For immediate release
-
Major report calls for number of London boroughs to be halved from 32 to as few as 16
-
Savings from consolidation of London councils could reach over £1 billion
- Larger councils would mean increased competition, power and independence, report finds
A landmark report by the TaxPayers’ Alliance campaign group has recommended that the number of boroughs be halved, with 32 councils reduced to as few as 16 plus the City of London. This would be accompanied by "appropriately sized political and bureaucratic leadership structures including fewer councillors and senior staff.” Writing today in City AM, author Shimeon Lee calls London local government “stuck in the past.”
The comprehensive review of the performance of local government in London has found that London borough councils are “unable to operate effectively in their current configuration.” The study found that in particular, the small size of London councils relative to other local authorities in the UK and compared to other major cities in the world imposes significant costs on taxpayers. London has a total of 1,817 councillors, an average of one per 4,838 people. This compares to just 101 in Birmingham, 99 in Leeds, 96 in Manchester, 85 in Glasgow and 63 in Edinburgh. The average across major metropolitan districts in the UK is to have 7,597people per councillor. Reducing the number of councillors could save a potential £12.4 million in councillor allowances and special responsibility allowances. Significant savings could also be made to the cost of staffing, with £51 million of savings in senior staff remuneration and up to £1.1 billion in salaries more generally.
Significantly, the report found that in cases where London councils have cooperated or partnered to merge services, cost savings have been realised, reducing the need for council tax hikes. These include the South London Waste Partnership between Croydon, Kingston, Merton and Sutton; and Achieving for Children, which includes Kingston and Richmond. However in other cases, such as the Tri-borough arrangement between Westminster, Hammersmith and Fulham, and Kenginston and Chelsea, despite improvements in service delivery and cost savings, the arrangement broke down due to political disputes. As a result, the report argues that “where partnerships are not accompanied by political consolidation, they are vulnerable to policy divergence which can end up costing money rather than saving it.”
The report also found that London boroughs face constraints from city wide authorities and that fewer boroughs could increase their power and encourage competition.
Summary of report:
- There are inequalities in political representation between London and other major UK cities.
- Bringing political representation in line with other urban areas in the UK could result in savings of over £12 million a year in councillor allowances and increase the quality of councillors.
- Spending on council staff is substantial with functions often duplicated across London councils. Boroughs have addressed this through partnerships and shared staffing arrangements which have resulted in cost savings.
- Expanding these partnerships across London could result in a lower staff to population ratio and cost savings of up to £51 million in senior staff remuneration and £1.1 billion in salaries more generally.
- Partnerships and arrangements are vulnerable to policy and political divergence and thus need to be accompanied by political consolidation.
- The present system of local government in London is based on outdated assumptions from six decades ago that constrain how boroughs operate.
- Other municipalities outside of the UK demonstrate that true political autonomy requires scale to justify its existence.
- Larger boroughs would enhance local authorities’ power and independence, allowing experimentation and creating greater political diversity and choice for Londoners.
Key recommendations:
- A reduction in the number of boroughs from 32 to as few as 16, with a population of approximately 500,000 residents each.
- This should be accompanied by appropriately sized political and bureaucratic leadership structures including fewer councillors and senior staff.
- Where staffing efficiencies can be achieved without sacrificing service delivery, this would also mean fewer staff.
Shimeon Lee, policy analyst of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said:
"Londoners have for decades endured a standard of local government that does not match the capital's dynamism, with local councils too small and fragmented to deliver services effectively. This also leads to unnecessary and costly duplication of roles both at the political and bureaucratic level.
"While there are notable examples of successful collaboration and individual excellence, these are far from the norm. Even in cases where councils have worked together well, these relationships have often broken down due to political difficulties.
"Decades on from the last significant reorganisation, it's time once again to look seriously at local government in London given the clear evidence that the current system is not delivering to the high level that taxpayers expect."
TPA spokespeople are available for live and pre-recorded broadcast interviews via 07795 084 113 (no texts)
Media contact:
William Yarwood
Media Campaign Manager, TaxPayers' Alliance
[email protected]
24-hour media hotline: 07795 084 113 (no texts)
Notes to editors:
-
Founded in 2004 by Matthew Elliott and Andrew Allum, the TaxPayers' Alliance (TPA) campaigns to reform taxes and public services, cut waste and speak up for British taxpayers. Find out more at www.taxpayersalliance.com.
- TaxPayers' Alliance's research council.