Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [Lords]


[back to previous text]

Mr. Goodman: The Minister has not persuaded us—at least, those of us on the Conservative Benches—that she is as enthusiastic about allowing local authorities to exercise the competencies as we would like. None the less, she made a good lawyer’s argument. She did what I think we would do if we were Ministers, looking at the new clause and arguing that if it came into effect, this, that and the other would be the consequence, including the granting to local authorities of tax-raising powers, if I heard her correctly.
For those reasons, we will not press the motion to a vote. Ministers are skilful at putting forward such arguments, and we must take them seriously when they are put, but we look forward to returning in due course to the debate about the competencies of local authorities. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 8

Abolition of comprehensive area assessments
‘(1) Sections 99 and 100 of the Local Government Act 2003 (c. 26) are deleted.’.—(Mr. Stewart Jackson.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Jackson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Following on from the theme so ably articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe, I rise to speak to new clause 8, which proposes the abolition of comprehensive area assessments, the unloved twin brother of comprehensive performance assessments that came into force this April.
I have two separate quotes. One is from the 1997 Labour party manifesto:
“Local decision-making should be less constrained by central government and also more accountable to local people.”
The other is from a 2007 Ministry of Justice Green Paper entitled “The Governance of Britain”, which said after 10 years of Labour Government that
“power remains too centralised and too concentrated in government hands”.
That centralisation of power, particularly the application of sanctions to local authorities, is now vested in the comprehensive area assessment. It might be as well to examine the facts behind that.
Local councils are subject to a significant inspection regime. That said, the Government do not keep any central records of the cost of inspections to local government, but in his inquiry into local government in 2007, Sir Michael Lyons used an estimate prepared by the National Audit Office that said it was about £2 billion a year. Michael Frater, the original head of the Lifting the Burdens Task Force, stated three years ago:
“Eighty per cent. of the costs of the performance regime relate to councils reporting to central government, not reporting to the community. It defies all common sense.”
The comprehensive area assessment followed best value and the comprehensive performance assessment, as Committee members know; if nothing else, we have established during these proceedings that they are avid readers of “Control Shift”, the Conservative local government manifesto published this February, and well they might be, as it is a blueprint of the Conservative Government to come in 10 months’ time.
“Control Shift” made the point that the present inspection regimes are expensive, bureaucratic and often ineffective, in so far as they put a premium on procedural performance rather than on the demonstrable delivery of local public services, which would enhance accountability to local electors. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe made a passionate defence of localism in his remarks on referendums. It is important to realise that what we have seen is not just the accretion of power to a central unitary state. If I am honest—I hope my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon covers his ears at this point—this did not start on 1 May 1997; I accept that. However, it has certainly continued at a precipitous speed.
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has devoted about 90 per cent. of his remarks to alleged central control, and only about 10 per cent. to performance. This debate is about performance assessment. Would he like to tell the Committee about the evidence of local government performance over the period of comprehensive performance assessment, and the comments of people such as Michael Frater, whom he quoted, who relished the accolade that his authority received for the excellent service delivery that was achieved when he was chief executive of Telford and Wrekin council? That recognition is seen by many in local government as rather better than the performance of central Government, which has been subject to a somewhat different performance measurement regime. Would the hon. Gentleman like to reflect a little on the effectiveness of performance management regimes in driving up standards of performance?
Mr. Jackson: The right hon. Gentleman’s rhetorical agility demonstrates why, I am sure, he is missed by the Whips. We are not debating the history of comprehensive performance assessment and best value. If he wants to reflect on the record and the result of Government achievement, he might reflect on the 15.7 per cent. of the popular vote received in a national election two weeks ago—the lowest ever of a national Government. In my book, that is a realistic recognition of the Government’s performance so far.
Returning to my point, of course comprehensive performance assessment had its detractors. It was not all beer and skittles. There were people who thought that it was not that successful, and that it was not appropriate to be used in their local authority areas. Comprehensive area assessment has been with us for a relatively short period of time and the jury is out. If the right hon. Gentleman reads the Local Government Chronicle—I am sure that, as an avid reader, he does—he will know that there is a plethora of opinions on CAA, regarding both its current performance, and its future prospects.
Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman has also read into the subject, he will know that when the comprehensive performance assessment was introduced in 2001, it was almost universally condemned by local government spokespeople, who were virtually all against it. The result of that experience has changed the point of view of a lot of those people, which is why the hon. Gentleman now describes a more varied expression of opinion about CPA and CAA. The question that I put to him earlier, which he has not answered, was about whether he has thoughts on the performance levels of local government, and how far that performance has improved as a result of exposure to a performance management regime.
Mr. Jackson: I certainly feel that the preponderance of more people to vote Conservative and to elect Conservative councils in their area will inevitably drive up performance over the next few years. If CPA was such a good thing, why did the Government see fit to get rid of it? I will leave that question hanging in the air.
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will know that one of the problems with performance management regimes is that they can, over time, become so familiar that there is a danger that the participants learn how to play the system to get high scores, rather than actually improve performance. It is a genuine problem, and that is why a change of regime from time to time is often a good measure to try to ensure that the focus is on raising performance rather than ticking boxes.
2.30 pm
Mr. Jackson: This feels like a duet with the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. I do not disagree with him on that point, but I am not persuaded that the new post-April 2009 regime is going to address the problem. I will come to that later.
The other key point is the impact on the perception of ratepayers. Of course, I should call them council tax payers now—perhaps I am showing my age, having first been elected to a local council in May 1990, which is almost 20 years ago. Overall across the country, public satisfaction with service delivery has deteriorated. Figures produced by the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in 2005 showed that average dissatisfaction with councils’ overall performance increased by a third over the previous eight years, and that public satisfaction with the overall performance of local government is low compared with most other public service providers and has declined in that time. Satisfaction with the value for money provided by councils has also decreased.
On the specific point that the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich made, we agree that local councils’ energy and resources are often diverted away from the delivery of better front-line services and incremental improvements over time because of consideration for ticking a Government box and delivering key performance indicators in a top-down culture. That is a classic example of energy being diverted away from local services to play the system, as can happen with CAAs. That is why we intend to abolish them.
We might be asked, “What are you going to do instead?” We believe that it is quite permissible for the Audit Commission to have a more proactive role. Instead of a monolithic, top-down approach involving inspecting and analysing everything, with its huge indicative displacement activity costs, it is appropriate for the commission to work with local authorities to focus specifically on high-risk areas more proactively and with greater alacrity.
For example, in the baby P case in Haringey, there was clearly a breakdown in procedures, lack of leadership and so on. That is an extreme example, but the Audit Commission could have had an opportunity to assist. It would not be appropriate in all cases, but we believe that the commission has the skills, knowledge, experience and expertise to deliver in that role. The CAA is also a Government initiative that takes a top-down approach. There may be a degree of consultation now, and it has worked out practically in some local authorities, but it has not been successful in all.
We believe that there is too much inspection and too much focus on meeting Government targets. We also believe that there is no evidence that the plethora of inspection regimes are co-ordinated or working closely together for the benefit of local council tax payers. On that basis, we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say and we are minded to press the new clause to a Division.
Ms Winterton: I hope that the Opposition do not press the new clause to a Division, not least because it is defective. Moving sections of the Local Government Act 2003 would have no effect on CAAs, because the legal framework for the CAA is actually in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. There is a huge problem if the Opposition press the matter to a Division, because it will not achieve what they want.
In particular, section 152 of the 2007 Act clarifies the Audit Commission’s existing power to inspect best value authorities’ compliance with their duties under part 1 of the Local Government Act 1999, and enables the Audit Commission to carry out general inspections of the performance of best value authorities.
The system of assessment for CAA was introduced from April 2009, and replaces CPA and most other rolling programmes of inspection and assessment for local authorities and fire and rescue authorities. But CPA remains relevant to our approach to handling the legacy of freedoms and flexibilities that were awarded according to category of performance under CPA. Removing those legal provisions would be difficult.
Removing section 99 of the 2003 Act would remove the Audit Commission's power to produce reports on the performance of local authorities, and categorise them according to performance. The new clause would remove that power from the Audit Commission. With effect from 1 August 2009, such reports will be undertaken only at the request of the Secretary of State. Section 100 of the 2003 Act provides that the Secretary of State may exercise various powers by reference to local authorities of a particular categorisation, including the power to allow local authorities to trade and to allow freedom from statutory requirements to produce plans or strategies. It would be worrying if that power were also removed, but that would be the effect of the new clause.
We published the consultation paper on 6 May, and we want views on how the freedoms and flexibilities package for local authorities and fire and rescue authorities granted under CPA can be treated under CAA, consistent with the move to providing greater freedom at local level. We are consulting, and there are problems with the new clause, which would not achieve what the Opposition believe it would achieve. In fact, it would achieve the opposite, so I ask the Opposition to withdraw it.
Mr. Jackson: Given the exhaustive legislative context that the right hon. Lady explained to the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 9

