The Eye is always a source of detail that often gets missed elsewhere
Christina
1243 21.8 - 3.9.09JOBSWORTHS, JOBS WORSE
The 2.4m unemployed shouldn’t expect too much help from a Jobcentre network whose services the government butchered not so long ago in a typical bout of boom-time figure-fiddling. Under Gordon Brown’s pre-election ‘efficiency programme’ in 2004 – to show Labour could out-cut the Tories – 16,000 Jobcentre jobs were slashed.
Most cuts, hard to justify even at unemployment levels then prevailing never mind allowing for inevitable economic slumps, coincided with the merger of jobcentres and benefit offices into ‘Jobcentre Plus’ offices (accompanied by the inevitable botched IT ‘upgrade’).
So badly handled was the process that in 2006 parliament’s work and pensions select committee described the service as ‘truly appalling’, lamenting that ‘in their drive for efficiency, the government has caused a serious failure in customer service, staffing, procurement and IT’. Even now, with hundreds fewer jobcentres, unemployed people seeking help are facing extended trips to their nearest centres and perfunctory interviews when they do get there. With dole queues lengthening, the government has agreed to address the shambles by taking staff levels back up to 2005 levels by, er, replacing all the jobs it cut. Not that this prevents the initial misconceived ‘headcount reductions’ scoring as efficiency ‘savings’ – which might explain why the government continues to resist a final audit of its alleged efficiency programme
1246 2-15.10.09BRUSSELS SPROUTS
In March the European Parliament proudly inaugurated two new Brussels buildings to house its ever-expanding travelling circus of members, assistants and bureaucrats. But the parliament is less happy to boast, or even to talk, about the financing arrangements behind the construction of the Willy Brandt and Jozsef Antall buildings which it leases.
In 2004 the parliament signed a whopping €284m deal with a Belgian developer which, shortly before, exercised an option to buy the land on which the buildings now stand. Under the deal the developer was to raise the finance to fund construction.
Because of this, says the parliament, a public procurement process was not required for the financing bids. The developer oversaw it all, soliciting bids for the financing under which the buildings would be built, leased and eventually sold to the parliament. This is like buying a house and asking the seller to arrange a mortgage for you. Whose best interests will the seller look after?
The parliament has so far refused to release documents relating to the deal. Many documents are held by the developer, and, the parliament says, cannot, therefore, be made public. The parliament holds a report by accountants KPMG on the financing bids assembled by the developer but will not release this either, citing commercial confidentiality.
The EU Ombudsman has now weighed in, saying the parliament should release the report and other documents or “give convincing explanations for not doing so.” - the implication being that so far the explanations have not been convincing. Will the parliament clear up these muddy waters? it has until the end of the month to respond.
Posts
