LG 25 - Monmouthshire County Council
Written response to National Assembly Committee
Working with the citizens of Monmouthshire
Date:/Dyddiad: December 2008Your Ref.:/Eich Cyf: Contact:/Cysylltiad: Matthew Gatehouse
Tel.:/Ffon: 01633 644397
E-Mail:/E-Bost:
matthewgatehouse@monmouthshire.gov.uk Ruth Hatton
Deputy Committee Clerk
Legislation Office
National Assembly for Wales
Cardiff Bay
CF99 1NA
Dear Ms Hatton
Proposed Local Government (Wales) Measure - consultation questions
Thank for your recent invitation to submit evidence to the Proposed Local Government Measure Committee. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the process. I must apologise for this letter arriving after the stated deadline for responses and accept that as a result the committee may not be able to take the submission into account.
While broadly supportive of the measure there are a number of specific issues which I believe would benefit from further attention. These have been addressed using the prescribed questions.
Question 1 - Is there a need for legislation?
The need to reform the statutory basis for improvement is accepted given the lack of legal underpinning for the current WPI guidance afforded by the Local Government Act 1999.
However the advantage of the Wales Programme for Improvement is that it allows authorities a degree of flexibility and proportionality that was not present under the Best Value regime. It is hoped that the flexibilities presently available to authorities will not be lost with the creation of the new measure to ensure that resources can be targeted at front-line services rather than process.
Question 2 - Changes to service improvement and community planning?
The definition of improvement has been considerably broadened. The different elements contained within that definition, from strategic effectiveness through to innovation, are only broadly spelt out. This is cautiously welcomed although there is a concern about how these will be interpreted by regulators when discharging their duties. The lack of clarity around sustainability within Circular 28/2005 is a good example of the difficulties that this can bring.
The move away from the risk focus of the current WPI in particular is appreciated. However given that the risk element was not enshrined in the 1999 Act we can assume that legislation would not have been needed to bring about this particular change. Nonetheless freeing up the regulators, and therefore Councils, from a narrow risk focus towards one which has greater recognition of the value of innovation is appreciated.
Question 3 - Are the sections of the proposed Measure appropriate?
Paragraph 3(a) within section 4 identifies a county council’s strategic objectives as those contained in the current community strategy for the area. This is not accurate, while the local authority is clearly the lead partner in the community strategy the objectives of the strategy are not the same as those of the authority. For example, some of the aspirations within the strategy may be more closely aligned with the organisational goals of Health or The Police.
We are concerned that allowing ministers to set standards for performance indicators (section 8) will reduce the ability of a local authority to focus on local needs, priorities and policy choices. The indicators presently within the national performance measurement framework are output rather than outcome focused. They are not an appropriate vehicle on which to base standards since they are not focused on individual service users. Using these as the basis for a framework of standards could lead to authorities chasing centrally specified output targets at the expense of locally identified outcomes.
It appears from section 14 that the duty to publish a two stage improvement plan, as outlined in the current WPI guidance (Circular 28/2005) remains. This is to be welcomed since the publication of how an authority intends to meet its strategic aims is one of the most useful elements of the improvement plan. However there is some concern that paragraph 2 (a) (iii) of this section could be interpreted as requiring authorities to publish all performance indicators, including the core data set, within its improvement plan. The volume of indicators involved means this is impractical and also counterproductive since the volume of numerical data involved would deter all but the most determined citizens from picking up the plan.
The capturing of the relationship manager role within the measure is welcome. Although this was specified within Circular 28/2005 it did not always lead to co-ordinated or joined up regulation.
We remain concerned about the power afforded to Welsh Ministers to 'do anything’ to ensure compliance with the Act. While the intention of current ministers is no doubt to ensure flexibility of response from the Assembly a less open form of wording would be appreciated to ensure that this power is not misinterpreted by future administrations and that responsibility for governance and risks remains transparent. We also have reservations about the power to enforce collaborative arrangements on an authority as specified in section 31. Whilst a collaborative approach is supported in principle a degree of flexibility is likely to be needed to operate well within communities.
The bringing together of improvement and community planning within the measure should prove beneficial in bringing a greater performance management focus to community planning. However the requirements around community strategy reviews suggest that these are big 'one-off’ events. It would be more appropriate to think of community strategies as dynamic tools that need to be kept under continuous review.
Question 5 - What are the financial implications of the proposed Measure for organisations?
We disagree with the statement in section 6 that "The provisions of the proposed Measure do not give rise to any administrative, compliance or other costs.” There are costs attached to compliance. While these do not appear to be any more onerous than those of the current WPI approach and, are significantly lower than those of the Best Value regime originally created by the 1999 Act, they remain cost pressures at a time when budget settlements are likely to be increasingly challenging.
If you have any queries with the content of this submission please do not hesitate to get in touch using the contact details shown above.
Yours Sincerely
Matthew Gatehouse
Improvement Officer
