Title

As the Conservatives and the Audit Commission lock horns over the future of the inspection regime, the LGA has issued its own comments on what shape the inspectorates could take. Michael Burton looks at the proposals. Last weekend's volley of grapeshot from the Conservative Party against the Audit Commission offers a glimpse of the behind-the-scenes political battle over the future of the entire inspection regime. The Audit Commission, a body set up by the Conservatives and once described by one of its insiders as ‘very clever at reinventing itself', is currently fighting to maintain its existence in its present form. Ironically, the threat comes from the very party which created it. The LGA's proposals: Devolved autonomy to Total Place concept Slimline national outcomes Three-year financial settlements New area agreements National public service inspectorate Single improvement framework for public services A ‘new approach to intervention' The Tories, nationally and through the LGA, have made it clear they will scrap the new CAA, downsize the commission's inspection remit and hand over a new responsibility, that of monitoring the annual grant funding regime. Conservative councillors are, if anything, more opposed to the inspection regime than Labour members, and through their dominance in local government and the LGA, have been leaning hard on shadow ministers to stick to their commitment. The commission believes the CAA and inspection must remain. At a recent MJ conference, its chairman, Michael O'Higgins – whose remit has been extended by this Government to 2012 – insisted that self-assessment was no substitute for external inspection, adding: ‘Accountability comes from validated information made available to the public' (The MJ, 21 January). Claiming that self-inspection in the NHS had led to a ‘50% error rate', he added that deprived areas often had low expectations of services and ‘registered high satisfaction levels, even though the service was poor'. At the same conference, shadow local government minister, Bob Neill, stressed that ‘we will abolish the CAA', and said the commission must ‘refocus its role with a light-touch steer'. In the latest spat, the Tories have upped the ante by claiming the commission has been hiring Connect Public Affairs, at a cost of £55,616, to lobby shadow ministers to change their minds over the CAA. Shadow communities secretary, Caroline Spelman, said last weekend: ‘We can no longer have confidence in the Audit Commission if it has become such a creature of the state that it bankrolls lobbyists to save its own skin.' The commission said it had only paid £9,000 and that ‘all work done by Connect was not lobbying but research and analysis', adding: ‘The commission does not operate in a vacuum. It is incumbent on the commission, as a publicly-funded body, to keep all political parties aware of its activities and findings, to inform public debate.' By coincidence, the LGA last week also issued its own consultation Freedom to lead: Trust to deliver among council leaders into what shape a future inspection regime might take. It asked whether all inspections should be merged into a single entity, taking into account the Total Place programme, the one agenda which is cross-party and expected to survive a change of government in May. The paper also asks whether there should be devolved autonomy to shape the total amount of local public spending in any one place, a slimline set of national indicators relevant to each locality, three-year area financial settlements for the whole public sector, a national inspectorate for local public service delivery, and a single improvement framework for local public services. Cllr David Parsons, chairman of the LGA's improvement board, says: ‘Councils now face a lengthy period of spending constraint and real-term cuts. However, public expectations remain high, and people will look to councils to find new ways of maintaining and improving their services. ‘Local government leaders are, rightly, looking for ambitious solutions. We need much less central control if we are to deliver better services and lead our local areas. ‘At the same time, increasing local accountability will strengthen democracy and save public money.' The LGA paper saw ‘robust and systematic peer challenge' as core to a new performance-management system. Certainly, the IDeA's peer review programme has been one of its greatest successes, and offers an alternative to an inspection regime. But, as Doncaster has shown, occasional basket cases will necessitate firm intervention from within the local government ‘family', or peer challenge will be discredited. The irony is that the Audit Commission has had to ‘volunteer' to intervene in Doncaster. Where was the local government sector in all this? How can ministers have faith in sector-led support if it is not forthcoming? A single national improvement agency for public services would both streamline the current overlapping programmes and reflect the Total Place agenda. However, it too must be robust, if it is to work, and local government must expect to share the turf with public sector partners. Arms of Whitehall such as the NHS, Jobcentre Plus and NDPBs will require prodding to participate. The report also suggested that all Whitehall improvement funding covering councils and NDPBs should be devolved to councils to manage. The cost of inspection, at £2bn a year for local government alone, is a burden. But even without it, councils still need to be monitoring their performance and more resources will be devoted to peer review. National inspection is expensive and bureaucratic, frequently unnecessary, and in age when councils and their localities are deemed to know better than Whitehall, counter to the new winds of change. The best performers do not need outside inspectors crawling over their offices. The sector itself is capable of dealing with poor performers and helping improvement. Nonetheless, local government will need to clearly show ministers that if its takes on external validation itself, this will be objective, robust and resourced. It is also likely that high-risk areas, including audit, children's and adult services will continue to require monitoring to national standards. Finally, a review of the inspection regime should provide an opportunity to revisit the role of the National Audit Office vis-à-vis the Audit Commission. With

Title

WHITEHALL

Battlelines are drawn over the future of inspection

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING