Thursday, 13 October 2011

Lambeth’s chief executive moves up pay league table despite cuts

Analysis by the Green Party has revealed that Lambeth council’s chief executive Derrick Anderson has moved up the league table of London council chief executive’s pay, despite implementing some of the most far reaching cuts of any London borough.

The latest figures show that during 2010-11 Lambeth’s head earned £215,963 (this is excluding pension contributions, which were an additional £30,976, giving a total annual salary of £246,939) moving from fourth to third place among the 32 London boroughs. The Green Party analysis (based on each council’s 2010/11 Statement of Accounts) found that the average pay of council chief executives across London in fact fell by 4% during the same period.

In the previous financial year (2009-10) three chief executives of London councils were paid more than Derrick Anderson. In the face of cuts, many council heads cut their salaries. Lambeth’s did not. Anderson subsequently became the third highest paid council chief executive in London during 2010-2011, only marginally behind those of Tory run Hammersmith and Fulham (£225,785) and Kensington & Chelsea (£220,976).

In April this year, Anderson finally announced that he would take a pay cut for 2011-12 and waive his entitlement to a bonus. This was strange as Lambeth had previously claimed he received “no performance related pay or bonuses”.

The figures came to light through London-wide analysis by the London Green party. The amount earned by Anderson in 2010-11 is over 17 times the minimum wage earned by some of Lambeth council sub contractors and over 13 times the Living Wage which the council pays its direct employees.

Lambeth has still to pay a Living Wage to all those who work on behalf of the council. Green councillor Rebecca Thackeray campaigned in 2009 to get Lambeth to adopt a Living Wage for all who carry out work for the council. This was opposed by Labour councillors who only accepted that Lambeth’s direct employees should received a ‘Living Wage’.

Last month Lambeth came second from bottom in a league table of all councils in England, measuring the severity of cuts to disabled people’s services. This included a 22% cut to adult care and support.

It is a stark contrast that whilst Lambeth has some of the highest executive pay in the whole country, it is imposing some of the most severe of cuts for its most vulnerable residents.

People in Lambeth will wonder why, in one of the most deprived boroughs in the country, where the cuts are so deep, Lambeth’s head took so long to take a cut in his own pay, whilst many of his contemporaries did so across London.

But the priority must be for Lambeth council to increase the pay of all those it employs as other councils have done, so everyone gets a Living Wage. It isn’t just Lambeth’s chief executive and Lambeth residents who are being treated in different ways. The staff who implement vital council services are also subject to double standards.

Key figures for all boroughs in London are as follows:

Borough Staff paid more than £150k* Chief exec remuneration* No. of times higher than living wage

Barking and Dagenham 3 £162,087 10
Barnet 9 £200,976 12
Bexley 3 £199,248 12
Brent 2 £203,853 12
Bromley 3 £177,135 11
Camden 6 £204,961 12
City of London 1 £142,000 9
Croydon 4 £204,520 12
Ealing 1 £183,854 11
Enfield 1 £194,693 12
Greenwich 5 £189,667 11
Hackney 5 £177,956 11
Hammersmith and Fulham 5 £225,785 14
Haringey 2 £189,890 11
Harrow 2 £195,965 12
Havering 1 £180,213 11
Hillingdon 1 £183,250 11
Hounslow 1 £156,901 9
Islington 1 £210,000 13
Kensington & Chelsea 2 £220,976 13
Kingston 1 £179,000 11
Lambeth 5 £215,963 13
Lewisham 1 £192,387 12
Merton 1 £200,390 12
Newham 5 £188,022 11
Redbridge 1 £181,542 11
Richmond 1 £178,744 11
Southwark 5 £182,089 11
Sutton 1 £156,195 9
Tower Hamlets 2 £186,528 11
Waltham Forest 2 £180,000 11
Wandsworth 9 £191,122 12
Westminster 3 £200,543 12
London total / average 95 £188,983 11

* Total remuneration including expenses, excluding pension contributions.

No comments: