Agenda item

Gary Hughes, Principal Adviser – Peer Challenge Programme

The Chairman invited Gary Hughes (GH), National Programme Manager (Peer Challenge), to introduce the report.

GH said that the report before members was a result of the request at the previous Board meeting for officers to look at options to strengthen the LGA’s approach to delivering Corporate Peer Challenge (CPC). This was in the light of a significantly changed policy environment with the emergence of Oflog and an increasing number of councils facing serious financial challenges. This changing environment had led to considerable debate in the trade press and within government about the effectiveness of Sector-Led Improvement (SLI) and CPC in particular. GH set out these criticisms in detail and then presented a series of proposals to address them along the following 5 themes:

Members’ comments and questions were sought on the 5 areas in turn:

1)    Improve rigour of CPC

·       It was suggested that the progress review process was currently too variable and needed to be more closely prescribed.

·       The perception of ‘chuminess’ needed to be addressed and, in this regard, it was considered important that the LGA always selected the peer team, not the council itself and that both the Chief Executive and Leader be part of the scoping meeting.

·       Scoping was considered to be very important and being realistic both with the council and in discussions with government about what CPC can and can’t achieve.

·       Peers need to be able to ask robust questions of councils and failure to comply properly with requests should be reflected in the final report.

·       The stronger focus on data and evidence was welcomed but it was also considered important not to lose the qualitative element of a review, which often gives the best insights into the culture of a council.

2)    Encouraging uptake of CPC

·       In relation to the letter from the LGA Chair, it was considered important to maintain political group sovereignty and an initial letter from the relevant group leader might be more appropriate and effective.

·       Regional and national lead peers also had an important role to play in encouraging take up of CPC.

·       The question of mandation of CPC was discussed. It was suggested that, as the LGA couldn’t force its members to have one, Oflog had a role to play in making this happen.

·       It was not considered realistic or fair to make being a member peer contingent upon their councils having undertaken a recent CPC.

·       Clarification was sought on the process for reminding councils that they are due a CPC. GH explained that this was currently largely through the LGA’s Principal Advisers and national/regional peers speaking to the councils in question. In addition, Officers have this year started to send out formal letters from group leaders. This process would be formalised and tightened up for future years with the aim of delivering a rolling program of 5 yearly CPCs in all councils.

·       The capacity of the LGA to deliver CPCs to councils every 5 years was queried. GH confirmed that he was confident that enough peers had been recruited to deliver the LGA’s targets.

3)    Improve preparedness for delivering ‘high-risk’ CPCs and provide enhanced insight to councils facing significant challenge:

·       The proposals were welcomed but future conversations would be required around the breadth of work required of peers and whether encouraging specialisms was desirable.

·       Clarification was sought on what constituted ‘high risk’. GH confirmed that high risk councils were monitored through the Performance Support Panel. Regional teams make use of both quantitative and qualitative data to determine whether councils need support.

4)    Ensuring the best people are in place

·       The Peer Support Review had resulted in significant improvements in selection and training for member peers but the proposed accreditation process for officer peers was considered equally important. GH said that this would be a strong focus of work for 2024.

·       The proposed ‘crib sheet’ to provide peers with the knowledge to become ‘SLI ambassadors’ was welcomed.

·       In response to a question about joint member/officer training, GH agreed that it would be a good idea to introduce this.

5)    Improve the robustness, consistency and impact of CPC and Progress Review reports

·       The importance of formalising and standardising the follow up review process, as well as building in an appropriate level of rigour, was highlighted. However, some flexibility was needed in order to be able to react to changing circumstances within a council, such as change in political leadership.

The Chairman summed up the discussion by warmly welcoming the report as a big step forward and reiterated that the Board was happy for all the specific proposals to be implemented, alongside a dedicated communication strategy, in the new year.

Decision:

Improvement & Innovation Board endorsed all the proposed options in Appendix 4A and agreed that officers should develop a fully costed project plan, including all resource implications, and a fully developed communication and engagement plan.