The Citizen’s Charter has, moreover, had an impact upon statutory agencies and other public bodies which exist independently of the Next Steps regime. The charter has provided part of the stimulus for legislation which was designed to measure standards of performance of bodies such as utilities and local government. The 1991 Citizen’s Charter launched a ten year programme to raise the standards of public services. Initially the emphasis was on efficiency and economy in public service reform. However, the government’s attention has increasingly turned to the effectiveness of the civil service. In launching the charter the Prime Minister stated that: “For each public service we will select the most effective means of delivering the best. For each service the techniques will be different. But the Citizen’s Charter will have one common aim – achieving the highest possible standards of performance for those who rely on public services in this country.” However, there were some formidable obstacles to turning John Major’s ideas into reality. The Citizen’s Charter tends to define the citizen as a customer of services, ignoring other aspects of citizenship. The supposition that public sector management can be approached in the same way as private sector management ignores real differences between the two, and one of the most fundamental difference lies in the customer/citizen concept.
The Citizen’s Charter was much derided for its individualist and market values
and its impoverished conception of citizenship. Five years on, Deakin’s more measured view that ‘the Charter addresses real issues’ and that, taking out the ideology, ‘there is a residue left of potentially important, activity which . . . could contribute materially to improving the quality of public services in Britain’ would probably receive substantial endorsement. The ‘real issues’ referred to here are on the subject of making public bureaucracies more responsive to the needs of their users. The National Consumer Council also praised the Citizen’s Charter for being “an important initiative in making public services more responsive” and the Council also believed that it “motivated a significant number of public servants to improve customer care”. However, the National consumer Council did believe that there was room for improvement because it stated: “effective consultation with users is the single most important issue which needs to be addressed if the (charter) is to improve public services”.
The argument that the government was confusing citizens with consumers is quite legitimate. Firstly the consumer has available to them the ultimate sanction of legal action and if government was serious about empowering citizens as consumers then they should have made the Citizen’s Charter legally enforceable. In addition the idea of a market place and the empowering of citizens as consumers can not be left to operate where a lot of public services are monopolies or quasi-monopolies.
In a report on the Citizen’s Charter programme the House of Commons’ Public Service Select Committee identified three current dilemmas in the Citizen’s Charter process. The first was the extent to which localization and consultation with users can be allowed to slacken central control and direction of the process. This reflects the tensions that have arisen between the top-down approach and the bottom-up empowerment of consumers and front-line staff. Secondly there was concern relating to the techniques and purposes of performance evaluation. Once more, this reflects widespread concerns about the production and use of comparative league tables of institutional performance, for example, the publication of school league tables based on examination results. The third was whether a particular level or type of service can be promised and guaranteed as a right without confronting wider considerations about the character and funding of public services.
The Citizen’s Charter represents the culmination of the process of transforming the state and its relationship with its citizens more radically than any other change since the post-war creation of the welfare state. It was intended to build on the Next steps Initiative, in the sense that whereas Next steps created the management structure for the delivery of public services, the Citizen’s Charter defines the expected output performance of that reformed structure.
An interesting effect of the Service First ideals has been to raise the public’s expectations about the standard which public agencies should meet. This, as a result, has led to an increase in complaints to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. As the PCA has noted, individuals’ hopes have been whetted by the promises in the Citizen’s Charter about better governance, tighter targets and higher standards. Therefore there may be a gap between these hopes and actual performance.
Since parliament is sovereign, it can pass laws that take away, or add, to any or all of the rights enjoyed by citizens. This means that the rights and responsibilities enjoyed by citizens are entirely dependent on the government of the day. This shows that in reality the concept of active citizenship, through the Citizen’s Charter, may not have a significant role to play in improving public services. Citizens have no right of appeal if the government chooses to take away a right or liberty that is of importance to them. This can be seen as particularly unsatisfactory when a single party holds office for a prolonged period of time, especially when no single party has won 50 per cent of the vote in all general elections since 1945.
On the whole, the Citizen’s Charter has offered a degree of openness, consultation and, where possible, choice in respect to public services. In addition it has also provided a remedy if the service falls below an agreed threshold of acceptability. However, citizen expectations can be raised, only to be disappointed, by inadequate delivery on promises. Questions have also been raised concerning the methods of compilation and presentation of statistics which seems at variance with the actual experience of consumers. Furthermore, any redress available seems to be limited to what a charter provides. It should be recognised that the charters, which have been introduced so far, are no alternatives to a genuine legal remedy capable of offering full compensation for any inconvenience or loss that may have been caused by the failure of a service, for example, a train turning up late to its destination. Therefore there is a lot of room for improvement in the governing of this area.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
TEXTBOOKS/ARTICLES
CRAIG, P, P, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 4TH EDITION, (1999)
WADE, H, W, R & FORSYTH, C, F, ADMISTRATIVE LAW, 8TH EDITION, (2000)
LEYLAND, P &WOODS, T, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 4TH EDITION, (2002)
MAJOR, J, THE CITIZEN’S CHARTER – 5 YEARS ON, (1996)
TRITTER, J, ‘THE CITIZEN’S CHARTER: OPPORTUNITY FOR USERS’ PERSPECTIVES?’, (1994)
LEWIS, N, ‘THE CITIZEN’S CHARTER AND NEXT STEPS: A NEW WAY OF GOVERNING’, (1993)
COOPER, D, ‘THE CITIZEN’S CHARTER AND RADICAL DEMOCRACY: EMPOWEREMENT AND EXLUSION WITHIN CITIZENSHIP DISCOURSE, (1993)
WEBSITES
WWW.UKONLINE.GOV.UK
WWW.CABINETOFFICE.GOV.UK
WWW.PARLIAMENT.THE-STATIONERY-OFFICE.CO.UK
WWW.SERVICEFIRST.CO.UK
WWW.BUTTERWORTHS.CO.UK
The Citizen’s Charter: Raising the Standard Cm. 1991, No. 1599.
Major, J, The Citizen’s Charter – 5 Years On, September 1996, page1, HMSO publications, London
Service First: The new Charter Programme (1998); Raising the Standard, Cm 1599, 1991
Craig, P, P, Administrative Law (1999), 4th edition, page106, Sweet and Maxwell, London
Example of these commentators are: Barron and Scott; Drewry; Lewis, N, ‘The Citizen’s Charter and Next Steps: A New Way of Governing’ (1993) 64 Political Quarterly 316: Cooper, D, The Citizen’s Charter and Radical Democracy’: Empowerment and Exclusion Within Citizenship discourse’ (1993) 2 Social and Legal Studies 149; Tritter, J, ‘The Citizen’s Charter: Opportunities for Users’ Perspectives?’ (1994) 65 Political Quarterly 397.
Competition and Service (Utilities) Act 1992
Local Government Act 1992.
Barron and Scott, (1992); Bellamy
and Greenaway, (1995)
Wade, H,W,R & Forsyth, C, F, Administrative Law, 8th edition, (2000), page 111
www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/ServiceFirst
(1997) HC 78. www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk
Doern, 1993. www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk
(HC 78, para. 95). www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk
Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, Annual report 1992, page 1.
Leyland, P & Woods, T, Administrative Law, 4th edition, (2000), page 72
The result of these deficiencies has been that the charters’ status in public law has been described as being peripheral – Drewry 2002, page 10
