Councils spending more on high-earning staff

Daily Echo: Hampshire County Council Hampshire County Council

Two Hampshire councils spent hundreds of thousands of pounds more on high-earning staff in 2011-12 than the previous year, according to a survey released today.

But one council shown shown on the Taxpayers Alliance report as increasing its expenditure on high-earners is disputing the figures, saying it has actually reduced staff numbers and made savings over the past two financial years.

The TPA figures, which are drawn from councils' annual accounts, are part of a nationwide round-up of how much authorities spent on staff earning £50,000 on 2011-12, and whether that was an increase or decrease on the previous year.

New Forest District Council was shown as having nine more staff earning £50,000 or higher than in 2010-11, with its budget increasing accordingly by £537,000.

The TPA said Test Valley Borough Council employed four more staff members from 2010-11 to 2011-12 and spent an additional £240,000.

But a spokesman for New Forest disputed the figures, saying the TPA had double-counted figures from its annual accounts.

The figures show Hampshire County Council has 366 staff earning in excess of £50,000 on the books, but with 94 less than the previous year and saving £5.06million in the process - the ninth-biggest decrease in the country.

However it is still has the ninth-most employees on more than £50,000 in the country.

Southampton City Council lost 35 of its high-earning staff, saving £1.9million in the process.

The earnings recorded include salaries, bonuses, benefits in kind and termination payments, but not pension contributions.

Saying there was in fact a reduction from 12 high-earning staff in 2010-11 to 11 in 2011-12, a New Forest spokesman said the authority had actually saved £50,000.

She said eight people who had left the council had appeared in the its 2011-12 accounts due to termination benefits, and added: “The TPA has taken the totals for each year and then added the number of staff leaving on top.

“This is incorrect as these staff were already included in the totals.”

A spokesman for Test Valley said: “The number of employees in Test Valley Borough Council with a total remuneration package of over £50,000 (excluding employer pension contributions) increased from 20 in the financial year 2010/11 to 24 in the financial year 2011/12.

“This was not the result of additional employees but rather two existing employees' overall remuneration package moving them into a higher band. However, the banding also includes two members of staff made redundant, where their redundancy entitlement plus salary was greater than £50,000.

“We are unable to comment on the claimed overall increase by the Taxpayers' Alliance of £240,000 as this does not reconcile with any figures in our Annual Statement of Accounts.”

The TPA's chief executive, Matthew Sinclair, said: ''Taxpayers are still paying far too much for bloated bureaucracies that have been established in too many town halls over the last decade.

''Councillors need to insist that their local authority does more to find savings and cut back on staff costs that residents cannot afford.''

Reacting to the finding, Local Government Minister Brandon Lewis said: ''Whilst I commend those councils taking action, there are still many others failing to get a grip on costs.

''This report exposes the fact that town halls still have massive scope to make sensible savings to protect important frontline services and freeze council tax.''

Council Number of staff on remuneration packages in excess of £50,000 in 2011-12 Change in headcount compared to 2010-11 Total cost of remuneration packages of £50,000 or more in 2011-12 (£) Change compared to 2010-11 (£)
Eastleigh Borough Council 20 2 £1,240,000 -£175,000
Fareham Borough Council 21 -1 £1,317,500 -£82,500
Gosport Borough Council 16 4 £975,000 -£170,000
Hampshire County Council 366 -94 £23,400,000 -£5,060,000
New Forest District Council 27 9 £1,602,500 £537,500
Southampton City Council 128 -35 £8,970,000 -£1,905,000
Test Valley Borough Council 24 4 £1,555,000 £240,000
Winchester City Council 25 -4 £1,542,000 -£572,500

 

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:56am Wed 20 Feb 13

southy says...

No one on any council should be earning more than £40,000 a year.
No one on any council should be earning more than £40,000 a year. southy
  • Score: 0

11:18am Wed 20 Feb 13

Stephen J says...

southy wrote:
No one on any council should be earning more than £40,000 a year.
Why?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: No one on any council should be earning more than £40,000 a year.[/p][/quote]Why? Stephen J
  • Score: 0

11:25am Wed 20 Feb 13

elvisimo says...

Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote: No one on any council should be earning more than £40,000 a year.
Why?
because he likes to shoot out random figures every now and then. There will of course be no logic to this.
[quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: No one on any council should be earning more than £40,000 a year.[/p][/quote]Why?[/p][/quote]because he likes to shoot out random figures every now and then. There will of course be no logic to this. elvisimo
  • Score: 0

11:38am Wed 20 Feb 13

Ben Durutti says...

The other thing to consider is that the "Taxpayers Alliance" actually cost the real taxpayers millions of pounds a year nationwide with their often ridiculous Freedom of Information requests & also tie up public sector staff who have a duty to respond to them.
The other thing to consider is that the "Taxpayers Alliance" actually cost the real taxpayers millions of pounds a year nationwide with their often ridiculous Freedom of Information requests & also tie up public sector staff who have a duty to respond to them. Ben Durutti
  • Score: 0

11:59am Wed 20 Feb 13

MGRA says...

southy wrote:
No one on any council should be earning more than £40,000 a year.
what about people working for Unions ? Should they also not be earning more than £40,000 a year ?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: No one on any council should be earning more than £40,000 a year.[/p][/quote]what about people working for Unions ? Should they also not be earning more than £40,000 a year ? MGRA
  • Score: 0

12:05pm Wed 20 Feb 13

sfby says...

southy wrote:
No one on any council should be earning more than £40,000 a year.
Are you really suggesting that someone responsible for managing hundreds of employees, and publicly accountable for income and expenditure budgets in excess of £600m, shouldn't be paid more than £40k?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: No one on any council should be earning more than £40,000 a year.[/p][/quote]Are you really suggesting that someone responsible for managing hundreds of employees, and publicly accountable for income and expenditure budgets in excess of £600m, shouldn't be paid more than £40k? sfby
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Wed 20 Feb 13

southy says...

sfby wrote:
southy wrote:
No one on any council should be earning more than £40,000 a year.
Are you really suggesting that someone responsible for managing hundreds of employees, and publicly accountable for income and expenditure budgets in excess of £600m, shouldn't be paid more than £40k?
yes and why not, just be cause your giving these people wages, it do not mean the higher the wage the better they are, that only means they are greedy and only in it for the money and not the job, and normally not that good at it.
You normally find the best much lower down the pay scale, than you would at the top of the pay scale
[quote][p][bold]sfby[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: No one on any council should be earning more than £40,000 a year.[/p][/quote]Are you really suggesting that someone responsible for managing hundreds of employees, and publicly accountable for income and expenditure budgets in excess of £600m, shouldn't be paid more than £40k?[/p][/quote]yes and why not, just be cause your giving these people wages, it do not mean the higher the wage the better they are, that only means they are greedy and only in it for the money and not the job, and normally not that good at it. You normally find the best much lower down the pay scale, than you would at the top of the pay scale southy
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Wed 20 Feb 13

southy says...

MGRA wrote:
southy wrote:
No one on any council should be earning more than £40,000 a year.
what about people working for Unions ? Should they also not be earning more than £40,000 a year ?
The difference here is Unions come under the private sector and are paid by union memebers and not by the tax payers. so if you talk about Union leaders and there wages then you must include board members to a private company and the difference here is that paid union leaders will pay the full amount of tax, where as company board members will use tax loopholes to legally evade paying tax
[quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: No one on any council should be earning more than £40,000 a year.[/p][/quote]what about people working for Unions ? Should they also not be earning more than £40,000 a year ?[/p][/quote]The difference here is Unions come under the private sector and are paid by union memebers and not by the tax payers. so if you talk about Union leaders and there wages then you must include board members to a private company and the difference here is that paid union leaders will pay the full amount of tax, where as company board members will use tax loopholes to legally evade paying tax southy
  • Score: 0

12:50pm Wed 20 Feb 13

-stiv- says...

southy wrote:
No one on any council should be earning more than £40,000 a year.
They can always top up their earnings with tax credits, income support etc.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: No one on any council should be earning more than £40,000 a year.[/p][/quote]They can always top up their earnings with tax credits, income support etc. -stiv-
  • Score: 0

1:05pm Wed 20 Feb 13

hulla baloo says...

southy wrote:
No one on any council should be earning more than £40,000 a year.
Pay peanuts and get monkeys. Highly qualified and experienced staff can actually make money and/or reduce costs, making them an asset and not a liability.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: No one on any council should be earning more than £40,000 a year.[/p][/quote]Pay peanuts and get monkeys. Highly qualified and experienced staff can actually make money and/or reduce costs, making them an asset and not a liability. hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

1:09pm Wed 20 Feb 13

sfby says...

southy wrote:
sfby wrote:
southy wrote: No one on any council should be earning more than £40,000 a year.
Are you really suggesting that someone responsible for managing hundreds of employees, and publicly accountable for income and expenditure budgets in excess of £600m, shouldn't be paid more than £40k?
yes and why not, just be cause your giving these people wages, it do not mean the higher the wage the better they are, that only means they are greedy and only in it for the money and not the job, and normally not that good at it. You normally find the best much lower down the pay scale, than you would at the top of the pay scale
I know you Union members are keen on your "differentials" - if the guy at the top, with all the responsibility, gets £40k, how much should the less responsible / accountable jobs be paid. You're probably looking at £5-6k. Care to suggest that to the members?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sfby[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: No one on any council should be earning more than £40,000 a year.[/p][/quote]Are you really suggesting that someone responsible for managing hundreds of employees, and publicly accountable for income and expenditure budgets in excess of £600m, shouldn't be paid more than £40k?[/p][/quote]yes and why not, just be cause your giving these people wages, it do not mean the higher the wage the better they are, that only means they are greedy and only in it for the money and not the job, and normally not that good at it. You normally find the best much lower down the pay scale, than you would at the top of the pay scale[/p][/quote]I know you Union members are keen on your "differentials" - if the guy at the top, with all the responsibility, gets £40k, how much should the less responsible / accountable jobs be paid. You're probably looking at £5-6k. Care to suggest that to the members? sfby
  • Score: 0

1:13pm Wed 20 Feb 13

sfby says...

southy wrote:
MGRA wrote:
southy wrote: No one on any council should be earning more than £40,000 a year.
what about people working for Unions ? Should they also not be earning more than £40,000 a year ?
The difference here is Unions come under the private sector and are paid by union memebers and not by the tax payers. so if you talk about Union leaders and there wages then you must include board members to a private company and the difference here is that paid union leaders will pay the full amount of tax, where as company board members will use tax loopholes to legally evade paying tax
I seem to remember a bit of a spat when the previous SCC administration suggested that the Council should stop contributing to Union Rep's salaries.

Surely that's public sector (i.e. tax-payers) money being used?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: No one on any council should be earning more than £40,000 a year.[/p][/quote]what about people working for Unions ? Should they also not be earning more than £40,000 a year ?[/p][/quote]The difference here is Unions come under the private sector and are paid by union memebers and not by the tax payers. so if you talk about Union leaders and there wages then you must include board members to a private company and the difference here is that paid union leaders will pay the full amount of tax, where as company board members will use tax loopholes to legally evade paying tax[/p][/quote]I seem to remember a bit of a spat when the previous SCC administration suggested that the Council should stop contributing to Union Rep's salaries. Surely that's public sector (i.e. tax-payers) money being used? sfby
  • Score: 0

1:16pm Wed 20 Feb 13

sarfhamton says...

You want good people to run local services? Well then you need to pay decent wages.
You want good people to run local services? Well then you need to pay decent wages. sarfhamton
  • Score: 0

1:21pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Stephen J says...

southy wrote:
sfby wrote:
southy wrote:
No one on any council should be earning more than £40,000 a year.
Are you really suggesting that someone responsible for managing hundreds of employees, and publicly accountable for income and expenditure budgets in excess of £600m, shouldn't be paid more than £40k?
yes and why not, just be cause your giving these people wages, it do not mean the higher the wage the better they are, that only means they are greedy and only in it for the money and not the job, and normally not that good at it.
You normally find the best much lower down the pay scale, than you would at the top of the pay scale
Next time you stand in an election, don't be surprised if you get reminded about what you've just said about public service workers.

"...it do not mean the higher the wage the better they are, that only means they are greedy and only in it for the money and not the job, and normally not that good at it."
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sfby[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: No one on any council should be earning more than £40,000 a year.[/p][/quote]Are you really suggesting that someone responsible for managing hundreds of employees, and publicly accountable for income and expenditure budgets in excess of £600m, shouldn't be paid more than £40k?[/p][/quote]yes and why not, just be cause your giving these people wages, it do not mean the higher the wage the better they are, that only means they are greedy and only in it for the money and not the job, and normally not that good at it. You normally find the best much lower down the pay scale, than you would at the top of the pay scale[/p][/quote]Next time you stand in an election, don't be surprised if you get reminded about what you've just said about public service workers. "...it do not mean the higher the wage the better they are, that only means they are greedy and only in it for the money and not the job, and normally not that good at it." Stephen J
  • Score: 0

1:34pm Wed 20 Feb 13

sfby says...

southy wrote:
MGRA wrote:
southy wrote: No one on any council should be earning more than £40,000 a year.
what about people working for Unions ? Should they also not be earning more than £40,000 a year ?
The difference here is Unions come under the private sector and are paid by union memebers and not by the tax payers. so if you talk about Union leaders and there wages then you must include board members to a private company and the difference here is that paid union leaders will pay the full amount of tax, where as company board members will use tax loopholes to legally evade paying tax
That last sentence is a bit of a sweeping generalisation isn't it. I do hope you can back up your apparent argument that all union leaders are pure as the driven snow, and all private company board members are legally avoiding tax.

As a matter of interest, can you categorically state that no union members (note members, not leaders) have second jobs, and are being paid cash-in-hand, and therefore illegally evading tax?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: No one on any council should be earning more than £40,000 a year.[/p][/quote]what about people working for Unions ? Should they also not be earning more than £40,000 a year ?[/p][/quote]The difference here is Unions come under the private sector and are paid by union memebers and not by the tax payers. so if you talk about Union leaders and there wages then you must include board members to a private company and the difference here is that paid union leaders will pay the full amount of tax, where as company board members will use tax loopholes to legally evade paying tax[/p][/quote]That last sentence is a bit of a sweeping generalisation isn't it. I do hope you can back up your apparent argument that all union leaders are pure as the driven snow, and all private company board members are legally avoiding tax. As a matter of interest, can you categorically state that no union members (note members, not leaders) have second jobs, and are being paid cash-in-hand, and therefore illegally evading tax? sfby
  • Score: 0

2:41pm Wed 20 Feb 13

aldermoorboy says...

Tax payers should not be paying for unions.
Council workers should be paid at the same rates as private workers ( same pensions, salaries etc ).
Tax payers should not be paying for unions. Council workers should be paid at the same rates as private workers ( same pensions, salaries etc ). aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

3:47pm Wed 20 Feb 13

elvisimo says...

southy wrote:
sfby wrote:
southy wrote: No one on any council should be earning more than £40,000 a year.
Are you really suggesting that someone responsible for managing hundreds of employees, and publicly accountable for income and expenditure budgets in excess of £600m, shouldn't be paid more than £40k?
yes and why not, just be cause your giving these people wages, it do not mean the higher the wage the better they are, that only means they are greedy and only in it for the money and not the job, and normally not that good at it. You normally find the best much lower down the pay scale, than you would at the top of the pay scale
you really are on a different planet.
No proof (as usual). You seem to enjoy just making ludicrous statements? Do you ever look back and cringe? is it a form of attention seeking or is it the medication?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sfby[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: No one on any council should be earning more than £40,000 a year.[/p][/quote]Are you really suggesting that someone responsible for managing hundreds of employees, and publicly accountable for income and expenditure budgets in excess of £600m, shouldn't be paid more than £40k?[/p][/quote]yes and why not, just be cause your giving these people wages, it do not mean the higher the wage the better they are, that only means they are greedy and only in it for the money and not the job, and normally not that good at it. You normally find the best much lower down the pay scale, than you would at the top of the pay scale[/p][/quote]you really are on a different planet. No proof (as usual). You seem to enjoy just making ludicrous statements? Do you ever look back and cringe? is it a form of attention seeking or is it the medication? elvisimo
  • Score: 0

12:12am Thu 21 Feb 13

WalkingOnAWire says...

@Southy - do you think that anyone at all, in any position, should earn more than £40K? If so, where?
@Southy - do you think that anyone at all, in any position, should earn more than £40K? If so, where? WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 0

8:22am Thu 21 Feb 13

one in a million says...

don't care how much they get paid as long as they do a decent job; get overseen properly and give us value for money rather than doing the bare minimum and given jobs for life regardless
don't care how much they get paid as long as they do a decent job; get overseen properly and give us value for money rather than doing the bare minimum and given jobs for life regardless one in a million
  • Score: 0

8:34am Tue 26 Feb 13

angelleb says...

Over the course of 13 years Labour employed ever increasing armies of bureaucrats and administrators into local and central government in a bid to reduce unemployment (to make themselves look good).

But they are hoping that people don't realise that the public sector doesn't earn money for the country - it helps bring investment in by providing an infrastructure (by educating future workers with the skills needed by industry, providing transport infrastructure to move goods and workers, providing healthcare so we have a healthier and more productive workforce, etc.) but it doesn't produce goods and services to sell abroad which is what helps the country pay its way in the world.

It is a vital partner to the private sector a bit like a house-wife/house-hus
band it keeps the house in order and looks after the kids so that the earning partner can go out to work.

In a way the tax collected from public sector employment is simply recycling money through the system - public sector workers are paid out of the taxes from private sector (any tax collected from public sector incomes is just a re-circulation of money).

The bigger the public sector the more taxes you need to pay for it from private sector workers and the more you tax private sector workers the more wages they will need to make up for the shortfall in their wages. This deters companies from setting up in this country because they always look at the bottom line which is in a large part determined by labour costs.

So the size of the public sector needs to be a fraction of the size of the private sector which ultimately funds it (directly and indirectly) and to simply increase the size of the bureaucracy in the public sector is a complete waste of the finite resource.

We have approximately 6 million public sector workers in this country but no one can add up the front line workers up to more than 1.5 million. So for every front line public sector worker there are 3 bureaucrats???

New Labour had the opportunity to employ more doctors and nurses to improve healthcare but instead of increasing the size of NHS administration to mind boggling levels. They could have increased the number of police officers to reduce crime but instead they swamped officers with red tape so they are stuck behind a desk filling forms.

They had the opportunity to increase road and rail projects to reduce congestion on our overburdened transport infrastructure but they chose to spend billions going to war in Iraq. They could have increased the number of teachers to give us a better educated and skilled work force and increase the wealth of this country but instead they increased welfare to a level at which some families got more money to stay at home.

The conservatives had the opportunity to right some of the wrongs but they ended up cutting front line jobs as well as the paper pushers. All the time the public debt level keeps rising and future tax payers are going to have pay the price for this recklessly unbalanced economy. Why do we keep voting for these idiots?
Over the course of 13 years Labour employed ever increasing armies of bureaucrats and administrators into local and central government in a bid to reduce unemployment (to make themselves look good). But they are hoping that people don't realise that the public sector doesn't earn money for the country - it helps bring investment in by providing an infrastructure (by educating future workers with the skills needed by industry, providing transport infrastructure to move goods and workers, providing healthcare so we have a healthier and more productive workforce, etc.) but it doesn't produce goods and services to sell abroad which is what helps the country pay its way in the world. It is a vital partner to the private sector a bit like a house-wife/house-hus band it keeps the house in order and looks after the kids so that the earning partner can go out to work. In a way the tax collected from public sector employment is simply recycling money through the system - public sector workers are paid out of the taxes from private sector (any tax collected from public sector incomes is just a re-circulation of money). The bigger the public sector the more taxes you need to pay for it from private sector workers and the more you tax private sector workers the more wages they will need to make up for the shortfall in their wages. This deters companies from setting up in this country because they always look at the bottom line which is in a large part determined by labour costs. So the size of the public sector needs to be a fraction of the size of the private sector which ultimately funds it (directly and indirectly) and to simply increase the size of the bureaucracy in the public sector is a complete waste of the finite resource. We have approximately 6 million public sector workers in this country but no one can add up the front line workers up to more than 1.5 million. So for every front line public sector worker there are 3 bureaucrats??? New Labour had the opportunity to employ more doctors and nurses to improve healthcare but instead of increasing the size of NHS administration to mind boggling levels. They could have increased the number of police officers to reduce crime but instead they swamped officers with red tape so they are stuck behind a desk filling forms. They had the opportunity to increase road and rail projects to reduce congestion on our overburdened transport infrastructure but they chose to spend billions going to war in Iraq. They could have increased the number of teachers to give us a better educated and skilled work force and increase the wealth of this country but instead they increased welfare to a level at which some families got more money to stay at home. The conservatives had the opportunity to right some of the wrongs but they ended up cutting front line jobs as well as the paper pushers. All the time the public debt level keeps rising and future tax payers are going to have pay the price for this recklessly unbalanced economy. Why do we keep voting for these idiots? angelleb
  • Score: 0

9:27pm Tue 26 Feb 13

Farehamscareham says...

This idea of paying top money for top people gives great results. i.e. Aircraft carriers without aircraft & gold plated taps in the county karzies etc..
It's who you know and who you went to college with that matters to the ruling class in this country. Jobs and pay for the boys.
This idea of paying top money for top people gives great results. i.e. Aircraft carriers without aircraft & gold plated taps in the county karzies etc.. It's who you know and who you went to college with that matters to the ruling class in this country. Jobs and pay for the boys. Farehamscareham
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree