The body which decides whether council services are up to standard should "raise its own game significantly", a report by MPs suggests.
The Local Government Ombudsman takes too long to deal with some cases and has to prove its value to the taxpayer, the Local Government Committee says.
Otherwise it will "undermine its own role and credibility", it adds.
The LGO, which is funded by the government but is an independent body, handled 21,840 complaints in 2010/11.
'Satisfaction'
The committee's chairman, Labour MP Clive Betts, said: "LGO has been taking far too long to determine some cases. One of the ombudsmen conceded that the delay in determining some cases was itself likely to amount to maladministration.
"This must raise questions about the LGO's authority and credibility. The organisation needs to apply strict deadlines to all the cases that it handles."
The committee found the LGO needed to provide a "clear methodology to measure levels of customer satisfaction and publish the results".
It added: "It must also put in place arrangements to ensure there is an annual evaluation of its own activities and decision-making by an independent external reviewer, to ensure the LGO is itself fair, effective, open, transparent and accountable."
This reviewer should be appointed by the end of this year and report for the first time no later than Easter 2013, it added.
The cross-party committee said: "An organisation whose primary job is investigating and determining whether maladministration by others has taken place must itself take care to avoid maladministration by delaying justice. If it does not, it will undermine its own role and credibility."
Reproduced with acknowledgements to BBC News.
Showing posts with label BBC News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BBC News. Show all posts
Tuesday, 17 July 2012
Saturday, 16 April 2011
Councils Cut Back on Free Adult Social Care
The number of councils in England cutting back on free adult social care has increased by 13% this year, a survey has suggested.
The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services study found just 26 out of 148 councils would fund people in "moderate" or "low" need, down from 41.
The moves follow a sharp reduction in central funding for local authorities.
However, the government said it had recently allocated an extra £2bn a year by 2014-15 for social care services.
TAKING BATH
The survey revealed that 19 local authorities had raised the eligibility bar for free adult social care.
Only 22 councils in England out of the 148 which responded will now fund those assessed as having moderate needs, down from 36 last year.
This category includes people who are so ill or disabled that they have trouble preparing a meal for themselves or taking a bath.
Six councils have now opted to limit help to people in "critical' need, which includes those suffering from life threatening conditions.
Some authorities say the need to save money has left them with no option but to cut one of their biggest areas of spending.
Andrew Harrop, of the charity Age UK, said people could die as a result of the cuts and many more may land up in hospital unnecessarily.
The government has set up an independent commission on social care, which is due to report in July, and will put forward plans in a White Paper by the end of the year.
'MOST VULNERABLE'
Andrew Dilnott, chairman of the commission, said there was no doubt that social care was being squeezed and there was "a growing amount of unmet need".
He said the current system seemed to "invite variability" and "there was merit in trying to find an assessment system... that seems to give people more of a sense that there was fairness and equality across the UK".
But he said regardless of the cuts, the system needed to be reformed.
"The balance between individual responsibility and state responsibility that we have at the moment doesn't seem to be the right one, it's widely seen to be unfair.
"What we found is that many people think it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to make some contribution.
"They just don't want the system that they face at the moment where if they turn out to be one of the least fortunate who ends up needing a very great deal of care, that they lose everything," he said.
A Department of Health spokesman said: "Protecting and improving local social care services is vital, especially for the most vulnerable.
"The coalition government recently allocated extra money - meaning an additional £2bn a year by 2014-15 - to encourage more joined-up working, support the delivery of social care and protect the most vulnerable in society.
"This funding, together with an ambitious programme of efficiency, should enable local authorities to protect people's access to services and deliver new approaches to improve their care."
Reproduced with acknowledgements to BBC News.
The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services study found just 26 out of 148 councils would fund people in "moderate" or "low" need, down from 41.
The moves follow a sharp reduction in central funding for local authorities.
However, the government said it had recently allocated an extra £2bn a year by 2014-15 for social care services.
TAKING BATH
The survey revealed that 19 local authorities had raised the eligibility bar for free adult social care.
Only 22 councils in England out of the 148 which responded will now fund those assessed as having moderate needs, down from 36 last year.
This category includes people who are so ill or disabled that they have trouble preparing a meal for themselves or taking a bath.
Six councils have now opted to limit help to people in "critical' need, which includes those suffering from life threatening conditions.
Some authorities say the need to save money has left them with no option but to cut one of their biggest areas of spending.
Andrew Harrop, of the charity Age UK, said people could die as a result of the cuts and many more may land up in hospital unnecessarily.
The government has set up an independent commission on social care, which is due to report in July, and will put forward plans in a White Paper by the end of the year.
'MOST VULNERABLE'
Andrew Dilnott, chairman of the commission, said there was no doubt that social care was being squeezed and there was "a growing amount of unmet need".
He said the current system seemed to "invite variability" and "there was merit in trying to find an assessment system... that seems to give people more of a sense that there was fairness and equality across the UK".
But he said regardless of the cuts, the system needed to be reformed.
"The balance between individual responsibility and state responsibility that we have at the moment doesn't seem to be the right one, it's widely seen to be unfair.
"What we found is that many people think it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to make some contribution.
"They just don't want the system that they face at the moment where if they turn out to be one of the least fortunate who ends up needing a very great deal of care, that they lose everything," he said.
A Department of Health spokesman said: "Protecting and improving local social care services is vital, especially for the most vulnerable.
"The coalition government recently allocated extra money - meaning an additional £2bn a year by 2014-15 - to encourage more joined-up working, support the delivery of social care and protect the most vulnerable in society.
"This funding, together with an ambitious programme of efficiency, should enable local authorities to protect people's access to services and deliver new approaches to improve their care."
Reproduced with acknowledgements to BBC News.
Monday, 7 March 2011
Lib Dem Urges RBS and Lloyds Shares Giveaway
By Andrew Bryson
Senior Liberal Democrats want the government to give away billions of pounds of its shares in Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group to the general public.
The radical idea would see most of its stake in the banks shared between 46 million adults on the electoral roll.
A floor would be set so the shares could not be sold until they had passed the price paid by the government.
Individuals would only keep any gains made above that floor price.
The government spent £65.8bn buying shares in the banking giants.
It owns 83% of RBS and 41% of Lloyds.
The idea is set out by Stephen Williams, Liberal Democrat MP for Bristol West, in a pamphlet for the think tank Centre Forum.
He said: "There is a danger that when the banks return to the private sector, it is business as usual. There is a general feeling in this country that we need to get something positive in return for the bail-out.
"This plan would recoup the public's investment and allow the taxpayer to get the benefit from any increased value in the banks."
Under the proposal, shares would be deposited in individual trading accounts.
Mr Williams told the BBC how he saw the plan working: "Every citizen would have the same rights as shareholders at the moment, so they'd have the rights to get the company annual report. They could turn up at the AGM.
"What might happen, for instance, is there could be shareholder associations set up of citizens who own these shares, who will put pressure on the banks to change their behaviour. Banks and all other companies are meant to be owned by their shareholders and to respond to their shareholders' wishes."
Popular appeal
At current prices, every adult would receive shares worth just under £1,000.
Each account would be set up with a default option to sell the shares over two or three years, although individuals could opt to hold the shares for longer.
The idea may have popular appeal - but it was not conceived by politicians.
The city firm Portman Capital devised the model for the Liberal Democrats as a way round some of the problems the government could face in a traditional share sale.
Privatisations in the 1980s saw shares offered at a big discount.
That tempted institutional investors to buy in, but led to criticism the government was "selling the family silver" off too cheaply.
In 2008 and 2009 the government injected approximately £45.5bn into RBS by buying shares, and £20.3bn into Halifax Bank of Scotland, which was taken over by Lloyds.
Stagger
UK Financial Investments, which manages the public's stakes in the banks, is currently expected to sell them through conventional means.
That is likely to include placing the shares with pension funds and sovereign wealth funds, as well as offering them to retail investors.
UKFI is likely to have to stagger the sale of the shares over a number of years in order to get the best price so that the market has time to absorb the huge amount of shares on offer.
The shares are currently trading a few pence below the government's "break even price" of 51p for RBS shares, and 74p for Lloyds.
Toby Fenwick from Portman Capital says the shares suffer from an "overhang" - a situation where the market knows a lot of shares are likely to be sold and consequently depresses the share price.
"Under the current scenario there is one seller with a very big stake to unload and the market knows its break-even price," he said.
"A share distribution would create a new scenario with tens of millions of sellers each with a small stake and no incentive to sell below the 'floor'."
The idea is backed by Mr Williams and Lord Dick Newby, the Liberal Democrats' Treasury spokesman in the House of Lords.
It is not official Liberal Democrat policy, although the party's ministers are understood to be sympathetic to exploring whether the idea would work.
A source close to Danny Alexander, the Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said: "No decision has been taken about how or when this issue is going to be dealt with. But this is a welcome contribution to the debate."
Reproduced with acknowledgements to BBC News
Senior Liberal Democrats want the government to give away billions of pounds of its shares in Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group to the general public.
The radical idea would see most of its stake in the banks shared between 46 million adults on the electoral roll.
A floor would be set so the shares could not be sold until they had passed the price paid by the government.
Individuals would only keep any gains made above that floor price.
The government spent £65.8bn buying shares in the banking giants.
It owns 83% of RBS and 41% of Lloyds.
The idea is set out by Stephen Williams, Liberal Democrat MP for Bristol West, in a pamphlet for the think tank Centre Forum.
He said: "There is a danger that when the banks return to the private sector, it is business as usual. There is a general feeling in this country that we need to get something positive in return for the bail-out.
"This plan would recoup the public's investment and allow the taxpayer to get the benefit from any increased value in the banks."
Under the proposal, shares would be deposited in individual trading accounts.
Mr Williams told the BBC how he saw the plan working: "Every citizen would have the same rights as shareholders at the moment, so they'd have the rights to get the company annual report. They could turn up at the AGM.
"What might happen, for instance, is there could be shareholder associations set up of citizens who own these shares, who will put pressure on the banks to change their behaviour. Banks and all other companies are meant to be owned by their shareholders and to respond to their shareholders' wishes."
Popular appeal
At current prices, every adult would receive shares worth just under £1,000.
Each account would be set up with a default option to sell the shares over two or three years, although individuals could opt to hold the shares for longer.
The idea may have popular appeal - but it was not conceived by politicians.
The city firm Portman Capital devised the model for the Liberal Democrats as a way round some of the problems the government could face in a traditional share sale.
Privatisations in the 1980s saw shares offered at a big discount.
That tempted institutional investors to buy in, but led to criticism the government was "selling the family silver" off too cheaply.
In 2008 and 2009 the government injected approximately £45.5bn into RBS by buying shares, and £20.3bn into Halifax Bank of Scotland, which was taken over by Lloyds.
Stagger
UK Financial Investments, which manages the public's stakes in the banks, is currently expected to sell them through conventional means.
That is likely to include placing the shares with pension funds and sovereign wealth funds, as well as offering them to retail investors.
UKFI is likely to have to stagger the sale of the shares over a number of years in order to get the best price so that the market has time to absorb the huge amount of shares on offer.
The shares are currently trading a few pence below the government's "break even price" of 51p for RBS shares, and 74p for Lloyds.
Toby Fenwick from Portman Capital says the shares suffer from an "overhang" - a situation where the market knows a lot of shares are likely to be sold and consequently depresses the share price.
"Under the current scenario there is one seller with a very big stake to unload and the market knows its break-even price," he said.
"A share distribution would create a new scenario with tens of millions of sellers each with a small stake and no incentive to sell below the 'floor'."
The idea is backed by Mr Williams and Lord Dick Newby, the Liberal Democrats' Treasury spokesman in the House of Lords.
It is not official Liberal Democrat policy, although the party's ministers are understood to be sympathetic to exploring whether the idea would work.
A source close to Danny Alexander, the Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said: "No decision has been taken about how or when this issue is going to be dealt with. But this is a welcome contribution to the debate."
Reproduced with acknowledgements to BBC News
Saturday, 4 December 2010
D'oh!
This made me laugh:
A trail of footprints in the snow led police to catch a burglar shivering in a bush.
The 17-year-old was spotted by a homeowner stealing a bicycle from a garage in Sutton, south London.
Police noticed his footprints and followed them for several streets until they found him cowering under frozen foliage.
The officers then followed the trail back - to discover several other garages had been targeted.
Insp Colin Baker, of Sutton Police, said: "This burglar left great big footprints for officers to follow.
"So, despite the difficult weather conditions, officers were able to track him down, following the tracks in the snow."
The teenager was arrested on suspicion of burglary at about 0300 GMT on Friday and was released on bail pending further inquiries.
It is not the first time snow has helped police in Sutton defeat criminals.
Two teenagers were caught stealing electronic goods from a garage in January after officers followed their footprints.
Reproduced with acknowledgements to BBC News.
A trail of footprints in the snow led police to catch a burglar shivering in a bush.
The 17-year-old was spotted by a homeowner stealing a bicycle from a garage in Sutton, south London.
Police noticed his footprints and followed them for several streets until they found him cowering under frozen foliage.
The officers then followed the trail back - to discover several other garages had been targeted.
Insp Colin Baker, of Sutton Police, said: "This burglar left great big footprints for officers to follow.
"So, despite the difficult weather conditions, officers were able to track him down, following the tracks in the snow."
The teenager was arrested on suspicion of burglary at about 0300 GMT on Friday and was released on bail pending further inquiries.
It is not the first time snow has helped police in Sutton defeat criminals.
Two teenagers were caught stealing electronic goods from a garage in January after officers followed their footprints.
Reproduced with acknowledgements to BBC News.
Wednesday, 15 September 2010
How should we define "the people"?
I have to admit that I probably don't know as much as I should about the way that politics works in the USA. It would appear that there, even more so than here, everything revolves around the big two parties, but that unlike in the UK there are opportunities for factions and parties within parties to gatecrash the show by taking part in primaries and publicly seeking nomination for positions of influence within the two party system.
My attention today was drawn to a BBC News item headed "Tea Party surges in US primaries". When I clicked the link I noticed that the article carried the slightly longer title "Tea Party surges in US Republican primaries".
The Tea Party, it would appear, is a fringe group on the conservative wing of the already conservative Republican Party and has won several Senate nominations including in Delaware, where the successful candidate Christine O'Donnell was endorsed by Sarah Palin. In her victory speech Ms. O'Donnell warned her opponents: "Don't ever underestimate the power of we, the people".
I found myself wondering just what it was about the Tea Party that qualified it to presume to speak for "the people". My guess was that, as an organ of the conservative right, its agenda would have something to do with small government, minimal intervention and lower taxes. But not wishing to jump automatically to conclusions, I decided to investigate. Sure enough, it would appear that the Tea Party is driven by a desire for "limited government" and "opposes high government spending". It is also opposed to President Barack Obama's healthcare proposals, his economic stimulus ideas and other aspects of his political agenda.
In spite of the fact that my dislike of political manipulation, control freakery and unnecessary interference in people's lives was what led me to join and work for the ICG, I have to admit that I nonetheless instinctively baulk at conservative "small government" rhetoric. The reason for this, I believe, is that the conservative dislike of government intervention at both local and national levels has less to do with a desire to allow communities to flourish organically and more to do with creating an environment in which everybody strives for Number One and in which, as the heroine of the cult once infamously put it, "there is no such thing as society".
In the world of big party politics this outlook represents one side of a dichotomy which conspires with the other side to try to strike the communitarian ideals heralded by the likes of the ICG out of the discussion and into the wilderness. Whilst conservatives (and I use the term generically rather than as a party label) preach the gospel of Every Man For Himself, their so-called "socialist" critics hold that society should by organised (by them), regulated by The Party as the only agency that has the wit and sophistication to recognise where the interests of that society truly lie, and that any attempt by that society to self-manage should be viewed with the utmost suspicion and crumpled ruthlessly underfoot by the full weight of the bureaucratic machine under its control.
