Below is a guest article from Norman Rimmell (Fabian Co-ordinator for Eastern Region) on the lack of accountability in local government.
Graham
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Non-)ACCOUNTABILITY
This year I will pay £1,360 Council Tax. It would be nice to know that if I do not get good service in return for this investment there is in place a fool-proof mechanism to put things right. Unfortunately it doesn't exist. I know this from years of experience, Complaints to Councillors and officials are seldom acted on within a reasonable period, and even after persistent repetition some complaints are still ignored. The Local Government Ombudsman service is a joke; our regional Ombudsman once boasted to an audience of County Councillors that he had spent fifteen years 'defending Local Government' and he was proud of the fact that he had upheld only 3% of the complaints that came his way. The fact is, there is little or no accountability; there is no-one of whom it can be said, 'the buck stops here'.
A legally enforceable contract would seem, on the face of it, to be the answer, but because local government covers such a wide area of activities, many of which like education and policing are extremely complex, a contract would most likely become a minefield from which only the legal profession would benefit.
The first thing that is needed is a requirement that local authorities publish (and distribute to every householder) a detailed description of the services it provides, department by department, so that the tax-payer knows exactly what he can expect to receive in return for his money. The amount of detail would have to be very great, for example under 'street cleaning' the method and frequency of cleaning for different kinds of street would have to be made clear. Even then, some services such as noise control, would be problematic because expected outcomes would be variable.
Secondly, local authorities should be required to set up a team of designated 'trouble-shooters' whoch sole responsibility would be responding to, and acting on, all complaints within a fixed time limit. This must be backed up by a public right to submit any outstanding complaint direct to the Scrutiny Committee, something which is being considered now.
At the heart of the problem is the fact that a culture exists at most town Halls whereby many officers and Councillors do not see responding to complaints as an important part of their job, with the possible exception of departments, like Environmental Health, that are reactive. A change of culture is only likely to be brought about by the introduction of radically new ways of operating, backed up by stiff sanctions for transgressors.
And the Local Government Ombudsman service needs reforming too - but that's another story!
Norman Rimmell - Fabian Co-ordinator for Eastern Region
Friday, 6 June 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
It's difficult to disagree with you that local government is broken and needs fixing. However, the trouble with imposing more rules and requirements on local authorities is that it will only exacerbate the major problem plaguging local government in the first place - it is too weak, and hamstrung by central government directives and targets. If someone complains to their local council and their complaint is not dealt with in a satisfactory manner, it may often be because Whitehall has dictated that resources and manpower be directed towards some other task. This does not necessairily reflect a lack of desire to help on the part of officers and councillors.
Britain is still one of the most centralised states in the developed world, and until local authorities are freed to a greater extent from the chokehold of Whitehall, it will be difficult for local people to hold it accountable. Perhaps this is partly the reason why turnout in local elections is so low, as the electorate senses that real power lies elsewhere?
I have just had my cmplaint against the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea discontinued on the grounds that I have not suffered an injustice. A Tom Aikens fish and chip shop had opened up with the duct a few metres from our bedroom window and below it. My wife has a weak heart and high blood pressure and we could not open the window on very hot evenings. Mr Aikens had done what is quite normal these days - erected the equipment, air conditioners, duct and so on, without bothering with planning permission. But, like most other councils, the RBK&C is quite happy to give retropsepctive permission and stresses that no applicant is disadvantaged because he has not followed the rules. One of our problems was the use of aan odour neutraliser that, rather than removing an odour, doctors your sense of smell - with the result that many people developed sinus problems ande felt sick. One wonders what will be allowed in future. How about doctoring one's sense of taste without being consulted, altering the pitch of a disturbing sound so as to make it inaudible to the human year, introducing a mild sedative with the fumes to calm neighbours. The science involved in neutralising the sense of smell is said to be "not properly understood". But one of the intereseting things about the Health and Safety people is that they seem to make a nuisance of themselves when problems are trivial but never there when they are needed. So yes, your comments are justified and the LGO is a waste of taxpayers money - and I suspect a good way for retirned senior local government officials to make a little extra money so long as they do not upset those still running our local government. Tom MacNeece.
Post a Comment