The TaxPayers' Alliance - Media Coverage

Daily Express: 20% of council tax goes into pensions

ABOUT £1 of every £5 paid in council tax is going into "gold-plated" pensions for officials, it was claimed last night.

Council spending on pensions amounted to £4.6billion last year, according to figures obtained by the TaxPayers' Alliance.

It represents a 13 per cent rise in a year and equals a fifth of total council tax revenue.

The Alliance demanded urgent reform of final salary local government pensions, which allow some workers to step down as early as 50 with full benefits.

They said it underlined the gap between generous taxpayerfunded pension rights enjoyed across the public sector compared with those offered to workers in private firms where many final salary schemes have been axed.

TaxPayers' Alliance chairman Andrew Allum said: "It's unacceptable that ordinary families and pensioners who struggle to pay inflated council tax bills see so much of their money spent on gold-plated council pensions that have all but disappeared in the wider economy.

"With pension costs jumping 13 per cent in a year, the problem is clearly getting worse and requires urgent attention." Shadow Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles said: "The Labour Government is adding insult to injury by making hardworking families and hardpressed pensioners pay towards the soaring cost of gold-plated town hall pensions.

"Local taxpayers simply cannot afford to foot the growing bill." Alliance researchers used freedom of information laws to obtain accounts from 98 per cent of councils in England and Wales.

Their figures, which did not include all contributions for teachers, calculated that the average council spent £10million on pension contributions in 2006-7, 13 per cent more than the previous year.

The Alliance acknowledged that council tax was not authorities' sole source of income and is not earmarked to pay pensions, and that councils do not have a choice over what they spend on basic employer contributions.

Some workers can retire from age 60 and receive benefits straight away although they may be reduced.

"This level of generosity would be almost unimaginable in the private sector, " the report noted.

The Alliance called for Local Government Secretary Hazel Blears to make reform a priority, ending the final salary scheme for new employees.

Between 1995 and 2004, the proportion of public sector workers enrolled in final salary schemes rose from 78 to 88 per cent, while the proportion of private sector staff in such schemes fell from 23 to 16 per cent, said the Alliance. Estimates have suggested that total unfunded public sector pensions liabilities are now as high as £1,000billion, more than £40,000 per household.

The Local Government Association said local government pensions took £1 in every £23 of the total spent by councils in the year, as opposed to what they raised from council tax.

And Heather Wakefield, of public sector union Unison, said:

"Council workers save year in, year out, for their retirements, and the average pension is just £3,800 a year, falling to £1,600 for women.

"Instead of attacking low-paid teaching assistants, home carers, dinner ladies and refuse collectors, the TaxPayers' Alliance should turn its firepower on the real villains, the private companies and wealthy individuals who cost us all millions by finding ever more devious ways to avoid paying the taxes they owe." Brian Strutton, of the GMB union, said: "It's a shame the TaxPayers' Alliance didn't do their homework. They ask for a reform of local government pensions oblivious to the fact that a new scheme starts in April.

"All their facts – which are misrepresented anyway – are based on historic data from the old scheme. The new scheme from April will see councils paying less and workers paying more." A spokesman for the Communities and Local Government Department said: "This is a fair and affordable pension scheme for local government workers, which is also fair to taxpayers."

Kent News: King defends spending on pensions at county hall

The amount that Kent County Council pays out in pensions contributions has risen to more than £70 million a year, according to a new report.


 According to a report by the Taxpayers’ Alliance campaign group, KCC has the third biggest pensions spend of any local authority in the UK, behind only Birmingham and Glasgow.


 In 2006-07, the group claims KCC paid out £71,700,000 – or £52 per person in the county. That is up by 12.9 per cent on the previous year.


 Matthew Sinclair, policy analyst for the Taxpayers’ Alliance, said: “Kent’s is a huge spend. These pensions are the results of high numbers of staff and high rates of pay.”


 Cllr Alex King, KCC deputy leader, said the conditions and costs of its pension scheme is “wholly determined” by central government and accused the Taxpayers’ Alliance of “attacking authorities for something they are not responsible for”.


 He said: “KCC is legally responsible for managing the pension arrangements of around 200 public bodies in Kent, including Medway Council and the 12 district councils.


 “The Government has supposedly been reviewing the scheme since 2001. Kent County Council has repeatedly argued that the costs of the scheme must be reduced, which can only be done by the individuals who are members of the scheme paying more.


 “In the face of resistance from trade unions the Government has only tinkered with the scheme with the result that costs of the new scheme introduced this year have gone up slightly.


 “We will continue to do all we can to keep pension costs down and demand that Government takes the necessary action to reduce the burden on Kent’s council tax payers.”

Ipswich Evening Star: Anger over chief's expenses

SUFFOLK'S new top boss will get around £140,000 a year but YOU face footing the bill for their carpets and curtains, The Evening Star can reveal today.

Despite earning upwards of £2,500 a week the new chief executive at Suffolk County Council could be eligible for more than £9,000 to help them relocate and redecorate.

That bill will controversially be footed by Suffolk tax payers.

Suffolk County Council is currently advertising for a new chief executive after the current position holder Mike More announced he will be leaving for another role in April.

If the successful candidate is a new recruit not currently living within 25 miles of the council's head offices at Endeavour House, Ipswich, they will be eligible for the “relocation allowances scheme”.

This will allow them more than £6,500 towards the cost of moving as well as more than £2,500 for new carpets, curtains and other fixtures and fittings at their new pad should they decide to up sticks.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: “This is an excessive amount to pay out for relocation, and it is offensive to the Suffolk families and pensioners struggling to pay their council tax in rocky economic times.

“£140,000 is a generous salary in anyone's book, backed up by generous pension and bonus deals, so the least we could ask is for the chief executive to pay for their own relocation.”

A spokeswoman for Suffolk County Council said: “To ensure we secure the highest calibre of staff, a relocation package is available in line with other employers.

“The scheme applies to new recruits who are moving within 25 miles of their work base and where the reason for the movie is not linked to a partner moving to the Suffolk area.”

The relocation allowances scheme is also available to all county council staff fulfilling the relevant criteria.

Up to 12.5 per cent of an employees' salary, calculated from a maximum figure of £53,288, is available towards property sale and purchase including professional fees and legal costs, survey fees, stamp duty and bank interest on bridging loans.

Up to 5 pc of salary is also payable towards alterations or replacements of curtains and carpets, other fixtures and fittings and disconnections or connections of services.

Fair Investment Company: 20% of council tax spent on "gold-plated" council pensions

1 in every £5 of council tax is used to fund local government pensions.

While the last TaxPayers’ Alliance 'Council Spending Uncovered' report revealed that £1 in every £11 of council tax is being spent on middle managers who earn at least £50,000 a year, its most recent study covers the alarming amount of council tax used for council employee pensions.

The alliance reveals for every £5 of council tax received by local Government, £1 is used to fund their pension schemes. Local authorities collectively spent £4.6 billion on employer contributions to the Local Government Pension Scheme and unfunded payments and added years benefits to local government employees, teachers and fire-fighters.

Moreover, the average amount spent on pensions by each individual council rose 13 per cent year-on-year to £10 million during the 2006/07 period.

Chairman of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, Andrew Allum, said: "It’s unacceptable that ordinary families and pensioners who struggle to pay inflated council tax bills see so much of their money spent on gold-plated council pensions that have all but disappeared in the wider economy.

"With pension costs jumping 13 per cent in one year, the problem is clearly getting worse and requires urgent attention. Councils should start correcting their own behaviour immediately, and the Government must face down union pressure and reform the outdated local government pension scheme as soon as possible."

The report highlights a number of other concerns, including "over-generous" local authority pension contributions and increased life expectancy of pensioners. It indicates that while there are currently almost four people of working age for every pensioner (aged 65+), this ratio will drop sharply to just over two people for every pensioner by 2056.

It also points out that the average band D council tax bill has almost doubled in the last ten years from £646 in 1997 to £1,268 in 2007. Despite this and despite cuts to some if its services, almost all local authorities say they are still short of council tax and that it needs to be increased in order for them to cut costs.

The alliance is calling for an urgent review of what it calls an "outdated" pension scheme, particularly in relation to the added years benefits for staff take early retirement.

Rochdale Observer: Crazy paving

Alice McKeegan

ROCHDALE Council has paid out more than £2.5M in the past four years to people who have tripped on pavements.

Figures just released show that the authority has paid out £2,662,018 in settlements since 2003 to more than 1,400 people who have sustained injuries.

That works out at about £1,800 per claim.

In the same period, Bury paid out £1.85M, while Bolton paid £1.3M in 2005/06.

The amount paid out has dropped dramatically since 2003, when £1.4M was paid out, to 2007 when the bill was just over £200,000

But the figure could be set to rise even further because people have three years to make their claims.

Rochdale Council says that compensation payouts are falling and insisted roads and footpaths are regularly inspected to reduce the risks of accidents.

Highways manager, Terry Leedham, said: "We undertake regular inspections of roads and footpaths.

"The frequency of these inspections will depend on the type of road and how often it is used.

"Where defects are found or reported to us by the public, assuming they meet the criteria for repair, we will remove any hazards to reduce the chance of a trip or fall happening.

"In addition to the safety inspections, we rely on local people getting in touch to tell us about potentially dangerous paths.

"Over the past few years the council has been very successful in defending compensation claims."

The TaxPayers’ Alliance, a national pressure group campaigning for better government, described the figures as ‘shocking’.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the organisation, said: "There are two solutions – the council should take better care of its payments and people should resist the temptation to indulge in the compensation culture.

"If someone is seriously injured, the council should rightly take the blame, but how many of these payouts were for scuffed knees?"

Rochdale MP Paul Rowen warned fraudulent claimants that they will be prosecuted if they are caught.

He said "I am pleased to see the number of claimants falling.

"But the amount of claims is still far too high and I still feel a minority are trying it on. I would like to send a clear message to this band of opportunists – if you do this we’ll catch you and prosecute you for perjury.

"The other result of false claims is that it drains the amount of money the council can spend on its priorities."

2003/04
Number of claims - 533
Claims paid - £1,427,086
2004/05
Number of claims - 349
Claims paid - £668,337
2005/06
Number of claims - 298
Claims paid - £358,729
2006/07
Number of claims - 253
Claims paid - £207,866
Total claimants - 1,433
Total paid out - £2,662,018
Average per claim - £1,857
NB: The claim numbers for 05/06 and 06/07 could increase as people have three years in which to submit their claim.

Dundee Evening Telegraph: Row erupts over council pensions

For every £5 raised in revenue by councils, more than £1 now goes to fund local government pensions, a new report claims today (writes Bruce Robbins).
The Taxpayers’ Alliance called for an end to the final salary scheme which allows some to retire early with full benefits.
And Dundee Council Taxpayers’ Association secretary Steve Blackwood told the Tele it was time to look at the public sector’s “cushioning” of local authority workers.

But Unison, the main union, said changes are already planned and that, “it’s not a great scheme”.

However, Mr Blackwood explained, “Final salary schemes are going out in the private sector and there is no doubt the public sector scheme is costing taxpayers a lot of money.

“The Government has always cushioned public sector workers at the expense of Council Tax payers and it’s something we should be having a right good look at.

“That money could be spent on other services. We really need to end these fancy pension schemes that allow public sector employees to walk away with big deals that have to be paid for by Council Tax payers.”

Spending on local government pensions rose by 13% last year to hit £4.6 billion, according to information released to the Taxpayers’ Alliance under Freedom of Information.

The £4.6 billion total was equivalent to 21% of cash raised through Council Tax.

In England, the rise is likely to force up bills. Most Scottish councils have managed to resist a hike because of the SNP government’s commitment to freeze Council Tax.

The Local Government Pension Scheme is still linked to final salary and allows many employees to leave early with full benefits.

Alliance chairman Andrew Allum said it was unacceptable that ordinary families and pensioners were struggling to pay tax, much of which is spend on pensions schemes that have all but disappeared in the private sector.

He added, “The problem is clearly getting worse and requires urgent attention. Councils should start correcting their own behaviour immediately and the Government must face down union pressure and reform the outdated local government pensions scheme as soon as possible.”

In some areas, the alliance said the cost of funding local government pensions exceeded £100 for every member of the population.

However, the pressure group’s findings were dismissed by Unison’s Dundee local government union representative Rory Malone.

Mr Malone said Unison was already planning to ballot its members next month nationally on a new pensions scheme.

The proposal would introduce several changes designed to cost councils less.

“I refute the claims that have been made by the organisation and find them disgusting,” he said.

“I would ask them to come and work in the public sector as a classroom assistant. They are not enjoying great sums of money.

“Historically, local government workers have been paid much less than in the private sector because they have to pay so much into their pension scheme.

“Local government employees work very hard for years and years to provide the best public services this country has witnessed.

“It’s not a great scheme, it’s not a foolproof scheme but just look at some chief executives in the private sector who are only in a job for one or two years and walk away with £1 million pensions.”

Daily Star: Leader: Potty on pensions

DAILY STAR SAYS

COUNCIL tax has more than doubled during Labour's 11 years in power.

And yesterday, campaigners from the Taxpayers' Alliance highlighted one reason for the mega rise.

Gold-plated pensions for town hall workers eat up £1 out of every £5 we hand over.

And the bill is getting out of control – rising by 13% last year alone.

Most private sector workers, meanwhile, are set to retire with far smaller pension pots to support them.

Gordon Brown bottled out of overhauling the increasingly-expensive public sector pensions for fear it would cost him votes.

It's yet another example of the man's glaring lack of political courage.

Daily Star: Tax funds pensions

COUNCIL tax bills will rise again with a fifth of the cash fattening up Town Hall pensions.

Average bills will jump by £52 for 2008-09, leaving a typical Band D household having to cough up £1,370. But while the charge goes up, services are being slashed to achieve the 3.9% hike – the lowest in 14 years. It comes as figures reveal £1 in every £5 of council tax goes towards local authority pensions.

Andrew Allum, chairman of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "With pension costs jumping 13% in one year, the problem is clearly getting worse and requires urgent attention."

Yorkshire Post: Matthew Elliott: Why we pay the price for council pensions

IT'S that time of year again when local authorities announce that they are strapped for cash and need to hike the council tax again. The old arguments that more money is needed to provide essential services will undoubtedly be wheeled out again – but they are now starting to ring very hollow.

The last 10 years has seen council tax double, and yet nothing has improved. Indeed, services have become worse in many areas, and cuts have left people without meals on wheels, adequate policing or regular bin collections.

These massive tax rises have caused suffering and hardship for millions of people – especially families and pensioners who find themselves charged on the notional value of a property utterly unrelated to their actual income.

Politicians have all too easily forgotten that the money pouring into council coffers does not materialise from thin air. It is squeezed out of ordinary taxpayers, many of whom genuinely struggle to pay their council tax.

All the extra money councils asked for 10 years ago has been given to them – and more – but services are still struggling. Where has all the money gone?

The TaxPayers' Alliance has studied the accounts of nearly every council in the country to answer just that question. The findings were shocking.

On average, councils now spend £1m on publicity, paying through the nose to put glossy leaflets that hardly anyone reads through front doors across the land.

A boom in middle management has also swallowed huge amounts of money. There are now nine times as many middle managers – those earning £50,000 or more – than there were a decade ago. The focus simply hasn't been on getting more bin men or police officers; instead, councils have recruited an army of human resources managers, PR men and consultants whose pay now costs £1 in every £11 of council tax.

The third area we examined is pensions – the big beast of council spending. Successive governments have promised to reform the outdated and risky Local Government Pension Scheme, but little genuine change has been achieved. The LGPS offers local council staff pension settlements far more generous than those generally available in the wider economy,
and much more generous than
can actually be funded from
pension contributions.

The result is that councils spend a vast amount on employer pension contributions. We have discovered that £4.6bn is paid into the LGPS by councils every year – enough to cut council tax by 20 per cent. That is a staggering figure, which explains where some of the money has gone. Beyond that, future payment commitments mean not only do today's taxpayers pay heavily to fund pensions, but taxpayers as yet unborn will continue to foot the bill in future.

The gold-plated pensions given to local government staff are taking a heavy toll on ordinary taxpayers and local council finances.

No wonder councils struggle to balance the books when they face such a massive bill. No private company could afford to commit itself to such a scheme, so why should councils do so with taxpayers' money?

The responsibility for this mess lies at the doors of three different parties: the Government, public sector unions and councils themselves.

Central Government controls the overall terms of the Local Government Pension Scheme, and only Hazel Blears, the Communities and Local Government Secretary, has the power to change the fundamental scheme. The terms of the pension deal must be made more realistic, and brought in line with the funded schemes more common in the wider economy. We hear endless rhetoric from Ministers about the importance of us all planning for the future. It is time for them to do so with public finances, and public sector pensions in particular.

The public sector unions will undoubtedly stand in the way of these much-needed reforms – they threatened strike action last time the Government raised the issue, and there is nothing to indicate they have woken up to the need for change.

If necessary, the Government must be prepared to face down the threats of strike action. This problem threatens all our futures – not just taxpayers and those who need better council services, but the pension-holders themselves, who will be in a sorry state when the money runs out.

Finally, it would be wrong to let councils off the hook. While the Government does bear much of the blame, each council can improve the situation immediately.

