Moseley and Kings Heath Labour Councillors completely clueless over Drayton Road and Institute Road traffic management.

Moseley and Kings Heath Labour Councillors completely clueless over Drayton Road and Institute Road traffic management

In a previous blog, I explained how Moseley and Kings Heath Ward’s two Labour Councillors had allowed £12,000 allocated to consult residents had been handed back to the corporate centre to be spent on another part of Birmingham. See blog post at http://martinmullaney.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/moseley-and-kings-heath-labour.html 

As you will see from that blog post, the £12k was to be spent on consulting the residents on the following:

· Retaining the ‘no entry’ sign on Drayton Road, which will have to be removed in April 2013.

· Make Institute Road one-way from Springfield Road towards Goldsmith Road. The £12k would have done the formal consultation on both proposals, a legal requirement. I have done informal consultations during 2011. A further £6k would be required from Community Chest to install the signs on Institute Road if the residents supported the proposed one-way system. 

One of the residents on Drayton Road, after reading my blog e-mailed the two Labour Councillors and received the following response from Councillor Martin Straker-Welds, thus:

“Dear [name of resident removed]

You raised the subject of the no-entry on Drayton Road and one-way systems.

Just a reminder that the present measures on Drayton Road were installed, on a temporary basis, for the period of the schools expansion. The temporary no-entry measure is designed to restrict vehicular entry from a point near the western end, where the residential properties start. This allows the businesses to be accessed from the High Street, but prevents traffic from travelling further down the road.

The temporary order came into operation on the 30th April 2012 and is due to remain in force until the works are completed at the school. However, I gather that this can be extended for up to eighteen months. I am also informed that an informal consultation can be undertaken in the New
Year to check the views of Drayton Road residents about making this measure permanent.

On the subject of one-way systems, I understand that a decision was made for a portion of the Local Improvement Budget (LIB) 2011/12 to be set aside for a permanent one-way system with Institute Road. However, funding under the Local Improvement Budget was removed before the elections, so the scheme could not have been progressed further. I cannot shed further light on this as it did not come before the M&KH Ward Committee for discussion. In any case, a period of consultation with local residents would have been necessary for both streets.

With the tragic death of Hope Fennell, a Road Safety Commission was been established to review traffic and community safety in the Kings Heath locality. This commission is now taking evidence from a wide range of community agencies. A key issue will be analysis of the potential for one-way systems to promote greater community safety for residents, pedestrian and drivers.

So there is scope for informal consultation with Drayton Road residents in 2013, in advance of the expiry of the temporary measures. However, it goes without saying that any move to create permanent one-way systems would be subject to the availability of funding and consultation with the residents of a number of streets including Drayton, Institute and Goldsmiths Roads.

I do hope this clarifies the position.

With best wishes and many thanks for sharing your concerns

Martin Straker Welds”

This response at first glance seems reasonable, BUT a closer examination shows some factual mistakes and glaring omissions. These are as follows: 

Paragraph 2: “I am also informed that an informal consultation can be undertaken in the New
Year to check the views of Drayton Road residents about making this measure permanent.” FACT: An informal consultation has already been done – by me. What is now needed is a FORMAL consultation by the Council – this is a legal requirement. The £12k was to do the FORMAL consultation which would include advertising the consultation in the Birmingham Mail. 

Paragraph 3: “However, funding under the Local Improvement Budget was removed before the elections, so the scheme could not have been progressed further.” 
FACT: This is total rubbish., The Local Improvement Budget was NOT removed before the elections. The Local Improvement Budget was temporarily suspended by the incoming Labour administration, so as to be reviewed. Nearly all the projects were allowed to go ahead after the review. The £12k for Drayton Road and Institute Road was not and was formally handed back to the corporate centre at the Cabinet meeting on 19th November 2012. 

Paragraph 4: “With the tragic death of Hope Fennell, a Road Safety Commission was been established to review traffic and community safety in the Kings Heath locality. This commission is now taking evidence from a wide range of community agencies.” 

FACT: The Road Safety Commission was announced in June by the two Moseley and Kings Heath Ward Labour Councillor. At time of writing this blog, it has only had one meeting: 11th September. No further meetings are yet planned. One meeting in 6 months!!!!

Paragraph 5: “However, it goes without saying that any move to create permanent one-way systems would be subject to the availability of funding and consultation with the residents of a number of streets including Drayton, Institute and Goldsmiths Roads.” 

FACT: The £12k to do this consultation was in place, but given away by Moseley and Kings Heath’s two Labour Councillor



If our two Moseley and Kings Heath Ward Councillors can’t get their facts right on the simple issue of a one-way system in two Kings Heath roads, then what hope do we have they'll get their facts right on the bigger schemes like Wheelie bins?

Birmingham Post shows the ugly side of wheelie bins

Birmingham Post shows the ugly side of wheelie bins

Readers of the local news will know that the Labour administration running Birmingham City Council will be imposing 3 wheelie bins on almost all households throughout Birmingham by April 2013. 

Followers of my blog – especially those reading it during July and August this year – will know that I am not against the introduction of wheelie bins in principle, BUT I do not believe they are suitable for 90% of Birmingham, that the Labour administration claims. Looking at the impact of wheelie bins in other towns, wheelie bins do not work in terrace houses or flats, with the result that the wheelie bins are scattered throughout the week on the pavement or dominating the front garden – see http://martinmullaney.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/where-wheelie-bins-have-gone-wrong-in.html

In todays Birmingham Post, page 28, they have produced an excellent photo showing wheelie bins in use in a road with terrace houses. I reproduce the photo below.



Just think this will now be a common site in Birmingham after April 2013 – wheelie bins on the pavement, with rubbish bags bulging out of the top of them onto the pavement – all over Kings Heath, Acocks Green, Balsall Heath and so on. 

After 8 years spent by the previous Conservative-Lib Dem administration tidying up the streets of this city, the Labour administration are going to return it back to looking like a rubbish dump in only 12 months of rule.

Why is Highbury Hall in a Trust and some recent history?

Why is Highbury Hall in a Trust and some recent history?

Can I thank the tweets, e-mails and comments in support of my blog about why Uffculme Special School should be allowed to occupy Chamberlain House on the Highbury Hall estate. See my blog at http://martinmullaney.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/why-uffculme-special-school-should-be.html

I hope readers don’t mind if I use this blog posting to answer a comment that Marcus Belben added to my previous blog posting. His comment/question was as follows: 

“Agree with you totally, Martin, on issue of using Chamberlain House, and hope we can work to a better solution soon. The building has been empty for two years and is beginning to show signs of falling apart. The elephant in the room is why did we go to Trust status? Who is Trust status benefitting? I guess it's too late to argue this one, but maybe Lab and LibDem cooperation demonstrates that elected MPs are in a better position to make strategic decisions like the location and facilities of schools? Decision could have been made over 2 yrs ago and prevent huge costs of maintenance and now repair of Chamberlain House. 

Please see blog: http://birminghamlives.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/highbury-trust-consultation.html” 


To answer Marcus’s question as to why Chamberlain House and the whole Highbury Hall estate in a Trust? The answer is simple: it was the Chamberlain family who gifted the estate in the form of a Trust to Birmingham City Council in 1932.

Birmingham City Council has lots of buildings and parks that are in Trust. All the Louisa Ryland parks were gifted to the Council as Trust lands.....this includes Cannon Hill Park and Small Heath Park.

In 2004, when the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition took control of Birmingham, we discovered that the Charity Commission had been complaining to the previous Labour administration that it had not been treating its Trust assets as Charitable Trusts independent of the Council.......and this included Highbury Trust. As a Trust, the Charity Commission wanted to see financial accounts for each individual trust, plus how the Council was running the Trust as an entity independent of the Council.

When I became Councillor in 2004, the plan by the Council was to flatten Chamberlain House and flog off that land for upmarket houses. The receipt from the sale would be used to repair and restore Highbury Hall. That plan was totally unacceptable, since it meant selling off part of the original estate. It was thus rejected.

From 2005 onwards, the issue became one of ‘what is the future of the entire estate of Highbury, that restores it heritage, is financially viable AND satisfies the Charity Commission?’ What I wanted to see was far wider vision than just the Highbury Hall.....what I wanted was to see was Queensbridge Road and Yew Tree Road as an educational corridor. Along these two roads we already had the following educational facilities: Queensbridge Road, Fox Hollies School for physically disabled children, Uffculme Special School for children in the autism spectrum and Four Season Horticultural Project for adults with learning difficulties. Wouldn’t it be great to maybe use all these educational facilities together, plus Chamberlain House, Uffculme hospital site, Highbury Hall and the restored Highbury Hall gardens for educational purposes......maybe use Highbury Hall to train young adults (including those with disabilities) in catering and hospitality and Highbury Park for horticultural training.

This was all ‘blue sky’ thinking, which involved me doing alot of running around talking to potential partners, plus finding the money to do historical research so that we could understand the heritage of the park. People I met to talk about Highbury Hall and grounds included the National Trust and the Heritage Lottery.

It is by good chance that Uffculme Special School saw the boarding up of Chamberlain House as an opportunity for new premises. I understand that Councillor Barry Henley (Labour Councillor for Brandwood Ward and Deputy Chairs of Uffculme School) had a part to play in this decision......and well done for doing that.

When Uffculme Special School informed me of their interest in Chamberlain House, about two years ago, I made it clear that I fully supported them and if there was anything I could do both from a political support viewpoint or simply to argue their case locally, I was there for them.

In the two years since, Uffculme School has raised the money for the move , done the necessary structural surveys, plus gained planning permission in April 2012.

The Planning Application for the move into Chamberlain House was objected to by the Moseley Society, the Friends of Highbury Park and Moseley Community Development Trust. I supported the planning application. Also, I attended a management committee meeting of Kings Heath Forum who voiced concerns about Uffculme Special School moving into Chamberlain House, I stood up at the meeting and made it clear that I would support the move.

It would have been easy as a politician (especially when my party is massively unpopular) to have gone along with the Moseley Society, the Friends of Highbury Park and Moseley Community Development Trust and objected to Uffculme Special School moving to Chamberlain House. I didn’t and I can sleep soundly that I stood my ground. I did however lose the local election later that month and I am no longer a Councillor.

May I add that it is these same groups who objected to Uffculme Special School moving into Chamberlain House, that now want to take over the management of Highbury Hall and estate, away from the Council and run it themselves.

Why Uffculme Special School should be allowed to occupy Chamberlain House

Why Uffculme Special School should be allowed to occupy Chamberlain House

Readers of my blog will know that I am quite passionate about the heritage of this city and in particular I hope to, one day, to see the ornate gardens of Highbury Hall restored. It is therefore, with great interest that I attended a public consultation meeting last night about the future of the Highbury Trust estate. 

For background material on where the Highbury Trust lands are, I have a powerpoint presentation at http://martinmullaney.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/restoration-of-highbury-hall-gardens.html
In this blog I do not wish to go into the numerous issues raised at the public meeting about consultation, charging for entry into the restored gardens, etc. Instead I want to focus on one aspect that was discussed in detail: whether or not Uffculme Special School should be allowed to occupy Chamberlain House. 

I’ll put my hands up now. I think Uffculme Special School occupying Chamberlain House is a brilliant idea. What I found dispiriting last night was that the representatives of both the Friends of Highbury Park and Moseley Community Development Trust questioned whether Uffculme Special School was a good use of Chamberlain House and sought to delay any decision on the school occupying the building. A group of parents of children at Uffculme Special School were understandably getting very irate at the meeting, since they are desperate for Uffculme Special School to move into Chamberlain House.

Obviously, there are two sides to any debate and I will put forward the argument for Uffculme Special School occupying Chamberlain House. Indeed, Councillor Barry Henley (Labour Councillor for Brandwood and Deputy Chair of the Governors of Uffculme Special School) presented an excellent presentation on behalf of school. In a rare spirit of Labour-Lib Dem unity, both Barry and myself were clapping each other’s speeches. The Friends of Highbury Park and Moseley Community Development did not actually put over any reason why Uffculme Special School should not occupy Chamberlain House and instead sought to throw up barriers to delay any decision, demanding more consultation and a need investigate alternative uses for Chamberlain House instead of using it as a school.

