Inspection is important. It is important because it helps to drive improvement in public services; because it provides assurance about the standards to which these services are provided; and because it highlights good practice for others to follow.

I’m glad, therefore, to be speaking to you today at a conference on the role of inspection in improving public services. The public sector needs to change to keep the support of the public. The public are less deferential, more demanding and more knowledgeable. They expect high quality services. And they expect to get more choice in the form and delivery of those services.

The expectations of the public about the services which government provides have never been higher. And often we meet these expectations. As we recognised in our Modernising Government White Paper last year, some of our public services are excellent. But as we also recognised, others are not. We intend to bring them up to the level of the best, and to make the best even better. Inspection has a vital role to play in all of this.

We, and you, are striving to improve the quality and responsiveness of public services across the board whether it be in local government, the NHS or in central government. That is why in local government we have introduced Best Value. Local government is at the heart of communities, providing essential services that we all rely on.

Most councils are working hard to do this better. Best Value will help them provide better quality services at reasonable cost, with more say for local people.

And inspection has a vital role to play in helping to ensure that Best Value delivers the goods. It enhances local accountability by helping to inform the public about the performance of local services. It also ensures that best value authorities review their services in accordance with the legislation. And it helps to ensure that best value authorities set performance targets which are both challenging and realistic.

I know many of you have been working very hard to prepare for Best Value. Some are concerned that these inspection requirements will only add to the burden they are working under. But this is not inspection for the sake of it. The public expects tangible improvements in public services, and inspection is an essential catalyst for that improvement.

And there is a role for authorities in minimising the burden. By performing well and planning Best Value reviews of suitable scope, the inspection effort can be rationalised.

In the Health Service we and the NHS Executive are determined to deliver high quality care. We aim to do this in partnership with patients and the staff in the NHS. This relies on setting clear national standards; and on dependable local delivery systems. But it also depends on having improved monitoring and performance assessment. That is why we have set up the Commission for Health Improvement to monitor quality standards.

And again, this is not inspection for the sake of it. The Commission, along with the NHS Performance Assessment Framework, are vital to delivering the expectations of the public when it comes to the health services they receive.

And we in central government are not being left out you will be glad to hear. There is much that is good about how departments and agencies deliver services to the public. But, as elsewhere in the public sector, there is much that needs to improve too. That is why we have devised five principles: challenge, compare, consult, compete and collaborate to guide our work in achieving continuous improvement in central government policy making and service delivery.

We are using these to build on our Best Value approach to local government. As part of this we have strengthened our approach to the five yearly reviews of agencies and quangos. We have also set in train a comprehensive programme of Better Quality Services reviews to look at all central government services and activities to identify the best supplier in each case.

And departments have been set demanding targets through the Public Service Agreements so that people can see what they can expect in return for the substantial new investment announced through the Spending Review.

But we can’t afford to stand still. It is not enough just to have inspection regimes in place. They need to continue to be an effective driver for change.

When I attended the seminar which the LGA organised in July to start this programme of work into the future role of inspection, I came away with a positive message. You, and others like you across the public sector, are committed to improving the quality and standards of services provided to the public.

And inspectors and the inspected both recognise the value of inspection as a legitimate tool for raising performance, and securing improvements in the planning and delivery of public services.

But we have to keep looking at the role of inspection. There are issues around the links between inspection and improvement; around the number of inspectorates and the right approaches to inspection; around joined up inspection; and around managing the perceptions of inspections.

Taking the first of these, I would be the first to agree that inspection is not the only way to achieve improvement. And it shouldn’t be. Organisations don’t need to wait to be inspected to begin improving. If they do this, what happens after the inspectors have left? There needs to be the capacity, culture and commitment to improve both before and after the inspection is over. Organisations should and can do much themselves to improve their performance. It is our role to help in this.

That is why we support the Improvement and Development Agency in its work with local government to help it do better.

Peer review can be a powerful tool in helping an organisation improve its performance. A "critical friend" which can bring to bear in-depth experience across a wide range of other bodies to help you face the challenges that exist now and in the future. That is what we are looking for from the Local Government Improvement Programme.

Knowing about best practice elsewhere is also a powerful driver for improvement. It helps you realise what is possible and provides an opportunity to learn from others who have already thought through different approaches to issues which you may now be grappling with. But how do you find out what is going on elsewhere? Beacon Councils have a vital role to play in this.

Becoming a Beacon is much more than just gaining a badge. They are central to our agenda for modernising local government. They are setting the pace of change and acting as centres of excellence by spreading best practice and sharing their experience. Indeed they have to commit themselves to hosting open days to tell others what they have done. We see this as very important. That is why we are providing financial support to help Beacons carry out their role. We also want them to come up with other ways of spreading best practice, including mentoring and secondments to help form bonds between Beacons and other learning councils.

So, much can be, and is being, achieved outside the inspection regimes. But inspection is still needed. The saying goes that "you don’t fatten a pig by weighing it". This is true, but if you don’t weigh it you won’t know if it needs to get fatter.

The services provided by government are vitally important to those who receive them. The individual man or woman in the street needs to have assurance about the standards to which those services are being provided. I don’t think anyone would argue with this. Inspection provides that assurance. It also provides a focus and stimulus for change. These are normal parts of the continuous improvement culture, not the exception. And inspection provides the means to identify where steps need to be taken to improve performance, especially where organisations are failing to meet the needs of their users

Of course, inspection and an organisation’s own work to improve its performance shouldn’t ignore each other. They should be driving in the same direction, complementing each other to the maximum effect.

One way to achieve this is to target inspection on those areas where the risks involved are the greatest. Another is intervention in inverse proportion to success. The Protocol on Intervention Powers, agreed between the Government and the LGA, reflects this in setting out that intervention will only take place where an authority is either failing to discharge its functions adequately or failing to meet its statutory obligations. If we have to intervene, it should be where it is needed.

I know that many of you have been concerned that the number of bodies carrying out inspections and reviews has grown. With Best Value has come the Best Value Inspection Service, including the Housing Inspectorate. In the NHS we now have the Commission for Health Improvement. Is this a sign that we in central government do not trust local government or the NHS? Of course not. Rather it is a sign of our commitment to providing modern public services.

The Best Value Inspection Service ensures that services such as housing, environmental services and leisure, which have not previously been subject to inspection now are. Now all local services will be able to benefit from inspection acting as a catalyst for improvement.

Inspection will also take place in some authorities at the corporate level, to identify areas which will improve the performance of the authority across the board.

The Commission for Health Improvement has been set up to address the wide variation in the standards of care apparent across the NHS in England and Wales. We all want to ensure that patients get the best possible care, no matter who they are, where they are or when they need it. The Commission is there to help the NHS assure, monitor and improve quality of patient care. As with all other forms of review and inspection, the Commission’s purpose is to monitor performance and encourage and drive improvement. We have increased the avenues of inspection, not for the sake of it, but because we want to make sure that all public services can benefit from the disciplines and challenges that inspection brings.

We recognise that as the number of inspectorates has increased so too has the need to ensure that wherever possible they co-ordinate their work. Some inspectorates have already been working closely together in the past but we need more of it. We do not want inspection to overburden those being inspected – that would be counter-productive. If an organisation spends much of its time being inspected and preparing for those inspections, when do they have the time to do the day job?

But the inspectorates are not going to go away. They have a job to do, and they have statutory obligations to meet. The important thing is that they don’t work in isolation from each other.

That is one of the reasons why we set up the Best Value Inspectorate Forum. One of its roles is to build on and develop joint inspection methodologies. This will involve developing protocols and similar agreements to aid working together and information sharing. Some agreements have already been reached and published, and these have been welcomed by local government. The Forum is also looking at the scope for co-ordinating programmes of inspection.

Working in partnership and across organisational boundaries is a key part of the Modernising Government agenda. More and more organisations, locally and nationally, are seeking to improve their service delivery through working with others.

Inspection can’t ignore this. Where services are being delivered through partnership, inspectorates need to develop arrangements that reflect this.

And inspection needs to have the ability to look at issues which cut across different organisations. The Inspectorate Forum is looking at these issues as well.

Joining up also means consistency in the approaches taken by different inspectorates. Not necessarily the same approach but one that does not provide conflicting evaluations of the same arrangements. That doesn’t help anyone. That is why the Inspectorate Forum is working towards a common methodology for Best Value inspection.

A methodology which means that inspections are informed by results; which challenge attitude and performance; which support an authority’s improvement efforts; and which speak clearly to local people.

But we also need to recognise that different organisations, at different stages in their improvement cycles, may need different types of inspection. The same approach is unlikely to work for a body which is badly failing and a body in which the only reason it is not performing better is complacency.

Inspection is important but its importance is not always realised. It is often not welcomed by those being inspected because they think that it will only lead to criticism. I understand these concerns. It is easier to get coverage for bad news than it is for good. But those who are inspected need to know that we are looking for positive outcomes. Failure needs to be identified where it exists and inspection has a key role here. But we cannot stop there - our goal is continuous improvement, and inspection has a key role here too. To do this it needs to avoid a "tick-box" approach. All this creates are organisations who become increasingly good at "passing" inspections but which don’t benefit from inspection in the longer term.

The work of the Inspectorate Forum and others is designed to ensure that inspection is effective, both on behalf of service users and for those being inspected.

Some fear that inspection just encourages a negative view of public service. But there is much to be proud of in the public sector. "Naming and shaming" has a part to play in improving our public services, but so too does "naming and acclaiming". The Beacon Councils scheme is aiming to do this. So too are the Charter Mark Awards reflecting the tremendous success and the commitment of thousands of front line staff in providing high quality public services.

And we are very happy to support other players in recognising achievement. The Public Finance Public Servants of the Year Awards, launched earlier this week, are a case in point. This is aimed at outstanding individuals in all sectors of the public service - and at all levels. I very much hope that it will be supported by people and organisations represented here.

Of course, we ignore instances of poor service delivery which inspection highlights at our peril. But we must also not lose sight of the other side of the coin: of public services doing well and striving to do better.

Improving public services is a challenge to all of us. When we get it right, the public benefits. When we get it wrong, they can suffer. Because the drive for improvement is so important, we have to accept that external challenge and review is an integral part of achieving this. That is why inspection is important. Not inspection for the sake of it, but inspection which secures real improvements and cultural change.

Central and local government, the inspectorates and the inspected, and those who use public services all have a part to play in continuing to bring this about. This conference and the discussion paper which the LGA and its partners have prepared are important steps in meeting this challenge.

I will now be happy to take some questions.