Oldham council to cut agency spending after splashing £56m in four years
Oldham council says spending on agency workers will come down after the authority shelled out £56m in four years.
Figures from a freedom of information request, seen by the Manchester Evening News, showed 'eyewatering sums' were spent on temporary workers in social care, children, environmental services, and more.
The town hall spent more than £20m on agency workers in 2023, the figures showed, but this fell to nearly £10m last year. It spent more than £9m in total on agency staff in 2021, and £16.5m in 2022.
READ MORE: Vaping horror as first ever study reveals deadly side effects
READ MORE: LIVE: Police cordon off flats as man found dead after fire breaks out
Oldham council's deputy leader, Coun Abdul Jabbar, accepted there has been an increase in agency costs, but said the overall amount of spending is coming down and there are plans to reduce this further.
This is being done by pushing to transfer agency roles back to permanent jobs in Oldham.
Recent reports have found that councils across the north west are spending more on agency workers than previously.
A report by the Local Government Association last year found that town halls are becoming more reliant on agency staff, and said there was an 'adult social care workforce crisis' behind the problem.
It comes at a time when budgets for many councils are having to stretch thinner each year, with some having to make cuts to local services.
Oldham's Lib Dem group leader, Coun Howard Sykes MBE, said agency staff are 'filling the gaps' in services across the borough.
'The Labour-run council needs to look at which agency workers can be made permanent and where we can be recruiting locally,' he added.
'If there is a job of work to be done and the cash to pay for it, these should be permanent jobs for local people.
'At the moment, Oldham council is spending more money for short-term staffing solutions, and that hurts the standard of services residents receive at the same time as hurting council taxpayers in the pocket.'
Coun Jabbar said bringing more agency workers back to permanent roles is 'absolutely a key priority' in Oldham.
'The council has experienced increases in agency costs over recent years due to high inflation, an increased demand for social care particularly in children's services, market conditions and the availability of permanent staff.
'The transfer of services provided by in-house company the Unity Partnership back to the council in 2022/23 meant that a significant amount of agency expenditure previously incurred by Unity Partnership is recorded as agency expenditure incurred by the council.
'These figures show that there has been a significant reduction in agency expenditure, and we expect to see a considerable decrease in agency costs in the next financial year.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Labour's insane economic policies are taking us back to the dark 1970s
We have been here before. The crisis that the country faces may be catastrophic but it is not unprecedented. Anyone old enough to remember life in 1970s Britain will recall an almost universal sense of utter hopelessness and resignation. Most people (but not all, as it turned out) seemed to be beyond any thought of constructive rebellion against apparently invincible forces. Decline was not just an alarming possibility: it was inevitable and crushing in its finality. The everyday business of life was not simply encumbered by incompetence and infuriatingly poor services as it is now. It was made virtually impossible: the lights were going out on a regular basis along with facilities like heating and cooking, which relied on electricity; the train service on which commuters depended (no working from home back then) was repeatedly withdrawn sometimes without warning; and essential supplies were obstructed, which caused desperate shortages of goods. It was often observed, with characteristic British irony, that it was like living through the war – only this time the enemy wasn't foreign. You know what happened next. The Thatcher Government broke the death grip of trade union power which had crippled the British economy, not just by new legislation that directly limited the unions' coercive practices but by dismantling the nationalised industries over which they had a monopolistic hold. Along with union hegemony, the suffocating grip of Left-wing councils was also brought down. I recall this particularly vividly because my family's life in the London Borough of Haringey had been turned into a class war nightmare by a vindictive Labour council whose rising star Jeremy Corbyn obligingly closed down the schools in solidarity with the striking caretakers. But the miraculous revolution did not happen overnight. The first attempt to beat the coal miners who were critical to this struggle failed because the deprivation that their prolonged strike caused was too great for the population to bear. It took the Government a year of stockpiling coal in a carefully planned strategy to survive another winter of strikes before the breakthrough came. There was no instant revelation on the political front either. The presentation of what soon became known as Thatcherism, with its transformational view of how wealth was created and distributed ('growing the pie' as opposed to simply dividing up the existing one into more equal pieces), was a major philosophical undertaking. This was no mere electoral strategy. It was a historic shift of paradigmatic social thinking: a systematic argument with the Marxist analysis that had dominated political discourse in its harder or softer forms for a century. It took philosophical thinkers like Friedrich Hayek and Nobel Prize-winning economic theorists like Milton Friedman, translated into practical action by an inspirational political adviser like Sir Keith Joseph, to create solutions that no one could have foreseen a generation before. Yes children, that was how it happened all those years ago that Britain emerged from what looked like an inevitable descent into domestic failure and global insignificance. But how can this be relevant now? After all, we have learnt the essential lessons about how to create economic growth and encourage the spread of it through society – haven't we? We know that private enterprise must be allowed to flourish if actual wealth is to increase, and that the state can only spend real money that markets produce if it is not to bankrupt the nation with debt. And, what is more, if the state inhibits or depresses the ability of private entrepreneurialism to flourish, there will be no possibility of it improving living conditions for anyone. Surely we know all this – don't we? The awareness of it must be embedded in the consciousness of every serious politician who aspires to power. (The unserious ones who are so ideologically purblind that they will not accept it are, I genuinely believe, unlikely ever to be more than a disruptive nuisance.) Blairite Labour had to demonstrate that it had been converted to the new truth before it could hope to be re-elected. It staged a ceremonial renunciation of the old dogma with the removal of its commitment to state ownership of the means of production and declared itself enthusiastically committed to capitalist free markets – so long as they were accompanied by 'social fairness' (which was, unfortunately, redistribution by another name). After all that, here we are. A new Old Labour Government is now restoring the suffocating employment rights which make the dynamism and flexibility of entrepreneurial business impossibly difficult. It promises enormous amounts of money that don't exist and cannot be produced, because of the restrictions it has put on private enterprise, to public services like the NHS designed on the old monopolistic model. It caves in, without a struggle, to the demands of every public sector union for all the world as if the 1980s had never happened. What is at the heart of this? To understand such retrograde thinking, you must listen to the rhetoric in which it is expressed. The Prime Minister and his hapless Chancellor speak of 'working people' as a homogeneous class whose communities are as conformist and predictable in their attitudes and loyalties as they were 50 years or more ago. Their lives are seen as inextricably bound up (and limited by) a single local industry which must be renewed or replaced by another industry or by a technological revolution into which the population can be inducted. There appears to be no understanding that what used to be a solid, passive working class which wanted nothing more than safe jobs for itself and its progeny was awakened by the 1980s to the possibility of social mobility. The working people to whom Labour is offering its expensive beneficence may now quite possibly be inclined to start up their own ventures and move on. Pouring government money into regional capital projects will mean taxing their new enterprises into the grave. The revelation of the Blair years was that there were lots of working (class) people who did not welcome the traditional, patronising Labour message. They may still be a minority, these brave individualists, but they are the future and they will not be ignored. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Starmer's latest freebie: British sovereignty in exchange for nothing
While we can't rely on the French to help police the Channel – despite paying them £500 million for the privilege, we can always trust our Gallic cousins to bear a grudge. We already knew that the Prime Minister's great EU 'reset' was a sham; that much was clear when all we got in return was the use of e-gates that were already operational in many European countries. Now, we learn that we may not even be granted access to the bloc's industrial defence programme, despite Sir Keir Starmer's insistence that defence and security was a central tenet of the deal. As he boasted last month after selling us out to Brussels: 'We've also struck a new defence and security partnership to strengthen our cooperation and strengthen our security – which is vital in this dangerous new era. 'And it will open the door to working with the EU's new defence fund – providing new opportunities for our defence industry, supporting British jobs and livelihoods.' Except, of course, the French have other ideas. In yet another example of just how bad Labour is at negotiating anything (see also the Chagos surrender and, more recently, the 'deal' to allow Spanish border guards to check passports on Gibraltar) we now learn that Emmanuel Macron is trying to shut out British arms firms from the European Defence Industry Programme (EDIP). While different to the defence fund, which is known as SAFE (Security Action for Europe), EDIP will see cash pumped into joint procurement projects and the production of weapons, ammunition and other military hardware. It was created for the benefit of the EU and 'allies' but French diplomats have insisted the tool should be solely used to boost firms based inside the EU, as well as Norway and Ukraine – shutting out the UK. So much for Starmer's boast that the reset deal would put Britain 'back on the world stage' and give us 'unprecedented access to the EU market, the best of any country.' Labour is yet to reveal how many billions is being squandered on a reset that has already prompted another big fat 'non' from Paris. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Sadiq Khan's London is crumbling. Reeves may have just sealed its fate
Rachel Reeves knew the Conservatives would condemn her spending plans in the strongest terms they could conjure up. The same goes for the Liberal Democrats and Reform. What she might not have expected was the strength of opposition from within her own party. Sir Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London and one of Labour's most high-profile figures, issued perhaps the most cutting criticisms. From crime to transport to housing, the newly knighted veteran of Left-wing politics laid into the Chancellor's schemes. 'This spending review could result in insufficient funding for the Met and fewer police officers. It's also disappointing that there is no commitment today from the Treasury to invest in the new infrastructure London needs,' Sir Sadiq said. 'Projects such as extending the Docklands Light Railway not only deliver economic growth across the country, but also tens of thousands of new affordable homes and jobs for Londoners. Unless the Government invests in infrastructure like this in our capital, we will not be able to build the numbers of new affordable homes Londoners need.' The mayor's outburst comes amid signs the capital is crumbling, with crime surging. Without additional support, Reeves risks condemning the city to a future of decline – imperilling a Labour stronghold in the process. Shoplifting jumped by more than 50pc in the capital last year according to police data, a far sharper increase than in any other region. Non-violent thefts such as pickpocketing were up by 41pc. Mayfair, the haunt of the global rich, has attracted a reputation for high-value crime. Indian bosses, for instance, used a meeting last year with David Lammy, the then shadow foreign secretary, to complain about the threat of muggers seeking expensive watches, jewellery and phones. Shopkeepers view the Metropolitan Police as the worst force for responding to crime, according to the British Retail Consortium. Its surveys found one in three Londoners witnessed shoplifting last year. Crime has got so bad that Greggs has moved its drinks and sandwiches behind the counter in five stores, including in London's Whitechapel, Peckham and Ilford, blaming anti-social behaviour. It follows reports of a growing problem with thefts from the bakery chain. 'We've got youths who think it is perfectly acceptable to run through the streets with machetes, we've got people literally walking into shops and taking exactly what they want,' says Susan Hall, a member of the London Assembly and the Conservative candidate for the mayoralty last year. 'The whole social fabric is just disappearing. It is becoming more and more lawless,' she says, noting fare-dodging on public transport is at 'epidemic levels'. The capital's decline is attracting increasing political attention. Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, filmed himself confronting fare-dodgers at London stations. Neil O'Brien, a Conservative MP, posted photos of a train carriage covered floor to ceiling in graffiti, saying: A guerrilla group of graffiti cleaners recently publicised their activities on social media, scrubbing despoiled Tube carriages in high-vis jackets bearing the slogan 'Doing what Sadiq Khant'. Rough sleeping in London has doubled since 2021, more than erasing the improvement in the lockdown era. The boroughs of Westminster, Camden and the City of London top the rankings. In the case of Westminster and the City of London, it makes for incongruous scenes of poverty alongside luxury, with homeless encampments opposite the Hilton Hotel on Park Lane. Doorways on famed thoroughfares including the Strand and the routes from Buckingham Palace to Parliament are used as shelters for the night. Once-proud Oxford Street, centre of London's shopping district and an international tourist attraction, has declined amid the rise of American candy stores and tat merchants. Officials in Westminster have drawn up plans to revive it. London's unemployment rate of 6.4pc is the highest in the nation, and the fastest-rising. Despite the capital's problems – and the fact London has long been a bedrock of Labour support – Reeves and her colleagues show no signs of trying to make the problem any better. For one thing, the Government is making it harder to take on workers. Higher staffing costs since April's National Insurance tax raid and a sharp increase in the minimum wage are squeezing already cash-strapped restaurants, bars and cafes. London institutions including The Gun in Homerton, Leroy in Shoreditch and Lyle's, which held a Michelin star for a decades, are among scores that have closed their doors in recent months. It adds to fears for London's eroding nightlife scene: around 3,000 nightclubs closed from 2020 to 2023, according to the Night Time Industries Association (NTIA). 'We know that London's hospitality is the critical factor in attracting inward investment and making the capital the best in the world to do business so we need the mayor to have the tools on licencing, planning, skills, rates and rents to make a difference,' says Kate Nicholls, chairman of trade body UKHospitality. The economy's woes have hit the housing market, too. House prices across the UK as a whole have risen by 4pc since the start of 2023, according to the Office for National Statistics. Yet the average price in London is down by more than 3pc. All of this went unrecognised in the spending review. When the Chancellor name-checked towns and cities across the Midlands and the north of England, as well as Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, her comments appeared to rile London's mayor. 'I have heard the concerns of my honourable friends the members for Mid Cheshire, and for Rossendale and Darwen, and the mayor of the Liverpool City Region, Steve Rotheram, that past governments have under-invested in towns and cities outside London and the South East. They are right,' Reeves thundered as she revamped investment rules to boost spending elsewhere in the country. While Reeves meant the comment as a signal that investment was being rebalanced at long last, Sir Sadiq took it another way. 'The way to level up other regions will never be to level down London,' he said. 'I'll continue to make the case to the Government that we must work together for the benefit of our capital and the whole country.' Reeves disputed his argument, noting rising police spending and a four-year £2.2bn fund for Transport for London, which runs public transport and the main roads. The Treasury called it 'the largest multi-year settlement for London in over a decade'. Hall says the dispute is evidence of a split at the heart of the governing party, shattering Left-wingers' hopes that a Labour Government and mayoralty would herald a tide of new funding for London. 'Sadiq Khan has been completely shut out,' she says. Sir Sadiq won a third term in last year's election with a commanding lead over Hall, taking the lead in nine of the 14 London Assembly constituencies. Yet he came away with less than half the votes cast, on a turnout of 40pc. A split in Labour and dissatisfaction with the state of the capital raise the possibility his grip on power may not be unshakeable. Reeves' snub may not be just a disappointment for London – it could be a blow to the hopes of re-election for the city's Labour mayor too. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
