Three councils sharing services

Kensington and Chelsea sets one of the lowest council taxes in England, it has some of the highest resident satisfaction ratings, and, yes, its cash reserves look quite healthy too.

So why is it about to embark with Hammersmith and Fulham and the City of Westminster on one of the most radical change programmes in local government history? Council Leader, Sir Merrick Cockell explains.

Like most Conservatives, I’m instinctively suspicious of radicalism. How does the old joke go, about Tories chanting at a political demo? What do we want? Slow, gradual change! When do we want it? In due course!

Well, most of the time that’s me. But it’s a mistake to think Conservatives are never radical. As Edmund Burke said, what dictates whether a political action is “beneficial” or “noxious” is simply the “circumstances” and the circumstances right now dictate radical action.

The nation’s public finances have been shattered and local government is being called to play its part in fixing them.

We understand that and Kensington and Chelsea is actually very good at making savings. Big savings. We have made them year-on-year. But the numbers that have emerged from the spending review are just too large to be addressed by the usual methods.

Over the next four years councils as a whole expect to lose about 28 per cent of their grants. In Kensington and Chelsea we expect our general grant to drop by some £23 million by 2014/15. And there will be reductions too in other grants we get for specific purposes, although we won’t know how large until maybe December.

On top of these reductions, we should allow for initiatives and the unpredictable. In short, something has to give. In common with H&F and Westminster, we don’t want it to be the quality of our key services.

We know that not only do our residents value those services, many of them depend on them. The question we have been asking ourselves is: could we protect those key services by combining management and contracts where it makes sense to do so, on schools and child care for example, and on refuse and adult social care and many other areas too?

Do you know of another way to protect key services when faced with the type of reduction in money that we are facing?

The Royal Borough isn’t interested in ‘one size fits all’ services. But in theory it should be possible to let contracts that respect the fine grain of local preferences. Many local government contracts already do. In Kensington and Chelsea for example some areas get three refuse collections a week, others just two, some back streets are swept once a week, for others it’s several times a day. And all of that is reflected in a single contract.

We see no reason in principle why a three borough management team couldn’t let contracts that cover the three boroughs but are sensitive to the differences in each.

Those shared management teams and those shared contracts could save money. Big money. There have been a lot of figures bandied around but our starting point was: could this shared services process yield a minimum of £10 million of ongoing savings per council? We believe it could, and more. So we are going forward, cautiously. There is no ideology at work here. None of the three boroughs will sacrifice its political independence. We will remain accountable to those who elected us.

Do you believe that three councils sharing services presents any threat to local democracy?

In every service area, the economic and social case will have to be made. And if it isn’t, well then we will have to find another way to save money.

What do you think?

 

Comments sent in

10. On 5 Feb Denis wrote:

I look forward to seeing the said recommendations from the working parties and seeing a full consultation with the electorate.To be sure, as things stand, you do not have a mandate to create the merger that you are suggesting. No doubt. residents of the RBKC will review your proposals and make their comments. Unlike Mr Livingston with the Western Congestion Charging Zone (which has since been discontinued at the will of the electorate), I have no doubt that you will abide by the wishes of your voters.

9. On 23 January B wrote:

The amalgamation of services for three very different boroughs does represent a diminution in one essential of democracy, which is the link between the voter or resident, and the government entity providing the services needed by that person. The proposals will bring about a diminution in expertise related to local issues, and a diminution in  democratic control over services.

The Borough currently serves very efficiently both extremely wealthy wards and those with high levels of deprivation.  Those areas present peculiar service problems that may be common to other wards in the country but not necessarily common to Westminster or Hammersmith & Fulham.  For example in the North Kensington area of the Borough we have and ethnic mix unlike other neighbouring boroughs eg a well-established Moroccan community.  In the south we have wards with the greatest longevity rates in the country, which are not necessarily coupled with incomes to support the later years.  Again not a major feature in neighbouring boroughs.  Our youth problems are not estate gang-related in the same way as those on the large council estates of our neighbouring boroughs.    

Finally, my ward Councillors will have to battle for their residents with both over-arching service providers, and powerful well-paid bureaucrats over whom they have little torque. The accountability of  larger service providers and super-bureaucrats to any elected representatives will be greatly diminished by the 'three borough services amalgamation' plan.    

 
8. On 5 January William wrote:

First a number of dissappointments. One that there are so few comments on this very important issue, how do we encourage more and more constructive ones? Second the original statement rightly says grant income will be cut but should also indicate how overall Council income is expected to perform and the contribution this initative might make overall. We do not require the Council to mislead us into devastating service reductions.

Moving to the positive side, it will be essential that demcratic accountability is maintained. That will be a real challenge where different standards of services and suppliers are offered to a common management team. The philosophy is right but can the implementation be delivered? We should all remember in RBKC that a major part of the desirability of our area is the quality of services we presently enjoy. They should not be put at risk. I look forward to learning more.

7. On 22 December Sally wrote:

I am deeply concerned, over the proposed amalgamation of some services. Kensington is streets ahead on quality, compared to the other boroughs, also the other boroughs are not in as good financial position.

My worries are, that as we are a smaller and better off borough, we will be financialy propping up the other two boroughs. Also by making contracts larger, we will loose quality and particularly in adult care, it could result in deaths, as residents will be more anonomous.

My suggestion would be to cut out the middle men, they have to make a profit and therefore pay low wages, which equals employees, "just doing a job." The council should directly employ and manage thease services, which has to be cheaper than a commercial company paying some of our council tax to share holders.

6. On 10 December Tim wrote:

Preliminary comments at the Kensington and Chelsea Environment Round Table this week on the Three Borough scheme are to ask how one could ensure that a shared senior management team would be sufficiently knowledgeable about the contexts on the ground in each part of three pretty diverse Boroughs.  Close association and familiarity with the problems, needs and opportunities of residents (and businesses) in each locality will be essential to providing sensitive and good services.

Second point: to communicate and consult with residents about this “radical” change, how radical and thorough will the Council be – aside of this initial blog site what better-than-in-the past methods will be used to get many more people involved? 
5. On 29 November Linde wrote:

As a resident of Hammersmith and Fulham for 40 years and an employee of Kensington and Chelsea I would be horrified if they took over any of our services.

I can assure you they are light years behind Kensington and Chelsea and it would be crazy to devalue what this council stands for.
4. On 29 November Simon wrote:

Following up Beverley's comments to which I concur,as a resident of Westminster I have first hand experience of the workings of their highways department and I'm afraid the whole set up from the way you report a defect to their major works isn't a patch on RBKC. Westminster have a very different idea on how a higways department should be run and I believe it is not in the best interests of it's residents.

3. On 23 November Francis wrote:

I can see, and support, the economic and administrative logic in all this. The politic arguments may be more difficult to resolve, as may those day-to-day issues that will impact on the differences between the three boroughs.

My hope is that all the savings can be made in an invisible way, so that, for example, we see no change in the way our rubbish is collected and our streets are cleaned, but we know those tasks are being carried out at a reduced cost.

Schools and care for the elderly must be protected, too. While you may be able to save money by bulk buying educational materials - books and PE equipment, for example - teaching standards must be maintained and special needs must be met.

Above all, the borough's identity must be preserved. And, as residents, we have to be shown that this is happening. If we wanted to live in Hammersmith or Westminster, we'd move there.

You can be sure we'll be watching you.

2. On 21 November Beverley wrote:

The borough's housing benefit service is exceptionally good. The same cannot be said of the other 2 boroughs. How will RBKC seek to preserve the quality of this (and other)RBKC services if it shares services?

1. On 20 November Terence wrote:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these changes.

I support them and acept your point about the practicality of contracts that contain different provision for different places. Please watch that carefully.

Might you also look at the possibility of sharing financial services with a competent, Conservative Council in the Midlands or North of England where costs are so much lower than in London?

Comments are now closed