This month I've had a strong sense of deja vu. Are we at risk of drifting back to something reminiscent of the unlamented regulatory regime of the noughties? As well as dealing with two Ofsted reports on individual schools I've been preparing for the unannounced inspection of Bexley's children's services. The world of inspection certainly seems alive and kicking.
Given the sensitivities and risks around the welfare of children, few of us would argue for a relaxation in regulation for safeguarding; fewer still expected this to be reduced. We were, however, led to believe that there was a new contract afoot for local government in general.
In return for taking our fair share of cuts in expenditure (or as it turned out, rather more) we were to be freed from the shackles of central prescription and an imposed heavy performance and regulatory regime. The rapid demise of the Audit Commission, local area agreements and some centrally set targets, augured well for the future.
But my recent experience has called this into question. It started with an inspection of our youth offending team by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation. While I knew this was to happen, I was unprepared for the rigid and unhelpful methodology applied. This has predictably resulted in much private and public local debate that I fear has proved unconstructive in what is, after all, the safest London borough.
Earlier this week I had similar thoughts as I perused our draft plan for next year's work by our internal audit team. This helpfully pointed out proposals being developed by the National Fraud Authority, which will require us to publish an annual report on significant frauds we have discovered.
Combating fraud is an essential part of what we do; we regularly prosecute and are proactive in publicising this action as a deterrent. I fail to see what value is added by requiring me to conform to a national scheme – and fear the trouble and expense that may result.
The decision to return responsibility for public health to local government has been one of the bright spots of recent months. The government in general, and health secretary Andrew Lansley in particular, should be commended for their clear thinking and resilience in the face of some apparent scepticism.
Yet even here dangers lurk. Among the contents of Lansley's recent speech announcing the allocation of funding for public health was the outline of a performance regime consisting of 66 national health outcome indicators and centrally prescribed measurement. Surely if we are the right body to lead the renaissance of public health – and our unique democratic accountability is part of the argument for this – we can be trusted to get on with the job?
And all this is without reference to the much-criticised Care Quality Commission. I am apprehensive that in this febrile atmosphere, now further exacerbated by the search for a new chief executive, the national concern over the quality of health and social care could result in this regime also sliding backwards into a blanket tick-box style approach.
So, I detect a trend. This does not mean we should oppose inspection; good inspection teams engage, poor results can be a spur to action and positive feedback is a joy. But the future must lie in limiting inspection to the small number of things that really matter to central government, asking teams to focus on results rather than the process. Demonstrating that we can dissect our own services and be more objective than a regulator is a principal plank in the argument. Both of the peer teams that visited Bexley in the past year, looking at services for children and older people, have added considerable value – partly because they have been suitably, sometimes uncomfortably, challenging.
So we must show we can deliver. In Bexley we developed our own local performance arrangements, linked to our new (and readable) corporate plan. We have abandoned redundant strategies and reduced the number of partnership bodies. This is liberating both ideas and money – precisely as the government intended. They, and we, should push forward and not contemplate retrenchment.
Will Tuckley is chief executive of the London borough of Bexley
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. Join the local government network for more comment, analysis and best practice direct to your inbox
