Stephen Cirell, John Bennett and Paul O'Brien examine the implications of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill for the future of best value, and wonder whether it means more, not less, red tape
Best value is to be reformed further under the Government's latest White Paper, Strong and prosperous communities, and under the new Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill. 
What will these changes mean for local government?
The good news is that the basic concept of best value remains sound, and continues to be the foundation for a number of other areas of key public policy, such as CPA and e-government, and supports the comprehensive spending review.
No-one in local government has ever demurred from the view that best value is a good thing, and should be supported. As an ethos, it has now become embedded in most councils' culture as everyday practice.
It is also good news that the main changes proposed are to dismantle the procedural ‘machinery' which was attached to the best value regime at the time of its inception, which probably deflected from its true purpose, namely, securing the outcome of continuous improvement in services.
So, gone are the requirements to hold best value reviews by law, leading to the preparation of a best value performance plan for the authority, and in accordance with a timetable prescribed by central government.
The Government now accepts that best value reviews should be a flexible resource, available to local authorities as appropriate. It also accepts that best value performance plans have long-been overtaken by more important documentation to express an authority's corporate goals. 
Furthermore, some councils, such as parish and community councils, will avoid the best value regime altogether.
But while the Government's new-found credentials for deregulation are to be applauded, Clause 3A of the Local Government and Involvement in Health Bill seems to be going in the other direction.
This clause insists councils go further than just consult residents and other service-users about the services they receive. It actively requires them to become involved in those activities. The new mantra which has taken over from the old 4Cs of ‘Challenge, consult, compare and compete' is ‘Inform, consult, involve and devolve'.
The clause that introduces this new requirement to participate, however, is strangely drafted.
It is in two parts, effectively requiring a local authority to ‘consider' whether it is appropriate for representatives of local persons to be involved in the exercise of any of its functions.
And if the authority considers it is appropriate, then it ‘must' take such steps as it considers appropriate to secure that such representatives are involved in the exercise of the function in that way. This seems to be a two stage test, with the first being subjective and the second stage only applying if the first is satisfied.
However, we have to ask whether it is necessary to have a clause in the Bill about this at all? Why can't the Government simply say in the new circular that is proposed that local authorities should take these steps to achieve participation? 
That would be in keeping with the other tenor of the White Paper and Bill, namely, to take away the procedural machinery rather than to add to it.
This would also enhance flexibility. Local government understands that in today's consumerist society, it has to improve the ways in which it engages with citizens, and this is not a challenge which anyone is shirking.
The other area of note is in relation to commissioning and competition. Here, the White Paper is unclear as the Government continues to struggle with the notion of how competition fits within best value.
As best value was a replacement for CCT, and the Government pledged that local authorities would never again be forced into outdated competition processes, it is caught between a rock and a hard place.
Everyone accepts that competitiveness is important and competitive tendering has a role to play, depending on the strategy of the authority concerned. The issue is how to express this.
The likelihood is that we can expect another circular in vague terms about how authorities should, might and could go out to competition, without actually requiring this.
However, modern alternative methods of demonstrating competitiveness exist, based around market analysis, benchmarking, peer review and citizen engagement. 
The drivers for competition are likely to come from other elements of the policy agenda, not least the CSR and shared services agendas.
The proposals on best value are generally welcome, and reinforce the view that the links between this and other areas of the modernisation agenda remain strong.
Best value continues to play a supporting role to a number of other areas, and will provide a stronger contribution, freed from the needless procedural hurdles which previously existed.
No doubt the clauses in the Bill will be strenuously debated and examined as it passes through parliament, and it remains to be seen whether they will eventually reach the statute book in their current form. n
Stephen Cirell is head of local government, and John Bennett is a consultant solicitor with Eversheds. They are authors of Best Value Law And Practice published by Sweet and Maxwell. Paul O'Brien is chief executive of the Association for Public Service Excellence