Mark Irvine - Blogger, Campaigner, Organiser

The Times has an interesting report today on another aspect of MPs expenses - their £10,040 a year 'communications allowance' - which has come in for scathing cross-party criticism. Here's a brief summary of the article which can be read on-line at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/ "MPs have forced a U-turn over plans to shut their publicly funded websites and abolish their £10,040-a-year communications allowance. Last month Harriet Harman told the Commons that from the new year the allowance, a fund for sitting MPs to publicise their constituency work through leaflets and websites, would be scrapped. Limits on spending by political parties come into force on January 1, until the general election. Public money for political purposes is more tightly controlled during this period. “The proposal is that the use of the communications allowance should end on December 31, after which the new election expenses limits will come into force,” Ms Harman, the Leader of the House, sai

A GMF hearing has now been set for Fife Council - and will take place in February and March 2010. The exact dates and other arrangements will be publicised on the blog site early in the New Year - so watch this space for further news. Meanwhile Fife Council has been invited to consider its position - having tried unsuccessfully to have the GMF hearing postponed. A negotiated settlement of the outstanding claims is still possible - but only if Fife Council is prepared to put forward revised and more realistic settlement proposals. If that does not happen - the GMF hearing will proceed as planned.

Yet another government minister has come untusck as a result of the MPs' expenses scandal - this time the junior culture minister, Sion Simon. Over the festive period, The Daily Telegraph reported that Mr Simon secretly paid more than £40,000 in taxpayer-funded expenses to his sister. Here are some extracts from the article which can be read on-line at: www.telegraph.co.uk Mr Simon told parliamentary officials that a rented north London property was his “second home” for expenses purposes - but it was owned by the his sister, Ceri Erskine, a management consultant. MPs have been explicitly banned since April 2006 from renting properties from family members at taxpayers’ expense and the practice is considered to have been unacceptable since 2004. However, Mr Simon continued to make improper claims of £1,000 a month until 2008. After being confronted by The Daily Telegraph, Mr Simon claimed that he had inadvertently broken the rules and agreed to repay £21,000, one of the biggest repa

A very Merry Christmas to all of our readers at Action 4 Equality Scotland - and all very the best to you and yours for 2010! We will be taking a few days off - along with most other people at this festive time of the year. But if you have any urgent queries or problems - or any useful information to pass on - please drop Mark Irvine a note at: markirvine@compuserve.com Normal service will be resumed in the New Year.

A reader from South Lanarkshire has been in touch - regarding new advice on equal pay from the trade unions. Apparently, the unions are having second thoughts about their advice to members. Up till now the unions in South Lanarkshire have advised members not to pursue equal pay claims to the Employment Tribunals - and, so far, the unions have not brought a single case. The logic of the unions position is not entirely clear - but what is clear is that this is a very risky strategy. Because if the unions end up making the wrong call - which they have on other issues, of course - it's ordinary members who will lose out, big time. And that's making the trade unions very nervous. Because the unions could end up being sued by their own members in South Lanarkshire - if the advice they've given proves to be negligent. Hence, the reports about the unions suddenly changing their tune - and going back on their previous advice. If you have any useful information to pass on, drop Mark

A relatively small number of readers from North Lanarkshire Council have been in touch - over meetings they have been asked to attend with local managers - to 'discuss' their equal pay claims. Apparently, these meetings are being arranged at short notice - and the purpose of the meeting is not being made clear in advance - which is all rather odd. Whilst people may understandably be a bit unnerved at such goings on - there's no need to get upset or worried. If you are asked to attend such a meeting - by all means go along. You are, of course, not obliged to say anything - so just listen politely. Most importantly - don't agree to or sign anything - without taking proper advice. Might also be wise to make a brief note of who is present and what is said - and keep this safe for future reference, if necessary. If you are anxious at all about these meetings, drop Mark Irvine a note at: markirvine@compuserve.com

Yesterday's Scotland on Sunday shone a light on the expenses claimed by our politicians - this time on the House of Lords. Read t he full article on-line at: www.scotsman.com - but here's a brief summary of what the newspaper had to say: "Lord Foulkes, the only MSP who is also a peer, has been criticised for claiming almost £44,000 in House of Lords expenses in 2008-9. Foulkes, Labour MSP for the Lothians, claimed an average of £635 for each of the 69 days that he attended the Lords in the most recent financial year. According to figures recently released by the Westminster authorities, he claimed: £17,823 in overnight subsistence £5,684 in day subsistence £9,052 in office costs £69 for postage £11,249 in travel expenses. The expenses are in addition to the £55,000 salary he draws for being a list MSP. Under the Holyrood expenses system, he claimed £3,656 – making him one of the lowest claimants at the Scottish Parliament. Foulkes has long argued politicians should be we

A question readers frequently ask is: "Why are the employers able to treat the trade unions with such disdain. The answer is that from time to time - but far too often - the unions give the impression that the lunatics have taken over the asylum - that there are no union leaders prepared to take responsibility - and call a spade a spade. Take the recent debacle over this year's the union pay claim for Scottish council workers - they are demanding a 3% increase - at a time when the country, economically speaking, is on its knees. The employers response was strangely muted - unsure whether to laugh or cry. The logic of the union 3% pay demand is that they rejected a three-year pay offer recently - the third year of which (if they had accepted it at the time) would have delivered a 2.5% rise. But they didn't - they miscalculated on which way inflation and the economy would head - so now they're asking for even more: 3%. At times like this, you can see why the employers lo

The government tells us that MPs' expenses are being reformed - on a root and branch basis - a new 'improved' system will ensure there are no more dodgy claims - or so we're told. But the latest reports from the Daily Telegraph suggest that many MPs are exploiting a loophole in the system - which allows them to claim thousands of pounds in expenses - without the need to produce receipts. The House of Commons is not demanding proof of purchases for items costing less than £25 - so what' s happened is that MPs have started submitting claims for household goods and bills - for £24 or just under that amount. MPs are resourceful lot, you have to admit - especially when it comes to claiming their expenses. Many MPs submitted several claims each month for miscellaneous items valued between £20 and £25, which have been automatically paid - because the parliamentary fees office did not have the power to ask to see receipts. Records just released by Parliament also show that

A number of readers have been in touch about the McAvoy judgment - so here is the post from 25 June 2009 explaining the significance of this case. Thursday, 25 June 2009 Good News for Male Claimants Good news from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) – a recent landmark case has upheld the rights of male workers to bring ‘piggyback’ equal pay claims. So the stance taken by Action 4 Equality Scotland and Stefan Cross has been completely vindicated – and significantly the trade unions were not even involved in this hugely important EAT case. In McAvoy v South Tyneside Borough Council the EAT has held that a man may validly pursue a 'piggyback' equal pay claim by comparing himself with a woman - who herself has succeeded in an equal pay claim with a higher paid male comparator. The present claims arose in the context of multiple equal pay claims, brought against councils in the North East of England, mostly by women employed in predominantly female jobs – the position is just the

So many people have been in touch with queries about male workers' claims - that I've decided to re-run the following post that first appeared on Monday 10 August 2009. The blog site also contains an earlier article from 25 June 2009 - that has more information about the landmark Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment (McAvoy v South Tyneside Borough Council). Monday, 10 August 2009 Male Workers' Claims The recent breakthrough case male claimants at the Employment Appeal Tribunal – see post dated 25 June 2008 - has understandably generated a great deal of interest. Lots of readers have been in touch to say “Well done” to Action 4 Equality Scotland - and Stefan Cross Solicitors. Because when male members raised the issue with their trade unions – they were told to get lost - that they had no chance of success. But now the worm has turned – and the stance taken by Stefan Cross has been completely vindicated - by the recent landmark case of McAvoy v South Tyneside Borough Council

Lots of angry union members have been in touch about the useless advice from their trade unions - in relation to male workers' claims. We've dealt with this subject many times before - and one regular reader has been in touch to say that the unions are up to their old tricks again. The unions originally told their male members to 'get lost' when it came to equal pay - with the sage advice that male workers - 'absolutely had no claim'. Now the unions are rattled - at the success of Action 4 Equality Scotland and Stefan Cross - s ee post dated 10 August 2009 The upshot is that the unions are now throwing up a smokescreen - offering belatedly to take up claims on behalf of male members. But this is a just another desperate tactic - to try and avoid the unions being sued for negligence - by their own members. The point is that if the unions gave their members the wrong advice - then the unions should have the decency to put their hands up and apologise - for making

Two more South Lanarkshire hearings are taking place this week - at the Employment Tribunal office in Glasgow - details as follows: Thursday 17 December 2009 Friday 18 December 2009 The hearings are open to the public - so anyone can attend. If you do go along, remember to introduce yourself to Carol Fox - who will be there with the Stefan Cross legal team.

More amazing revelations today on the seemingly never ending saga of MPs' expenses. The scandal affects all political parties - but long-serving MPs and government ministers really should know better - after all the 'rules' about what can and cannot be claimed could not be any clearer. Here are some the 'Green Book' principles from the House of Commons - that are supposed to govern MPs' expenses claims: 1. Claims should be above reproach and must reflect actual usage of the resources being claimed. 2. Claims must only be made for expenditure that was necessary for a Member to incur to ensure that he or she could properly perform his or her parliamentary duties. 3. Allowances are reimbursed only for the purpose of a Member carrying out his or her parliamentary duties. 4. Members must ensure that claims do not give rise to, or give the appearance of giving rise to, an improper personal financial benefit to themselves or anyone else. 5. Members are committed to ope

A reader from Clackmannsnhire has been in touch about their new job evaluation scheme (JES) - and the resulting pay and grading arrangements - which the council intends to introduce from 31 March 2010. Apparently, the unions are arranging some question and answer sessions about the new JES - and our reader wants to know: "What should we be asking?" Well, for a start, I'd ask : "How come Single Status in Clackmannanshire took longer to settle than World War II?" Because taking more than 10 years for the employers and the unions to implement an agreement they originally reached in 1999 - suggest that something fishy is happening. Key points that people may also want to know: What is the percentage of men and women on each of the new grades? If women are stuck on the lowest grades - this would suggest that pay discrimination is still present under the new JES. What are the individual scores assigned to each of the 'new' jobs? Some councils try to withhol

Clackmannanshire Council has written to all employees covered by the 1999 Single Status Agreement - an agreement which should, of course, have been implemented many years ago. According to readers' reports - lots of people are very disappointed with the outcome. As usual, many of the traditional male jobs seem to have fared well but - predictably - many of the female dominated jobs have done not so well. So, there may be an ongoing issue about how the council justifies the differences in pay - between the different male and female job groups. The council letter is dated 4 December - and requests a reply by 18 December 2009. The letter asks employees to either agree voluntarily to vary to their contracts of employment - or to confirm that they don't agree to the changes on a voluntary basis - in which case the changes will be imposed after giving the required period of notice. The new terms and conditions of service will come into effect at a forward date of 31 March 2010 - more

In recent days, letters have been going out clients in North Ayrshire Council - inevitably there are individual issues and queries about the contents. A system has been put in place to try and address these issues - so people can either write in to the following address: Stefan Cross Solicitors Limited Buddle House Buddle Road Newcastle-Upon-Tyne NE4 8AW Alternatively, you can e-mail any queries to: karl@stefancross.co.uk Whatever query you might have - please remember to include the following details, as this will allow us to identify individuals properly: 1 Name 2 Job Title 3 Address 4 Post code 5 Contact phone number 6 National Insurance number It will help greatly if people do not telephone the office for an 'update' - as this simply diverts resources away from the main task in hand. We are doing everything we can to deal with all the letters and forms quickly - but the likelihood is that the process will not be completed until the New Year.

Commentators are queuing up to criticise the banks over plans to pay multi-million pound bonuses to senior executives - and rightly so. In response to the 'threat' from the board of the Royal Bank of Scotland to resign en masse - if they are prevented from making these payments - the response of most sensible people has been: 'Go ahead, make my day' Why? Because the banks helped get us all into this mess (along with the politicians, of course) - so why should we pay through the nose - to have them clear up a mess of largely their own making? What's needed are some talented people with a sense of public duty - experienced figures from the financial world (and elsewhere) willing to volunteer their services for free - or at least a fraction of the fees the bankers are demanding. The kind of people prepared to put something back into society - instead of being out to screw the system for everything they can get - see the following post first published on 9 November 200

Here is the latest Freedom of Information (FOI) request submitted to South Lanarkshire Council - a simple and straightforward query, you might agree. Just about every other council in Scotland is happy to explain the basis of their job evaluation scheme (JES) - it's a perfectly reasonable and sensible request given the importance of the JES - and the large amounts of public money involved. But predictably South Lanarkshire Council has refused the request - so I have asked for a 'review' of their decision. Watch this space. Archie Strang Chief Executive South Lanarkshire Council By e-mail Dear Mr Strang Freedom of Information Request I would like to make the following enquiry under the Freedom of Information Scotland Act 2002. I would like to know: 1. What were South Lanarkshire Council’s reasons for not adopting the nationally recommended COSLA (Gauge) Job Evaluation Scheme (JES)? 2. What was South Lanarkshire Council’s share of the £250,000 costs of producing the nationall

Glasgow City Council has lots of male workers who never received big bonus payments - groups such as Janitors and Special Needs Drivers . The following article appeared on the Action 4 Equality Scotland blog site in January 2008 - almost two years ago - explaining that these groups of male workers had the same equal pay claim as everyone else. At the time the unions advised their members not to pursue a claim - just as they continue to do in South Lanarkshire - but that advice has turned out to be completely wrong. Reports from Glasgow suggest that the unions are now changing their tune - but even if they can register a claim now, which is doubtful since they are arguably time barred - the individuals involved have lost out big time. Because they are starting 5 years behind everybody else. If you were advised by a union official not to pursue an equal pay claim - the union may be responsible for your loss - and you may be able to sue for negligence. If you have a story to tell or ne

We continue to receive lots of enquiries about the Glasgow letters - that have been going out to clients over recent weeks. A system has been put in place to try and address these issues - so people can either write in to the following address: Stefan Cross Solicitors Limited Buddle House Buddle Road Newcastle-Upon-Tyne NE4 8AW Alternatively, you can e-mail any queries to: karl@stefancross.co.uk Whatever query you might have - please remember to include the following details, as this will allow us to identify individuals properly: 1 Name 2 Job Title 3 Address 4 Post code 5 Contact phone number 6 National Insurance number It will help greatly if people do not telephone the office for an 'update' - as this simply diverts resources away from the main task in hand. A meeting has already taken place with Glasgow City Council to resolve some of these issues - and progress is being made - as soon as there is anything specific to report we will be in touch with the individuals concerne

A number of readers went along to the recent South Lanarkshire hearing - held in Glasgow on 30 November 2009. The feedback has been very positive - by all accounts it was 'a bit of an eye opener' about the amount of effort going on behind the scenes - and the resources involved in pursuing these cases. The claimants who went along on the day say they'll definitely be back - they were glad they made the effort to see things first hand for themselves - they aim to encourage other South Lanarkshire work colleagues to do the same. Four more hearing dates have already been set at the Glasgow employment tribunal - here are the details if you want to attend: Wednesday 9 December 2009 Thursday 10 December 2009 Thursday 17 December 2009 Friday 18 December 2009 If you do go along, remember to introduce yourself to Carol Fox who will be there with the Stefan Cross legal team

Some councils in Scotland have been trying to wear people's resolve by dragging out the employment tribunal process - for as long as possible. Presumably their aim is to make claimants so fed up - that they will either give up their claim altogether - or accept a poor settlement that is worth much less than they deserve. Midlothian is one of the worst offenders - the council has recently been sending out offers of settlement direct to Action 4 Equality Scotland clients. The council's tactics are quite deliberate - they are trying to by-pass us in the hope that people might take a decision in haste - and without taking proper advice . A few folk have done so - which is a shame for them - but the great majority of people have stood firm and are holding out for a fair settlement of their claims. But what does it say about a council - a Labour controlled council - that is prepared to behave in this way. And what have local MPs or MSPs had to say on behalf of their constituents? So