Creeting St Peter - a Parish Council dares to dream?

So, I’ve been chairing Creeting St Peter Parish Council for eighteen months now, and the village hasn’t suffered a plague of frogs, or forest fires so, on the whole, I’d count that as a success. But there is a danger that you allow things to drift - carrying on the way you always have because, well, it seems to be going alright, doesn’t it?

On Monday night, Parish Council met, and there were two key items on the agenda, the draft budget and our communications strategy.

I would be the first to admit that our budget isn’t very exciting - having a precept of £5,500 or so is never going to allow us to build a skate park, or that high speed rail link to London that I’d had my heart set on. But there is an alluring comfort in simply rolling over last year’s figures, adding a little for inflation and shaking hands on the numbers. After all, we charge each household about 14p per day on average, an almost imperceptible amount, right?

But one of my colleagues raised the perfectly legitimate point that we have healthy reserves, and could credibly freeze our precept and use a slither of the reserves to meet any gap between income and expenditure. And I do find myself wondering. The solution was, in the next financial year, to have a meaningful discussion about our short, medium and long term goals as a Parish Council and as a community, and draw up a financial plan on the basis of that. It gives us a potential opportunity to engage with residents, and might trigger some innovative changes in how we work.

Ironically, we were missing one key figure, i.e. the tax base, and after the meeting, that emerged. Even more ironically, the figure supplied means that we can support a small increase to the budget yet leave the precept per household unchanged. That doesn't change how I feel about a more activist approach to our finances though.

The discussion on our communication strategy is similarly thorny. We have two possibly conflicting goals, to improve how we tell people what’s happening in a more immediate way than a quarterly newsletter, and to maintain cost control. Our thoughts so far revolve around the use of e-mail and a PDF newsletter, which would allow us to reach residents much faster than we currently can, or do, but would effectively create two "classes" of residents, those who have (or want) internet access to information, and those who don't. You could get around that ethical dilemma by calling it an opt-in process, but it doesn't avoid the fact that some people simply won't be able to.

It has been suggested that we commit to distributing any information both by e-mail and by leaflet, but that acts as a disincentive to communicate by making it more difficult to do so due to the additional resource (both financial and human) that would be necessary.

There is a danger of paralysis through doubt though, and we really must improve the way we reach out to residents. So, we're going to approach residents to encourage them to opt in to e-mail communication, and then work from there. It may be that we're worrying about a very small number of households, and that we can solve that problem in an ad hoc way.

Ultimately, our goal is to help the village to be the best place it can be, and engaging with residents enables them to take control of some, perhaps minor, aspects of their lives. It certainly isn't big, and it probably isn't that clever, but one ought to try...

[insert title here] - 20 October 2015

Happy anniversary, employer who shall not be named!

Amazing really, it's been twenty-nine years since I walked through the doors at [redacted] to start my first day as a [redacted]. Nowadays, of course, I'm not allowed to tell anyone what I do through the medium of this blog. However, I still enjoy what I do, even if the government would really rather wish I would expire before I can pick up my thoroughly deserved pension...


On this day... in 2010

I was discovering why Parish Councils seemed to be bound to cheques, rather than electronic banking, and actually being vaguely grateful to Grant Shapps. I must have been suffering from sunstroke at the time...


Perhaps it wasn't such a fluke after all...

Remember Ruth Ellen Brosseau? She was the assistant bar manager from Ottawa who managed to win a Quebec riding in the 2011 Canadian federal election for the New Democratic Party despite a) not speaking much French in an area where nearly 80% of the population don't speak English at all, b) not visiting the riding, c) spending nothing on her campaign and d) going on holiday to Las Vegas during the campaign.

Well, she went away, learnt to speak French fluently, and became a pretty good MP. The result, an increase in her vote and easy re-election yesterday, despite her party's decline nationally. Just goes to show, doesn't it?...

Why does George Osborne need a law to make him do what he wants to do anyway?

We probably all have a piece of law which we believe to be stupid, or unnecessary, or both. And then there are laws which serve no useful purpose except to cause trouble for someone, some time, some place.

Enter George Osborne, who has the idea that you can have legislation which limits the freedom of not only himself, but any future occupant of his current position, to act as they see fit, applying the philosophy that they have a mandate for. He doesn't want to raise taxes, so he proposes to pass legislation preventing certain taxes or levies to be increased. He doesn't believe in debt-based government spending, so he seeks legislation preventing a future government from running a deficit except under certain unusual circumstances.

It's almost as though he doesn't trust himself.

But really, all he is doing is creating a pointless legislative stick to beat his opponents with. In a future election, he can tell the public that it is impossible for opponents to do certain things because they will be in breach of the surplus rule, or because they'll need to raise taxes that can't be increased. It is, if you like, the politics of the kindergarten.

And yet, it is astonishingly stupid for three reasons - there are probably more, but I'm in a hurry;

• Any incoming government can simply repeal it. If they want to be bound by it, they will behave accordingly. If not, they won't. So, wasting Parliamentary time on a piece of vanity legislation is really unhelpful, especially when your party has things it would really like to do.

• It gives the impression that your Party's future is more important than that of the country. Such a cynical move does not go unnoticed by your enemies, and even your current friends, and it does give this observer, at least, a reminder of your perceived arrogance.

• It takes away a whole clutch of your economic tools voluntarily. You might want to do something unexpected, or events elsewhere may force your hand. Do you really want to make yourself a liar? Are you seriously giving your opponents the means to bring your trustworthiness into question?

Frankly, if the Lords has a chance to play with it, they should. It is anti-democratic, foolish and unnecessary, and is the sign of a man who confuses smugness for competence, and has an opinion of his genius which is far outweighed by the evidence.

Far from the campaign trail - a European detour on the road to wisdom

Never let it be said that I am unwilling to help, and I have always been happy to go to meetings so that you, gentle reader (yes, Jennie, I know that you don't see yourself as gentle but...), don't have to. And so, today I am off to Brussels, as I have a meeting of the ALDE Party's Financial Advisory Committee to attend tomorrow morning.

I have served on some very obscure bodies in my time, but the Financial Advisory Committee is probably up the most obscure. It isn't mentioned in the statutes of ALDE, its membership is decided upon by the Bureau and its minutes aren't published. It has no authority of its own, acting in a consultative capacity only and files no reports, at least, none that I am aware of. In short, it is a perfect home for shy and retiring bureaucrats like myself.

This may be about to change, however, and it might just be that I am, in part, responsible. In November, at ALDE Council, there was some discontent about the apparent absence of ethics and transparency guidelines for fundraising. Except, of course, that my colleagues and I had actually written some, a point I was only too happy to volunteer. Not only had they been written, we had actually requested feedback.

The feedback has now come and all of it has come from member parties in Northern Europe - perhaps a sign of better organisation? It tends to be focussed on enhanced transparency and greater consultation and, whilst my impulse is to be supportive, there are questions of practicality to consider.

So, I really ought to give this some thought. Over a nice dinner, perhaps... or a beer...

@BaronessRos responds to the consultation on the Local Government Finance Settlement 2015/16...

It gives me great pleasure to publish here Ros's thoughts on local government finance and, more generally, on the Conservative Party's view on localism and accountability...

I am writing in response to consultation on the Local Government Finance Settlement 2015/16 and the statement from the Local Government Minister Kris Hopkins MP on council tax and parishes.

The Minister has invited views on “whether the highest spending parishes should be subject to the same referendum principle as the rest of local government” and “whether town and parish councils whose failings have been highlighted in a Public Interest Report should be included”.

As a Liberal Democrat it is my strong belief that far too much power remains concentrated in Westminster; ours is one of the most centralised countries in the Western world and that has to change. Only by returning power to the communities, villages, towns, cities and regions of England can we drive growth, improve public services and give people the freedom to run their own lives.

To this end parish and town councils are an important part of our local democracy and I was heartened to see the Minister reiterate this in his statement. Much has been done by the Coalition Government over the course of this Parliament to empower communities and parishes and I want to see this continue.

However I simply do not believe any parish or town council, irrespective of size, location, budget or activity should be required to hold a referendum on increases to their precept.

This is unnecessary interference by Government and only serves to convey a lack of faith and trust in those people elected to serve on parish councils to improve their area and make locally accountable decisions. From my own experience parishes are closer to local issues than anyone, and work hard to engage with local people about how they can improve their area using the precept, communicating and justifying any (usually small and modest) increases accordingly. Indeed I remain supportive of removing the requirement to hold local referenda for council tax changes completely.

I also cannot support the notion of applying referenda principles to parishes with a Public Interest Report. I would much rather see a system whereby the parish sector takes the lead in helping parishes who have experienced difficulties, with action by Government as an absolute last resort. I would urge you to explore how this might be achieved with bodies such as the National Association of Local Councils, who I know are committed to high standards of governance and financial accountability and sector-led improvement.

I also wanted to comment on the situation regarding council tax support funding, which I know is causing real problems for parish councils up and down the country.

It simply cannot be acceptable that funding being provided by Government to parishes, via billing authorities, is not passed on to them. I would strongly urge the Minister to step up his efforts to resolve this issue as I know the number of councils not passing on funding to parishes is increasing.

This is likely to have an inevitable knock-on effect on local services and the parish precept, which I am sure the Minister does not want to see happen. I am also concerned about the overall impact such funding shortfalls will have on localism and community empowerment, especially at a time when Government and principal councils are encouraging more partnership working within local government, as well as devolution of services to the local level and parishes.

In conclusion I do not support the extension of referenda principles to parishes and urge more action to ensure council tax support funding is passed on to parishes.

Ros ScottBaroness Scott of Needham Market

The campaign for Mid Suffolk 2015: vote for me, and I'll abolish myself?

Yes, District (and Parish) Council elections are rapidly approaching, and it's time to start thinking about ideas for the manifesto.

I'm not really convinced that such a thing has to be too detailed - centrally imposed restrictions mean that differences between the approaches of the different political parties are often limited to style, nuance and basic competence - so you're effectively talking about a few big things that will resonate.

Local government finance (yes, I know, but bear with me here...) is one of those things that very few of the public pay attention to, even though it determines so much in terms of local services delivered. And, here in Suffolk, we still have three tiers of local government - county, district and town/parish - an arrangement which comes with a degree of cost.

That cost, according to John Denham, was £26 million in the five years to 2014/15, plus £21 million per year in the following five years - money that could have been spent on protecting services if one was so minded. Of course, those figures were estimates, and the Government might have taken the opportunity to cut the central grant even further, but the implications are clear. I am told that, in Shropshire, the financial savings that accrued from moving to a unitary county were bigger than the original estimate, and Suffolk is not wholly dissimilar.

So, moving to a unitary Suffolk seems like a sensible, fiscally sound move - it's just that neither Labour or the Conservatives are willing to sacrifice power to achieve it...

Needham Market 1, Ware 0 - my day as a sponsor

Nowadays, modern sport is much more financially complex than ever before. Professional athletes are better paid, and gate receipts alone seldom cover costs, which is why additional fundraising has become a vital part of sports administration. The most successful teams raise millions through shirt sponsorship, stadium naming rights, merchandising and partnership arrangements - Manchester United even have an official airline.

Seven tiers down the football pyramid, the numbers are much smaller but additional fundraising is no less important. In the Ryman League Division 1 North, shirts are sponsored, advertising hoardings sold and match sponsors sought. My local team, Needham Market FC, are acknowledged to be a very well run outfit and, when I discovered that match sponsorship was surprisingly reasonable, the information was filed away for future use.

I am not the easiest person to find gifts for, and so when my mum and dad asked what I would like for Christmas, just after Ros and I had watched the FA Cup game against Cambridge United, I thought, why not sponsor a league fixture? And so, a few weeks ago, I rang the club, and asked if there was a match available to be sponsored. Mark Easlea, the Secretary, checked, and it was agreed that I would sponsor the match against Ware FC.

And so, today, I made my debut as a sponsor of a football club. I brought along, as my guests - I was entitled to three - Ros, my stepdaughter Sally and her husband Brij. I was greeted by Alan, the Commercial Manager and escorted to the Boardroom for tea and a chat with the Management Committee before we took our seats in the stand before kick-off.

It's been a difficult season for non-league clubs. The endless rain through the winter caused a series of postponed matches, leaving a lot of teams having to play three times a week to catch up, and both teams had played on Saturday, Tuesday and Thursday as part of that. The side effects are tiredness and injury, which left Needham Market without a recognised striker. Their opponents were in the bottom four, but their recent improved form meant that they wouldn't be easily beaten.

The first half started brightly for the home team, although opportunities were few, but as the half went on, Needham Market began to dominate, creating chances but not taking them until, as the half-time whistle approached, Dave Cowley had the ball in the net. Sadly, the referee's assistant had flagged for offside. Encouraged, Needham Market pressed again, and Chris Hogg, formerly of Hibernian and Inverness Caledonian Thistle, headed home the opener just in time.

We retired to the Boardroom for more tea and a finger buffet before returning for the second half. The Marketmen continued to create chances but not take them, and tiredness was beginning to take its toll. Ware began to make more of an impression but, apart from some long-range efforts that were off target or relatively easily dealt with by keeper Andrew Plummer, it looked for all the world is if a team in red shirts with white sleeves and white shorts were going to win 1-0.

There was a late scare, when a Ware free-kick had to be acrobatically tipped over the bar, but the final whistle wasn't far away and Needham Market had the three points. I was tasked with picking the Man of the Match and, having consulted, chose the right-back, Luke Ingram, a decision which seemed to go down well amongst the 226 paying spectators - the best league attendance since October.

I presented him with his prize, a bottle of wine, posed for a photograph, and we headed for the bar for a deserved drink.

So, four tickets, a programme each, seats, refreshments and the chance to pick the Man of the Match, plus a mention in the programme, all for just £100, which for a day out for four isn't that expensive. I might do it again next season and, perhaps more importantly for the club, I might go along to the odd match as time permits.

I think that local sporting clubs play a vital role in their communities, and a well run one like Needham Market FC, with an academy for young footballers and ambitions to provide a resource for use by the whole community, has the ability to transform. Across the country, volunteers make that happen and, by giving a little financial support, people like me can make a small contribution. I would encourage anyone with a little spare cash to do something similar.

Creeting St Peter: doing more, doing it better...

It has been nearly three years since I became a Parish Councillor and, it must be said, much has happened since then.

What was a rather small, insignificant piece of the architecture of local government in one of England's quieter counties, responsible for grass cutting and nine street lights, has rather expanded.

Last year, we absorbed the Community Council, inheriting its project to provide a new playground, as well as the funds raised, and set to work securing the site. Meanwhile, we discovered that we owned a small piece of woodland called 'Plot 89' next to the A14. Finally, following the County Council's divestment of Local Nature Reserves, we successfully bid to take over Fen Alder Carr, on the edge of the Parish, extorting £5,000 from the County for its upkeep in future years.

So, for the time being, we find ourselves with £20,000 in the bank, and an awful lot more responsibility.

And with that comes a need for a more professional approach towards our work as councillors. As portfolio holder for finance, I now have to balance two earmarked funds, income from our village lottery and a precept up 13% from last year, ensuring that we have enough money to maintain our new facilities, whilst keeping the precept within reasonable levels. It isn't always easy, especially given that being a Parish Councillor is only one of my many responsibilities.

So, we have risk analysis, financial management guidance, internal and external auditors, and all the paraphernalia of proper fiscal discipline. Occasionally, it does feel like 'awfully hard work', but nonetheless it gives the impression of responsible governance.

We are, unexpectedly, rather bigger and rather more active, than I might have expected when I was first co-opted to the Council in 2009. And yet, this organic growth has made us rather more relevant and involved in the life of our village, our Parish and our community. And that can't be a bad thing, can it?

A financial advisor, c'est moi!

A fortnight ago, I was waiting for news from the Bureau of the European Liberal Democrats (ELDR), regarding a potential appointment.

I waited... and waited... but silence was all that came. So, I went to Gateshead for the Spring Federal Conference and pottered about a bit. I did run into Sir Graham Watson, ELDR President, but I was far too polite to ask him, especially as the news might have been bad.

However, on Wednesday, I received an e-mail from Roman Jakič, the ELDR Treasurer;

"I have the pleasure to announce to you that in accordance with the rules of the newly created Financial Advisory Committee, 'the candidates proposed to the Bureau by the ELDR Treasurer and Secretary General for membership of the Financial Advisory Committee, have been appointed' on 2 March 2012."

Apparently, my term of office ends on 31 December 2013.

I have to admit to being rather pleased about my news. After all, ELDR is a prestigious organisation and my new role is a serious one. But, interestingly, it means that I am one of the very few people to have held such a position in both ELDR and its youth equivalent, LYMEC (Liberal Youth Movement of the European Community).

It also means two trips a year to Brussels, a city I rather like, to add to the travelling for ELDR Council meetings. However, given that I love to travel, and Eurostar is a very civilised way to do so, I'm looking forward to serving ELDR and its member parties over the next twenty-one months.

"Why don't we just turn the street lighting off?"

As Creeting St Peter Parish Council's Vice Chair and Portfolio Holder for Finance (a much less prestigious job than it sounds), my role is to think the unthinkable, tell people that things are far too expensive or, occasionally, reassure that all is well and that we can do something.

Naturally, finding ways to save money without risking the public good is important, so when Suffolk County Council started turning most street lights off, I was keen to bring this to the attention of Council. Unfortunately, they weren't convinced that the investment in meters, which would only become profitable in year 4, was worthwhile. And, given that our nine street lights are fairly elderly, it was easy to see their logic.

However, when the electricity bill turned up this week, coincidentally not long after a County Council report highlighting the anecdotal impact of turning street lights off (crime has apparently fallen in Norfolk and Gloucestershire), the subject was revisited. Clearly, the cost of engaging giant hamsters to run in wheels to generate electricity has gone up substantially, and our bill, before reclaimable VAT, was an eye-watering £450.

And then, one of my colleagues said, "Why don't we turn them off and use the money saved to give everyone a voucher for a free solar-powered light?". I was surprised. Very surprised. And even more surprised when everybody else agreed that it was well worth thinking about. And so we shall.

It is an astoundingly radical idea but, given the profusion of security lights, and the ambient light pollution, do we really need street lights? After all, when it is dark, very few people walk to the village and, if they do, they really should be carrying a torch. Otherwise, people come in cars, which have headlights.

So, we'll see. As the finance guy, turning the lights off will save us a fortune and make balancing the books so much easier. But that, in itself, is hardly the best basis for such a big decision...

Parish Council finances from the nineteenth century to the twenty-first in a single bound...

I have to admit that, in my role as a parish councillor, I find financial matters the most frustrating. It is all so slow, and every payment is made by cheque. However, I have found out why and, at the same time, discovered that I might not have to worry about it any more. And the following announcement, courtesy of the Department for Communities and Local Government, explains why...

Local Government Minister, Grant Shapps, has today unveiled plans to free England's 9,000 parish councils from archaic rules which prevent them from using modern banking methods and making fast and easy payments to the small businesses they employ.

Parish councils spend over £340 million each year. But under laws introduced in 1894, even the smallest payments must be signed off by at two members of the council - creating a time-consuming process and leading them to use cheques instead of quick electronic transfers. In contrast, the Payments Council reports that cheque usage fell by £21.5billion in the last year alone.

So the Minister has confirmed that from 2011, parish councils will be given the freedom to use modern banking methods - in time for the abolition of cheques in eight years' time. These changes are set to benefit the many private companies that parish councils employ, as they should now be paid faster.

The National Association of Local Councils and the Society of Local Council Clerks will now work together to put important safeguards in place so all payments made by parish councils are legitimate and there is no misuse of the system.

Local Government Minister Grant Shapps said:

Parish Councils have been around for over a hundred years, but it doesn't mean they should be bound by outdated rules which make it harder for them to serve their local community.

It's time to bring Parish Councils into the 21st Century so they can get on and do their jobs in a faster and simpler way.

This is about removing the barriers so that local people can deliver the services that their communities care about, but it could also help hard pressed contractors who rely on quick payments to survive.

The move has also been supported by the National Association of Local Councils, whose Chairman Councillor Michael Chater said:

I am delighted that the Government is making it easier for local councils to get on and do their job through modernising the rules on the way they can make payments.

This much needed reform is very welcome and underlines the important role local councils play in their communities supporting local people and local businesses.

This initiative will give a much welcome boost to local councils to help them operate more efficiently and effectively and enable them to continue to play their role at the heart of localism and Big Society.

 

Of course, trying to get banks to enable us to make the switch could be quite difficult, but it will save even a tiny parish council like ours quite a lot of work.