28 June 2002
By the time delegates assemble in Bournemouth on July 2 for their annual shindig, they will have had a chance to chew over the commission's second consultation paper on the Comprehensive Performance Assessment. It is likely to prove a popular discussion topic among town hall movers and shakers.
The document canvasses their opinions on the commission's latest proposals for the CPA, the replacement for the widely disliked Best Value regime.
The consensus emerging among those who have seen the paper seems to be that it leaves some questions unanswered – such as how corporate assessments will be quality assured – but goes a long way towards filling in the blanks on how the process will be conducted.
In sharp contrast to the acknowledgement that the Audit Commission is doing its best to explain its latest thinking, there is mounting concern that the government is doing little to provide the pieces of the CPA jigsaw that only it can put into place.
The LGA, and others in the local government field, have begun to question why the breakneck speed with which the CPA is being rolled out is not being matched by a detailed outline of the new freedoms promised in last December's white paper.
That document trumpeted a range of 'freedoms and flexibilities' that would be granted to high-performing authorities, as well as a light-touch inspection regime. But little has been heard of these since.
Matthew Warburton, the LGA's head of futures, admits his organisation is worried by the government's apparent inertia.
As well as wanting more detail on the autonomy that will be given to successful authorities, it also wants to know about the role of intervention and the support that will be available to those at the bottom of the performance scale.
'A lot of the work needs to be done by the government, rather than the Audit Commission,' he says. 'We want to see work on the promised freedoms and flexibilities, and the intervention and support tools, being taken forward with the same urgency as the CPA. At the moment, there is little sense that the government is seized with that urgency.'
Warburton highlights another concern: that the recent Whitehall overhaul has left the central government aspect of the CPA reforms rudderless.
'Who has ownership of this project within government? And does that person have the necessary clout to deliver the solutions?' he asks rhetorically. In view of the lack of progress, the answer seems all too obvious.
In reality, the situation is more complex, with responsibility for the necessary decisions falling on officials and ministers housed in several departments.
The assessment framework, for example, will require input from inspection bodies such as Ofsted and the Social Services Inspectorate, supervised by the Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Health respectively.
At the same time, meaningful support – or intervention, depending on your outlook – can happen only with an injection of cash through next month's Spending Review. But that, of course, is in the gift of the notoriously parsimonious Treasury.
These issues, and a host of others, need to be resolved, and resolved soon, if LGA leaders are to continue to support, albeit cautiously, the CPA.
Already, some other experts have criticised the proposed regime for failing to tackle the fundamental flaws of Best Value.
Dennis Reed, director of the Local Government Information Unit, a policy organisation that numbers 150 councils among its members, has made clear the LGIU's rejection of the CPA. It will continue to demand a complete rethink of the performance framework, he adds.
'The Audit Commission is shooting itself in the foot with a system that will demotivate councils that get a poor rating, put off good people from working in them and throw a spanner in the works of improving the very authorities that need it most,' Reed says.
In the face of outright opposition such as this, ministers would do well to keep the more sympathetic element of local government opinion onside.
PFjun2002
