Government

50 ways to save money written for a five year old

Posted by Andrew Wallis on 13:37 Thursday, December 20, 2012
Posted in: Government. 3 comments

If it was not bad enough having to deal with the proposed cut in funding from Government, the department which local government comes under has published a condescending document which tells councils how to save money. It is titled 50 ways to save money.  However it is missing one vital point, and could have saved time and money on the other 49 to produce. That simple one is do not waste our money in producing  (point 35) such an insulting document.

I would say all local authorities are working out ways to save money while keeping services going. They do not need documents like this to tell them how. It is like telling an English literary Don how to read a book. From Cornwall Council’s point, it has looked at and implemented, or is looking at least 49 of the 50 points. They only point the council has not looked at as far as I am aware is, points 24, scraping the CEO.

I am sure MAGA will not be pleased to see point 34: stop translating documents into foreign languages: only publish documents in English. Though the DCLG could take a leaf out of its own book with point 35: reduce the number of publications and media monitoring.

Anyway, have a read and see if you can come up with any other points you think should be included. I will sent them to the DCLG for the publications second edition!

Welfare Reforms and the Bedroom Tax

Posted by Andrew Wallis on 10:55 Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Posted in: Benefits, Cuts, Government, Housing. 3 comments

Usually Cornwall Council is pretty good on briefing its elected members on major changes to funding, or items that will have an impact on the lives of people who we serve. On Monday, there was a  briefing on the Governments Welfare Reforms that will start in April 2013.

My view is any reform to the welfare state has to be for the right reasons, not just reforming the system to save money. That is never a good idea, as it often harms those most in need. Reform should only be carried out to make sure those most in need get the help they require. Granted, it is a difficult balancing act, but as I have just said, a change just to save money is a dangerous way to carry out a reform. More so as this welfare reform is the biggest in 60 years.

The current welfare system has over 30 different kinds of benefits schemes, so I won’t disagree that it  could do with a little streamlining to make it understandable to those administering and using the system. This streamlining is being carried out by the introduction of the Universal Credit (UC). Basically, this is a single means-tested support for working-age people who are in or out-of work.

The aim of the UC is designed to ensure work pays; it will personalise conditions according to people’s capability and circumstances, and is payable in a single monthly payment. A worrying point on the one monthly payment is this will be made to the head of the household. I fear this could lead to further issues.

There is also a cap to how much will be paid. This cap on the amount paid will be no more than the UK average household earnings. From figures I have, the current average wage in the UK is £26, 079 (Cornwall it is £21,258). A question was asked at the briefing was would the amount pay be based on regional pay, the answer was no. The current benefit cap is £35,000. Members were informed that this new cap of the average wage would affect 150 families in Cornwall.

Of course, there are far more details on these changes available via the normal channels, like the council’s One Stop Shop. I am not staying the system will be the Holy Grail of welfare reform, as with any new system there are still many of the actual details to be released, and more strangely still to be agreed. Which brings me on to another point of why do successive Governments roll-out new schemes when the real detail has not been finalised? It is like buying a new pair of shoes and only getting the box, and then you have to wait to see what type of shoe you have brought, and find out if they actually fit!

However, the real snake-in-the-grass in this reform is the changes to Housing Benefit. This has the potential to really hurt the people not only in Cornwall, but the rest of the country, too. Under the new scheme if you live in either social housing (a council house) or private rental and you have a spare bedroom(s), the Government is going to reduce your Housing Benefit.

For example, if you have one spare room, you will see a reduction in payment of 14%. In monetary terms (average rent) this equals to £9.70 per week reduction. For two or more spare bedrooms this reduction goes up to 25%, again in monetary terms this is £18.50 per week.

I think the rationale behind this is to make people downsize houses that are not in full use, and therefore free up some under used housing. However, this only would work if you have a surplus stock of houses so it is easy to downsize when rooms are surplus for one reason or another. In Cornwall there is a critical shortage of social housing (22,000 on the waiting list), so it is very hard to downsize because of the lack of social housing. So you will be penalised for no fault of your own!

From next year, the Government will reduce your Housing Benefit if you have spare rooms; even if you cannot move though no fault of your own. Like the lack of available housing. This is a totally wrong on all levels. These cuts will put on added pressure to find that extra money and will also lead to people struggling to pay their rent; which means someone could lose their home. Under the current rules being homeless for non-payment of rent/mortgage is classed as making yourself homeless. Making yourself homeless means the council has no duty to house you.

The figures of households that will be affected by this change is 1200 for Cornwall Council owned social housing (Cornwall Housing). The actual number of households that will be affected is going to be far, far greater because the other Registered Social Landlords (RSL), which includes Coastline Housing, Penwith Housing etc have yet to tell Cornwall Council their numbers. And you will have to add in all the private rental, too. I was told these details would be available by September. However, figures of 33% of households that could be affected were mentioned at this briefing.

These changes will not only be restricted to RSL housing, as those in private rental, will also be subject to the new rules. That I believe will have a far greater impact on people than first thought.

Cornwall already has  a housing crisis with the lack of affordable rents, this change to the benefits it going to hurt people the benefit system was meant to help.

To add to Cornwall’s concerns is the funding for Cornwall Council council tax support will have a £6m shortful when this new system comes into effect. There is one positive, these changes will not effect pensioners.

Regional Pay is Cutting Pay

Posted by Andrew Wallis on 15:19 Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Posted in: Government, Regional Pay. 3 comments

A motion put forward to at today’s full council meeting of Cornwall Council on the Governments proposals for regional (public sector) pay. Many Councillors stood up to denounce the Governments proposals, with comments of: a person on £20k in London pays the very same tax as a person on £20k in Cornwall. As was a similar comment on the price of bread in London and in Cornwall is the same.

I have blogged before on the shocking difference of pay in Cornwall compared to other parts of the UK. If regional pay is ever allowed to come into force it will harm Cornwall in many ways including the difficulty in attracting or retaining a skilled workforce. Also with less pay, it will mean less money going into the Cornish economy. That outcome speaks for itself.

During the debate, I spoke on this subject asking my fellow Councillors to put aside party politics and stand united as representatives of the whole of Cornwall to send a clear message to the Government that regional pay is not welcome in Cornwall. I summed my words on the debate with:

Regional Pay is not about fair pay, but cutting pay.

It is not often that the overwhelming majority of Councils from all the political corners stand behind a motion, but today they did. No-one voted again this motion, but a few Councillors abstained.

Now, Cornwall Council will lobby the Government by letter, or other means to make sure regional pay is never implemented. Well done to Councillor’s Hannaford and Folkes for bringing this motion to the council.

Pasty Tax Cools Down

Posted by Andrew Wallis on 8:29 Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Posted in: Government, Pasty Tax. 3 comments

The Government has had a change of heart on the proposals for VAT on bakery products like pasties. This is to be welcomed as Cornwall would have been adversely affected for obvious reasons.

The campaign to highlight the issues and problems these proposals would cause was very good. In many areas it was cross-party and the local and national press helped to give this campaign a very high-profile. However, it is amusing as someone not aligned to any political party to now watch the various political parties claim they did more work than the other party. All three of the national parties are at it, with each blaming the other for not doing enough.

Lastly, I would just point out that changes to the VAT system were just proposals, and were subject to public consultation (21st march – 2nd May).  Thankfully the responses were listen to, and more importantly, acted upon. So not really a U-turn, but nevertheless welcomed.

So well done to ALL, as it just goes to show that working together actually gets results.

Transparency and the Freedom of Information Act

Posted by Andrew Wallis on 8:30 Thursday, December 15, 2011
Posted in: Cornwall Council, Freedom of Information, Government, Press. 5 comments
I was kindly sent a document is called ‘Town Hall Transparency’ by @DEdward5 on Twitter. This document is on the impact of freedom of information (FOI) on national and local government in England. It has been written by UCL’s Department of Political Science and has just been published. I would like to congratulate the document writers for a well written paper.
The whole document can be viewed HERE.

For Cornwall Council, it has had its fair share of FOI requests from various professional media bodies, businesses and the public. The council even gets a mention in this report. It is not uncommon for people to asked for the number of FOI and the subjects of  a FOI by means of a FOI.

Maybe the reason why FOI’s are now more commonly used is because any information requested has to be dealt with in a defined time, or as highlighted in the report, people are more aware of how a FOI works. It also makes sure that any information requested has less chance of being misplaced, and therefore forgotten about.

There is a costs for every FOI dealt with, and this for Cornwall Council is £150. Cornwall Council has over the last few years received the following numbers of FOI:

  • 2009/10 – 1100
  • 2010/11 – 1300
  • 2011/March 12 – 1600 (projected)
It is when you add up the numbers of FOI you get the cost of near £435,000. That is a huge amount of money in any one’s book. In fact FOI requests to local authorities (LA) and central government have been rising steadily since the introduction of the legislation. 
In 2005 there were 60,000 requests to LA’s and 25,000 to the government. By 2009 this had risen to 165,000 for LA’s, and 40,000 for the government. Using the £150 per FOI this totals £74,250,000 over four years. 
You might think the press are to blame for the massive increase in numbers of FOI’s, but they are not. As in the report it clearly states:  Some authorities have had a great deal of interest from the local press and some virtually none. It does not appear to have had an impact on FOI request numbers. Yes, the press do submit many of the FOI’s, but not one can point the finger and say it’s your fault.
The four main areas of requests and requesters are:
  • There is heavy use of FOI by a wide range of businesses at local level 
  •  Rising request levels appear to be driven by increased awareness of FOI and media stories in the national press (especially MPs’ expenses) but also local stories. Requests can also come in waves around a particular issue
  • Requests from the public are often niche and of private interest to the person, which makes proactive disclosure ineffective as a means of reducing the number of FOI requests. 
  • Finally, high profile cases aside, FOI rarely obtains a ‘smoking gun’ and requests are often used as part of a wider information gathering campaign, like a jigsaw, or as a lever to obtain influence in a campaign.

    The former Prime Minister Tony Blair who’s party introduced the FOI is quoted as saying: The truth is that the FOI Act isn’t used, for the most part, by ‘the people’. It’s used by journalists. For political leaders, it’s like saying to someone who is hitting you over the head with a stick, ‘Hey, try this instead’, and handing them a mallet (Blair 2010). He may have a point, but then maybe his government should have thought it through a little better before it was introduced.

    I am a firm believer that FOI if used right are good, especially when a LA, or the government is being ‘difficult’ in supplying information. However, FOI asking how many Jedi Knights, or other niche enquiries a LA has is a complete waste of money, and time.
    Of course with any FOI there is a chance it maybe used against the government department, or LA, but this goes with the territory, especially if the wrong, or not fully correct information is sent out. We all know how Cornwall Council has fallen foul of this mistake once or twice. 
    At the end of the day if a FOI request is in the public interest it will be find it’s way into the various media outlets. It is how you handed the story once it breaks is the key. Throwing toys out of the pram by saying the council’s being seen in a bad light because of the media is pure fiction. In fact, the press and a council work well together in many areas.

    The press and both local and national government have different roles, but Freedom of the press, democracy and the right to free speech are principles that all hold dear and each has to play its part to uphold those principles.

    Europe – Yes, No, Let’s Have a Vote!

    Posted by Andrew Wallis on 10:17 Saturday, December 10, 2011
    Posted in: Europe, Government, Referendum. Leave a Comment

    It is not often that I make comments on this blog on national, or international topics, but the latest bun-fight between the 27 member states of the European Union has compelled me to.

    Let’s start with a little bit of praise for Gordon Brown. If it was not for his instistence of the five economic tests being passed, Tony Blair would have had us signed up and using the Euro quicker than the coins could have been minted. Also his other great move was to make the Bank of England independent from the Government. Well done, Gordon. Then again, he did change the banking regulations to a more relaxed, self-administered process which you could argue is part of the cause to the worldwide financial mess we are now in.

    The latest summit to save the euro had 26 of the member states sign an accord. Britain decided to use its veto and say no. Was this the right move? Well who knows because the actual details to why the PM turned it down is a little blurred. Those who want to find a simplistic answer say it was to protect those greedy banker mates of his. I feel this is child like simplicity because the financial industry is not just about a bunch of slacked-jawed, pinstriped suited buffoons. It is a world trading market, which is taxed by the UK Government. So it is right the PM makes sure it is protected.

    However, this leads on to the bigger debate of Europe. Historically Britain has always had suspicions on the motives of ‘Johnny Foreigner’ from across the channel. The French, and in my opinion, the ungrateful General de Gaulle vetoed Britain’s membership of the EEC  in ’63 and ’67. It was not until de Gaulle fell from power that Britain joined the EEC on the third attempt in 1973. As de Gaulle is quoted: “France has no friends, only interests”. Has much changed since then?

    Since 1973 no one in Britain outside the various governments, has had a say on Europe. We have been promised a referendum by the various political parties, but when is comes to discussing a referendum, all the parties find an excuse not to have one. Is this because the answer will be an Agincourt style two-fingers up at Europe? The again, if the country was allowed a sensible debate on Europe; how Britain fits in, the result might be different.

    Until such a time as there a referendum we will have to listen to the various political European squabbles from the sideline. Who knows, maybe my son’s children will finally get a say on Europe.