The UK Experience by Malcolm Morley*
Albert Einstein once said, “Not everything that counts can be counted…and not everything that can be counted, counts.”
This quotation is so true and should be recognised in the relationship between Central and Local Government. In accepting its validity, however, three significant questions need answering:
- how can there be
accountability and control
if there is no target and
measurement against it? - given the complexity of
cause and effect relationships
and the difficulty in
measuring outcomes; surely
there must be an output
target? - is there sufficient trust
in the intent, competence
and capacity of Councils
to actually deliver what
Central Government
believes is required?
The answers to these questions explain in large part the reason why in the last 25 years England has developed one of the most centralised democracies in Europe.
The approach to the Central/Local relationship in the past has been underpinned by a lack of trust, a need to increase accountability through the provision of evidence on performance and a desire to control expenditure. It has also been fed by Central Government concern that it, rather than Councils, will be held to account for the failure of Councils to deliver locally on national priorities such as education.
Things are now changing as illustrated by the
Central–Local concordat (see January 2008 article). There appears to be a genuine attempt to move from a position of Local Government needing to earn autonomy from Central Government to having assumed autonomy with the freedoms and flexibility implicit in such a relationship.
A key symbol of this change is the performance reporting burden carried by Councils that currently have to report between 600 and 1,200 pieces of information to Central Government.
It is clearly the case that all that is counted does not count!
A National Indicator Set of 200 indicators is now being developed, with the following 13 principles to underpin their selection:
- demonstration of the
ambition and commitment
to devolution to Councils - additional data returns
above the 200 should not
add disproportionate
burdens to Councils - the output indicators
required to support the 200
should be capped - ensure indicators are clear,
unambiguous and useful
for Councils to manage
their business rather than
just the indicator - ensure that indicators are
relevant and useful to local
stakeholders - have a single comprehensive
satisfaction survey - collect once and use
often to avoid duplication
in submission - recognise that not all
performance management
information needs to be
reported to Government - remove all performance
management frameworks
outside Local Area
Agreements (LAAs) and
the 200 indicators - establish a robust link
between the LAA approach
and reporting to
Government - ensure all Government
departments and agencies
use the LAA to pool
funding and so forth - do not control innovation
through controlling
freedoms and flexibilities - target inspection activity on
risk rather than on
activity.
The language of a new relationship is forming. We shall have to see if the trust and confidence, illustrated through reporting requirements and inspection, will illustrate the conversion of that language into the reality of a new partnership between Central and Local Government.
*Malcolm Morley is Chief Executive of Harlow District Council and can be contacted via the Editor, email info@lgfocus.com.au The views expressed in
this article are not necessarily those of
his employer.
