Mr.
Goodman: The Minister has not persuaded usat
least, those of us on the Conservative Benchesthat she is as
enthusiastic about allowing local authorities to exercise the
competencies as we would like. None the less, she made a good
lawyers 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withdrawn.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
8Abolition
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 honestI hope my
right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon covers his ears at
this pointthis 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. Gentlemans 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 agothe
lowest ever of a national Government. In my book, that is a realistic
recognition of the Governments 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 ChronicleI am sure
that, as an avid reader, he doeshe 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 nowperhaps 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
Commissions 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
9Abolition
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 authoritys 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.
|