Independent R&B Monday Discussion Group – 20 October 2025

The latest Independent R&B discussion opened with Malcolm Gardner wryly noting that the week’s agenda looked like “a bit of a hodgepodge”—ranging from procurement headaches to welfare reform, the leaked Reform UK video from Kent, and the ever-growing fiscal squeeze on councils.

Procurement: Avoidance, Waivers and Frustration

Kirsty Brooksmith (Hammersmith & Fulham) set the tone bluntly: most officers “avoid procurement at all costs”. Frameworks and emergency awards were often used simply to dodge the bureaucracy.

Tom Clark agreed that frameworks were the practical route, though he felt that “social value now dictates who wins tenders” as much as cost. He described tendering in Birmingham, where a £10 million enforcement-agent contract triggered legal challenges from losing bidders able to spend £50 000 on appeals—illustrating how the system “makes it impossible to get things done”.

Julie Smethurst said training was patchy: large councils might keep staff up to date, but many districts lacked capacity. “Procurement just equals pain and suffering,” she remarked, arguing that over-complexity shuts out smaller suppliers.

When Malcolm mentioned government fears about procurement fraud, Julie was sceptical—comparing it to exaggerated claims of single-person-discount abuse. The bigger issue, she felt, was inconsistency between authorities.

Tom raised the informal use of “waivers” to skip full tendering. Julie thought waivers were legitimate only when time or resources genuinely prevented a proper exercise: “You’ve got to do it properly if you’re going to do it.”

Bob Wagstaff recalled Lincolnshire’s shared-service model (PSPS) and predicted more procurement to come with local-government reorganisation: “How many new authorities will need new IT systems?” he asked, joking that you might have to “procure the procurers”.

From the supplier side, Gareth Dangos described the process as “disheartening”. Many tenders, he said, were written so that “only one person can win”, while short-term contracts and one-year budgets discouraged innovation.

Nicki Duckworth agreed that “it’s always hard work”, and Malcolm noted how small firms invest weeks in submissions only to wait 18 months for a decision.

Artificial Intelligence Enters the Tender Room

Tom described a recent Liverpool tender that asked bidders whether they had used AI to prepare submissions. Two said no, one yes. “Did that subconsciously bias me?” he wondered.

Julie doubted AI changed anything fundamental: “It’s a facilitator, not a cheat.” She likened it to using a calculator. Jonathan Gibbs said AI was “good for trimming word counts but bad at answering the actual question,” while Nicki asked why the question mattered at all— “you wouldn’t ask if someone hired a professional bid writer.”

Gareth pointed out that the term AI covers too many uses to be meaningful: “It’s like asking, do you use a computer?”

Budgets, Demand and the Illusion of Efficiency

Turning to national reports from the Institute for Government, IFS and County Councils Network, Malcolm asked Paul Howarth whether their warnings on local-government finances would influence the Autumn Budget.

Paul was cautious. Multi-year settlements gave councils roughly 3 per cent annual increases, but “that isn’t meeting demand, especially in adult social care.” Without genuine reform, further “efficiency drives” would fail.

Michael Fisher said bluntly that “someone has to tear the plaster off” public-finance structures, central as well as local.

Kirsty warned that Hammersmith & Fulham looked rich on paper but could no longer sustain discretionary services: “Our residents have no clue what’s coming in the next twelve months.”

Julie added that honesty was lacking: political agendas, not fiscal reality, drove decisions. “Who’d be a Section 151 officer today?” she asked. Demand management, she argued, remained “the missing link”.

Health, Social Care and Political Courage

Gareth reframed the problem: “It’s not about managing the budget; it’s about deciding what should be in the budget.” The line between illness and frailty blurred social care and healthcare, yet the budgets remained separate. Only a political decision to merge or coordinate them could end the disputes over hospital discharge and continuing care.

The Kent Reform UK Collapse

The group then dissected the leaked video of Reform UK’s Kent council group. Paul Howarth, speaking from the county, called the chaos “predictable”. Claimed “efficiencies” such as cancelling a new building or reversing net-zero projects were simply policy reversals, not savings.

Bob Wagstaff drew a parallel with Lincolnshire, where his Reform-aligned MP had promised 5 per cent savings, then 10 per cent, before reality forced tax rises: “Any efficiencies now have to be caused by more expenditure.”

Sean O’Sullivan agreed in part, suggesting the mayhem stemmed from inexperience: internal rows that should have stayed “behind closed doors” had spilled into the public. He alleged that Reform’s “Doge teams” of private consultants cost around £1 million and “should refund taxpayers”.

Malcolm noted the irony that the fiasco illustrated exactly why procurement rules exist, though Paul confessed he tried “not to read too much about it”.

Local-Government Reorganisation: Unitaries and Communities

Attention turned to the push for unitaries. Paul said most people in Kent saw three unitaries, not one “super-Kent”, as the sensible route.

Kirsty reported London chiefs were watching closely: with worsening settlements, borough mergers might return to the agenda.

Tom supported unitaries in principle: “From a customer perspective, removing the district–county divide makes sense,” though he wanted evidence of long-term savings.

Gareth favoured small unitaries shaped by natural communities, not population targets: “Bigger isn’t always better.” His example from rural Italy showed how local participation flourished when residents “knew who to ring about the pothole”.

Nicki, living under a parish-district-county tier in West Sussex, said most residents “don’t understand what anyone does” and felt bounced between authorities. “Why am I paying all these people to do nothing except pass me to someone else?”

Julie concluded that both systems had merits, but the future lay in empowering town and parish councils. She cited a local campaign that defeated a quarry proposal through coordinated lobbying—“a perfect example of democracy at the right scale.”

Malcolm agreed that parishes’ non-partisan character made them valuable bridges between large councils and residents.

Welfare and the Week Ahead

In closing, Malcolm noted talk of welfare reform—Rachel Reeves examining disability-mobility payments—and renewed Labour interest in replacing council tax altogether. The group would return to labour-market figures next week.

As the meeting ended, Nicki broke the news that Reform UK had just suspended four Kent councillors over the video leak—confirmation, as Malcolm joked, that “it’s a soap opera waiting for the BBC.”

Sean had the final historical note: backbench revolts, he reminded everyone, “forced the community charge into being—so if Labour follows its backbenchers on local-government reform, that’s a very hot potato indeed.”

The Independent Revenues & Benefits Discussion Group continues to provide a vital forum for expert analysis, shared learning, and open debate at a time of significant policy flux.

For more information or to join future sessions, contact Malcolm Gardner at Visionary Network. info@visionarynetwork.co.uk

Files to download

Please note that the handout contains additional slides covering other items of interest in the news and job adverts, which are provided in partnership with Business Smart Solutions (https://www.businesssmartsolutions.co.uk/).