Local Government and Regeneration Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Official Report 452KB pdf

---

Public Services Reform and Local Government: Strand 2 (Benchmarking and Performance Measurement)

Agenda item 3 is to take oral evidence on the committee’s report on strand 2 of its inquiry into public services reform and local government. The strand examined benchmarking and performance measurement in local government.

I welcome Derek Mackay, Minister for Local Government and Planning—your arrival is well timed, minister—and David Milne, team leader in the local government outcomes and partnerships unit of the Scottish Government. Minister, would you like to make a brief statement?

Thank you; I will do so briefly.

We take a particular interest in this workstream. We value benchmarking in local government and commend local government for progressing it. We look forward to further discussions on its findings over the weeks, months and years to come.

Thank you, minister. Obviously, the benchmarking project has been a long time in the making and it seems that there may be some further difficulties, according to some of the information that we have seen over the past day or two. The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers—SOLACE—has said that some of the difficulty might lie with getting information from the Government about some of the education statistics. Will the Government do all that it can to ensure that the project can progress quickly?

Absolutely. It is the case that Government statistics are produced with 12 months’ notice. I am not aware of a delay for any particular statistics that would create an issue. However, I would of course want every part of Government to support the process—I give you that commitment.

Thank you very much. I open up the discussion to questions from members.

In your opening remarks, minister, you said that the Government values benchmarking. Do you think that there are lessons and opportunities for other parts of the public sector that derive from the benchmarking project that local government is undertaking?

I suppose there are. Generally speaking, the assessment and comparison of data to understand what is going on in service delivery and improvement are certainly worth doing. Taking a more proportionate approach to the indicators that we choose to use is also significant, because we can assess and monitor areas that add value to understanding, as opposed to simply ticking a box.

Benchmarking and choosing the family composition model by which local authorities compare themselves with similar local authorities is also a useful approach, as opposed to simply having a league table of 32 local authorities. The methodology used and the value that we attach to it are worth recommendation.

Does that imply that as part of the public services reform agenda the Government will be looking at whether there are statistics that no longer have any value because there is no clear objective or programme to which they contribute and they are merely counting things for the sake of it?

I suppose that some people will argue that the public sector does things in a certain way because that is how it has always done them. This approach has shown how the process can evolve to meet current challenges.

I would take the issue wider than just the benchmarking process. In the step change that we want to make in community planning, we want to use disaggregated data in order to find out what the issues in a local community are and how each public sector partner might come to the community planning table and deliver on local outcomes. That is separate from the benchmarking process, which looks specifically at council services and functions. In short, I think that there are lessons for community planning to be learned through the process with regard to assessing the areas and indicators that matter most to local communities.

The committee always aims to please, and you will be delighted to hear that one of my colleagues will ask some questions on community planning a little later.

My closing question relates to the convener’s question and the more general issue. The Government produces a lot of statistics, which are used by local government and others, but is there a clear link between the need for statistical information—say, in the example of education that has been mentioned—and the statistics that the Government actually produces? Is there an underlap in the sense that, although the Government is producing a lot of stats for Government purposes, the information might not adequately meet the needs of other parts of the public service and local government in particular?

I can really only speak about my own portfolio. I certainly see the need for most of the statistics that I come across, in that they give me information that is worth having. Occasionally, I would like more information and sometimes I would like to see different statistics from those that are provided but, generally speaking, there is a correlation between what we are provided with and the outcomes that we are trying to achieve. The strongest link in that respect can be found in community planning.

John Pentland has a supplementary.

Good morning, minister. Like you, the committee values the benchmarking process. What would you say to the doubters who see benchmarking as the thin end of the wedge with regard to standardisation and as something that takes away local democracy and local priorities?

If local authorities make no comparisons with each other, they will have no sense of how well they are performing relative to others. We should use benchmarking to get an understanding of how well local authorities are performing in the different levels of service in each area. Of course, there might well be reasons for such differences, but the family groupings in the benchmarking process can address, say, rurality, issues in urban authorities, the size of authorities or even deprivation. The approach is right, and I do not think that there is anything to fear from benchmarking.

That said, I would hazard a guess that some elements of the political world and the media might choose to use the process in a particular way. That is unavoidable but, at its very heart, the process of comparing local authorities’ performance is good for understanding how well a local authority is performing. What I suppose might be called a competitive approach can support continuous improvement in performance.

Stewart Stevenson wants to come back in on that point.

I want just to ask the minister what the central purpose of benchmarking is. I am not sure that I am necessarily representing the committee when I say this, but surely the comparison is for councils rather than of councils. In other words, the purpose of comparison is to help councils understand the opportunities to learn from local government colleagues rather than to give those externally an opportunity to comment, audit and review matters. After all, many such processes are already in place.

