Sunday, 23 July 2017

Rearguard action by Cornwall Council to keep up councillor numbers

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England asked Cornwall Council to propose a reduction in councillor numbers.  The first proposal of the Indy/Lib Dem administration that the number should be reduced to between 105 and 115 was rejected out of hand by the Commission.

The Commission has also not supported the administration's revised proposal for 99. Instead it has made its own proposal for 87, which it is now consulting on.

This is virtually the same number as the alternative proposal made by the leadership of the Conservative Group for a reduction to 85 councillors.

Usually, the Commission adopts the number proposed by the Council itself.  So, it is an indictment of Cornwall Council that the Commission has not followed its usual practice. This is particularly so as the administration held more than 50 meetings/events/workshops and wrote about 300 pages to support its submission.

Since the election the new Lib Dem led administration has held another three meetings on this and on Tuesday they want Full Council to support yet another submission to the Commission supporting 99. They have also criticised the independent  Governance Review External Group  appointed by the last administration for reaching its conclusions without evidence, although that body conducted about 100 interviews with interested parties before writing its report.

The most troubling point is that the administration is intermeddling in the Commission's attempt to further consult on its provisional recommendation for 87 by asking different questions to those asked by the Commission.  It appears that the administration is trying to elicit responses from the consultation to support its case for 99.

One question it asks is whether you think the new Cornwall Council division boundaries should match parish and community network boundaries without telling you that those boundaries are next for a review.

Fundamentally, this Council is self interested and lacks ambition to work more efficiently.

50 plus meetings on this makes my case.

Friday, 16 June 2017

The 'No Money' Council can find money to protect councillors' jobs

The Electoral Review Panel met yesterday to consider the Local Government Boundary Electoral Commission's decision to reject the Council's proposal for 99 councillors in 2021 and instead to have a final period of public consultation on 87.

If the Council is worried about its reputation with the public or the Commission (and it most certainly should be) it should not be commissioning further work on the Lib Dem/Indy proposal for 99. But it is.

Self evidently the administration should wait until the Commission has given the Council the final number in September and then commence work on working out the new boundaries.

The Lib Dem /Indy led Council's 50+ meetings/events/'workshops' (code for meetings where councillors do not try to take decisions) and its 300 page submission, which the Commission has not supported, is just an embarrassment.

The 'No Money' Council can find money to protect councillors' jobs.

Thursday, 25 May 2017

Back to the future at Cornwall Council

On Tuesday Cllr Andrew Mitchell proposed Cllr Adam Paynter to lead the 'Lib Dem/ Independent Coalition of Losers at County Hall.

Cllr Paynter (Lib Dem Leader) and Cllr Andrew Mitchell (former Lib Dem and now Independent Leader) are the rump of the old Lib Dem administration which ran Cornwall County Council until 2009.

Cllr Paynter was the Executive Member for the Environment (his brief included the signing of the controversial contract for the incinerator) and Cllr Mitchell was the Executive Member for the Economy.

During that administration:

The Council borrowed £400m on horrendous terms for periods of up to 60 years;

Cornwall's money was invested in the Icelandic banks;

The airport closed in November 2008 without notice; and

The Lib Dems tried to foist a new (Lib Dem ish) logo on the Council when it became a unitary authority.

When the new councillors turned up in June 2009 the CEO warned us that things were so bad the

Council could end up in Government intervention (thankfully avoided other than for a shortish period in relation to children's services).

Cllr Mitchell remarked this week that he and Cllr Paynter had been Councillors for 17? years.  Perhaps most of their adult lives.

It just seems a bit regressive to go back to those 'heady' Lib Dem days of 2009 and before.

All the (46) Conservative councillors, who have been forced into opposition by the Coalition of Losers, can do right now is ask searching questions as to what goes on at County Hall.  On day 1 they forced the Lib Dem/Indys to bin the European Union Culture bid, saving up to £536k.

Better Leisure for who exactly?

It is being reported that the group to which the Lib Dem/Indy administration at County Hall offloaded the Leisure Centres ('Better Leisure') (group CEO on £200k from memory) plans to reduce the pay of Leisure Centre staff.

I wonder if Cllr Adam Paynter, the new Council Leader, who led the project to outsource Leisure Centres, will try to wash his hands of this?

It sits very badly with the Lib Dems/Indy's recent recruitment of  additional senior Council staff on up to £140k a year.  Will his new Head of Communications and PR (joint overall cost £200k+ a year) be able to explain this to us I wonder?

Tuesday, 23 May 2017

Can Cornwall Council make the Pandora more perfect?

Yesterday my hubby and I were out walking our dog and had a drink at the Pandora.

A man from West Country Rivers Trust asked if we would participate in a survey they were doing for Cornwall Council. It would take 5 or 10 minutes.

So we did. Obviously, I appreciate that this man is just doing his job but I am bound to ask the Council what is going on.

The questions meandered around issues such as why did we come to the Pandora , what did we do when we got there, what time of day did we tend to come and what would make it nicer for us. Frankly, I think it is pretty idyllic as it is and alarm bells rang at the idea of the Council stepping in.

 Would we like better footpaths or, perhaps, more dog bins, he asked?

I explained that I had been a Cornwall Councillor for 8 years. The way to get dog bins under the last administration was by looking in existing dog bins and if not much poo, councillors might apply to have them moved to another place more in need. This saved the cost of a dog bin and £150 a year to empty it.

This survey must be a hang over from the previous Indy/ Lib Dem administration as we do not yet have a new one. I am struggling to connect it with reality. I think we need new people at the top in charge of dog bins (and a lot else).

It is clear today that we are not about to get it.

Monday, 22 May 2017

Vote Independent, get Lib Dem?

 'Independent' councillors at Cornwall Council have three choices if they want to be independent. They can join:

1. No administration and vote on each issue as they think fit;

2. The administration of the largest group, on the basis that it has the most councillors and so should produce a stable administration for Cornwall; or

3. A 'rainbow' coalition to reflect the views of as many voters as possible.

Instead it appears that they are doing a deal to create a coalition of losers with the Lib Dems.

I cannot say that I am surprised.

In week 1 of negotiations they fielded a team that excluded key Independent members.  Do I think Andrew Mitchell, the Leader of the Independent Group, was ever going to allow his future to be determined by councillors who had only just been elected? They also briefed that they thought Cllr John Keeling (the Conservative Group Leader) was not up to leading the Council due to health issues.

In week 2, after Cllr Keeling had been replaced at the Group's AGM by Cllr Seeva, they said they could not work with the Conservatives as they did not trust them.  This suggested a touching concern for 'Tories' not previously seen and frankly incredible from (former Lib Dem) Cllr Andrew Mitchell and (current Lib Dem Leader), Cllr Paynter.

There is still time for Independents to be independent. I hope they are.

My fear is that they will put up their hands for another Indy/Lib Dem coalition.  So more more vanity projects like the EU Culture Bid. It seems that if you vote Independent,  you will get Lib Dem.

Thursday, 4 May 2017

Standing Down

I am not standing today for Cornwall Council.

It has been a tremendous privilege to represent Truro and indeed Cornwall over the last 8 years. I am extremely grateful for all the support I have received. At least some of the challenge has been valuable too!

I wish all those standing today for Cornwall Council and for the town and parishes too, my very best wishes. As you would expect I advise you to vote Conservative.


Monday, 1 May 2017

Royal Bank of Scotland; LOBOs

Sir Howard Davies
Royal Bank of Scotland

Dear Sir Howard,

I am a Cornwall Councillor and I currently shadow the Finance Portfolio. My background is I am a retired partner from one of the largest London law firms. So, I am reasonably familiar with complex financial products. I am not standing in the local elections on 4th May but I will brief and assist my successor on this important matter.

