Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
MR PETER
HOUSDEN
14 NOVEMBER 2005
Q1 Chair: Welcome to your first session
with the Committee, Mr Housden. I should like to start by acknowledging
your experience before you took this particular job, where you
had been working for the DfES and the Audit Commission. Indeed,
I see that you have led a county council. How do you think that
that experience will inform your approach to the ODPM and its
objectives, and what do you think are the particular lessons that
you bring from that prior experience to your current post?
Mr Housden: First, Dr Starkey,
thank you very much for the early invitation to meet you and your
Select Committee. The Committee is very important to the work
of ODPM, as it was to DfES, so I look forward to a good, productive
and open relationship, and all the help you can give to us on
the sustainable communities agenda. I have been lucky to have
had some very interesting jobs. I wanted to start with what I
learnt from being a schoolteacher, because that, I suppose, is
the furthest I have been away from government, in its local and
central manifestations. As I reflect back on that experience,
I found it very hard in those days to understand what government
was saying to me; so clear, consistent, simple messages are a
very important lesson for all of us engaged in government, if
we want to engage the people who deliver public services on our
behalf. That is a very important issue; that people delivering
them, whether they are in schools, hospitals or local government,
understand what is required of them and are motivated to deliver
it. In terms of local government there are three or four things.
I have worked for authorities that were under Conservative control,
Labour control, and indeed no overall control, in Lancashire,
where all three parties had a stake in running the council. All
those experiences tell me how much local government wants to have
a constructive partnership with central government. Of course,
there are issues of political division, but in a very, very high
percentage of issues there is common ground, and people are wanting
to work together as well as they can. Central government is hugely
influential at a local level, not just in the questions of power
and money, but in the quality of ideas. In my experience, central
government often underestimates how powerful its ideas can be
if they are well expressed, in terms of setting the climate and
agenda at local level. There is that desire, and there is that
influence. I think the trick, really, is about combining what
will often be short-term pressures and imperatives for the government
of the day, with longer-term change. Long-term effective change
is about consistency; you cannot chop and change all the time.
It is about building capacity at local level and about driving
forward, giving local councils and other local partners the flexibility
to respond to their particular circumstances. All those things
form an effective relationship. One has to keep a constant watch
on bureaucracy and burdens and the way in which one layer of government
will tend to lay those upon another. It is particularly difficult
for central government—and in my current job, where a number
of government departments interact with councils—to ensure
that those burdens are kept to a minimum and that the lines of
accountability are clear, focused and appropriate. There was some
work in DfES that was important around all of that. When that
partnership is right and those conditions are fulfilled, central
and local government can be very powerful allies. One example
of that for me was the number of weak and failing secondary schools
up and down the country, which, when I first worked in education,
were regarded as something that just happened—a bit like
the weather. If you were in a poor area, the schools would be
poor too. That trend has been decisively reversed. We have seen
the number of schools that Ofsted defines as being weak and failing
falling year on year on year. Those schools in poor areas are
improving more quickly than the national average. That has been
about a partnership between those schools, their local authorities
and central government. It is very powerful when it works.
Q2 Chair: Can you say what you perceive
to be the key weaknesses in ODPM that are your priority to address?
Mr Housden: I preface that briefly
by saying that it has been a hugely successful department in every
area of its work. You can identify important policy successes.
The second thing that struck me, looking seriously at the range
of responsibilities, is that the idea of sustainable communities
is a very powerful blender, if you like, of a range of disparate
policy areas. In terms of what I was just speaking about, it has
the capacity to integrate them in a way that local partners will
find very helpful. In that sense, it is pretty counter-cultural,
so I think ODPM has had a tough job to do to get some coherence
and drive around all of that. I do not know if you have had an
opportunity to look at the staff survey. There is some evidence
in there that the pace and scale of that change has put the organisation
under some strain. What are the things that need tackling? Again,
I think you have had the results from the Department of the stock-take
that Ministers undertook in the summer, to make sure that their
priorities were understood and that the PSAs and strategic priorities
were properly aligned.
Q3 Mr Olner: What are PSAs?
Mr Housden: Public Service Agreements,
the targets that are set in each spending review. There is always
an issue about making sure that the targets that you inherited
in this spending review and the previous one and so forth, add
up to a sensible overall programme. Ministers did that in the
summer, so that is a very useful inheritance for me. One of the
things about the delivery of that is to make sure that each of
the groups of officials within ODPM is able to work flexibly to
deliver that, because many targets require input from a number
of them. Housing, for example, will require those divisions dealing
with local government, with neighbourhood renewal and housing
and planning, to work together in a seamless way; and there is
something about flexible working in that sense. There is also
something about business systems. By that, I mean the kinds of
things that make any large organisation run; those in HR, finance
and IT for example are all in a state of modernisation at ODPM.
They are useful and important projects, and will be very important
in delivering the efficiency savings that ODPM is committed to.
Lastly, but I think most importantly, any organisation that I
have worked in that has been successful has had its people at
its heart. I know that we will be a bit in the land of motherhood
and apple pie here, but I really do believe that. I think it is
my biggest single lesson from my experience to date, that organisations
that really succeed have hugely committed, talented and skilled
workforces, and they do not have them by accident; they have organised
business to make sure that they recruit good people, develop and
motivate them, and deploy them in flexible and exciting ways.
The staff survey suggests to me that there is some work to do
in ODPM on these issues.
Chair: I note that you did not exactly
identify key weaknesses, but I am sure we will pick that up later
on.
Q4 John Cummings: How do you perceive
the relationship between the ODPM and this Committee?
Mr Housden: I believe that the
agenda is a tough and demanding one, and we need all the help
we can get from experienced parliamentarians, who will be able
to bring not only their constituency and local experience to bear
on these general policies, to interrogate them with their specific
experience, but also their wider work in Parliament, both within
the UK and abroad. That gives select committee members a perspective
that we can use in those avenues. I look forward to a lively dialogue
on specific policies in that way. The Department will always be
as open as it possibly can to the information requests and to
deliver them in a timely and effective way so that you can do
your job. I look forward to an effective and positive relationship.
Q5 John Cummings: Do you have any
ideas as to how the present relationship can be developed in the
future?
Mr Housden: You would know better
than I how that has been. Has it been a successful relationship
for you?
Q6 John Cummings: Sometimes. Do you
have any suggestions to make to this Committee to improve relationships
and strengthen the present relationships?
Mr Housden: I have just seen,
for example, the material that we have sent across to you on housing
growth, which I think you will be having hearings on over the
current period, and where the Government is expected to respond
to Barker by the end of the year. That is an area of great complexity,
where a number of policies are interacting, having very different
potential effects in different areas. I would have thought that
the debate and discussion around that type of policy issue would
benefit both Ministers and officials, and hopefully the Select
Committee itself.
Q7 Chair: There is a lesson to learn
from that. In the discussions we had over the annual report, an
issue of concern to many members of this Committee was the debate
about infrastructure and the cost of it. It took us about three
attempts before, finally, in the document we had this week, we
received detailed information on infrastructure in a way in which
we, as Members of Parliament could relate to and work out what
was going on. Assuming that your officials had that information
in the first place, it would have been really helpful if they
had provided it to us when we first asked, instead of us having
to drag it out of them as time went on.
Mr Housden: Yes, indeed. We must
make sure that we have taken trouble with your Clerks to make
sure exactly the kind of information that you find helpful.
Q8 John Cummings: Would you tell
the Committee what you believe the importance is of audit to the
process of government? Do you believe there are ways in which
the ODPM could be more responsive to audit, perhaps by this Committee
and by others?
Mr Housden: In terms of the responsiveness
of ODPM, I have not yet any experience of how effective the Department
has been in relation to audit; but in terms of your general question,
it is a very powerful tool. I have had three sorts of experiences
of it. In local government we had a very good relationship with
successive external auditors who worked with our council in Nottinghamshire.
We did some work with them to get our internal audit capacity
at such a level that they were confident that we could use it
as a management tool to improve the quality of delivery in the
council, because audit is so much more than bean-counting. We
worked very effectively with them on some very challenging policy
issues. This was at a time when we were looking at our older people's
homes and whether a completely council-provided service was delivering
the quality that older people deserved, together with value for
money for the wider community. This was politically very contentious
and difficult, and we found our external auditors extremely helpful
in clarifying the factual base of the argument, so that we understood
what was happening in other places, and how we could present this
in a sensible way for our council. I had a short spell with the
Audit Commission in 2000, and I was working there on health reform.
I had the opportunity to see the power of audit in the Health
Service. The Audit Commission in those days did a number of highly
regarded value-for-money studies, where it looked at the national
picture in different aspects of healthcare, primary care and hospitals;
and it produced some very important research studies that were
able to drive improvement. I know that it has done the same in
local government. Finally, here in central government, I have
always enjoyed a productive relationship with the National Audit
Office. I have sat in this chair, or one similar to it, on one
of their investigations into school attendance. Again, the clarity
of challenge is always helpful when you are running an organisation.
Q9 John Cummings: In a nutshell,
do you believe that the ODPM could be more responsive to audit?
Mr Housden: I do not have any
evidence whether or not ODPM is inappropriately unresponsive.
The answer, I suppose, must always be "yes". You always
learn things from audit, and one is legally bound to, and there
are practical advantages in collaborating effectively, so "yes"
is the answer.
Q10 Mr Olner: Your Department is
uniquely dependent on other departments perhaps for the delivery
on what you need to achieve. How closely are you working with
those other departments?
Mr Housden: You are quite right
to say that. The Department at ministerial level and official
level has put great premium on working effectively with departments.
Q11 Mr Olner: Which are the best
and which are the worst?
Mr Housden: Again, it is difficult
for me to reach a judgment, but I have experienced their work
of course with DfES over the recent schools White Paper, over
the Every Child Matters agenda, over the youth Green Paper;
and, because of the work that one does across government anyway,
I have seen the quality of the work that goes on with the Home
Office on the crime and communities agenda. Those have been particularly
important. You are right to say that the sustainable communities
agenda takes ODPM into important relationships with Defra, with
Transport and with Health. Each member of my leadership team has
responsibility for engagement with a particular department, so
we aim to know them well at ministerial and official level. To
go back to Dr Starkey's points about improvements, one of the
things on my list is to make sure that we know well how to work
effectively with other Government departments. I arrived in the
Department just after the schools White Paper had been published,
and a lot of staff time had been put in at ODPM in engaging with
DfES officials on how the White Paper would affect local government
and so on. We have done an evaluation of how effective that work
was, and I want to use that as a basis for a wider discussion
in the Department about making sure we get that right.
Q12 Mr Olner: Can I continue this
point, Madam Chairman? There may well be an inquiry into the crime
and policing matter in the future, but how do you get other departments
to mirror prioritise what you want to do? It is all right you
having priority number one, but if it is priority number five
to the department you are working with, then it is not very effective,
is it?
Mr Housden: Those are real issues.
In my experience, you need to engage with them early and consistently.
It is no good banging on their door at the eleventh hour and saying,
"excuse me, we have had a good idea; will you join in?"
You need a serious conversation with them over an extended period
of time. As with a relationship with any other partner, you need,
in the jargon, to "understand where they are coming from".
You have to ask what their Ministers' priorities are and why they
have them, and then find points of contact. I have always found
that we have been at our most effective when we have really good,
clear arguments that we can back up with evidence as to why a
particular course of action works, so making sure we have all
those lined up and ready for conversations is important.
Q13 Mr Olner: Some of us who have
had experience in local government shudder when, from time to
time, you re-prioritise things. It concerns me that you do not
finish some programmes before you leap on towards the next set
of programmes that you want local authorities to deliver. How
often do you talk to local authorities about targets that you
want to achieve and their ability to achieve the outcomes?
Mr Housden: I have a lot of sympathy
with your point, and it is important that Government is as consistent
as it can be. One of the issues in the design of central government
policy is how long it is designed to last and how, to use the
analogy of an aeroplane, is it intended that it will land.
Q14 Mr Olner: When it gets to the
right destination.
Mr Housden: Very good! I think
that if we manage to be clear with local government about that,
that helps their planning more effectively. The second point would
be about flexibility. I always found it very difficult in local
government, if I was given policies and grants that came in penny
packets and each had its own line of reporting back to the parent
department. The local area agreement, which I imagine the Select
Committee has spent some time on, is a device to enable local
authorities to have a much clearer line of reporting and more
flexibility about how they deliver programmes. In regard to the
flexibility question, we have 150 upper tier authorities in this
country alone, and their circumstances will be unique; so the
mix that they should develop in their communities will be different,
and the Local Area Agreement Programme is designed to give them
more flexibility in that regard.
Q15 Anne Main: I am struggling a
bit here because I do not really feel that you have answered Mr
Olner's question about how much you talk to the local councils.
You keep using the word "clarity". As Dr Starkey said,
we had trouble getting clarity about the infrastructure. You have
set yourself some high goals in this letter about policy development.
I do not see clarity in your objectives, such as "more power
for neighbourhoods to decide things that matter to them".
That is woolly, if you will forgive that word. I do not know what
that means. How are you going to decide what matters to neighbourhoods,
whilst at the same time giving to regions something that they
have to deliver? How do you decide the priorities for people and
what matters to them? Is there some kind of consultation process?
It says, for example, "enforce rules consistently and swiftly
so that we build respect in all communities". That kind of
terminology does not suggest how you deliver it. With these high
level goals, I should like to know how you are going to persuade
departments to deliver what seems to be quite a nebulous concept,
and how that fits in with a more regional approach to delivery
of housing targets when you are giving more power to neighbourhoods.
Can you flesh that out a bit for me, please?
Mr Housden: You are quite right,
and I do apologise. You asked how much we talk with local government.
The answer is that we talk to them a lot, and not only through
the Local Government Association at member and officer level but
also through a wide range of less formal contacts. We have a good
number of local government experienced staff working for ODPM,
secondees, and quite a serious conversation goes on. We have most
recently been round the country talking with the eight core cities
and their local partners about their agendas; so there are a lot
of conversations.
Q16 Anne Main: Can I ask how much
listening is going on? I notice there is a lot of talking to and
telling, but how much listening and how much feedback taking,
so that you feel confident that there is this partnership?
Mr Housden: I went to the city
summit that David Milliband led in Liverpool. We spent a long
day there, meeting a very wide range of partners, and there was
a good deal of listening. It is very important, because people
are quite worldly-wise and know when they are not being listened
to. The local area agreements, and the way in which we are looking
to work more effectively in those cities, are based precisely
on their vision of what is needed, in this case in Liverpool,
to move it forward, and how we in central government, with a range
of infrastructure developments, local authority policy and so
on, can help them to do that. I have a lot of sympathy with your
broader points. Let me say something about neighbourhoods because
they are crucially important for us in this regard.
Q17 Anne Main: Can you define a neighbourhood
for me, because it would help me know what level of area we are
talking about?
Mr Housden: I think Ministers'
concerns have been the neighbourhoods that have been under pressure
in one way or another, where there may be a number of social factors
associated with poor housing or unemployment, high levels of crime
and antisocial behaviour, where the neighbourhood needs additional
support and focus to make it the kind of place people want to
live in. Happily, a good number of neighbourhoods in the country
pass those tests, but there are other areas where people are less
happy to live. One of the concerns of Ministers is just how responsive
local authorities are to the needs of residents in those areas,
and we are interested to know ways in which we could get local
services closer to local people's wishes. For example, when I
worked in Nottinghamshire there were 88 members of the council
and each had a division, but most of those divisions spanned a
number of recognisable communities, whether rural or urban. We
established a programme of local area forums where those members
could meet and engage with local community interests and be the
champion of their neighbourhood. This was different from their
surgeries and constituency work; it brought them together with
voluntary sector interests.
Q18 Anne Main: Are you talking then
about a different political level for more power to the neighbourhoods
that you have just described? Is the ODPM involving itself with
the structure of local government?
Mr Housden: It is not a structural
question really, but in finding ways to enable democratically-elected
representatives at local level to be more strongly connected with
the communities they represent. On the responsiveness question,
they are interested in the ways in which local people can express
their opinions about local services, and whether their needs are
met at local level.
Anne Main: I am still struggling with
this in terms of the structure that is currently in place.
Q19 Sir Paul Beresford: This has
all been portrayed as an opportunity for local government to have
more freedom from central government and work for local people—yes?
Mr Housden: Yes.
|
