Community Budgets are demonstrating their potential to deliver cheaper, more integrated and more effective public services. They are at risk, however, of being replaced after a few years if key issues are not resolved. If this opportunity is missed, the Committee warns that local services could come under unsustainable pressure in the face of increased demand and reduced budgets. This in turn may result in more spending later on judicial and emergency health and welfare interventions. The Government should send a clear message that it will assist every local authority wishing to introduce Community Budgets and to set out the specific assistance it will provide them with. Furthermore, the programme of pilots must not be allowed to slow progress towards wider implementation. If they are to succeed, public service providers and local authorities must realise investment in Community Budgets will bring them benefits. Local authorities, their partners, and central government should, therefore, develop a framework for agreements on how the benefits of investment are to be shared. On the Troubled Families Programme, the Committee is supportive of the work being done but highlights the need for greater focus on how work with these families will continue after the programme ends in 2016. Noting that the resources available have not increased in proportion to the number of families added to the programme in June, DCLG needs to monitor carefully progress and provide more resources to local authorities if necessary
Despite acknowledging that a 'handful' of providers give him concern, the Regulator is reluctant to give them lower financial viability ratings, fearing that doing so might trigger an upward re-pricing of their debt. Instead, the Regulator uses governance ratings to signal concerns about financial viability. This practice lacks openness and should stop and accurate financial viability ratings should be published. The fear of triggering a re-pricing also prevents the Regulator from using many of his statutory powers, preferring to adopt informal approaches instead. This lacks transparency and risks too close a relationship developing between the Regulator and providers. The devolved administrations' housing regulators, not to mention regulators in other sectors, must encounter similar dilemmas. The Regulator should work with them to see how they have addressed his concern that the use of statutory powers could prove counter-productive. The Committee's concerns are underlined by the case of Cosmopolitan Housing Group, which came close to insolvency in 2012. The Regulator only lowered its financial viability rating for Cosmopolitan in December 2012, despite the fact that he had been monitoring the situation for months and the possibility of insolvency had been raised in the media two months previously. The report also raises concerns about how effectively the Regulator is discharging his remit for consumer regulation. Noting that of 111 complaints related to consumer standards referred to the Regulator no case of serious consumer detriment was found, the Report calls for an annual external check to be carried out to provide assurance that the Regulator is discharging his duties effectively
The Assembly's main job is to hold the Mayor to account. But he can appoint Assembly Members to his cabinet while they continue to sit in the Assembly. The Report asks how the public are supposed to disentangle a situation in which an Assembly Member can hold the executive to account in one area while working on behalf of the executive in another. As a further example of inconsistency, the Report questions why Assembly Members can sit on some GLA London-wide executive bodies but not others. For example, eight Assembly Members can sit on the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority but no Assembly Member is entitled to join the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime. The Mayor must be held to account for the substantial powers invested in him and the London Assembly is the right vehicle to do this, but not in its current form. The Report recommends that the Assembly should be given the power to: call in mayoral decisions; amend the Mayor's capital budgets as it can his revenue budgets; reject the Mayor's Police and Crime Plan on the same basis as it can other mayoral strategies; review and, if necessary, reject the Mayor's appointment of any Deputy Mayor. In addition Assembly members who join the Mayor's cabinet or sit on GLA boards should be required to give up their Assembly membership and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority should be reconstituted along the lines of the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime
The Communities and Local Government Committee note that the quality of domestic electrical work has improved since some of it was brought within building control eight years ago. But much more needs to be done to protect people in their homes. The main mechanism for checking electrical work covered by Part P of the building regulations is satisfactory is certification by a qualified supervisor operating under a Government-approved competent persons scheme. As long as the qualified supervisor meets competence standards, the person carrying out the work does not necessarily have to be a qualified electrician. The report calls for competence requirements to be rolled out within five years for all those actually doing electrical work to which Part P applies. In the interim, it is recommended that there be a limit on the number of notifications that a single qualified supervisor can authorise in a year in order to ensure that they devote enough time to checking each job. The Government should aim to double public awareness of Part P within two years and aim for an awareness level similar to that of Gas Safe within five years (45%). Additionally, the report calls for more proactive enforcement against those who breach Part P.
The single theme that underlies this report on the performance of the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) is: delivery. The DCLG faces unusual challenges as a result of how it is structured and its reliance on the performance of other departments, agencies, local authorities for the achievement of its goals set by the Government. Most of the money for which DCLG is responsible is spent for it by someone else - by over 450 local authorities, 47 local fire brigades, by large government agencies such as the soon-to-exist Homes and Communities Agency with a £2.2 billion budget. The challenge of delivery is examined under several headings: the capability review carried out by the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit; the ten public service agreements (focussing particularly on decent homes, fire and rescue services, race equality and community cohesion and gender equality); home information packs; FireLink and FiReControl, two major technology projects currently under way and both overdue and exceeding planned costs. On the Departmental report, the Committee welcomes the higher standard of the report, and the improvement in provision of full and clear information to Parliament and the public. A concern remains about the number of staff reporting feeling bullied, harassed or discriminated against.
In its report of last year on the Communities and Local Government's Departmental Annual Report 2007 (HC 170, session 2007-08, ISBN 9780215037978) the Committee commented on the particular nature of the Department's work: on its unusual reliance for the achievement of the goals Government has set it on a plethora of other Departments, agencies, non-departmental bodies, local authorities and other stakeholders; on the long, devolved delivery chains by which those goals therefore have to be delivered; and on the skills of influence, brokering and negotiation which are required to achieve them. In this Report the Committee assesses the progress made since last. The most recent Cabinet Office Capability Review concludes that there has been a positive "direction of travel" for CLG in that period, but the Committee concludes that there is still some way to go before CLG can be said to be performing at the highest achievable level of effectiveness. The Department's overall performance against its Public Service Agreement targets is likewise moving in the right direction but still short of full effectiveness. Achievement of efficiency targets is applauded. Finally, the report considers examples of particular policies which highlight some of the Department's strengths and weaknesses, and follow up some issues in earlier inquiries. These issues include: eco-towns; the Decent Homes programme; Home Information Packs; Fire Service response times; Firebuy; the FiReControl programme. The report also considers the Department's response to the serious flooding of summer 2007, and to the reviews which followed; and the mismanagement of European Regional Development Fund monies.
This report looks at ways the House of Commons can make itself more accessible so that its work is more clearly understood. The main sections look at: connecting with young people, both in terms of educational resources in the House and the citizenship curriculum; information for the public and in particular the web site; visitors; public petitions; the House of Commons and the media; communications between Members and their constituents.
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.