To provide some background on Uffculme Special School.

Uffculme Special School looks after children who are in the autism spectrum. The children need a safe environment that is simple in layout and has few distractions. The school is presently housed on a bundle of stuck together buildings on the corner of Queensbridge Road and Kings Heath High Street. The school backs onto Highbury Park.

At the moment, Uffculme Special School is busting at the seams due to a lack of space. The school used to have children in the 4 to 11 year old range. It now has children from 4 to 18 years old. To accommodate these extra children, the car park area has been whittled away with portacabins as classrooms. The school is a hotch potch of temporary buildings, with staircases going up and down to each room. This is definitely not the ideal teaching area for children in the Autism Spectrum who need a simple layout.

Uffculme Special School would like to move into Chamberlain House. Chamberlain House was built in 1940 as a military hospital – at the moment it is boarded up and most people will recognize it as the ‘industrial looking building’ on the corner of Queensbridge Road and Yew Tree Road. It has been boarded up for two years and metal thieves have stripped the interior of all metal. It is estimated that to get the building back into use will require £2million.

From Uffculme Special School’s viewpoint, Chamberlain House is perfect AND they have the money to get it back into use. As a former military hospital the layout is simple (long corridor with wards off it) for children in the autism spectrum. Almost all the children come to the school in mini-buses and there is a large car park at the front that would act as a drop off point.
Next door to Chamberlain House is the Four Seasons Project, which does fantastic work supporting adults with learning difficulties, by giving them horticultural work. Having Uffculme Special School next door in Chamberlain House is like ‘manna from heaven’ to them – there is so much work they can do together with Uffculme Special School and provides a new opportunities to expand their work. 

Finally, if Uffculme Special School occupies Chamberlain House they will pay an annual rent to Highbury Trust. Which helps towards putting Highbury Trust on a sound financial footing.

For me, Uffculme Special School moving into Chamberlain House is a ‘no brainer’. It is also a call for the basic human decency in everyone. Here we have some of the most vulnerable members of our community being schooled in the most inappropriate buildings possible. They have the money and the appropriate planning permissions in place to move into Chamberlain House straight away. I am sure even Joseph Chamberlain himself would approve of this proposal.

It is therefore disappointing that respected members of our community – the Friends of Highbury Park and Moseley Community Development Trust – are going out of their way to block this move for reasons that are either, at best, totally unclear and, at worst, pedantic.

West Midlands Police Commissioner gets his mathematics in a muddle

West Midlands Police Commissioner gets his mathematics in a muddle

Paul Dale of the Chamberlain Files has produced another good article at http://www.thechamberlainfiles.com/stop-throwing-cash-at-surrey-and-give-west-midlands-police-a-fair-deal/5434 In the article our new Police Commissioner  Bob Jones, is quoted as saying “The Government’s formula grant approach to police force funding meant that Surrey, an area of relatively low crime, had been given special protection from cuts in grant”

In that quote Bob Jones is both right and wrong. He is right that police forces in the industrial cities of the UK are having to take a disproportionate cut in public funding compared to the more affluent rural areas. However, he is wrong in the financial information he is giving out. Which hopefully this article will clarify. 

Bob Jones and the Birmingham Labour Party in fact got their maths completely in a muddle earlier this year in a “Join the fight for a fair deal for Birmingham”. Their website clearly implied that Tory Surrey was getting an increase in funding at Birmingham’s expense, namely “we’ve lost over 600 police officers whilst in Tory Surrey they’ve gained another 69”. This is not exactly correct 



Indeed, soon to be West Midlands police commissioner, Councillor Bob Jones, went further in interviews. Here are some of his quotes:

"We’ve taken a bigger share of the cuts than almost any other force in the country. Three times more than Surrey. “ quote from http://www.birminghampost.net/news/2012/06/22/labour-s-west-midlands-police-commissioner-hopeful-to-campaign-against-cuts-65233-31227169/#ixzz1ypuScIwX

“We were awarded £27 million less last year than the government’s own formula thanks to floors and ceilings they imposed. On the same system Surrey gets an extra £6 million over what they wanted.” Quote from http://www.birminghampost.net/news/2012/06/22/labour-s-west-midlands-police-commissioner-hopeful-to-campaign-against-cuts-65233-31227169/#ixzz1ypuu50GM

So what are the facts? 

Well for a start Surrey Police Authority make their financial accounts public. Links to them are as follows: 

http://www.surreypa.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Statement-of-Accounts-2010-11-Post-Audit-SIGNED.pdf http://www.surreypa.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/11-Budget-Precept.pdf 
The West Midlands police authority are not so forward with their financial accounts, but by using the Community and Local Government website – google “local government settlement” - this has proved an excellent resource. 

So how does the government funding of West Midlands police and Surrey police compare? 




As you can see Surrey police have seen the following reduction in funding: 
4.65% between 2010/11 and 2011/12
7.18% between 2011/12 and 2012/13

West Midlands police have seen the following reductions in funding:
5.55% between 2010/11 and 2011/12
6.67% between 2011/12 and 2012/13

Just in case you think the reduction in Surrey police funding is merely my bad mathematics, this is what Surrey police say in their ‘Budget and Precept 2012/13’ report “Surrey Police will receive a reduction in its total formula grant [National Non Domestic Rates (NNDR), Revenue Support Grant (RSG) and Police Grant] of 6.7% for 2012/13. This follows a reduction of 4.8% for 2011/12.” See http://www.surreypa.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/11-Revenue-Budget-Precept-Report-Final.pdf 


The difference in percentage reductions between Surrey police calculations and mine, is that I have included Special Grant from the Government in my calculations. 


As you can see both the West Midlands police and Surrey police have seen similar levels of reduction in government funding. It would be interesting if Bob Jones could show us how he has reached his claim that "We’ve taken a bigger share of the cuts than almost any other force in the country. Three times more than Surrey. “ 


So what about the police numbers claims? Well the figures can be seen by looking at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/police-research/hosb0312/hosb0312?view=Binary 
As they show: 

Between Sept 2010 and Sept 2011, Surrey police increased their police officers by 97 officers, or a 5.2% increase in officers

Between Sept 2010 and Sept 2011, West Midlands police decreased their police officers by 493 officers, or a 5.8% decrease in officers. 


So how is it that the Surrey police force that has seen similar reductions in funding to West Midlands police force, has actually managed to increase its number of police officers? Well I’ll leave Surrey Police to explain that in the following news article: http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2107390_surrey_police_only_force_to_see_officer_numbers_grow 


As the spokesperson for Surrey police says: "In Surrey we commenced a programme of work before the introduction of the Comprehensive Spending Review to address funding issues affecting the county prior to the current budget restrictions. 

"Over the last two years we have had to make significant changes to preserve frontline officer numbers and maintain the high standard of policing we provide to the public of Surrey.

"These include cuts to back-office functions and the reduction of senior leaders.

"The Force has also implemented a joint command with Sussex Police for firearms, major crime, and forensics, and carried out a review of police buildings across the county to work towards cash savings.

"The changes made have enabled the force to increase officer numbers but these have not been easy steps to make and we continue to face a savings target of around £30 million by March 2016."



As I said above, Bob Jones is correct to a point that the police forces in industrial cities of the UK are having to take a disproportionate cut in public funding compared to the more affluent rural areas. This is because the police forces in our industrial cities rely heavily on government grants compared to rural areas. The rural areas get a far greater proportion of their funding from local Council tax. Therefore a similar reduction in government funding for both industrial and rural areas will have a far greater impact on industrial areas.


To illustrate the point, I've re-examined the financial figures for both West Midlands police and Surrey police but this time including the funding from local Council tax:


As you can see, once you include Council tax, Surrey police have seen the following reduction in funding:
2.24% between 2010/11 and 2011/12
3.79% between 2011/12 and 2012/13

West Midlands police have seen the following reductions in funding:
4.78% between 2010/11 and 2011/12
5.78% between 2011/12 and 2012/13


So as you can see Bob Jones and the Labour Party are right in their sentiment, but completely wrong in their mathematics.

Moseley and Kings Heath Labour Councillors lose £12,000 of Kings Heath money

Moseley and Kings Heath Labour Councillors lose £12,000 of Kings Heath money

This afternoon, Moseley and Kings Heath Labour Councillors have allowed £12,000 that had been identified last March to do a Kings Heath consultation to go to another part of Birmingham. 

The £12,000 had been allocated, after lobbying from myself, from the Local Improvement Budget to consult on whether local residents wanted the following:

• The ‘no entry’ sign to Drayton Road retained after 26th April 2013 – the present ‘no entry’ sign is only for 12 months (funded by St Dunstan’s School) and will have to be removed after 26th April 2013. 
• Support Institute Road being made one-way from Springfield Road to Goldsmith Road 
• Cyclists to be given permission to ignore the Drayton Road ‘no entry’ sign and be allowed to cycle contra-flow to the proposed one-way system in Institute Road. 

The £12k was only to do a consultation – nothing more. A final decision would be made based on the findings of the consultation. The consultation was going to include neighbouring roads and the letters were ready to go out at the start of May. The additional £6k to make the one-way sign permanent and implement the one-way system in Institute Road, if supported, would have come from the local Community Chest. 

The new incoming Labour administration in May suspended the consultation with immediate effect. At todays Cabinet meeting it was agreed by the Labour Cabinet that the £12k would be handed back to the corporate centre, instead of being re-allocated to another part of Kings Heath.

The ‘no entry’ sign on Drayton Road was installed to stop the traffic jams caused at school opening and closing times at the Drayton Road entrance to St Dunstans Primary School. 80% of the traffic at these times flows from Goldsmith Road towards Alcester Road South. Chaos ensues whenever a wide-bodied vehicle (eg a refuse truck or a lorry from the Pear Tree pub) travels from Alcester Road South towards Goldsmith Road. Drayton Road is not wide enough to allow smooth flowing two way traffic and when the wide bodied vehicle and the opposite-direction flow of parents in cars meet, all hell breaks lose. The cars try reversing back up Drayton Road, but more cars flowing into Drayton Road from Goldsmith Road add to the confusion. It gets even worse when two wide-bodied vehicles each driving in the opposite direction meet in Drayton Road

The ‘no entry’ signs were funded for a 12 month period by St Dunstans Primary School. To make them permanent would require formal consultation with the residents and this £12k would partly pay for this consultation.

The ‘one way’ system in Institute Road, from Springfield Road to Goldsmith Road, is something the Institute Road residents have been asking for for years. Institute Road between Springfield Road to Goldsmith Road is only wide enough for single file traffic. Everyday, during the rush hour, the road comes to a grinding halt. Saturday afternoons are particularly bad with residents reporting regular fights between car drivers who won’t give way to the other drivers.

It is sad that our local Labour Councillors have abandoned this consultation, without even bothering to ask local residents. Even worse they have given away £12,000 which could have been spent elsewhere in Kings Heath.

How Equal Pay has driven Birmingham City Council to the edge of bankruptcy..... and who is to blame?

How Equal Pay has driven Birmingham City Council to the edge of bankruptcy..... and who is to blame?

Followers of the local news will, I am sure, be horrified and mystified by headlines claiming that Birmingham is on the verge of going bankrupt. How is it that only 12 months ago, Birmingham was given a top class AAA credit rating by the worlds banks, but is now on the verge of closing.....and yes, bankruptcy of a local Council does mean wide scale redundancies and closure of libraries and leisure pools. 

The threat of bankruptcy is due to the Council losing the following case: Birmingham City Council (Appellant) v Abdulla and others(Respondents) [2012] UKSC 47 I don’t wish to go through the nitty gritty details of this case, since Paul Dale has already done an excellent piece on the Chamberlain Files at http://www.thechamberlainfiles.com/birmingham-council-reveals-horrendous-757-million-equal-pay-bombshell/5175 As a result of losing this case Birmingham City Council will now have to find £757million to pay present and past Council workers 6 years back pay due to the Council breaching the ‘equality clause’ of Equal Pay Act 1970. 

There has been alot of finger pointing at who is to blame for this mess, but I will summarise them as follows:

• The 1997 Single Status Agreement for local Councils agreed between the Tony Blair government and the trade unions. This agreement set out the process for re-evaluating all jobs within Council so as to remove any pay discrepancies between mainly male and female jobs. Once any discrepancies in pay were discovered, the Equal Pay Act 1970 allowed for 6 years back pay. 
• The 2004 pay implementation agreement between the Tony Blair government and the trade unions which insisted that all local Councils had to implement the 1997 Single Status Agreement by 1st April 2007 
• The 1999 to 2004 Birmingham Labour administration, led by Councillor Sir Albert Bore. This administration did absolutely nothing to even start the process of introducing Single Status. It meant the new Conservative-Liberal Democrat administration had 3 years to introduce Single Status from scratch. The Council was such a shambles in June 2004 – when the new administration took over – that the Council did not have complete list of its employees or what exactly they did. 
• The Trade Unions who allowed the male dominated areas of Birmingham refuse collections to have ridiculously exorbitant bonus schemes that allowed refuse workers in Birmingham City Council to easily earn in excess of £40k. At the same time these trade unions did not make their female members aware of these bonus schemes in other parts of the Council 
• ‘No Win, No Fee’ solicitors that have successfully sued both trade unions and local Councils for breaching the Equal Pay Act 1970, leaving Birmingham City Council now on the verge of bankruptcy and thousands of Council employees out of a job. Whereas the original 1997 Single Status Agreement hoped that trade unions and councils could negotiate away the pay discrepancies, the ‘No Win, No Fee’ have gone for the jugular, with the sole aim of maximising any compensation so they can earn their own 10% cut of the compensation. As a result, Birmingham City Council has a huge waiting list of workers who all want 6 years back pay of the ‘refuse workers’ luxurious bonus scheme that they never knew about. 

Whilst commentators of a left-wing bent have congratulated the women workers for their court success last week. Nobody mentions that the women will have access to the same luxurious bonus scheme that ensured Birmingham refuse workers were massively overpaid....and therefore these women workers will also be massively overpaid.



So who is the loser in all of this? Well it is you and me, who will have to pick up the bill through our Council tax to award these claimants 6 years back pay for an inflated bonus that most of us only dream of. The other losers will be the Council workers who will now have lose their jobs to fund this 6 year back pay.

The wages of Birmingham’s refuse workers for the year 2005/6

The wages of Birmingham’s refuse workers for the year 2005/6

These are individual final year wages (in £’s) for each crew member of Birmingham’s refuse department in the financial year 2005/6. The workers could go home as soon as their round was finished and therefore most only worked a 24hour week. 

As a result of these high wages for the manual workers in the refuse department, no-win-no-fee solicitors are forcing Birmingham City Council to fork out £757million, to be paid by Birmingham’s taxpayers, to raise all Council manual workers pay to the same ‘refuse workers’ level, with 6 years backdated pay.

The Equal Pay law was there to be used to ensure all male and female workers received the same pay. Instead it is being used to fleece the taxpayer because one section of the Council had out-of-control wage levels.

Thankfully the excessively high wages of the refuse department have been reduced to sensible levels in 2011.....but that is not stopping Equal Pay claims pre-dating this reduction.

The final year salaries for each refuse worker is as follows (figures are in £)

48489.22
46946.97
45739.51
44521.23
44127.81
43848.21
43528.44
42626.73
42207.25
41427.87
40481.24
39784.11
38763.25
38566.38
38465.84
38410.87
38170.90
37392.19
37332.96
36887.53
36841.61
36674.52
36571.20
36495.34
36340.59
36169.78
36085.80
36030.83
36019.35
35928.35
35876.60
35837.70
35824.23
35750.95
35628.81
35617.19
35556.38
35240.18
35208.91
35202.41
35180.77
35115.36
35052.65
35025.56
34953.08
34835.74
34832.88
34832.24
34784.14
34743.80
34650.80
34650.54
34597.09
34453.15
34433.15
34422.83
34192.37
34186.79
34133.47
34068.81
34039.16
33911.07
33888.30
33869.23
33788.04
33656.71
33651.69
33649.88
33638.26
33610.46
33609.28
33581.05
33491.82
33464.49
33436.50
33416.98
33396.06
33368.13
33281.53
33268.22
33235.42
33119.77
33053.30
33023.06
33011.02
32995.43
32774.56
32762.50
32742.06
32731.17
32642.06
32607.60
32478.38
32465.80
32411.67
32351.66
32329.79
32256.68
32088.84
32081.35
32013.28
31984.69
31909.98
31872.01
31868.32
31722.53
31634.21
31618.70
31568.53
31471.66
31469.01
31388.71
31358.72
31346.08
31335.57
31330.52
31294.75
31283.33
31261.93
31126.30
31047.50
31035.39
30935.76
30921.87
30920.29
30917.44
30813.45
30797.82
30733.81
30670.56
30614.17
30575.49
30525.38
30515.68
30484.48
30479.18
30478.88
30476.10
30458.68
30412.88
30385.75
30302.72
30260.29
30253.36
30239.62
30164.34
30083.12
30079.94
30028.17
30026.06
29998.95
29929.74
29864.65
29860.77
29805.64
29787.57
29776.23
29772.07
29739.44
29695.89
29649.42
29594.05
29578.40
29567.47
29493.81
29488.35
29434.86
29418.16
29417.92
29395.32
29359.31
29349.38
29329.45
29328.00
29266.56
29259.90
29053.11
29031.49
29022.14
29011.28
29010.91
28809.34
28787.70
28769.66
28756.54
28745.43
28729.05
28695.35
28673.68
28596.33
28548.33
28523.49
28503.26
28457.80
28448.14
28334.91
28326.50
28324.84
28307.42
28304.28
28301.15
28234.86
28228.37
28225.83
28186.99
28122.18
28100.87
27989.06
27941.85
27860.97
27821.05
27813.77
27789.68
27727.86
27704.82
27703.02
27655.00
27621.72
27600.63
27596.75
27465.14
27452.04
27441.74
27377.47
27341.86
27330.13
27291.23
27274.55
27191.01
27188.37
27171.93
27160.79
27149.80
27132.91
27096.58
27086.51
27037.73
26974.57
26947.21
26925.52
26923.03
26896.70
26823.00
26809.18
26808.98
26804.69
26803.11
26767.80
26738.31
26629.51
26628.59
26592.98
26592.24
26577.29
26570.36
26509.03
26507.66
26505.82
26491.92
26471.35
26442.09
26359.91
26326.99
26232.37
26214.58
26184.19
26160.13
26145.77
26131.88
26125.36
26107.55
26005.18
25999.84
25977.81
25971.68
25967.79
25959.48
25955.48
25887.60
25852.82
25827.36
25805.25
25782.53
25772.79
25709.53
25689.57
25681.04
25655.82
25617.16
25590.65
25586.21
25521.25
25473.42
25468.57
25395.57
25383.98
25350.86
25340.50
25325.72
25322.90
25305.23
25261.38
25220.98
25132.13
25105.21
25104.77
25060.29
25059.22
25030.49
24987.40
24950.99
24913.44
24902.97
24902.54
24900.13
24899.84
24886.04
24874.61
24854.49
24848.71
24792.16
24789.43
24747.76
24572.42
24502.31
24450.33
24319.61
24318.57
24285.96
24243.21
24151.36
24132.30
24114.84
24027.59
23958.42
23937.45
23923.28
23842.32
23736.65
23707.06
23553.63
23423.19
23250.05
23196.75
23128.74
23119.08
22951.83
22850.13
22835.16
22431.15
22424.37
22330.16
22203.40
22093.43
22026.07
21768.13
21722.62
21294.59
21217.96
20816.10
20735.45