For example, there is a widespread practice of paying "added years benefits" to employees who retire early, effectively meaning that people who retire at 50 can have their pension artificially topped up with taxpayers' money to pay out as if they had worked to 60 or 65. It is dishonest of councils to be so generous with taxpayers' money – people should get the pension they have saved for.

This practice should cease immediately.

Councils have also singularly failed to campaign as a group for reform on this topic. The Local Government Association is meant to represent councils nationally, so it is time they spoke up about this burden crippling local government.

Pensions are meant to provide security in our old age, but this particular pension deal threatens all of us with a very uncertain and impoverished future.

It is time for the scheme to be modernised, and for local government to adopt up-to-date, properly funded pension schemes. Unless things change, all our futures look very worrying indeed.

Matthew Elliott is chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance.

Express & Star: Council tax funding pensions

Council taxpayers in the West Midlands are paying out millions to maintain the soaring bill for local authority workers’ “gold-plated” pensions, a shocking report today reveals.

For every £5 raised in council tax, more than £1 now goes to fund the retirement of their staff, according to figures obtained by campaigning group the Taxpayers’ Alliance. Birmingham, Britain’s largest local authority, emerges the biggest spender on pension contributions.

It ploughed in £72.6 million in 2005-06, rising to £81.8 million in 2006-07, an increase of 12.7 per cent at a cost of £81 to everyone in the city.

Staffordshire ranks 21 in a table of the top 25 big contributors in England.

Its pension contribution went up from £33.1 million to £39.8 million during the same period – an increase of 20.4 per cent, at a burden of £48 to every member of the population.

Elsewhere, across the region, the cost to each person varies from £111 in Wolverhampton – to £74 in Walsall, £70 in Dudley, £89 in Sandwell, £18 in Cannock Chase, £13 in Lichfield, £9 in Stafford, £6 in South Staffordshire, £25 in Wyre Forest and £11 in Bridgnorth.

Nationwide, overall, spending on local government pensions rose by 13 per cent last year to £4.6 billion.

The scale of the burden emerges as families brace themselves for another inflation-busing council tax increase of 3.9 per cent – taking the average bill for a Band D home to £1,370.

Taxpayers’ Alliance chairman Andrew Allum warned the most vulnerable in communities were being hurt by the over-generous provision for council staff.

He said: “It’s unacceptable that ordinary families and pensioners who struggle to pay inflated council tax bills see so much of their money spent on gold-plated council pensions that have all but disappeared in the wider economy.

“The problem is clearly getting worse and requires urgent attention.”

John Ransford, the deputy chief executive of the Local Government Association, which represents local authorities in England, insisted council workers deserved good pensions.

He said: “The TaxPayers’ Alliance appears to be condemning lollipop ladies, binmen, street cleaners and librarians for getting a pension worthy of the years of service they have given helping local people.

“Councils provide more than 800 different services for local residents and these cannot be delivered by robots or machines,” Mr Ransford added.

Edinburgh Evening News: Tax watchdog welcomes probe into city's PR bill

THE Taxpayers' Alliance today welcomed a forthcoming independent review of the city council's public relations department.

The measure, which is designed to ensure that communication workers are delivering a cost-effective service, was announced in the Lib Dem/SNP administration's budget.

According to figures published recently by the Taxpayers' Alliance, the local authority spends more on publicity and spin doctors than any other council in Scotland. It spent £3.37 million on public relations in 2006/7 – up 118.4 per cent on 1996/7.

Mark Wallace, campaign director of the Taxpayers' Alliance, said: "If this is a genuine review that is seriously looking to make savings, it is great news for Edinburgh's taxpayers.

"People deserve to know how their money is being spent, and taxpayers should be allowed to make up their own minds as to whether their local council's spending is justified."

BBC News Online: Council pension costs criticised

Council tax payers in Devon are bearing the cost of pensions for local government workers, according to the Taxpayers Alliance.

It said Devon County Council is among the top 20 spenders in England on employees' pension contributions, which take £1 in every £5 of council tax.

The county council rejected the claim and said that most of the pensions' cost was met by taxpayers nationally.

The county council contributed more than £42m last year to pensions.

A spokesman for Devon County Council said: "The flawed analysis used by the Taxpayers Alliance does a disservice to the public service workers who look after the elderly and disabled, who turn out in all weathers to keep the roads open or care for children in need.

"The reality is that the average council pension is less than £100 a week and employees are contributing to that from their own pockets.

"Employer pension contributions account for just 7% of the county council's total spending and the majority of that is still provided by central government grant which means the costs do not fall solely on Devon council taxpayers."

Mark Wallace of the Taxpayers Alliance said: "Pensioners are struggling to pay council tax for these pensions.

"Those costs are going up in the coming years.

"Councils can choose to rein in some of their over-generous spending."

Bucks Free Press: Council spends £800,000 on 'propaganda' magazine

By Oliver Evans

A "PROPAGANDA" council magazine sent to homes in Buckinghamshire has cost taxpayers more than £800,000 since 2003, the Bucks Free Press can reveal.

Buckinghamshire County Council's magazine cost £806,523 from April 2003 to 2007.

Critics said the quarterly Buckinghamshire Times publication was biased towards the council and its involvement in controversial issues such as a county incinerator plan.

But the council said it was providing important information to 200,000 residents - and costs were to be almost halved from the next issue.

The figures - released to the Bucks Free Press under the Freedom of Information Act - show a major rise in costs for the magazine between 2003/04 to 2006/07.

Total expenditure has gone from £131,722 a year to £315,405. Printing alone has more than trebled from £51,138 to £168,750.

Overall it cost £934,601 to produce of which £128,078 was recouped through advertisers such as Age Concern and Thames Valley Police.

Councillor Julia Wassell, Labour member for Bowerdean, Micklefield and Totteridge, said: "It is a waste of paper. It is really promoting council policies - the figures are shocking, they are nearly a million.

"The money would be much better spent on social services."

The magazine is "one-sided towards the political party in power" she claimed - and is used to "justify" consultations on issues such as the budget and incinerator. However, Cllr Wassell said she suspected few people read the magazine.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said the cost came up against the council's need for cash.

In its latest issue council leader David Shakespeare says it is "increasingly difficult" to run services in the face of "shrinking" government cash.

When new council tax charges start in April the average band D ratepayer will give £1,018 a year to the council.

Mr Elliot said: "This is an obscene amount to spend on a glossy newsletter at a time when the council is pleading poverty and raising taxes.

"Most people throw these things away as soon as they are delivered.

"People pay their taxes for bin collections, policing and libraries not for propaganda at taxpayers' expense."

But the council said costs were to be almost halved as the next issue will be in A4 and not A3 format and some will be sent without address labels. A council survey on readers views of the magazine - closed on January 1 but not yet published - got a mixed response.

Of the 62 who responded 21 per cent said they were very dissatisfied and nine per cent said they were fairly dissatisfied.

A further 23 per cent were very satisfied, 35 per cent were fairly satisfied while 13 per cent were both.

There should be more bad news' as it was too positive' comments said.

Council spokeswoman Sian Hester said a survey last year of more than 3,000 residents showed 46 per cent found out about council issues through information sent by the authority to homes.

Scunthorpe Telegraph: COUNCIL PENSIONS COST US £104 EACH

Contributions to a pension scheme for council employees cost every man, woman and child in North Lincolnshire £104 last year, it has been revealed.

Now the authority has been called on to campaign for a reform of the pension fund and to stop paying extra cash to staff who retire early.Figures released by the Taxpayers' Alliance (TPA) show the cost to North Lincolnshire's 159,000 residents soared last year by 18.4 per cent to almost £16.5-million - or £104 per head of the population.

But council chiefs insisted pensions offset earnings for many employees who would be paid more in the private sector.

In North Lincolnshire, the level of employer contribution in 2006/7 was £16,479,000 compared to £13,920,000 the previous year.

Andrew Allum, TPA chairman, said it was unacceptable so much money was being spent on 'gold-plated council pensions'.

The North Lincolnshire increase last year was almost double that of neighbouring North East Lincolnshire, where taxpayers saw a 9.6 per cent rise to £13,717,000.

Mr Allum said: "The overall terms of the Local Government Pension Scheme are set by national government which is why we are urging a radical reform.

"That doesn't absolve councils from blame however, as each has the opportunity to reign in their payments and to lobby the Government for reform.

"With pension costs jumping 13 per cent in one year, the problem is clearly getting worse and requires urgent attention."

As well as campaigning for reform, the Alliance wants councils like North Lincolnshire to cease the payment of added years' benefit to employees who take early retirement.

The figures also show spending in Hull on pensions increased last year by 19.9 per cent to £35,022,000 and in West Lindsey by 5.6 per cent to £1,185,000.

The data does not include contributions made by employees themselves and employer contributions to the pensions of teachers.

Council leader Mark Kirk was unavailable for comment as was Tory leader Liz Redfern.

A council spokeswoman said the pension scheme was part of a package of pay given to employees who worked hard in the public interest.

She said: "Many earn less than they could if they worked in the private sector and the scheme off-sets this to an extent.

"Local government employees contribute to the cost of their pension. From April 1 the rates will be increased from 5.5 to 7.5 per cent of their pay, depending on their salary level.

"The Government has made changes to the scheme to help limit its cost, with changes being made to the benefits staff are entitled to.

"Overall the council is satisfied the scheme represents a fair and proper part of the remuneration package for its employees."

Bucks Free Press: Fury over 'gold-plated' council pensions

by Oliver Evans

AS much as an extra 11.1 per cent of taxpayers cash went on south Bucks council pensions in one year, a new study shows.

A pressure group today attacked gold-plated' pensions for civil servants funded out of the public purse.

The TaxPayers' Alliance study shows a rise in council contributions to retirement funds through the four councils in south Bucks.

The biggest rise - an extra £72,000 - was at South Bucks District Council, which saw an increase of 11.1 per cent from 2005/06 to 2007/08.

This is equivalent to £11 for each person in the district.

This rose to £13 for Chiltern (an increase of 3.9 per cent) and £18 for Wycombe (an 8.8 per cent increase).

Most taxpayers' cash - about £44 per person - went to Buckinghamshire County Council.

It pumped an extra £1.2m into the pension fund in the 12 months.

The average rise across the UK was 13 per cent, the study found.

Andrew Allum, chairman of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: It's unacceptable that ordinary families and pensioners who struggle to pay inflated council tax bills see so much of their money spent on gold-plated council pensions that have all but disappeared in the wider economy.

With pension costs jumping 13 per cent in one year, the problem is clearly getting worse and requires urgent attention.

Councils should start correcting their own behaviour immediately, and the Government must face down union pressure and reform the outdated local government pensions scheme as soon as possible.' But Local Government Agency deputy chief executive John Ransford said: The Taxpayers' Alliance appears to be condemning lollipop ladies, bin men, street cleaners and librarians for getting a pension worthy of the years of service they have given helping local people.

The Local Government Pension Scheme recently underwent a radical overhaul, which provides greater value for money to the taxpayer while at the same time recognising the invaluable work that council staff do to make the lives of local people better.'

The Times: Ocado chief joins chorus of disapproval at non-dom tax

by Christine Seib, Steve Hawkes, Siobhan Kennedy

The co-founder of one of Britain's best-known dot-com companies yesterday launched a withering attack on plans for a Pounds 30,000-a-year tax on non domiciled residents.

Consultation on the proposals, which the Treasury hopes will net an additional Pounds 500million a year, closed yesterday. City organisations have inundated the Government with critical responses.

Jason Gissing, co-founder of Ocado, told The Times that the home- shopping group would not have got off the ground in the current climate given the Chancellor's proposed crackdown on overseas tycoons.

Mr Gissing hit out at Alistair Darling's "poor judgment" and said that there was a growing feeling that he "could not be trusted".

The Treasury proposed that non-doms pay Pounds 30,000 a year in tax after they have lived in the UK for more than seven years.

The Government acted after the Conservatives paved the way by raising the issue, a move which, The Times has learnt, has caused considerable fury among some Tory donors.

Non-doms also face new capital gains and asset taxes. Previously, private equity bosses and City figures had been accused of avoiding tax on their wealth by using the non-dom status.

Ocado, which started in 2002, delivers Waitrose goods to 15.5million people. It is understood to have raised half of its Pounds 300million start-up funding from non-doms.

Mr Gissing said: "We are irritated because the Chancellor has increased capital gains tax in a knee-jerk reaction to criticism of the private equity industry. (The tax) actually penalises people like us who have started a business, created 3,000 jobs and created a new service. Then he says he's going to penalise the non-doms who finance businesses like ours and get them off the ground."

Simon Walker, the chief executive of the British Venture Capital Association, yesterday gave warning that the proposed changes were already harming Britain's reputation overseas.

"My worry is that the welcome mat is getting rather warn out," Mr Walker said. "When I was in New York last month the impression I got from American firms is that London is not as welcoming as it used to be."

The private equity industry stands to be hit hard by the new regime, given that many of the big firms in London, such as Blackstone, Carlyle and KKR, are based in America and employ many American executives in the UK.

One source said that it was not the partners of the big firms who would leave the country but the many more junior executives who earn Pounds 200,000 to Pounds 300,000. For them, the proposed Pounds 30,000 tax would be considered a significant increase in their outgoings.

The CBI, the London Investment Banking Association and numerous other City bodies said that they had submitted responses to the Treasury consultation.

The CBI said that non-doms contributed more than Pounds 7billion per year to the Exchequer and that there was a "great deal of room for error" in the Treasury's prediction of a Pounds 500million annual gain from the new taxes.

The CBI estimated that as many as 8,000 of the 120,000 registered non-doms could leave the UK to avoid the payment if it is introduced rather than the 3,000 estimated by the Government.

"The very least that can be said is that the Government is taking a significant risk for the small amount of revenue at stake," the CBI said.

Some of the Conservative Party's highest-placed City donors are thought to be livid that it was the Tories who raised the possibility of a flat-rate tax for non-doms.

The Tories proposed a Pounds 25,000 annual charge but, unlike the Government's plan, they did not intend to include scrutiny of the offshore assets belonging to non-doms.

One donor said: "When the Conservatives came up with the idea of a charge I know a lot of people were very, very annoyed because they felt that the party was opening up Pandora's Box and giving Labour the opportunity to move on the issue".

He said that some supporters of the Tories were also disappointed by the party's "relatively low-key" response to the Government's proposals.

* INS AND OUTS OF THE TAX RULES FOR NON-DOMS

Existing tax rules:

Non-doms do not pay income tax on overseas income or gains.

Non-doms pay income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax on all their UK income and assets.

Income tax is charged depending on what they earn in the UK.

Non-doms must also pay inheritance tax at 40 per cent on their UK estate if it is worth more than Pounds 300,000, even if they no longer live in the UK.

Government's proposals:

All non-doms to lose personal allowance for income and capital gains tax immediately, unless agree to be taxed on worldwide assets.

Pounds 30,000 annual charge for non-doms once they have lived in the country for seven years.

Tax on capital gains made on UK assets in offshore trusts.

Conservatives' proposals:

Flat charge of Pounds 25,000 for all non-doms. This charge would be creditable against foreign tax.

* THE DEBATE RAGES

* Richard Lambert, CBI director- general: "At a time of growing economic uncertainty it is vital we do all we can to keep wealth generators in the country, not make them feel unwelcome. Non-doms have been an important part of the UK's success and administrations have provided a warm welcome. Partly as a result of their presence London is the world's leading financial and business centre"

* Roger Jeary, director, Unite trade union: "Unite supports Government plans to tax the non-dom residents who have been able to evade their tax obligations for too long. We believe these people should pay their fair share. This includes the estimated 75 per cent of senior staff at private equity firms who, by their own admission, pay less tax than their cleaners"

* Matthew Elliott, TaxPayers' Alliance chief: "Some people wrongly think that hitting non-doms could benefit ordinary taxpayers, but this is not the case. Hurting Britain's ability to attract the internationally mobile would be a disaster for the economy"

* Simon Walker, chief executive, British Venture Capital Association:

"I don't want businesses leaving London and setting up shop elsewhere in Europe because of uncertainty about tax rates, about the treatment of foreigners or just because the welcome mat was getting a little worn"

* Ian Harrison, director, London Investment Banking Association: "We put in a substantial response, expressing our concern over the way the consultation was handled, with insufficient time to explore the key issues, and also over some of the specific proposals"

* Frank Haskew, head of tax, Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales: "Our view is that there is fundamental problems with the legislation. Potentially, anyone coming to the UK who has investment income of more than Pounds 1,000 from overseas will almost inevitably have to fill in a UK tax return"

The Times: Councils' pension tax

A huge proportion of this year's council tax rises will go to fund "gold plated" town hall pensions, the Taxpayers' Alliance said. It added that overall spending on local council pensions had risen by 13 per cent to £4.6 billion in the past 12 months and that for every £5 raised in revenue at least £1 was spent in this way.

Surrey Advertiser: Council must explain themselves

Dear Sir,

Council Taxpayers in Surrey will shortly be receiving their Council Tax bills in the post for 2008/9. Although the respective Borough Councils will be making the demand for payment, it is the precept from Surrey County Council (at 4.8%) and, to a lesser extent, the Police and Fire Services that constitute the majority of the bill.

The increase this year, as most people will soon know, is a little bit under 5% which, coincidentally, is also the ‘limit’ at which the Government has capped Councils in general.

The Consumer Price Index is currently 2.1% and Local Government has imposed pay settlements upon its employees of  2% (salaries and associated benefits such as Pensions form the bulk of the Councils expenditure).  The Direct Grant from Government has I believe increased by 3% and whilst it is true that other costs, such as energy have increased greatly, they only constitute a small proportion of total expenditure.

Can households on lower incomes afford to pay an extra 4.8% on their Council Tax bill?  This of course on top of the stupendous increases of 11% and 18% in successive years in the earlier part of this decade, and in other years increases of twice the then rate of inflation.

On behalf of Council Taxpayers in Surrey, I would like to ask Nick Skellett, the Leader of the Council, to set out precisely his reasons for wanting to extract a rise in the Precept that is considerably more than any increase 99% of Taxpayers will receive in either their wages or pension payments. But of course the money has to be found to pay the salaries and other benefits of positions such as the three recently appointed ‘Relationship Managers’ at £65,000 each!

I hope that the Surrey Advertiser will allow Mr Skellett a platform to let Surrey Taxpayers decide whether or not they can be satisfied with what they are about to be charged.  Once we have his reply I would then suggest that the Advertiser commissions a poll to ask Taxpayers if they think that the increase this year is justified. 

Yours sincerely

Stephen Bowers

Surrey Tax Action Group and TaxPayers' Alliance Member

Ipswich Evening Star: Theatre boss defends prostitution play

David Newborn 
AN IPSWICH theatre boss today defended stinging criticism of proposals to produce a play based on the Ipswich murders.

David Newborn, producer at Red Rose Chain, was attacked for “insensitive”, “vulgar” and “self-indulgent” plans to put on a play inspired by the issues surrounding prostitution in the town.

He said: “We have been commissioned to produce a play with vulnerable young women in the town in which we will look at the reasons for street prostitution.

“I am surprised that there is criticism as this play won't be performed until 2009.

“Anybody who knows the track record of Red Rose Chain and our work will know we do not perform insensitive plays.”

Mr Newborn said the £100,000 production, which will include a film and is funded by a grant from The Paul Hamlyn Foundation, would go through a workshop process before being staged next year.

He added: “This is something that has happened to our community and we are not jumping on a bandwagon.

“This will be a work of fiction and the play will deal with some of the underlying issues of prostitution rather than the specific cases.

“The aims of the project are to highlight the risks to potential victims and empower vulnerable people by giving them a voice in the community. It is not a vulgar enterprise.”

Mr Newborn said the production process is in its early stages.

Mark Wallace, campaign director at the Taxpayer's Alliance, criticised the proposals saying the money should be spent on “protecting the public rather than on such a vulgar venture”.

He added: “We should be stopping other women being killed rather than putting on this self-indulgent insensitive play.”

BBC News Online: Pensions 'taking up' council tax

Rises in council tax are being taken up by the rising bill for workers' pensions, a campaign group says.
A report by the Taxpayers' Alliance says spending on local government pensions rose 13% last year to £4.6bn.

For every £5 in revenue raised by local authorities, more than £1 now goes to fund staff retirement, it says.

The Local Government Association (LGA), which represents councils in England, insists that council workers deserve good pensions.

The Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) is still being linked to final salary and allows many employees to retire early with full benefits.

Taxpayers' Alliance chairman Andrew Allum said other parts of society were being hurt by the over-generous provision for council staff.

"It's unacceptable that ordinary families and pensioners who struggle to pay inflated council tax bills see so much of their money spent on gold-plated council pensions that have all but disappeared in the wider economy," Mr Allum said.

"The problem is clearly getting worse and requires urgent attention.

"Councils should start correcting their own behaviour immediately and the government must face down union pressure and reform the outdated local government pensions scheme as soon as possible."

The researchers used freedom of information laws to obtain copies of annual accounts from 98% of councils in England and Wales.

They found the average local authority spent £10m on pension contributions in 2006/07 - up 13% on the previous year.

LGA deputy chief executive John Ransford said: "The Taxpayers' Alliance appears to be condemning lollipop ladies, bin men, street cleaners and librarians for getting a pension worthy of the years of service they have given helping local people.

"The Local Government Pension Scheme recently underwent a radical overhaul, which provides greater value for money to the taxpayer while at the same time recognising the invaluable work that council staff do to make the lives of local people better."

Impending reform

Shadow local government secretary Eric Pickles said the government was "adding insult to injury by making hard-working families and hard-pressed pensioners pay towards the soaring cost of gold-plated town hall pensions".

But the Department for Communities and Local Government said: "This is a fair and affordable pension scheme for local government workers, which is also fair to taxpayers."

Brian Strutton, national officer of the GMB, said: "It's a shame the Taxpayers Alliance didn't do their homework.

"They ask for a reform of local government pensions oblivious to the fact that a new scheme starts in April.

"All their facts - which are misrepresented anyway - are based on historic data from the old scheme.

"The new scheme from April will see councils paying less and council workers paying more."

Newcastle Journal: Council tax increase 'pays for pensions'

HIKES in council tax are being sucked up by the soaring bill for "gold-plated" pensions for local government workers, a report claimed yesterday.

For every £5 in revenue raised by local authorities, more than £1 goes to fund the retirement of their staff.

Overall, spending on local government pensions rose 13% last year to hit £4.6bn, according to figures obtained by campaigning group the TaxPayers' Alliance.

The scale of the burden emerged as families braced themselves for another inflation-busting council tax increase of 3.9% - taking the average bill for a Band D home to £1,370.

Although the increase is expected to be the lowest for 14 years, the levy has still more than doubled over the past decade.

The Local Government Pension Scheme is still linked to final salary, and allows many employees to retire early with full benefits.

Wales Daily Post: Clash over North Wales council pensions

By Steve Bagnall

NORTH Wales councils are wasting too much tax payer money on "gold-plated" pensions it was claimed yesterday.

An average of £113 of council tax payers’ money goes to fund local authority pension schemes across the region, according to figures from the TaxPayers Alliance.

But council chiefs hit back claiming the organisation wanted to condemn authority staff to meager pensions.

Between 2005-06 and 2006-07 there was an average rise of nearly 10% in North Wales for employer pension contributions.

The biggest percentage rise was in Gwynedd which last year spent nearly £14.5m towards the pension fund for its staff – an 18.3% increase from the previous year, and equivalent to a cost per person of £122 – equal with Wrexham, where contributions rate rose by 5.2%.

The highest cost per person was Denbighshire at £126 – where the council paid more than £12m into its pension fund.

The TPA yesterday said council employer contributions were going up because life expectancy is increasing and civil service employees get a much better deal than in the private sector.

The organisation demanded a reform of the local council pension scheme to ease the tax payer burden and provide a fairer playing field.

TaxPayers Alliance chairman Andrew Callum said: "It’s unacceptable that ordinary families and pensioners who struggle to pay inflated council tax bills see so much of their money spent on gold-plated council pensions that have all but disappeared in the wide economy.

"With pension costs jumping 13% in one year, the problem is clearly getting worse and requires urgent attention.

"Councils should start correcting their own behaviour immediately, and the Government must face down union pressure and reform the outdated local government pensions scheme as soon as possible."

But Local Government Association Deputy Chief Executive John Ransford said: "The Taxpayers Alliance appears to be condemning lollipop ladies, bin men, street cleaners and librarians for getting a pension worthy of the years of service they have given helping local people.

"Councils provide more than 800 different services for local residents and these cannot be delivered by robots or machines.

"The Local Government Pension Scheme recently underwent a radical overhaul, which provides greater value for money to the taxpayer while at the same time recognising the invaluable work that council staff do to make the lives of local people better.

"According to the Treasury, councils are the most efficient and effective part of the public sector and the independent Audit Commission has recently said that councils are delivering better services than ever before."

Welsh Local Government Association chief executive Steve Thomas said: "Local Government Pension Scheme underwent some significant changes last year to ensure a local government pension scheme that was sustainable and affordable but most importantly which was fair to employees and to tax payers.

"This new scheme was aimed at modernising the previous scheme with all changes approved by central government.

"Welsh councils provide over 750 everyday services that local people rely upon. These would not be possible without the hard work and dedication of local authority staff from binmen and street cleaners to park keepers and librarians.

"It is vital that the pension scheme for local government does not cost the council taxpayer any more money, but at the same time appropriately rewards council staff. It is through these people that essential services are delivered and the lives of local communities are improved."

Breakdown

Conwy employer pension contributions 2005-06 £11,188,000; employer pension contributions 2006-07 £11,824,000; % increase 5.7%; population mid 2006 111,300; cost per person 2006-07 £106

Denbighshire employer pension contributions 2005-06 £11,536,000; employer pension contributions 2006-07 £12,069,000; % increase 4.6%; population mid 2006 96,100; cost per person 2006-07 £126.