Is that how you as the minister see the process? Would you support that as being the primary focus of benchmarking—in other words, that it is for councils rather than of councils?

I would not want to disagree with Mr Stevenson. Benchmarking is certainly for councils. It is of council services and many will take a great interest in it irrespective of its driving force, but its driving force is surely to deliver improved services by enabling comparison of services across the local government spectrum.

Good morning, minister and Mr Milne. Minister, you said earlier that you do not foresee any delays. Is the benchmarking project still to be launched in January?

That is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the Improvement Service and the local authorities because it is their project. I cannot speak for them.

Are you encouraging them to ensure that the project is online as soon as possible?

The commitment was given that it would be in place in January, but it looks as if it might now be February. I would encourage them to make sure that it is in place in February. It is their project, but I think that the sooner it is completed and delivered, the better.

Are you aware of any issues related to buy-in to and acceptance of the benchmarking project by local authorities?

I have seen evidence from your committee—both in the Official Reports of your committee meetings and in briefings—that suggests that you perhaps believe that not all local authority leaders buy in to the project to the level that they should. Other than that, I am not aware of evidence that local government is not taking it seriously.

I suppose that the length of time that it has taken to get to the current position is slightly concerning, but that is all the more reason to get on with it and do it now. It has taken two years to get to this stage, which is longer than one would expect.

What will the Scottish Government and you as the minister do to ensure that some of the difficulties that you are aware of are resolved and, thereafter, the project is in place in February?

This is a local government-led project. From the Scottish Government’s perspective, I am not aware of any issues where we have not given support, advice or information, so I do not think that we have put any barriers in the way. I simply want to encourage local government to see the project through to its conclusion. I am happy for my officials to do anything that we can to encourage that process, but I am not aware that we have presented any barriers to progress.

Okay. Thank you, minister.

I welcome the minister to our evidence session. Before I ask my main questions, I ask him to clarify his comment that the project is an Improvement Service and local government project. What exactly is the role of the Improvement Service in the process? My understanding is that it is there to assist SOLACE and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in developing the benchmarking, rather than to lead the project.

My understanding is that the Improvement Service is doing the official work in pulling together the data and then presenting the report, as informed by SOLACE and agreed by COSLA.

Thank you for that clarification. I just find it interesting that an organisation that is not part of an elected representative body and which is not directly employed by local authorities is leading on the project and is responsible for the delivery of the benchmarking outcomes that we are looking at. I would like to think that, in future, COSLA and SOLACE will take full responsibility rather than leaving it to, in effect, an external body to lead the project. However, that is an issue for another day.

Do you believe that the current indicators sufficiently cover all the services that are delivered by local government?

No, I do not, but frankly they are not designed to do that. This is the start of a process. If I was to look at local government in the round, I would look at the other indicators that are available. For example, with my planning minister hat on, I would be interested in planning performance, and I could also look at educational attainment. There are a host of indicators that relate to local government.

The benchmarking process is a comparison of certain indicators between local authorities, but—to answer your question—that is not the end of the story. Many other indicators will be looked at to judge what is happening on the ground and the performance of local authorities. The benchmarking indicators are the ones that local authorities have determined are appropriate for the project.

I do not know whether the committee is aware of yesterday’s direction from the Accounts Commission on the benchmarking indicators and statutory performance indicators.

We are, but there is no harm in your repeating it.

10:15

I simply want to flag it up, because it is pertinent to your discussions.

The Accounts Commission has given a direction that it will use the benchmarking indicators—rather than the SPIs that it used previously—as the basis for on-going scrutiny of local government. That said, the Accounts Commission and Audit Scotland will look at the figures not in isolation but in the round. Therefore, when those bodies assess best value, they will challenge local authorities on whether the indicators that they use are appropriate and they will consider what other information should be brought to the process of scrutiny.

I thank the minister for his candid response, particularly in relation to other indicators that might be used in future. We were made aware of the Accounts Commission’s approach this morning. Is the minister aware of whether any other statutory agencies that currently demand submissions on performance from local authorities will take the same view as the Accounts Commission and will be satisfied with the benchmarking regime and the data from the benchmarking process?

I first want to double-check Mr Wilson’s interpretation of what I said earlier. The Improvement Service is a body of local government and COSLA, so it does not make decisions on what items are scrutinised—it provides the technical support.

Mr Wilson asked about other agencies using the benchmarking process to understand local authority performance. The process will tell the story of only certain issues and indicators—it will not tell the whole story of local government. Therefore, other agencies and other parts of the public sector world might use other indicators to understand the performance that interests them. For example, the benchmarking indicators do not tell me terribly much about economic development or planning, which I mentioned earlier, so I would use other reporting mechanisms in local government to understand what is going on with that. I suppose that it is a matter of horses for courses.

