Even before the concordat with the Scottish Government and the financial crisis forced Scotland's 32 councils to reappraise every aspect of their operations, the local government landscape was already undergoing significant change driven by the authorities themselves. The model of arm's-length agencies pioneered by Glasgow City Council, which now runs museums and leisure centres through a trust, and car parks, markets and its IT operation through a limited liability partnership, raises a number of questions about public scrutiny.
Even before the concordat with the Scottish Government and the financial crisis forced Scotland's 32 councils to reappraise every aspect of their operations, the local government landscape was already undergoing significant change driven by the authorities themselves. The model of arm's-length agencies pioneered by Glasgow City Council, which now runs museums and leisure centres through a trust, and car parks, markets and its IT operation through a limited liability partnership, raises a number of questions about public scrutiny.
Providing services, from personal care to building, by way of limited liability companies can generate an income stream through contracting services to other users in both the public and private sectors. While this offers councils the prospect of keeping costs down, it severs the direct link between the citizens, who are also the council tax-payers, and their elected representatives. The first port of call for someone who is dissatisfied with their home help, for example, would be the service provider rather than their councillor. If the complaint is dealt with promptly and efficiently that need not be a problem, but it muddies the chain of accountability.
Scrutiny becomes more difficult when public services are delivered by bodies outwith the public sector, which may not be subject to Freedom of Information legislation, as has been the case with housing associations. As councils move further away from direct provision of services, it is essential that the right of the public to know how they are operating is extended to the new hybrid bodies.
At the theoretical level, senior council officials and politicians acknowledge there would be efficiency advantages from providing joint services. They point to politics as the stumbling block, but here, too, there is a question of ownership of and responsibility for decisions, particularly in the new political landscape of coalitions and minority administrations.
Police and fire services, however, run by eight joint boards and one of the last vestiges of the 1975 system of regional and district authorities, provide evidence of successful joint operations. Even so, the efficiency of that model rightly is being questioned on matters such as whether the smallest forces have sufficient experience to deal with the full range of crime. Any suggestion of reducing the number of forces, has been resisted consistently by the chief constables, and the firemasters are equally resistant to a reduction in their number. Local knowledge and accountability are vital in delivery of all public services, but true effectiveness also requires economies of scale. Public debate over how the emergency services and the local authorities can provide good quality services at best value and be held to account has never been more timely.
