told town halls there are no guarantees of privacy and that personal data gathered in the questionnaires can be disclosed to third parties. Although respondents are not asked for their names and addresses on the forms, town halls are likely to keep this information with the completed survey data on their computer systems.

Local Government minister John Healey said the New Place Survey 'will be a significant tool for councils and local agencies'.

But Tory local government spokesman Eric Pickles said: 'This is astounding.

'Labour are obsessed with rolling out survey after survey to cover-up their incompetence.'

Matthew Elliott of the Taxpayers' Alliance said the operation was a 'pointless waste of money'.

'Councils should be trying to make people's lives better by reducing the burden of taxes and improving crumbling services, not poking their noses into our lives,' he added.

Christine Melsom of the council tax protest group Is It Fair? said: 'This is highly intrusive and very sinister.

'I can think of an awful lot of other things they could do with the money.'

Ilford Recorder: 'Council wasting funds on PR'

A ROW over wasted council tax cash has boiled over amid claims that campaigners have got their sums wrong.

The TaxPayers' Alliance - a group that fights for lower rates - has issued a research document entitled Council Spending Uncovered.

This claims to reveal how much cash is pumped into the publicity machines at town halls across the country.

The group's findings indicate that Redbridge Council chiefs have more than doubled the amount spent over the past decade - from £1.108 million in 1996-1997 to £2.474 million in 2006-2007, the 53rd highest spend in the country.

But the claims prompted an angry response from Cllr Linda Huggett, the deputy leader and cabinet member for resources and communications, who insists the figure is about £500,000 less and below the regional average.

She said the majority of the cash is spent on statutory information the council is required to give the public, and staff recruitment costs.

She said: "Telling someone they can claim council tax benefit discounts is not publicity.

"The same goes for information on when old fridges can be picked up or how to report criminals who fly-tip. We need to tell people about these services and how they can access them."

The Monkhams ward councillor said costs are built up through extra demands from the government to produce plans and reports - as well as statutory notices, such as road closures, placed in local newspapers such as the Recorder.

She added: "We use the internet as much as possible to save money, and environmentally it is the right thing to do.

"We are expanding the use of Redbridge i as it allows us to provide people with the most up to date information 24 hours a day and is the most cost-efficient way of telling people about our services."

Statistics show that four out of 10 households still do not have access to the web - supporting the council's argument in favour of continuing to publish its Redbridge Life magazine.

But TaxPayers' Alliance campaign director Mark Wallace insists that the council still spends too much money on PR.

He said: "Taxpayers in Redbridge have suffered massive growth in council tax in the last decade, and yet services continue to struggle and the council still asks for more money.

"People are left wondering where the extra cash has gone.

"It is shocking that the council seems to think it is appropriate to spend so much on PR and glossy publicity when that money could be used to cut taxes or support services."

Bexley Times: Council’s £3million bill for ‘publicity’

Research by the TaxPayers' Alliance has revealed that Greenwich council spent £3,189,000 on 'publicity' in the last financial year.

Bexley council budgeted £684,000 towards publicity in the same period and Bromley spent £907,000, revealed research earlier in December.

A Greenwich council spokeswoman insisted people get value for money as the budget includes services like the Greenwich Card, a PR team and the production of Greenwich Time newspaper.

She added: "This all depends on what you class as publicity. In Greenwich we have our whole web team included and Bromley doesn't."

Ian Clement, leader of Bexley council, said his budget includes the same services as Greenwich with the exception of the Greenwich Card.

Yorkshire Post Op-Ed: Grasping politicians are impervious to shame

By Matthew Elliott

EVEN before the events of recent weeks, the public already had a low opinion of politicians. Every opinion poll shows that the people we are expected to trust to make our laws and run our country are generally viewed as untrustworthy and incompetent.
The automatic assumption of most people on hearing a new government initiative is to assume the announcement is timed to distract attention from a scandal elsewhere.

After the revelation of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs's appalling handling of people's most private information, and revelations that the Government has for years been breaking its own laws on party funding, public opinion of our masters has sunk to a new low.
The public's scepticism has been justified.

All but the most hardened cynic, though, would be shocked at the latest turn of events. No sooner had the David Abrahams dodgy donations scandal broken, but the Government began to use it as a justification for taxpayer funding of political parties.

Even to those of us who assume that the Government is shamelessly wily, it is amazing that there has been quite such a shame bypass in Westminster.

Having hypocritically broken donation laws which they themselves introduced, and deceived the public in the process, it is almost beyond belief that they should try to turn this scandal to their advantage. The idea that the solution to having untrustworthy politicians is to trust them with even more of our money is ridiculous. But that is exactly what is suggested.

The exact details of Sir Hayden Phillips's report are worth remembering – each year, some £25m would be paid to the main political parties from public coffers. That is £25m that could otherwise be spent on services, or used to help relieve the tax burden.

Why do the parties want this money? The main reason is that they are broke. They all spend huge amounts on glossy posters, costly focus groups and gimmicky image consultants – much more so than they have ever spent before. The Labour Party, for example, has reportedly run up debts of £20m.

That lavish culture might be fine if their income could support it, but it can't. The public are simply not donating sufficient money to the parties to keep them in the style to which they have been accustomed.

Subsidising the parties with taxpayers' money is not the answer to this problem.

For a start, many of the problems faced by our country today are down to the fact that our politicians are insulated from the real world. In real life, businesses have to stay solvent or go bust. To stay solvent, companies have to offer a product that people want to buy. Everyone else has to live by that rule; why should politicians be any different?

Political parties have become out of touch, uninspiring and ineffective, resulting in the fall in turnout at elections. The product the parties are selling is not what people want

It is crucially important, not just for the taxpayer but also for the future of our democracy, that we insist the parties learn to stand on their own two feet.

If we mollycoddle them and remove any need for them to actually appeal to the people, they will only get worse and the vibrancy of our politics will fade even further.

Instead, it is about time they took a good, long look at themselves and realised that spin and trickery have become far too prevalent. Their funding crisis is self-inflicted, and they must solve it by themselves.

The recent crises and the ensuing attempts to cover them up and then exploit them as a cynical excuse for screwing yet more cash out of the public, will only add to public disillusionment. Ironically, for a problem which is very much internal to the political parties themselves, the solution is in the public sphere. Not the lazy option of demanding free cash from the public, but looking at what politics is meant to be about.

Public service is called service for a very good reason; politics should not be about what colour rosette the winner wears, or which candidates win parliamentary allowances, but doing the best for the nation. Having the best ideas, putting them into practice and running things effectively ought to be the goals of anyone running for office.

That is not to say politicians should be selfless – there is plenty of room for self-interest, too.

If they competed to produce good policies and to put them into practice effectively, politics would be inspiring again, they would win the support of the electorate and could attract donations by themselves without having to force an unwilling population to cough up through taxation.

If the parties have to change their ways or face bankruptcy, it will invigorate politics once more. If we follow the other route, and
reward their failure by bailing them out of their self-dug hole, we will only see our democracy suffer further.

Matthew Elliott is chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance.The TaxPayers' Alliance is a grassroots campaign group committed to lower taxes and more efficient government.
For more information and to join, visit www.taxpayersalliance.com

Belfast Telegraph: £3,000 a day: that's how much BBC in Northern Ireland spent on flights last year

By Chris Thornton

BBC flights in and out of Belfast cost licence fee payers more than a million pounds last year, the Belfast Telegraph can reveal today.

The Corporation has admitted that it paid for almost 6,000 flights to ferry staff and programme guests in and out of the city - shelling out about £3,000 a day.

Material released to the Belfast Telegraph under the Freedom of Information Act shows BBC flights cost more than £2.7 million in just over four years.

The costs - described as lavish by the Taxpayers Alliance - have been revealed as MPs step up pressure for greater public scrutiny of how the BBC spends the licence fee.

The Corporation has cut its spending on business class flights, but the bill to licence fee payers reached a peak last year, when £1,088,073.98 was spent on 5,930 flights.

That works out to an average of 16 flights a day every day of the year, at an average cost of more than £180.

The Taxpayers Alliance hit out at the spending today, saying licence fee payers' cash should go to programme making rather than "an expensive shuttle service".

Matthew Elliott, the chief executive of the pressure group, said: "Every year the BBC asks for more money from licence fee payers, claiming the extra money will be spent on broadcasting and yet it is lavishing large amounts on costly flights."

"People want their money spent on quality radio and television services, not flying thousands of people to and fro every year.

"The BBC should focus on making use of home-grown talent rather than running an expensive shuttle service around the UK."

In the last half of 2003, almost half the spending on Belfast trips was for business class flights.

But business class spending has dropped considerably since then, accounting for less than 5% of the spending on flights.

The BBC said the spending covers "flights to/from Belfast for both the specific purpose of making programmes and the BBC's commercial subsidiaries along with the data for BBC staff, BBC Trustees, freelancers and programme guests and contributors."

"These figures include not only flights booked by BBC NI staff, but by all areas throughout the BBC," the Corporation said in response to the Telegraph's Freedom of Information request.

"All BBC staff are expected to fly economy. The use of business class travel requires senior management authorisation/review and is only permissible in exceptional circumstances," the BBC said.

"Programme contributors and guests may, on occasion, travel business class."

Westminster's Public Accounts Committee has repeatedly called for greater scrutiny of how the BBC spends the cash provided by licence fee payers.

Currently the National Audit Office can only look at the BBC's books in very limited circumstances approved by the BBC Trust.

Earlier this month, the powerful committee said: "There is still no fully satisfactory regime under which the BBC is accountable to Parliament for the value for money with which it spends licence fee payers' money."

Edward Leigh, the chairman of the committee, said that the BBC is constantly at risk of "failing to secure value for money for the licence fee-payer".

"The BBC's management of that risk would undoubtedly be much the stronger if the NAO were given the same independent rights of access to the Corporation as it enjoys to other bodies funded by the public," he said.

Daily Telegraph: Sausage throwing case costs £20,000

By Gary Cleland

A POLICE investigation to prosecute a 12-year-old for throwing a cocktail sausage at a neighbour has cost £20,000.

The youngster was charged with common assault and brought before magistrates six times after the case was repeatedly adjourned to allow reports to be prepared.

Greater Manchester Police yesterday dropped all charges against the boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, after he was diagnosed as suffering from attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder.

One judge who heard the case in August questioned whether the prosecution served the public interest.

Judge Tim Devas said: "If he has done what was suggested it is very bad behaviour. But is it in the public interest to prosecute a 12-year-old boy who threw a sausage?''

District Judge Paul Richardson, who sat on another of the hearings, criticised police after they requested a two week adjournment because they had not read the case reports.

He said the case was "wasting a lot of time and money''.

Matthew Elliott, the chief executive of the Taxpayers' Alliance, said: "When the police had the authority to give boys a clip round the ear for minor misdemeanours, much less time and money was wasted on pointless court appearances. Taxpayers will never see again the £20,000 that this case has cost.''

The boy was arrested after he threw a two-inch sausage at Michael Deegan, 74, of Wythenshawe, in August.

Mr Deegan thought he had been hit by a stone and called the police.

A police spokesman said: "The offender admitted he threw an object at the man and was therefore charged.''

Daily Mail: BBC licence to waste money

by Paul Revoir

THE BBC is to buy the homes of up to 1,500 staff and give them relocation packages of about £8,000 each as part of plans to shift operations to the North.

The corporation will spend as much as £16.5million of licence fee money to help an army of workers move house.

While private companies usually hand out attractive relocation deals only to bosses, the BBC is offering thousands of pounds to all grades of staff.

Despite pleading poverty over a £2billion funding gap, the corporation can afford to spend up to £3,000 on curtains and carpets for anyone moving near the new base in Salford.

It can also find a similar sum to pay towards stamp duty, legal fees and surveys. It will even buy houses from staff through a third party, facing the liability for losses if the properties are sold on for less.

Employees of other firms who have had to relocate will be surprised that the BBC is to help find new jobs for workers' partners and schools for children.

The mouth-watering package offered by the corporation, which is axing 1,800 jobs and cutting new shows by 10 per cent, includes £5,000 for additional costs.

Five London-based departments are moving to the state- of-the-art Salford site. They include the children's department, the sports department and Radio 5 Live.

As well as the 1,500 London-based posts which will head north in 2011, another 800 staff already in Manchester will move to new work premises. The BBC has brought in a company called Cartus to run the home-buying scheme.

At least two surveyors will value staff homes, from which a price of up to 95 per cent of the average will be established. This amount will be defined as the 'guaranteed purchase price'.

Cartus will then buy the house on behalf of the corporation and advance funds to the BBC worker to buy a new house.

The old property will be sold by an estate agent, but the BBC will bear the loss on any resale. For example, if a house sells for £5,000 less than the guaranteed purchase price, the BBC will have to pay the owner the difference.

If there is a profit on the sale, it will be shared between the owner and the BBC.

The BBC will also be paying for the recently-introduced home information packs, which cost on average £350 and contain details of the seller's house including an energy assessment, searches and title deeds.

In all, the BBC is likely to end up spending in the region of £16.5mil-lion alone on allowances for the cost of the move, which could run into millions more from the property buying scheme if there is a dip in the housing market and homes either lose value or cannot be sold.

There will also be the money spent on the management fee to the relocation company and the interest it will charge the BBC on what it pay for the houses before someone buys them.

The BBC says the relocation programme has been designed to reduce stress delays and problems.

Bosses claim they want to make it as 'straightforward and attractive as possible' and say the offer is in line with other organisations in the public and private sector.

The corporation is thought to be offering the attractive deal as it fears many staff will refuse to uproot from London. BBC chiefs say it is important to retain key talent and keep 'business continuity'.

The package will be offered to all staff irrespective of grade, provided they are on a fixed term contract with at least two years to run when the move happens. Those who do not meet those criteria will be offered a maximum of £8,000.

Mark Wallace of the TaxPayers' Alliance said: 'There is a difference between a smooth move and a plush move at licence fee payers' expense.

'The generosity of these plans may be welcomed by staff, but it is excessive when considering who is funding the move.'

Conservative MP for Monmouth David Davies said: 'This sort of extravagance raises questions over the BBC's current status. It is not accountable to shareholders who can ensure value for money and it is not answerable to the public either.

'This allows the management to get away will all sorts of things like this, which simply wouldn't happen in the private sector or in other parts of the public sector.

'It is not the job of licence fee payers to fork out for carpets and curtains for BBC staff. Instead of moving lots of metropolitan media types from London, why not employ people from Salford and the regions?'

The BBC justified the expenses as value for money and not out of step with what the private sector would offer.

A spokesman said: 'We think this passes the value for money test. We would be living in another land if we thought people would move at their own expense.

'This is a standard relocation thing and you always give people something towards the cost of these expenses.'

BBC employees have been handsomely compensated for relocating in the past. In 2005 80 musicians and ten administrative staff of the BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra received £3,000 each to relocate just three miles.

Among current jobs on offer, new employees at Warwick University on a three-year contract are offered up to £1,700 relocation costs.

Herald-Sun (Australia): MPs in the dark

New rules telling British MPs how to change a light bulb in 10 simple steps has sparked outrage among taxpayers.

The step-by-step guide was issued by the House of Commons Commission, which oversees the Parliament.

It advises MPs who find a broken bulb to put on a protective mask and gloves before picking up shards of glass with a dustpan and broom and placing them in a sturdy box.

The Taxpayers' Alliance branded the guide ridiculous.

"Politicians are living on another planet,'' a spokesman said.

The guide was released after Conservative MP David Davies sought the rules for disposing of broken environmentally friendly light bulbs.

News Shopper: Council attacked for publicity spending

By Claire Burke

A COUNCIL has come under attack after it was revealed it spent millions of pounds on publicity but also cut grants.

Greenwich Council spent nearly £3.2m in the last financial year - more than Bexley, Bromley and Croydon councils combined, which collectively spent around £2.5m.

The figure has gone up from £743,000 10 years ago, a 329 per cent increase, according to figures obtained by campaign group The TaxPayers' Alliance.

Opposition councillor Graeme Coombes said: "The people of Greenwich are paying Greenwich Council for it to tell them how wonderful it is.

"It's unnecessary spending. The voters themselves can decide."

With two community schools facing closure following the withdrawal of council funding, Conservative Councillor Coombes criticised the authority for getting its priorities wrong.

"If the axe should fall, it should fall on publicity," said Councillor Coombes, a member of the finance and central services scrutiny panel.

News Shopper previously reported how the Greenwich Chinese Community School, Old Woolwich Road, Greenwich, which looks after nearly 500 pupils every Sunday, was told its £11,409 grant will be stopped from April 1 next year.

This is due to a change in the commissioning process for voluntary organisations which meant those which have regularly received grants in the past no longer automatically qualified for them.

Headteacher Josephine Chan slammed the council for spending so much on publicity, saying it should be spent on education instead.

"It's not necessary," said Ms Chan. "There are more important things."

Now a supplementary school run by the Asian Resource Centre, Macbean Street, Woolwich, may be forced to fold.

The school, which has nearly 350 students every year, teaches adults and children English and maths, as well as languages such as Punjabi, Urdu and Arabic.

Last year, it was given the Silver Quality Framework Award by Lord Adonis, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Schools.

This was awarded for achieving a range of educational standards.

But centre manager Ameen Hussain says the council is planning to stop its annual grant of £26,348 next year, leaving it with no option but to close.

Under the new commissioning process, the schools may be eligible for a council grant of up to £2,000, but they say this is not enough.

The council says the new process is being introduced because of an increase in voluntary organisations applying for cash.

But Mr Hussain says education should come before publicity.

"They are spending so much money on these things and ignoring the needs of the community," he said.

He fears the move may isolate communities.

Mr Hussain added: "It is a pity the council, with its rich cultural diversity, has taken this negative approach rather than improving and expanding.

"In the long run, this will have a serious impact on the achievement of all our children, particularly black and minority ethnic children."

A council spokesman says there will be no cuts to the amount of money given to community groups, but there will be a new, fairer way of allocating it.

She said this was necessary because of an increase in voluntary organisations in the borough.

The spokesman added publicity was an important way of keeping residents informed of what the council was doing, and also made it more efficient.

She said: "The council has to provide lots of information.

"If you go onto our website, it's about helping people communicate with us 24 hours a day."

She said the authority was not spending more on publicity.

Daily Express: Changing a light bulb...an idiot's guide for MPs

by Mark Reynolds

Even for our esteemed leaders there is no hiding place from the nanny state imposed by the health and safety bureaucrats.

At first glance it would seem a simple enough question: How do you change a light bulb?

But it is a poser that appears to be continuing to puzzle one particular profession - politicians.

For MPs have been issued with an official memo explaining exactly what to do if they should suddenly be plunged into darkness in the corridors of power.

The step-by-step instructions include 10 points stressing the need for protective gloves, a mask, a sturdy box, stiff card or paper, a damp cloth, tape, labels and a pen or pencil.

Given the amount of effort obviously involved, it's surprising they don't simply delegate the task to someone else immediately.

The idiot's guide was issued by Nick Harvey, Lib Dem MP for North Devon and spokesman for the House of Commons Commission, which is responsible for the running of that venerable institution.

He devised what must surely be the definitive manual in response to an official inquiry from Tory David Davis, MP for Monmouth.

Mr Davies asked him to clarify what should be done in the event of finding "environmentally friendly light bulbs which have been broken".

Last night a spokesman for the Taxpayers' Alliance described the guide as "ridiculous". He said: "MPs are public servants paid for using public money. Have they really nothing better to do than sit around writing guidelines on how to use a dustpan and brush? Politicians are living on another planet. We pay good money into the Government coffers and the very least we expect is good value in return."

Mr Harvey explained that the inquiry was made after a colleague was injured. He said: "A light bulb had been broken and placed in a waste paper bin. Someone picked it out and cut their finger. When broken, these sorts of environmental bulbs do spread glass and dust and a question was put forward seeking clarification on the correct procedure."

But Mr Davies claims he is still unclear - and may well ask Mr Harvey for further clarification. He said: "I heard there was mercury in these bulbs assumed there would be a special way of handling them. The response was lengthy but it didn't touch on the mercury. I may well go back to it another time." Alternatively, he could of course just ask his wife.

Daily Express: £270,000 doctor: I've done nothing wrong

by Cyril Dixon

A FAMILY doctor revealed by the Daily Express as one of Britain's best-paid GPs faced an inquiry into his surgery's £270,000 earnings yesterday.

Dr Satya Gupta said he raked in the huge sum from the NHS because his surgery in a deprived area of inner London treated so many patients. The middle-aged medic said he was unaware there was any investigation by the health trust.

But last night, health chiefs in Hackney, East London, said they were looking at how the Oldhill Medical Centre managed to earn so much while he was in charge.

A spokeswoman for City and Hackney Primary Care Trust said officials were checking the number of performance-related "points" used to boost earnings.

Matthew Elliott, Chief Executive of public spending watchdog the TaxPayers' Alliance said: "GPs are paid astronomical amounts in return for doing fewer hours and home visits.

"It's no wonder we haven't seen any improvement in the NHS when fat pay packets are a higher priority than healing the sick."

Dr Gupta - one of about 300 doctors who earn more than £250,000 a year - had 9,000 patients on his books before retiring in August.

Asked outside his £500,000 home in Hendon, north London, yesterday, if he earned £270,000, he replied: "That's absolutely correct." The GP, who drives a Mercedes, added: "As far as I am aware I am not under investigation."

Dr Gupta is paid under the controversial 2004 Quality Outcome Framework GPs' contract, which gives rewards according to targets met such as flu jabs given, blood pressures taken, cholesterol levels checked and records kept.

Each target can earn a GP about £120, and 307 GPs currently earn more than £250,000 annually for boosting their points. When first identified by the Daily Express in April, Dr Gupta said: "It is nobody's business but mine what I earn.

"I have two other doctors and locums whom I pay out of that. Mine alone is about £130,000. The other two I pay about £70,000 each.

"The £270,000 is the practice earnings profit for myself and staff. I have 9,000 patients. Everything I do is above board."

The British Medical Association says extra resources are given to surgeries who offer better care.

A spokeswoman for the Trust said Oldhill Medical Centre had been taken over and added: "We are still negotiating with the practice on the points earned."

Daily Express Editorial: Treasury coffers raking it in over Christmas

IF you are of a nervous disposition, look away now. We might well offer such advice to those concerned about the huge, and ever growing, cost of Christmas. But if you are already worried about the bills you're having to meet, our list of the taxes levied on Christmas goods, services and downright necessities will enrage you.

Gordon Brown's festive smash and grab raid on the bank balances of the British public is an utter disgrace. Few people probably realise the extent of the rake off enjoyed by Mr Brown and his Treasury colleagues every time we buy our children toys, go to visit elderly relations or enjoy a modest celebration.

According to the Taxpayers' Alliance, an organisation that is thankfully exposing the Prime Minister and his Chancellor, Alistair Darling, for their rapacious greed, even a sprig of mistletoe will net the taxman £1.12.

If Scrooge were alive today, he'd marvel at this Labour Government's parsimony. Mr Brown squandered any latent public goodwill within months of coming to office. But it was not only the high profile blunders, the accusations of sleaze and the misjudgments that surrounded him and his Government; it was largely the realisation that this is a Prime Minister who cares little for the plight of the hard-working taxpayer.

Sooner or later, the ordinary people of Britain will pay Mr Brown back, and his short-lived administration will be a brief footnote in history.

Hackney Gazette: Translation costs row

TOWN hall bosses have come under fire for wasting taxpayers' money after revealing at least £125,000 was spent on translating council documents last year.

The huge bill run up by Hackney Council accounts for translating the information into some 100 languages spoken in the borough.

The costs have been attacked by the government's Communities Secretary, Hazel Blears, who says local authorities are spending too much on translations and not enough on encouraging people to learn English.

She has sent out guidelines to all local authorities to advise cutting down on costs.

Meanwhile, the council seemed confused over how much had been spent and gave the Gazette several figures, some as high as £200,000, before settling on £125,000.