It came to my attention that the former Cornwall County Council (now Cornwall Council) had entered into a very large number of so called Lender Option Borrower Option ('LOBO') debts up to 2009. Serious questions have been raised as to whether these debts represented value for money for the Council and whether members of the County Council understood their terms and the risks undertaken.

For example, there was a Channel 4 Dispatches programme on this. ('How Councils Blow Your Millions').  Further, apart from the programme and the concerns that I have expressed from my own investigations, objections have now been made to the Council's accounts. The objector alleges that the LOBOs are such poor value for money, they are 'irrational' and possibly illegal.

According to the response to a Freedom of Information request the only advice the Council received on these transactions was from the in house Treasury team.  I have to say that in all my dealings with the members of the Council it seems clear to me that they do not understand that the Council generally secured a small reduction in its introductory interest rate (the so called 'teaser rate') for these loans (as against Public Works Loan Board fixed rates- then around 4% ) but in turn exposed the Council to the risk of paying up to (in the case of the loans from RBS) about 8% for up to 60 years. If officers understood this, there is no evidence that knowledge was shared with members.

The two 'inverse floater' LOBOs entered in to with RBS give rise to particular concerns around understanding by councillors and value for money.  Overall, the Council was betting that interest rates would climb quickly and steeply and stay high.  Then it would benefit from a low interest rate as the interest rate on the loan goes down as market rates rise.  However, if this produced an unattractive rate for RBS then it was only exposed until the next option date (generally every five years) when it could reset the interest rate.

On the other hand, if rates stayed lower for longer then RBS would not call for a rate reset. In that case, the Council could be exposed for a period of up to the duration of these loans (60 years).

So, the financially sophisticated bank took a 5 year risk horizon and perhaps hedged out its exposure but the Council took a 60 year risk horizon and did not (and possibly could not except at a huge cost).  I note that the liability under these loans is currently valued by the Council at £164m (as opposed to their face value of £85m).

I have not been told the precise interest rate currently payable on the RBS inverse floaters but I understand that it is around 6.2%. The difference of over £1m between that and the Council's average long term borrowing cost from the Public Works Loan Board would, for example, pay for the maintenance of all public toilets in Cornwall every year. The Council says it cannot afford to maintain these and is trying to transfer them to others or close them.

This matter is now being examined by the Council's auditors, Grant Thornton, in conjunction with the National Audit Office in an investigation that is likely to take a year.

I understand from the Council that Barclays, who had a similar size of portfolios of LOBOs with Cornwall Council (but not 'inverse floaters') has recently volunteered to 'detoxify' their loans.

I noticed in the press recently that the mis-selling of mortgage backed securities by RBS is still an ongoing issue. In that context, £85m of loans to Cornwall Council is a relatively small matter to RBS but it is a huge issue to Cornwall.

May I urge you please to include us (on a without prejudice basis) in your 'detoxification' exercise so that the proud Royal Bank of Scotland may have a fresh start and we can fund our vital public services.

Yours Sincerely,

Fiona Ferguson
Cornwall Councillor

Sunday, 30 April 2017

Irrationality of the LOBOs: Open letter to the Council's Auditors, Grant Thornton

Dear Sirs,

In your consideration of the 'irrationality' argument (raised by an objector to the accounts of the Council and the legality of the LOBO loans) I would be obliged if you would consider these factors:

1. As Cornwall Council has only a very short period to 'agree' a replacement interest rate with a LOBO bank counterparty its only practical option may be to repay the loan early.  It now acknowledges that it may need to hold £60m to £100m in short term deposits (which currently pay almost no interest) against the possibility of that eventuality.  As borrowings are made to finance capital expenditure that does not seem rational.

2. I have never seen a schedule of all the call option dates to judge what the exposure at any time is to LOBO bank calls. The schedule published shows the next option date for each loan but not the totality of the impact of option dates over the years concerned. So councillors have no precise knowledge about whether the 'perfect storm' referred to in the Council's Annual Treasury Management Strategy  (Council minutes 21 February 2016) may be avoided and whether the 'float' of £60m to £100m is sufficient.

3. Fundamentally, the  Council believes that it is not really exposed as a result of the banks' options as, provided it holds enough money in short term deposits, it can simply refinance elsewhere. 

However, it is likely that the banks would only exercise their option when market rates rise above the rate payable on these loans.

The real risk is that the banks would opt to revise the rate at a time when market interest rates rose. Of course, the Council could then repay early but when it refinanced elsewhere it would pay the new market rate anyway. 

Further, the ability to periodically increase the interest rate by the banks is a ratchet: It never comes back down even if market rates later drop. 

So, overall for a reduction in the introductory rate on the loans for a short period of varying length, the Council agreed to borrow from the banks on terms such that the interest rate can never reduce but can rise without limit. And the Council compares this (favourably) with PWLB or other fixed rates which cannot go down or up? It then locks itself into this arrangement for up to 60 years? 

It looks irrational to me. Even now councillors do not understand how astonishingly unwise these deals were.

Yours sincerely
Fiona Ferguson CC

Friday, 28 April 2017

Another Empty Promise from the Council?

Cornwall Council is conducting a survey on what you think of its proposed new Customer Promise.

The Promise

I have not noticed publicity about this consultation until yesterday and the closing date is 12th May.   This is too short a period, especially over this election period when councillors are changing.

Some immediate thoughts:

1. Is the promise now so vague as to be meaningless- all the promises about the Council responding to letters in 10 working days/answering the phone within 20 seconds, providing value for money etc have gone.

2. The Council does not promise to try to put things right anymore but only 'whenever possible and wherever appropriate. Surely it is always appropriate to try to put things right if you have made a mistake?

2. The survey asks lots of questions about sexual orientation that seem unnecessarily intrusive.

3. This is billed as a Promise. So I suggest that the Council cuts out all the bits about what the Council expects from the public. It looks more of a bargain and the Council is the only side with sanctions.

4. Is the Council going to translate its messages into Cornish? Google translator covers most languages but not Cornish.  The Cornish language is being promoted by the LibDem/Indy Council. Indeed I understood there was a move for it to answer the phone in Cornish.

Or Cornwall Council could just make this promise;

"We will act professionally, do our best and if you are nice to us we will be nice to you."

I don't think it says anything else?

But  please complete the survey!

This is mine ......

Thursday, 27 April 2017

Signs of the Times - Chaos Ahead

There are parts of the country where local authorities are looking at reducing the number of road signs in the interest of road safety. The argument is that there is so much information that it becomes a distraction and therefore more of a danger and a hindrance to safe progress on the highway.

And we should be careful to protect those who work on the highways - no-one would argue against that. A recent accident involving a Cormac worker on the A390 should be reminder enough that this is a serious business.

But…. The 'No Money' Council has just spent £172k  on  massive new digital traffic signs in Truro. Are they really necessary? And are they really effective?

The recent chaos on the A390 reduced traffic to a standstill and everyone had plenty of times to read all the signs but at normal road speeds are there just too many for normal beings to take in?

With no consultation or planning (or did I miss that?) Cormac have installed £172,000 worth of flashing signs.  To what purpose? If there is a log jam we don't have many options for alternative routes.  If you are local you know what car parks will likely have space.  If you are not local, you have no idea where these car parks are and no time to read the sign as you go by.

Next thing, the Council will employ a communications expert to write messages for them and monitor feedback. Of course, the new employee would need to do graphics as the signs have that feature too. At least we won't be able to dismiss with “scant regard” the Council's “achievements” because they will flash these signs at us wherever we are.

Why not ask people to tune into Radio Cornwall and get a proper message?

Wednesday, 26 April 2017

Money Matters at Cornwall Council

This is a copy of the email I have written to senior officers at Cornwall Council:

I attended a very disturbing meeting of the Audit Committee on Friday.