Flintshire employer pension contributions – 2005-06 £16,522,000 – NO OTHER FIGURES.

Gwynedd – employer pension contributions 2005-06 £12,180,000; employer pension contributions 2006-07 £14,408,000; % increase 18.3%; population mid 2006 118,300; cost per person 2006-07 £122

Isle of Anglesey employer pension contributions 2005-06 £5,336,000; employer pension contributions 2006-07 £6,110,000; % increase 14.5%; population mid 2006 68,900; cost per person 2006-07 £89.

Wrexham employer pension contributions 2005-06 £15,229,000; employer pension contributions 2006-07 £16,028,000; % increase 5.2%; population mid 2006 131,000; cost per person 2006-07 £122.

Daily Mail: A fifth of your council tax is paying for 'gold plated' pensions at the town hall

By BECKY BARROW

Almost £1 in every £5 handed over by council taxpayers is used to support the pensions of town hall workers, a report reveals today.

The country's 1.6million local government employees have 'goldplated' final salary pensions, while many in the private sector face retiring on a pittance.

Experts criticised the devastating findings, which they said prove a "pensions aristocracy" is developing.

Council workers can retire as young as 55 – while everyone else faces working until their 68th birthday.

The report by the TaxPayers' Alliance will anger millions of council tax payers whose bills have nearly doubled since Labour came to power.

In 1997, the average Band D bill was £688. Today, a family in the same size house would pay £1,321.

Andrew Allum, of the campaign group, said: "It is unacceptable that ordinary families and pensioners who struggle to pay inflated council tax bills see so much of their money spent on gold-plated council pensions that have all but disappeared in the wider economy."

It emerged yesterday that council tax bills are set to rise by an average of 3.9 per cent in April.

Tom McPhail, head of pensions research at the financial advisers Hargreaves Lansdown, said: "Most council tax payers don't enjoy the luxury of a final salary pension.

"So why should they pay through the nose for someone else to enjoy this hugely expensive perk?"

Dr Ros Altmann, a former pensions adviser to the Treasury, added: "It is a recipe for social unrest to have a 'pension aristocracy' expecting to be funded by people who are struggling to make ends meet on their own meagre pensions."

Dr Altmann also said it is wrong to argue that public sector workers deserve better pensions because their pay is worse. In fact, they typically get paid more, she added.

Official figures show that councils contributed £4.6billion into the Local Government Pension Scheme in the last financial year.

At the same time, council tax bills totalled £22.2billion – meaning almost £1 in every £5 was spent on pension contributions.

Eric Pickles, the Tory local government spokesman, said: "The Labour Government is adding insult to injury by making families and hardpressed pensioners pay towards the soaring cost of gold-plated town hall pensions.

"Local taxpayers simply cannot afford to foot the growing bill. At a time when some private sector workers face having to work until 68, this is neither sustainable nor fair."

Ministers, unions and the Local Government Association yesterday hit back at the report, insisting that councils' pension schemes are "fair and affordable".

John Ransford, deputy chief executive of the Local Government Association, said: "The Taxpayers' Alliance appears to be condemning lollipop ladies, binmen, street cleaners and librarians for getting a pension worthy of the years of service they have given helping local people.

"Councils provide more than 800 different services for local residents and these cannot be delivered by robots or machines."

He said that total council spending was £106billion in 2006/2007 – so only £1 in every £23 went on pensions.

Daily Telegraph: £4.6bn council tax for staff pensions

By James Kirkup Political Correspondent

HOME owners are paying nearly £300 a year in council tax to fund generous pensions for local government employees, research claims today.

Pensions for council staff are costing the equivalent of a fifth of all council tax revenues, according to a report by the Taxpayers' Alliance [TPA]. Out of a total £22.2 billion paid in council tax by households last year, £4.6 billion, or 21 per cent, went to the Local Government Pension Scheme, the report claims.

Andrew Allum, the chairman of the TPA, said: "It's unacceptable that ordinary families and pensioners who struggle to pay inflated council tax bills see so much of their money spent on gold-plated council pensions that have all but disappeared in the wider economy.''

But Heather Wakefield, the head of local government at Unison said: "The average pension is just £3,800 a year, falling to £1,600 for women.'

Daily Mail: A FIFTH OF YOUR COUNCIL TAX IS PAYING FOR 'GOLD PLATED' PENSIONS AT THE TOWN HALL

BY BECKY BARROW

ALMOST £1 in every £5 handed over by council taxpayers is used to support the pensions of town hall workers, a report reveals today.

The country's 1.6million local government employees have ' goldplated' final salary pensions, while many in the private sector face retiring on a pittance.

Experts criticised the devastating findings, which they said prove a 'pensions aristocracy' is developing.

Council workers can retire as young as 55 - while everyone else faces working until their 68th birthday.

The report by the TaxPayers' Alliance will anger millions of council tax payers whose bills have nearly doubled since Labour came to power. In 1997, the average Band D bill was £688. Today, a family in the same size house would pay £1,321.

Andrew Allum, of the campaign group, said: 'It is unacceptable that ordinary families and pensioners who struggle to pay inflated council tax bills see so much of their money spent on gold-plated council pensions that have all but disappeared in the wider economy.'

It emerged yesterday that council tax bills are set to rise by an average of 3.9 per cent in April.

Tom McPhail, head of pensions research at the financial advisers Hargreaves Lansdown, said: 'Most council tax payers don't enjoy the luxury of a final salary pension.

'So why should they pay through the nose for someone else to enjoy this hugely expensive perk?'

Dr Ros Altmann, a former pensions adviser to the Treasury, added: 'It is a

Business Correspondent recipe for social unrest to have a "pension aristocracy" expecting to be funded by people who are struggling to make ends meet on their own meagre pensions.'

Dr Altmann also said it is wrong to argue that public sector workers deserve better pensions because their pay is worse. In fact, they typically get paid more, she added.

Official figures show that councils contributed £4.6billion into the Local Government Pension Scheme in the last financial year. At the same time, council tax bills totalled £22.2billion - meaning almost £1 in every £5 was spent on pension contributions.

Eric Pickles, the Tory local government spokesman, said: 'The Labour Government is adding insult to injury by making families and hardpressed pensioners pay towards the soaring cost of gold-plated town hall pensions.

'Local taxpayers simply cannot afford to foot the growing bill. At a time when some private sector workers face having to work until 68, this is neither sustainable nor fair.'

Ministers, unions and the Local Government Association yesterday hit back at the report, insisting that councils' pension schemes are 'fair and affordable'.

John Ransford, deputy chief executive of the Local Government Association, said: 'The Taxpayers' Alliance appears to be condemning lollipop ladies, binmen, street cleaners and librarians for getting a pension worthy of the years of service they have given helping local people.

'Councils provide more than 800 different services for local residents and these cannot be delivered by robots or machines.' He said that total council spending was £106billion in 2006/2007 - so only £1 in every £23 went on pensions.

Essex Chronicle: 586 council officers earn at least £50k

Peter Baker

High-flying council officers are being paid more than ever before - costing the taxpayer more than £36million.

New figures reveal Essex is fourth in the UK for having the most officials on a salary of more than £50,000 a year.

The survey, carried out by the Taxpayers' Alliance, shows a comparison between now and 1996 when 37 officers, across all councils in the county, were paid £50,000-plus.

Now, that has mushroomed to 586 - with an annual cost of £36million to taxpayers.

"Do taxpayers feel it is worth it and they get better value for money now than in 1996?" asked an Alliance spokesman.

Chelmsford Borough Council leader Cllr Roy Whitehead said: "The people who earn these salaries within Chelmsford Borough Council are responsible for multi-million-pound budgets and complex services, which are valuable and often critical to the public.

"In order to attract the best people to deliver value for money, we have to pay staff a suitable wage.

"The council has a total of 17 employees whose basic salary is in excess of £50,000 per annum, which represents just 1.5 per cent of the overall workforce.

"According to the Taxpayers' Alliance figures, the cost of employing these people is only £7.46 per local person per year."

Public Finance Magazine: NHS pension levels attacked

Thousands of NHS staff in England and Wales have retirement benefits totalling at least £8.5bn, according to new data.

Figures published by the NHS Business Services Authority pensions division, following a Freedom of Information request by the Taxpayers’ Alliance, show that almost 8,500 retired staff receive an annual NHS pension of at least £33,000 per year each.

In December, the Taxpayers’ Alliance revealed that a further 3,700 retired civil servants had pensions that totalled at least £1m.

Corin Taylor, a research director at the alliance, said: ‘Unfunded public sector pension liabilities are reaching completely unsustainable levels. Every household will have to pay up to £40,000 over the next few decades to fund gold-plated retirement benefits for public sector employees, including £1m pension pots for the NHS elite.’

‘Urgent change is needed to reduce the bill to taxpayers – for a start, the pension age for existing public sector employees should be raised to the state pension age as soon as possible,’ Taylor added.

The Institute of Economic Affairs has estimated that the bill for unfunded public sector pension liabilities stands at £1,025bn.

Taylor said that the governments ‘mishandling’ of public sector pensions was ‘unfair on people in the private sector’, many of whom are expected to work to at least the age of 69 ‘while seeing their pensions collapse’.

The retirement age for those already working in the public sector is 60, compared with a state pension age of 65, rising to 68 by 2046.

However, a Department of Health spokeswoman said: ‘This needs to be set in context. There are a very few members of the NHS Pension Scheme who have a total pension position that is valued at £1m or more; 8,449 individuals from a total of 558,079 NHS pensioners equates to 1.52%.‘These pensioners were among the most highly skilled and respected people – staff who were at the top of their pay scales and in some cases would have been in receipt of clinical excellence awards.’

Clacton and Frinton Gazette: Tendring: Planning councillors among highest earners

Dominic Bowers

HIGH-earning planning councillors in Tendring get among the biggest allowances in the country, a report has revealed.

Campaigners have urged members' financial rewards to be capped when they are reviewed in the next few months.

The figures were revealed when Braintree Council looked into paying its planning committe members.

The Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) looked at how much ten other councils pay when it calculated how much members should get.

Tendring Council came out the highest with £1,455 with Lewes Council the lowest at £477.

Braintree Council agreed on £781.44.

At Tendring Council members are eligible for a maximum of one special responsibility allowance on top of the basic allowance of £4,845.

A total of 16 out of 18 members of Tendring Council apos;s development control committee pick up an extra £1,455.

In addition, chairman Jeff Cripps is allocated £6,402 and vice-chairman Jan King £2,070.

Cllrs Cripps and King get the second highest allowance compared to 17 similar-sized authorities across the country.

Only Teignbridge Council in Devon pays more - £6,776 for the chairman and £2,257 for the vice-chairman.

Tendring's IRP is made of five council tax payers who get £1,500 (chairman) and £1,000 (other members) each year to cover costs.

They have met 11 times to consider the allowances for the 2008/09 financial year and chairman Frederick Abbott has sent his report to the council.

Councillors will vote on their own allowances in May.

Mr Abbott declined to comment on the figures and referred the Gazette to last year's report.

The report said: "In many instances Tendring's allowances continue to be among the highest in the respective groups.

"While care needs to be exercised when undertaking simple comparison between authorities, due to the fact that there may be significant differences in population, revenue-raising capabilities and type and volume of service provided to the public, the panel notes the available comparators again indicate Tendring is among the highest payers in all categories across a wide range of authorities."

Nigel Brown, Tendring Council apos;s communications manager, said: "Payment to development control committee members commenced in 2007/2008 at £1,455 per annum in recognition of the considerable workload."

He said the level of allowances is a matter for the IRP and referred the Gazette to its report.

Matthew Elliott, director of campaign group TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "We would urge the panel to advise against any increase at all."

Coventry Evening Telegraph: Calls for a cut in tax on repairs

A BROAD coalition of organisations has written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer setting out the case for a cut in VAT for all building repair and maintenance work.

The organisations, including the Federation of Master Builders (FMB), the National Home Improvement Council and the TaxPayers' Alliance, have also called on him to implement the cut in his first Budget on March 12.

The Cut the VAT Coalition is asking the Chancellor for a reduction in VAT from 17.5 per cent to 5 per cent to help the government achieve its target of cutting carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, to help eliminate rogue traders and to tackle fuel poverty.

East Anglian Daily Times: Hospital spends £4m on temporary staff

LAURENCE CAWLEY
HEALTH chiefs were last night accused of wasting taxpayers' money after shelling out nearly £4million on temporary staff to cover unfilled posts - just two years after axing 260 jobs.

Locum and agency staff have been used by West Suffolk Hospital to cover a range of vacancies ranging from consultants to waiting list officers.

The total amount spent on temporary staff since last April has now reached £3.8m - £1.9m more than during the previous year during the same 10-month period.

The Bury St Edmunds hospital currently has 140 of its 2,307 full time posts lying vacant - and that has pushed up the trust's temporary staff bill.

But critics last night rounded on the hospital because its £3.8m agency, bank and locum spend comes just two years after 260 posts were axed.

The hospital defended the amount stating it had used bank staff - which cost the same as normal employees - wherever possible, that trust managers had to deal with extreme challenges over junior doctor recruitment and recruitment pressures were now easing.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: “This kind of spending on costly agency staff is simply unsustainable and is a drain on sorely needed resources.

“Laying off staff just to rehire them from an agency is appallingly bad management. A lot of trusts are cutting down massively on agency spending, so this is an increasingly outdated practice. The trust should break its dependency on agency staff and start making better use of taxpayers' money.”

But Gwen Nuttall, the hospital's director of operations, said the link between the agency/bank staff spend and the redundancies two years ago was a “nonsense”.

The problems experienced in recent months, she said, were caused by the need to get in agency doctors to cover for junior doctors leaving at short notice for interviews as a result of major problems with the national NHS IT doctor recruitment system.

“It really hit us hard and cost us an awful lot of money - we just had to get more doctors in to make sure we were safe,” she said. “The bank staff costs have been off-set by our underspend from the vacancies. We have had a major recruitment drive and we are now getting the new staff on stream. We also had challenges with sickness - if it all happens in one area then you can't cover it internally.

The bill for bank and locum staff stands at £2.9 million, with £1.5 million being spent on temporary nurses and midwives and £771,000 on dental and medical staff since April last year.

The agency bill is currently £888,000 of which £643,000 has gone on medical and dental staff and £115,000 on administrative and clerical workers.

LocalGov.co.uk: Taxpayers’ pensions gripe

Council taxpayers face bills of £8.5bn to cover ‘under-funded’ and ‘over-generous’ public sector pensions.

The Taxpayers’ Alliance (TPA) has calculated there are almost 8,500 retired NHS employees in England and Wales with retirement benefits worth £31m.
The total value of these retirement benefits is almost £8.5bn. ‘Urgent change is needed,’ said a TPA spokesman.

Public Servant Magazine: Make public finance an open book

The fact that expenses, allowances, pay and bonuses are so opaque has implications for good management. Without transparency, accountability is impossible, writes Matthew Elliott

Transparency has been the word on everyone’s lips lately – and for good reason. On the back of numerous scandals, from Sir John Bourn resigning from the National Audit Office to Derek Conway MP losing the Conservative Whip, the pressure has been building for public expenditure to be made far more open.

Expenses, allowances, pay and bonuses are attracting particular attention. The roll call of those who have abused taxpayers’ enforced generosity grows at an alarming rate, and it is right that those involved have been punished for their misdemeanours. But it should not be allowed to rest there. The extreme examples of abuse of public money are a symptom of a much wider problem – the worrying lack of transparency in public sector remuneration.

Even where there is no deliberate abuse, the fact that salaries, bonuses, expenses and pensions are so opaque has much deeper connotations for the management of the public sector and the delivery of good services. Without transparency, which requires proper disclosure of who is being paid how much and for what, accountability is impossible. Accountability is essential to organisations running efficiently and performing well. The shareholders of any company need to see how staff are performing and what their pay is in order to assess whether they have succeeded and can be rewarded further, or have failed and need to be held to account by having bonuses and salary increases restricted.

A company also benefits from the pressure of competition. Performance is measured by whether customers are attracted or lost, meaning that there are two impetuses to good performance. In the public sector, where the shareholders – taxpayers – have no choice about investing their money, and the customers – service users – have no choice about their service provider, transparency and accountability are doubly important. Without competitive pressure, transparency is the main way for taxpayers to hold the public sector to account.

The current situation is not working. Managers who are failing – for example, those at HMRC who have reportedly continued to ignore data security rulings despite repeated data loss – continue to be rewarded, while successes elsewhere go unrewarded.

Most financial reporting by public bodies is done in wording so obscure that it is almost impossible for laymen to glean where the bulk of their own money is spent. Even when one has trawled through inscrutable accounts, the amount most bodies are willing to reveal is very limited. The pot-luck approach to disclosure based on well-aimed Freedom of Information requests, whistleblowers and tactical leaks is no good for anyone. It does not give the full picture. It results in information being selectively revealed for personal and political reasons and it leads to a culture in which openness is viewed with suspicion.

The tone of the public debate is poisonous, with widespread suspicion among taxpayers that they are being taken advantage of. That suspicion may well be unfair, but as long as public spending remains largely a closed book, it will continue to hang over everyone on the public payroll.

If we were to make full disclosure the norm, we could draw the poison from this debate. The public would be able to judge for themselves whether they get value for money, rather than being left to assume they get poor value. There would be a good mechanism for rewarding success and dealing with failure, and public sector efficiency would improve. The opacity of public spending benefits no one. We would all gain from more openness. What is there to lose?

Matthew Elliott is Taxpayers’ Alliance chief executive

Daily Telegraph: Speaker spent £80,000 for his 'spin doctor'

By James Kirkup

MICHAEL Martin, the Speaker of the Commons, spent more than £80,000 of public money employing a City public relations man who acted as his spin doctor, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Mike Granatt, a former Whitehall press officer, was paid £82,305 to work part-time handling media inquiries. The revelation has fuelled questions about Mr Martin's use of public money and his administration of the Commons.

Mr Granatt was hired in May 2005 through Luther Pendragon, a private communications consultancy, by the House of Commons Commission, which runs the Commons and is chaired by Mr Martin.

The disclosure comes in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from The Daily Telegraph. The commission said Mr Granatt, who resigned last week, provided "media advice'' to "senior officials'' and his hiring took account of the workload of existing in-house staff.

Matthew Elliott, the chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, claimed last night that Mr Martin should have paid for Mr Granatt's services out of his £137,000 salary.

Solihull Times: Row erupts over spin

BOROUGH councillors have been getting themselves in a spin - over spin.

A furious row has broken out between the Conservative leader of Solihull Council Ken Meeson and the Liberal Democrats over allegations the authority uses public money for "spin".

It follows a report by the Taxpayers' Alliance that in 2006/7, the Incil spent £1.37 million on public relations --£820,000 or 147 per cent more than ten years ago.

Some editions of the Lib Dems' local newsletter Focus, which circulates throughout the borough, reported the organ-isation's claim under the headline "Council spending £1.5m on spin".

Councillor Meeson wrote to Norman Davies, leader of the Lib Dem group on the council, saying not only was the spend figure inaccurate but that money was not spent on spin - and he had instructed the council's solicitor, Michael Blamire-Brown, to formally investigate the allegations.

In a letter to Councillor Davies, Cllr Meeson said: "The term 'spin'is clearly intended to suggest that information published by officers of the council is politically biased, intended to deceive and less than factual. As you will be aware, the issuing of publicity by a local authority which, in whole or part, appears to designed to affect support for a political party is an offence under Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986."

In reply, Cllr Davies told the council leader that the term "spin" was so new that many dictionaries did not give a definition of the word.

However, he added: "The Chambers online dictionary gives: 'said of information, a news report etc, especially that of a political nature: a favourable bias. The PR Department will put a spin on it.'

"Other definitions from the same source are: 'A distinctive point of view, an emphasis or interpretation and to provide an interpretation of (a statement or event, for example) especially in a way meant to sway public opinion.'

"I cannot find one that mentions 'lies, intention to deceive, less than honest.'"

Referring to the headline in Focus, Cllr Davies said the word 'nearly' had been omitted by mis-take and he was willing to write an article in the next edition to tell read-ers that the council was spending £1.37 million, not £1.5 million.

Cllr Meeson told the Times the bulk of the £1.37 million spend went on recruitment advertising for schools and the council, statutory notices in newspapers and costs relating to childcare, plus publications the council were required to produce under government legislation.

Guardian Comment is Free: Unfair trade status

The recent award of a Fairtrade Foundation symbol to Tate & Lyle sugar undermines the ethos of the movement and leaves a bitter aftertaste

It's currently Fairtrade Fortnight, and each year the organisers announce at least one major win for its ethical trading scheme. This year's big announcement is that all retail sugar sold by Tate & Lyle will become Fairtrade-Foundation certified. The decision has been widely welcomed. But having researched how the sugar market works, I'm left dumbfounded.

Tate & Lyle may be able to buy an ethical halo, but that does not stop its profits and market dominance benefiting rather heavily from unfair trade rules. According to farmsubsidy.org, it is Britain's biggest beneficiary of agricultural subsidies, raking in nearly €200m a year of taxpayers' money. "There is clearly something wrong," says Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, "when families and pensioners are paying taxes so that huge firms like Tate & Lyle can be subsidised."

Distorting trade rules are forcing consumers to pay higher prices in the supermarkets, too. Tate & Lyle's producers receive tariff-free access into EU markets through the so-called "Everything but arms" agreement, but lower-cost producers like Brazil and Thailand face duties of €33.90 per 100kg of cane sugar imported.

That massively restricts competition, and it stops producers in emerging countries from climbing up the economic ladder by supplying refined, packaged and branded products in UK supermarkets. Labour MP Doug Henderson has been particularly critical of the current "duopoly" enjoyed by Tate & Lyle and British Sugar. In a House of Commons speech, he criticised these companies' stranglehold, pointing out that they had already "been fined by the European Union on a number of occasions for anti-competitive price-fixing policies."

Since EU regulators seem ineffective at introducing competition, what can be done? Ironically, this is one of those areas where Fairtrade could have played a useful role. It could have highlighted the injustice of all the corporate welfare and protection given to Tate & Lyle, by giving its mark to excluded producers and by campaigning against sugar subsidies. But in its quest to "scale up" the idea of fair trade, it seems willing to accept dominant players without fully thinking through the consequences.

Giving fair trade status to a company that so massively benefits from unfair trade rules is perhaps not surprising. "Time and time again," says Marc Sidwell of the Adam Smith Institute, "the scheme claims to promote fairness while making excluded producers even worse off."

Certification schemes can be an important help for consumers. They help us make informed choices in the supermarket. But for those schemes to remain relevant, they have to be true to their claims. At a time when the fair trade scheme is coming under increasing scrutiny, it seems to me that Fairtrade is failing to provide a meaningful standard of fairness. Certainly some Thai and Brazilian producers will find the scheme's conception of fair trade sugar leaves a very bitter aftertaste.

Citizens Against Government Waste: Europe Assaults U.S. Businesses

By: Tom Schatz and Matthew Elliott, British TaxPayers' Alliance

As the global economy slows, every effort should be made to encourage businesses to invest, innovate, and market their products around the world.  Unfortunately for taxpayers and investors, European regulators are abusing their power in a manner that will adversely impact the ability of the world to avoid the worst results of the current slowdown.
The basis for this concern is the European Commission’s (EC) all-out assault on American business.  The most widely publicized case involves Microsoft.  The company was forced to hand over valuable intellectual property, unbundle its software, and pay a $612 million fine, the largest ever handed out by the EU at the time.  On February 21, Microsoft announced that it is going to reveal more of its trade secrets in order to make its Windows platform more compatible with different types of software.  Unfortunately, this is not likely to convince the EC give up its crusade.

A January 17 Wall Street Journal article noted that the EU, since September, has “dialed up a case against Qualcomm, continued processing claims against Intel, charged MasterCard with setting illegal fees, searched for reasons to block Google’s purchase of DoubleClick, and forced Apple to cut prices for digital songs (though the iPod maker was cleared of any wrongdoing).”

The EC has become the place to go if companies can’t win in the marketplace.  In considering the various cases against successful U.S. businesses, the EC may also be setting its sights on any European businesses that become market leaders.  After the French National Assembly adopted a copyright reform bill in March 2006 that would have outlawed closed digital rights management technologies such as Apple’s Fair Play, which runs the iPod, the French Senate subsequently approved legislation that would allow companies to keep their trade secrets secure.  One senator noted that such protection is not just for Apple, but also for start-ups in France.

In several prominent cases the EC has shown a complete disregard for intellectual property, antitrust laws, and court decisions in the U.S.  Attempting to pilfer Microsoft’s, Apple’s, or Intel’s intellectual property rights opens the door for other competitors who can’t succeed in the marketplace to tie up the courts and waste tax dollars bringing lawsuits against successful companies.  The stakes continue to be high, and the effect of the EC’s various fines and decisions on innovation will reverberate throughout the world.

As the EC continues its near-sighted attack on intellectual property and competition, companies will try and capture market share through litigation rather than innovation.  That will not help the world recover from the current global economic slowdown.

Edinburgh Evening News: SPENDING REVELATION LEADS TO CITY SPIN DOCTOR REVIEW

AN independent review of the city council's public relations department is to be launched to ensure it is run efficiently.

The measure, which could lead to cutbacks, comes after it was discovered the local authority spends more on publicity and spin doctors than any other council in Scotland.

Figures published by The Taxpayers Alliance showed the council spent GBP 3.37 million on public relations in 2006/7 - up 118.4 per cent on 1996/7.

The cash has been spent on measures such as press officers, adverts and Outlook, the council's free newspaper.

The council's head of corporate communications, Isabell Reid, said: "It's important to us that both the members and the people of Edinburgh have confidence we are delivering an efficient and cost-effective service."