Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Neill accused of 'slapdash analysis' by LGA


Ministers have been accused of “slapdash analysis” for counting policing and teaching staff as town hall employees.

Local government minister Bob Neill (Con) said the “bloated bureaucracy” of local government had risen from 2,728,000 to 2,907,000 in the years since Labour was elected and criticised the rise of “crazy non-jobs” such as “cheerleading development officers”.

However, the Local Government Association accused the minister of getting his figures wrong and said the town hall workforce was less than half that size, at 1.4m.

The row comes two days after communities secretary Eric Pickles apparently wrongly attributed a “staggering” 78% rise in pay to council chief executives when the figure in fact related to FTSE 250 chiefs.

Local Government Association chief executive John Ransford said: “These distorted figures fail to acknowledge that the three million employed in local government includes teachers, police forces, and all of their civilian staff.

“This slapdash analysis fails to acknowledge the huge savings that these members of staff bring to the work of their councils, ensuring that hardworking people get value for the taxes they pay.”

Mr Neill, left, quoted the Office of National Statistics (ONS) figures in a written answer to Cannock Chase MP Aidan Burley (Con) and, in a separate statement quoted in national newspapers, said: “These figures reveal the explosion in town hall jobs and bureaucracy under Labour and reinforce the need for some councils to start cutting out middle management.”

The Daily Telegraph reported that Local Government Association data for 2009 showed there were “741,702 people on council payrolls who were not in traditional ‘front-line’ jobs such as those in education, social services, recreation, libraries, planning, environmental health, culture, heritage or trading standards”.

The report continued: “Yesterday, ministers seized on Liverpool City Council’s decision to advertise three highly paid “non-jobs” on a day when it was announcing job cuts in other areas. They were for a director of regeneration and employment on a salary of “up to £140,000 “; an assistant director of adult services on £90,000 a year; and an assistant director for supporting communities, also on £90,000 a year.”

A Department for Communities and Local Government spokesman told LGC that Mr Neill had not criticised the Liverpool jobs as ‘non-jobs’ but had highlighted the advertising of the posts as insensitive at a time when the council announced its £91m cuts programme.

Mr Neil told the paper: “Crazy non-jobs like cheerleading development officers and press officers tasked with spinning propaganda on bin collections provide no value to the public.

“Getting rid of the bloated bureaucracy that has grown in some elements of local government will ensure local authorities can protect front-line services.”

In response, Mr Ransford, right, said: “Councils are responsible for providing 800 different services, and many of the posts being denigrated as ‘non-jobs’ reflect a lack of understanding about the complex nature of the vital work local authorities do. It is also a slap in the face for hard working staff, many of whom are facing the threat of redundancy.

“To suggest that an assistant director of adult services - responsible for overseeing the care of thousands of elderly and vulnerable people - is a ‘non-job’ absolutely beggars belief.

“Far from being a bloated bureaucracy, the local government workforce is composed of a very large group of mostly part-time female workers earning below £18,000 per year, and a diverse group of specialists and professionals throughout the rest of the structure.”

Liverpool City Council leader Joe Anderson said the adverts criticised by Mr Neill were for posts in key areas such as regeneration and adult social care.

“We need exceptional people to help us deliver these vital services,” he said. “We have halved the number of senior managers, cut top pay and reduced management costs by £4.5m. Of course, at a time when Liverpool has been hardest hit of any council by Government cuts, we are very conscious of the levels of pay. But the reality is, even if we didn’t fill these three posts, it would not dent the £91m of cuts being forced on us.”

He added: “This latest onslaught from the DCLG on local councils is a diversionary tactic and has no relation to the real problems facing local government.”


Readers' comments (2)

  • Where is the leadership in our sector nationally? Employees are doing a challenging job coping with the expenditure reductions and rising demands for services and all we get is this constant attack on Councils and their employees and a constant attack and counter attack between the LGA and ministers. Is this what we are going to see for the next four years? Nobody is listening anymore to either party and those that are just find it depressing, even the media are bored. I wish those at national level would give it a rest and leave the rest of us to cope with the challenge of improving services and reducing costs.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Roger

    All this DCLG B.S. (and I don't mean Big Society) is simply a pre-cursory to the real event of local government elections in May, where Pickles has already forecast a bloodbath for his own party's councillors. This of course will be the perfect scenario for Pickles. As Cameron’s BS falters and dies under the weight of cuts, and the Localism Bill turns out to be no more than a meaningless sop to those well heeled southerners and their NIMBY approach to development, he can then point to all those ‘opposition’ councillors as the reason for the failures.

    I doubt many of even the most blue blooded Tory councillors, feel comfortable with the way local government is being treated, but in some sadly naive display of loyalty to this government, they are biting their lips and trying to convince those around them that all the pain is necessary. Whilst they may well have a point, how can they in all conscience continue to tolerate the verbal attacks by Pickles and the 3 Stooges without biting back? After all, come May, many of them will be also rans and could well be saying to themselves, ‘if only I spoken out, at least I’d have a clear conscience now, instead of looking like the gullible fall guy that I am’.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.