Monday 21 November, 2011
By Anthony Hill
Staff make 12,000 calls to “look busy” on the phone.
As cuts to public funding increase, some councils are being accused of wasting taxpayers’ money on thousands of needless phone calls.
According to the Northern Echo, which obtained official data through a Freedom of Information request, local authorities in the north-east of England spent £4,000 in two years, calling the Speaking Clock.
Council staff are believed to have phoned the BT service - which tells callers the exact time to the nearest second - on approximately 12,000 separate occasions. The Speaking Clock costs 31p a minute from a BT landline, but can be accessed for free on the internet.
Robert Oxley, campaign manager at the Taxpayers’ Alliance, said there was “absolutely no need” for council staff to be racking up phone bills listening to the time on a phone.
”If they’re stuck for the time, they could easily look online or at the clocks on the wall that taxpayers have already paid for.
“Many local residents will worry that calls to the Speaking Clock are indicative of council staff wasting time when they should be getting on with the job that taxpayers pay them for.”
The Northern Echo sought to obtain the figures after allegations that council staff had been dialling the “123” number to give managers the impression they were busy on the phone.
Don McLure, corporate director for resources at Durham City Council, said the authority takes its role as custodian of public finances “extremely seriously”.
He said the council, which spent over £600 on calls to the Speaking Clock between April 2009 and March this year, would review its policy on this and similar phone numbers.
“All expenditure is constantly monitored and reviewed. There will very rarely be circumstances where it is necessary to access the Speaking Clock routinely as part of any council role.”
Newcastle City Council had the highest bill in the region, spending £937 in just 12 months, while Sunderland staff notched up £281 worth of calls across the whole two-year period.
Photo by Martin Pettitt
Comments