Changes to the best value regime

Report: 07
Date: 18 April 2002
By: Clerk

Summary

This report sets out changes to the best value regime which came into effect on 8 March 2002 and describes the implications for the MPA/MPS.

A. Recommendations

1. That members note the changes in the best value regime plus the Authority's continued duty to secure continuous improvement and to review all MPS functions;
2. That ongoing best value reviews should continue and that the reviews of managing people and managing demand should start as planned (in April 2002 and June 2002 respectively);
3. That the number and order of other best value reviews for the period 2003/04 to 2004/05 be reassessed by June 2002;
4. That the chairs of MPS strategy committees be consulted prior to members making a final decision on the future programme of best value reviews;
5. That members note ongoing work to identify how best to respond to the changes in the publication date of the annual plan, the publication date of the auditor's report and the increased discretion given to the Authority with respect to circulating a summary of its annual plan.

B. Supporting information

1. Following on from the government White Paper 'Strong Local Leadership – Quality Public Services' DTLR recently made a number of initial changes to the best value regime. The changes came into effect on 8 March 2002 and are set out in Statutory Instrument 2002/305. In summary:

• the requirement to review all functions in a five-year cycle is revoked;
• the deadline for publishing the [policing and] best value performance plan is changed from 31 March to 30 June;
• the deadline for publishing the auditor's report is changed from 30 June to 31 December;
• the plan no longer needs to set out (a) a summary of any assessment of the level and way in which the authority exercises its functions; and (b) the five-year programme of reviews.

2. Further details on these changes and the implications for the MPA/MPS are described below.

Removal of the requirement to review functions within five years

3. The introduction of best value reviews has not been without problems nationally. The review process is sometimes described as bureaucratic and at odds with a desire to solve problems sooner rather than later. Also, questions have frequently been raised on an organisation's capability of reviewing all functions within a five-year period.

4. The requirement has, therefore, been relaxed to enable authorities to focus reviews more effectively on national and local priorities and on areas of weakness and opportunity. In effect, the change gives authorities more discretion to choose what functions to review and when to review them.

5. However, the relaxation of the 'five-year rule' does not remove the general duty of police authorities to secure continuous improvement in all functions. For the MPA this means securing improvements in all MPS functions including those undertaken with respect to national and international services. Likewise the relaxation does not remove the requirement on police authorities to review all functions in order to:

• challenge the status quo;
• achieve significant improvement in service provision and/or performance;
• explore alternative options for service delivery.

6. Updated Home Office guidelines for police authorities have yet to be prepared and the view of the APA is that authorities should ensure that functions are reviewed over a 'reasonable period'. In any event best value reviews remain the only statutory tool available to members with which to directly assess and influence the services and functions of the MPS.

Implications for the MPA/MPS

7. The relaxation in the regime is seen as an opportunity for the MPA to re-state its commitment to securing continuous improvement and to the process of best value review (albeit in a more focused and flexible way). The relaxation also allows the MPA and MPS to concentrate on 'depth' rather than 'breadth' by undertaking fewer best value reviews at any one time.

8. In addition, for the MPA to benefit in having more discretion in its programme of reviews there will need to be an early reassessment of the current programme. The programme is set out in the MPA's policing and performance plan 2002/03 and is attached at Appendix 1. In considering SI 2002/305 the MPA/MPS best value programme board (chaired by Reshard Auladin) concluded that:

• ongoing best value reviews should continue;
• the first two reviews in the programme for 2002/03 should be progressed since members previously rated them as 'high priority' (managing people and managing demand);
• the order of all other reviews should be reconsidered as an integral part of the annual planning cycle.

9. Linking the selection of best value reviews to the annual planning cycle would mean that the review programme:

• would be more responsive to MPA/MPS circumstances;
• could be aligned to reflect priorities identified in the MPA/MPS corporate strategy [1] and national policing plan;
• could be more easily reconciled with other audit, inspection and review activity (internal or external to the MPA/MPS).

10. One option for selecting reviews would be for the MPA to request a proposal from each of the new MPS 'strategic committees'. This approach would help increase understanding, ownership and commitment within the MPS to the process of best value review and would help co-ordinate best value reviews with other change activity overseen by each strategic committee.

11. Members could then prioritise proposals and/or suggest other reviews prior to a final decision. The outcome of the process could be a firm commitment to review (named) functions in the next financial year plus an indication of the functions to be reviewed in the following financial year (to be confirmed in the next planning cycle). For example, in 2002/03 the MPA could confirm the services to be reviewed in 2003/04 and identify the services likely to be reviewed in 2004/05 (subject to a new Authority taking office in July 2004).

12. To ensure all functions were reviewed over a 'reasonable period' there would need to be a clear understanding of the functions undertaken by the MPS. The structures, processes and resources to support members would also need to be reassessed in the light of changes in the MPA's overall structure and the resulting scale of the review programme.

Publication date for the policing and performance plan

13. SI 2002/305 changed the publication date for the policing and performance plan to 30 June (from 31 March). This has direct implications for the publication of a hardcopy document but the MPA still needs to 'issue' (ie approve) the plan by 31 March each financial year. In any event, good practice dictates that the Authority should set priorities, objectives, measures and targets for the MPS before the start of the financial year to which they apply.

14. A publication deadline of 30 June could facilitate co-publication with the MPA's annual report since the out-turn performance data would be the same. (This issue is also linked to the submission of Commissioner's annual report to the Authority.) The costs and benefits of co-publication are being explored as part of the ongoing development of the MPA/MPS planning process.

Audit of the policing and performance plan

15. SI 2002/305 changed the publication date for the audit of the annual plan to 31 December (from 30 June). District Audit has stated an intention (for 2002/03) to complete the audit in July/August on the basis that MPS out-turn performance data will be available by 30 June. Discussions are currently underway between the APA, ACPO, Home Office and Audit Commission concerning the audit process and guidelines are expected in due course.

Policing and performance plan summary

16. SI 2002/305 reconfirmed the need for authorities to prepare a summary of the policing and performance plan by 31 March. However, on the basis that the full plan may not be published until 30 June, there is no longer a requirement for the summary to be a 'fair and accurate reflection' and the summary is not now subject to audit. Authorities have complete discretion over:

• the content of the summary;
• the method(s) of presentation; and
• the extent of distribution.

17. The Authority has previously published a joint summary with the rest of the GLA family (sent to 2.7 million households in London as part of a Mayoral/GLA magazine). For 2002/03 the MPS has also prepared a summary for circulation to managers and partners. It is considered that the type of summary required should be reassessed during development of the MPA/MPS planning process.

C. Financial implications

There are no immediate financial implications.

D. Background papers

MPA policing and performance plan 2002/03 (on MPS website)

E. Contact details

Report author: Derrick Norton, Best Value Manager, MPA.

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 1: Best value review programme (2001/02–2004/05)

Extract from MPA policing and performance plan 2002/03 (Annex E).

Financial Year 2 - 2001/02

Financial Year 3 - 2002/03

Financial Year 4 - 2003/04

Financial Year 5 - 2004/05

Reviews in bold are not confirmed and subject to reassessment in 2002/03.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback