The TaxPayers' Alliance - Media Coverage

Belfast Telegraph: MLAs to get £2,260 more to run their offices

By David Gordon

Assembly members found themselves at the centre of another expenses row last night, after a £2,660 hike brought their individual office running allowances up to £72,660 a year.

The increase, which will add up to £287,280 to the annual taxpayer-funded bill for the Assembly, has come into effect ahead of an independent review of members' remuneration.

It is being defended at Stormont as an automatic inflation-linked measure, based on long- standing provisions established by the NIO. But the same allowance jumped above the inflation rate a year ago, when it was increased from £48,000 to £70,000 by Secretary of State Peter Hain.

It has also been learned that the new increase is based on an inflation measurement not normally favoured by Government.

The Assembly confirmed that the £2,660 hike was calculated according to a Retail Price Index (RPI) inflation figure of 3.8%.

The Consumer Prices Index (CPI) is the preferred Government measurement for inflation and is traditionally lower than the RPI level. The most recent CPI inflation figure was 2.5%.

The CPI rate is also often the basis for pay round negotiations in the private and public sectors.

Assembly pay and expenses levels are the subject of a study by the Senior Salaries Review Body.

Its report, due later this year, is expected to recommend a salary increase from the total of around £43,000 a year. MLAs' pay fell well behind their counterparts in Edinburgh and Cardiff during the long period when devolution was suspended. Any proposal for a significant salary rise at Stormont may provoke a major bust-up.

Reacting to the new office costs increase, Matthew Elliott of the Taxpayers' Alliance, said: "The never-ending growth in MLAs' expenses is an added burden for taxpayers at a time when we are all paying far too much already."

The office costs allowance is primarily used to cover staff salaries and constituency office rental costs.

"It has been the subject of a number of recent controversies, not least over the number of MLAs who have family members on their Stormont payroll.

Assembly politicians — unlike MPs — are permitted to rent constituency offices from relatives.

A number of MLAs fall into this category, including ex-Minister Ian Paisley Jnr who has been renting his Ballymena office from a firm headed by his father-in-law.

Some members rent premises from their political parties and are not required to provide independent rental valuations for party-owned premises.

An Assembly spokeswoman last night said the £2,660 increase was introduced this month.

"Office Costs Allowance (OCA) is paid to meet the expenses incurred by a member in connection with carrying out his or her Assembly duties," she added.

The disparities between the Assembly and Westminster on the use of office expenses are among the issues being highlighted in the Belfast Telegraph's Open Stormont campaign.

Daily Express: Our hard-up councils fork out £67m to pay advisors

SCOTLAND'S district councils are spending record amounts of taxpayers' money on consultancy fees, it emerged yesterday.

Local authorities spent more than £67million hiring external advisers last year alone, a rise of more than 30 per cent on 2006.

New figures, released under freedom of information legislation, showed Edinburgh was the biggest spender, shelling out £8.2million on consultants.

North Lanarkshire came second in the list, spending £7.1million, followed by Highland, which spent £7million, while the largest local authority, Glasgow, said it had spent £2million.

Advisors were brought in to help with issues ranging from weather forecasts to quizzing students about their accommodation.

Last night public spending experts and politicians criticised the massive drain on council finances, at a time when many are struggling to deliver the recent council tax freeze.

Tory MSP Margaret Mitchell, who has been investigating consultant spending in her Central Scotland constituency, said: "It's a colossal amount of money.

"Questions have to be asked whether it is value for money. Why on earth are we spending over £100,000 on the salaries of so many directors if so much is having to be farmed out?" Mark Wallace, campaign director of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said:

"Consultants are an easy way to pass the buck when things go wrong. No amount of tinkering can solve the problems of public funding." The figures show East Renfrewshire spent £5,000 on secret shopping exercises, Aberdeenshire £44,500 on teaching creativity and entrepreneurial skills to school pupils and a further £118,000 on weather forecasting.

Falkirk Council paid consultants £3,000 over school timetables, while North Lanarkshire spent almost £1,000 to find out students' perceptions o where they live.

The findings come at a time when councils are facing tough financial decisions after being charged with making two per cent efficiency savings on the back of a council tax freeze.

The findings have angered union officials. Dave Watson of Unison said: "I think this massive increase is very worrying at a time when councils are strapped for cash".

Edinburgh City Council finance convener Gordon Mackenzie said last night: "In the short term consultants can save you money because they're only there on the bill for the amount of time they do the job."

Daily Express: Police called in as public property sold on the cheap

POLICE have been called in after one of Scotland's biggest councils sold off public properties for £5million below market value.

Aberdeen City Council sold prime sites to private developers.

Spending watchdog Audit Scotland found Seafield sports club, worth £2.9million, was sold for £685,000, while the College Street multistorey car park fetched just half of its £3.6million value.

The council already faces public outcry after cutting £27million from its budget and faces a probe by the Accounts Commission next month.

Grampian Police have been passed details of the report, but it is thought Audit Scotland concluded there was no evidence of fraud.

Audit Controller Caroline Gardiner said she was unable to decide if errors represented "naivety, incompetence or a deliberate attempt to mislead." She said: "The internal and external audit reports both point to serious weaknesses in governance and accountability." Audit Scotland's inquiry was launched after officers at the local authority expressed concerns over six property sales between 2001 and early 2006. Mark Wallace, left, of the Taxpayers' Alliance said: "Public officers without suitable experience are in negotiations with businessmen and the taxpayer is fleeced as a result of incompetence." A Grampian Police spokeswoman said: "The council approached us over the report and we're liaising with the procurator fiscal."

Daily Express: A sad day for Britain

By Sarah O'Grady Property Correspondent

Sisters lose 32-year fight to have same inheritance tax rights as couples

TWO sisters yesterday lost their final battle to avoid paying a massive inheritance tax bill that will leave one of them homeless.

Joyce and Sybil Burden have lived together since the birth of the youngest, Sybil, and designed and built their £550,000 home themselves 41 years ago.

But when one sister dies, the other will face a £112,600 inheritance tax bill on the house and farm land in Marlborough, Wilts – worth together £875,000 – forcing the surviving sibling to sell the house to pay the huge death tax bill.

The sisters wanted the law changed so that co-habiting siblings would have the same rights as married or gay couples, which exempt the surviving one from inheritance duty.

But at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg yesterday, Joyce, 89, and Sybil, 82, lost their appeal against the court's refusal last year to back their battle against the British Government. In a 15-2 judgment, judges ruled that they did not face unfair discrimination.

The judgment said: "The absence of such a legally binding agreement between the applicants (the Burdens) rendered their relationship of co-habitation, despite its long duration, fundamentally different to that of a married or civil partnership couple." It is the final blow in their 32-year battle for a change. It has cost the sisters at least £20,000 in legal fees.

They have written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer before the budget every year since 1976 asking for the inheritance tax law for siblings to be overhauled.

In a statement yesterday, the sisters said they were "bitterly disappointed at the result".

They said: "We have been fighting for 32 years just to gain the same rights, as regards inheritance tax, as married couples and now couples in civil partnerships.

"We are still struggling to understand why two single sisters in their old age, whose only crime was to choose to stay single and look after their parents and two aunts to the end, should find themselves in such a position in the United Kingdom in the 21st century.

"We certainly do not regret our decision to look after our family for a single moment; we were glad to repay them for the happy, good Christian upbringing they gave us.

"So, having always paid our taxes, and having cared for our relatives and each other when necessary without any help from the State, we are now in the worrying and upsetting position of being unable to secure each other in our last few years.

"Our brothers fought in the Second World War, and our sister was a nurse throughout the Blitz.

"We do not believe that this is the sort of freedom and democracy that they envisaged when they put their lives on the line for their country.

"It is not an exaggeration that we feel as if we have been personally persecuted. We are, of course, bitterly disappointed at the result. This is a day we hoped that we, as British citizens, would never see." Their letter to the court had pointed out: "If we were married, or homosexuals, or lesbians, we would be exempt. We would leave this country if we were younger, the country our generation fought for.

"My brother always described us as perfect citizens, so why are we discriminated against? We need justice." Mark Wallace, of the TaxPayers' Alliance, which has backed the Daily Express crusade to scrap the hated death tax, yesterday attacked the verdict which "punishes" those who have saved money all their lives.

He said: "Why should people be taxed just because they are siblings but exempt if they are partners? The Government is always preaching about saving prudently, but this tax punishes people who do exactly that.

"Inheritance tax is an unjust and unfair levy that hits bereaved families when they are at their most vulnerable. While these brave sisters have lost this battle, the strength of public opposition to inheritance tax is growing all the time and we are getting closer to winning the war."

Worcester News: Group keeps check on taxpayers’ cash

By Richard Vernalls

TAXPAYERS keen to keep tabs on how Worcestershire's local authorities are spending their cash could be interested in a new campaign group.

The county is getting its first TaxPayers' Alliance (TPA) branch following a successful activists' meeting at Fownes Hotel, in Worcester city centre.

The alliance, which has a West Midlands branch and is based in London, was set up by volunteers to push for greater scrutiny of local authorities and the Government.

The TPA now boasts more than 18,000 volunteers nationally and a handful of paid staff who help run the organisation.

Fiona McEvoy, West Midlands' branch campaign agent, organised the first Worcestershire group get together and believes the county could prove "a hotbed" of issues.

She said: "A lot of things came up at that meeting

"It sounds like Worcestershire is a bit of a hotbed, the conversation really flowed."

A dozen like-minded people turned up to discuss how Worcestershire taxpayers' cash is spent by authorities ranging from Worcestershire County Council and West Mercia Constabulary.

The group discussed issues including planning policy, council employees' rates of pay and councillors' expenses.

Miss McEvoy said concerns over government quangos spending taxpayers' cash in rural counties and council tax spending generally were also big issues for people, particularly with the continued rise in cost of living.

Doug Langdon, a self-employed personnel consultant, of Eckington which is covered by Wychavon District Council, attended.

The 60-year-old said: "People need to take an interest in what is going on and need to feel they can have a say.

"I get pamphlets from Wychavon District Council particularly when council tax forms come out and they are self-praising.

"I am not saying Wychavon is not one of the best run local authorities in the country, that may well be the case, but people should keep an eye on it so we are not lulled into a false sense of security."

Miss McEvoy believes the branch could expand over the coming years as people's interest in how much tax they are paying and where the money is spent grows.

For more information about the branch e-mail county activist John Hughes jojechurch@googlemail.com or call Miss McEvoy on 0845 3309554.

Scotsman: Sisters lose fight to avoid crippling inheritance tax

By GEOFF MEADE
IN BRUSSELS
THEY have been campaigning against inheritance tax since Jim Callaghan was prime minister. But yesterday two elderly sisters fighting for the same rights as married couples lost a final appeal for equal treatment.

In a 15-2 vote, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled that Joyce and Sybil Burden, who have lived together all their lives, do not face unfair discrimination under UK inheritance tax rules.

Joyce, 90, and Sybil, 82, have been fighADVERTISEMENTting for decades to avoid crippling inheritance tax on their home in Wiltshire when one of them dies.

They argued UK law breached their human rights by exempting married and gay couples from inheritance tax, while targeting cohabiting siblings.

But the Grand Chamber of the human rights court upheld an earlier ruling that national governments had some discretion in deciding tax arrangements.

The decision means that when one sister dies the other will have to sell the four-bedroom property in Marlborough to pay the 40 per cent inheritance tax on its value above £300,000.

If they had won their case, UK inheritance tax law would have had to change, to put cohabiting couples on an equal footing with married couples and civil partnerships in being exempt from inheritance tax.

The sisters have been fighting the battle for decades – writing to the chancellor of the day before every Budget since 1976, pleading for recognition as a cohabiting couple. And when the UK Civil Partnership Act of 2004 recognised gay and lesbian couples for inheritance tax purposes, the sisters turned to the European Court of Human Rights, claiming the act violated Human Rights Convention articles outlawing discrimination.

In 2006 the Burdens lost the case by a 4-3 majority of the panel of seven human rights judges – although three members of the court described their inheritance tax plight as "awful". But the appeal, before a 17-member panel of human rights judges, produced a 15-2 majority against the sisters yesterday.

The TaxPayers' Alliance condemned the ruling. Matthew Elliott, its chief executive, called it "a sad verdict for anyone who wanted to do the right thing and save for their family's future".

The judges said the legal consequences of civil partnerships, just like those of marriages, set such relationships apart from other forms of cohabitation.

They went on: "The absence of such a legally binding agreement between the applicants rendered their relationship of co-habitation... fundamentally different to that of a married or civil partnership couple."

Carole Hope, a partner in Murray Beith Murray, solicitors and asset managers in Edinburgh, said:

"Unmarried people will continue to be liable for a higher proportion of inheritance tax on their estate than those with spouses or civil partners."

The sisters vowed to keep battling despite their "bitter disappointment". They said: "We are still struggling to understand why two single sisters in their old age, whose only crime was to choose to stay single and look after their parents and two aunts to the end, should find themselves in such a position."

Southern Times Messenger: Londonlife What's happening in the Old Dart

OLDHAM FOLDEM

CRACKPOT council chiefs spent pound stg. 100,000 rebranding their town - and ended up with a big circle above the name Oldham.

Taxpayers in the town - motto Dare to be wise - yesterday savaged their local authority and branded its new logo a waste of money.

Retired labourer John Wrigglesworth, 64, said: ``It's a disgrace. Spending pound stg. 100,000 on a giant letter O makes us look idiots.''

Housewife Victoria Kileen, 40, said: ``They should have spent the money on things like hospitals, schools and roads.''

The council hired Manchester design firm Hemisphere to dream up a logo in a bid to improve Oldham's image following the 2001 race riots.

The council says it is a ``symbol of unity'' that reflects Oldham's down-to-earth character and has a tone of voice that embraces the many individual elements that make up Oldham.

The TaxPayers' Alliance said: ``A logo does not improve people's lives.

``Councils should focus on the job in hand rather than ego projects.''

Daily Express: FILLING UP? THAT’LL BE £84 PLEASE

By Louise Barnett Consumer Editor MOTORISTS will be forced to pay an average £84 to fill up their cars when fuel hits a predicted £1.50 per litre.

Fuel is already at a 20-year high and more price hikes are yet to come, experts warn.

Diesel surged to more than 120.17p per litre yesterday while unleaded hit an average 109.95p – only just shy of £5 a gallon.

The soaring prices last night prompted calls for the Government to help struggling drivers by cutting fuel duty.

British motorists will spend more than £81billion on petrol next year of which £51billion will go to the Treasury via taxation, price comparison website uSwitch warned.

Petrol has jumped from just 93.98p per litre a year ago. Diesel has risen from 95.81p.

Price comparison website petrolprices.com yesterday showed maximum prices of 132.9p per litre for diesel and 119.9p for unleaded.

It has warned that unless conditions change, average prices will continue to climb to £1.50 per litre for unleaded.

That equates to an average annual petrol bill of £2,637 – which is more than 14 per cent of an average net annual salary of £18,083.

uSwitch’s Ann Robinson warned that the £1.50 litre could prove too much for some drivers.

“Unfortunately the outlook for drivers is bleak. This latest blow could be enough to force some drivers off the road altogether,” she said.

“Cash-strapped consumers are juggling price increases across all fronts.”

Petrol prices had rocketed by 216 per cent since 1988, she added.

Calls for a reduction in fuel duty and VAT came in the wake of massive £7.2billion profits announced by oil giants Shell and BP yesterday, for the first quarter of this year alone.

Chancellor Alistair Darling has said a 2p hike in fuel duty will take effect in October – an increase postponed from April.

AA spokesman Luke Bosdet said: “The Government has also enjoyed a windfall from high oil and fuel prices, and October’s increase in fuel duty must not go ahead.” TaxPayers’ Alliance chief executive Matthew Elliott called for the planned fuel duty hike to be scrapped.

“The Government are profiteering from high fuel prices, and causing serious misery as they do so,” he said.

According to accountants Grant Thornton, the price rises are generating an extra £123million per month for Government coffers.

RAC Foundation spokesman Rodney Kumar echoed calls for the Government to freeze duty.

“We would like to see the motorist being given a bit of a break at this time.

“We would like to see the Government lay off the motorist for a while,” he said.

British motorists currently pay an average £71 to fill a tank – up 25 per cent on last year.

A petition on the Downing Street website calling for a fuel duty cut has attracted more than 5,000 signatures. Its creator Richard Mason criticises current UK fuel prices as “simply ridiculous” and blames the Government for high fuel taxes.

“The current cost is unsustainable to the average family,” Mr Mason said.

uSwitch said that further fuel hikes would pile fresh pressure on householders already buckling under average bill rises of £1,783 this year. Energy bills have soared by around 15 per cent since January while food inflation is adding an extra £780 to a family’s annual grocery bill.

Speaking about the fuel price rises, petrolprices.com’s Louise Doherty said: “Obviously that is a disaster for motorists and the economy in general because higher fuel prices drive inflation.”

uSwitch said that higher petrol prices next year would add £18 to the cost of filling a Ford Fiesta’s tank. Owners of luxury cars such as the Mercedes C Class or equivalent will fork out an extra £24.

Countryside Alliance communications head Jill Grieve warned: “The hardworking workforce in the countryside, the elderly and the isolated are being increasingly marooned, unable to go out, because fuel prices are too high.

“Social lives in the countryside, the economy and the fabric of the countryside itself are under a very real threat.”

• Motorists filling up with diesel may increasingly use a small amount of biodiesel in their cars.

Biodiesel was created to be a less-polluting fuel.

It is generally made from plants such as rapeseed and sunflowers.

Diesel can currently contain no more than 5 per cent biodiesel by law. However, the EU is looking into lifting limits.

Daily Mail: SISTERS LOSE FIGHT TO HAVE DEATH TAX PARITY WITH GAYS

BY STEVE DOUGHTY SOCIAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT

TWO elderly sisters yesterday lost their legal battle for the same tax privileges as gay couples.

Joyce and Sybil Burden, who have lived together all their lives, are angry that one of them will face an inheritance tax bill of more than £50,000 when the other dies.

They are even more enraged by the fact that same-sex couples can now avoid that tax by entering into a civil partnership, but that no such exemption is available to them.

Yesterday, European judges dismissed their claim, saying their relationship was 'fundamentally different' to that of married or civil partnership couples.

The decision means that to meet the tax bill when the other dies, the surviving sister will have to sell the four-bedroom house in Marlborough, Wiltshire, they have lived in for more than 40 years.

In a statement after the judgment, Joyce, 90, and Sybil, 82, said: 'We are bitterly disappointed. This is a day we hoped, as British citizens, we would never see.

'Having always paid our taxes, and having cared for our relatives and each other when necessary without any help from the state, we are now in the worrying and unsettling position of being unable to secure each other in our last few years.

'Our brothers fought in the Second World War and our sister was a nurse throughout the Blitz. We do not believe that this is the sort of freedom and democracy that they envisaged when they put their lives on the line for their country.

'We are struggling to understand why two single sisters in their old age, whose only crime was to stay single and look after their parents and aunts, should find themselves in such a position in the UK in the 21st century.'

The Burdens have been battling on the inheritance tax issue since

1976. They took their case to the European Court of Human Rights after British law extended the exemption to same- sex couples through civil partnerships in 2005.

The women now have no further legal avenues to follow in the wake of yesterday's decision by the Grand Chamber, the appeal court of the European Court of Human Rights. The judges decided by 15 to two to endorse a four to three verdict against them by seven Strasbourg judges in an initial ruling in 2006.

The women's lawyers said their only remaining hope was lobbying Parliament in a bid to have the law changed.

After their first defeat two years ago Joyce Burden said: 'If we were lesbians we would have all the rights in the world. But we are sisters, and it seems we have no rights at all.'

Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent on the value of any inherited property above £312,000.

Matthew Elliott of the Taxpayers' Alliance said: 'This is a sad verdict for anyone who wanted to do the right thing and save for their family's future.

'Inheritance tax is an unjust and unfair levy that hits bereaved families when they are at their most vulnerable. Whilst these brave sisters have lost this battle, the strength of public opposition to inheritance tax is growing all the time and we are getting closer to winning the war to abolish it.'

Daily Telegraph: Letters: Inane self-publicity figures among the causes of continual council tax rises

SIR - The TaxPayers' Alliance estimates that councils spend more than £400 million a year on publicity (report, April 28).

The time is long overdue to question those responsible for wasting so much taxpayers' money. Here in the north-west, one council paints on its vans "Part of the team'' and has spent £100,000 on a new logo consisting of two circles.

My least favourite examples are the road signs reading: "Lancashire County Council, where people matter.'' Did we really think otherwise? Are such inane messages intended to achieve any objective, and if so, how is such achievement to be measured?

If local authorities are serious about reducing council tax increases, they should invite taxpayers' suggestions.

Brian Rick

Heversham, Cumbria

Sun: Labour Kate joins Tory Boris

By GEORGE PASCOE-WATSON

GORDON Brown was dealt a fresh blow last night when a Labour MP was hired to work with Tory Mayoral hope Boris Johnson.

Former sports minister Kate Hoey signed up to Boris’s team in a sign of defiance to the PM.

Her apparent defection triggered fury in Labour’s ranks, just before tomorrow’s vital local elections.

And her shock move put Mr Brown on the back-foot — though he decided NOT to discipline her.

Labour figures claimed it was another sign of the PM’s weakness. Miss Hoey said yesterday: "Boris has talked to me about ways I could get involved if he should win in London.

"If Londoners choose Boris as Mayor, I would be glad to serve in that capacity."

Miss Hoey will work as a non-executive director in Boris’s first Cabinet, advising on sport and the 2012 Olympic Games.

But later she tried to calm Labour anger by insisting she had no plans to join the Tories.

She insisted: "This is not an endorsement of Boris Johnson for Mayor.

"I am a Labour MP and I am standing for Labour at the next election. I support the Labour Government."

Her decision saw key Cabinet ministers and advisers being summoned to talks at No10. Yet the PM decided he could not discipline her because he has hired Tory MPs to advise him as part of his "government for all the talents".

Labour Mayor Ken Livingstone labelled her as "eccentric".

Miss Hoey was spied in the Commons on Monday with Tory leader David Cameron.

The sighting triggered speculation that he has offered her a top job in a Conservative government in return for defecting to the Tories.

The timing of her move could not have been more wounding for Mr Brown.

He faces a backlash over the 10p tax fiasco — and Labour is on course for a hammering in town hall polls.

Mr Brown was hit by fresh figures last night showing Britain is in the grip of a strike epidemic.

Public sector workers are 100 times more likely to strike than those in private firms, according to a study by the TaxPayers’ Alliance.

Shropshire Star: Councils could save millions, study claims

Councils could reduce tax bills by £660 million annually if they took simple cost-cutting steps, a report has claimed.

According to the study, in 2006-07, councils in England and Scotland spent over £400 million on publicity, £1.9 billion employing managers earning over £50,000 and over £4.3 billion on employer pension contributions. The total of the three expenditures is therefore £6.6 billion.

The Taxpayers Alliance, which campaigns for lower taxes, found if councils cut publicity, management and pension costs by ten per cent, they can cut council tax by an average of 3.5 per cent, or around £40 off an average Band D bill.

In total, this would save the council £660 million over a year.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “Council tax has doubled in the last decade and is now so high that it tips many families and pensioners over the edge.

“But it doesn’t have to be that way.

“Local authorities of all parties could make meaningful council tax reductions if they saved a modest ten per cent in these three non-priority areas.”

The report, Council Spending Uncovered, reviews spending by local authorities in all corners of the UK and identifies a number of budgets that could be reduced.

Daily Express: Judge frees drug addict mum in £18k benefits con

By Tony Brooks

A JUDGE sparked fury yesterday when he allowed a woman who fiddled benefits to buy drugs to walk free as she had children.

Single mother Nicola Pearson, 31, claimed more than £18,000 in handouts to feed her crack cocaine habit.

But she escaped jail because of the "considerable pressure" placed on courts to keep mothers of young children out of prison.

Critics condemned her treatment as a licence for scroungers.

The former legal secretary punched the air in triumph and danced outside Manchester Crown Court after being given a suspended sentence.

Judge Michael Henshell had told her: "You are an intelligent woman. You became addicted to drugs and you committed offences to fund that addiction.

"You made society at large pay for your cocaine habit. If it wasn't for your children you would be going to prison immediately."

"We are encouraged to think carefully about sending women with children to prison and therefore I will suspend your sentence.

"There is considerable pressure on these courts not to send mothers of young children to prison."

For three years from 2004, Pearson pocketed vastly inflated claims in child tax credit saying it was to cover the cost of sending her daughter and son to nursery even though the son was 13. The fraud continued when she moved to West Lothian, Scotland, in 2005, claiming £325 a week in handouts for nursery care 400 miles away near her old home in Wythenshawe, Manchester.

Her real claim should have been just £32 per week and the children did not attend nursery.

Tax Credit office staff based in Edinburgh detected her scam during a routine audit and she was interviewed by investigators.

She moved back to Manchester and continued to make bogus claims by falsifying her personal details and managed to steal £18,200 before she was charged.

Defence counsel Jonathan Dickenson told the court Pearson was spending "hundreds of pounds a week" on crack cocaine.

Pearson was given an eightmonth prison sentence suspended for two years and ordered to complete 100 hours of unpaid work.

She admitted 15 charges of fraud between January 2004 and September 2007.

Mark Wallace of the TaxPayers Alliance said: "This sends out an appalling message - that you can steal from hard-working taxpayers and get away with it."

Politics.co.uk: TaxPayers' Alliance: Council tax cuts are possible

Cost-cutting from local authorities could cut council tax bills by 3.5 per cent, the TaxPayers' Alliance has claimed.

Its latest report, Council Spending Uncovered, says a ten per cent cut in publicity, management and pension costs would allow the discount.

"Council tax has doubled in the last decade and is now so high that it tips many families and pensioners over the edge," chief executive Matthew Elliott said.

"But it doesn't have to be that way. Local authorities of all parties could make meaningful council tax reductions if they saved a modest ten per cent in these three non-priority areas."

Politics.co.uk: Issue of the day - Council Tax

Councils and the government are coming under pressure to reform local taxation.

Yesterday the Taxpayers' Alliance called on local authorities to aim for ten per cent budget cuts which, it claims, would allow the average council tax bill to be cut by 3.5 per cent.

This morning local government minister John Healey again reiterated the government's viewpoint on the revaluation of council tax bands, which have not been reviewed since their initial establishment based on 1991 values.

Both of Britain's main parties seem tentative when it comes to reform, with the Conservatives forced to face up to the painful legacy of poll tax as their most recent contribution to the debate.

Discussion on council tax inevitably results in debate about the relationship between central and local government, which will also be under scrutiny as the issue is analysed further today.

Politics.co.uk: Healey: No movement on council tax revaluation

Local government minister John Healey reiterated the government's refusal to revalue council tax banding before the next general election.

Mr Healey, speaking on the Today programme, said those who feel their property is incorrectly banded should apply to have a revaluation undertaken on an individual basis.

"What we have said is that a comprehensive thorough revaluation exercise won't be taken out and won't be done this parliament, because of the concerns and uncertainties that raises for people," he said.

The TaxPayers' Alliance is urging local authorities to slim down their budgets in order to deliver cuts in council tax.

Scunthorpe Telegraph: 'SAVE ON WAGES AND CUT OUR COUNCIL TAX!

A Challenge was issued to the controlling Labour group yesterday to cut average council tax bills in North Lincolnshire by £55 per household.

The claimed savings, amounting to 4.8 per cent, could be made by cutting back annual spending on pensions, publicity and wages for middle and senior managers by 10 per cent.A league table published yesterday by The Taxpayers' Alliance revealed the savings in North Lincolnshire would be the 40th highest of 419 local authorities in England and Scotland.

The Alliance's research showed in 2006/07 the council - then under Tory control - spent £23,298,000 on pensions, publicity and management wages.

More than £6.4-million was spent on employing staff earning more than £50,000 a year, £16.4-million-plus on contributions to pensions and £389,000 on publicity.

However, the publicity budget was just over a third of the £1.1-million-plus spent by neighbouring North East Lincolnshire.

A 10 per cent reduction would save £2.3-million, meaning a £55 claw-back on a Band D property for North Lincolnshire taxpayers, who this year have been asked to pay 3.9 per cent more.

The Alliance's chief executive, Matthew Elliott, said: "North Lincolnshire residents pay far too much council tax and it has reached unsustainable levels.

"Our research shows the council could easily make savings and reduce the burden by a sizeable sum.

"We challenge the ruling Labour group to make these savings and cut the council tax."

In Hull the 10 per cent challenge would mean an average £102 saving on bills - more than double the £50 drop in North East Lincolnshire.

The Alliance insists if all councils cut their publicity, management and pension costs by just 10 per cent, bills across England and Scotland would be cut by an average of 3.5 per cent - or around £40 per household.

North Lincolnshire Council leader Coun Mark Kirk (pictured) said, in response to the challenge: "This local authority works hard to make yearly efficiency savings and strives to offer the best possible deal for taxpayers. This year's 3.9 per cent was significantly less than the Tory average of 4.6 per cent over the previous four years.

"It is pleasing to note in the Alliance league table, this Labour council is below authorities in North East Lincolnshire and Hull, run by Tory and Lib-Dem authorities."

For more information about the Taxpayers' Alliance, log on to www.taxpayersalliance.com

Lancaster Evening Post: Fuel profits - the final insult

Lorry drivers being clobbered with soaring prices at the petrol pumps have blasted the £7 billion profits of two massive oil firms as "the final insult".

Shell and BP have announced they raked in the huge profits in the first three months of this year on the back of soaring oil prices and motorists paying £5 a gallon on the forecourt.

On Tuesday, haulage firms and road users' groups have called on the firms and government to ease the pressure.

The cheapest fuel at petrol stations across Preston is £1.04 a litre for unleaded and £1.14 for diesel with further prices being predicted to rise to a national average of £1.12 in the coming months.

George Scannan, who has run GTS Haulage in Walton Summit near Bamber Bridge for 20 years, said the news was "the final insult" for hard-pressed haulage firms.

He said: "I bet they sit there and rub their hands together when the oil price goes up, they know they can whack us all with massive price increases.

"I doubt anyone on the board of BP or Shell has even heard of Lancashire, but maybe when there is no smaller haulage firms like us to buy their fuel they will sit up and notice."

Preston-based Xpress Cleaning Services managing director James Taylorson said it had seen the cost of fuelling is fleet of 75 vans almost double in the last five years.

He said: "It has got beyond a joke now and yet every year we see the profits of these oil firms getting bigger."

Royal Dutch Shell saw its profits for the first quarter of this year rise by a quarter to £4.52 billion while BP saw its leap to £3.8 billion for the same period.

Road Haulage Association spokesman Kate Gibbs said that the massive profits would "rub salt in the wounds" of hard-pressed truckers.

She said: "These profits are mind-boggling when you think of road hauliers who are struggling to deal with the Government's proposed 2p per litre fuel duty rise.

"A lot of companies will go out of business if the 2p rise goes through."

The Taxpayers' Alliance said that soaring VAT and taxes on fuel was making it harder for people to "make ends meet".

Spokesman Mark Wallace said: "Rises in the price of fuel and the cost of living are bad enough but the tax charged on top of it makes it even worse.

"It is time the government recognised the ordinary people are struggling to get by."

Panic buying during last weekend's strike at the Grangemouth oil refinery, near Falkirk, Scotland, saw pumps at petrol stations throughout Preston run dry, with Asda supermarket at Fulwood running out of fuel on Saturday afternoon.

BBC News Online: Sisters lose European tax battle

Two elderly British sisters have lost their final battle to avoid paying inheritance tax when one of them dies.

Joyce and Sybil Burden, aged 90 and 82 respectively, have lived together in Wiltshire all their lives.

The sisters appealed to the European Court to enjoy the same tax rights as married and gay couples, which do not apply to cohabiting siblings.

In a 15-2 vote, Human Rights judges in Strasbourg ruled they did not face unfair discrimination.

But the Grand Chamber of the court upheld an earlier human rights ruling that national governments were entitled to some discretion when deciding taxation arrangements.

The sisters said the decision means that when one of them dies the other will have to sell their £875,000 four-bedroom property in Marlborough.

Assuming the house is jointly owned, the surviving sister would have to pay inheritance tax of 40% on her half of the value of the property once the £300,000 threshhold had been deducted.

This would mean paying 40% of less than £140,000 assuming no other assets were involved.

Since 1976, the sisters have written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the day before every Budget, pleading for recognition under the tax rules as a cohabiting couple.

When the UK Civil Partnership Act of 2004 first recognised gay and lesbian couples for inheritance tax purposes, the sisters turned to the European Court of Human Rights.

They argued that the Act violated Human Rights Convention articles outlawing discrimination and guaranteeing the "protection of property".

'Fundamentally different'

In 2006, the Burdens lost the case by a 4-3 majority, although three members of the court described their inheritance tax plight as "awful" and "particularly striking".

But the appeal hearing on Tuesday, before a larger panel, produced a more decisive 15-2 majority against the sisters.

The judgment said: "The absence of such a legally-binding agreement between the applicants (the Burdens) rendered their relationship of co-habitation, despite its long duration, fundamentally different to that of a married or civil partnership couple."

The ruling marks the end of the road for the sisters' legal bid.

After losing the first human rights case in 2006, Joyce Burden commented: "If we were lesbians we would have all the rights in the world. But we are sisters, and it seems we have no rights at all."

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "Inheritance tax is an unjust and unfair levy that hits bereaved families when they are at their most vulnerable.

"Whilst these brave sisters have lost this battle, the strength of public opposition to inheritance tax is growing all the time and we are getting closer to winning the war and abolishing it altogether."

BBC Black Country: Public Opinions

It's two months away from opening. Will the Public be a focal point for the £500m regeneration of the Sandwell area? Or is it a shocking pink white elephant? Have your say in the comment box below.

It's West Brom's answer to London's Tate Modern. It will contain performance space, exhibitions, and a cafe bar. It's an ambitious project, even visionary - but it has been beset by problems.

The Public arts centre was due to cost approximately £38m - mostly funded by the Arts Council and other public bodies, including the European Regional Development Fund - and open in July 2006. But after delays, including cash flow problems and the project's architect going bust, it's now due to open in June 2008. Approximate cost: £52m.

David Clarke - For
David Clarke is the Public's new project director. He recently told BBC Inside Out:

"At the heart of it is the gallery - it's amazing - an international art gallery - but not like any gallery you've seen before. A gallery in which people can interact and play with and enjoy and contribute their own creativity."

On value for money, David said:

"I think people will understand when they can get in the building and enjoy it, that it's a great facility that will return value to these communities - many times over that has been spent on it."

Fiona McEvoy - Against
Fiona McEvoy, from The Taxpayer's Alliance, disagrees. She is a critic of the Public:

You can see that [West Bromwich] needs money invested in it. And most people in this area that we spoke to said: 'we want the money, we want the money invested in this area - but not in this way. We don't want an architect designed, all singing-all
dancing art gallery - that isn't what we need'.

"Nine times out of ten the people that we spoke to on the street were saying 'This is a waste'. This is millions and millions of pounds of waste, as far as they are concerned."

Richard Brooks - Against
Another outspoken critic of the project is Richard Brooks, Arts Editor for The Sunday Times newspaper. He questions the original vision for the Public. He said:

"It went wrong because it was maybe under-budgeted in the first place and basically it was never really thought through - from the first twenty odd years ago when it was first dreamed up.

"It was a dream - there's nothing wrong in dreams - but it was a rather unpractical dream.

"I don't think it's that exciting - it's as straightforward as that. No-one quite knows what it is. I just don't think it's got enough there, for people to take notice and say: 'I must come to the Public in West Bromwich'. Not just the people who live in this area - but people from around the West Midlands.

"But y'know I hope I'm wrong. Because it would be nice to think that people will come here - but it seems pretty small-beer stuff for a hell of a lot of money."

Bob Badham - For
Sandwell Councillor Bob Badham sees a bigger picture. He told Inside Out:

"I think you've got to give it five years of life to see how [the Public] fits in with the community, within Sandwell and the general West Midlands area.

"At the present time, 40% of West Bromwich is being redeveloped. And within the next ten to fifteen years 70% of the town centre will actually be new town centre. So we've got to see the Public as an important catalyst - already attracting £500m worth of development into the centre of West Bromwich."

Have your say
It'll be the people of Sandwell, and the West Midlands who will truly decide whether the Public suceeds or fails. What do you think? Have your say in the comment box below.

Sheffield Telegraph: South Yorkshire tax payers count cost of council managers

By Richard Marsden

SOUTH Yorkshire councils could cut tax bills by up to £55 per household if they reduced spending on publicity, middle managers and early retirement, campaigners claim.
The TaxPayers' Alliance has called on local authorities to slim their budgets after council tax levels almost doubled during the last decade.

Figures published by the organisation for 2006-7 claim Sheffield spent the most on publicity in the countADVERTISEMENTy, at £4.2 million, while £3.6 million was paid in Rotherham and

£1.9 million each in Barnsley and Doncaster. Doncaster topped the list for spending on middle managers, costing £12.25 million. Rotherham spent £6.7 million, Barnsley £5.5 million and Sheffield £5.3 million.

And spending on pensions, which the campaign group says could be cut by reducing the number of people taking early retirement on final salary schemes, was £45.5 million in Sheffield, £24.8 million in Doncaster, and £21.6 million in both Barnsley and Rotherham. If the South Yorkshire authorities cut spending in the three areas, the TaxPayers' Alliance says annual council tax bills could be cut by £55 per household in Doncaster, £52 in Rotherham, £45 in Sheffield and £38 in Barnsley.

What do you think? Add your comment below.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "Council tax has doubled in the last decade and is now so high that it tips many families and pensioners over the edge.

"It doesn't have to be that way. Local authorities could make meaningful reductions if they saved a modest 10 per cent in these non-priority areas."

But Sheffield Council is already making £30 million of savings over the next three years, mainly through changes in procurement and the way it uses contractors.

Interim chief executive John Mothersole said advertising bills for job vacancies have been cut by £1 million in the last year by greater use of the internet to advertise job vacancies.

Most other publicity spending was on paying for public information adverts about planning and licensing applications, and highways changes.

"I'm sure the TaxPayers' Alliance wouldn't want us to stop us informing the public about these things," Mr Mothersole said.

He said savings on early retirement were not possible because the only Sheffield Council staff who can take it are those suffering ill health.

And Mr Mothersole added: "We do not have top-heavy management. This council is run by the smallest team of any authority in the country, given the size of the city."

Brighton Argus: Sussex councils urged to cut spending

By Miles Godfrey

Campaigners are urging local authorities to slash "frivolous" spending to help ease the council tax burden.

The TaxPayers' Alliance claims a 10% reduction in councils' publicity, middle management and pension budgets would result in an average 3.5% (£40) reduction in council tax bills.

The group has highlighted the spending in a new report which calls on town hall bosses to re-focus spending.

Andrew Allum, chairman of the alliance, said: "These 10% savings could easily be achieved if local authorities focused resources on the real priorities."

The organisation claims local authorities in Sussex spend almost £150 million a year on publicity, middle managers and pensions. It believes a 10% reduction (£15 million) would enable councils to reduce individual council tax bills by between £5 a year in Lewes and £42 in Brighton and Hove.

The highest spender in the three areas during the 2006/07 financial year was West Sussex County Council which shelled out just over £53 million.

East Sussex County Council spent just over £35 million while Brighton and Hove City Council spent almost £32 million.

The alliance believes most families are now under pressure because of the council tax burden, which it says has doubled in the the past decade and rose by between 2% and 4.9% in Sussex in April.

The group particularly takes issue with the claim by a large number of Sussex councils that the reason for council tax rises is underfunding from the Government. It condemns local government's "continued profligacy with taxpayers' money."

A West Sussex County Council spokesman said: "The Taxpayers' Alliance says it stands for low taxes and good government' - something that West Sussex County Council delivers.

"Our benchmark is the independent Audit Commission which has rated the county council as a top four star performing authority. The council has already reduced management levels and seen the introduction of new ways of working.

"This has given the council an extra £30 million a year to maintain and invest in services while keeping council tax at affordable levels."

Councillor Ann Norman, chairwoman of Brighton and Hove City Council's finance committee, said: "The city council is committed to keeping council tax low. This year's 3.9% council tax rise is below inflation and the lowest since Brighton and Hove merged into one council in 1997.

"We are constantly looking at new ways of improving services and saving money, which can be passed on to the council taxpayer."

Responding to claims the council spends more than £1.7 million on publicity, Coun Norman said: "The figures are misleading because they include the things that have to be done by law such as publishing public notices for consultation and reporting performance figures in the local press.

"The actual spend on the council's communications unit in 2006/07 was just over £400,000.

It is a valuable investment as the money is spent on keeping people informed of council decisions and the latest services."

In response to the call for a 10% cut in pensions for council workers, the leader of the council, Brian Oxley, 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 council provides more than 700 different services for local residents."

Daily Express: BIG DIESEL AND PETROL RIP-OFF

By Louise Barnett Consumer Editor

BRITISH motorists are being ripped off by “profiteering” oil companies – and the Government.

Together they are making millions of pounds from the soaring price of petrol and diesel.

While drivers are struggling to meet the rocketing costs of filling their cars each week, BP and Shell are set to announce staggering profit increases of up to 45 per cent.

At the same time, the Government is raking in an extra £123million a month in VAT compared to this time last year from drivers stung by petrol and diesel increases. Drivers have now seen 15 consecutive days of record average prices on the forecourt and analysts warned that in the wake of the Grangemouth oil refinery strike the figures are likely to rise for a further six weeks.

Diesel users have been hardest hit as the pump price has soared way above that of unleaded petrol.

Last June, the average price of a litre of unleaded was 97p while a litre of diesel was barely any higher at 97.4p. By yesterday, unleaded had climbed to an average 109.77p a litre but diesel was 119.77p.

In some places, garages are charging 12 pence per litre more for diesel.

The continuing increase in wholesale crude oil costs is one reason for the hikes, combined with the strike at Scotland’s Grangemouth refinery.

AA head of public affairs Paul Watters said: “Diesel drivers are probably wondering why on earth they chose the diesel vehicle at the moment with the 10p differential and the higher purchase price.

“It is eye-watering. For some drivers it is a price that is very hard to cater for in family budgets and business budgets. Motorists at the end of this are victims of something completely out of their control.”

A diesel car costs on average £1,400 more than its petrol equivalent and it usually takes more than 45,000 miles before the savings from greater fuel efficiency recoup the extra cost. Now it will take much longer.

Last year diesel cars made up 40.2 per cent of the 2.4million new cars sold in Britain – up from just 13.8 per cent in 1999.

Brendan McLoughlin, of petrolprices.com, said: “Both oil companies and the Government are doing very nicely out of this while the rest of the country is left out of pocket and, in some cases, out of fuel.”

TaxPayers’ Alliance campaign director Mark Wallace said: “The tax- man seems dedicated to making life a misery for people who are just struggling to make ends meet.”

Research by the AA found that from October 1 2007 to April 1 2008, drivers paid out an extra £282million in duty and VAT on petrol alone.

The UK now pays the most duty and VAT on fuel in Europe.

Liberal Democrat business spokeswoman Sarah Teather said: “Oil companies should not be profiteering while so many are struggling to make ends meet. We need to ask whether the price rises being passed on to consumers are proportionate.”

Ray Holloway, director of the Petrol Retailers’ Association, said: “The oil companies make obscene profits but to a degree they are in a privileged position by chance, and they just happen to have a commodity that the world wants to use in greater and greater quantity.”

Jill Grieve of the Countryside Alliance said: “The Government is increasing rural poverty while profiting by an extra £123million a month from the VAT on fuel.”

According to industry analyst Louise Doherty, the pain for drivers at the petrol pumps will continue for at least a further six weeks by which time the average price of a litre of unleaded could have hit £1.50, with diesel even more costly.

The AA is calling for a windfall tax to be imposed on the oil giants to make them invest in infrastructure improvements. Spokesman Luke Bosdet said: “The AA believes that a substantial amount of windfall profits should be re-invested in European refineries. That would improve supply and reduce prices, while cutting the chance of shortages.”

Crude oil prices hit a new record of $119.93 a barrel yesterday as Grangemouth workers entered their second day of strike action over a pensions dispute.

Shadow business secretary Alan Duncan warned: “As a result of this strike everyone is going to pay a higher price for their fuel bills.”

Daily Telegraph: Weighed down by laws that govern our lives

A bulging legal reference book shows just how regulated we have become, writes Christopher Hope

A NEW version of the definitive guide to every law in England has more than doubled in size to over 100 volumes since the last edition was published 20 years ago. Campaigners said the scale of the size increase of the latest edition of Halsbury's Laws of England shows that Britain is now one of the most overly regulated countries in the world.

Simon Hetherington, the guide's publisher, said the biggest single Act of Parliament was the doorstop-sized Companies Act 2006, which comprises 1,300 sections, and 16 Schedules.

Halsbury's Laws of England, the definitive encyclopedia of all the laws of England, has been published just five times in the past 100 years. The fifth edition, published this week, has 102 volumes - nearly twice as many as the 56 volumes of the fourth edition in 1987.

Mr Hetherington said he had to make room for 900 new Acts of Parliament and 30,000 extra pieces of legislation in the new edition.

In the past two decades almost every area of the law had been rewritten by successive Conservative and then, since 1997, Labour Governments, he said. There were 21 new Acts relating to Education, 10 relating to Health, and 21 to Criminal Justice apart from specific legislation banning dangerous dogs (Dangerous Dogs Act 1991) or knives (Knives Act 1997).

"It is unarguable that there is more written law than ever before, and the growth of it has been accelerated over the last three decades,'' Mr Hetherington said. "A great deal emanates from Europe - either with direct effect or because the UK is obliged to give effect to European enactments in UK legislation. Yet much derives from the irony that it takes as much legislation to deregulate as it does to regulate.'' Mr Hetherington said he thought ministers should sometimes stop legislating and pause while waiting for the existing measures to bed in.

"One might argue that some reforms are not given much time to settle down before they are undone or changed again. There is also sometimes a need to simplify the law - and that itself takes law to achieve. With a little more deliberation there need not be quite so much as there is.''

The new edition of Halsbury's includes plenty of legislation which did not exist in 1986 - such as Freedom of Information and Data Protection legislation.

Other growing parts of the book show how British life has become more regulated. For example, legislation governing schools and universities had increased fourfold.

There are also now four pieces of law governing discrimination, compared with just two - Race Relations Act 1976 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 - in 1987.

Law governing employment has also grown from half a volume to two volumes, while criminal law has quadrupled to four volumes and road traffic law has doubled to two volumes.

"It is inevitable that it will take more law to provide them, in a society which is more complicated than its predecessors, with many more influences upon it and many more technologies on which it depends,'' Mr Hetherington said.

Anti-regulation campaigners were outraged.

Mark Wallace, campaign director of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "This is a shocking sign of the massive burden of regulation in Britain. Invasive and heavy-handed, government is a blight on business and on ordinary people's lives.''

Yet the increasing size of Halsbury's mirrors the expanding girth of Tolley's Yellow Tax Handbook which has become an informal measure of the complexity of Britain's tax regime.

In just six years, the doorstopper has grown by almost 80pc. Tolley's ran to 5,952 pages in 2001, spread across two volumes.

The 2007 four-volume set weighed in at 9,866 pages while this year's guide is expected to stretch to six volumes.

Tolley's publisher, Alan Blanchard, said the latest tome would have been almost 10,500 pages long if he had not made the book taller and wider with narrower margins.

Coventry Evening Telegraph: Call to cut council tax bill by £40

TOWN halls are being urged to shave 10 per cent off "non-priority" budgets to deliver a council tax cut for householders.

The TaxPayers' Alliance said the savings would pay for a £40 reduction in the average band D bill.

It has compiled figures which it says show councils spend more than £400 million on publicity, £1.9 billion on senior management and £4.3 billion on pensions a year.

Reducing costs in those areas by 10 per cent would generate £660 million to ease the burden on council tax payers by 3.5 per cent, or £40 off the average band D bill of more than £1,100.

The campaigning group says councils "should issue fewer glossy leaflets that nobody reads, put up fewer annoying adverts on billboards and employ fewer press officers".

Yorkshire Post: Council cuts that could save taxpayers £40 a year

AVERAGE council tax bills could be cut by £40 if councils chopped just 10 per cent from their publicity, management and pensions costs, it is claimed today.

Just days before voters in 13 council areas across Yorkshire go to the polls in local elections, the Taxpayers' Alliance challenged authorities to save people cash.

Their research discovered in 2006/07 £400m was spent on publicity, £1.9bn on employing managers earning more than £50,000 and £4.3bn on employer pension contributions.

A 10 per cent cut in each spending area would pay for 3.5 per cent to be sliced off council tax bills - a £40 saving on the average Band D bill - but last night town halls warned it would lead to "savage cuts".

Andrew Allum, chairman of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "These 10 per cent savings could easily be achieved if local authorities focused resources on the real priorities.

"We hear repeatedly that councils are cash-strapped, but there is a lot they can do to reduce costs, cut council tax and better serve their local residents."

The call from the campaign group comes after they published a series of research papers exposing council spending.

Its second annual Town Hall Rich List claimed 818 local authority employees now earn over £100,000 a year, up from 645 last year.

Of those councils which responded to Freedom of Information requests, six staff are said to pocket more than £200,000 a year, 88 earn more than £150,000 and 14 pocket more than Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who earns £188,849.

The amount spent on publicity by many councils has soared in recent years, while the group claims authorities should follow many private companies by ending final salary pensions and instead offering money purchase schemes "to avoid placing an excessive burden on council taxpayers".

By 2006-07, the average Band D council tax bill was just over £1,100, which could be cut by £40 if the advice is followed.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "Council tax has doubled in the last decade and is now so high that it tips many families and pensioners over the edge. But it doesn't have to be that way."

John Ransford, deputy chief executive of the Local Government Association, which represents more than 400 councils in England and Wales, said: "Saving 10 per cent on what councils spend would lead to savage cuts in vital local services.

"The elderly and vulnerable would receive worse care and leave millions of people without the necessary information to know where to get services that they have paid for through their council tax. Hard working front line staff such as lollipop ladies and bin men would be condemned to a paltry retirement."

Metro: Ditch advertising to cut council tax

SHAVING just ten per cent off low-priority town hall budgets could cut average council tax bills by £40, it is claimed today. Slimming down marketing, middle-management and final salary pensions by the modest amount would save £660million and be very straightforward, the TaxPayers Alliance said. Launching its Ten Per Cent Challenge, the campaign group said: Councils should issue fewer glossy leaflets, put up fewer annoying adverts and employ fewer press officers.

Director of Finance: Councils urged to cut PR spending

by Adrie van der Luijt   

Local councils should spend less on glossy brochures and press officers, the TaxPayers' Alliance has said.
If councils cut publicity, management and pension costs by just 10 per cent, they can cut council tax by an average of 3.5 per cent, or around £40 off an average Band D bill.

The TaxPayers' Alliance claims in its "Ten Per Cent Challenge" report that councils in England and Scotland spent over £400 million on publicity in 2006/07.

They also spent £1.9 billion employing managers earning over £50,000 and over £4.3 billion on employer pension contributions. The total of the three expenditures is therefore £6.6 billion.

Saving just 10 per cent on those three areas alone would therefore reduce expenditure by £660 million. In the same year, council tax collected in England and Scotland totalled £18.7 billion, excluding fire and police precepts.

Saving £660 million from that total would allow councils to reduce council tax by 3.5 per cent.

The average Band D council tax bill in 2006/07 (including both the district and county council where relevant but excluding the GLA and fire and police precepts) was just over £1,100. A 3.5 per cent reduction would equal around £40.

The full report provides detailed breakdowns for the savings that can be made by each local authority in England and Wales.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said that council tax had doubled in the last decade and was now so high that it tipped many families and pensioners over the edge. 

“But it doesn’t have to be that way.  Local authorities of all parties could make meaningful council tax reductions if they saved a modest 10 per cent in these three non-priority areas,” he added.

Andrew Allum, chairman of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said that the 10 per cent savings could easily be achieved if local authorities focused resources on “the real priorities”. 

“We hear repeatedly that councils are cash-strapped, but there is a lot they can do to reduce costs, cut council tax and better serve their local residents,” Allum added.

The TaxPayers’ Alliance argued that councils should not feel the need to promote themselves to the public and should issue fewer glossy leaflets that nobody reads, put up fewer annoying adverts on billboards and employ fewer press officers.

“It would be very straightforward to cut publicity costs by 10 per cent and still convey needed information about local services to residents,” the Alliance said.

It also called on local authorities to follow the lead of Hammersmith and Fulham and recoup printing costs by allowing advertising by local businesses in council publications.

The Sun: Mum dances a jig at court let-off

A MUM who fiddled £18,200 in child tax credits to buy crack cocaine danced a jig and punched the air in joy as she walked free from court yesterday.

Nicola Pearson was let off with an eight-month suspended sentence by a judge who said there was “considerable pressure” not to jail young mums.

But campaign group the TaxPayers’ Alliance said of the decision by Judge Michael Henshell at Manchester Crown Court: “This sends out an appalling message.”

Pearson, 31, of Wythenshawe, Greater Manchester, admitted 15 charges of fraud.

Essex Gazette: Group probes Essex County publicity bill

By John Geoghegan
A PRESSURE group has claimed Essex County Council spent £4.3million on promoting itself in the past year.

According to the figures from the TaxPayers' Alliance, Essex spends the fourth highest amount on publicity out of 34 county councils in England.

But council bosses have hit back at the pressure group, claiming it has got its facts wrong and the money spent on publicity was vital.

The alliance has issued figures showing the total amounts councils spend in three areas: publicity, middle management and pensions. It claimed this was "non priority" expenditure.

It claims if councils cut spending by just 10 per cent in these areas, it would significantly reduce householders' council tax bills.

Leader of Essex County Council, Lord Hanningfield, accused the TaxPayers' Alliance of not getting its facts right.

He said: "We wouldn't spend £4.3million on publicity. I think the total for last year was something more like £2million.

"They don't have a clue how we operate. The real money to be saved is by cutting down all the forms staff have to use in the processing of our services."

The publicity costs were worked out based on how councils promote themselves to residents, through press offices, notices, leaflets and publications.

Lord Hanningfield said councils were legally obliged by the Government to issue a certain amount of publicity to inform residents and staff and what was going on.

He added he was aiming to save about £200 million from the council's annual budget, which is £2.1billion.

Because Essex is a county council, it employs more staff and provides services for far more residents than the smaller district councils.

Of the 12 district councils in Essex, Basildon Council spends the highest amounts in the three "non-priority" areas.

But in terms of publicity, it spends only the fourth-highest amount.

Council leader Malcolm Buckley said: "We are the fourth-biggest district council in the country so we would expect to spend more in those areas than the other Essex districts.

"I don't think the TaxPayers' Alliance do their research properly and come up with misleading ideas."

Southend and Thurrock are both unitary authorities, which means they are responsible for all the services in their areas. Southend spends £798,000 on publicity, more than double the amount in Thurrock.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "Council tax has doubled in the last decade and is now so high that it tips many families and pensioners over the edge.

"But it doesn't have to be that way. Local authorities of all parties could make meaningful council tax reductions if they saved a modest 10 per cent in these three non-priority areas."

The alliance recommended councils could save money on publicity by cutting down on "glossy leaflets", which it claims were not widely read.

It also claimed councils need to streamline management structures and reduce the number of middle managers.

In terms of pensions it argued bosses should move from a final salary pension scheme to a money purchase scheme.

Birmingham Post: Three steps to council tax cut

Town halls are today urged to shave 10 per cent off "non-priority" budgets to deliver a council tax cut for householders.

The TaxPayers' Alliance said the "modest" savings by councils would pay for a £40 reduction in the average Band D bill.

It has compiled figures showing councils spend more than £400 million on publicity, £1.9 billion on senior management and £4.3 billion on pensions a year.

Reducing costs in those areas by 10 per cent would generate £660 million to ease the burden on council tax payers by 3.5 per cent, or £40 off the average Band D bill of more than £1,100.

Savings on publicity would be "very straightforward", the campaigning group said.

The TaxPayers' Alliance said local authority employees earning more than £50,000 a year had increased nine-fold in 10 years.

It called for fewer middle managers and a cut in pension costs by depriving council staff of gold-plated final salary schemes.

Exeter Express & Echo: 10 PER CENT CHALLENGE SEES COUNCILS DEFEND TAX SPENDING HISTORY

BY TOM ARNOLD

Councils in Devon have defended their record on council tax after campaigners challenged them to cut publicity, management and pension costs.

Members of TaxPayers' Alliance claimed their recommendations on savings could shed £34 from the average Band D council tax payer's bill in Exeter.The group says Devon County Council could save £4,889,000 if it cut publicity, middle management and pension costs by 10 per cent. Exeter City Council could save £459,000 if it did the same.

But both councils said that their council tax was already low and they were trying to reduce costs.

Spending by the county council on publicity, managers earning over £50,000 and employer pension contributions reached £48.89m during 2006-07, says the campaign group.

It said the amount spent by the city council on the same areas totalled £4.59m during the year.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, which issued the "10 per cent challenge" to all councils, said council tax had doubled in the last decade.

He said: It is now so high that it tips many families and pensioners over the edge. But it doesn't have to be that way.

"Local councils of all parties could make meaningful council tax reductions if they saved just 10 per cent in these three non-priority areas."

County council leader Brian Greenlade said: "This is not an extravagant authority and we have an excellent financial track record.

"We are continuing to reduce management and administration costs, and have increased efficiencies to help ensure that as much money as possible is concentrated on providing quality public services.

"In addition to this, we are helping more people on low and fixed incomes claim the benefits that they are entitled to."

Cllr Greenslade said that Devon was one of the lowest-funded counties in the country - receiving £48 per person less in Government grant support than the average English county.

A spokesman for the Exeter council said it levied the fifth lowest district council tax in the country and had already identified savings of £1.05m on this year's budget, which is equivalent to a seven per cent reduction in costs.

"We believe that the salaries we pay to our senior management represents good value given the fact we are responsible for spending more than £90m of taxpayers' money," said the spokesman

"We have reduced our spending on publicity and the majority of such spending is on advertising with the local media."

The campaign group said East Devon District Council could cut its council tax by £5 for an average resident if it made a 10 per cent saving on the £2.47m it spent on publicity, management and pension costs in 2006-07.

It said Mid Devon District Council could reduce the tax burden by £9 for an average tax payer if it made the 10 per cent savings to the £2.21m it spent on the same three areas. Teignbridge District Council could also cut its tax by £9 if it trimmed its total spend of £3.69m.

Yorkshire Post: Civilians to tackle crime as police cut back

By Paul Whitehouse
Exclusive
EXCLUSIVE: Civilians are expected to replace detectives to investigate some of Yorkshire's most serious crimes in future due to a financial crisis.

Chief constables nationally are braced for a tough period ahead and the outlook is so grim that South Yorkshire Police are to use civilians in jobs previously done by officers in Major Inquiry Teams, the squads trusted with solving some of the worst crimes.

The force has to make cuts this year because, although its budget has been raised by the inflation rate, the cost of providing police services is racing ahead of that figure, and in two years' time would be £18m adrift if no changes were made. Instead South Yorkshire is likely to lose around 300 officers.

Numbers are also expected to be cut across the region, but the other forces are unlikely to go as far as South Yorkshire's suggestion of using civilians in major inquiries and the new role of anti-terrorist search teams.

However, in at least one force civilian staff will be used for "back-room" functions at a lower cost.

Last night the Government was accused of gradually dismantling the police service.

South Yorkshire Police Federation secretary Bob Pitt claimed the Government was deliberately under-funding the service nationally.

"We are looking at a gradual dismantling of the police service," he added.

The loss of officers would cost forces the "resilience" they have, being able to switch multi-skilled officers between tasks.

South Yorkshire Chief Constable Meredydd Hughes said: "There is no doubt maintaining our current level of performance will be a challenge. This is an organisation which has no fat to trim."

The force also wants to slash the money it gives to charities from auctioning lost property because such a goodwill gesture is no longer regarded as appropriate.

Mr Hughes wants to hand over only 20 per cent of the proceeds in future, rather than the 50 per cent it has donated. That indicates the scale of the crisis.

Mr Hughes said: "Demands on the police are such that we need to be as creative as possible and as flexible as possible. Nothing is ruled out, particularly over the next couple of years."

Humberside Police are expected to cut a similar number of officers to South Yorkshire.

In North Yorkshire, around 100 officers' jobs are expected to go over the next year and finances at West Yorkshire Police are under detailed scrutiny.

Humberside will hand over some current police jobs to civilians while West Yorkshire Police expect savings of millions of pounds a year until at least 2011.

But a force spokesman would say only that it "continues to examine areas where efficiencies can be made without this impacting significantly on operational policing or the quality of service provided to the public".

Mark Wallace, of the Taxpayers' Alliance, said: "It is absolutely shocking that it has come to this. Even though we pay record amounts of tax, how come police forces cannot even afford the officers they need? Ordinary families pay their taxes expecting essential services."

North Yorkshire Police Federation chairman Sgt Mark Botham added: "We have all sorts of horror stories about this. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul."

Inthenews.co.uk: Councils could save millions, study claims

Councils could reduce tax bills by £660 million annually if they took simple cost-cutting steps, a report has claimed.

According to the study, in 2006-07, councils in England and Scotland spent over £400 million on publicity, £1.9 billion employing managers earning over £50,000 and over £4.3 billion on employer pension contributions. The total of the three expenditures is therefore £6.6 billion.

The Taxpayers Alliance, which campaigns for lower taxes, found if councils cut publicity, management and pension costs by ten per cent, they can cut council tax by an average of 3.5 per cent, or around £40 off an average Band D bill.

In total, this would save the council £660 million over a year.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "Council tax has doubled in the last decade and is now so high that it tips many families and pensioners over the edge.

"But it doesn't have to be that way.

"Local authorities of all parties could make meaningful council tax reductions if they saved a modest ten per cent in these three non-priority areas."

The report, Council Spending Uncovered, reviews spending by local authorities in all corners of the UK and identifies a number of budgets that could be reduced.

24dash.com: TaxPayers' Alliance launches '10 Per Cent Challenge' to councils

Town halls are today urged to shave 10% off "non-priority" budgets to deliver a council tax cut for householders.

The TaxPayers' Alliance said the "modest" savings by councils would pay for a £40 reduction in the average Band D bill.

It has compiled figures showing councils spend more than £400 million on publicity, £1.9 billion on senior management and £4.3 billion on pensions a year.

Reducing costs in those areas by 10% would generate £660 million to ease the burden on council tax payers by 3.5%, or £40 off the average Band D bill of more than £1,100.

The figures could be even higher as they have been calculated using 2006/7 data for councils in England and Scotland.

Savings on publicity would be "very straightforward", the campaigning group said.

"Councils should not feel the need to promote themselves to the public and should issue fewer glossy leaflets that nobody reads, put up fewer annoying adverts on billboards and employ fewer press officers," it said in a report issued today.

The TaxPayers' Alliance said local authority employees earning more than £50,000 a year had increased nine-fold in 10 years, compared to three-fold across the entire economy.

It urged chief executives to streamline and reduce the number of middle managers.

One way to achieve this would be natural wastage - not replacing the many council staff up for retirement over the next decade.

Pension costs could also be cut by depriving council staff of gold-plated final salary schemes, which are being closed across the private sector.

Launching the "10 Per Cent Challenge" today ahead of Thursday's local elections, chief executive Matthew Elliott said: "Council tax has doubled in the last decade and is now so high that it tips many families and pensioners over the edge.

"But it doesn't have to be that way.

"Local authorities of all parties could make meaningful council tax reductions if they saved a modest 10 per cent in these three non-priority areas."

Daily Politics: Councils 'must do more to cut costs'

Councils could reduce tax bills by £660 million annually if they took simple cost-cutting steps, a report has claimed.

The Taxpayers' Alliance's report, Council Spending Uncovered, reviews spending by local authorities in all corners of the UK and identifies a number of spending areas which could be reduced.

According to the study, in 2006/07, councils in England and Scotland spent over £400 million on publicity. Managers earning over £50,000 cost councils £1.9 billion, while over £4.3 billion on employer pension contributions.

If councils cut publicity, management and pension costs by ten per cent, the report argues, they could cut council tax by an average of 3.5 per cent.

This would result in around a £40 reduction off an average Band D bill, saving each council an average £660 million over a year.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "Council tax has doubled in the last decade and is now so high that it tips many families and pensioners over the edge.

"But it doesn't have to be that way. Local authorities of all parties could make meaningful council tax reductions if they saved a modest ten per cent in these three non-priority areas."

The organisation's chairman, Andrew Allum, said he believed local authorities needed to focus on the "real priorities" to achieve the savings.

He suggested the public were often misled by stories about "cash-strapped" councils but said there was much more local authorities could do to "reduce costs, cut council tax and better serve their local residents".

Daily Mail: THE 106 MPS WHO PAY RELATIVES WITH TAXPAYERS' MONEY

By Daniel Martin Political Reporter

MORE than 100 MPs employ family members at the expense of taxpayers, it has emerged.

One in six MPs, including three Cabinet ministers, has listed their relatives in the first publication of such details.

And, since it is voluntary for MPs to reveal details, the actual total of 106 could be even higher.

Although there are no rules to prevent MPs employing relations, it is the first time the extent of the practice has been revealed since Tory MP Derek Conway was exposed for overpaying his son out of his expenses, earlier this year.

Mr Conway was later stripped of the Tory whip and suspended from the Commons for ten days.

Those who mentioned relatives in the Register of Members' Interests include Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, Environment Secretary Hilary Benn and Housing Minister Caroline Flint.

MPs charged with upholding parliamentary standards also owned up. They included Sir George Young, chairman of the Commons standards and privileges committee, and Sir Stuart Bell, one of the senior MPs reviewing parliamentary expenses. There is no suggestion that any of the 106 MPs to declare their interests since April 1 have done anything that is not in line with regulations. But critics believe the practice should be outlawed.

Matthew Elliott, of the Tax-Payers' Alliance, said: 'To ordinary taxpayers, Parliament is an excessively generous gravy train at the best of times, but the fact that so many MPs employ family members is simply unacceptable. To dispel any suspicion that they are taking advantage of taxpayers' generosity, this practice should be banned.' Of those declared yesterday, 54 are Labour MPs, 39 Conservative, eight Liberal Democrat, one independent, two DUP and two SNP.

Under the staffing allowance, MPs can spend more than £90,000 on employees. It is voluntary for them to say whether they employ relatives, but Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg urged MPs to make a full disclosure after the Conway controversy.

From August 1, it will be compulsory for MPs to state whether they pay family members more than one per cent of their basic salary - £618 a year.

The list shows that Mr Conway still employs his wife, Colette Conway, as an 'office manager/executive secretary'. The pay range for such a role is from £21,320 to £40,052.

Miss Smith lists her husband, Richard Timney, as a 'senior research/parliamentary assistant', who will be earning between £27,780 and £40,052. Miss Flint's husband, Phil Cole, is described as 'office manager', while Mr Benn's wife Sally Clark is listed as his 'research/parliamentary assistant', entitling her to between £14,212 and £34,240.

Tory home affairs spokesman David Davis employs his wife, Doreen Davis, as 'executive secretary'. And former Work and Pensions Secretary Peter Hain lists his mother, Adelaine Hain, as 'part-time secretary'.

Former Tory leader Michael Howard employs his wife Sandra in the same position.

Commons Speaker Michael Martin is leading a 'root and branch' r e v i e w o f M P s ' expenses following the Conway controversy.

Prior to the introduction of the new register, Sir George Young warned MPs of 'severe consequences' if they could not show their employment of relatives was 'beyond reproach'.

Five MPs employ more than one family member. They include Labour's Kevin Barron and Adam Ingram and Tory MP Gary Streeter.

The other two are Democratic Unionist Party MPs Peter and Iris Robinson, who are married. She employs their son and daughter-in-law. Mr Robinson, deputy leader of the DUP, employs their daughter and other son.

This week, MEPs voted to ban the hiring of close family at taxpayers' expense, following alleged abuse of allowances to the tune of £100million a year.

Bedfordshire on Sunday: Taxpayers deserve a break, claims Alliance

Council tax could be cut by nearly £30 a month if the county council made a ten per cent reduction in three areas, according to a pressure group.

The head of the TaxPayers Alliance says the council should get a grip on its spending before its abolition next year and give taxpayers a break.

Despite being one of the smallest counties in Britain, Bedfordshire has one of the steepest council taxes in the UK, last reported as the country's third highest.

The Alliance claims that in 2006-7 the county council spent a total of £35,530,000 made up of:

£2,440,000 on publicity

£14,690,000 on middle managers

£18,400,000 on pensions The Alliance claims that a ten per cent saving in these three areas would equate to £3,550,000 which could be translated into a 27 reduction in monthly Band 'D' council tax bills.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "Bedfordshire County Council charge well over the odds considering the services people get in return for their money, and things have to change.

"They need to realise that the solution is to spend existing money more effectively rather than constantly increase the level of council tax.