The Minister makes a case, but it is not a particularly good one because many local authorities believe that the prescriptive way that school funding is allocated is not good either.
I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a briefing I received from the Local Government Association, which notes that the Audit Commission recently informed councils that an additional 54 performance indicators on economic regeneration should be collected ““on a voluntary basis””. What is a council supposed to do when the Audit Commission says that it must collect a further 54 indicators on a voluntary basis? That is a weird sort of voluntarism. We are told that additional customer satisfaction indicators are being developed and that as neighbourhood performance management develops, indicators will have to be translated to lower levels, resulting in more data to collect.
The new clause would monitor the Government’s good intentions and would enable us to hear from them precisely how well they are doing—in the context not just of the point my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) drew to the attention of the House, nor of the LGA’s report that more and more indicators seem to be required every day, but of the rumours that reach us on the civil service grapevine. We know that a number of Departments meet the DCLG’s challenge to reduce their indicators and targets for local government by asking their staff to turn the indicators into sub-targets and sub-sub-targets; so there is a higher order target with, beneath it, exactly the same requirements as before—except that they are not called targets. We need to assess whether the Government’s intentions as a whole—not just the Minister’s good intentions—actually produce results.
In Committee, the Minister affected to be somewhat heartbroken when we showed occasional signs of distrust at his protestations of good will and innocence. However, there are many local government doubting Thomases out there. Over at least 20 years, they have been trained to doubt by the actions of different Governments at the expense of local government. The Minister has only to accept the new clause and he will allay their doubts and fears. Let us make it transparent that the targets are being reduced. Let us see the tide turn and watch as the burden is lifted year by year.
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State set out her stall. On targets, she said:"““There are currently up to 1,200. We envisage reducing that to 200 indicators, with around 35 targets, plus the existing statutory education and child care targets.””—[Official Report, 22 January 2007; Vol. 455, c. 1155.]"
The new clause is designed to restore trust in the Government’s commitment on targets, to cut bureaucracy and to give the Secretary of State something to boast about every year when she publishes her annual report. It follows that we will also support new clause 35, which reflects the same way of thinking. I seek your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether it is in order for me to comment on the other new clauses and amendments in the group.
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Stunell
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 17 May 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
460 c778-9 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:31:12 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_397662
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_397662
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_397662