The Tory Party placed a motion regarding league tables of councils, ranked by an assesment of the corporate working of the Council and of all its services. They pointed out Nottingham's low position, without mentioning that many authorities have had a revised corporate assessment that allows them to get a better rating. This is the draft of my reply to a miserable presentation by the Tory Leader - predictable and predicted -
I suppose in listening to the Tories move their motion, I was listening out to see if there was going to be anything young or new or fresh about them.
It’s possible that things are changing - is it true they now support the NHS?
When Winston Churchilll made such a move in 1949, he travelled to the Molineux in Wolverhampton to make the speech to a mass rally of Conservative supporters. Picture that a mass rally of Tory supporters!
I wonder if Winston also gave a pledge for no more dog-whistles?
We’ll welcome shifts in the political consensus.
Shifts that not only recognise there is such a thing as society, but that it is worth investing in. That to avoid a good deal of trouble in the future, we need to invest in people now. That it’s better to keep people in work paying in than to keep them on benefits taking out. That we want a new social contract of respect for individuals and neighbours and communities and people. That economic development and social justice are two sides of the same coin.
I actually suspect there’s been a consensus in this council for a while on tax and spend, since Michael defected.
It’s noticeable now that the Tories don’t propose cuts, if anything they bring proposals to the chamber to spend even more. I suspect the thinking that drove the double digit Council tax increase proposal at Labour Group all those years ago has been in play in the Tory group for a while.
But listening, there’s still a stridency. An unremitting list of moans and complaints. Of misery.
I’ve never been in opposition in local government, so perhaps there’s a frustration that I can’t relate to.
But as I listened, I did wonder - is there no credit for what’s been achieved? No recognition of progress. No sense that things are getting better?
You’d think there’d be something.
Best ever GCSE results. No schools in special measures. 40 times the rate of capital investment in council schools than 10 years ago. A surer start for kids. More Police. Crime down. Nationally, back to the levels of 1988. Down in the City. A Respect for Nottingham campaign that is reducing anti-social behaviour. Cut begging dramatically. Reduced vice on the streets. A cleaner city centre. Newer bus fleets. The new tram. Better pedestrian facilities. Better shopping. Better night life. More people in work. Much shorter waiting times for operations - much shorter.
Surely something there to celebrate? But no. No recognition. Just unrelenting complaints.
Life is better now. A stronger economy, a better society, and public investment worth talking about.
In Cllr Cowan’s day - what’s the line? - ‘you were the member for finance once’ – does that work? - In Cllr Cowan’s day - they were reduced to getting excited about whether the junction of South Parade and Beastmarket Hill should be signalled. How we have moved on. ‘you were the member for traffic lights at the junction of South Parade and Beastmarket Hill once.’
And as for the Council, year on year of improving performance indicators. Fact. Helped by an improving economy and society. Helped by higher levels of public investment. Helped by a focus on improving performance.
“Gearing Up” has driven the introduction of a performance framework. Published quarterly reports on performance. Coaching through staff events for management and for staff. Involved members - although the Tory party have often kept out.
Heavens forbid that they might contribute. No, just carp.
The new CPA ratings are published in a league table and a motion arrives in at full Council. They don’t even wait for the annual report to see what others say about what they think has to be done.
And aren’t the Tories actually against the CPA? I mean the nearest I’ve been to a Tory party rally was at the LGA conference in Bournemouth. Not Molineux exactly, but a few hundred.
The Tories had just become the biggest group and Michael Howard (not Winston Churchill exactly) turned up to congratulate his “peepil” on their success. And he said, the Tories will scrap CPA. And there was this huge cheer from Tory Cllrs. in volumes I’d not heard before. Against the CPA. Something Tories here have also said - we don’t need to be told by others.
Of course it was something of the gift of Michael Howard that he said scrap regulation and inspection, only to then say they would introduce a system of their own. Within 20 seconds he turned a happy tumult of Tory Cllrs. to stony silence.
I have all kinds of complaints about inspection. My most frequent complaints are -
they don’t value the electoral mandate,
they might triangulate evidence but often don’t do a strong enough check against common experience and
there is insufficient recognition of the degree of social challenge we face which can mean people (and especially teachers) are punished for trying to help those most in need.
A further complaint is whilst local government is the most improved public sector, the systems often present us as the worst cos there is no equivalent systems for others, especially for Whitehall departments.
But for all the faults, and the crassness of league tables, there is something that we recognise of value in these systems.
And we look for using them to maximum effect and to doing better in them, because we think the link between these systems and better outcomes for the Nottingham public and the city is sufficiently strong.
And so, we were disappointed by the scores in December. (Not all of them - you’ll note housing went up a point!) We’re disappointed to be in the bottom quarter. We certainly hoped for a better direction of travel score, and it seems the prospects for that were hit by the drop in education and social services.
Now I could complain about the methodology further. I could point out how major increases in the costs and scope of social services have been successfully managed.
But actually, what we intend to do here today is to acknowledge the disappointment. We’d hoped to do better but we think there is sufficient in what the annual letter is likely to say (we’ve not seen it yet) and in what the peer review is likely to say (you’ve seen the initial summary and we’ve seen a first draft) to acknowledge that we are “disappointed” and that there is still more to do.
Hence the amendment which, beyond including references to our progress, seeks to talk about what we’re doing now and about the future.
There is a lot going on.
Councillors will probably have noticed the impact of the “SLMG” process as we’ve reformed our top tier 3 levels of management and give a new purpose and focus to the their jobs. As the new arrangements kick in, we will look to see that new approach expected from management shines through.
The performance management framework is to be revised – this is the place where we set out, for all to see, who is responsible for what aspect of managing performance (from senior Members to front-line staff); also where and when that performance information and analysis is reported.
We want a better quality to our performance reporting. Too much time is spent restating departmental returns and not in analysis. A new IT system - Performance Plus - is now being run by the Council. Departments enter the results and the commentary direct into one system. Our central performance capacity can therefore focus on the quality of information provided and the analysis of our progress.
One of the messages received in recent weeks is that our management in general are still not actively managing performance enough, in the context of taking enough from data and in terms of comparing and contrasting ourselves against similar authorities. The nature of similar authorities actually varies by department or service, but we are interested to develop how such comparisons can be done on the basis of networked sharing of information as the data becomes available, rather than wait for annual returns. This and other messages on value for money and customer focus will be presented as part of a further culture change programme.
We should be seeking out 'who does it best' in the services we want to improve. Our ambitions should aspire to be the best there is regardless of types of authority groupings that might lead us to particular comparisons. The other bit is the emphasis on changing our approach so that we put service users needs and views first.
There will have to be a step up in the way the Council is run. We must serve Nottingham better.
And if there is to be a maximised impact of one council providing services and being the agent of change for the city, the corporate programming of the council needs to be improved too.
Other measures will be needed, most decidedly an improvement in customer access. More on what we intend to do will be made clear when we announce the budget, once we’ve properly analysed what the various reviews have had to say about the Council; and at the Annual Report debate at June Full Council, when we’ve analysed the progress the year as a whole.
The lack of analysis is somewhat a feature of the Tory approach. As is the lack of active participation. As is the misery.
But our response has not been just to say you’re wrong. Beyond re-stating our objectives, we’ve wanted today to take the opportunity to present what we’re doing to improve performance and what the next steps might be in aspiration to Serve Nottingham Better.
Things have got better. But we are ambitious to do more. Much done, much still to do.
I move the amendment.
[Loaded 2006-01-28]
Comments