Forum Topic

I have been asked several times to provide some information regarding the payment to KPMG in respect of the Performance Improvement Programme (PIP).I remain perplexed as to why I in particular am being singled out because (a) I am not the relevant Lead Member, and (b) the information which I am being asked to provide is already in the public domain and has actually been quoted on this forum by one of those who is asking me to provide it!Nonetheless, I have undertaken to provide the information and have spent some considerable time trying to ensure that I am furnished with detail which I can pass on and which is not in any way commercially sensitive.  On this it has been my policy to err on the side of caution.  However, I believe I have waited long enough and now feel compelled to exercise my own judgement in this regard.Below are the minutes of a Budget Presentation given by Council Leader Peter Thompson to the Isleworth & Brentford Area Committee in January, which also spent some time covering the PIP project.If it doesn't provide all the information which is being sought, please feel free to ask further questions and I'll do my best to help:"Councillor Peter Thompson, Leader of the Council, gave Member’s a detailed slide presentation on the Budget proposals for 2008/2009 and longer-term proposals of the Performance Improvement Programme. The Chair invited questions and comments from Members’ and members of the public."Councillor Paul Fisher said that he was very pleased that the consultation process had commenced much earlier than the previous year. "Councillor Cadbury commented that the details of specific cuts within the budget setting process had not been made public. Councillor Thompson responded that there was a filtering process and that details about specific cuts had been released to scrutiny. Councillor Phil Andrews agreed with Councillor Cadbury and felt that there should be more consultation with the public and suggested that next year the public be consulted about specific job cuts. [I should add here that I also refuted Councillor Cadbury's ludicrously false assertion that consultations had been more open under her administration.  My intervention was both to correct this, and to deliver my view that notwithstanding the improved level of community engagement it could and should be improved further]."Councillor Dakers said that he would like to see the authority move beyond consultation and to adopt a participatory decision-making process. Councillor Thompson agreed that it was a good way for the authority to move forward, he commented that the authority was quite limited and the majority of the decision–making powers rested with central Government. Councillor Thompson commented that the London Borough of Hounslow had won awards in the past for consultations with the public."Aljos Farjon, co-opted member, questioned why the Council had engaged an expensive consultancy firm to deliver the savings. He questioned whether the majority of the savings would be achieved through staff cuts. Councillor Thompson responded that the fees for KPMG were approximately £4 million. However, KMPG would deliver savings of approximately £50-£60million over three years. He confirmed that KPMG would be looking at staffing levels and the various tiers of management within the organisation. He advised that they had identified nine levels of management between Chief Officers and employees working on the ground. He commented that they would be working to simplify management structures and would also be identifying administrative posts that did not need to be tied to specific departments. The Leader of the Council also explained that in terms of bill payments and receipts the future vision was to go online and for residents to access services online."Aljos Farjon, co-opted member, questioned how long the process would take and for how long the Council would employ KPMG. Councillor Thompson advised that in terms of staff redundancies, savings would be realised by the end of June 2008. He confirmed that KPMG would leave the authority in September 2008. Aljos Farjon commented that except for the staff redundancies the overall proposals sounded very positive."Councillor Carey questioned whether KPMG had trained a taskforce of Council staff to take over once they had left. The Leader of the Council confirmed that they had trained a taskforce that would continue to look at the future and different ways of working."Councillor Dakers commented that he supported the principle of the Performance Improvement Programme. However, he felt the figures that had been mentioned did not reflect a full picture of the costs that the Council would incur in the short-term and he felt that the benefits would be cumulative. The Leader advised that there would be the initial costs in terms of redundancy payments. He said there would be an initial cost of approximately £11 million until the savings began to stream through. "Dominic West, a local resident, commented that the London Borough of Hounslow had always scored a low mark on environmental issues. He said that he hoped to see an improvement in environmental issues. Mr West said that he was grateful that the Isleworth and Brentford Committee had put more resources into tackling and removing graffiti. He expressed concern that recycling targets were expected to increase but that the Spacewaye Recycling Centre would close at 4pm over the summer period as it was often a quiet period. Mr West emphasised that the earlier closing time of Spacewaye was totally unacceptable as the aim was to improve environment and recycling targets. The Leader of the Council agreed with Mr West’s comments and advised that there was a new waste and recycling contract that would commence in 2008 and he also agreed that the Council would need to do more for graffiti. Councillor Reid expressed concern that Spacewaye would be closing at 4pm and said that it came within her portfolio and that she would look into it. In terms of the two-star rating that the London Borough of Hounslow achieved, Councillor Reid advised that some of the roads within the borough were in a very poor state and required long overdue repairs and that was also a factor that had contributed to the lower rating."The Chair thanked the Councillor Thompson for his presentation and closed the item."

Phil Andrews ● 6342d

Just to correct you on a point of fact here, Jim. Auditors like KPMG are appointed independently to councils. Each council has no choice or say in who is appointed to check and inspect their accounts and probity. In the distant past this service was provided by a District Auditor, one of which famously caught Dame Shirley Porter gerrymandering or misusing public money to advantage her party, in Westminster. As there are only a handful of large city companies providing this auditing service you are bound to get one of them. Some years ago KPMG was appointed to Hounslow  and therefore KPMG have a duty in law to provide this financial watchdog service on a yearly basis until another company is appointed in their place.This is quite separate from the decision of the present administration to engage in a private contract with the same company KPMG to make savings to the tune of I believe £50 million. The same company but presumably a different section within it, using different staff and with a different function. This appointment has been done on a strictly commercial basis and is time limited and based on a flat fee of £3million plus presumably a bonus if they make sufficient savings.There was some debate and I am not sure if there was a legal challenge as to whether it was not a conflict of interest for a company to be providing statuary accounting controls to a council at the same time as they are carrying out the function of cutting £50 million of services and costs.The longer term concern for the functioning of the Council begins when KPMG team has produced its list of cuts and savings, taken their large cheque and returned back to their offices in the city. Will the cuts be possible to implement without services falling below the statuary levels imposed by the many inspection regimes that monitor the public sector. Ironically KPMG will be one of the bodies, wearing its District Auditor hat, that will have to say whether the finances are sufficiently robust and that the council is meeting its performance targets.It is one thing to do a paper exercise in cost cutting and another to squeeze the savings out of your departments and continue to meet the legal and statuary duties to look after the vulnerable. Haringay was castigated after the case of Victoria Climbie for not spending enough on child protection. Also the nearby Borough of Harrow recently had to re-examine their plans for Social Services when they were told the cuts they proposed were not legal.We will have to wait and see if Hounslow will face similar problems.

Colin Ellar ● 6356d

SueI guess that would depend on whom you speak to, but I would be the first to admit that our communications strategy could have been better.  Incidentally I agree with you entirely about the negative effect of the "them and us" culture in which some politicians appear to thrive (presuming here that you are referring to member-officer relationships).  However I have to say that this negativity does not necessarily always emanate from members.  When the new administration took over at Hounslow and I assumed my Executive portfolio my first concern was to build a good working relationship with the officers with whom I would be working.  In most cases I think I have been successful, and in both Housing and Community Safety it has been and remains a great pleasure to work with officers whose expertise and professionalism is of the highest standard.  However when I started in this job there were also a small number of individuals who left me in no doubt whatsoever that they were not happy at the prospect of having to work with a non-Labour administration in general and with me in particular, and who went to extraordinarily lengths to try to obstruct me and to make it clear that I should not expect to work with them in a spirit of openness and co-operation, and that one of us would have to go.  After a very short battle, they went.I think it is essential for a good working relationship that elected members respect the expertise of officers and officers respect the mandate of democratically elected members, whatever their own privately-held views.  Fortunately the large majority of officers do precisely that, but one could be forgiven after 35 years of operating under any administration for forgetting that the electorate does have a right to change its mind.

Phil Andrews ● 6411d

Jim, I agree that cutting waste at the Civic Centre should not be an issue. We might disagree on examples of this, however. My examples - "Hounslow Matters" is expensive recycling material, and the unnecessary increases in member's allowances and Chief Officer pay will do nothing to improve services.Cuts in front line services are a different matter, as the victims are often vulnerable residents. Phil Andrews suggests disingenously above that I differentiated between cuts and savings in the 2002 budget consultation on nursery nurse provision. In fact, the Hounslow Guardian quotes me in February 2002 as saying "Hounslow Council has to make drastic cuts .....after the fourth worst government funding settlement in London." Following consultation the nursery nurse proposal was withdrawn and a budget was agreed that involved a combination of cuts and a council tax rise.Again,confusing my behaviour with his own during 8 years of opposition, Phil suggests I am enjoying the luxury of not having to make hard decisions and am arguing for no cuts and no council tax increase. This is a lie. If he looks at my comment on the article covering headteachers' views on current cuts proposals he would observe that I agree that a council tax increase should be considered to avoid these cuts.Indeed, the same Hounslow Guardian article referred to above carried the views of a Bedfont Nursery parent who said "I would rather pay more council tax to have my children educated properly." This was the type of response that infuenced the final decisions in 2002.On the issue of the Executive not wasting time on consultation my response is as follows: I support a commitment to participatory democracy and the right of people to get involved and to have their views heard and listened to. It's a pity the current Executive do not share this view.

John Connelly ● 6414d

Er yes, obviously I would agree that a greater saving would be preferable to a lesser saving, but from a savings perspective the measure of success is to save more than we spend.  We operated a transparent tendering process to get where we are today, factoring cost as well as performance potential, and KPMG won the contract.  Had a company tendered for the buisness and convinced us that they could do the same job for £1 then they would have got the job, but sadly KPMG, in our view, represented the best deal from those who offered their services.Your suggestion that profit and not performance is the driver, I'm afraid, is spin worthy of some of the more unscrupulous politicians who post on this forum and you would appear to be wasted in whichever other vocation you have chosen to pursue instead.  Your initial complaint was about the cost, not the principle, and needless to say my response to your complaint therefore attempted to justify the project from a cost perspective.  Speaking personally and, I would hope, from an ICG perspective, the need to make fundamental changes to the culture at the Civic Centre is a far greater priority than the desire to save money, and I suspect it is this aspect of the operation which frightens certain people of our acquaintance the most.  I hope this clarifies where I and my Group are coming from.All this aside, please let me take this opportunity to wish you a Happy New Year and to welcome you to the TW8 forum.  I very much look forward to reading your contributions on a whole range of other topics of local interest in the future.

Phil Andrews ● 6414d

The £1m cut in education spending which you made, and which you now acknowledge should have been abhored, was indeed discretionary spending.  As indeed is the £200k which is currently proposed.  Yes, it would be grand if no savings of this nature had to made.  It is a recognition of this fact which informs the PIP process - which you also oppose.  How easy is the luxury of opposition from which one is free to shout simultaneously for no savings and no council tax increases without having to explain how it will all work. I fail to see how a £200k saving proposed by a non-Labour Executive is a cut, whilst a £1m saving made by a Labour Executive is somehow not a cut.  I didn't study mathematics beyond 'O' level and would be happy to be corrected, but by my calculation the Labour cut was five times as savage as that proposed by the current non-Labour Executive, unless one takes inflation into account in which case it would be considerably more than five times as savage.  So when precisely did you rediscover the socialist principles which presumably inspire your current concerns?As for the "bosses" reference, I'm afraid this kind of crude propaganda is wasted on me but at least you are trying and I respect you for that much.  The Labour Group had its opportunity to suggest an alternative form of administration, but clearly its concern for our community teachers etc. was never as great as its commitment to complete and uncompromising control-freakery in its relationship with our communities or else it wouldn't have been so happy to go so willingly into opposition, and to remain there.  I hope New Labour's friends in the education world realise that the administration of which they complain was and remains a deliberate creation of those to whom they hold their allegiance?  If the savings which they vociferously object to are really as drastic as they claim, are they not just the tiniest bit miffed that they are being used as human sacrifices in the pursuit of what New Labour, mistakenly in my view, considers to be its own long-term political interests?No response is expected to this question btw.  After all I've never received one when I've raised this before.  Nevertheless I feel that when we are discussing these issues it is necessary to remind ourselves from time to time precisely how we all came to be where we are today.

Phil Andrews ● 6415d

The simple fact is that a veritable empire had been built up under the previous administration.  It is an empire which was designed specifically to serve that administration which is why, contrary to what they would now have you believe, any savings which were made at the time of the annual budget setting were made at the expense of frontline services rather than in the back room.  Closures and attempted closures of care homes and huge sums siphoned off from education provision are a matter of public record and do not cease to be so just because a few individuals have decided that it is politically expedient to pretend otherwise and hope the public have short memories - it's still there on the webcasts for all to see.Sue obviously has access to more information than I do as I was under the impression that we had not yet arrived at a final figure, but hey what do I know?  I am only a member of the Council Executive's PIP Steering Group.  However when all is said and done the only measure of the project's success or failure must be whether KPMG are able to save us more than they extract from us in fees.  I can say with absolute confidence that they will, because the fee structure is designed in such a way as to ensure that this will indeed be the case.  The idea that the self-serving empire painstakingly constructed over the years by New Labour could be expected to redesign itself to suit the aspirations of a new administration which puts good value public services at the head of its priorities is ridiculous, because it is a contradiction in terms.  Such an empire will instinctively offer service cuts rather than streamlining bureaucracy as a means of making the savings which all administrations are called upon year in and year out to make.  Wouldn't you?

Phil Andrews ● 6415d