24 August 2001
This column is normally concerned with what Best Value inspectors have to say. But, as with real life, often it is what they don't say that is most interesting.
While many councils up and down the country may be nervously awaiting inspectors' verdicts on their services, Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council seems to have the perfect solution: get the Audit Commission to agree not to publish the report at all.
Several reviews undertaken by the unitary council will now not be inspected and the report on at least one service that has been through the inspection mill – financial management – will not be published.
Although it is understood that discussions between the inspectorate and council managers became rather heated, both sides are now playing down the problems and concentrating on the fact that they have an agreed way forward.
Ray Richardson, assistant chief executive at Redcar and Cleveland, explained the council's version of events. 'We looked at all our Best Value reviews for the first two years and agreed with the inspectorate that they were too narrow in focus and have reclassified them. These will now become internal service reviews, internally dealt with and not subject to Best Value inspection reports.
'We have altered our approach for the next three years on service reviews, looking at reviewing the bulk of council services on more strategic lines, getting away from the service focus.'
Keith Pudney, the council's lead member on Best Value, said they had decided they needed to tackle Best Value in a completely different way so that it delivered real change. And he suggested that inspection reports on the early reviews would have been inappropriate.
Meanwhile, the Commission's new head of Best Value inspection, Paul Kirby, admitted this was not a one-off. 'There have been a small number of inspections in the first year where Best Value reviews have been undeveloped and the councils are going to continue doing the reviews. [It was decided that] rather than report now, we would come back later.'
But he added that evidence collected already would be used when the inspectors return to the authorities in question.
Back in the world of published reports, by mid-August the inspectorate had completed some 700 on-site inspections and published 312 reports. In the sin bin in recent weeks has been the London Borough of Haringey, which was given the worst possible judgement – zero stars and not going to improve – for its library service.
Inspectors pulled no punches. 'Users expressed deep dissatisfaction with the quality of services… The service has one of the lowest total opening hours in London, exacerbated by a high rate of unplanned closures… Net expenditure is below average… Resources available to managers were not being utilised to maximum benefit… There is poor stock management and negligible stock control.'
To its credit, Haringey has stood up and taken the shame. 'We have accepted the criticisms of the library service as valid,' said the council's chief executive David Warwick.
Having earlier seen the inspectors' draft report, the council has already brought in private sector expertise to head the library service for the next six months. The commission has pledged to reinspect the service in one year's time and Warwick said it would 'see many improvements'. However, the motto on the council's libraries' website 'Haringey libraries – on the up and up' seems a bit cheeky. If the inspectors were right, there is no other way the service could go.
Staying in London, Barnet also fared badly, scoring no stars and unlikely to improve for its internal audit service. The service was judged to be getting the basics wrong. There was 'little evidence of added value from audit reviews… poor timing of audits… ineffective reporting lines'.
In addition, the service was running with just half its permanent staffing level, and had no chief internal auditor.
In a method traditionally used by councils to counter poor showings in performance indicators, Barnet said the problems were historical.
'The problems within the service were known to us before the inspectors arrived,' said councillor Danish Chopra. 'Their report confirmed our view of the situation which used to exist within the internal audit service.'
Having said that, all the inspector's recommendations have been accepted and a new chief internal auditor is being sought.
All eyes now turn to the Audit Commission, which is due to publish a Best Value annual statement in mid-September. Kirby promised this will be a major publication describing 'how performance improvement looks across local government'.
Implying some significant changes in the offing, he said the broad conclusion will be 'a need for more differentiation between different types of authority'.
While this sounds distinctly like the new, lighter touch inspections for successful authorities that many have been calling for, Kirby was clearly uncomfortable with the terminology. 'It's not about a heavy and light touch, but a wider range of approaches.'
With many councils still complaining of inspection-overload, there is perhaps some good news around the corner.
PFaug2001