In my view it is essential that ICG members recognise this two-headed ideological assault upon our community ideal for what it is, and do not make the mistake of adopting one twin as an ally in the struggle against the other. Temporary alliances are one thing entirely, but the wider object of the exercise is to use any situation to the community's ultimate advantage, not to succumb to the allure of ideologies which are fundamentally at odds with our own outlook.
It was a government of the right in the USA that wreaked havoc in the Middle East, supported meekly and without challenge by a government supposedly of the left in the UK. A good many of those protesters who marched against the illegal Iraq war shuffled out without conscience or embarrassment a few years later to implore voters to back those who had taken us into it.
The strength of our cause lies in the fact that we are different to, and better than, the whole stinking lot of them.
My attention today was drawn to a BBC News item headed "Tea Party surges in US primaries". When I clicked the link I noticed that the article carried the slightly longer title "Tea Party surges in US Republican primaries".
The Tea Party, it would appear, is a fringe group on the conservative wing of the already conservative Republican Party and has won several Senate nominations including in Delaware, where the successful candidate Christine O'Donnell was endorsed by Sarah Palin. In her victory speech Ms. O'Donnell warned her opponents: "Don't ever underestimate the power of we, the people".
I found myself wondering just what it was about the Tea Party that qualified it to presume to speak for "the people". My guess was that, as an organ of the conservative right, its agenda would have something to do with small government, minimal intervention and lower taxes. But not wishing to jump automatically to conclusions, I decided to investigate. Sure enough, it would appear that the Tea Party is driven by a desire for "limited government" and "opposes high government spending". It is also opposed to President Barack Obama's healthcare proposals, his economic stimulus ideas and other aspects of his political agenda.
In spite of the fact that my dislike of political manipulation, control freakery and unnecessary interference in people's lives was what led me to join and work for the ICG, I have to admit that I nonetheless instinctively baulk at conservative "small government" rhetoric. The reason for this, I believe, is that the conservative dislike of government intervention at both local and national levels has less to do with a desire to allow communities to flourish organically and more to do with creating an environment in which everybody strives for Number One and in which, as the heroine of the cult once infamously put it, "there is no such thing as society".
In the world of big party politics this outlook represents one side of a dichotomy which conspires with the other side to try to strike the communitarian ideals heralded by the likes of the ICG out of the discussion and into the wilderness. Whilst conservatives (and I use the term generically rather than as a party label) preach the gospel of Every Man For Himself, their so-called "socialist" critics hold that society should by organised (by them), regulated by The Party as the only agency that has the wit and sophistication to recognise where the interests of that society truly lie, and that any attempt by that society to self-manage should be viewed with the utmost suspicion and crumpled ruthlessly underfoot by the full weight of the bureaucratic machine under its control.
In my view it is essential that ICG members recognise this two-headed ideological assault upon our community ideal for what it is, and do not make the mistake of adopting one twin as an ally in the struggle against the other. Temporary alliances are one thing entirely, but the wider object of the exercise is to use any situation to the community's ultimate advantage, not to succumb to the allure of ideologies which are fundamentally at odds with our own outlook.
It was a government of the right in the USA that wreaked havoc in the Middle East, supported meekly and without challenge by a government supposedly of the left in the UK. A good many of those protesters who marched against the illegal Iraq war shuffled out without conscience or embarrassment a few years later to implore voters to back those who had taken us into it.
The strength of our cause lies in the fact that we are different to, and better than, the whole stinking lot of them.
Saturday, 4 September 2010
Trouble at mill?
Sandwell Conservative defects over schools cuts
A Conservative councillor has defected to Labour over cuts to the government's schools building programme.
Elaine Costigan, of Sandwell Council, said the community had been treated with "utter contempt" and she was "ashamed to be a Conservative".
Nine schools in Sandwell were told they would receive refurbishment money, only to be informed a day later the projects were being scrapped.
The government said it would target work on the schools with most need.
Ms Costigan, who is deputy leader of the Conservative group at the council, said: "This community has been treated with utter contempt by the government over the slashing of the school building programme and when Michael Gove backed out of his promise to come and apologise to the parents, pupils and staff he had so badly let down, I felt ashamed to be a Conservative."
'Huge anger'
Ray Nock, leader of the Conservatives on the West Midlands council, said he was "totally shocked" that Ms Costigan had "jumped ship".
"Only weeks ago Councillor Costigan was openly attacking local Labour Party policies," he said.
Shadow Education Secretary Ed Balls said he had spoken with Ms Costigan and was "delighted" by her switch.
He told BBC News: "The cancellation of the new school buildings in Sandwell is a huge blow to the aspirations of children there as well as to jobs in the local area.
"It's doubly worse because Michael Gove said it's going to go ahead in Sandwell then he had to say he'd made a mistake.
"There's huge anger among parents, among teachers and head teachers, and now that has spread to the Conservative group in Sandwell as well."
Wrong list
In July, Mr Gove announced the cancellation of Labour's Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme, a £45bn redevelopment scheme which aimed to rebuild all of England's schools by 2023.
The announcement was criticised as being badly handled, with repeated errors on published lists of projects affected. Mr Gove later apologised in the House of Commons.
The Sandwell schools were told they had been put on the wrong list and would not get their repairs after all.
A government spokesman said: "The Labour government left a dire economic mess that we have had to clear up. BSF was inefficient and overblown and had to go.
"We are committed to school building in the future but unlike BSF it will be targeted at schools in most disrepair and areas with the greatest need for new school places.
"The secretary of state and the department recently met with councillors, parents and children from Sandwell to discuss and address the area's needs."
Reproduced with acknowledgements to BBC News.
A Conservative councillor has defected to Labour over cuts to the government's schools building programme.
Elaine Costigan, of Sandwell Council, said the community had been treated with "utter contempt" and she was "ashamed to be a Conservative".
Nine schools in Sandwell were told they would receive refurbishment money, only to be informed a day later the projects were being scrapped.
The government said it would target work on the schools with most need.
Ms Costigan, who is deputy leader of the Conservative group at the council, said: "This community has been treated with utter contempt by the government over the slashing of the school building programme and when Michael Gove backed out of his promise to come and apologise to the parents, pupils and staff he had so badly let down, I felt ashamed to be a Conservative."
'Huge anger'
Ray Nock, leader of the Conservatives on the West Midlands council, said he was "totally shocked" that Ms Costigan had "jumped ship".
"Only weeks ago Councillor Costigan was openly attacking local Labour Party policies," he said.
Shadow Education Secretary Ed Balls said he had spoken with Ms Costigan and was "delighted" by her switch.
He told BBC News: "The cancellation of the new school buildings in Sandwell is a huge blow to the aspirations of children there as well as to jobs in the local area.
"It's doubly worse because Michael Gove said it's going to go ahead in Sandwell then he had to say he'd made a mistake.
"There's huge anger among parents, among teachers and head teachers, and now that has spread to the Conservative group in Sandwell as well."
Wrong list
In July, Mr Gove announced the cancellation of Labour's Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme, a £45bn redevelopment scheme which aimed to rebuild all of England's schools by 2023.
The announcement was criticised as being badly handled, with repeated errors on published lists of projects affected. Mr Gove later apologised in the House of Commons.
The Sandwell schools were told they had been put on the wrong list and would not get their repairs after all.
A government spokesman said: "The Labour government left a dire economic mess that we have had to clear up. BSF was inefficient and overblown and had to go.
"We are committed to school building in the future but unlike BSF it will be targeted at schools in most disrepair and areas with the greatest need for new school places.
"The secretary of state and the department recently met with councillors, parents and children from Sandwell to discuss and address the area's needs."
Reproduced with acknowledgements to BBC News.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)