Southwest One "failing" - county council leader

Southwest One

Southwest One "failing" - county council leader

First published in Somerset Chard & Ilminster News: Photograph of the Author by

THE leader of Somerset County Council Cllr Ken Maddock has launched a stinging attack on Southwest One, which is hired to run several council and police services across the county.

Speaking at the full council meeting in Shire Hall, Mr Maddock said: "As an administration we inherited a partnership that promised a huge amount, but it was not delivering.

"Southwest One’s accounts year on year show losses, staggering losses just published of £31million, and failures to hit modest savings targets.

"We have bent over backwards to try to make this partnership work, but we have to state clearly that our primary duty in looking after the public’s hard earned money is to make sure we get the best possible deals, that we get the best possible value for the public’s money.

"I have to say that Southwest One is failing this test.

"We are currently looking at all our services and all our contracts to see whether we are doing the best we can for our customers, whether we are providing the best possible services for our customers and at the best possible prices for our customers.

"I have to say that Southwest One is failing this test.

"We need a council that can cope with future government cuts and rising demand.

"We will need to be efficient and flexible.

"I have to say that Southwest One is failing this test.

"Sadly, Southwest One is failing.

"It is failing to deliver promised savings; failing to cope with a changing financial landscape; failing to be flexible enough to adapt in challenging times and provide the best possible value for money.

"To make up for this failure, we will now accelerate our extensive review of everything that the council does.

"Almost half our most vital services are carried out by private sector or not for profit organisations – we will look to increase this where appropriate.

"We will encourage social enterprises, partnerships, communities and voluntary groups to get more involved in what we do and what we run.

"We will look to put the customer at the heart of what we do.

"And we will do this whilst we continue to do all we can to make Southwest One work.

"But I have to be clear; it is failing; it is inflexible; and it is intransigent.

"We are therefore looking at all the options available to us.

"I do have one final message for Southwest One – and that is to the staff and our Somerset County Council colleagues and secondees working there.

"The message is this - this continuing failure is not about you; it is about the contract, the complications, the failed technology, the missed opportunities, the lack of promised savings.

"It is about Southwest One itself, not about the people working for it."

*Watch this site for further updates from the meeting - and get your copy of tomorrow's Somerset County Gazette.

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:27pm Wed 15 Feb 12

AlmightyOne says...

Well Mr. Maddock, SCC has finally come to accept what we the minons have known for years, South West One is a failure and a pretty expensive one, and at what cost to the tax-payer. If it fails in so many categories as you have pointed out, it time the contract was terminated, we cannot afford bail outs anymore. IBM should then be sued for breach of contract, in the case of failing to deliver a product that does not do what it should, ALL AND I MEAN ALL our money should be refunded by IBM...........
Well Mr. Maddock, SCC has finally come to accept what we the minons have known for years, South West One is a failure and a pretty expensive one, and at what cost to the tax-payer. If it fails in so many categories as you have pointed out, it time the contract was terminated, we cannot afford bail outs anymore. IBM should then be sued for breach of contract, in the case of failing to deliver a product that does not do what it should, ALL AND I MEAN ALL our money should be refunded by IBM........... AlmightyOne
  • Score: 0

1:49pm Wed 15 Feb 12

BaldCarl2 says...

It is fairly common when large organisations (SCC in this case) outsources parts of its organisation (IT services in this case) to a 3rd party (Southwest One in this case) to protect themselves should the services fall below agreed levels.

An SLA (Service Level Agreement) is drawn up as part of that contract. If performance levels fall below that then then normally Service Credits are awarded.

Surely Somerset County Council must have some legal clauses written into their contract to protect themselves against this happening.

If not, then they only have themselves to blame.
It is fairly common when large organisations (SCC in this case) outsources parts of its organisation (IT services in this case) to a 3rd party (Southwest One in this case) to protect themselves should the services fall below agreed levels. An SLA (Service Level Agreement) is drawn up as part of that contract. If performance levels fall below that then then normally Service Credits are awarded. Surely Somerset County Council must have some legal clauses written into their contract to protect themselves against this happening. If not, then they only have themselves to blame. BaldCarl2
  • Score: 0

4:08pm Wed 15 Feb 12

creecher says...

At last SCC admits to what everyone in the real world knew from day one, can't wait for TDBC,s Penny James to give her unbiased opinion on the statement but have a feeling she may be unavailable to comment as shes on a long unscheduled holiday.
At last SCC admits to what everyone in the real world knew from day one, can't wait for TDBC,s Penny James to give her unbiased opinion on the statement but have a feeling she may be unavailable to comment as shes on a long unscheduled holiday. creecher
  • Score: 0

10:37pm Wed 15 Feb 12

jimee says...

I'm amazed its taken so long for the council leader to recognise it.
I'm amazed its taken so long for the council leader to recognise it. jimee
  • Score: 0

7:43am Thu 16 Feb 12

AlmightyOne says...

creecher wrote:
At last SCC admits to what everyone in the real world knew from day one, can't wait for TDBC,s Penny James to give her unbiased opinion on the statement but have a feeling she may be unavailable to comment as shes on a long unscheduled holiday.
And how much is this holiday costing us the tax payer?
[quote][p][bold]creecher[/bold] wrote: At last SCC admits to what everyone in the real world knew from day one, can't wait for TDBC,s Penny James to give her unbiased opinion on the statement but have a feeling she may be unavailable to comment as shes on a long unscheduled holiday.[/p][/quote]And how much is this holiday costing us the tax payer? AlmightyOne
  • Score: 0

8:25am Thu 16 Feb 12

creecher says...

What i meant was that i expect she will want to keep her head down and might dissapear off on an unexpected break.
What i meant was that i expect she will want to keep her head down and might dissapear off on an unexpected break. creecher
  • Score: 0

8:51am Thu 16 Feb 12

alibridgwater says...

Totally agree that all the workers without a personal motive, have been saying this alliance was never going to work, from it's inception.
Much as I don't like defending Mr Maddock, he did inherit this mess and does appear to be trying to do something about it.
Has anyone asked Alan Jone's for a statement ?
Totally agree that all the workers without a personal motive, have been saying this alliance was never going to work, from it's inception. Much as I don't like defending Mr Maddock, he did inherit this mess and does appear to be trying to do something about it. Has anyone asked Alan Jone's for a statement ? alibridgwater
  • Score: 0

9:34am Thu 16 Feb 12

Chard Times says...

What about Alex Jones' biggest fan, a certain 'prominent' Chard councillor?
Can the C & I ask her, please, the next time she gurns for a front-page photo opportunity?
What about Alex Jones' biggest fan, a certain 'prominent' Chard councillor? Can the C & I ask her, please, the next time she gurns for a front-page photo opportunity? Chard Times
  • Score: 0

5:12pm Thu 16 Feb 12

supersnipe4 says...

Stop messing about - I'm one of the ratepayers having to pay for this Fiasco - kick Southwest One into touch. Yes with apologies to the 'workers' who have been conned into employment by SW1 the whole lot should be made redundant or sacked with standard redundancy terms - no 'golden goodbyes' for the nincompoops (its in the dictionary & not rude) in charge.
Stop messing about - I'm one of the ratepayers having to pay for this Fiasco - kick Southwest One into touch. Yes with apologies to the 'workers' who have been conned into employment by SW1 the whole lot should be made redundant or sacked with standard redundancy terms - no 'golden goodbyes' for the nincompoops (its in the dictionary & not rude) in charge. supersnipe4
  • Score: 0

10:25pm Thu 16 Feb 12

JamPot99 says...

Not sure we’re actually paying for this anyway. My understanding is that the council's services (mainly people) were transferred into SW1 for whatever they cost at the time, say £5m. IBM (on behalf of SW1) then invested money in systems to try and make savings (by getting rid of the people I assume) over the contract. SW1 would therefore only make money if they make these savings (reducing the cost of the services to say £3m). That difference (profit of £2m) would then be shared between IBM and the councils and police. If they’ve not made the savings, only IBM really loses out, as they made the investment not the councils. If SW1 had never happened, we’d be a bit worse off as we’d be paying a higher price for the services (now say £6m) and wouldn't have had the investment from IBM. As long as IBM underwrite the losses (which looks like they’ve done by bailing them out with a loan) there is no effect on the tax payer. IBM thought they’d make the savings, IBM haven’t. IBM pay. Or have I got it wrong?
Not sure we’re actually paying for this anyway. My understanding is that the council's services (mainly people) were transferred into SW1 for whatever they cost at the time, say £5m. IBM (on behalf of SW1) then invested money in systems to try and make savings (by getting rid of the people I assume) over the contract. SW1 would therefore only make money if they make these savings (reducing the cost of the services to say £3m). That difference (profit of £2m) would then be shared between IBM and the councils and police. If they’ve not made the savings, only IBM really loses out, as they made the investment not the councils. If SW1 had never happened, we’d be a bit worse off as we’d be paying a higher price for the services (now say £6m) and wouldn't have had the investment from IBM. As long as IBM underwrite the losses (which looks like they’ve done by bailing them out with a loan) there is no effect on the tax payer. IBM thought they’d make the savings, IBM haven’t. IBM pay. Or have I got it wrong? JamPot99
  • Score: 0

10:28pm Thu 16 Feb 12

oldbilluk says...

I seem to recall that at the time this contract was awarded, the mantra on the tablets of stone handed down to those of a suspicious nature was: "fit in or * off". I chose the latter course of action and since then my blood pressure is lower, my quality of life is improved and all I miss is the great bunch of dedicated people I worked with every day. Unfortunately many of those people were not as fortunate as I was and had to remain, to watch consultants fly in and out at vast expense in order make the existing staff more efficient and effective. It sounds from Mr Maddock's comments that the great leap forward hasn't happened. When I last visited my ex-colleagues, I wasn't even impressed by the new paint job on floor two. Good luck Mr Maddock but as we said at the time, IBM have a whole specialist division to look at contracts, what do we have in Somerset?
I seem to recall that at the time this contract was awarded, the mantra on the tablets of stone handed down to those of a suspicious nature was: "fit in or * off". I chose the latter course of action and since then my blood pressure is lower, my quality of life is improved and all I miss is the great bunch of dedicated people I worked with every day. Unfortunately many of those people were not as fortunate as I was and had to remain, to watch consultants fly in and out at vast expense in order make the existing staff more efficient and effective. It sounds from Mr Maddock's comments that the great leap forward hasn't happened. When I last visited my ex-colleagues, I wasn't even impressed by the new paint job on floor two. Good luck Mr Maddock but as we said at the time, IBM have a whole specialist division to look at contracts, what do we have in Somerset? oldbilluk
  • Score: 0

7:15am Fri 17 Feb 12

creecher says...

JamPot99 wrote:
Not sure we’re actually paying for this anyway. My understanding is that the council's services (mainly people) were transferred into SW1 for whatever they cost at the time, say £5m. IBM (on behalf of SW1) then invested money in systems to try and make savings (by getting rid of the people I assume) over the contract. SW1 would therefore only make money if they make these savings (reducing the cost of the services to say £3m). That difference (profit of £2m) would then be shared between IBM and the councils and police. If they’ve not made the savings, only IBM really loses out, as they made the investment not the councils. If SW1 had never happened, we’d be a bit worse off as we’d be paying a higher price for the services (now say £6m) and wouldn't have had the investment from IBM. As long as IBM underwrite the losses (which looks like they’ve done by bailing them out with a loan) there is no effect on the tax payer. IBM thought they’d make the savings, IBM haven’t. IBM pay. Or have I got it wrong?
Sure your name isn't Penny James as thats the kind of b******t she comes out with, if what you said was true then how would SW1 make the £80m of savings they forcast? Who also paid for all the IT specialists to be flown from india numerous times and put up at the Castle Hotel for weeks on end at great expense trying to make a redundant and badly designed system work? Who has paid for all the lost man hours due to council staff inputting hours of data only to have to do it all again as it was all lost in SW1's system when the return key was pressed?
I can only assume from your comments that you either have an financial interest in the SW1 deal or lead an extreamly blinkered life.
[quote][p][bold]JamPot99[/bold] wrote: Not sure we’re actually paying for this anyway. My understanding is that the council's services (mainly people) were transferred into SW1 for whatever they cost at the time, say £5m. IBM (on behalf of SW1) then invested money in systems to try and make savings (by getting rid of the people I assume) over the contract. SW1 would therefore only make money if they make these savings (reducing the cost of the services to say £3m). That difference (profit of £2m) would then be shared between IBM and the councils and police. If they’ve not made the savings, only IBM really loses out, as they made the investment not the councils. If SW1 had never happened, we’d be a bit worse off as we’d be paying a higher price for the services (now say £6m) and wouldn't have had the investment from IBM. As long as IBM underwrite the losses (which looks like they’ve done by bailing them out with a loan) there is no effect on the tax payer. IBM thought they’d make the savings, IBM haven’t. IBM pay. Or have I got it wrong?[/p][/quote]Sure your name isn't Penny James as thats the kind of b******t she comes out with, if what you said was true then how would SW1 make the £80m of savings they forcast? Who also paid for all the IT specialists to be flown from india numerous times and put up at the Castle Hotel for weeks on end at great expense trying to make a redundant and badly designed system work? Who has paid for all the lost man hours due to council staff inputting hours of data only to have to do it all again as it was all lost in SW1's system when the return key was pressed? I can only assume from your comments that you either have an financial interest in the SW1 deal or lead an extreamly blinkered life. creecher
  • Score: 0

7:24am Fri 17 Feb 12

AlmightyOne says...

JamPot99 wrote:
Not sure we’re actually paying for this anyway. My understanding is that the council's services (mainly people) were transferred into SW1 for whatever they cost at the time, say £5m. IBM (on behalf of SW1) then invested money in systems to try and make savings (by getting rid of the people I assume) over the contract. SW1 would therefore only make money if they make these savings (reducing the cost of the services to say £3m). That difference (profit of £2m) would then be shared between IBM and the councils and police. If they’ve not made the savings, only IBM really loses out, as they made the investment not the councils. If SW1 had never happened, we’d be a bit worse off as we’d be paying a higher price for the services (now say £6m) and wouldn't have had the investment from IBM. As long as IBM underwrite the losses (which looks like they’ve done by bailing them out with a loan) there is no effect on the tax payer. IBM thought they’d make the savings, IBM haven’t. IBM pay. Or have I got it wrong?
You have got it wrong. Do not try to hide behind numbers, SW1 is and always has been an utter fiasco, from the date the contract was signed. It should never have been, and it shows the blatant regard the previous administration at County Hall had, when it came to sqaundering tax payers money. If you have a financial intrest in SW1 state so now.
[quote][p][bold]JamPot99[/bold] wrote: Not sure we’re actually paying for this anyway. My understanding is that the council's services (mainly people) were transferred into SW1 for whatever they cost at the time, say £5m. IBM (on behalf of SW1) then invested money in systems to try and make savings (by getting rid of the people I assume) over the contract. SW1 would therefore only make money if they make these savings (reducing the cost of the services to say £3m). That difference (profit of £2m) would then be shared between IBM and the councils and police. If they’ve not made the savings, only IBM really loses out, as they made the investment not the councils. If SW1 had never happened, we’d be a bit worse off as we’d be paying a higher price for the services (now say £6m) and wouldn't have had the investment from IBM. As long as IBM underwrite the losses (which looks like they’ve done by bailing them out with a loan) there is no effect on the tax payer. IBM thought they’d make the savings, IBM haven’t. IBM pay. Or have I got it wrong?[/p][/quote]You have got it wrong. Do not try to hide behind numbers, SW1 is and always has been an utter fiasco, from the date the contract was signed. It should never have been, and it shows the blatant regard the previous administration at County Hall had, when it came to sqaundering tax payers money. If you have a financial intrest in SW1 state so now. AlmightyOne
  • Score: 0

