Oflog is “not independent and could be subject to political direction”: LGA
The Office for Local Government (Oflog) is not an independent body, and this lack of independence has potential implications for public trust in its work, the Local Government Association has claimed in a submission to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (LUHC) Committee’s inquiry into the new body.
In its submission the LGA said: “Oflog is not an independent body but is effectively part of a department of government directly accountable to ministers. Oflog is therefore subject to political direction, rather than informed solely by independent analysis of data. This has potential implications for public trust in Oflog.
“This is of concern especially given Oflog is intending to have ‘early warning conversations and carry out peer reviews in areas where they have concerns’. How could Oflog carry out a truly independent peer review for example in South Cambridgeshire, given the Minister’s view about that council’s 4 day working week pilot?”
The LUHC Committee last week published the written evidence it had received as part of its inquiry.
The District Councils’ Network (DCN) said: “If Oflog is to achieve its objectives and establish credibility and trust within the local government sector, it is crucial that it becomes genuinely independent of central government.
“In DCN’s view Oflog currently is not – and does not appear to be – fully independent of central government.”
The DCN said in its submission it would like to see assurance of Oflog’s independence and for a set of clearly defined perimeters and clear roles and responsibilities to be established. “Without these assurances, there is a danger that Oflog is perceived as a vehicle for disproportionate central control rather than as a constructive partner for sector-wide improvement.”
It suggested that some practical changes would make a difference, such as moving Oflog’s physical location out of the departmental building and recruiting a greater number of officials from local government and outside the civil service.
“Ultimately, the acid test of independence will be that Oflog defines its programme of activity without consulting ministers in detail and that it is prepared to make decisions or publish information with which ministers may not fully agree.”
London Councils also addressed the issue of Oflog’s independence. The group said in its submission: “For Oflog to effectively fill the space between sector-led improvement and government intervention, there must be clarity on the degree of independence that Oflog has, and will be given in the future, from DLUHC.
“If the sector could be given assurance about Oflog’s independence, it would be valuable to have a body that can reflect the context local authorities are operating within, rather than looking at performance through a single lens like other regulators and inspection bodies do.”
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities defended the arrangements. It said: “To help establish Oflog rapidly it has been set up initially as an office of DLUHC, which means Ministers retain direct accountability for the organisation. Alongside this, Ministers appointed an independent Chair at an early stage of Oflog’s development to provide independent advice, support, and challenge to its strategic vision, functions, and delivery priorities.
“The Secretary of State has been clear that he wants Oflog to act independently from central government and over time, the Department’s aim is for Ministers to set the objectives for Oflog though an annual remit letter and then for Oflog to deliver those objectives however they see fit. The intention is that Oflog will be free to decide independently how data is presented and interpreted, and any views reached about local areas. We intend to say more about this shortly.”
