Tackling Poor Performance in Local Government
Comments from The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants
September 2002
The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) is pleased to have this opportunity to comment on the consultation paper, Tackling Poor Performance in Local Government. These comments have been prepared in consultation with members of the ACCA's Public Sector Technical Committee, a group of experienced accountants working in the public sector.
The Government's Code of Practice on Written Consultation states that, "Twelve weeks should be the standard minimum period for a consultation". Respondents for the current consultation exercise however, have been given less than six weeks. This is consistent with the rather rushed manner in which we consider the whole Comprehensive Performance Assessment process has been introduced.
We are pleased that the Government aims to discuss the results of this consultation exercise with the LGA and to put in place an agreed approach. If this initiative is to be successful, we believe that the approach adopted must be widely accepted as being fair to poorly performing authorities and ensure that local democracy is further strengthened. For this reason we question the assertion that there is no case for a further independent appeals procedure.
Especially in the worst performing authorities, we consider it would be appropriate for such an appeals process to be introduced. This would ensure that evidence on the quality of their performance could be independently reviewed before the powers and responsibilities of their democratically elected members were removed or curtailed.
The Partnership or Improvement Board
We believe that capacity building for the local democratic institutions will often be an important part of the recovery plan for poorly performing councils. For this reason, we believe that, except for those councils with particularly weak political leaderships, the political power of the authority should remain with the council and its committees or cabinet. These bodies may well be supported by external advisors, but in almost all cases we believe that the appointment of a Partnership or Improvement Board would result in an undermining of the political leadership of the authority and would further reduce the confidence of its elected members.We also believe that the proposed relationship manager and other advisors appointed to assist the authority with the implementation of its recovery plan should be able to attend and speak at all meetings of senior managers and members of the authority. But we believe that, in almost all cases, the appointment of a Partnership or Improvement Board would not assist the recovery process and may well have a detrimental effect. Wherever possible the existing democratic structures need to be used and strengthened rather than alternative structures being used to usurp their role even on a temporary basis. As the consultation paper states at paragraph 28, "in addressing poor performance, the Government will wish to respect the fact that councils are accountable to local people for what they do".
Agreement with a council
At several points in the consultation paper it is stated that the Government will seek agreement with the council. The paper does not then consider what action would be taken if such an agreement were not possible. We consider that careful thought needs to be given to the action should be taken in such cases and the process that would be adopted by the Government if it were to use its statutory powers of intervention.Delegation to interim managers
We are surprised by the suggestion in paragraph 25 that senior managers, appointed as part of the recovery process, may be given greater delegated powers by the council.We would expect a council to exert closer supervision over newly appointed senior officers especially if these officers were appointed as interim managers and not on a permanent basis. In these circumstances we do not think it is appropriate for council members "to allow for a greater degree of delegation to chief officers".
Assessment of progress in achieving plans
We are also surprised by the assertion in paragraph 34 of the consultation paper that an authority's Best Value Performance Plan would be "the principal means by which the Government would assess progress towards meeting improvement targets". We would hope that this assessment process would take place more frequently than once a year. We accept that an audited Best Value Performance Plan, including the recovery plan targets and progress towards their achievement, would provide strong confirmation of progress that is being made by an authority. We believe however, that, especially for the poorest performing councils, the Government should be receiving reports at least as frequently as once a month and in all cases the relationship manager should be monitoring progress at least on a month by month basis.Directly elected mayors
During the recovery process further change, for example the introduction of an elected mayor, may not necessarily be a high priority. Thus we do not necessarily agree that during the period of recovery all poorly performing councils should have to consult on the level of local support for the introduction of a directly elected mayor. Although such changes, along with other reforms to the executive arrangements of the authority, may be appropriate and beneficial in the medium term, they may not be a priority and may indeed have a detrimental effect on the development of the authority and its level of performance if implemented too quickly.Funding
We agree with the funding principles described in paragraphs 41 to 43.