A tale of two payments
It's interesting to compare the fuss the Labour party in Cumbria is making about two payments: in one case they are asking questions about a bill for £700 which in the event was not paid by the taxpayer.
In the other case, the Labour party are complaining about the fact that other people are asking questions - they object even to people asking about the cost to the taxpayer of a payoff which could easily be a thousand times larger than £700.
The first case concerns transport bills to two events which Police and Crime Commissioner Richard Rhodes attended in his official capacity. It was agreed that because of the long hours he had been working it would not be safe or appropriate to drive himself. Someone in his office therefore booked a chauffeur driven car.
To quote the Chief Executive of what used to be the police authority and is now the police commissioner's department, Stuart Edwards:
“As a result of the long hours the Commissioner was working it was decided for personal safety reasons that support would be provided in terms of a driver for some evening functions with long and late return journeys. When the Commissioner was appraised of the cost he immediately stopped the practice of hiring drivers. The Commissioner has personally reimbursed the full cost of the journeys. A review took place with alternative arrangements now being progressed.”
I believe in transparency and therefore that people should be free to ask questions about how public money is spent. I also believe that Richard Rhodes acted entirely honorably and that in no other country in the world could something as trivial as this led to arrests and calls for resignations. And perhaps certain people should be thinking about taking planks out of their own eyes. Some of the stirring on this subject has come from two of Cumbria's members of parliament. Did either of them call for the resignation of any of the fellow MPs of their own parties who submitted expenses claims which were far more egregious?
And then we have the early retirement of the Chief Executive of Cumbria County Council. And senior councillors from the same party which has been asking questions about a £700 bill are telling people to "keep their noses out" of an issue which could potentially cost taxpayers much larger sums of money.
Labour councillor Barbara Cannon told the Cumbria Newspapers Group that "She's been paying into her pension fund. It's what she's entitled to."
This fundamentally misses the point. When someone retires early, that is by definition a change to their employment and pension arrangments, which may possibly save the authority (and the taxpayer) money or may potentially cost more, depending on the detail. It is entirely legitimate for the public to want to know whether changes in the council's officer structure will save money or cost them more.
When I was a councillor myself I can recall taking part in discussions about the early retirement of very senior council officers, including a Chief Executive, on more than one occasion. Sometimes such proposals fitted in with what was going on in the authority, and saved money. I can also recall instances where the first bid from a CEO who wanted to retire would, if we had accepted it, have cost the local taxpayer a fortune.
The convention at the moment is that the salaries of senior public servants are published but that their pension arrangements are confidential. I may return to the consistency of this at another time. The leader of Cumbria County Council has stated that the senior officer restructuring which includes the CEO's retirement will save the council money in the medium to long term and a council spokesman has said that
"we will be explaining more about the financial savings resulting from the revised senior management arrangements once new interim arrangements are in place - and these will reflet the budgetary implications of the Chief Executive's early departure."
Which is fair enough But Labour in Cumbria appears to have a question to answer: do you believe in transparency or not? You cannot expect anyone to take you seriously if you demand the right to ask questions about £700 but instruct other people to "Keep your noses out" when they ask questions about far larger sums of money.
To insist on transparency when it suits the political convenience of the Labour party but demand confidentiality when transparency doesn't suit the political convenience of the Labour party is not going to impress anyone.
In the other case, the Labour party are complaining about the fact that other people are asking questions - they object even to people asking about the cost to the taxpayer of a payoff which could easily be a thousand times larger than £700.
The first case concerns transport bills to two events which Police and Crime Commissioner Richard Rhodes attended in his official capacity. It was agreed that because of the long hours he had been working it would not be safe or appropriate to drive himself. Someone in his office therefore booked a chauffeur driven car.
To quote the Chief Executive of what used to be the police authority and is now the police commissioner's department, Stuart Edwards:
“As a result of the long hours the Commissioner was working it was decided for personal safety reasons that support would be provided in terms of a driver for some evening functions with long and late return journeys. When the Commissioner was appraised of the cost he immediately stopped the practice of hiring drivers. The Commissioner has personally reimbursed the full cost of the journeys. A review took place with alternative arrangements now being progressed.”
I believe in transparency and therefore that people should be free to ask questions about how public money is spent. I also believe that Richard Rhodes acted entirely honorably and that in no other country in the world could something as trivial as this led to arrests and calls for resignations. And perhaps certain people should be thinking about taking planks out of their own eyes. Some of the stirring on this subject has come from two of Cumbria's members of parliament. Did either of them call for the resignation of any of the fellow MPs of their own parties who submitted expenses claims which were far more egregious?
And then we have the early retirement of the Chief Executive of Cumbria County Council. And senior councillors from the same party which has been asking questions about a £700 bill are telling people to "keep their noses out" of an issue which could potentially cost taxpayers much larger sums of money.
Labour councillor Barbara Cannon told the Cumbria Newspapers Group that "She's been paying into her pension fund. It's what she's entitled to."
This fundamentally misses the point. When someone retires early, that is by definition a change to their employment and pension arrangments, which may possibly save the authority (and the taxpayer) money or may potentially cost more, depending on the detail. It is entirely legitimate for the public to want to know whether changes in the council's officer structure will save money or cost them more.
When I was a councillor myself I can recall taking part in discussions about the early retirement of very senior council officers, including a Chief Executive, on more than one occasion. Sometimes such proposals fitted in with what was going on in the authority, and saved money. I can also recall instances where the first bid from a CEO who wanted to retire would, if we had accepted it, have cost the local taxpayer a fortune.
The convention at the moment is that the salaries of senior public servants are published but that their pension arrangements are confidential. I may return to the consistency of this at another time. The leader of Cumbria County Council has stated that the senior officer restructuring which includes the CEO's retirement will save the council money in the medium to long term and a council spokesman has said that
"we will be explaining more about the financial savings resulting from the revised senior management arrangements once new interim arrangements are in place - and these will reflet the budgetary implications of the Chief Executive's early departure."
Which is fair enough But Labour in Cumbria appears to have a question to answer: do you believe in transparency or not? You cannot expect anyone to take you seriously if you demand the right to ask questions about £700 but instruct other people to "Keep your noses out" when they ask questions about far larger sums of money.
To insist on transparency when it suits the political convenience of the Labour party but demand confidentiality when transparency doesn't suit the political convenience of the Labour party is not going to impress anyone.
Comments
When it comes to public money, and this type of thing the only ones who should "keep their noses out" are those making the claim. That is Keep your big fat noses out of the trough
Labour councillor Barbara Cannon told the Cumbria Newspapers Group that "She's been paying into her pension fund. It's what she's entitled to."
Beg to differ their Barbara, you have been "paying in" have you? or have you just not been taking so much out of public money? No one in any public office or any public sector pays into the system, they all just take out of it. when they say they "pay taxes" what they mean is "some of the money I think I should be getting is not given to me out of the public purse" but i still get my grubby mits on quite a bit of it.