Listening to "Thought for the day" on the Today programme yesterday morning, I was reminded of the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. Put simply, subsidiarity is an organsing principle which states that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralised competent authority. The Oxford English dictionary defines it thus: "The idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which can not be performed more effectively at a more immediate or local level".
Apologies for the rather wordy introduction but it makes you think doesn't it? Only this week, North Wales was treated to another example of subsidiarity being badly needed. This time, the story relates to Anglesey County Council. Like all other councils up and down the land, Anglesey has had to find huge savings in it's budget while at the same time putting up council tax by 4.5% - far higher than the current rate of inflation. An Anglesey councillor saw a parcel being posted to the police station on the other side of the car park about 350 yards away. The cost of sending it by post was £16. When questioned, the response of the council was predictably defensive. "It would be too time consuming and probably more expensive for someone to have popped out and hand-delivered the parcel. The documents it contained were sensitive and confidential, so using the Royal Mail provided the benefit of protecting the personal data and confidentiality as required by law"
Responsibility, accountability and the common good. These are the three guiding principles which dictate the most appropriate forum to handle respective spending roles. We are all given responsibility for our own lives, our families and the communities of which we are a part. The shaping of our lives has been put in our hands. But if we have been given this responsibility, we are also accountable for how we exercise it. Subsidiarity is simply a matter of serving the common good.
So the sending of that parcel for £16 isn't going to rid the council of it's financial challenges but £16 replicated on numerous occasions will. There is of course a much wider point here. If that parcel was being delivered according to the three guiding principles of responsibility, accountability and the common good, it could surely only have been delivered by hand by an employee of the council walking across the car-park. So this then returns us to the question of subsidiarity. If that local council was not performing that task with maximum effectiveness, that role should be the domain of a more immediate or local level. The decision to spend £16 sending that parcel was neither responsible, accountable or for the common good. By logical extension, this questions whether that council should be performing that role.
When I look at the recent performance of the council where I live in Denbighshire, I would scarcely know where to start.
Apologies for the rather wordy introduction but it makes you think doesn't it? Only this week, North Wales was treated to another example of subsidiarity being badly needed. This time, the story relates to Anglesey County Council. Like all other councils up and down the land, Anglesey has had to find huge savings in it's budget while at the same time putting up council tax by 4.5% - far higher than the current rate of inflation. An Anglesey councillor saw a parcel being posted to the police station on the other side of the car park about 350 yards away. The cost of sending it by post was £16. When questioned, the response of the council was predictably defensive. "It would be too time consuming and probably more expensive for someone to have popped out and hand-delivered the parcel. The documents it contained were sensitive and confidential, so using the Royal Mail provided the benefit of protecting the personal data and confidentiality as required by law"
Responsibility, accountability and the common good. These are the three guiding principles which dictate the most appropriate forum to handle respective spending roles. We are all given responsibility for our own lives, our families and the communities of which we are a part. The shaping of our lives has been put in our hands. But if we have been given this responsibility, we are also accountable for how we exercise it. Subsidiarity is simply a matter of serving the common good.
So the sending of that parcel for £16 isn't going to rid the council of it's financial challenges but £16 replicated on numerous occasions will. There is of course a much wider point here. If that parcel was being delivered according to the three guiding principles of responsibility, accountability and the common good, it could surely only have been delivered by hand by an employee of the council walking across the car-park. So this then returns us to the question of subsidiarity. If that local council was not performing that task with maximum effectiveness, that role should be the domain of a more immediate or local level. The decision to spend £16 sending that parcel was neither responsible, accountable or for the common good. By logical extension, this questions whether that council should be performing that role.
When I look at the recent performance of the council where I live in Denbighshire, I would scarcely know where to start.
Comments
Post a Comment