Page 3057 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 17 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
some recent change in practice - essentially, a change in practice directed from management, which I support. At the moment, no-one in the Housing Trust below the level of the regional manager will deal with constituency inquiries from opposition members, from government members, or from my office.
Mr Cornwell: Why?
MR CONNOLLY: I will come to that. We have had a problem, or I have felt that there is potential for a problem, in the way Housing Trust constituents' inquiries can be actioned by very junior officers. Public housing is clearly a scarce resource, and we can debate the issue of public housing.
Mr Cornwell: Scarce? You have 12,000 clients.
MR CONNOLLY: Mr Cornwell seems to think we have too many public houses, and that is an interesting point.
Mr Cornwell: You said that it is a scarce resource. You have a long waiting list.
MR CONNOLLY: It is a scarce resource in so far as we have a large waiting list. I was concerned at practices developing where individual members or their staff were ringing very junior officers and agitating the case for housing of Smith or Bloggs; that Smith or Bloggs should have a house. My senior officials were concerned that a situation could develop where a very junior officer may think, "Because a member has agitated Smith's case, Smith's case should be elevated". Everyone would agree that that is not the correct practice. It is most appropriate for any member to put forward the case of a constituent, but that case should be considered on its merits.
I have supported my administrators in wanting to ensure that there is a system in place in the Housing Trust where it can never be suggested that someone achieved a partial benefit as a result of an intervention by a government member, an opposition member or an independent member. As a result, the regional manager or above will take calls from my office or from members. I understand that Mr Cornwell may have spoken with the commissioner only this week in relation to some constituency matters. A response will be provided to the member, but it will be provided through the departmental liaison officer in my office. I do not clear those responses or see those responses, but a paper trail is thus generated. A record is kept of the inquiry and the response goes back. I would be happy to entertain discussion with independent members or opposition members about finetuning that process, but I believe that it is appropriate that that level of records be kept when there has been intervention by a member on behalf of constituents. I stress that that is not in any way impugning the motives of any member but is done in order to guard against an allegation that may be made in the future.
I can understand - if it is the Housing Trust that Mr Moore has raised with the Chief Minister - that that may cause some frustration. That is essentially the reason, as I have put to the Chief Minister, why we are doing this. I would be happy to discuss it with Mr Moore, as the Chief Minister offered to enter into a discussion, or with opposition members. I believe that it is important that in that area in particular we avoid a situation where direct responses are the order of the day. Many allocation decisions are taken by officers who in public service terms are very junior, and we should avoid making allocations simply on the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .