The TaxPayers' Alliance - Media Coverage

Northern Echo: Call to 'make use of ' smoking ban cash

By Stuart Arnold

MANY councils in the region have yet to spend all the money given to them by the Government to implement last year's smoking ban, it has emerged.

More than £1.5m was handed to local authorities in the North-East and North Yorkshire to support the introduction of the legislation, which came into force on July 1.

The cash was paid over the past two financial years by the Department of Health, but it was not ring-fenced and no conditions were attached to it.

The Northern Echo has learnt that several councils have not spent their allocation, with some saying they will use the cash to continue to enforce the ban.

But with 99 per cent of premises and vehicles complying with the law, according to figures from the North-East Strategic Health Authority, there have been calls for the money to be diverted elsewhere.

Mark Wallace, campaign director with the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "The vast majority of people are law-abiding citizens and we believe the Government was far too quick to splash huge amounts of cash on enforcement and backing the ban.

"If councils do have any money left it is crucial that they recognise the severe pressure on ordinary families and put the money towards reducing council tax."

In Redcar and Cleveland, the council received £79,635 over two years.

It said yesterday that £60,000 remained from the Government allocation.

Councillor Dave McLuckie, the council's cabinet member for community protection, said: "Our staff have done a brilliant job in educating everyone, making literally thousands of visits to explain what is happening and ensuring that all the appropriate information and signage has been available.

"We have met with very little resistance from members of the public and I believe they have appreciated our educational approach, rather than being heavyhanded.

"But we are not complacent, and we still have significant resources left from the Government's allocation, over £60,000, through our own well-organised use of finances.

"We will not hesitate to use it to take a harder line if necessary for those who do not want to comply."

A spokesman for Gateshead Council said the £36,000 remaining from its £116,172 allocation would meet the "continuing costs of enforcement".

Easington District Council, in County Durham, said it had £17,000 remaining .

It said the money had been carried over into this financial year to continue to pay for an smoke-free enforcement officer post.

Meanwhile, a spokesman for Richmondshire District Council, in North Yorkshire, said it had only spent half of its overall £25,981 allocation.

He said of the remaining money: "We have not specifically earmarked it for any project yet."

Stockton Borough Council said it had spent all of its £104,243 allocation over the two years.

A spokesman said: "Stockton Borough Council's proactive work and partnerships with local businesses has created an extremely high level of compliance.

"We are now continuing to enforce the law without any additional Government funding."

A spokesman for the Local Government Association, which represents local councils, said: "We absolutely trust councils to spend this money how they see fit."

A Government spokeswoman said: "It is up to local councils to decide their budgets, and they are best placed to decide how this money is spent."

Preston Citizen: £400k bill for Lancashire council meeting net broadcasts

By Chris Hopper

COUNTY bosses have spent almost £400,000 on broadcasting their coun-cil meetings over the internet, the Lancashire Telegraph can reveal.

Figures released under the Freedom of Information Act show Lancashire County Council chiefs have splashed an average of £56,000 a year of public money on putting meetings on the authority's website.

But while one campaign group accused County Hall of having "the wrong priorities", the council's leader claimed the policy was about "open government" and viewing figures were good.

Since September 2002, the council has pledged £393,005 to the experiment, including £136,775 over three years up to 2009.

County Hall said up to 1,500 people a month log on to watch the meetings online.

But Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "The council clearly has the wrong priorities.

"People are sick of paying record levels of council tax and getting poor services in return.

"Now we know where at least some of the money goes."

However, County Coun Hazel Harding, leader of the council, defended the policy and said: "It is about open government and I think it is value for money for people.

"If you think about the number of people who may be interested in our decisions, the number of hits we get is surprising."

County Coun Albert Atkinson, deputy leader of the county council's Conser-vative group, said: "We get a lot of feedback from it, but I did not think it cost that much.

"People do watch them because I get more than 1,000 hits a month on my personal website."

The county council, which has a budget this year of £684m, is the only authority in Lancashire to broadcast meetings over the internet.

It is understood that the money spent on putting meetings online goes on staff salaries and equipment costs.

A spokesman said: "The aim of webcasting is to increase transparency and the accessibility of meetings that take place at Lancashire County Council.

"It brings the democratic process closer to more people and webcasting certainly provides a unique opportunity to do this."

Bury Times: Pension pay out to council workers is on the increase

BURY residents are paying £53 each to keep council workers in gold plated' pensions.

Figures from the TaxPayers' Alliance show that Bury's spending on pensions has risen by 14 per cent in one year, from £8.5 million to £9.7 million.

The per head' cost is the third lowest in Greater Manchester, behind Stockport and Trafford: the city itself pays the most, at £100 per resident.

The Alliance is demanding that ministers reform the local government pension scheme, and that councils do not pay enhanced years' to people who leave early.

But John Ransford of the Local Government Association (LGA), 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."

