Horses For Hay

Changes to Peterborough City Council Members’ Allowances following the Cereste reshuffle.

As documented elsewhere under a Freedom of Information request Peterborough City Council were asked to publish an up-to-date list of Members’ Allowances, ie who gets what following Marco’s reshuffle.
PCC have supplied some information.
They have refused the FOI request itself, on the grounds that the information requested is now published.  They have provided some pdf files on their website from which the information which was requested could eventually be collated.
Comment with any corrections.

Here is the latest draft:

Name Ward Old New Change
Cereste M. Stanground Central (Con) 1,482.50 21,497.85 +20,015.35
Collins M. East (Con) 13,701.63 7,165.95 -6,535.68
Goldspink S. East (E.D.) 15,414.33 nil -15,414.33
Lee M. Fletton (Con) 13,701.63 16,123.39 +2,421.76
Dalton M. West (Con) 13,701.63 7,165.95 -6,535.68
Dalton S. West (Con) nil 14,331.90 +14,331.90
Fitzgerald.W Bretton North (Con) 11,860.01 nil -11,860.01
Hiller P. Northborough (Con) 1,712.70 14,331.90 +12,619.20
Holdich J. Glinton (Con) 7,771.62 14,331.90 +6,560.28
Kreling P. Park (Con) 2,826.24 nil -2,826.24
Lamb D. Glinton (Con) 13,701.63 14,331.90 +630.27
Lane S. Werrington N. (Ind) 21.65 nil -21.65
Lowndes Y. Park (Con) 920.81 7,165.95 +6,236.14
Goodwin J. Orton Long. (Con) 15,414.33 7,165.95 -8,248.38
Nash P. Bretton N. (Con) nil 7,165.95 +7,165.95
Murphy G. Orton Long. (ED) 13,701.63 784.50 -12,917.13
Newton H. Ravensthorpe (Con) 3,425.41 nil -3,425.41
Over D. Barnack (Con) 1,712.70 7,165.95 5,453.25
Peach J. Park (Con) 20,552.46 nil -20,552.46
Rush B. Stanground C. (Con) 6,850.81 7,165.95 +315.14
Saltmarsh C. Dogsthorpe (Ind) 205.01 nil -205.01
Sanders D. Eye & Thorney (Con) 13,701.63 nil -13,701.63
Sandford N. Walton (LibDem) 1,449.78 nil -1,449.78
Scott S. Orton with Hampton (Con) 12,780.82 14,331.90 1,551.08
Sharp K. North (Ind) 18.04 nil -18.04
Swift C. North (Ind) 4,178.99 2,388.65 -3,394.49
Thacker P. Werrington S. (Con) 2,965.01 7,165.95 +4,200.94
Todd M. East (Con) 5,930.00 7,165.95 +1,235.95
Trueman W. 78.95 === ===
Walsh I. Stanground C. (Con) 1,712.70 14,331.90 +12,619.20
Elsey G. Orton Water. (Con) === 14,331.90 +14,331.90
Seaton D. Orton with Hapton (Con) nil 14,331.90 +14,331.90
Benton F. Fletton (Con) nil 7,165.95 +7,165.95
Day D. Paston (Con) nil 7,165.95 +7,165.95
Allen S. Orton Water. (Con) nil 7,165.95 +7,165.95
Dobbs R. Eye and Thorney (Con) nil 7,165.95 +7,165.95
North N. Orton with Hampton (Con) nil 7,165.95 +7,165.95
Khan N. Central (Lab) 931.51 2,388.65 +1,457.14
Fower D. Werrington S. (LibDem) nil 2,388.65 +2,388.65

If you would like to dig into the data yourself here are the PDF files you will need:

4 thoughts on “Horses For Hay”

  1. Strictly speaking what was requested was “an up-to-date list of Members’ Allowances” if the current information is to be published at a later date it will not be up to date.

  2. My point though admin is that the request is for up to date data. If today’s data is published tomorrow then it is not up to date which is what was requested hence the only way that the council can apply the ruling where up to date data is requested is to publish immediately. if it doesn’t then the reason given is not a legitimate reason under FOI since what they intend to publish is not the request, up to date data – if you see what I mean. I hope that their ruling is challenged by the requester.

  3. I think with this council there is no expectation that they have any wish to part with any information that might be of use to anyone thinking of holding them to account. That’s an entrenched attitude. They are so far away from having an open attitude that no amount of squeezing the pips will suffice. Only a complete clearout of the present Cabinet would do, or a commitment from them to begin to learn to trust. If they don’t trust the electorate then there must be a reason why they want to keep information to themselves.

    In the end they have provided the information, assuming the information given is correct as of today. Obviously they have presented it in a way that makes it difficult to decipher and forty days late. They could have presented it in a clearer way as requested with minimal effort. The will to oblige the requester is not there. In that circumstance I think it wouldn’t be worth the effort to struggle with them in that way. There should be other ways to skin the cat.

    And apparently when the reshuffle was made then both the ET and the BBC Local had sight of the simple list of new Members and Responsibilities. Neither of them published that information as-is, just publishing snippets and soundbites. They both chose to keep that full list to themselves. Secrecy is everywhere.

Comments are closed.