The good news is that the measure I fought for in the last Council of having independent members on the Audit committee who actually know something about audit (not just councillors doing their best) is bearing fruit.

The last item on the agenda related to the appointment of external auditors.  I was astonished to hear an independent member of the Committee say that the Committee was being asked to make a decision about how to appoint its auditors after the official deadline for one of the two methods (the national method through Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd (PSAA)) had passed (although we might still get under the wire).

I also heard from an independent member that 99% of similar bodies use the PSAA method.  This seems correct as if one looks on the PSAA website only 11 bodies are using the other route.  Two of these are Cornwall Council and the Council of the Isles of Scilly.  Indeed, from this it appears that the decision has already been made.  Cornwall Council is listed as having made the decision to go the other route.

The paper for members (which omitted to explain any of this relevant information) said that the benefit of us doing our own procurement is that we could 'keep it local'.

This would be great.  However, the fundamental point with auditors is to ensure that the Council’s relationship is not too ‘cosy' with them.  Further, they should not only be independent but be seen to be so.

When I asked which firms would meet all the criteria set by the Council about locality working and have the skills for the job, it became apparent that it would only be Grant Thornton.  Other national firms would have the qualifications but they would need to fund a local office.

It was the view of the independent members of the Committee that the work of auditing Cornwall Council, RCHT, Council of Isles of Scilly and related Council companies was unlikely to justify an office.

I have no reason to doubt the integrity of Grant Thornton but clear and transparent processes are very important.

In this connection, my reason for attending the Audit Committee was that I understood there would be an update on the National Audit Office investigation into the Council’s LOBO debt. There was. Grant Thornton said that the investigation was ongoing and was unlikely to be resolved before August (so nearly a year).

This has arisen out of objections to the Council’s accounts about debt inherited from the old Lib Dem led County Council.  The objector is, I understand, seeking to establish as to whether the LOBOs (particularly the ‘inverse floaters’, described by the auditors as ‘unique to Cornwall’ - not in a good way)  are ‘irrational’ and possibly illegal.  They certainly appear to be irrational. This was a case of heads the banks win and tails, Cornwall loses.

In a spirit of independence and transparency I would be obliged if the finance dept or the auditors would send me copies of the objections.  Cornwall Council should be campaigning to get out of these loans.  It should not be covering them up.

This matter was discussed at 2nd September’s Audit committee but minuted as if it was almost a good news story.  It was also discussed at Full Council on 21 February but minuted as if it was no big deal.  That is not what Channel 4 thought.

This is head in your hands stuff.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Fiona Ferguson

Tuesday, 25 April 2017

European Union Culture Bid

Rules of the Culture Competition EU Decision 445/2014

BBC Radio 4 - Any Questions   Start at 41 minutes in.

I campaigned for Remain. The Lib Dem/Indy Council sat on the fence but now worries Cornwall may receive less funding.

In any event, for the Council to enter this competition now, to promote 'ever closer union', is incompetent or treats the Referendum result with contempt or both.

Even Lord Ashdown, President of the European Movement was concerned.

Wednesday, 19 April 2017

Lord Teverson: Should Councillors only be paid allowance if they attend meetings?

The Lib Dems are running a campaign against the poor attendance record of a sitting independent Cornwall councillor. They certainly have a point.

It is an interesting question as to whether councillors should be paid an allowance only if they turn up to meetings.

Certainly this Council has many pointless meetings and many meetings go on far too long.  With the officer time involved this wastes substantial sums of public money but the Council does not count the cost of officer time unless a member wants a traffic improvement scheme. The number and length of meetings also makes it difficult for councillors who need to make ends meet by doing other jobs.

 The Indy/Lib Dem administration arranged over 50 meetings/events/'workshops' in the last year to debate governance and how many councillors there should be in 2021. They consider that very worthwhile.

Anyway, to consider the question,  if we take Lord Teverson, who is standing for the Lib Dems in St Mewan:

Previously when he was a Cornwall Councillor he was a poor attendee. In his last year as a councillor (2012/2013) he  attended only 7 out of 18 meetings of the Council/its committees at which he was expected. An attendance rate of 39%. But he claimed his full allowances of £12,128.

In contrast in the same year (2012/2013) he attended the House of Lords on 133 days (out of a possible 139). An attendance rate of 96%.

The Lords generally pay £300 a day provided you turn up, plus various expenses. Lord Teverson's total House of Lords claim for 2012/13 was £62,583.

Thursday, 13 April 2017

'No money' Council spends close to £250k on communication 'experts'

The Lib Dem/ Indy Council think the problem they have is that people in Cornwall have 'scant regard' for their achievements.

They hope this will be fixed by taking on communication experts and by finding a way of making councillors less critical of the Council. They are to be required to show 'respect' for the Council.

Head of Public Relations advertised (in Feb when the Council were announcing further budget cuts) at £74k

Head of Communications to whom Head of PR reports (recruiting now) estimated at £86k

Add 20% for their pension contributions

Add 13 % for Employer national insurance contributions

Totals £212k

  • Add their 'on costs' - expenses, office accommodation and support staff

Tuesday, 11 April 2017

Councillor Allowances 2015/16

Allowances paid to Councillors April 2015 to March 2016

Cornwall Council is required to publish the total annual sum paid to each Councillor for basic, special responsibility, subsistence, travel and dependents carers allowances. The relevant figure is set out in the table below. Cornwall Council's current allowances scheme for Members is available on the Council's website