Abolition of national process targets
‘(1) The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (c. 28) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 105 insert—
“(4) All national targets and local improvement targets incorporated within a local area agreement (as defined in section 106(1) or designated under section 109) shall relate solely to the quality and quantity of frontline services within the local authority’s area rather than processes relating to such services.”’.—(Mr. Paul Goodman.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Goodman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to introduce a clause, the principle of which the Minister will surely support enthusiastically, because there has been agreement throughout the House in recent years that the whole target business has gone too far. If you are ever inclined, Mr. Illsley, to google local councils’ Government targets and press the button, up will come a whole series of press releases from the Department for Communities and Local Government. I believe that the one I saw was from August last year, and it said that the Government had cut the number of targets from 100 to 35. I would normally presume that the Minister had no difficulty with this helpful new clause that would cut the number of targets even further by relating them to the quality and quantity of front-line services, but the Minister will probably get to her feet and say that our new clause is defective for various legal reasons, and encourage us to withdraw it. However, I encourage her to have a substantive go at the arguments, because there seems to be a consensus across the House that the whole targets business has gone far too far, a point that has been conceded not least by Ministers themselves in recent years and months.
Dan Rogerson: The new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Wycombe is, on first reading, an attractive proposition, as it seeks to give even greater scope to local authorities to determine how they should be assessed and what their targets should be through the local area agreements. It would effectively focus on outcomes and state that they were important and that local authorities should be able to decide how they would achieve those national targets. So long as the national targets are ticked off and achieved, it is up to local authorities to decide how they will do that, because the process is not important.
However, I have been trying to think of examples of where it is difficult to separate out the process from the outcome, and that is the problem for me. It might be a bit simplistic to say that something is either an outcome or a process, which is my slight concern with the provision, but we certainly support the spirit behind it. The hon. Member for Peterborough referred earlier to the baby P case, and one could argue that sometimes when achieving targets in terms of outcomes, for example with vulnerable or looked-after children, there might be elements of the process in how that is carried out. We probably could not support the new clause as drafted, but it is a useful debate to have.
 
Previous Contents Continue
House of Commons 
home page Parliament home page House of 
Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index

©Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 19 June 2009