Mr Mike Owen, Bury's director of finance, said pension costs were largely outside the control of individual councils.

"The scheme is a national one, and the rate that the council has to pay is heavily influenced by matters such as death/survival rates and pension fund investment returns.

"We do pay enhanced years, but only within very strict criteria and only when there is a robust business case. In fact the council has consistently underspent the allowance' that the pension fund make for early retirement costs within Bury.

"The pension scheme has recently been reformed and this means that in future employees will pay more into the fund whilst seeing tighter access to retirement benefits."

Mr Owen added: "We also support wholeheartedly the points made by the LGA in their response."

Islington Gazette: Council spends £1.5m on 'mystery consultants'

MORE than £1.5million of taxpayers' money has been spent on private consultants by Islington Council in just one year, it has been revealed.

Dozens of private consultants were paid up to £250,000 each from council funds - many for work of a nature the council will not to disclose.

One firm, paid £53,000 of taxpayer's money, is simply listed as "xxxxx" in documents Islington Council was forced to show the Gazette after a Freedom of Information request.

Campaigners say it is "very troubling" that taxpayers are not even being told what their cash is being spent on.

Last year £31,100 was spent on communication consultants - dubbed "spin doctors" - to improve the council's image, on top of the annual seven figure sum the council spends on publicity staff.

A firm of property consultants had mobile phone bills paid from council coffers. On top of its £70,897 bill to Islington, taxpayers' money was used to pay eight mobile bills at £45 each.

Matthew Elliot, of the Taxpayers Alliance, said: "It seems like an awful lot to spend on consultants. They lay off their own staff only to re-hire them as consultants - at a much higher cost. Then they claim they are being efficient by reducing the number of staff - but in reality they waste more money.

"Councils also use consultants to distance themselves from unpopular decisions. They get consultants to take the flak."

He added: "People are sick of councils who spend money on spin doctors than lowering Council Tax."

His views were echoed by Councillor James Murray (Labour), who said: "It doesn't look like value for money. It is worrying that we are not told what most of this money is for."

Councillor Terry Stacy, deputy leader of Islington council, said: "We keep a firm rein on expenditure - it's the reason our Council Tax is below the London average. Consultants have specialist skills to help deliver services. We spend a modest amount compared with some boroughs.

Daily Express: £17m black hole but council manages to throw £37,000 party

By Martyn Brown

A CASH-strapped council has been slammed for splashing out £37,000 on a lavish party to boost staff morale.

Southend Council managed to stump up the cash to wine and dine staff at the £127-a-head bash despite facing a £17million budget black hole.

Guests were treated to champagne and hors d'oeuvres on arrival before tucking into a two-course meal with wine followed by an evening of entertainment.

The knees-up for 260 council workers and 30 councillors was paid for with a £25,000 Government grant and £11,500 of donations from sponsors.

Details of the party were revealed at a time when the Conservative-run council in Essex has announced an inflation-busting 4.9 per cent council tax rise, which will push the rate of a band D home up from £1,171 to £1,229.

It has also suggested a rash of cuts including slashing free travel for the over-60s. Critics yesterday blasted the event as a waste of public money.

Martin Terry, leader of the Southend borough council's Independent group, said: "The public is bound to feel angry when they are being faced with rising bills and increased council tax.

"Many people will have concerns about taxpayers' money, whether raised locally or nationally, being used for this function." Mark Wallace from the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "This is disgraceful for over-stretched taxpayers who had to foot the bill for this party. Doesn't the council have better things to do than have a jolly at our expense?

"All people want for their taxes is decent services – good schools, bins collected on time and police catching criminals. Instead, their priority seems to be having a good time." The party at the seaside town's famous Cliffs Pavilion in October last year came as the council revealed it was facing a crippling budget shortfall over the next four years.

Richard Jenkin from Hockley, near Southend, said: "It never ceases to amaze me what local councils do.

They are as bad as the mob in Westminster who are only interested in themselves.

"I'm certain they all had a very nice time. That's all that matters. I bet they can't wait for the next 'jolly up'." Council leader Nigel Holdcroft defended the party claiming it was "good value for money". The Conservative councillor added: "The council has got a very large number of hard working staff and it is recognised in any organisation that if you want to get the best out of staff, you have to recognise high achievement.

"That's what the event was about and I think it was good value for money. I have no problem with holding the event at all."

Maldon and Burnham Standard: Council officials' wages come under fire

THE soaring number of high-earning council officials has come under fire from spending watchdogs.

There has been a giant increase in the number of middle managers on £50,000 or more in local authorities.

The TaxPayers' Alliance claims the average council now splashes out more than £4 million on high-wage staff.

But Essex County Council spends almost ten times that, putting it among the top five wage-busting councils in the UK.

It says a staggering 586 people at County Hall are now paid more than £50,000 - compared with just 37 ten years ago.

Their combined wage bill is a whopping £36 million - costing every single person in the county £26 each.

The Tax-Payers' Alliance says nationally 12,600 council officers now earn above £60,000 - as much as an MP.

Chief executive Matthew Elliott said: "With council tax doubling in the past decade, it's extremely disappointing that town halls have chosen to hire a new class of middle managers, many of whom are being paid more than MPs.

"Local authorities should study these findings carefully to see where savings can be made."

Colchester Council has just 12 officers on more than £50,000 - up from seven ten years ago. The number of top-paid workers at Tendring has more than trebled from six to 19.

Braintree's top-earners have doubled from seven to 14.

But Essex County Council has almost 600 staff on £50,000-plus, putting it fourth in league tables, behind Birmingham, Kent and Herts.

Neighbouring Suffolk only has 85 high-earners at a cost of just £5.5 million to council tax-payers.

But County Hall bosses last night defended Essex's record.

Council leader Lord Hanningfield said: ""As one of the largest councils in England we employ in excess of 52,000 staff, of which only 0.01 per cent are on salaries of £50,000 or more.

"In the last few years we have made a huge amount of savings, and we are determined to carry on with this success and make a further £200m in the next three years while continuing to provide good quality services.

"We are able to achieve this due to the high calibre of our senior staff who, in part, are attracted to the authority due to its competitive remuneration."

There are currently eight £50,000-plus jobs up for grabs at the county council. The average admin assistant earns about £15,000.

The Tax Payers' Alliance was set up as a grassroots campaign for lower taxes.

The Mail on Sunday: ARE YOU IN FOR THE LONG HAUL?

EXPERTS DIVIDED OVER CHANCELLOR'S PUSH FOR TEN-YEAR MOTGAGES

Experts have given a cautious welcome to Alistair Darling's proposal to make it easier for lenders to fund ten-year fixed-rate mortgages. Typically, borrowers taking out fixes opt for two or three-year deals, but with millions struggling under the burden of rising rates or facing higher payments as fixed deals come to an end, the Government believes tying in borrowers for longer could help stabilise the market.

About 30 lenders offer fixed-rate mortgages of ten years or more, including Halifax bank and Britannia, Norwich & Peterborough and West Bromwich building societies. But take-up is low.

Rates on longer-term fixes are often less competitive than two and three-year deals. Buyers signing up for ten-year loans also face punitive charges if they want to change lender before the fix expires.

Melanie Bien, director of independent mortgage broker Savills Private Finance, says: 'Long-term fixes have been around for years, but have proved unpopular. However, rates have fallen and lenders have looked at ways of reducing early redemption charges, making them more flexible and more attractive.'

Malcolm Waldron of London estate agent Kinleigh Folkard & Hayward, believes there are clear benefits to longer deals.

'It is difficult to argue against the virtues of a long-term fixed mortgage in terms of the financial security it offers homeowners,' he says.

'Assuming financial stability, if a mortgage is affordable for a buyer when it is first fixed, it should still be affordable throughout the term whether that be two, five or ten years.'

But the benefits of opting for a long-term fixed rate also depend on interest rates at the time.

Bien says: 'The question is whether now is the right time to be fixing for such a long period. We seem to have neared the top of the current interest rate cycle so the next move in rates is likely to be downwards. The time to take out a fix would have been before the five increases in the base rate since August 2006, not afterwards.'

Mortgage broker London & Country, based in Bath, Somerset, last week launched a 30-year loan fixed at 5.99 per cent. There are no early repayment charges, but there is a setting-up fee of two per cent.

James Cotton of L&C says: 'Research shows that while borrowers are attracted by the security of long-term fixes, they are turned off by the early repayment fees. This deal offers both long-term security and the flexibility to move without being hit by a steep charge.'

Daphne McHardy-Costaine, 32, who lives with her books distributor partner John Brown and their three children in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, took out a ten-year fixed mortgage at 5.39 per cent with Woolwich, part of Barclays, in February.

Though there are early repayment charges, part-time carer Daphne, who has just over ten years left on her loan, is confident she made the right decision. The couple pay for childcare and do not want the stress of knowing their mortgage payments could rise at any moment.

She says: 'Childcare is expensive and mortgages can be too. I wanted to have the security of knowing that my mortgage payments would not rise for several years, even if interest rates go up.'

OTHER KEY PERSONAL FINANCE POINTS FROM DARLING'S FIRST PRE-BUDGET REPORT...

l Child Tax Credit: Due to increase by £25 above the rate of growth in average earnings from April next year and by a further £25 above average earnings in April 2010. This is on top of the £150 annual increase announced in the Budget earlier this year.

It means that a family with two children and a household income of £20,000 will see their weekly CTC award rise from £55 a week to £62.

l Pension Tax Credit: Will rise by £5 a week for single people from April 2008. It means a minimum annual guaranteed income of £6,450. Couples get an extra £7.65 a week - or £397 extra a year.

l State Second Pension: There was bad news for employees who save into the State Second Pension (S2P). The Chancellor announced the flat rate on S2P would kick-in early in 2009. It is expected to net the Treasury an extra £400 million a year.

l COUNCIL TAX: Could rise by £375 over the next five years, on average, for a 'band D' home. This is according to forecasts by the TaxPayers' Alliance. Hazel Blears, communities and local Government secretary, says council tax increases are likely to be no more than five per cent this year.

l LONG-TERM CARE: Government to review funding.

l Flight taxes: From November 2009, individuals will no longer pay air passenger duty. Instead, tax will be paid per flight by the airlines. The cost will ultimately be passed on to travellers via higher ticket prices.

Sunday Times: Job security vanishes for council staff

by Wendy Sloane   

IS it possible to be an ambitious go-getter and not work in the private sector? And does working in the public service always mean better working conditions and more security -but less pay? That has always been seen as the case, but is it still true?

A recent survey shows the best councils offer competitive salaries, flexible working hours and training, as well as perks such as gym memberships, quit smoking groups and yoga. But, despite all this, council staff appear to be more insecure about their jobs than those working in the private sector.

The Times Best Councils to Work For survey showed that almost half (49.2%) are over 45, compared with 23.6% of private-company employees. And nearly 38% have been with their council for more than a decade, against 17.3% in the private sector.

While one might assume that such career longevity would make them feel more secure, 38.3% answered negatively in reply to the question, "I feel my job is secure", compared with a mere 17.1% working for private companies. More surprisingly, 31.1% of those at the top five councils feared losing their jobs.

Peter Gilroy, chief executive of Kent county council -the largest council in Britain, with nearly 30,000 staff and an annual turnover of Pounds 1.8billion - said: "The public want good access and that requires an enormous shift of attitude on the part of staff, which creates a feeling of insecurity for many people. So I'm not surprised by the survey.

"A whole chunk of high- performing local-government operations are in the middle of transforming their services. If you are transforming the front end of the business, you will inevitably create anxiety as you are asking people to do things differently and you are quite often rationalising processes. As people leave, you do not replace them as you create new processes, which can create even more anxiety."

One of the big changes is in information technology, said Gilroy. "In our front office we now have a single call-centre technology instead of having lots of reception areas with lots of phone numbers. This single phone number is changing the way people deal with us and the way we deal with the public.

"But part of the journey is to turn that into an opportunity for people to see the future differently. This is going on in the best councils and is creating a more dynamic workforce. As a result, you will see a whole range of things happening alongside it, such as flexible working and home working."

The survey also finds that although salaries in the best councils are competitive, 71.5% of council employees do no overtime, compared with 52.1% in private mid-sized firms. Perhaps that is why there are twice as many people employed in companies (28.2%) being paid more than Pounds 35,000 than there are in councils overall (14.6%).

However, some people in the public sector earn much more than that. Gilroy was reportedly the highest-paid council chief in 2005-6, on Pounds 229,999, followed by Gerald Jones at Wandsworth in London (Pounds 227,424). Renfrewshire's Tom Scholes actually received more at Pounds 233,029, but this included a Pounds 113,015 redundancy payment.

At the time, Tony Blair was paid Pounds 186,429, prompting Corin Taylor of the Taxpayers' Alliance to say: "Council taxpayers are entitled to ask why someone should be better rewarded for running services in Kent or Wandsworth than running a country."

But Gilroy said that, despite the publicity, he didn't get a "massive reaction" from staff when his salary was announced. "The public expect more and more with less and less. If you are going to pay low salaries to those people concerned with that, don't expect to get results," he said.

"The real issue is whether as a public authority you can do your best to create an environment where your staff feel that they are working for an employer who actually cares about them, who wants them to be more productive but makes sure they are well looked after and cared for."

Risk-taking is another reason why council workers may feel less secure about their work, he said. "If you're into serious innovation, which we are now in the public sector, that means you take risks. And when you take risks they're everywhere, not just for politicians but for staff, too."

Many council staff like stability, but recognise that there are no more "jobs for life".   

And do government efficiency reviews also place undue stress on public employees?   

"I'm not too sure that having big inspections with 150 inspectors all coming in at once is the right way to do things," Gilroy said.

"People get upset by the process of being overloaded with bureaucracy and performance indicators and frameworks. The government has acknowledged that recently and is trying to do its best to reduce that load, and it is becoming more concerned about outcomes.

"Celebrating the bit of your organisation that is doing well and celebrating an action plan to improve other things is the right way to motivate people, said Gilroy. "If you have too many parents coming in and criticising people, looking at the things going wrong instead of the things going right, you demotivate your workforce."

The key to successful leadership was creating an environment in which relationships were the most important criterion, he said. "How we look after and treat one another is the most important thing. It sounds trite but it's not airy-fairy; it's the hardest thing to remember. It might sound simple but it's the simple things that matter."

The Guardian: Blears: council tax rise should be 5% at most

By Patrick Wintour

Town halls have no need to raise council tax by more than 5%, Hazel Blears, the communities and local government secretary, will say today, while emphasising that a package of ringfenced grants worth £5bn has given councils unprecedented freedom to spend.

She will also confirm that Whitehall is cutting the number of performance indicators for local government from 1,200 to just 198.

Sir Simon Milton, the Conservative chairman of the Local Government Association, has branded the council tax settlement the worst for a decade and the Taxpayers' Alliance yesterday claimed council tax would have to rise by £370 over the next five years for householders paying the average band D bill.

Ms Blears said the claims were nonsense as from April councils would be able to spend as they want money from 29 ringfenced budgets such as the £467m for Connexions services for young people, and £535m for the neighbourhood renewal fund.

She also told the Guardian that she regarded the local council settlement as fair since it delivered the 1% real-terms increase that council leaders had sought.

In today's speech Ms Blears will argue she has delivered on a settlement between local and national government, pointing out she had won town halls business rates supplements that would allow local councils to build up a new way of raising revenue in cooperation with business.

A communities department spokesman said the Taxpayers' Alliance claims were "utter nonsense".

"Every year people misinterpret the ... pre-budget report ... In 2006-07, people alleged council tax would increase by 6.6% but the actual average was 4.5%."

Daily Telegraph: Council tax could rise by £375 over next five years

By Philip Johnston, Home Editor

Council taxes could rise by £375 on average over the next five years, new figures show.

Forecasts produced by the TaxPayers' Alliance predicted Band D charges would increase, on average, by five per cent from £1,321 in 2007/8 to £1,691 in 2013.

This would more than double the council tax charge levied since Labour came to power in 1997, when the average bill was £700.

The prospect of further rises is causing renewed friction between local and central government.

Ministers say they have given local authorities all the money they have asked for and they should get on with delivering better services.

In a speech today, Hazel Blears, the Communities Secretary, will challenge town hall bosses to ''step up to the mark".

She will dispute local council claims that they are overburdened with red tape and performance targets, which the Government says it has slashed from 1,200 to 198.

"We have delivered local government unprecedented freedoms, financial flexibility and revenue-raising powers," Miss Blears proposes to say.

''You must now step up to the mark, embrace this new responsibility and demonstrate a strengthened approach to governing."

Miss Blears will add: ''We are giving local government the space it needs to thrive – they must now make the most of this once-in-a-generation opportunity and deliver on local people's priorities and take the tough decisions to make a positive difference."

She will also maintain that the cash for local authority funding in England and Wales was ''fair and affordable in a tight spending round".

The Comprehensive Spending Review foresees a rise in central grant to almost £26?billion in 2010/11 – a real terms increase of one per cent a year.

However, Sir Simon Milton, the chairman of the Local Government Association, called it "the worst settlement for local government in a decade.

He predicted above-inflation rises in bills for council taxpayers and businesses and a ''black hole in funding for the care of the elderly".

The LGA expects the elderly population to grow by 400,000 over the next three years, adding £9.3?billion to town hall bills for social services at home or in residential care.

Eric Pickles, the shadow communities secretary, said: "Labour ministers have heaped extra burdens on councils without providing the money to fund them.

"It is little wonder that council tax has doubled since 1997."

He added: "Town halls are already struggling to pay for vital services like care for the elderly – if Labour ministers continue to saddle town halls with more burdens and regulatory costs, services will either be cut or council tax bills will have to rise further."

Western Morning News: Letter: Townhall bureaucrats fight freedom of speech

IT IS disgraceful that a town hall bureaucrat would work as hard as Cornwall County Council's head of "equality and diversity" to shut down a local community newsletter.

A taxpayer-funded bureaucrat working - on our buck - to close Mr Denis Lusby's voluntary community magazine in Bodmin shows exactly what is wrong with our town hall bureaucracy.

They want to regulate every aspect of our lives.

Mr Lusby spent a decade building up a community magazine without asking for a penny of taxpayers' money.

Other councils spend millions of public funds sending out second-rate propaganda.

Yet Cornwall County Council persecuted Mr Lusby's magazine which, given this hate campaign from Cornwall's "equality and diversity" inspectorate, may never face publication again.

Why couldn't the council see that Mr Lusby was performing a public good?

Cornwall County Council should apologise to Mr Lusby and to the people of St Breward and Bodmin, who face losing a valuable community magazine.

Moreover, Cornwall's taxpayer-funded, politically correct bureaucrats should put our money into front line services and not nosy council officers who want to rule our lives.

Tim Aker

Grassroots Coordinator The TaxPayers' Alliance London

Daily Star: Fury at Vampire Wardens Plan

by STUART PATTERSON

COUNCIL chiefs have been accused of trying to make extra cash by putting their traffic wardens out on the night shift.

Parking attendants in Aberdeen will now be on patrol issuing tickets until 3am.

Officials in the city claim the initiative is designed to stop motorists parking illegally.

But the scheme was condemned as another way for the local authority to rake in cash.

Corin Taylor, of the National Taxpayers' Alliance, said: "This is incredible.

"People expect more from their local council. It just shows the wrong-headed priorities of Aberdeen City Council.

"They're spending public money on employing traffic wardens all night when there is no traffic.

"It sounds like just another way for the authority to target motorists and take money off them." Six local authorities across Scotland, Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, Perth & Kinross, Glasgow and South Lanarkshire, have their own parking patrols.

Parking offences were decriminalised and enforcement powers were handed over to the local authorities.

The move was designed to cut congestion and keep traffic moving at peak times.

However, those against parking patrols claim they are simply another way for councils to raise cash. More than 513,000 tickets are issued every year and motorists hand over more than £14 million.

Aberdeen City Council has now decided to crack down on drivers by sending its teams out to issue tickets through the night.

The attendants will be hunting rogue parkers until 3am for the next three months as part of a pilot scheme.

Councillor Martin Greig, one of the men behind the project, said: "I have had a lot of complaints about parking on double yellow lines.

"There are more cars on the road than parking spaces and this will help deal with the problem."

Newsquest Media Group Newspapers: Councillor defends £42,000 earnings

A TAXPAYERS' group has reacted with anger after it emerged that a Barnoldswick county, district and town councillor earned more than £42,000 from allowances last year.

As leader of the Liberal Democrat opposition on Lancashire County Council, David Whipp earns a bonus of more than £10,000 on top of the standard councillor's pay, making a total of £22,450.

Next year, that bonus will rise to more than £17,000.

Coun Whipp, who lives in Barnoldswick, also serves on the Lancashire Police Authority, earning him an extra £14,750 and, as Pendle Borough Council's executive member for resources, he rakes in £5,000 per year.

His income is more than two-and-a-half times that of the average councillor in Lancashire, but Coun Whipp said he represented good value for money and worked up to 100 hours a week for the community.

However, Blair Gibbs, a director of the campaign group Taxpayers Alliance, said: "It has become far too easy for some people to carve out quite a lucrative career in local government and all at council taxpayers' expense. Town halls are spending too much money and big allowances for elected members are part of the problem.

"Councils used to attract those who were committed to their community and would volunteer out of a sense of civic duty. Now there are far too many just accumulating as many posts as they can and raking in the expenses."

Former Barnoldswick Town Council chairman, Jenny Purcell, said the money for members should be more evenly spread between authorities.

"Town councillors do just as much and we barely get any help towards it," she said.

"When I was chairman I had a maximum expense limit of £100. Phone calls alone for council business cost more than that. But it seems to me there are a lot of double standards - £42,000 is pretty steep."

But Coun Whipp defended his payments, saying he worked an average 70-hour week. He said he sometimes spent more than 100 hours a week on council business, including almost every evening. He had also endured threatening phone calls and assaults, as well as being admitted to hospital through illness from stress as a result of the job.

Coun Whipp added: "I work hard to provide good value for the money I get from my public duties. I am a councillor to make a difference, not to make money.

"I must be doing something right. I've stood for election, and won, 21 times in the 27 years I've been a councillor.

"I confess that my public work is virtually my whole life. I'm proud as an ordinary guy who left school at 16 with no qualifications that I can operate at the top levels of local government in the county. And, of course, it's open to anyone to have a go and do the same - we live in a democracy."

Coun Whipp said he tended to shun job "perks" like cheap meals and hospitality and the only expenses he claimed were a fraction of his travelling and childcare costs.

"As a senior councillor I am responsible for the oversight of hundreds of millions of public money. I've more responsibilities and influence over local services than an MP and do it at a fraction of the cost. I've certainly made more savings for the public purse than I've cost it," said Coun Whipp.

"The standard allowances are fixed by an independent panel and if I wasn't doing the jobs someone else would, probably less effectively, so there wouldn't be any saving."

Labour councillor and the county council's cabinet member for sustainable development, Coun Tony Martin, often a critic of Coun Whipp, also defended the allowances.

He said: "The easiest answer in the world is to go back and say let's not pay councillors anything at all, but if you do that you return to a situation where no-one can afford to be a councillor except the landed gentry.

"Considering the amount of work involved in being a full-time councillor, and the fact that maximum job security is only four years, I think it's about right."

Burnley Citizen: Row Over Councillors 42 000 A Year

TAXPAYERS have hit out after it was revealed that a councillor earned more than £42,000 from allowances last year.

As leader of the opposition on Lancashire County Council, Liberal Democrat David Whipp earns a bonus of more than £10,000 on top of the standard councillors' pay, making a total of £22,450.

Next year that bonus will rise to more than £17,000.

advertisementCouncillor Whipp, who lives in Barnoldswick and represents Pendle, also serves on the Lancashire Police Authority, earning him an extra £14,750, and as Pendle Council's executive member for resources he rakes in £5,000 per year.

His income is more than two and a half times that of the average councillor in Lancashire but said he represented good value for money, and worked up to 100 hours a week for the community.

But Blair Gibbs, campaign director of the campaign group Taxpayers Alliance, said: "It has become far too easy for some people to carve out quite a lucrative career in local government, and all at council taxpayers' expense.

"Town halls are spending too much money and big allowances for elected members are part of the problem.

"Councils used to attract those who were committed to their community and would volunteer out of a sense of civic duty.

"Now there are far too many jobsworths just accumulating as many posts as they can and raking in the expenses."

Councillor Whipp also serves on Barnoldswick Town Council. Former chairman Jennifer Purcell said the money for members should be more evenly spread between authorities.

She said: "Town councillors do just as much and we barely get any help towards it. When I was chairman I had a maximum expense limit of £100 - phone calls alone for council business cost more than that.

"But it seems to me there are a lot of double standards - £42,000 is pretty steep."

Councillor Whipp defended his payments, saying he worked an average 70-hour week, sometimes more than 100 hours, including almost every evening.

He said he had also endured threatening phone calls and assault, as well as being admitted to hospital through illness from stress, as a result of the job.

He said: "I work hard to provide good value for the money I get from my public duties. I am a councillor to make a difference, not to make money.

"I must be doing something right. I've stood for election, and won, 21 times in the 27 years I've been a councillor. I confess that my public work is virtually my whole life.

"I'm proud as an ordinary guy who left school at 16 with no qualifications that I can operate at the top levels of local government in the county. And of course it's open to anyone to have a go and do the same - we live in a democracy."

He added that he tended to shun job "perks" like cheap meals and hospitality, and the only expenses he claimed were a fraction of his travelling and childcare costs.

He said: "As a senior councillor I am responsible for the oversight of hundreds of millions of public money. I've more responsibilities and influence over local services than an MP and do it at a fraction of the cost. I've certainly made more savings for the public purse than I've cost it.

"The standard allowances are fixed by an independent panel and if I wasn't doing the jobs someone else would, probably less effectively, so there wouldn't be any saving."

Labour councillor and the county council's cabinet member for sustainable development Coun Tony Martin, often a critic of Councillor Whipp, also defended the allowances.

He said: "The easiest answer in the world is to go back and say let's not pay councillors anything at all, but if you do that you return to a situation where no-one can afford to be a councillor except the landed gentry.

"Considering the amount of work involved in being a full-time councillor, and the fact that maximum job security is only four years, I think it's about right."

The Argus: Counting the cost of council tax dodgers

Council tax dodgers cost each household an extra £30 in bills last year.

More than £3 million of council tax was left uncollected in Brighton and Hove in the year ending April 2007, new figures reveal. And with 115,000 households across the city, each home had to contribute an average of £30 to make up for the shortfall.

The lost £3.3 million was up on the previous 12 months and placed Brighton and Hove as one of the most wasteful councils in the South East.
advertisement

But the city council dismissed the comparison as "more than meaningless".

The money could have paid for four restorations of Brighton's Birdcage bandstand, which has lain derelict for decades, or paid for 150 extra binmen.

Across Sussex more than £17 million was left uncollected, including £659,000 by Lewes District Council and £111,000 by Adur District Council, though both councils recorded a fall in the amount lost and were in the top 20 most improved authorities in the South East.

Brighton and Hove saw the total uncollected tax increase from £3,215,000 to £3,251,000. Only Milton Keynes, Southampton and Portsmouth had more council tax dodgers.

A spokesman for the city council said: "Comparisons with nearby councils with vastly differing budgets are worse than meaningless.

"As a proportion of the total amount of council tax due our collection performance has actually improved over the period referred to. We collected 96.6 per cent in 2005-06 which went up to 96.8 per cent in 2006-07.

"Also our performance is ranked as fifth best out of 16 authorities classified by the Government as our "nearest statistical neighbours" - those authorities most like us in terms of size, responsibilities and local circumstances.

"The GMB analysis takes no account of the total amount of council tax collectable, which goes up every year and will vary depending on the size of authority. We remain focused on improving collection rates and committed to pursuing non-payment of council tax."

The overall amount for the country was £760 million, according to the GMB union who published the figures.

Ted Purcell, GMB senior organiser, said: "GMB has been criticised in recent years for publicising the inefficiency of council tax collection but I make no apologies for that. With over £760 million uncollected council tax nationally in the last year alone and more than half of councils getting worse at it, this is a serious issue."

Blair Gibbs, of The TaxPayers' Alliance, said councils should spend more time chasing tax evaders and less time taking pensioners to court.

He said: "We do not condone tax evasion.

It is law-abiding council tax payers who end up paying more the next year in increased tax bills. But the council tax system is the most unpopular tax and people are very disappointed with what they get for it.

"Councils should do more to clamp down on evaders. If they were better at collecting council tax and didn't waste so much of our money people would be more likely to support council tax."

Belfast Telegraph: The council official paid for two years despite not working

By Sam McBride

A suspended Belfast City Council employee was paid for more than two years despite being off work, it can be revealed.

The individual, who was facing serious allegations of misconduct, stayed on full pay for 122 weeks while the council decided on a return to work.

It is understood the member of staff has now returned to work.

Figures released under the Freedom of Information Act show that in the last three years the council has paid out a total of £122,222 to 20 suspended staff.

Investigations have lasted 47, 42, 33 and 28 weeks in some of the cases. The shortest suspension was three weeks.

The council said it was crucial staff were assumed innocent until disciplinary investigations were completed and therefore they should be paid.

But Matthew Elliot, chief executive of the Taxpayers' Alliance, attacked the lengthy investigations.

"Two years is far too long to be suspended on full pay," he said.

He said it was part of a wider problem in Government bodies.

"This sort of situation is almost unheard of in the private sector because company directors have a duty to their shareholders to spend money wisely.

"In the public sector, it's far too easy to raise council tax, so officials have less incentive to give good value for money."

The council refused to say how much each employee was paid or details of each case, citing fears individuals could be identified.

The amount paid to suspended staff each year has fallen from £45,107 three years ago, to £32,185 last year. A council source said he was angry ratepayers' money was wasted.

"I'd really like to know what the investigators are doing for that length of time," he said.

"I think ratepayers have a right to know what's going on."

A spokeswoman for Belfast City Council said it was the council's policy not to comment on individual cases. "Suspensions are a last resort. Numerous investigations are carried out without recourse to suspension.

" Suspensions are on full pay as there can be no inference of guilt and employees are innocent until proven guilty."

Of the 20 suspensions, seven staff were dismissed, four received a final written warning, two received a warning, two returned to work, one resigned and one returned following one week's unpaid suspension. Three are still suspended.

Daily Express: Britain on the brink of a dustbins revolt

By John Ingham

A PUBLIC revolt could be triggered by ministers trying to force Britain to recycle more, MPs warned yesterday.  The Government’s plans were branded “too timid, too complicated and unlik­ely to work”.

The MPs said the mish-mash of planned and existing schemes, including fines for those who do not recycle enough or spy chips in bins to weigh the waste of each household, could also lead to more flytipping.

Cash incentives for those who recycle more would still be seen as an extra charge because “bad” households would pay more.  The all-party communities and local government com­mittee also called for more research into whether health problems are caused by alternate weekly collections where recyclable waste is taken one week and other rubbish, including food waste, the next.

It said it had received “a wealth of anecdotal evidence about increased populations of flies, maggots, rats and other vermin”. It warned against councils “blundering” into alternate weekly collections without proper local consultation. Alternate collection schemes have been adopted by four councils in 10 despite health fears.

The report was welcomed by campaigners fighting for better rubbish collection. Town hall chiefs warned that the rising cost of waste management could lead to the bill per household doubling to £220 within six years.

But the Chief Executive of the Taxpayers’ Alliance, Matthew Elliott, said: “For too long, politicians of all parties have buried their heads in the sand and ignored the unhappiness and frustration that is being caused by the local authorities who are neglecting their duties to clear our rubbish.

“We’ve paid the taxes, so we deserve a full weekly service. Let’s hope ministers and councils listen to this committee and understand the real anger in the country over these unpopular schemes.”

Doretta Cocks of the Campaign for Weekly Collect­ions said: “The Government and local authorities are using the argument about saving the planet to cut services and cut costs. But a revolt will surely come if the Government introduces pay as you throw.

“At the same time people are complaining about alternate weekly collections. People ring me and say in 30 years they have never had maggots in their bins before.  The public believes it pays large council tax bills already and weekly waste collections are essential especially in the summer months.”

In May’s local elections the fury of council taxpayers over rubbish collection was felt by many councils, including Waver­ley in Surrey, Torbay and North Lincolnshire, where control changed hands.

The report comes with councils up and down the land adopting differing schemes to encourage recycling. They are under intense pressure to reduce the waste sent to landfill because of the threat of European Union fines and the rising cost of the Government’s own Landfill Tax.

There are growing moves to make householders put their rubbish in up to five different boxes for items like paper, glass, cardboard, tins and garden waste.  Ministers are also said to favour getting householders to put out their food waste so that it can be taken away to produce biogas that can be converted into power.

The communities and local government com­mittee accep­t­ed that local authorities are best placed to decide how to deal with their rubbish but said a national response is needed to highlight best practice and encourage its wider adoption.