London super-council ‘could save £100m a year’

Three Conservative London councils have announced plans that could see them merge all their services and create the UK’s first “super-council”.

Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, and Westminster say the move could save £50m to £100m a year.

Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has backed the plans and wants other councils to follow.

But critics argue a wholesale merger would damage the local provision of services and lower standards.

They say fewer staff would be trying to cover a bigger area.

Hammersmith and Fulham leader Stephen Greenhalgh admitted there would be “significant reductions” in staff and that the spending cuts meant jobs could not be safeguarded.

Under the proposal, each authority would retain its political identity with its own elected leaders and councillors.

‘Absolute guarantee’

Efforts are already under way to merge the three children’s services departments, which cover education, but now the authorities are considering whether to go further.

The plans will be formally announced later and if they are adopted could create a local authority bigger than Glasgow or Leeds.

A series of working groups will be set up to look at ways of merging three main areas – environmental services, family services and corporate services.

The groups are due to report back by February next year and afterwards more detailed plans will be put out to public consultation.

There have been other examples of pooled resources – South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse district councils share a chief executive – but nothing on this scale.

The Local Government Association said this was the first proposal with initial agreement to potentially share all services, not just back-office ones.

In a joint statement, the councils’ leaders said the initiative would soon become the norm for local authorities looking to keep costs down while delivering quality services.

Eric Pickles says the merger plan leads the way, and voters will expect other councils to follow

Colin Barrow (Westminster), Stephen Greenhalgh (Hammersmith and Fulham) and Sir Merrick Cockell (Kensington and Chelsea) said that potentially sharing every service was a way to “reduce duplication and drive out needless cost”.

Mr Greenhalgh told BBC Radio 4′s Today programme he gave an “absolute guarantee” that merging and sharing services would not compromise the political sovereignty of the three councils.

He said: “There’s a lot of bureaucracy involved with delivering local services. You often find that of the £3 we spend, £1 is spent deciding what to do with the other two.

“This is about minimising that overhead, and we still have political sovereignty, still have the ability to choose how we spend the money locally.”

He added that the councils were not trying to create a “homogeneous blob” but were just being more efficient about the choice of services received.

Mr Pickles said: “These councils are leading the way in local government and voters will expect others to get on board and follow suit.

“This is exactly the sort of innovation that will help councils to protect hard-working families and the most vulnerable.

“By sharing back-office services, they’ll be able to protect the front line – and even improve the choice and services that’s on offer to local residents.”

But the Unite union warned councils against rushing into “untested structures” despite the pressure from cuts.

Its national officer for local government, Peter Allenson, said: “Councils have to be close to the needs of their communities and the people who elect them and pay for them – and council workers need to know who is in charge.

“Super-sizing the delivery of services like this means local councillors become insignificant and have little influence on the services they provide.

“Voters will soon become disenfranchised and wonder what they are paying for.”

Advertisement