In 2005, North Yorkshire was described as a "credit union desert", with high levels of personal debt and no source of readily available credit for those on low incomes other than doorstep lenders and loan sharks.
By 2009, the North Yorkshire Credit Union had opened its doors, with nearly half a million pounds of funding over five years from a range of partners, offering responsible, affordable borrowing to 5,000 people and their families.
How? Through the tenacity and determination of a county council scrutiny committee, who refused to accept the initial rejection of their recommendations that a county-wide credit union should be formed to help tackle rural deprivation and exclusion.
This very real example illustrates what accountability means in practice and how, far from being an unaffordable and bureaucratic burden, it can result in hugely positive outcomes for communities in these tough economic times.
A new campaign from the Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS), entitled Accountability Works!, seeks to demonstrate the importance of mechanisms of accountability and to unpack what makes examples like the North Yorkshire Credit Union Scrutiny Review so successful in terms of holding executive decision-makers to account.
Conflict, culture and willingness
From our research for Accountability Works! CfPS has found that accountability comes in many forms, from the ballot box and the media, through seeking redress and the operation of markets, to processes of audit, inspection and scrutiny. With all these different forms interacting and sometimes conflicting with each other, accountability is complicated and its effectiveness can depend on the culture and willingness of the organisation or public service concerned to be held to account.
We can also see that transparency and availability of information is not enough on its own to secure accountability. Publishing information on MPs' expenses clearly had a huge impact and led to public representatives stepping down from their positions – delivering accountability through the media and the ballot box.
However, real and longer-term policy change required action by a formal scrutiny body – the public administration committee chaired by Tony Wright – making recommendations for the House of Commons to fundamentally change its working practices.
Similarly with the credit union example cited earlier, what CfPS has described as a "web of accountability" can be seen in operation. Executive decision-makers in the county council had in principle accepted the need for a credit union but the resources were not found until pressure from voluntary groups and the public, housing associations, district councillors and the county council scrutiny committee combined.
From this and other case studies, we conclude that for accountability mechanisms to succeed, they need: credibility, legitimacy and utility. Where one form of accountability may have greater legitimacy, the perceived utility of their arguments may be weaker, but working with another form of accountability, the combined pressure on those with power may lead to change.
Those with a democratic base will always have the greatest legitimacy and the "web of accountability" therefore, must have elected scrutineers at its heart. But they need to work with others to enhance their credibility and utility – not least, in a time of cuts and financial constraints – in order to share resources, avoid duplication and minimise the burden on those delivering public services that comes from being held to account.
Jessica Crowe is executive director of the Centre for Public Scrutiny
From Bubb's Blog
From Whitehall Watch
;
