Reading Labour Party Corruption Exposed – Part 2
I have blogged before about what other people have been saying about Labour Party corruption. However, several people have asked me in recent weeks whether we as a new administration have uncovered any more questionable Labour spending decisions that have been hidden from the public. The short answer is that we certainly have and I am happy to share one of them now.
It is well known that Trades Unions are very strong in the local government part of the public sector and that they enjoy a special position in the affections of the Labour Party. Trades Unions provide the bulk of Labour Party funding and I have written about this in the past. Trades Unions also run their own political campaigns during General Elections, usually in support of Labour and opposed to a Conservative Government. Local readers may remember the trades union poster campaign last year on Reading bus shelters depicting an axe and headlined “Tory Cuts”. Such campaigns are very expensive and do not have to be declared as part of Labour’s election expenses. At present the Civic Offices are well covered with expensive glossy leaflets attacking the Government’s argument about the scale of the public debt left by Labour.
What Reading Council Tax payers may be shocked to learn is that for many years the Council under Labour control was paying for local Trades Union officials with our money. Over the last 12 years this has cost Reading people around £1.4m. This cannot be right and the new Conservative/Lib Dem administration of the Council has put a stop to this. Even long serving Conservative and Lib Dem Councillors have been shocked by the scale of public money involved and the fact that Labour secretly subsidised their union brothers and sisters. This was kept secret from the public and Opposition Councillors and it was never visible in the Council’s accounts which are published every year.
Whatever views may be held about Trades Unions funding the Labour Party it cannot be right for the Labour Party to channel scarce Council Tax receipts to fund the unions. If this was not a prejudicial interest what is?
UPDATE: Since I wrote my original article above several more facts have come to light. The total amount of the value of Council support to the Unions may be more than £1.4m and the period covered considerably more than the 8 years I originally wrote. To be fair therefore I have amended the article above to reflect the 12 year period since Reading became a Unitary authority in 1998 when the current “facilities agreement” with the Trades Unions came into force. That is when the funding of three full-time posts started.
Labour’s defence seems to revolve around two arguments. The first is that the agreement was not “secret” and should have been known by Conservative and Lib Dem Councillors. However, no one has been able to point to any meeting or occasion when the current ”facilities agreement” was made public since it was signed in 1998. Since every Lib Dem and all but one Conservative Councillor was elected since 1998 it is hardly surprising that no-one was aware of the funding of full time posts from Council Tax. At the very least the agreement should have been tabled annually for review at the Local Joint Forum on which I used to sit.
The second Labour argument is that by revealing this and attacking the fact that Conservative and Lib Dem Councillors were not made aware of it, I am somehow attacking the Council Officers. Let me be clear, I have always argued that politicians are responsible for what happens in the Council and I do not and never have blamed Council Officers for the actions of the previous administration. My criticism is of the Labour Party who ran Reading for more than 20 years and who have been heavily supported financially by the some of the same Trades Unions that have benefitted from the facilities agreement!
Finally, let me add that there is certainly a role for trades unions and the Council should make some allowance (through time off etc) for their legitimate activities but the umbilical link of many unions to the Labour Party means that they are not politically neutral and in my view full time posts to support union activity should be funded by union members and not from Council Tax.





Both Conservatives and Lib Dems have had a seat or seats on the Personnel Committee for many years. And seats on the Local Joint Forum which reports/reported to Personnel Committee and whose Minutes are/were received by the Personnel Committee.
Did the Conservative reps on these committees think that the 3 or 4 union reps attending LJF attended the Forum, and consulted and spoke for their members, all in their own spare time on top of a full job in their own trades and professions? Or did they recognise that these reps, elected by their members, were given an amount of paid time off work to perform the task of representing their members? In the interests of promoting good industrial relations across the Council? Remember that the Council has/had around 5000 staff covering a huge range of trades and professions.
Maybe your long or short serving councillors on these committees didn’t ask, or didn’t explain to their colleagues. As for hiding from the public, minutes of both Personnel committee and LJF are on the council’s website – eg http://ww2.reading.gov.uk/documents/Committee_Services/Personnel_Committee/060607/LJFMins060220.pdf
If your Group really did not know that the Council granted a very limited amount of paid time off work for staff to be collectively represented to management about their conditions, you need to be asking your reps on those committees why they didn’t tell you. Or why they didn’t ask. THAT is the real shocker on this subject.
Christine – you are missing the point. Union reps should be paid by their Trades Union for their activities and not by the Council Tax payer! £1.4m is an awful lot of money for attending a few meetings to discuss their own terms and conditions.
You have also not helped your case by linking to a meeting at which sufficient Union reps failed to turn up and were therefore not quorate!!
Interesting link Christine, it mentions nothing about money going to Unions. But at least as a former Labour Cllr you admit that you have spent the money.
Infortunately this situation applies to councils and other authorities across the country. Civilian union reps., employed by the Police, fire and councils, are given a fixed number of paid hours to deal with union business. In some councils this will be a full time job, paid for by the taxpayer. Perhaps the new administration will amend the rules. I have attended budget meetings in this area and the union rep is always there, pushing the boundaries at every opportunity.
I object very strongly to paying these salaries. If a union can afford to pay out hundreds of thousands of pounds to the union bosses, then they can afford to pay for their representatives
Absolutely!
Richard, most people suspected that state of affairs re the unions. It is other proof of the corruption that you need to expose, share with us, the taxpayers. Admittedly, not an easy job but hey it sounds like you have got the bit between your teeth.
By the way, Richard, just think how 1.5 million could have been spent…I can think of a few good causes. I do not know how the Labour Group can campaign in May with their heads held high.
At the risk of looking stupid – I thought union members paid to run their unions?
Nothing surprises me re RBC as they’ve always been more left than Ghandi.
They do but I seems that Labour were also using our money to support them as well. No wonder they can afford so many expensive ads and glossy leaflets to attack the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition!
Not sure what you are getting at. I DO NOT approve of councils and the tax payer paying salaries to union reps. I am involved in a campaign to reduce council tax and would stop this practice immediately. http://www.isitfair.co.uk
Christine Melsom – I dont think anyone was disagreeing with you!
As you have evidence that Labour was funding the Unions who right now are putting up these glossy leaflets around the Civic Offices, surely you now have the power to get them removed immediately since it is “prejudicial interest”? Mr CJ Brooks should be able to advise yu on the legality of the matter. He used to advise the other side mind yu..
This clearly calls for more transparancy when telling us what RBC spends our money on when demanding our direct debits.
I’ve never been in a union nor ever will I be and as stated by others I have no desire to pay for them.
Quote from direct.gov website relating to the law regarding trade unions.
“If you are a shop steward, or equivalent trade union official, of a trade union that is recognised and independent, you are entitled to reasonable paid time off to:
carry out your duties as an official
receive training relevant to carrying out those duties ”
So are you saying that obeying the law is corrupt? Or that you don’t like the law and want to change it? Or just didn’t know anything about the law on trade unions?
Your other posters can check how long this type of law has been in force; pre-dates Maggie T. I think.
Christine, need an extra shovel??
Christine has made the legal point clear. Paid time off for officials happens in the private sector (even British Airways!), local Government (even Tory councils), and the Civil Service (er, we have a Tory government). I’m not seeing any corruption yet.
Jonny: what is enshrined in law does not mean it is not abused to one’s end! Looks like at RBC it was the case: 1.4m over 8 years is not a pittance and if it was not made public or clear in the accounts, at the very least, the residents of Reading have been misled. Will the glossy leaflets say how they have been paid for?
What concerns me as a life long trade unionist is how independent is a union
that receives so many free facilities
from the employer they are supposed to
negotiate with.
Yes union reps are entitled to time off
to engage in joint industrial relations
activists and to represent individuals
in discipline cases etc but this sounds
a bit like the relationship was a bit
cosy.
I suppose the other question that might
be posed is how many RBC Unison reps are
members or activists in the local Labour
party?
Gideon – I notice that Richard didn’t respond to your comment.