SIR – Andy Roberts, Worcester City Council cabinet member for value for money, wants to make matters absolutely clear (Worcester News, May 4).

Worcester City Council’s spending – and whether it has gone up or down, or managed to build up taxpayers’ funds as reserves like a bank – means very little to taxpayers in terms of value for money.

Anyone buying a loaf of bread, children’s shoes, a television or even a car will make value-for-money decisions based on the price on the ticket for those specific goods.

If the price is too high or the goods of poor quality, the consumer will go elsewhere.

Not so with the goods or services provided by any council because no one has any idea of the financial cost on the ticket nor are we allowed to go elsewhere.

As Councillor Roberts will know, the Audit Commission has produced value-formoney profiles on its website for each local council.

Unfortunately, these are not value-for-money profiles since they do not provide the unit cost of any specific article or service.

Worcester City Council is listed on the Audit Commission website and, for example, its expenditure on environmental services is £43.28 per head of population, which is about eight per cent higher than its geographical neighbours whose expenditure is only £40.18.

This information is quite meaningless in value-formoney terms.

How about Coun Roberts, or indeed any county or district councillor, providing us with one unit cost of a single service activity.

Perhaps Worcester City Council could set the proverbial ball rolling by publishing its unit costs for waste collection?

This should be a simple exercise since it already knows what to charge for each brown bin.

Another interesting unit cost would be the actual unit cost of a burial at Worcester City Crematorium which appears to be substantially higher than Malvern Town Council.

BRYAN HAINES
Worcester