With CPA set to end in two years, what do local authorities wish to see in its place, if anything? A group of North West chief executives and senior managers gave their views in a recent lunch debate organised by The MJ and Vertex, the business process services company. Paul Marinko reports on the feedback CPA has been a fact of life for councils for six years, and is due for a major overhaul after 2008. So what has it really been like for council bosses, and what do they think the future holds? In the first of three lunch debates, The MJ and business process services company Vertex invited top officers from councils in the North West to sound out their views on a process which has brought to some, some star status, but has been the bain of other’s lives. The debate took place under ‘Chatham House’ rules, meaning none of the comments have been attributed. Q: Has CPA been a success or failure, and has it achieved what it set out to do? A: ‘It was welcome in 2002, and it was a good time for central government to have some assessment of what was going on.’ ‘There was a “demonstrable improvement” in what local authorities were achieving, and we wanted to demonstrate that. We felt it was a chance for us to tell the civil servants that local government was achieving good things.’ ‘When the process was introduced, we were seen as “poor white trash” and the “basket case of the public sector”, but we had done amazing things with scant resources.’ ‘The first round sharpened everyone’s focus, but it has been unsuccessful in a way, because it has failed to engage with residents. Local people don’t know what it means.’ ‘There were some problems with the original labels. The “excellent” tag was no good because it didn’t resonate with what local people thought of their council. And the same applied with “poor” and “weak” labels. ‘But on a managerial level, CPA has had a positive impact, both for councillors and officers. The public didn’t give a monkey’s but it had an impact internally. ‘There was also the ability to be judged against our peers which, all in all, was a “driver for change.’ ‘The key thing for a “poor” authority was it was a ‘signal call for change’ to the politicians. Where it was heard, the change was often rapid. But it did not effect the public. Q: What do you think of the new ‘harder test’ CPA? A: ‘It was a harder test, but it’s unsustainable. It’s swallowed up an enormous amount of resources from councils and the Audit Commission.’ ‘It’s much more of a rigid audit and tick-box process. Where they have to make a narrow judgement, to fill in a box, they have to make subjective judgements.’ ‘The whole review is going to become more of a problem for the Audit Commission. The timing is unfortunate, it comes at a time when the Government is restructuring to four inspectorates and also when the LGA has said we’ve had enough. It’s taking too much away from the locality.’ ‘We are reliant on the subjective elements of the inspection team. If you get a tough team, you’re buggered.’ ‘They have not ironed out the inspectors’ pet subjects. The team can tend to focus on these subjects.’ ‘There’s a focus on the negative, and we are not allowed to show outcomes. ‘It would have been better if there had been a little less prescription and inspectors knew a little bit more about what we were trying to do. It’s been damaged by bureaucracy.’ ‘One problem is that the process is focused on the council, but a lot of it is about our partners, who are autonomous organisations. ‘They can be in debt and struggling and they can cut programmes, but it’s our inspection which will get hammered. The inspectors have no manoeuvrability on it. Why are authorities being marked down when they can’t influence it?’ ‘The IDeA peer review process is preferable.’ ‘With LAAs, trying to get agreement with all the authorities and partners is a nightmare. ‘ ‘The scoring system on the new system for districts is hugely different. The Audit Commission has not got the resources to do it in a sensible timeframe. Some had two years to look at, and some had three years.’ ‘If I was a district, I would not be worrying about the CPA. It’s changing too much. The mets and London boroughs are concentrating on service delivery now.’ Q: What do you think of the commission’s proposals so far for life after CPA? A: ‘[Acting commission chairman] Sir Michael Lyons has hinted at a preference for the public to be given more of an input. That is likely to be in the new process and it is likely to be less rigid. ‘If it is not more like that, local government will ignore it, barring teams from the premises.’ ‘If the Tories get in, it would go. But they couldn’t leave us alone for long. ‘The focus on customers’ views is technically difficult.’ Q: Could the peer review process be formalised as part of a lighter-touch inspection? A: The Audit Commission does not value the IDeA. There is seen to be a difference between data for audit and data for improvement.’ ‘Local authorities will not accept it. You can’t go through an IDeA review every few years.’ ‘The Audit Commission is moving more into value for money and use of resources. It’s amazing it hasn’t been doing this up until now.’ ‘There are aspects of the IDeA process we can engage with. For example, value for money is a positive process. Something can come out of that where authorities can prove they’ve been through external examination.’ ‘For districts, the IDeA process is very useful. For example, there is a politician involved for political views, which is not the case with the Audit Commission.’ ‘There’s a lot of variation, depending on who writes up the Audit Commission review.’ ‘Some of the inspectors have no background in very complex areas they are passing judgement on. If they are not experts, we can’t break through the shallowness.’ Q: Is there anything wrong with having different levels of service and creating the so-called ‘postcode lottery’? A: ‘No.’ ‘New Labour has created agendas to meet broad expectations.’ ‘The Lyons review is saying “get real, there can be variations.”’ Q: Is it fair to judge a local authority when a partner, such as a PCT, has let it down and affected its performance? A: ‘Your position might be very different from the inspectors’. The inspection should be about LSPs and the locality, not just councils. ‘That would be more challenging, but it has to be the way forward.’ ‘We challenged what the Audit Commission thought was a shared service. It had created a partnership agenda which could not be achieved.’ ‘There are whole sets of rules for cross-service areas which could be broken down.’ ‘In effect, it’s like saying your driving licence will depend on someone else who is speeding in your car.’ ‘It’s divisive because you put the blame on your partner.’ ‘The starting point is, we have to put in place a level playing field for the tiers. ‘There is a need to establish a form of local government in which there is clear accountability.’ Q: Post CPA what would you like to see and what do you expect to see? A: ‘I’d like to see some self-assessment and peer assessment, less targets, and a more voluntary process.’ ‘With self-assessment, we have been more critical than the Audit Commission has been.’ ‘If you concentrate only on performance indicators, it takes out the local element. But self-assessment has to be moderated and adjudicated, otherwise it is not very robust.’ ‘It may be good to reverse the current situation and have a bigger group of peers in the assessment team and a smaller audit team.’ ‘I’d like to have a trigger process for deciding when the assessment takes place. This would be fairer and create a more level playing field.’ ‘The idea of the public having a role in assessment has to be tempered with how good your public is at complaining. ‘You need a good relationship manager.’ n
