Shared services - political panacea or potential time bomb?
Friday, April 18th, 2008Shared services has been lauded as the Governments latest “fix all” approach to doing more with fewer people at less cost whilst driving up the quality of service to the citizen (you and me). I look forward to the reduction in my community tax bill.
Over the years we have seen many attempts to introduce new schemes to make real measurable savings in the public sector. If we look at the provision of Leisure facilities in the UK over the last 25 years you will note the unmistakable finger of central government in the pie. Interestingly Leisure provision has never been a statutory requirement for local government but it’s a potential vote winner so they all provide it. The UK went from a “Sport for all” ethos through rounds of CCT (compulsory competitive tendering) as a management solution followed by a “best value” approach and now we have “Trusts” running a great number of our pubic facilities. What has changed? Well the amount of tax paid by the trusts for starters but has the service improved?
The landscape of local government is set to change. The spectre of unitary status hangs over some authorities and many believe that shared services are the more palatable prelude to a single tier local government in the long term. However many issues need to be considered. Currently the political fashion is to opt for shared services but what if this proves unpopular or flawed? If you have dismantled your own infrastructure and service teams what can you return to?
Recently we hear of political unrest in the south west. Southwest One was created to run administration services for Somerset and Taunton Deane councils. However Ian Liddell-Grainger, Tory MP for Bridgwater questioned how the deal was set up. He said it was shrouded in secrecy and he “feared corruption”. Despite this outburst Southwest One has been bolstered by Avon and Somerset Police Authority which has also signed up to the scheme, in a deal worth £185m over 10 years and involving about 600 staff.
In the meantime, the majority of local authorities delay serious investment across the board, whilst they pay lip service to a shared service approach across their departments. It seems to me that dithering and delaying must be affecting the services provided and the lack of real investment will damage their organisations. It would be far better if Parliament stopped setting up Quangos to provide guidelines and made real decisions about the size and shape of local government.
RSS Feed