merging of services between Southwark and Lambeth Councils

[Pugwash]

Not sure if there is another thread on the Forum about this.

What do people feel about the idea put forward by Southwark labour party,that if they gain control of the council, that they wish to join with Lambeth to provide services to residents who live on these borough boundaries.

Since the LDs lost control in Lambeth,Labour Party seem to have made a bigger hash of managing the borough ( see their housing scandels and massive rent rises) Do we really want to see part of our borough managed by council officers in this borough?. What ever you think about Southwark Council's management, it is generally better than that of Lambeth.

On another note - Southwark's PCT ( or NHS Southwark) are proposing to join forces with Guys and St. Thomas Trust, Kings College Hospital and I believe Lewisham - to provide joint health care services.

[PeckhamRose]

They HAVE joined forces with Guys and St Thomas's. It's a good thing. Sharing skills and expertise and knowledge and the best of the best students for all our benefits.

Become a member of Kings College Hospital Foundation Trust, read up on it, go to meetings. Meet and ask questions of Those In Charge. Then offer your own suggestions to make things better too.

(I had this info in my signature till some mean individuals got all snippy with such helpful information and banned my signature outright. Was just trying to be helpful.)

[PeckhamRose]

Kings College Hospital Foundation Members' Newsletters.

[James Barber]

I think the Labour party idea is to merge services between Lambeth and Southwark. As Southwark Labour party can't for political reasons say anything in Southwark is well run they've effectively said that all Southwark council services would be run from Lambeth town hall in Brixton and adopt Labour Lambeth models for running things.This implies all Southwark council housing will be transferred to The Lambeth Arms Length Management Organisation - a quango - the Lambeth one increased council tenant rents by 17% while stopping even essential repairs.

They've said they'd cancel the Veolia recyclnig and waste contract (cllr Gordon Nardell last council assembly). Without that waste centre can't increase recycling beyond 30%. Lambeth have consulted on an incinerating everything option which would probably be the only way forward. The improvement in Southwark schools would probably reduce to Lambeth rate of improvement.

Probably more significant is the short term disruption. Merging any two organisations is painful and very disruptive. I work in the private sector and have been in mergers at operational management level. They are painful and really hard to ensure services are maintained. Longer term spending money remotely is rarely good value. That's why the Liberal Democrats want to devolve more power and money to local Community Councils. Giving local residents real influence over local spending.

I guess good news is clear choice between centralising Labour parties of Lambeth and Southwark and decentralising Liberal Democrats.

[Eileen]

Irrespective of the party political arguments on this, is it really sensible to merge services which are the responsibility of representatives elected by completely different electorates? Next time round the vote could be different and the whole thing would have to be unraveled. Better maybe to look at the way services on either side of the borough boundaries are managed. This is not the same as merging them. But the administrative borough boundaries do mean that local areas that are divided by the boroughs often get a raw deal as there is no integrated management for what are divided neighbourhoods. Whoever is in power in either borough really should do something about that on all the borough boundaries. In this area it certainly affects Camberwell adversely according to the SE5 Forum. I live on the edge of three Community Councils - Nunhead & Peckham Rye, Camberwell and Dulwich. I know the bad affect of that even inside the same borough. I shudder to think what it is like if a borough boundary is at the end of your street.

[VikkiM]

James what a load of rot and scaremongering you have managed to come up with!

What Lambeth and Southwark Labour have pledged is to hold a summit meeting of senior council officers to see how the boroughs might work together to give residents a better and more consistent service and to see if we can save some money. Whoever wins the council this time is not going to be blessed with the 37% increase in grant from central government that you have enjoyed since 2002.

As Eileen rightly points out people who live on borough boundaries often get a raw deal. I see this all the time in Peckham Rye ward where we have a long boundary with Lewisham. You yourself are part of the scrutiny committee that sensibly committed to work more closely with Lewisham and Lambeth over primary school places this year following last year?s chaos. Once primary school applications are done on a common form next year could we work more closely together? Lambeth?s central schools team is better staffed and better-rated than Southwark?s. Many children cross borough boundaries to go to school. Would closer working therefore be such a terrible thing?

Our council tax collection is currently done (badly) by a private company based in Bromley ? that?s not much of a localised service. After a long campaign by Labour to bring it back in house the Lib Dems and Tories are finally committed to doing this. Is this the kind of back office service that boroughs could do together?

It?s also worth pointing out that whilst Lambeth is officially the fastest improving council in the country. Southwark is the worst run council in inner London and has the worst council housing in London. Both boroughs have much to do to improve and I think any working together would be much more about co-operation (and sharing expertise as PeckhamRose points out) rather than centralisation.

Over the weekend several residents have also mentioned the unpleasant undertones of your leaflet about these plans. Whilst I do think you are talking a lot of nonsense I?m very sure that this was not intended by you and your colleagues. However, I do think the tone of your leaflet shows a real lack of judgement.

Rather than continuing with your unremittingly negative campaigning, where are your leaflets setting out your eight years of achievement and improvement in Southwark? Where is your local manifesto setting out your agenda and vision for the next four years?

Victoria.

Peckham Rye Labour

[James Barber]

Hi Victoria,

I'm staggered that you should even mention the chaos of Lambeth housing. It privatised Lambeth council housing into an ALMO that has no money for any repairs and had to put up council rents by 17%.

I've been on Southwark's Audit & Governance committee. I've seen the Audit Commission at first hand. Truly astounding pressure to do daft things to earn Audit Commission points. In Lambeth they open a 'pop up' secret library to increase the number of hours libraries were open to earn more Audit Commission points.

As you know the in year council tax collection is low but the final council tax collection rate is the same as Westminster and Wandsworth. Yes, the council tax collection is being insourced but the contract agreed before 2002 when under Labour was a two year termination clause.

sorry you've not seen the East Dulwich Leaflets setting out our achievements in East dulwich - new ?6.1M Dulwich Leaisure centre renovation, Dulwich Library now open 7 days a week. You'll have seen Peckham Rye Lib Dem leaflets wondering where their Labour cllrs have been for the last 4+ years.

[PeckhamRose]

Sorry, but *sighhhhhhhhhhhhhh*

[The Chair]

I'd rather this thread didn't turn into a bun-fight between Labour and the LibDems.

James, Vikki.....I'm looking in your direction. Please conduct yourselves with some decorum and debate the issue at hand rather than trying to score cheap political points.

As PeckhamRose says, this is exactly the sort of stuff that turns people away from politics, even at a local level.

This thread poses some interesting points about shared services and efficiencies of scale - why not start there?

[Applespider]

The borough boundary between Southwark and Lewisham runs along the middle of my road.

Shared services would seem to make sense though on some levels (e.g. an agreement to review/take action on things like street lighting, public bins and snow-clearing with a common frequency. Sometimes common sense manages to take over though so our Southwark street cleaner (never seen a Lewisham one) does sweep up the leaves on the Lewisham side of the road presumably on the grounds they'd blow over anyhow.

[Smiler]

The Southwark primary care trust (PCT) / Guy's and St Thomas' thing is a separate issue and might be good for discussion on a separate thread. PCTs are being required to separate their commissioning and provider functions by the government, so if services are transferred, the staff who provide those services will be transferring to another employer.

Think that the idea in this area is that the Guy's and St Thomas' Trust take over the provision of the community services from several of the PCTs.

(I don't have any direct interest, but am a public member of Kings and am interested in NHS organisation etc.)

[James Barber]

In my day job I manage a team who operational relationships for a FTSE100 company in a particualr category.

Consolidating contracts can offer savings - great buying power, economies of scale.

Consolidation can add cost and affect service - more stakeholder management, less flexibility.

One of the biggest criticsm of local government is the lack of flexibility and service not meeting people's expectations. Consolidating services is unlikely to offer increased flexibility. Also, stakeholder management would be almost impossible with administrations of difference political values and such a huge effort for any contract changes as two council assemblies would need to agree. I think it would be more honest for Labour to propose merging the councils if the Labour belive greater scale will bring economies. Much as Ken Livngstone proposed London's 32 councils be merged into 6-8 super boroughs.

I'm clear my party want to devolve more power down to Southwark's 8 Community Council's. This gets more decision making into the local community where local circumstances affect decisions and avoid local waste.

[PeckhamRose]

But the individual areas and the powers within them in Southwark are now being brought down to two, just north and south.

Discuss.

[James Barber]

Hi PeckhamRose,

I don't understand your post.

Who is brinding Southwark into just north and south?

Regards james.

[Loz]

If we are going to merge services, can we do it with a borough that is not a complete administrative disaster area?

[PeckhamRose]

Services are being changed to being just north and south, that's what was discussed at the recent Partnership Board meeting. It's been going on for a while apparently, and makes monitoring them within each of the eight community council areas mighty difficult.

[SteveT]

What Loz said.

If we merge a few boroughs together we could then call it GLC 2 and dig up Red Ken to run it, just like the old days.

[jim_p]

Does anyone know of any existing examples of services being split between two councils and how effective that has been?

[bil]

Let's hope (ensure) Labour don't gain control of Southwark then.

[PeterJohn]

Some thoughts from me on this subject, as I was one of those who started the debate in the first place!

There are two principal motivating factors behind the proposal that Southwark and Lambeth should discuss working together after May 6th.

We all know that the next few years will be incredibly difficult financially for public authorities. It is likely that we will be expected to do more; or at least the same; with less money from central government. A Labour Council in Southwark is committed to keeping council tax low - all of our shadow budgets over the past 4 years would have delivered cheaper council tax bills for Southwark residents than those actually delivered. So our commitment to keeping council tax low is clear and demonstrated.

So we are going to have to look at other ways in which we can save money in order to preserve and improve our front-line services. In exploring ways to save money it must make sense to at least talk to our neighbouring boroughs to see if we can make savings. I simply do not accept that sharing some back-office costs is an impossibility or that it will bring Southwark crashing to the ground! And the idea of talking to Lambeth is not about handing over service provision to them! I simply do not understand how that follows.

Southwark already buys its' communication services from Westminster Council. Southwark already works with other South East London boroughs to buy its' energy and keep costs down. I haven't seen anyone complaining about these forms of working which are intended to reduce direct costs to Southwark and Southwark Council Tax payers.

There is no question that Southwark would remain accountable for the services it provides and that those services would be provided by Southwark Council. And there are no circumstances in which a Labour Council in Southwark would agree to any proposal which risked the quality of any front-line service which we provide.

So the ludicrous idea of some wholesale transfer of Southwark to Lambeth is just that - ludicrous!

The second motivating factor concerns those areas of both boroughs, such as the South Bank, Camberwell and Herne Hill, where residents and businesses complain about a current lack of 'joined-up' thinking by the two councils. We have to work with our neighbouring borough in a way which ensures that service provision in these areas is consistent and does not make them 'no-mans lands'. I have been in many Camberwell Community Council meetings where complaints have been raised about what Lambeth or Southwark is doing - and the unintended consequences which flow to the other side of the road, which is in the other borough. Again, I can see nothing damaging or illogical in having a relationship with Lambeth which ensures that this does not happen in future.

So I think the really important question for this debate is why people think it is a bad idea to talk to neighbouring boroughs about saving money to preserve front-line services? And why it is such a bad idea to talk to our neighbouring boroughs about making life better for those areas which have cross-border problems which are currently not addressed?

I am absolutely open to a debate on this issue - but it seems that either to reject it out of hand or to throw around silly scare stories does not contribute to that debate.

[Loz]

Peter,

The whole 'shared services' model within government is a good one, though doesn't seem to be warmly greeted by a lot of departments. There is definitely scope for saving money that should be explored.

However, when councillors/candidates like Vikki say things like, "What Lambeth and Southwark Labour have pledged is to" it immediately make me worry that it's more a single party stitch-up, rather than a well-thought out strategy. I want to know that you will shared services with the best partner, not just the closest one that is also Labour controlled.

Your explanation is a lot better - the fact that the council can work with neighbouring boroughs like Westminster with a different controlling party is more of a comfort.

(PS As one of your constituents that voted for you last time, I'll say again: the stupid waste of money that is free school meals for middle and upper classes is a complete vote loser for me.)

[James Barber]

Comparing cross authority purchasing and supply of energy, which comes from highly regulated industries with defined legal supply specifications, with other services where the definition of what is supplied can vary enormously is silly.

[PeterJohn]

Loz,

I'm glad that I've provided some reassurance on the Lambeth and Southwark services issue.

On free school meals - I have seen this reaction before and it surprises me - although I understand the debate of means testing v universal provision. I have to say that I haven't spoken to anyone who actually works in a Southwark primary school who thinks the idea is a bad one. So I'll try and offer my explanation.

At the moment there are about 1800 children in primary schools in Southwark who are entitled to free school meals on a means-tested basis, but who don't take them up. I cannot tell you what they each end up eating for lunch, but I am quite sure that it will not be a balanced diet. I have heard from several teachers that some children will bring packed lunches which are full of the cheapest and least nutritious food that you can get from the cheapest supermarkets. These sorts of eating habits have led to Southwark being the borough with the highest childhood obesity rates. And this would be consistent with the study that showed that only 1% of packed lunches have the correct nutrition a child needs at lunchtime. So if we can get these children eating healthy lunches that has to be a good thing?

But I have also heard from school cooks who have to deal with children whose parents are on the borderline of free school meal eligibility, and where the parents have fallen behind with the payments. Do they turn those children away when they come for their meals? Of course they don't, but it puts them in a really difficult position. By the way the income limit for free school meals entitlement is only ?16,190 - so there are many families who are not currently entitled but who I'm sure you would not regard as middle or upper class.

And then there are the children who will only get a balanced meal at school. If we can do anything to improve their eating habits - again to tackle childhood obesity - this must be a good thing.

There is still a real stigma which is still attached to means-tested free school meals and I think we should be doing all that we can to try and break down some of the social barriers which are enforced at such a young age. There is plenty of time to build those social barriers in later life!

For a council to provide services only on a means tested basis sounds more like Tory Barnet and the 'easyjet' council model. Councils and the government provide a whole variety of services on a universal basis - education, the NHS, defence, rubbish collection, roads etc etc etc. Why is it only this policy of universal provision which you are opposed to?

If it is a question of affordability - then I believe we can afford it. We proposed a shadow budget in February which provided free school meals and would have seen your council tax bill cut by 2%. So I don't believe that is a reason to oppose it.

Maybe I'm being idealistic and naive in thinking that this is a policy which will change things. But pilots of this policy in other boroughs have shown really positive results - and what is wrong with a bit of idealism anyway in politics!

James,

Disappointed at your latest contribution to the debate! But maybe you have been flummoxed by a sensible explanation of a sensible proposal!

[James Barber]

Hi Peter,

I'm a professional buyer of services. You're a barrister.

I suspect I have a little more experience of buying from suppliers and the issues involve than you or your team much as I you have infinately more experience of beign ab arrister than I have.

[Huguenot]

PeterJohn, I think you're confusing a 'principle' argument like universal provision with a practical argument 'why should I pay for this?'

Another way to think about it is to compare your essentially Marxist approach: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" with more modern liberalist thinking: "from each according to his responsibilities, to each according to their rights"

Your argument seems to be that some parents are stupid (erm... what? so I have to pay for their stupidity?) and some people are borderline (erm... that't the thing about borders); therefore the kids have a need.

Your surpirse is that you think people don't recognise the 'need'

However, I don't think anyone would challenge the 'need', I think people are challenging the 'responsibility' - is it the taxpayer?

You've got a lot of people out there deliberately doing the washing up badly. Your average joe doesn't think the appropriate solution is for the taxpayer to hire a maid.

People don't want to pay for the kids of people richer than them simply because they give their kids crap food. At some point these parents have to take responsibility. Everyone's tightening their belts, and you want to throw poor people's money at rich kids because their parents are stupid. Vote loser.

On the combined services front, you're simply not thinking long term. For all the abuse 'business' gets, it often thinks long term.

For example, a good business doesn't often go for the cheaper 'all in one' offering that delivers economies of scale, mainly because it reduces competition. This year you cut costs, next year you have a monopoly, no competition, costs rise and services suffer.

For that reason a good business spreads its bets.

If Lambeth and Southwark pool resources to cut costs, that's good socialist thinking, but rubbish business and we all pay in the long term.

Besides, the inevitable conclusion of economic integrations is political integration - and I think that many people don't welcome the idea of living under a vast bueaurcracy known as Lambewark.