Archive for November, 2007

HIPs replacement

Thursday, November 22nd, 2007

The Association of Home Information Pack Providers today welcomed the extension of HIPs to all house sales.

Which just goes to prove one thing: as soon as the government provides an opportunity for rent-seeking behaviour, a lobby group will spring up to protect this nice little fleecing of the public.

The Government claims that Home Information Packs “are bringing benefits to consumers”. But if the benefits are so great, surely the clever home seller would already be providing one off their own bat?

Maybe the truth is that property sales get along fine without this pointless regulation?

Wholesale data theft

Wednesday, November 21st, 2007

The loss of 25 million people’s personal records held by the UK tax authority illustrates the danger of keeping large, centralised databases.

Regardless of whether or not the data (which was burned onto CDs by a junior employee and lost in the post) falls into criminal hands and leads to wholesale identity theft, the sheer scale of the loss is cause for concern: for this database is not an anomaly. The current government is obsessed with building large-scale centralised databases such as the Children’s Register, the NHS ‘data spine’ and the national ID card. They claim that it’s more efficient to run society with one big, top-down centralised system. Actually, the gains in efficiency are negligible at best and the losses in terms of personal freedom are great.

If you don’t want a private company to have access to your personal details you can decide not to do business with them. The difference with the government is that you have no choice. I’ll be talking about this tonight at 10pm on BBC Radio 4′s The World Tonight.

New info on farmers’ subsidies

Thursday, November 15th, 2007

The amount of state aid given to each farmer for looking after landscape and wildlife is be made public for the first time according to an article in today’s Times. The article states the information is to be released today on the website of the Government’s landscape adviser Natural England. The information is to be added to the webpage for agri-environment schemes.

Sir Martin Doughty, chairman of Natural England, announced the new transparency in an interview with The Times.

Sir Martin says that taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being spent in the countryside. About £1.7 billion is paid to English farmers under the CAP, the bulk of it in farm support. About £320 million is allocated for green farming schemes and is paid to about 32,000 farmers, roughly a third of the total.

Apparently, users will be able to type in the name of a village, parish or postcode and find out which farmers in the area have signed up to environmental stewardship schemes and the cash received. The website will also provide a list of environmental work agreed to by the farmer. There may also be a feedback section where people can report on what farmers are doing.

New WWI records available from National Archives

Monday, November 12th, 2007

The ‘Burnt’ records are First World War soldiers’ records that were literally burnt during the Blitz and for the first time they are now available to search online. The name search is free but there is a charge to download records.

Most surnames starting A to C are now available via Ancestry.co.uk.

Public sector fat cats

Monday, November 12th, 2007

A report published yesterday by the Taxpayers’ Alliance found that the 300 highest earners employed by the state took home £237,564 each on average – an increase of 12.8 per cent; 17 employees raked in more than £500,000.

The bloated salaries come at a time when Prime Minister Gordon Brown has insisted on a 2 per cent cap for rank-and-file public-sector workers. This is the second year the TPA have compiled the report using official documents and freedom of information requests. It’s a difficult task but one that is definitely worthwhile in holding these public officials to account.

rich list table

The aim of the report is to improve transparency and accountability of an increasingly bloated public sector. The key findings are:

  • There is 1 person in the public sector – Adam Crozier, Royal Mail Chief Executive – who earns more than £1 million a year.
  • There are 17 people in the public sector earning above £500,000 a year.
  • There are at least 66 people earning above £250,000 a year (recent media reports suggest that some GPs are in this category).
  • The 300 people had an average pay rise of 12.8 per cent between 2005-06 and 2006-07. This is three times average earnings growth (including bonuses) across the country, which fluctuates around 4 per cent and over six times the current 2 per cent government target for growth in pay for ordinary public sector workers.
  • The average total remuneration of the 300 people on the list is £237,564 per annum. This works out at over £4,500 a week. Although many people on the list are likely to work longer, based on a 35-hour week, this is equal to almost £130 an hour, or around £2.15 a minute.
  • The 10 most highly paid people in the public sector earn on average around 40 times the amount earned by someone starting out as a police officer, nurse or soldier.
  • There are 10 people involved in delivering the London 2012 Olympics on the list, including two in the top 10 highest remuneration packages overall. Their packages average £325,000 per annum.
  • The 82 most highly paid people in the NHS earn an average of £181,956 each. By comparison, the starting salary for a nurse is around £22,000.
  • Gordon Brown is only the 143rd highest paid person in the public sector.

Whether or not this largesse amounts to value for money is another argument but one that we cannot have until we first know these figures. And the figures are increasingly difficult to obtain. The main researcher Corin Taylor said that the government has stopped publishing a centralised report of UK quangos and Public Bodies so the only way to uncover the data is to trawl through individual reports.

He would like to see a system similar to the US where such transparency is fast becoming the norm.  The salaries of all state employees are available on the Iowa state legislature website for the public to view.  Missouri will follow suit in January 2008.  In Kentucky, Michigan, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont and West Virginia, databases of state employee salaries are also publicly available, hosted on local newspaper websites. 

Isn’t it time we had a similar centralised resource for Whitehall bureaucracy?

Report on Met Police shooting published

Thursday, November 8th, 2007

The Stockwell 1 report by the Independent Police Complaints Commission has finally been published today, more than two years after the Metropolitan Police shot dead innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes on 22 July 2005. The delay is a result of the antiquated belief manifest in the English legal system that the only way to have a fair trial is to keep the public utterly ignorant, even about matters vital to the well-being of society. Until the trial had concluded the report could not be disclosed.

Even the chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission has voiced his dismay at the length of time the report had to be withheld from the public. He said in a statement today:

“Our investigation was completed within six months and we share the frustration that it was not possible to conclude the legal processes more quickly.This is not just something that afflicted the Stockwell case. It happens in other less high profile cases which are nonetheless just as painful for the families and officers involved.”

Chair Nick Hardwick also responds to the belief of some politicians, such as London Mayor Ken Livingstone, that the police should not be held accountable for their actions.

“Let me be clear what the trial was not about. It was not about the split second decisions that the firearms officers had to make when they confronted Jean Charles de Menezes in that tube train – nor indeed just about the death of Jean Charles de Menezes himself, terrible though that was.

The questions the trial did address and indeed the ones the public were asking in the aftermath of the incident were these:

‘If they thought he might have a bomb, why was he allowed twice to get on a bus and then on the tube? If they thought he didn’t have a bomb, why did they shoot him?’

Olympic contracts

Thursday, November 8th, 2007

squirrel
It was reported today that the cost of Olympic stadium has nearly doubled from £280 million to £496 million. As part of my ongoing investigation into Olympic spending, I’ve added two new databases to the secret squirrel section with information about contracts awarded by the Olympic Delivery Authority. One lists all contracts from the 12-months prior to October 2007 and was received from the ODA in answer to my own Freedom of Information Request, the other lists all the ODA’s consultancy contracts and was donated by Ed Howker from Channel 4′s Dispatches programme. I’ve not seen either of these on the ODA’s own site yet. Funny that.

Article: Signs of disrespect

Thursday, November 8th, 2007

A sign of the times: brazen contempt for you and me
The Times, November 8, 2007
tube sign
After you read this you’ll see them everywhere – like a newly learnt word that crops up all over the place when previously you could swear you’d never seen it before.

Signs of disrespect (SODs) are found in all the worst public institutions. “D*n’t t@ke !t out on our staff,” shouts one in lurid purple and yellow on the Underground. They are everywhere, from hospitals and council offices to the security queues at Heathrow and Gatwick.

When you see one of these bossy, passive-aggressive signs threatening the public with prosecution or arrest, you quickly know two things about the institution you’re dealing with:

1) They’re lax about punishing those who break the law. After all, action speaks for itself, only inaction needs PR.

2) Customer service is diabolical or non-existent. People are loath to resort to violence and generally do so only when all other avenues of protest are shut. These organisations have pushed people to their limits.

But instead of sprucing up their act (which would require effort and a change of attitude), these institutions menace the public into accepting their unacceptably poor standards.

Yes, it’s often said that the British are a nation of yobs. But what’s more striking is the sheep-like docility with which the average British customer accepts jaw-droppingly bad service. These institutions don’t know how lucky they have it: they can provide a shoddy service, treat the public like dirt (or potential criminals) and still take the moral high ground should the customer dare complain. But of course, there is no way to complain. These monopoly institutions specialise in faceless bureaucracy where no one is directly accountable or even contactable.

Wouldn’t it be better if these public bodies instead of displaying their brazen contempt for the public at large with their SODs actually dealt with the law-breaking minority? But they don’t. A study on violence against nurses published in 2003 by the National Audit Office found that NHS managers and the police failed to take the issue seriously. Although some police forces are prepared to prosecute offenders, the Royal College of Nursing told the report’s authors that too many are not. Putting up a sign is like putting sticking plaster on a broken arm.

What’s worse is that this slackness is accompanied by a huge power grab. Only the State can now enforce standards of behaviour and it jealously guards its power. The police certainly won’t bother to arrest a gang of terrorising thugs, but if you take any action yourself, see how quickly they appear. And rather than target the thugs, they’ll be more concerned with the person who usurped their role as enforcer.

Let me suggest a new advertising slogan; one that targets all these rotten institutions. Try this: “Don’t take it out on the public.”