APPENDIX 2
Memorandum by the Local Government Association
PUBLIC SERVICE AGREEMENTS (PSAs) 1999-2002
1. The Local Government Association welcomes
the decision of the Treasury Committee to hold an inquiry into
the Public Service Agreements 1999-2002)[1].
The LGA will be happy to give oral evidence to the Committee,
if invited, and to provide any help that we can in the course
of the inquiry. The Committee has indicated that it wishes at
this stage to examine:
— the purpose of the agreements;
— the selection and formulation of
the performance targets;
— their implications for the control
of public spending; and
— how the Government proposes to monitor
them.
From the local government viewpoint, the selection
and formulation of the performance targets is the most significant
issue. The LGA's evidence will focus on this aspect of the PSAs,
and in particular how useful and relevant those targets are to
local authorities.
2. The concept of the PSAs is a laudable
one, and the LGA welcomes it as a serious attempt on the part
of the Government to apply to central government departments the
principles of Best Value which local authorities are currently
embracing. The LGA also welcomes the Government's recognition,
through the publication of cross-service PSAs, that some services
are delivered across traditional service boundaries. However,
there is no single concise explanation of the purpose of the public
service agreements. Describing the documents as "agreements"
does beg the question "who are the parties to these agreements?".
Are they agreements between Departments and the Treasury, between
Departments and their partner organisations, such as local authorities,
between different Departments, or, as the Prime Minister implies
in his Foreword, agreements between the Government and the British
People?
3. The LGA is concerned that the PSAs and
the Performance Targets in particular do not adequately reflect
the fundamental role of local government in the delivery of public
services, and the fact that in very many cases, Departmental performance
targets can only be achieved in partnership with local government.
The reason for this is the absence of any formal consultation
arrangements between Departments and the LGA on the content of
PSAs. The limited discussions that did take place were piecemeal
and cursory. More formal consultation arrangements should be put
in place for future years.
4. For example, whereas the DETR Performance
Targets frequently use phrases such as: "enabling local authorities
. . .", "in partnership with local government . . .",
"work with local government . . ." such language is
conspicuous by its absence in other PSAs. There is very little
mention of Local Education Authorities or even schools in the
DFEE PSA, and none at all in its performance targets, no mention
of fire authorities in the Home Office Targets, and references
in the DoH targets which paint a picture of local authorities
as being on the receiving end of government directives rather
than as responsible partners in the care of vulnerable people.
A similar pattern is followed throughout the document.
5. The following are some comments on the
Performance Targets of individual departments in so far as they
affect local government. This is not intended as a comprehensive
critique but rather to give a broad indicaton of the current limitations
of PSAs and how they will need to be developed in the future.
Some of the examples point to the absence of a co-ordinated approach
between Departments.
DEPARTMENT FOR
EDUCATION AND
EMPLOYMENT
6. It is regrettable that throughout the
DfEE PSA there is no reference to the vital role of local education
authorities (LEAs) in the delivery of the education service. The
only reference to LEAs is contained in the Annex devoted to OFSTED
and only then in the context of OFSTED's inspection activities.
DEPARTMENT OF
THE ENVIRONMENT,
TRANSPORT AND
THE REGIONS
Main DETR Performance Targets (pages 27-28)
7. Target (iv)[2]
relating to reducing the backlog of council house repairs needs
to be expanded upon to be useful. The additional provision in
the CSR for council house repairs is £3.6 billion. Shared
amongst the 250,000 properties to be brought up to full repair
this equates to £14,400 per property. Shared amongst the
1.5 million homes which are proposed to benefit from new investment
this is an average of £2,400 per property. It is difficult
to see how both of these targets can be achieved with the same
funds.
Local Government and Regional Policy (pages 32-34)
8. Target (iv) (enable joint working and
pooling of budgets between local authorities and other public
agencies by April 2000 to provide better and more accessible services
for local people) is a laudable aim, but there are, for instance,
no comparable references in the targets for DfEE or DoH.
9. The performance target on elections (xv)
is very positive: "modernise polling arrangements, including
work on improving voter registration, to encourage participation
at local elections", but the Home Office target 7(v) (page
44), on which DETR's actions are dependent needs to be more closely
aligned to DETR. The Home Office target for instance does not
mention local elections and points only to a review of procedures
in 1999, with no mention of implementation in subsequent years.
In turn the DETR target could be more precise, and following the
Modern Local Government—In Touch with the People White
Paper should target: (1) introduction of a rolling electoral register;
(2) a regime for Councils to pilot new electoral procedures; (3)
implementation for local elections of the recommendations from
the Home Office review.
10. The LGA welcomes the Government's commitment
to put in place the local business rate (performance target (xxi))
and would like to see a clear timetable for its introduction without
delay. This raises a more general issue about the extent to which
performance targets should be linked to the period of the spending
plans (1999-2002).
HOME OFFICE—FIRE
11. The target of reducing fires and fire
related deaths is in line with the general commitment to give
greater priority to fire prevention work. The targets give a focus
to this and the LGA would support their inclusion in the national
Best Value performance indicators for the fire service.
12. Fire authorities are committed to achieving
the maximum possible efficiency. However the setting of this target
has not been particularly helpful. The main impetus for efficiency
savings should come through Best Value which is being introduced
a little later than these targets. The government has identified
co-operation and collaboration as a potential source of savings.
This will be in areas such as control rooms and training and will
involve substantial start up costs and relatively long lead times.
That is not only inconsistent with the imposition of an immediate
target, but makes it unclear where authorities should focus their
attention.
13. Fire authorities also face the problem
of the inclusion of pension costs in their total expenditure.
Pension payments are set to increase significantly in the near
future. Some savings can be achieved through better management
of ill health retirements but it is not clear how much.
DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SECURITY
(DSS) (INTERIM PSA)
14. In amongst all of the material on benefits
it is a little surprising that no mention is made of the £10
billion of Housing Benefit which local authorities are responsible
for administering on behalf of Central Government. Nor is there
any mention of the joint work between the DSS and LGA on a number
of areas, such as (most recently) the Housing Benefit simplification
and improvement project.
9 April 1999
1 Public Services for the Future: Modernisation, Reform,
Accountability (Cm 4181) December 1998. Back
2
"(iv) in partnership with local authorities, reduce the backlog
of council house repairs by at least 250,000 with over 1.5 million
council houses benefiting from new investment". Back
| 