Councillor Basic Allowance Special Responsibility Allowance Subsistence Travel Dependents Carers' Allowance Total
Andrewes T £12,249.72 £- £- £461.15 £- £12,710.87
Atherton C £12,249.72 £- £- £- £- £12,249.72
Austin B £12,249.72 £2,168.76 £- £1,985.30 £- £16,403.78
Bastin J* £10,998.40 £- £- £334.35 £- £11,332.75
Batters C £12,249.72 £1,357.40 £3.95 £1,612.71 £- £15,223.78
Biscoe B £12,249.72 £15,150.00 £- £138.00 £- £27,537.72
Blakeley H* £2,449.94 £- £- £369.45 £- £2,819.39
Brown Geoff £12,249.72 £15,150.00 £37.95 £2,675.20 £- £30,112.87
Brown Glenton £12,249.72 £- £- £1,165.00 £- £13,414.72
Brown M £12,249.72 £3,252.96 £- £1,956.15 £- £17,458.83
Bull J £12,249.72 £- £- £505.35 £- £12,755.07
Burden N £12,249.72 £6,060.00 £225.00 £5,682.30 £- £24,217.02
Buscombe R £12,249.72 £- £- £1,191.15
Callan M £12,249.72 £- £- £- £- £12,249.72
Candy J £12,249.72 £- £- £1,243.80 £- £13,493.52
Chamberlain S £12,249.72 £- £- £207.45 £- £12,457.17
Chopak N £12,249.72 £- £- £1,248.80 £- £13,498.52
Cole R £12,249.72 £6,060.00 £- £816.30 £- £19,126.02
Coombe J £12,249.72 £1,343.83 £- £1,397.60 £- £14,991.15
Curnow D £12,249.72 £6,060.00 £- £617.85 £- £18,927.57
Deeble T £12,249.72 £- £- £- £- £12,249.72
Dolley L £12,249.72 £2,860.36 £27.05 £1,077.75 £- £16,214.88
Dolophin P £12,249.72 £2,701.76 £- £247.50 £- £15,198.98
Duffin J £12,249.72 £15,150.00 £28.80 £2,609.00 £1,733.00 £31,770.52
Dwelly T £12,249.72 £6,060.00 £- £967.50 £- £19,277.22
Dyer J £12,249.72 £- £- £- £- £12,249.72
Eathorne-Gibbons M £12,249.72 £5,074.36 £6.00 £46.80 £- £17,376.88
Eddowes M £12,249.72 £- £- £447.75 £- £12,697.47
Egerton B £12,249.72 £- £- £- £- £12,249.72
Ekinsmyth D £12,249.72 £- £- £792.00 £- £13,041.72
Elliot D £12,249.72 £- £- £854.55 £- £13,104.27
Ellis B* £10,489.70 £253.97 £- £- £- £10,743.67
Ellison J £12,249.72 £- £- £2,074.70 £- £14,324.42
Evans G £12,249.72 £- £- £992.25 £- £13,241.97
Farrington J £12,249.72 £- £- £1,250.60
Ferguson F £12,249.72 £- £- £- £- £12,249.72
Fitter J £12,249.72 £2,409.72 £- £1,675.80 £- £16,335.24
Flashman J £12,249.72 £- £- £- £- £12,249.72
Folkes A* £6,289.51 £- £- £257.70 £- £6,547.21
Fonk M £12,249.72 £- £- £387.00 £- £12,636.72
Frank H £12,249.72 £- £- £110.95 £- £12,360.67
French T £12,249.72 £- £- £534.60 £- £12,784.32
George M £12,249.72 £- £- £1,570.50 £- £13,820.22
German J £12,249.72 £15,150.00 £9.73 £3,388.41 £- £30,797.86
Gorman L £12,249.72 £- £- £268.20 £- £12,517.92
Greenslade F £12,249.72 £6,060.00 £3.95 £1,527.25 £- £19,840.92
Hall V £12,249.72 £- £- £620.55 £- £12,870.27
Hannaford E £12,249.72 £15,150.00 £- £6,616.05
Harding R £12,249.72 £6,060.00 £- £514.80 £- £18,824.52
Harris M £12,249.72 £- £- £523.80 £- £12,773.52
Harvey P £12,249.72 £- £- £- £- £12,249.72
Hawken S £12,249.72 £- £- £1,430.45 £- £13,680.17
Haycock J £12,249.72 £- £- £1,190.25 £- £13,439.97
Herd J* £7,507.89 £- £- £406.80 £- £7,914.69
Heyward S £12,249.72 £- £- £547.20 £- £12,796.92
Hicks M £12,249.72 £- £- £288.00 £- £12,537.72
Hobbs B £12,249.72 £544.56 £- £942.30 £- £13,736.58
Holley D £12,249.72 £2,168.76 £- £763.80 £- £15,182.28
Holmes R £12,249.72 £- £- £326.90 £- £12,576.62
Hughes D £12,249.72 £1,628.88 £- £1,456.20 £- £15,334.80
James S £12,249.72 £544.56 £- £1,815.75 £- £14,610.03
