There is a broad agreement among council leaders in Essex – all 15 of us – that Local Government Reorganisation will simplify local council structures, enable us to work more efficiently and reduce duplication.
Replacing our current old and frankly, not fit-for-purpose two-tier system of a county council and district councils with single-tier unitary authorities responsible for all local services in a particular area should brook no argument. Indeed, it is the common ground on which we have been able to work in partnership to develop proposals for the new councils. We are now at the point where those plans have begun to be published.
There are of course differences of opinion - the County Council, for instance, is firm in its belief that three new unitary councils is the right way forward for Greater Essex.
This week, the councils backing five unitary councils have published their plans, alongside data about the savings they claim their model will achieve.
They have described their proposals as the ‘Goldilocks’ option, ‘just right’, alluding to the fairy tale.
The Government will ultimately judge whether the claims and figures within are closer to a fantasy than the reality of what it costs to run services.
But the simple fact is, the claim that five councils will somehow cost less than three does not stack up. They will not. They will mean more councillors, more officers, more buildings, more unnecessary duplication – and therefore, less money for your services.
Take social care.
The five unitary model assumes that tens of millions of pounds can be shaved off the services we provide to our most vulnerable residents.
This is driven by work that suggests that smaller social care authorities are more efficient than larger authorities.
But that assumption is based on national data, and ignores the fact that Essex already one of the most efficient children’s services in the country.
The risk here is all in the other direction. Create five councils, and you move social care in Essex towards the performance of our neighbours. This will load an extra £100 million of costs on our taxpayers.
The start-up costs of introducing five new councils will take much longer to pay back than introducing three. We will actually be closer to the start of the 22nd Century than the beginning of the 21st by the time the proposals for five new councils will be paid back – in fact, we would be saddling Essex taxpayers with over 50 years of debt.
Then there is the question of Thurrock Council’s debt.
The five unitary proposals marry Thurrock’s huge financial challenges with the most indebted district in the county – Basildon. the three unitary proposal in South Essex is based on a larger geography, offering greater financial stability.
The new unitary covering Basildon and Thurrock, based on our understanding of the five council proposals, would start life owing at least £800 million.
It is true that the Government has indicated it will provide some ongoing financial support to Thurrock, but not yet set out what type, or how much.
This stands in stark contrast to the three unitary proposals we have been developing, which create sustainable council from day one.
We will be publishing a solid, credible, set of figures next week, setting out a credible future for local government in Essex which is simple, smart, and sustainable.
We welcome debate on these. It is also important that we challenge and test the assumptions made in the proposals. That is part and parcel of being evidence-led. And regardless of the outcome, we will work with our partners to secure a better future for Essex residents and businesses.
Leave a comment