A poor inheritance
The North East Lincs inheritance from Humberside in 1996 was not a happy one. The administration had been based on the north bank, so the new local authority had to start almost from scratch. Grimsby and Cleethorpes had been different local authorities with different traditions. There was a duplication and a multiplicity of offices. Finance from the start was very tight.
Nature of the local communities
Grimsby and Cleethorpes
were both communities with serious social problems. Unemployment was double the national average. There were great inequalities in housing and health, and crime was worse than average. Being 'at the end of the line', there was a tendency to be inward looking, and there was no clear vision of future development.
A New Century
In the first five years of the this century the council was bombarded with a series of very critical reports. The criticisms were of departments such as Social Services, Environmental Services, benefit administration and so on, as well as of the council as a whole.
Both the Labour administration at the turn of the century, and then the Tory/LibDem one, found it difficult to respond constructively, because they thought the problem was one of finance, and both administrations felt themselves severely restricted financially. It took an outsider to not only recognise the nature of the problem, but also to have a vision of and viable plans for the future.
The Harbinger of Progress
In 2005 the council commissioned and received three reports, which together could form the basis for the council's development.
The first one was about asset management and the council's buildings. The second was into customer services, e-government, and ITC. The third was into how the delivery of council services could be improved.
The present council has six main departments (or directorates). They were occupying 51 different buildings. An interim solution was proposed to reduce them to 17.
Council Efficiency
The NCC Enterprise report was extremely critical of the existing administrative arrangements. The council's attempt to save money by cuts in IT was a false economy. And more generally: "The council has an unique organisational approach to ICT -- it appears to capture the disadvantages of the centralised and decentralised models whilst at the same time avoiding the benefits of the federal approach."
The council, according to this report, failed to focus sufficiently on customer needs. They suggested targets the council could set themselves, such as "95% of people should be seen within 10 minutes", and "95% of phone calls should be answered in 20 seconds".
They argue that reforms should be "transformational" rather than "incremental", and that a transformation partner should be employed to help implement the proposals. Reorganisation to make better use of IT could bring substantial financial savings and provide a significantly better service.
Service Delivery
The third report, having examined the management of all the council departments, and considered alternative methods of delivery, set out a strategy for improving the efficiency of the council and the delivery of council services. It took into account the recommendations of the two reports above.
So, how to carry out the recommendations
In July 2005 the cabinet had received the first two reports and agreed to them in principle.
I In January 2006 the cabinet considered all three
reports and the best way forward from here. There was already a
"Performance Improvement Programme", which was taking on board points made in the external reports. It was apparent, however, that if a "Transformational Partner" was required for one part of the development planned, it should be a partner who could cover the whole field.
The Case for an External Partner
If what the reports say is anything like correct, and we believe it is, major changes in both organisation and culture are called for. The council has insufficient resources to make the step change alone. Buying in the expertise of a few individuals would be possible, but less satisfactory than a "partner", who would bring in depth experience and a comprehensive view. A big question is cost. From a council point of view it would be an investment. Given the large anticipated savings, and the long term advantages, it would be well justified.
What it means having a "Partner"
It is neither an extended consultancy nor is it "outsourcing" -- handing over control of part of the council to an outside body. It does mean an outside party taking a lead in running a wide range of council activities, but departing after some years and leaving control as at present. The probable partner is Capita.
What is the Labour Party's attitude?
The Labour Party, through the Labour councillors, supports the project in principle. Constructive criticism is difficult without knowing all the details. The cost could be high. There are bound to be uncertainties, but if our officials can negotiate a good contract, then it is an opportunity we should take.
But it has to be wisely guided. We need Labour people there to see that everyone, right down to the most vulnerable, is properly included.