Jenkin L £12,249.72 £3,252.96 £- £- £- £15,502.68
Jenkinson B £12,249.72 £- £- £436.50 £- £12,686.22
Jewell A £12,249.72 £- £- £369.45 £- £12,619.17
Kaczmarek M £12,249.72 £1,628.88 £- £562.50 £- £14,441.10
Keeling J £12,249.72 £- £- £1,582.61 £- £13,832.33
Kenny J £12,249.72 £3,252.96 £- £696.60 £- £16,199.28
Kerridge A £12,249.72 £13,654.65 £- £1,954.70 £- £27,859.07
King G £12,249.72 £- £- £319.05 £- £12,568.77
Kirk D £12,249.72 £- £- £1,173.15
Knightly S £12,249.72 £- £- £594.45 £- £12,844.17
Lambshead P £12,249.72 £- £- £364.50 £- £12,614.22
Long A £12,249.72 £6,060.00 £- £5,030.10 £- £23,339.82
Lugg J £12,249.72 £- £- £- £- £12,249.72
Luke M £12,249.72 £- £- £ - £- £12,249.72
Maddern B £12,249.72 £- £- £179.10 £- £12,428.82
Mann R £12,249.72 £- £- £1,393.65 £- £13,643.37
Mann S* £2,041.62 £- £- £- £- £2,041.62
Martin P £12,249.72 £748.42 £- £1,217.25 £- £14,215.39
Martin T £12,249.72 £- £130.00 £225.86 £- £12,605.58
Massey G* £2,601.42 £- £- £- £- £2,601.42
May M £12,249.72 £3,511.87 £114.40 £2,533.05 £- £18,409.04
McKenna J £12,249.72 £15,150.00 £- £4,445.50 £- £31,845.22
McWilliam S £12,249.72 £- £- £421.20 £- £12,670.92
Mitchell A £12,249.72 £- £- £2,110.50 £- £14,360.22
Mitchell P £12,249.72 £- £- £54.90
Moyle M £12,249.72 £6,060.00 £- £359.10 £- £18,668.82
Mustoe J £12,249.72 £- £- £128.65 £- £12,378.37
Nicholas S £12,249.72 £- £- £926.55 £- £13,176.27
Nolan R £12,249.72 £6,060.00 £- £- £- £18,309.72
Olivier C £12,249.72 £- £- £ - £- £12,249.72
Parsons D £12,249.72 £862.56 £- £2,532.60 £- £15,644.88
Pascoe L £12,249.72 £- £- £265.50 £- £12,515.22
Paynter A £12,249.72 £15,150.00 £29.62 £5,774.15 £1,429.75 £34,633.24
Pearce N £12,249.72 £- £- £495.00 £- £12,744.72
Pearn M £12,249.72 £- £- £- £- £12,249.72
Penhaligon L £12,249.72 £- £- £- £- £12,249.72
Penny A £12,249.72 £- £- £1,580.40 £- £13,830.12
Pollard J £12,249.72 £20,200.08 £ - £3,669.40 £- £36,119.20
Pugh D £12,249.72 £- £- £385.20 £- £12,634.92
Rich L £12,249.72 £1,363.56 £- £29.70 £- £13,642.98
Rix S £12,249.72 £4,968.55 £- £298.80 £- £17,517.07
Robinson J* £10,998.40 £- £- £70.65 £- £11,069.05
Rogerson P £12,249.72 £6,060.00 £- £730.85 £- £19,040.57
Rogerson S £12,249.72 £- £- £493.65 £- £12,743.37
Rotchell R £12,249.72 £6,060.00 £- £- £- £18,309.72
Rowe J £12,249.72 £15,150.00 £- £3,564.75 £- £30,964.47
Rule C £12,249.72 £6,060.00 £- £1,640.70 £- £19,950.42
Sanger W £12,249.72 £- £- £1,131.30 £- £13,381.02
Saunby D £12,249.72 £- £- £- £- £12,249.72
Scrafton D £12,249.72 £428.48 £- £827.10 £- £13,505.30
Sleeman D £12,249.72 £- £- £647.55 £- £12,897.27
Stoneman J £12,249.72 £- £- £- £- £12,249.72
Taylor R £12,249.72 £6,060.00
Thomas I £12,249.72 £- £- £297.00 £- £12,546.72
Thomas J £12,249.72 £- £- £525.00 £- £12,774.72
Toms A £12,249.72 £6,060.00 £- £- £- £18,309.72
Toms H £12,249.72 £- £- £64.80 £- £12,314.52
Trubody G £12,249.72 £2,168.76 £- £1,302.60 £- £15,721.08
Wallis A £12,249.72 £15,150.00 £12.95 £3,823.65 £- £31,236.32
Watson D £12,249.72 £1,052.04 £- £2,371.65 £- £15,673.41
Webber R £12,249.72 £544.56 £- £410.40 £- £13,204.68
White P £12,249.72 £- £- £228.45 £- £12,478.17
Williams P £12,249.72 £- £- £147.60
Wood J £12,249.72 £2,036.29 £- £1,007.10 £- £15,293.11

* served only part of the year