Okay, it was a party conference in an election campaign, but it was still a bit rich for communities secretary, John Denham, to suggest that it was down to his department for local government's £1.7bn efficiency savings in the past year. Give councils some credit, Mr Denham, and maybe their chief executives – the ones he once again took a pop at in his conference speech for their salaries – for helping to trim their costs. Considering the spending axe is likely to fall disproportionately on town and county halls in the near future, their skills so far in cutting costs must not only stand them in good stead but also point the way for other parts of the public sector, not as yet adjusted to the new hairshirt regime. But attacks on senior salaries go down well at a conference whose delegates are smarting generally at executive pay, whether public or private. And Mr Denham's criticisms of big pay-offs from councils, further to similar views he has expressed before, came days after a report from the district auditor criticised Tower Hamlets for the manner in which it disposed of the well-respected chief executive, Martin Smith. Big pay-offs are an understandably-easy target, especially when the recipients take up similar posts elsewhere. But such pay-offs are a result of councils making decisions which frequently have no bearing on performance issues, and which contravene every facet of employment law. Quite often, it is simply that the leader no longer likes their chief executive or maybe finds him or her no longer compliant, and yet has no grounds for dismissing them. The fact is, as the most junior employee knows, you cannot sack staff without adequate reason. Moves to avoid future pay-offs can only mount under public and political pressure – and indeed, the Audit Commission is on the case – but it is a far more complex subject than politicians suggest, and employment lawyers are likely to have a field day.
