Public accountability is not being effectively exercised in the UK and a 'credibility gap' is emerging because of confusion about how the accountability relationship should be practised between the governed and the governers. This is the argument of Jane Martin, executive director of the Centre for Public Scrutiny, in a discussion paper to be published by the Public Management and Policy Association later this month.

Jane Martin argues that public accountability appropriate to the modern social and political context is a major challenge facing representative government in the UK today. She says that the government's failure to engage is resulting in a despondent electorate, which has lost faith in the way it is represented, is unclear about forms of accountability, with the effects manifesting in low voting turnouts.

Reflecting on the number of key players in public scrutiny and accountability, Jane puts forward suggestions for the challenges they face in improving their engagement with the public. She says:

· It is no longer acceptable for elected representatives to take their democratic legitimacy for granted;

· Central government must pull back from micro-managing public services and rise to the challenge of ensuring public accountability at the local level;

· Regional and local representatives must establish the credibility of their new powers and duties within their executive authorities while ensuring regular dialogue with stakeholders;

· The weight of performance indicators, inspections and regulations should be reduced by central government to enable public managers to take responsibility for their own self-evaluation at local level;

· Inspectorates and regulators now looking to develop a more strategic role
need to develop facilitative methods of working together and supporting self-assessment;

· There is a need for the public to be more aware of where they can go and who they can turn to in order to make their views and concerns known; and finally

· The media needs to be persuaded of the newsworthiness of public scrutiny and encouraged in balanced reporting of accountability issues.

Four key principles of effective public scrutiny are set out in the report. These are:

1. Critical friend challenge
Executive decisions need to have the consent of the public.  If this is reinforced by public challenge the executive gains public confidence for its actions and the corporate enterprise for improvement is strengthened.

2. Articulation of the public voice
The accountability relationship requires a dialogue with the public. The media has a role to play in this to encourage the public to engage with local governance.

3. Legitimacy of the lay scrutineer
Public scrutiny is by definition a non-executive function. Non-executives draw their legitimacy from the assembly, legislature, council or board. Their independence should be respected and supported in order to restore public trust in the system.

4. Making an impact on public services
Public scrutiny should be guided by and focused on public issues and concerns in relation to public service improvement. It should not just ask questions about how things are but how things can be better and be driven by public concern and public experience.

Jane Martin, author of Public Accountability in Practice - The Need for Public Scrutiny, said: "Public scrutiny, as the demonstration of a new accountability relationship, will only succeed if it is independent, open and focused on key issues of public concern. It is increasingly being demonstrated that it is possible for more members of the public to engage in the accountability relationship, particularly through the overview and scrutiny function in local government where there is most potential for people to exercise 'active citizenship' in relation to the issues and services which affect their daily lives".

Endorsing the report, Tony Wright MP, Chair of the House of Commons Public Administration Committee and Chair of the Centre for Public Scrutiny said: "Those who exercise power or spend public money need to account for how they do it, but in a way that contributes to the purpose of the activity or the enterprise. Scrutiny is at the heart of accountability, but it needs to be coherent and well organised. Bad scrutiny is useless, or even damaging. By contrast, good scrutiny not only ensures effective accountability but also contributes to a learning culture that should infuse all organisations."