Dating Mobility Vouchers Auctions Bingo Lose Weight Franchising Shopping Book Shop Compare Broadband Wine Shop Legal Store FlatShare Cruises Festivals

Columnists

UK NEWS

MET OFFICE £12M BONUS FARCE

Jonathan Powell wants money repaid

Saturday February 27,2010

By Mark Reynolds

Comment Speech Bubble Have your say(26)

STAFF at the Met Office have been awarded £12million in bonuses despite repeatedly getting forecasts wrong, it was revealed yesterday.

The “performance-related” pay was handed out over the past five years even though the national weather centre has been guilty of a long list of embarrassing howlers, including last year’s infamous ‘barbecue summer’ prediction.

The news comes just weeks after it was revealed the organisation’s chief executive is now better paid than the Prime Minister after receiving a 25 per cent pay rise.

Last night, other independent forecasters described the payments as “obscene”. Jonathan Powell, senior forecaster with Positive Weather Solutions, said: “If this was performance-related pay, they should have the money taken back off them.

“It’s obscene and the public won’t take kindly to it either. They have got all the key forecasts wrong, including last summer and this winter.”

The bonus payments were revealed by junior defence minister Kevan Jones following a question in Parliament by Democratic Unionist MP Sammy Wilson.

Mr Jones’s answer revealed that despite the Met Office’s stormy record when it comes to accurate forecasts, its employees have continued to enjoy an array of sunny rewards.

Between 2004 and 2009, the 1,750 staff at the weather centre shared £12.3million in bonus payments.

Mr Jones also revealed that in 2008/09 a total of £2.72million was paid out in bonuses, with the average award per employee being £1,485.

But he insisted staff at the forecasting service, which is part of the Ministry of Defence but self-funded, were aware their performance-related pay needed to be “re-earned each year”.

Mr Jones said: “Met Office staff are eligible to receive performance-related pay based on achievements against specific targets agreed and monitored by the Met Office Board, which are linked to the success of the Met Office at either individual, team or organisational level.

“Payments are non-consolidated and represent part of Met Office staff remuneration which is at risk and needs to be re-earned each year.”

The Met Office has faced a barrage of criticism over its weather forecasts in recent times.

Last year it unveiled Britain’s most powerful super computer, which is capable of 1,000 billion calculations every second.

The £30million system is more powerful than 100,000 PCs and is housed in special halls bigger than two football pitches. The computer, which provides meteorological information to a team of 400 scientists, requires 1.2 megawatts of energy to run – enough to power a small town.

At the time, the Met Office said the machine would improve day-to-day forecasting but would still not guarantee accuracy. And despite the huge technological investment, forecasters were left red-faced when last February Britain endured the worst snow for 18 years after the Met Office had warned only of a mere flurry.

Then came last year’s promise of a barbecue summer which famously ended up as a wash-out.

Its most recent failure was to predict a mild winter in 2009/10 only to see heavy snow and freezing temperatures make it the coldest for 30 years.

Last night a Met Office spokesman justified the bonus payments, saying: “The money is from profit which has been made by the Met Office by selling our commercial services to commercial customers.”

Details of the payments follow last month’s revelation that John Hirst, the Met Office’s chief executive, received between £195,000 and £200,000 in pay and bonuses in 2009/09.

The figure is a 25 per cent increase on the £155,000 to £160,000 salary he received when he joined in 2007/08.

Mr Hirst’s generous remuneration package even trumps the £192,414 salary paid to Gordon Brown.

Amazon.co.uk Widgets

BONUSES

27.02.10, 8:39pm

These performance related bonuses are not the same as the billions that bankers like to award themselves. The Govt. stipulated that certain areas of the public sector were to introduce performance related pay. The main reason that they did this was so that they could give a non-consolidated pay rise that would not count towards a pension. Instead of getting a few pounds a week added to your pay packet, you would get it all in one lump sum.
Funny thing is, the Govt. themselves didn't have their pay rise in this format but that wouldn't matter anyway because they always had their expenses to fall back on until someone blew the whistle.
At the moment, the Govt. are drawing up plans to get rid of thousands of public sector workers so they are currently manipulating the media to bad mouth public sector workers. Once the papers have made the public despise public sector workers, there will be no support from Joe public when the cuts come.
It's always the lowest paid that end up losing their livlihoods but any living in rented accommodation will end up costing the Govt. more in benefits than what they were paid in wages.
Are the media sucking up to the Govt. by this sort of shabby journalism or have they really been conned?
Can you really believe everything the papers say or are they just part of the Govt. machine?

• Posted by: jonocynic9 • Report Comment

OH , THERE IS WORSE ... SO MUCH WORSE ?

27.02.10, 7:08pm

ONE OF THE WORST PIECES OF JOURNALISM I HAVE EVER SEEN
27.02.10, 5:56pm

One of the worst pieces of journalism I have ever seen

• Posted by: Steve123 • Report Comment

Try the BBC !

• Posted by: Harri_if_hipphopper_wants_a_date_just_ask • Report Comment

THEDA MUST HAVE BEEN RELEASED FOR THE WEEKEND - ANOTHER CARE IN THE COMMUNITY FAILURE.

27.02.10, 6:41pm

AS USUAL DWARF, YOUR LOGIC DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

• Posted by: TheDA • Report Comment

Of course it wont to you - you lack the intelligence to comprehend common sense. Thats why youre a socialist.

If a customer (in this case the government) believes it is being overchaged then it should take its business elsewhere.

To pay bonuses like this, for failure, clearly the met office is charging too much. So government should take its business elsewhere.

Even a total cretin can understand that, so maybe if you think hard enough even you might manage to understand it.

Of course government wont take its business elsewhere because the met office is a puppet paid to support the global warming con trick.

Also of course, "the righteous" like you, just cant bear to admit that others are right. Thats your problem, your too stupid to see when you are wrong - which is most of the time.

• Posted by: Yet_Another_Dwarf • Report Comment

ONE OF THE WORST PIECES OF JOURNALISM I HAVE EVER SEEN

27.02.10, 5:56pm

One of the worst pieces of journalism I have ever seen

• Posted by: Steve123 • Report Comment

AS USUAL DWARF, YOUR LOGIC DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

27.02.10, 5:14pm

If some government departments are not happy with the service they get from the Met Office, then they are at liberty to not renew the contracts. The government though can not be expected to have a direct say in the pay and benefits that are paid to employees of private companies just because they do some government work. I doubt very much whether any government would want to do that. The tendering process may well have a bearing on company profits and indirectly therefore pay and conditions. If a contract is agreed and the contractor makes a profit which then brings into effect performance related pay, or even one-off bonuses, it has noting to do with the contractee.

Can you honestly see a builder agreeing to do your extension if you demand having a say in what pay and bonuses he pays himself and his workers?

• Posted by: TheDA • Report Comment

SOME PEOPLE ARE LIKE SHEEP BLINDLY FOLLOWING WHAT GOVERNMENT TELLS THEM

27.02.10, 4:23pm

As I stated in my previous post, some of you people really need to get a grip and stop howling at the moon over things which are of no concern to you!

There are plenty of things which you should be genuinly concerned about, where you can actually influence what happens.

Why not expend your vociferous rantings in the direction of those: but do check the basis of your argument first, or you'll make an idiots of yourselves again!

• Posted by: StuartPlymouth • Report Comment

And people like you who simply sit back and accept whatever is done saying there is "nothing you can do about it" are precisely the reason why government gets away with obbing us blind.

If something is morally wrong then it must be challenged.

And YES, any public money gives the taxpayer the RIGHT to DEMAND value for money.

If the met office (or any one else contracted to the state) is going to pay injustified bonuses, then a responsible and respectable government would withdraw those contracts and place them with a more responsible organisation.

If I thought Tescos were ripping me off to pay their directors excessive undeserved bonuses - Id stop shopping there (I dont anyway). Governments, spending OUR money should do the same.