Government ad agency COI is axed

23 June 2011 Last updated at 13:07 GMT The COI was behind memorable public information films such as "Charley says" The government is to close its Central Office of Information (COI) with the loss of up to 400 jobs.

The agency - which commissions public information films and government advertising and publicity campaigns - was set up in 1946.

Trade union Prospect said there had been no consultation or warning to staff about the likely redundancies.

The COI's London head office will bear the brunt of job cuts, the union has said.

The organisation is best known for producing public information films - such as fire safety cartoon Charley Says or the Green Cross Code ads - but it also appoints advertising agencies and handles media buying on behalf of most government departments.

The bulk of the government's advertising spend - which last year topped ?500m - was coordinated by the COI.

But it also handles regional government news announcements from offices in Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Leeds, London, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Plymouth.

'Cost effective'

The Cabinet Office, which is committed to cutting the government's marketing bill by up to 50%, said last May that the COI would remain an important body because of the discounts a large central organisation could get on advertising campaigns.

But ministers appear to have had a change of heart following a review by Matt Tee, former permanent secretary for government communications, which recommended replacing it with a new communications centre.

Mr Tee also called for a 15% cut in the government's total communications staff of 6,848 employees.

"This government has slashed unnecessary spending on communications," said Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude.

"These important and significant changes to government communications structures are designed to reflect this and to save more money by cutting bureaucracy and reducing duplication.

"This does not mean the end of vital and cost-effective marketing campaigns, such as those campaigns that save people's lives.

"However, it does mean that communications spending in the future will never again get out of hand and instead will be more transparent, better co-ordinated and less bureaucratic."

Important campaigns on health or recruitment to the armed forces would continue, he added.

But Prospect said COI staff were "shocked and devastated" by the decision.

'More expensive'

General secretary Paul Noon said the news had come "completely out of the blue".

"Across government, ministers are centralising finance, HR and procurement in order to save money and cut duplication," he added.

"At COI, a shared service that has worked well and is respected by the industry in which it operates is about to be chopped into little pieces. It makes no sense at all."

Last year COI made 270 staff redundant in a major restructuring exercise, work which Prospect said now appeared to have been "a complete waste of time".

Mr Noon added: "Far from saving money, the cuts to COI will leave most government communications in the hands of media agencies who are certain to be more expensive than in-house professionals."

The government claims it has cut spending on advertising and marketing by 68% to ?168m in the past year, with departments reducing the number of in-house communications staff by a quarter and their budgets by half.

View the original article here

Government sticks to pension plan

20 June 2011 Last updated at 21:28 GMT Mr Duncan Smith opens the debate in the Commons on the Pensions Bill

The government will press ahead with plans to raise the state pension age for women but ministers have promised to look at "transitional" arrangements.

The coalition wants to raise the pension age for women from 60 to 65 by 2018 as a prelude to both female and male pension ages rising to 66 in 2020.

Critics say 330,000 women face working up to two years longer before retiring as a result of the proposals.

The coalition won a Commons vote on the plans by a majority of 70.

MPs voted to give a second reading to the Pensions Bill by 302 votes to 232.

During a Commons debate on the proposals, Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith insisted the coalition would not waver from its commitment to equalise the state pension age in 2018.

He told MPs: "Responsible government is not always easy government. It involves commitment, tough decisions and a willingness to stay the course.

But he said he was "willing to work to get this transition right" amid concerns over the "relatively small number of women" set to be disadvantaged.

'Tough decisions' Delaying the move to 66 until 2022 would cost the taxpayer ?10bn, which would be an "unfair financial burden borne disproportionately by the next generation", he added.

Last year, Chancellor George Osborne announced plans to accelerate the rate at which women's pension age would rise to equal that of men, currently 65.

The previous Labour government had agreed to achieve equalisation by April 2020, but the coalition's plans will see it achieved by November 2018.

Ministers will then use this extra time to raise the pension age to 66 for everyone.

The critics say many women affected by the proposals will have to wait between 18 months and two years longer than expected before they get their state pensions. They also say the changes are unfair as some women are being given as little as five years' notice of the changes.

More than 170 MPs have signed a Commons motion calling for a rethink over the plans, including both Conservative and Liberal Democrat backbenchers.

Lorely Burt, chair of the Lib Dem parliamentary party, said those affected would not have time to plan their retirement and many would be "financially a great deal worse off".

'Careers interrupted'

For Labour, shadow work and pensions secretary Liam Byrne said the government's plans had thrown the retirement plans of thousands of women into chaos.

Continue reading the main story Norman Smith Chief political correspondent, BBC Radio 4

The government finds itself in a bind over giving in to pressure to slow down the changes in pension age for women.

The problem is they've had to perform so many U-turns recently - health, sentencing, forests, etc - it is becoming a defining character of the coalition.

There must also be a concern that to backtrack over women's pensions would also be seen as a sign of weakness at a time when ministers are seeking to square up to the unions over public sector pensions.

And yet politically there is little sense in finding yourself lined up against well regarded age charities and further exacerbating tensions within the coalition - for a problem that only involves a comparatively small number of women.

It may be too that with the possible threat of legal action ministers have no option but to pause and re-think.

Certainly the government's critics are confident that whatever the government is saying now - it will eventually have to apply the handbrake.

"Women in their late 50s will have earned less over their lifetime, they have lower state pensions and private savings than men, many of them are unable to join a workplace pension and have interrupted careers to look after their family, many will have stood down from jobs on the understanding they would get that state pension early.

"What on earth are these women supposed to do with the measures set out in this Bill?"

James Gray was among Tory MPs to urge the coalition to think again.

"Going around the corridors and tea rooms in Westminster talking to Tories, Lib Dems and of course Labour MPs, they are saying this is an injustice being done to a small number of people," he said.

Meanwhile, Ros Altmann, director general of over-50s organisation Saga and a former government adviser on pensions, said ministers could face a costly legal challenge if they did not make changes.

"The current plans are unfair and may, indeed, be illegal in public law terms, since they clearly do not give women adequate notice of the large changes in pension age that they face."

Ahead of the debate, Prime Minister David Cameron appeared to get his own policy on pensions wrong in an interview with BBC Radio 2 - suggesting the retirement age will move to 66 in 2018.

The prime minister's official spokesman said Mr Cameron was merely saying the process towards 66 for men and women begins in 2018 but will be complete by 2020.

The Commons debate comes as union leaders are threatening industrial action over the government's proposals for public sector employees to work longer and pay more for less generous entitlements in retirement.

View the original article here

Government web internships unpaid

27 May 2011 Last updated at 01:04 GMT By Sean Coughlan BBC News education correspondent The government's graduate website is offering unpaid full-time internships Almost one in three internships on a government website for graduate job-hunters this year has been unpaid, a Freedom of Information request shows.

In a political row earlier this year Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg called for interns to be paid.

But the Graduate Talent Pool website, set up by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), continues to offer many unpaid internships.

A BIS spokesman said businesses should be open and fair about what is offered.

University leavers face tough competition in the jobs market - and internships are seen as a way of getting a foot on the ladder.

But a Freedom of Information request, submitted by a graduate recruitment company called Give A Grad A Go, shows that 30% of the internships advertised so far this year on the government's official Graduate Talent Pool website have been unpaid.

Up to 6 May, more than 2,200 vacancies advertised on the website, out of a total of more than 7,600, were unpaid.

Full-time unpaid

The website itself shows that out of the 2,239 vacancies currently available, only 1,235 are paid vacancies.

Among the unpaid internships are full-time posts lasting for several months, with a number of agencies appearing to use the website to recruit such unpaid interns.

The Graduate Talent Pool website was set up by the government as a way of connecting graduates with internships being offered by businesses.

But there have been criticisms over how internships can be misused as unpaid labour by some employers - and warnings about the need for them to comply with the minimum-wage regulations.

Continue reading the main story

If an intern is effectively performing as a 'worker', then in most cases they will be entitled to the national minimum wage”

End Quote Graduate Talent Pool website There have been particular warnings about the impact of the intern system on social mobility - with claims that it gives an unfair advantage to the well-connected and those who can afford to work without being paid or only receiving minimal expenses.

Mr Clegg highlighted his concerns in his social-mobility strategy - sparking a political row about his own access to work experience and differences of opinion with the prime minister.

"We want to improve understanding of the application of national minimum-wage legislation to internships and ensure that employers comply with it," said Mr Clegg's social-mobility proposals.

"Where an individual is entitled to the minimum wage they should receive it and we take failure to do so very seriously."

Social mobility

The Graduate Talent Pool website also warns employers that: "If an intern is effectively performing as a 'worker', then in most cases they will be entitled to the national minimum wage."

Cary Curtis, managing director of Give A Grad A Go, said: "Recent social-mobility debate between the prime minister and his deputy has highlighted the lack of a coherent approach to internships and work placements.

"Nick Clegg's new Social Mobility Strategy is a step in the right direction, as we believe all graduates should be treated as employees and paid accordingly, regardless of the position's label or their social standing.

"The word 'internship' carries no legal definition and therefore often leads to graduate exploitation," said Mr Curtis.

He also criticised the finding that the government department did not keep a record of how many graduates found a job through its internship website.

A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said: "We encourage businesses to offer internships openly and transparently and to provide financial support to ensure fair access.

"Some interns don't qualify for the national minimum wage and we encourage employers to pay reasonable out-of-pocket expenses in these cases."

A spokesman for the Deputy Prime Minister urged employers of interns to pay heed to minimum wage legislation, and to consider paying the minimum wage or out of pocket expenses to "ensure fair access".

"But this is as much about opportunity as it is about money," the spokesman said.

"Too often, such opportunities can only be taken by well off, well connected families," he said, adding that the deputy prime minister "welcomes schemes like the Graduate Talent Pool that provide an open and transparent means for people from any background to find the right opportunity for them".

View the original article here