For the exercise of comparing service provision in local government—with the driving force being the outcome of continuous improvement—the indicators are relevant. I am not saying that, as there are other meaningful indicators, they have to be included in the process; I am saying that I would like those other indicators and other areas of work to continue so that we can rely on them to understand what is going on in those areas, too. One example is community planning but, if there are more questions to come on that, we can pick up that point later.

On the indicators that other agencies might require from local authorities under the current reporting structures, I understand that one desire of SOLACE and COSLA is to try, through the benchmarking process, to streamline reporting. If you are saying that other statutory agencies might continue to look for information that is not in the benchmarking indicators, what comfort can we give local authorities that we are moving towards streamlining the information that they must gather and report on?

We are not compelling local authorities to provide a whole host of data that they think is irrelevant—the benchmarking project is local authority led. We will still seek statistical information from local government. Since 2007, as a consequence of the concordat and the Crerar review, the general approach has been to be more proportionate in our approach to scrutiny and audit of local government, and the benchmarking process fits with that agenda.

One fear is that benchmarking will be used to create a league table for setting local authority against local authority on delivery of services. The proposed benchmarking process involves setting up a family structure to group local authorities together, so that we can compare like with like. Is the minister happy with that approach to measuring how local authorities perform against benchmarking indicators?

That is an appropriate approach to benchmarking.

Good morning to the minister and Mr Milne. It seems that the “families” of authorities will provide a good analytical tool. I understand that the analysis will be based on 2010-11 data and 2011-12 data. If we are talking about the financial year, such data would be available some time after March. Would that contribute to slippage in the timetable, about which the committee is generally concerned?

That is possible. You might have more information than I have about how the delay to the statistics has come about. I was asked whether the Government contributed to that; our proposed release of data is published 12 months in advance. A slight delay in relation to collection and analysis of data will always arise because of when some data sets are released, as is unavoidable in an exercise of such a scale.

We should say that SOLACE said that it relies on Scottish Government data for a couple of indicators, such as the per pupil spend indicator in education services. Perhaps you could ask colleagues whether something can be done about that. I do not know when such data are likely to be available, but SOLACE said that that is one indicator that is causing it some grief.

I am happy to look into any specific circumstances.

Does the minister have concerns about the opportunity cost that could be associated with benchmarking? In aspiring to do what another authority in a family has done, might an authority have to take money from other services, which might then fail?

If each local authority uses benchmarking properly, it will consider where it is, the kind of services that it provides, the costs and the outcomes. The indicators in the benchmarking process are a mixture of input measures and outcomes. If they drive leaders and officials to think about the services that they deliver, that might well lead to change. We would like that to lead to change as each authority strives to improve performance.

John Wilson mentioned league tables, which takes me on to a question about the political and media challenges. Does the Scottish Government have plans to reduce, following implementation, the number and content of returns for which it asks local government? I am sorry. That was the wrong question. Can I rewind?

From the Government’s point of view, what political and media challenges are involved in launching and publishing the benchmarking project?

As I suggested, it is unavoidable that, in comments to an administration or the media, political opponents in the system might make comparisons that are controversial or which some people feel are unfair. Some such comments might be justified, but they could put council administrations in an awkward position in defending their performance. That is inevitable when we have a process of scrutiny and transparency and it is not a bad thing, especially if such added pressure and public awareness of comparisons with other authorities drive improvement and change. Of course, the Scottish Government wants the process to be fair, proportionate and appropriate.

Public awareness of benchmarking and performance is not in itself a bad thing. Maybe we all—politicians, the Government, partners and media—need to be mature about the data and how we report them.

Will the Government support media management and publicity in relation to the project’s launch?

As I said, you must understand the Scottish Government’s role in what is a local authority-led initiative. Of course we want to support the process and the engagement that it brings. I will happily welcome its progress and development over the period to come.

I will start on a different tack. The benchmarking project is local government’s baby, but a huge number of the indicators that are in place form the main planks of the outcomes that we hope to achieve through community planning partnerships. Should community planning partnerships benchmark their activities, too? If so, how do we integrate service delivery in the health service and local government? We have heard about conflict in the context of information gathering for local government and national health service HEAT—health improvement, efficiency and governance, access and treatment—targets, for example.

That is an interesting question, which we will consider. In the review of community planning there has been a focus on getting public sector partners to work together. The guidance that we issued a few weeks ago on single outcome agreements focuses on joint working and on understanding an area’s needs and how services can be delivered jointly to meet them, so that we have harder-edged single outcome agreements. A crucial new element is prevention and integration plans, with a focus on prevention, to get an understanding of what each part of the public sector in an area is doing on that important agenda. We are asking for more information on that, I suppose, without asking for exhaustive information in the way that previous bureaucratic regimes did.

We have not considered comparing community planning partnerships on a data basis, but the Accounts Commission for Scotland is taking assessment of community planning seriously. I will be happy to talk to the Accounts Commission about how it will assess the new community planning arrangements. It is currently undertaking three pathfinder projects, with a view to carrying out a robust analysis of community planning arrangements in three councils, which will be informed by proposals on how the approach goes forward. We are happy to explore the convener’s suggestion, which fits with the way the Accounts Commission is going on inspection of community planning.

I might be reading you wrongly, but are you saying that it is better to look at best practice in community planning partnerships than to concentrate on data at this point?

Yes. I am a listening minister and I am interested in the committee’s views. We have put the impetus on getting public sector partners to work together on a community plan basis through focusing on the single outcome agreements and looking at the data in each area. I am a bit less concerned that partners should worry about what is going on in neighbouring community planning partnerships, because the big task is to get them to work together in their own locality, rather than to compare themselves with other groups.

I see the value of benchmarking in the context of community planning partnerships, but I am trying not to create an unnecessary level of bureaucracy. The Accounts Commission will focus on what is going on in each community planning partnership area, based on evidence and the data that we have.

That said, a task group—the improving evidence and data group—is looking at how partnerships can use relevant data by focusing on outcomes rather than indicators to drive improvement in each area. It is a two-way process between the community planning partnership and the Scottish Government. That is the nature of the relationship. Traditionally, we have not compared the CPPs with one another or provided a national overview of what is happening in each area. To the best of my knowledge, such information has never been produced.

10:30

It would be interesting for the committee to have sight of the work that is progressing on that front. We would all be grateful for that.

I have a question about single outcome agreements, which are agreements between the CPPs and the Government. How do you see the benchmarking indicators fitting into that process? That goes back to my question about the fact that, as I understand it, local authorities are trying to streamline the number of issues on which they need to report. At the same time, we still have single outcome agreements and the national performance framework. How do the NPF and the SOAs link with the benchmarking indicators that local authorities have proposed? Will information on the SOAs and the outcomes from them still be relevant for the Government to gather, or will it be content just to use the benchmarking indicator information that is provided by local authorities?

There is an important distinction to make between the national performance framework, the single outcome agreements and the benchmarking indicators, but they all inform one another. It is interesting that although we want a more proportionate approach to auditing of local government, the Accounts Commission says that we do not have enough data on some elements of service. We need to get the balance right.

The distinction that I would make between the three is that the NPF is the picture of how Scotland is performing, based on the Government’s targets; the SOAs provide the agreed targets for the community planning partnerships—they represent what every public sector partner should be delivering for an area, in partnership with the Government; and the benchmarking indicators relate to how the services that local government runs are performing. I think that there is a clear function for all three and they are complementary. I do not think that they are particularly burdensome on the organisations that collect and report the data. They all serve an important purpose.

As part of our evidence taking, we heard from Councillor Michael Cook. His evidence is mentioned in paragraph 53 on page 11 of our report. He said:

“Sometimes we hear complaints about the postcode lottery. Sometimes the postcode lottery is local democracy in action.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Regeneration Committee, 31 October 2012; c 1343-4.]

As one of the newer members of the committee and someone who does not come from a local government background but who has been involved in politics for some years, I firmly believe in having a joined-up approach. I believe that the benchmarking process will allow that to happen, and that it will lead to better outcomes for those who receive the public services that we all value and require. When Councillor Cook made his comment, I was slightly taken aback. It was as if a wall was being built between local government and the rest of the public sector and the Government. I am keen to hear your views on that.

I thank you for that question. I have never previously been asked to interpret for Councillor Cook, who is a robust character who is well able to speak for himself. If the committee were to recall him and probe his evidence further, I would come along as a spectator.

In all seriousness, there is some truth in what Councillor Cook said, depending on one’s interpretation of it. There are some issues that are truly local, which involve local authorities making choices about service provision or what policies to adopt or deploy. There are other areas in which provision should be national and should meet a national standard. Some people confuse a postcode lottery with local choice—an example of which is one local authority deciding to charge for a service for which another council does not charge. As a Government, we are relaxed about the fact that sometimes there will be national provision while on other occasions, where appropriate, there will be local discretion.

That said, there is no excuse for poor performance; we should never say that poor performance in any service area is acceptable anywhere. For me, that is the difference. Policies can be deployed as appropriate, but good and robust service performance should be expected across the country. I hope that that clarifies my understanding of what benchmarking can achieve.

That is helpful. Thank you.

There are no more questions, so I thank the minister for his comments. I suspend the meeting while the minister’s supporting officials change over.

10:35 Meeting suspended.

10:37 On resuming—