A council spokesman said information was not translated automatically as a rule and and was often translated or interpreted on request.

The council also uses its own in-house service to generate income from outside organisations, including Moorfields Eye Hospital and St Bart's Hospital, allowing it to recoup some money.

Matthew Elliot, chief executive of the Taxpayers' Alliance, says the bill is still too high.

"It's good news that the council is trying to recoup some of the money which is more than what some councils do, but they should be working to minimise the bill even more," he said.

"Lots of councils cut back on services like meals on wheels, which are precisely the sort of thing taxpayers want their money spent instead of these translation services."

The languages most widely spoken in Hackney are Turkish, Yiddish, French, Bengali, Gujerati and Yoruba.

Richard Payne, of Hackney's English for Speakers of Other Languages organisation, says any move to reduce translation services will cause problems for non-English speakers.

"Not everyone has the language skills to understand often complex information, especially now as the government has decided to charge fees for English classes ," he said.

"Besides, there will always be some who do not learn the language just as many English abroad do not learn foreign languages.

Express on Sunday: Lives of MPs get a secret polish online

By Jason Groves POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT

COMPUTERS at the House of Commons are being used to secretly embellish MPs' internet biographies.

An investigation by the Sunday Express reveals that PCs on the Parliamentary network have been used to make more than 2,000 anonymous alterations to entries on the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia.

While many changes correct simple factual errors, others seem designed to make certain MPs seem more impressive.

It is impossible to tell who has made the changes, but the Parliamentary network is only open to MPs, peers and staff. Those whose biographies have been improved include:

-Shadow Business Minister Mark Prisk. A Westminster contributor added: "Seen as a rising star."

-Communities Secretary Hazel Blears. Someone added: "She has proved to be an effective performer and is tipped to rise to the top of the Labour Party."

-International Development Minister Shahid Malik. Changes include: "He is respected for being brave and honest on tough issues, but above all fair".

-Tory MP John Bercow. References to him being "the shortest male MP in the Commons" have been removed.

The website tool WikiScanner also reveals that Wikipedia entries have been altered to make attacks and slurs on politicians, including former PM Tony Blair.

Mark Wallace, campaign director of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "It is a sad reflection of political priorities that so many parliamentarians would rather waste time and taxpayers' money polishing their images rather than improving the lives of their constituents."

"Wasteful posturing on Wikipedia is no substitute for genuine public service."

News.com.au: MPs' lightbulb change guide branded a joke

NEW rules telling British MPs how to change a light bulb in 10 simple steps has sparked outrage among taxpayers.

The step-by-step guide was issued by the House of Commons Commission, which oversees the daily running of Parliament.

It advises MPs who find a broken light globe they should put on a protective mask and gloves before picking up any shards of glass with a dustpan and broom and placing the pieces in a sturdy box.

The Taxpayers' Alliance has branded the guide "ridiculous".

"MPs are public servants paid for using public money – have they really nothing better to do than sit around writing guidelines on how to use a dustpan and brush," a spokesman said to The Daily Telegraph.

"Politicians are living on another planet.

"We pay good money into the Government coffers and the very least we expect is good value in return."

The commission released the guide after Conservative MP, David Davies, asked what the rules were for cleaning up and disposing of broken environmentally friendly light bulbs.

Liberal Democrats MP Nick Harvey defended the need for the guide, saying it was needed because someone had recently cut their finger after picking a broken bulb out of a bin.

Plymouth Herald: £4m on Consultants

Private firms earned more than £4million between them in just one year after being employed as consultants by Plymouth City Council.

Figures released to The Herald under the Freedom of Information Act show that in 2006/7 £4,218,136 of taxpayers cash went on lucrative contracts to huge firms, most of which have no Plymouth base.

These included architects LDA Design and law firm Bevan Brittan.

And accountants/professional services giant PricewaterhouseCoopers pocketed the biggest single payout, £442,707 - after being brought in to find ways of saving the council cash.

The authority has now spent £18million on outside consultants since 2002.

South West Devon's Tory MP Gary Streeter said the 2006/7 sum was "a little bit on the excessive side".

And the public spending campaign group Taxpayers' Alliance said Plymouth taxpayers would be "shocked" by the figure.

The council stressed that the spending - which included £1,323,861 paid by children's services and £1,101,936 by the director of development's department - amounted to just 0.6 per cent of its £697million budget, and that some of the cash came from central Government.

John Cremins, the council's head of strategic procurement, insisted: "The council utilises consultants to carry out specialist work for which we do not have the capacity."

Critics, however, say hiring consultants has become an "easy option" for the public sector generally, and a way to protect itself from risk.

But they say this does nothing to build and retain staff and increase skills.

Mr Streeter said: "Both national and local government is reaching for the consultants' telephone numbers too quickly.

"It's becoming a fashion that needs to be changed."

He said the public sector must give proper consideration to "what can be done in-house" with an eye to building "a long-term employment base".

And he added: "There's risk aversion in the public sector. Not just in Plymouth but everywhere.

"Bringing in something from outside is seen as protecting your own back. That's unfortunate. It should be about the best quality job for the right value."

Mark Wallace, campaign director of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "People who have seen their council tax go through the roof in recent years will be shocked to find so much money being lavished on bringing in outside consultants.

"Often councils pay through the nose for consultants to do work that local authority staff should be able to do themselves.

"The solution is to improve local performance, not hire costly specialists.

"It is no defence to point to consultants who are identifying waste and inefficiency, either - surely the people paid handsomely to run the council should be able to eliminate waste and spot the organisational problems right under their very noses."

Daily Express: Brown tax on Christmas

by Macer Hall, Political Editor

FAMILIES will be hit by an average £225 stealth tax bill this Christmas, it was claimed yesterday.

The cash will be squeezed out of households in VAT on gifts, excise duty on alcohol, and fuel tax on trips to visit friends.

Hidden tax costs include around £30 on a popular gift such as a personal music player, £6 on a bottle of champagne and £2.25 on a typical box of crackers.

Overall, research shows the Treasury will rake in a massive £5.65billion from seasonal spending this month.

The tax bill is bound to ignite more anger at the soaring burden of stealth taxation under Gordon Brown.

Last night, Shadow Treasury Chief Secretary Philip Hammond said: “Labour’s stealth tax rises have made Christmas a real stretch for many hard working families.

“The rising cost of living combined with falling real take-home pay means more and more money heading to the Treasury rather than being saved or enjoyed at home.”

He added: “That’s Gordon Brown’s Christmas present to us all.”

And Tory backbencher Mark Pritchard said: “This nasty tax sting comes at the worst time of the year.”

The Yuletide tax raid comes as millions of families face tipping into serious debt to fund the annual festivities.

With retail prices and fuel bills rising faster than average earnings, many consumers are expected to be even more reliant on credit cards and loans this year.

And a recent survey found that one in 10 adults – around four million people – is still paying off debts run up last Christmas.

The £225 average family Christmas tax bill was calculated by the TaxPayers’ Alliance campaign group.

Mike Denham, a former Treasury economist and author of the report, said: “While Santa Claus is coming down the chimney, Gordon Brown is sneaking through the back door and taking the presents from under the tree.”

The Alliance calculated that the £225 average family tax bill was equivalent to the cost of 600 mince pies or 15 bottles of sherry. And the overall £5.65billion was enough to buy every turkey in the European Union.

In total, the average family will pay £182 in VAT, £38 in alcohol duty and £5 in petrol tax.

The research document added: “Just about the only festive spending that escapes tax is the turkey and Brussels sprouts.”

The Christmas tax calculation was based on official taxation statistics and surveys of family spending trends and motoring.

According to the Christmas Retail Survey published annually by financial experts Deloitte, Christmas costs the average British family a total of £1,340. That includes £336 on food and drink, £732 on gifts and £272 on socialising.

The Alliance research also used data from the Office of National Statistics to tot up the cost of alcohol duty over Christmas. It calculated that Britons spend around £6billion on liquor during the festive period. Given an effective average duty rate of 16 per cent the total grabbed by the Treasury is expected to be £960million, or £38 for the average household.

Mr Denham used a survey from Travelodge to show that the average distance clocked up by families driving to visit friends and relatives during Christmas is 121 miles. That equates to 3.3 billion miles, requiring 47 million gallons of fuel, given consumption for a typical family saloon.

With fuel tax – petrol and diesel duty plus VAT – now at £3 a gallon, the total Christmas road tax bill totalled £141million, or £5 for the average family.

Treasury officials last night dismissed the TaxPayers’ Alliance calculations.

Sun Editorial: Taxing times

THE taxman will take £5.65billion in VAT on our Christmas shopping this year, says the watchdog Taxpayers’ Alliance.

But Chancellor Alistair Darling won’t be counting his chickens.

Stores warn turnover is well below previous records, despite SALE signs in every shop window.

Consumers are £1.4 TRILLION in debt and tightening their belts against the credit crunch.

Mr Darling’s fear, as he starts work on his first Budget, may be that the tax torrent is turning into a trickle.

The Sun: ‘PM Gordon's a scrooge'

EVERY family will hand over £225 to the taxman when they go Christmas shopping this year.

PM Gordon Brown will rake in a record £5.65billion in VAT on goods ranging from booze to iPhones and even crackers. Only books, food and children’s clothes are exempt.

The scale of festive tax is revealed in a study by the Taxpayers’ Alliance.

Former Treasury economist Mike Denham, who compiled the report, branded the PM a SCROOGE last night.

He said: “While Santa comes down the chimney, Gordon is sneaking through the back door and taking the presents from under the tree.

“People make enormous effort to make Christmas merry and bright, but the taxman refuses to join in the fun.”

Britons will splash out £33.6billion on enjoying themselves over the next few days’ festivities.

Daily Telegraph: MPs' guide to clearing up broken light bulbs

By Nick Allen

MPS have been issued with a 10-point guide on what to do if they find a broken light bulb in Parliament.

The detailed instructions were drawn up by the House of Commons Commission, which is responsible for the day-to-day running of the Parliamentary estate.

It said a protective mask and gloves should be donned before tackling stray shards of glass and explained how to brush them up using a piece of stiff card.

A spokesman for the Taxpayers' Alliance said the guidelines were "ridiculous'' and a waste of time.

He said: "MPs are public servants paid for using public money - have they really nothing better to do than sit around writing guidelines on how to use a dustpan and brush?

"Politicians are living on another planet. We pay good money into the Government coffers and the very least we expect is good value in return.''

The commission runs the restaurants, offices, bars, homes and security in Parliament and has an annual budget of pounds 144 million.

Its chairman is Michael Martin, the Speaker, and other prominent members include Harriet Harman, Labour's deputy leader, and Theresa May, the shadow leader of the House.

The commission was responding to a query from David Davies, the Conservative MP for Monmouth, who wanted to know "what guidance has been issued on procedures for cleaning up and disposing of environmentally-friendly light bulbs which have been broken''.

The reply was published in Hansard and came from Nick Harvey, the Commission spokesman and Liberal Democrat MP for North Devon.

"The instructions are that the cleaning operative, using protective gloves and wearing a mask, should collect the main fragments of the light bulb and carefully place them in a sturdy box,'' Mr Harvey wrote.

"All splinters should then be collected using stiff card or paper.

"The area should then be cleaned using a damp cloth. The splinters and the cloth should then be placed in the box.

"Once the area is clear and clean, the box should be sealed and labelled with details of the item.

"The box should then be taken to the waste removal area in the loading bay and passed to the waste disposal contractor in an appropriate manner.''

Mr Harvey said the guidelines were necessary and defended his decision to spend time issuing them.

He said: "There had been an incident where a light bulb had been broken and placed in a waste paper bin. Someone had picked it out and cut their finger.

"When broken, these sorts of environmental bulbs do spread glass and dust and a question was put forward seeking clarification on the correct procedure.

"If Mr Davies feels the need to ask what to do, I have a duty to try and help him.''

A spokesman for the House of Commons said every MP had a right to answer "house management issues'' and that "Mr Harvey has a duty to respond''.

However, the matter may yet eat up further Parliamentary resources as Mr Davies said he was not satisfied with the answer.

He said: "I heard there was mercury in these bulbs and assumed there would be a special way of handling them.

"The response was lengthy but it still didn't touch on the mercury. I may well go back to it another time.''

The Sentinel: Council makeover follows job losses

by David Johnson

Politicians and union leaders have questioned whether £729,000 of public money should be spent refurbishing offices when council jobs are being cut and departments are being told to find savings.

Floors two and three of the civic centre, in Stoke, have been redecorated and revamped with new furniture, lighting, carpets, pictures, cabling and partitions.

More than 250 council employees have been given voluntary redundancy since September last year, and compulsory redundancies have not been ruled out.

Over the next three years, £475,000 of the refurbishment costs will come from the North Staffordshire Regeneration Partnership - an umbrella public organisation which co-ordinates projects run by the city council, Renew North Staffordshire and the North Staffordshire Regeneration Zone.

Colin Walton, pictured, Unison branch secretary at the city council, said the union's members would be angry if the cost of the office revamp led to job cuts.

He said: "We will certainly be bearing this in mind in our discussions if they tell us we can't afford staff.

"I've got no problem with improving people's working conditions at all.

"But it would be something we would be very concerned about if because of this expenditure we would be faced with redundancies."

In the 2006/2007 council year, the authority spent £4.5 million honouring redundancy agreements for 253 people, compared to £277,839 for 14 people the previous year.

Payments of at least £800,000 have already been agreed for the current year, which ends in March.

Officials say the job cuts will produce net savings of £41 million over the next five years.

Councillor Peter Kent-Baguley, leader of the Potteries Alliance, believes public money would be better spent on services rather than on refurbishment.

He said: "Is this really the best use of three-quarters of a million pounds?

"The museums and libraries have already had to cut £500,000 this year."

Other councillors said the office furniture did not need replacing.

City Independent councillor Ian Mitchell said: "You'd see great mounds of furniture appearing in the underground car park at the civic centre and then disappearing. There was absolutely nothing wrong with it."

And Labour councillor Alan Joynson, who represents Hanley West and Shelton, said: "I don't have a problem making conditions better for the people who work there at all, but they could have done it without spending all that money."

Before the refurbishment started, 210 people worked on that part of floor three, but the council says this will soon increase to more than 300.

Floor two is used by the children's and young people's department.

Councillor Michael Tappin, portfolio holder for resources and finance, said: "The money spent on refurbishment was not excessive. Since the civic centre opened in 1992, there has been no refurbishment and one was needed."

A letter sent to The Sentinel on behalf of the council's property services department says: "The works to the civic centre... allow the council to rationalise its office buildings, introduce new methods of working and make better use of existing space, therefore significantly reducing overall costs."

Fiona McEvoy, campaign agent for the West Midlands Taxpayers' Alliance, said: "Spending thousands on extravagant refurbishments really is counter-productive."

Local Government Association First Magazine: Serve notice on red tape

We see the Taxpayers' Alliance has condemned local government for the 'excessive' sums spent on publicity. Perhaps we could reduce that figure by loosening some of the restrictive and box-ticking rules imposed on local councils by central government. At Crawley we spend some £25,000 a year placing public notices in the local press supposedly informing local people about development applications received. We do it because the government office says we must.

Why can't we just publish them on our website, in which we have invested large sums of money to help the public access services and find out what is going on? We know that more than 70% of residents have web access and use it regularly, but when was the last time you scoured the public notices for details of the latest planning application? No-one would be disadvantaged because anyone directly affected by a proposed development receives a letter from the council anyway.

If Crawley's experience is replicated across the country, local authorities are spending at least £10m on public notices that most people don't read. The sum is probably much higher but it is a cashable saving just waiting to happen.

Cllr Bob Lanzer (Con) and Cllr Claire Denman (Con)
Crawley BC

Surrey Advertiser: Letters from TPA Activists

Click to enlarge

News of the World: No cells left for our lags

by Guy Basnett

Poles are not just doing our plumbing - they are now filling up Britain's overcrowded jails.

For the number of Polish inmates in prison has trebled in the past two years. And the overall number of foreign crooks behind bars is rising five times faster than that of Brit prisoners.

Latest figures show that between June 2005 and June 2007 the number of foreign inmates soared by a massive 14.9 percent - from 9.650 to 11,097.

But over the same period the number of UK nationals behind bars increased by just 3.1 percent.

The number of Poles increased from 116 to 320 - meaning Poland is now the European country with the second largest contingent in Britain's prisons, behind Ireland.

And despite government promises foreign prisoners are taking up more jail space - at a total cost of £1million a day, causing more British villains to be released early.

Mark Wallace, of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "It's ridiculous that overflowing prisons are stuffed with foreign prisoners."

Councillors award themselves pay rise

Senior politicians awarded themselves an inflation-busting pay rise in the face of fierce criticism.

Members of Conservative-controlled West Sussex County Council rubber-stamped hefty increases in their allowances at a meeting on Friday.

They believe the new settlement - which comes after ten years of tax hikes in the county - represents value for money after they rejected the introduction of a £200,000 pension scheme.

Those already enjoying the largest allowances within the organisation have benefited most, with leader Henry Smith seeing his annual remuneration increase from £26,523 to £29,394 - a rise of 11 per cent on last year.

Cabinet members will pocket £18,283 - up by 14 per cent - while three non-executive committee chairmen will pocket £8,375 - a 27 per cent rise.

Tax-payers have seen their bills go up by 150 per cent since 1993.

The decision was taken despite an independent panel's recommendation to freeze any increases for the next financial year.

Campaign groups branded the decision an "insult to the people of West Sussex".

Coun Smith, who dedicates 60 hours a week to council duties, argued that the increases merely keep allowances in line with those enjoyed by other similar-sized councils.

And while maintaining that being a councillor should remain officially a voluntary role, Coun Smith denied claims of greed by arguing that he and fellow cabinet members could earn far more in private sector roles.

He said: "The first thing to point out is that the remuneration panel's recommendations have been rejected before.

"They recommended that West Sussex county councillors should receive a pension which would have cost the council £200,000 and we rejected that.

"These increases brings us in to line with councils of comparable sizes in this region and I think all of us felt that was the right thing to do.

"I spend around 60 hours a week on my duties as leader of the council and if I was to do take a role with similar responsibilities within the private sector the salary would be far higher.

"I absolutely think being a councillor should be a voluntary role though. The taxpayer can always get better value for money and we are continuing to work towards that."

The independent remuneration panel's report recommending a freeze on allowances in West Sussex said: "Public service, rather than material reward, should be the primary motivation for involvement in local government."

Mark Wallace, a director for the Taxpayers' Alliance pressure group, said: "This pay award is a complete scandal.

"It is shocking that the independent panel which represents ordinary taxpayers on these matters has been flagrantly ignored."

Daily Star: Jail beasts get stuffed

By Matthew Davis

MONSTERS including Soham brute Ian Huntley will lap it up behind bars with a string of festive treats – and a full Christmas dinner.

Huntley will stuff himself with turkey, stuffing and sprouts followed by pudding with rum sauce.

But that’s not all for the inmates at top-security Wakefield jail, West Yorks.

Huntley, 33 –  serving life for murdering schoolgirls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in 2002 – will also enjoy a  concert and carol service. He will relish performances by Wakefield Community Gospel Choir and the Leeds West Hunslet Salvation Army Band.

Meanwhile, at Full Sutton prison in York, the menu will include delicacies such as trout in almond butter for vegetarians and Halal roast lamb and mint sauce for Muslim inmates.

Prisoners there – including psycho Dennis Nilsen, who killed and dismembered at least 15 men after luring them back to his North London flat – can also look forward to sports competitions with cash prizes.

Even Islamist bombers will be joining in the fun, despite not celebrating Christmas.

Manfo Asiedu, serving 33 years for his part in the botched July 21 attack on London’s transport network, will be able to feast on a nut roast, sage and onion stuffing, prawn salad, honey-roasted parsnips and pudding with rum sauce at London’s high-security Belmarsh prison.

The Christmas and New Year arrangements at 13 UK jails were revealed last week by the National Offender Management Service.

And they have caused outrage with the TaxPayers’ Alliance, who claim the money should be spent on helping  “ordinary families”.

Chief Executive Matthew Elliott told the Daily Star Sunday: “Hard-working families have to scrimp and save for Christmas so it’s pretty galling convicted criminals get so many treats at the taxpayers’ expense.

“The Home Office should remember the OAPs, who can’t afford to turn on their heating after they’ve paid December’s council tax bill, and the ordinary families who are still struggling after last year’s Farepak rip-off.”

Daily Express: Paid for by your taxes: an ostrich farm in Iran and an Albanian vineyard

By Martyn Brown

TAXPAYERS are funding thousands of businesses around the world set up by failed asylum seekers who were paid up to £4,000 to go home.

More than 23,000 migrants have pocketed £36million so far.

They are now the proud owners of businesses including hotels, factories, beauty parlours and vineyards as far afield as Iran, Albania, Colombia and Zimbabwe.

The immigrants, who had no legal right to remain here, were given free flights, handed £1,000 in cash at the airport and then paid a further £3,000 to set up businesses in their homelands.

Critics yesterday condemned the handouts as “bribes”, and claimed they would only attract more immigrants to this country.

Ministers say paying failed asylum seekers to leave is cheaper than forcibly deporting them.

But Matthew Elliott of the TaxPayers’ Alliance said the scheme was an insult to British citizens.

“Giving failed asylum seekers business grants smacks of rewarding criminality and sends out completely the wrong message to people contemplating illegal entry into the UK,” he said.

“The policy will act as a honey trap for even more illegal migrants.  The unintended consequence of this policy will be to push up the number of illegals, exacerbating the problem and increasing the overall cost to taxpayers.”

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: “Now the price of the Government’s failure to secure our borders is all too clear. Given their inability to deport illegal immigrants, they have had to resort to bribing them to leave – with the taxpayer picking up the bill.”

The Government scheme is publicised in the ethnic-minority media. One undercover reporter successfully applied for cash to set up a travel agency in India.

It has also emerged that some people are already playing the system by setting up businesses abroad and then returning to Britain.

Sir Andrew Green, of pressure group Migration Watch, said: “It is time we recognised the extent to which the asylum system is subject to abuse.”

The Home Office said it held fingerprints of every person taking part in the scheme to prevent them from applying again under a different identity. “There is no question of anyone coming back and going through the system again,” a spokesman said yesterday.

It costs £11,000 on average to deport a foreign national who refuses to leave.

Cheryl Cates, a deputy director at the Home Office Border and Immigration Agency, said: “Assisted voluntary return is more cost effective than an enforced removal, which entails arrest costs, placing people in secure accommodation and often more expensive flights. For returnees, it is an orderly and dignified way of going back.”

The Home Office spokesman added: “Last year we removed more failed asylum seekers than ever before. We will not hesitate to use enforced returns, but when we can spare British taxpayers the cost, we will. Repatriation assistance frees money to hire more immigration officers.”

Lyndon Jeffels, a spokesman for the Geneva-based International Organisation for Migration, which administers the scheme, said it had been a success. “Reintegration assistance is positive for the taxpayer, the individual, and the country they are returning to. It makes returns sustainable. It’s a win-win.”

The Voluntary Assisted Return and Reintegration Programme was set up in 1999 and by the end of 2006 had cost £36million. Of this, about two-thirds was paid by the Home Office and the rest by the EU.

Uptake was slow until the maximum grant was raised from £1,000 to £4,000 at the start of 2006.

The findings emerged as ministers prepare to tighten border controls with a clampdown on foreign visitors. Tourist visas are likely to be shortened from six months to three, while families may have to put up bonds of £1,000 before relatives can obtain visitors’ passes.

At the same time, eight eastern European countries will join the EU “passport-free travel zone” this week, in a move that raises fears of more illegal immigrants crossing the continent to reach Channel port gateways to Britain.

Daily Mail: UK handout funds an ostrich farm in Iran

by James Slack

FAILED asylum seekers have been handed £ 36million to open businesses, including a beauty salon, a vineyard and even an ostrich farm, back in their homelands.

More than 23,000 have taken advantage of generous handouts worth up to £4,000 each.

The revelation reignited a row over Labour's controversial policy of 'bribing' bogus refugees to leave the country.

Critics said the Government Home Affairs Editor had created a climate where a false claimant could not lose. They also warned it could encourage more people to head to Britain to lodge a claim.

Details emerged for the first time of how the failed asylum seekers - who could have been forcibly deported - are spending their support package.

One man, a 35-year-old Iranian, opened an ostrich farm after spending four years in the UK. The vineyard, near Tirana, was opened by an Albanian man who produces organic grapes and raki, a local spirit.

The beauty salon in the Zimbabwean capital of Harare was opened by a woman who went home last year after six years in Britain.

Other businesses that have benefited include a fishing firm in Angola, a ferry in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a dress shop in Sudan, a car dealership in Kenya, a laundry in Afghanistan, a shoe shop in China, a hotel in Nepal, a garment factory in Sri Lanka, an internet cafe in Ecuador and a market stall in Jamaica. The payouts are worth up to £1,000 in cash at the airport, followed by £3,000 in support to open a business.

Other perks available, provided the £4,000 is not exceeded, include private schooling for the failed asylum seeker's children.

The Home Office pays around twothirds of the bill, with the remainder coming from the EU - itself funded by the taxpayer.

Shadow home secretary David Davis said: 'The price of the Government's failure to secure our borders is all too clear. Given their inability to deport illegal immigrants, they have had to resort to bribing them - with the taxpayer picking up the bill.'

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch UK, said failed asylum seekers were being given a 'no loss' option.

He added: 'Either they succeed with their claim and are given a meal ticket for life, or they fail and return home much the wealthier. The sum of £4,000 is a fortune in most source countries.'

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: 'Giving failed asylum seekers business grants smacks of rewarding criminality and will act as a honey trap for even more illegal migrants'.

The Voluntary Assisted Return Programme has cost £36million since its launch in 1999. The budget for next year is £22million.

The Home Office says the policy is cheaper than forcibly deporting failed refugees - a process which costs £11,000 each. But opponents say it is evidence of desperation in the Government's attempt to clear a growing backlog.

Throughout 2006, officials managed to deport only 18,280 failed asylum seekers, while 20,700 were added to the list awaiting deportation.

The Treasury has instructed the Home Office to significantly increase the number of bogus refugees dealt with each year.

Sex slaves smuggled into Britain are to share millions in compensation for their 'pain and trauma'.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority has agreed to hand over £140,000 to the first four cases to come before it.

The women had suffered a ' sustained period of sexual abuse' after being trafficked into the UK by a syndicate of British criminals.

A further 10,000 are estimated to be eligible under a new interpretation of guidelines by the CICA, a Government agency.

Of the first four, one girl was brought into the UK five years ago at the age of 13. Another was trafficked in 2003 when she was 16.

The decision will re-open controversy over the way victims of sex trafficking should be treated. Ministers recognise the danger that offering them help - including compensation - could encourage illegal immigration.

Sunday Times: Bonus bonanza for civil servants

by Steven Swinford

It's not just the City high- flyers who are enjoying big bonuses. Senior civil servants are taking home up to Pounds 20,000 each in performance pay in a £120m bonus bonanza.

At HM Revenue & Customs, which recently lost two discs containing the details of 25m people, more than 350 top-grade staff are thought to have shared almost £2m, while bureaucrats at the Ministry of Defence have been given £44m and at the Treasury £21m.

Over the past six years, bonuses have almost doubled and the wages bill for senior civil servants has risen from £144m to £250m.

Civil servants are also enjoying record pensions. Almost 3,700 have packages worth £1m or more, according to the Taxpayers' Alliance.

Theresa May, the shadow Commons leader, said the bonuses were "rewards for failure, plain and simple".

She added: "This government has overseen the first run on a British bank in over 100 years, lost the details of 25m people and managed to alienate the entire police force, and yet civil servants in these departments are earning bigger bonuses than ever before."

In the past three years taxpayers have funded a 20% rise in overall bonuses for civil servants, from Pounds 102m in 2004-05 to £123m in the last financial year. The 2,000 elite civil servants have been given bonuses worth £12m, taking home an average of about £5,600 each. A select handful of "exceptional performers" earned more than £20,000.

HMRC said that because the bonuses applied to the 2005-06 financial year, any "perceived failings" over the discs would not have been taken into account.

Police are expected to abandon the search for the discs before Christmas.

At the Ministry of Defence 181 senior civil servants have received bonuses of almost £6,500. Soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are paid just £2,240 each in bonuses.

Sunday Times: Pensions gap widens

Experts are warning of a widening pension gap between the private and public sectors. Almost 4,000 civil servants will retire on a £1m pension pot, according to figures obtained by the Taxpayers' Alliance. The group also claims that 90% of state employees receive final salary pensions, compared with 16% in the private sector.

Tom McPhail, of the financial adviser Hargreaves Lansdown, said civil servants enjoyed the sort of pensions that were reserved for the very wealthy. "The average pension pot for the average person retiring today is just £30,000," he said.

"That's worth £1,500 a year. So a £1m pension fund is in mega-rich territory."

Richmond and Twickenham Times: 'PR is essential' - Lourie

The authority's communications department is essential to the running of the borough, the council leader said in the wake of a revelation more than £million was spent on publicity last year.

The TaxPayers Alliance released figures for the amount each authority spent on publicity last year and Richmond Council apos;s £753,000 bill was the fourth lowest in the capital with only Kingston upon Thames, Hammersmith and Fulham and Bexley spending less in London in 2006-07.

The figures showed boroughs up and down the country averaged a spend of £985,000 on publicity last year and an increase of 130 per cent on 1996-97 levels, without taking inflation into account.

The tables showed Richmond spent £45,714 10 years ago, and there was an increase in spending of 1547.2 per cent in that 10 year period.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said it was important tax payers could see how their money was being spent.

"With council tax doubling in the past decade, it's extremely disappointing that councils have chosen to double their publicity budgets over the same period," he said.

"With the internet cutting the cost of communication, it shouldn't be difficult for local authorities to find savings in this area and bring council tax down."

Councillor Serge Lourie, Richmond Council leader, said: "Effective communication is absolutely essential if councils are to keep delivering quality service that are accessible and understood by people.

"The work of council communicators is not about spin - it is about ensuring that local people understand what services are available and know how to access them.

"Almost everything we do in local Government requires the co-operation of our residents and this can only happen if people understand what we are doing.

"In Richmond upon Thames we also recognise that effective communications plays a significant role in helping us win more funding for local projects and attracting the best people to work for the borough.

"While all this is important and we are proud of our communications service I would also point out that our spending on communications is among the very lowest of any local authority in London."

A spokesperson from the Local Government Association, a cross-party organisation representing councils across England and Wales, said it was absolutely vital that residents were told how to access services.

PR Week: Richard Stoke of the LGA: Public Sector: TaxPayers' Alliance rant misses point

Last week saw the usual whinge about how 'town halls are wasting millions of pounds on spin doctors and glossy brochures'.

The TaxPayers' Alliance - accomplished headline grabbers with regular rants about public sector profligacy - claimed that councils were spending pounds 450m a year on publicity, a figure that had doubled in ten years.

After discussing our approach with colleagues in councils around the country, we went on the offensive and relished the opportunity to make a key point about local government.

To enhance our sector's reputation, we seek to change the perception people have about where their council tax goes. It is not just on emptying the bins, but rather providing a raft of different services - on average 800 per council - that impact on everyone's lives.

I have evidence that shows that once people start understanding this point, they begin to realise that local authorities provide value for money, whatever their level of council tax. They even start quite liking their council and think it makes where they live better.

This is the thinking behind the Local Government Association's reputation campaign - backed by 260 councils - and how we approached rebutting our friends at the TaxPayers' Alliance.

What services precisely did the organisation not want councils to tell their residents about, we asked. Making sure women catch a properly licensed cab home? How to report fly-tipping? When elderly residents receive meals on wheels? Warning parents about dangerous toys? How to claim some of the millions of pounds of unclaimed tax benefits? Alerts about flooding?

The alliance's stunt had also singled out Birmingham City Council for spending pounds 10m on publicity. Was the alliance aware, we asked again, that this represents 0.003 per cent of the council's budget and that it was responsible for 174,158 pupils in 426 schools, 2,675 hectares of park, 3,500,000 hours of home care provision, 167,000 waste collections and 2,475 km of roads?

The list goes on and on - not only for Birmingham but all of local government. So as public sector PR people we need to stand up, be counted and fight back.

Daily Telegraph: Hospitals 'should be fined for bad patient care'

Hospitals should be fined if patients get bad care that extends their stay or if they catch an infection, the Government chief medical officer has said.

Sir Liam Donaldson said the taxpayer should not have to foot the bill for bad care that resulted in extended hospital stays.

He even suggested that hospitals where patients contracted MRSA could have to pay out for any extra treatment.

Sir Liam said the system of fines worked well in America, where private health care companies operate, but critics said introducing it in the UK was 'absurd' as the taxpayer would end up paying the fine anyway.

Speaking at the launch of a new report by the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA), he said: "Why should the health service, funded by the taxpayer, pay for the care of a patient that's had bad care?

"In any other walk of life if you receive very bad service then you don't pay for it, you get a refund, and I don't think it should be any different in the health service.

"If somebody develops MRSA and has to stay in hospital longer to be treated, why should it be funded?"

Some US states require hospitals by law to report so-called "never events" - a list of medical errors that are considered so preventable and so serious they should never happen.

Last month, the Rhode Island Department of Health reprimanded and fined Rhode Island Hospital $50,000 for performing "wrong site" surgery on a patient for the third time this year.

Sir Liam said similar systems should be brought in for the NHS which would act as an "incentive" for hospitals to provide better care.

He said he would be recommending the idea to Lord Darzi, who is carrying out a review of the NHS.

One way the system could work would be for primary care trusts (PCTs) to withhold some of the individual hospital's funding or recover money from them if they caused harm, Sir Liam said.

There could possibly be a tariff setting out how much should be paid for what kind of error.

"I have not thought about all the details but as a concept it is something I think should be introduced," he said.

Matthew Sinclair, Policy Analyst at the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "Whether the Primary Care Trust or the hospital pays the cost of treating someone who has fallen victim to poor medical standards the taxpayer will still foot the final bill.

"This proposal might make sense in an insurance-based healthcare system which leaves provision to private companies, as seen in the most successful Continental countries, but not in the NHS as it currently stands.

"Without that separation between funding and provision we will never get proper incentives for reliable, safe and effective medical care. We would be in the absurd position of robbing Peter to pay Peter."

Former NHS chief executive Sir Ian Carruthers, who now heads NHS South West, said there was a culture in the NHS that prevented the issue being properly addressed.

"Our culture is to pretend things don't happen,"

NHS trust board members liked to "sweep" difficult conversations about patient safety under the carpet and there was only a "minuscule" amount of energy in the NHS focused on the issue, he added.

Sir Ian said there was a "shortage of courage" in the NHS over patient safety and need for the leadership to lead.

Data from the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) has shown there were more than 700,000 "patient safety incidents" in the NHS in 2006/07.

Of those, 6,558 incidents resulted in severe harm and another 40,665 caused moderate harm to patients.

There were 2,929 deaths due to patient safety incidents.

A study published in November found that one in 10 patients is harmed while in hospital.

A review of the notes of 1,006 patients found between 8% and 10% were harmed because of the care they received and up to around half of the incidents could have been prevented.

Daily Mail: Benefit shambles costs £5.3billion

by Ian Drury

Cheating and bungling in the benefits system has cost the taxpayer £5.3billion in just two years.

Statistics published yesterday revealed nearly £51million a week was overpaid to social security claimants because of error and fraud.

The huge sum was wrongly shelled out to millions by blundering officials, mistakes by claimants or simply stolen by fraudsters.

Underpayments made in the same period total a further £2billion, according to the Department for Work and Pensions. The figures make a mockery of Government pledges to crack down on the amount of money squandered because of fraud and error.

They do not include £5billion wrongly paid in child and family tax credits since 2003.

Critics warned it would be virtually impossible for the Government to claw back the missing £5.3billion - enough to pay for some 200,000 nurses.

The overpayments, representing about 2.2 per cent of benefit spending, cover a range of handouts - including Income Support, Jobseekers Allowance, Housing Benefit and Pension Credit.

The figures show £2.7billion was estimated to have been lost in 2006-2007, compared to £2.6billion the previous year.

Fraud has increased from £600million to £800million. Customer error accounts for £1billion, while official errors make up £900million.

A spokesman for the Taxpayers' Alliance said: 'The benefits system is so complicated that not only are officials prone to make mistakes, but it is difficult to spot when morally bankrupt people pull a fast one.'

Lincolnshire Echo: Hundreds are let off debts totalling £145k

The riots are long over and Margaret Thatcher has gone but more than 600 Lincoln people are still being chased for unpaid poll tax bills.

The notorious tax, introduced in the dying days of Thatcher's administration, sparked nationwide fury and helped end the reign of one of the UK's most controversial Prime Ministers.

Now, 16 years after it was scrapped, Lincoln City Council has decided to write off more than £145,000 in debts, saying that it has no chance of ever getting the money back.

The tax - a per-head charge rather than a charge on your home - was ditched after criticisms that it shifted the burden from the rich to the poor.

Since its abolition, the tax collectors at City Hall have claimed back almost all of the £43m tax bill from that period - and written off almost £1m.

But now the council has revealed that 686 people have yet to fork out the cash for their bills.

The decision to write off the unpaid bills effectively reverses a pledge made by the previous Labour administration in 2003 to chase those who had not paid up through the courts.

Of the people who have not paid, only one person is still making payments to settle their account.

Yet the question of why someone still has a debt on a tax scrapped in 1991 will remain unanswered - as the council has refused to reveal the person's identity.

Council leader Eddie Strengiel told the Echo it would cost more to get the money back than the cost of the debt itself.

"We have to be pragmatic and say there's no way we can recover this tax," he said.

"We just have to live with that, and so did the last regime."

However, Labour leader Ric Metcalfe attacked the Tories for not trying harder.

"For a Conservative council to give up the ghost on a debt which results from an idiotic Tory tax says a lot," he said.

He said that the money could have helped to pay for extra police community support officers and additional investment in the city's commons.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the Taxpayers' Alliance, said the fact that people still had poll tax bills was in his experience "unique".

"It was a pretty mad tax in the first place, and most people assumed that it had been consigned to the dustbin of history," he said.

"As a basic rule, councils should do everything possible to chase council tax bills, but there comes a point where it would cost more than it's worth to get the money back," he added.

Barking and Dagenham Post: High price of publicity

BARKING and Dagenham Council is spending more than £2 million a year on publicity, according to new figures just released.

The total bill stood at £2,316,000 for 2006/07 - a big rise of 277 per cent over the last ten years.

The figures have been compiled by the TaxPayers' Alliance, a group which campaigns for lower Council Tax.

They contacted every local authority in the country to obtain the data, which was published last week.

Publicity is defined as 'any communication, in whatever form, addressed to the public at large.'

The group say Barking and Dagenham figure is the 11th highest in London, and above the capital's average of £2,021,320.

Matthew Elliot, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "It is important for taxpayers to see how their money is being spent by town halls.

"With the internet cutting the cost of communication, it shouldn't be difficult for local authorities to find savings in this area, and to bring Council Tax down."

But a council spokesman said that last year the authority had actually reduced the amount of money spent on publicity.

The spokesman said: "Publicising our work is essential for keeping residents informed about various developments.

"We provide hundreds of vital services including training, recycling and providing transport for elderly people, so it is essential that residents are aware of those services through cost-effective publicity.

"Those costs cover staff advertising, publicising planning applications, and printing of council documents and publication such as The Citizen magazine, which is delivered to every household in the borough.

"But of course we are always looking at ways to increase value for money through, for example, the greater use of the internet to advertise vacancies, events and new developments.