By Tash Shifrin
2 October 2009
Government figures have revealed huge variations in local authority’s efficiency savings, while experts have warned that they are distorted by ‘smoke and mirrors’.
Communities Secretary John Denham announced on September 29 that councils had saved more than £1.7bn in 2008/09.
The efficiency target for local government in the current Spending Review period was increased in the Budget from £4.9bn to £5.5bn.
Denham said: ‘The government’s focus on local government efficiency has seen impressive rewards for the taxpayer without reducing the quality of public services.’
But the figures show massive variations in the amounts saved by different local authorities of the same type.
Among county councils, Kent reported savings of £44.9m – more than 12 times the £3.7m saved by Wiltshire. Savings by metropolitan boroughs ranged almost as widely, from Birmingham City Council’s £39.3m to just £3.6m in Barnsley.
The London Borough of Hackney made £40.5m, almost 12 times the £3.4m saved in Kingston upon Thames. Savings by unitary authorities varied between £12.2m in Kingston-upon-Hull and £82,000 in the Isles of Scilly.
Ellie Greenwood, senior policy consultant at the Local Government Association, said: ‘The reason for the big variation is that councils vary in size and budget. There is a sector-wide efficiency target for this Spending Review period, but there are no individual targets. Councils will be making efficiencies at different times and in different ways.’
Tony Travers, director of the Greater London Group at the London School of Economics, said: ‘The figures really don’t tell us much about how efficient councils are.’
The authorities that reported the largest savings might have done so either because they
had made the biggest effort or because they had been particularly inefficient before, he argued.
‘I’m amazed ministers go on investing quite as much in the precision of these numbers. The process is potentially as smoke-and-mirror-filled as any you’ll ever meet.’
In theory, if councils made a 3% efficiency saving while facing a freeze on their income, they should have 3% more to spend on services, Travers said. ‘But it’s just not like that.’
The figures were released as Kirklees Council in west Yorkshire said it planned to cut a further 20% of its current £1bn annual budget by 2014, in addition to cuts achieved by a long-standing efficiency drive.
Chief executive Rob Vincent said: ‘We have already delivered efficiency savings of £139m over the past five years, but local government is facing its most difficult test for at least a generation.’
2 October 2009
Government figures have revealed huge variations in local authority’s efficiency savings, while experts have warned that they are distorted by ‘smoke and mirrors’.
Communities Secretary John Denham announced on September 29 that councils had saved more than £1.7bn in 2008/09.
The efficiency target for local government in the current Spending Review period was increased in the Budget from £4.9bn to £5.5bn.
Denham said: ‘The government’s focus on local government efficiency has seen impressive rewards for the taxpayer without reducing the quality of public services.’
But the figures show massive variations in the amounts saved by different local authorities of the same type.
Among county councils, Kent reported savings of £44.9m – more than 12 times the £3.7m saved by Wiltshire. Savings by metropolitan boroughs ranged almost as widely, from Birmingham City Council’s £39.3m to just £3.6m in Barnsley.
The London Borough of Hackney made £40.5m, almost 12 times the £3.4m saved in Kingston upon Thames. Savings by unitary authorities varied between £12.2m in Kingston-upon-Hull and £82,000 in the Isles of Scilly.
Ellie Greenwood, senior policy consultant at the Local Government Association, said: ‘The reason for the big variation is that councils vary in size and budget. There is a sector-wide efficiency target for this Spending Review period, but there are no individual targets. Councils will be making efficiencies at different times and in different ways.’
Tony Travers, director of the Greater London Group at the London School of Economics, said: ‘The figures really don’t tell us much about how efficient councils are.’
The authorities that reported the largest savings might have done so either because they
had made the biggest effort or because they had been particularly inefficient before, he argued.
‘I’m amazed ministers go on investing quite as much in the precision of these numbers. The process is potentially as smoke-and-mirror-filled as any you’ll ever meet.’
In theory, if councils made a 3% efficiency saving while facing a freeze on their income, they should have 3% more to spend on services, Travers said. ‘But it’s just not like that.’
The figures were released as Kirklees Council in west Yorkshire said it planned to cut a further 20% of its current £1bn annual budget by 2014, in addition to cuts achieved by a long-standing efficiency drive.
Chief executive Rob Vincent said: ‘We have already delivered efficiency savings of £139m over the past five years, but local government is facing its most difficult test for at least a generation.’