7:26am Fri 17 Feb 12

AlmightyOne says...

creecher wrote:
JamPot99 wrote:
Not sure we’re actually paying for this anyway. My understanding is that the council's services (mainly people) were transferred into SW1 for whatever they cost at the time, say £5m. IBM (on behalf of SW1) then invested money in systems to try and make savings (by getting rid of the people I assume) over the contract. SW1 would therefore only make money if they make these savings (reducing the cost of the services to say £3m). That difference (profit of £2m) would then be shared between IBM and the councils and police. If they’ve not made the savings, only IBM really loses out, as they made the investment not the councils. If SW1 had never happened, we’d be a bit worse off as we’d be paying a higher price for the services (now say £6m) and wouldn't have had the investment from IBM. As long as IBM underwrite the losses (which looks like they’ve done by bailing them out with a loan) there is no effect on the tax payer. IBM thought they’d make the savings, IBM haven’t. IBM pay. Or have I got it wrong?
Sure your name isn't Penny James as thats the kind of b******t she comes out with, if what you said was true then how would SW1 make the £80m of savings they forcast? Who also paid for all the IT specialists to be flown from india numerous times and put up at the Castle Hotel for weeks on end at great expense trying to make a redundant and badly designed system work? Who has paid for all the lost man hours due to council staff inputting hours of data only to have to do it all again as it was all lost in SW1's system when the return key was pressed?
I can only assume from your comments that you either have an financial interest in the SW1 deal or lead an extreamly blinkered life.
Well said crecher and you could be well right in your assumption.
[quote][p][bold]creecher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamPot99[/bold] wrote: Not sure we’re actually paying for this anyway. My understanding is that the council's services (mainly people) were transferred into SW1 for whatever they cost at the time, say £5m. IBM (on behalf of SW1) then invested money in systems to try and make savings (by getting rid of the people I assume) over the contract. SW1 would therefore only make money if they make these savings (reducing the cost of the services to say £3m). That difference (profit of £2m) would then be shared between IBM and the councils and police. If they’ve not made the savings, only IBM really loses out, as they made the investment not the councils. If SW1 had never happened, we’d be a bit worse off as we’d be paying a higher price for the services (now say £6m) and wouldn't have had the investment from IBM. As long as IBM underwrite the losses (which looks like they’ve done by bailing them out with a loan) there is no effect on the tax payer. IBM thought they’d make the savings, IBM haven’t. IBM pay. Or have I got it wrong?[/p][/quote]Sure your name isn't Penny James as thats the kind of b******t she comes out with, if what you said was true then how would SW1 make the £80m of savings they forcast? Who also paid for all the IT specialists to be flown from india numerous times and put up at the Castle Hotel for weeks on end at great expense trying to make a redundant and badly designed system work? Who has paid for all the lost man hours due to council staff inputting hours of data only to have to do it all again as it was all lost in SW1's system when the return key was pressed? I can only assume from your comments that you either have an financial interest in the SW1 deal or lead an extreamly blinkered life.[/p][/quote]Well said crecher and you could be well right in your assumption. AlmightyOne
  • Score: 0

10:34am Fri 17 Feb 12

alibridgwater says...

JamPot99 wrote:
Not sure we’re actually paying for this anyway. My understanding is that the council's services (mainly people) were transferred into SW1 for whatever they cost at the time, say £5m. IBM (on behalf of SW1) then invested money in systems to try and make savings (by getting rid of the people I assume) over the contract. SW1 would therefore only make money if they make these savings (reducing the cost of the services to say £3m). That difference (profit of £2m) would then be shared between IBM and the councils and police. If they’ve not made the savings, only IBM really loses out, as they made the investment not the councils. If SW1 had never happened, we’d be a bit worse off as we’d be paying a higher price for the services (now say £6m) and wouldn't have had the investment from IBM. As long as IBM underwrite the losses (which looks like they’ve done by bailing them out with a loan) there is no effect on the tax payer. IBM thought they’d make the savings, IBM haven’t. IBM pay. Or have I got it wrong?
Sorry JamPot you are either naive or mis informed.
Try and find out how many thousand of pounds worth of IBM sourced hardware has now replaced usually better and not obsolete equipment. All of which comes with long term maintenance support. Even if IBM were somehow rooted out, their legecay will be expensive and remain
[quote][p][bold]JamPot99[/bold] wrote: Not sure we’re actually paying for this anyway. My understanding is that the council's services (mainly people) were transferred into SW1 for whatever they cost at the time, say £5m. IBM (on behalf of SW1) then invested money in systems to try and make savings (by getting rid of the people I assume) over the contract. SW1 would therefore only make money if they make these savings (reducing the cost of the services to say £3m). That difference (profit of £2m) would then be shared between IBM and the councils and police. If they’ve not made the savings, only IBM really loses out, as they made the investment not the councils. If SW1 had never happened, we’d be a bit worse off as we’d be paying a higher price for the services (now say £6m) and wouldn't have had the investment from IBM. As long as IBM underwrite the losses (which looks like they’ve done by bailing them out with a loan) there is no effect on the tax payer. IBM thought they’d make the savings, IBM haven’t. IBM pay. Or have I got it wrong?[/p][/quote]Sorry JamPot you are either naive or mis informed. Try and find out how many thousand of pounds worth of IBM sourced hardware has now replaced usually better and not obsolete equipment. All of which comes with long term maintenance support. Even if IBM were somehow rooted out, their legecay will be expensive and remain alibridgwater
  • Score: 0

8:01pm Fri 17 Feb 12

Tell_it_as_it_is says...

JamPot99 wrote:
Not sure we’re actually paying for this anyway. My understanding is that the council's services (mainly people) were transferred into SW1 for whatever they cost at the time, say £5m. IBM (on behalf of SW1) then invested money in systems to try and make savings (by getting rid of the people I assume) over the contract. SW1 would therefore only make money if they make these savings (reducing the cost of the services to say £3m). That difference (profit of £2m) would then be shared between IBM and the councils and police. If they’ve not made the savings, only IBM really loses out, as they made the investment not the councils. If SW1 had never happened, we’d be a bit worse off as we’d be paying a higher price for the services (now say £6m) and wouldn't have had the investment from IBM. As long as IBM underwrite the losses (which looks like they’ve done by bailing them out with a loan) there is no effect on the tax payer. IBM thought they’d make the savings, IBM haven’t. IBM pay. Or have I got it wrong?
Oh Yeah - the investment of £50m was funded by US the TAXPAYERS - NOT IBM!

£30m of extra borrowing by SCC.

Really - do you think IBM handover "free money" or something?

Read a professional analysis here:

http://ukcampaign4ch
ange.com/2012/02/17/
good-news-ibm-led-sh
ared-services-compan
y-is-recognised-as-f
ailing/
[quote][p][bold]JamPot99[/bold] wrote: Not sure we’re actually paying for this anyway. My understanding is that the council's services (mainly people) were transferred into SW1 for whatever they cost at the time, say £5m. IBM (on behalf of SW1) then invested money in systems to try and make savings (by getting rid of the people I assume) over the contract. SW1 would therefore only make money if they make these savings (reducing the cost of the services to say £3m). That difference (profit of £2m) would then be shared between IBM and the councils and police. If they’ve not made the savings, only IBM really loses out, as they made the investment not the councils. If SW1 had never happened, we’d be a bit worse off as we’d be paying a higher price for the services (now say £6m) and wouldn't have had the investment from IBM. As long as IBM underwrite the losses (which looks like they’ve done by bailing them out with a loan) there is no effect on the tax payer. IBM thought they’d make the savings, IBM haven’t. IBM pay. Or have I got it wrong?[/p][/quote]Oh Yeah - the investment of £50m was funded by US the TAXPAYERS - NOT IBM! £30m of extra borrowing by SCC. Really - do you think IBM handover "free money" or something? Read a professional analysis here: http://ukcampaign4ch ange.com/2012/02/17/ good-news-ibm-led-sh ared-services-compan y-is-recognised-as-f ailing/ Tell_it_as_it_is
  • Score: 0

8:33am Sat 18 Feb 12

Tell_it_as_it_is says...

Is anyone in charge of this expensive fiasco.

Now they are blaming each other! Is anyone in charge?

Southwest One “Failure” Warnings Ignored By Conservative County Council Leader Ken Maddock
17 Feb 2012

Sam Crabb, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Somerset County Group has criticised the leadership of Somerset County Council in their “failure to manage” Southwest One (SWOne). Somerset County Council’s Leader, Conservative Councillor Ken Maddock, outlined during Wednesday’s Full Council meeting that Procurement Savings due from the SWOne contract were still not being met.

Southwest One is a joint venture partnership set up between Somerset County Council, Taunton Deane Borough Council, and Avon and Somerset Police, and IT and business management provider is IBM. IBM contractually promised to deliver the sum of £200 million of savings over the 10 year lifetime of the partnership, beginning in 2007.

Sam Crabb, leader of the Liberal Democrat Somerset County Group said:


“I have now warned the Tory Leader of Somerset County Council three years in a row about the problems with SouthWest One. He has totally ignored those warnings.


“Indeed, he sat on a critical cross-party report for a whole year, before he took any sort of action at all.


“Three years, three warnings, three failures. Failure to get IBM and SWOne to achieve savings, failure to hold SWOne to account, and a total failure by Ken Maddock to do anything about it.


“The Leader is right to talk about failure, but it is his failure. It is his fault that our services are being slashed, his fault that massive savings have not being achieved.


“We were promised by IBM the sum of £200 million of savings over the 10 years life of the contract. Four years in and we may have achieved 5% of that. That is disgraceful. The Tories claim they understand business, yet they blame complicated contracts.


“The Tories should not be even contemplating cuts to front line services, like the Young Carers budget, the Youth budget, and bus subsidies. The Tories should not be selling off the family silver, our precious land in the Quantocks. They should be looking to cut the County Council’s costs and not frontline services.

“Action is long overdue. Get on with it Ken.”
Is anyone in charge of this expensive fiasco. Now they are blaming each other! Is anyone in charge? Southwest One “Failure” Warnings Ignored By Conservative County Council Leader Ken Maddock 17 Feb 2012 Sam Crabb, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Somerset County Group has criticised the leadership of Somerset County Council in their “failure to manage” Southwest One (SWOne). Somerset County Council’s Leader, Conservative Councillor Ken Maddock, outlined during Wednesday’s Full Council meeting that Procurement Savings due from the SWOne contract were still not being met. Southwest One is a joint venture partnership set up between Somerset County Council, Taunton Deane Borough Council, and Avon and Somerset Police, and IT and business management provider is IBM. IBM contractually promised to deliver the sum of £200 million of savings over the 10 year lifetime of the partnership, beginning in 2007. Sam Crabb, leader of the Liberal Democrat Somerset County Group said: “I have now warned the Tory Leader of Somerset County Council three years in a row about the problems with SouthWest One. He has totally ignored those warnings. “Indeed, he sat on a critical cross-party report for a whole year, before he took any sort of action at all. “Three years, three warnings, three failures. Failure to get IBM and SWOne to achieve savings, failure to hold SWOne to account, and a total failure by Ken Maddock to do anything about it. “The Leader is right to talk about failure, but it is his failure. It is his fault that our services are being slashed, his fault that massive savings have not being achieved. “We were promised by IBM the sum of £200 million of savings over the 10 years life of the contract. Four years in and we may have achieved 5% of that. That is disgraceful. The Tories claim they understand business, yet they blame complicated contracts. “The Tories should not be even contemplating cuts to front line services, like the Young Carers budget, the Youth budget, and bus subsidies. The Tories should not be selling off the family silver, our precious land in the Quantocks. They should be looking to cut the County Council’s costs and not frontline services. “Action is long overdue. Get on with it Ken.” Tell_it_as_it_is
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree