In the UK, we often take for granted how lucky we are to have such a ‘clean' system of local government.

In contrast to all many countries in Europe and around the world, our municipal decision-making processes are transparent and accountable, and there is very rarely a need to question the integrity of our elected members and officers.

It is for these reasons that allegations of serious malpractice stand out a mile.

I recently appeared on the BBC's Daily Politics programme to discuss the channel's earlier Panorama investigation into the mayoral administration in Tower Hamlets.

The programme created shockwaves and exposed some hard truths. I wasn't exaggerating when I said that if the allegations are proved to be correct, John Ware's team had laid bare some of the worst local government practices I have ever encountered.

Before we look at some of the detail, it is worth making three points about this particular authority in East London.

First and foremost, this borough is home to some incredibly poor areas. It is one of the country's top 10 most deprived districts, so it is all the more imperative that every pound of taxpayers' money is properly targeted and spent. And, given that the authority remains grant-dependent relative to most other London boroughs, it is legitimate that central government has a role in ensuring that money is being spent wisely.

Second, Tower Hamlets is an extremely diverse borough, with nearly half the population from black, minority and ethnic groups. It has the country's largest Bangladeshi community. The borough requires leadership that is sensitive to this dynamic and alert to the added complexities this brings.

Third, it is governed by a directly elected mayoral system that ought to adhere to the Spiderman maxim that power and responsibility go hand-in-hand.

On all three counts, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that the administration is getting it dangerously wrong.

If we look at how grants have been allocated by the authority's corporate programme grants board, there appear to be worrying cases of public money being channelled to groups that effectively form part of the mayor's support base.

To cite some examples: £91,000 worth of grants were signed off to the Island Bengali Welfare Organisation. And, £36,000 went to a luncheon club, serving a grand total of 15 people twice a week, working out at £23 per head for lunch. Compare this to the £2.30 which is set aside for school or hospital meals.

These decisions conveniently bypass the council's Overview & Scrutiny Committee, and appear to ignore a memorandum by the then head of legal services in which she stated that the council had potentially made itself vulnerable to legal challenge.

Indeed, the mayor has rarely ever appeared before the O&S Committee and his aides have asserted that being questioned at a council meeting would ‘infringe on his human rights'.

This is patently absurd, and no other directly elected mayor in the country has acted in such a high-handed fashion.

Of course, elected members have the right to overrule officers' recommendation. But, there must be a proper audit trail setting out their reasoning. In this case, it is happening behind closed doors and on a systematic basis.

This makes a mockery of transparency and undermines the member-officer relationship that is so central to the way councils should operate in this country.

In any authority, but especially one like Tower Hamlets, it is also a dangerous game even to appear to be playing politics with community relations. To raise even the suggestion that one group may be advantaged, or another disadvantaged, as against others, is playing with fire and hugely damaging to society in the long-term.

I make no secret of the fact that, with proper checks and balances and the right political culture, executive mayoral arrangements can and do work well.

Although I rarely agree with the policies of Robin Wales in Newham, he has shown that the system can work effectively in an authority that neighbours Tower Hamlets and shares many of its profile characteristics.

The risk is that the controversy engulfing Tower Hamlets brings the model into disrepute and, indeed, may damage the reputation of local government as a whole.

That is why we need definitive answers and complete openness as to what has, or has not, been happening.

For that reason, communities secretary Eric Pickles is absolutely right to send in inspectors, using his new powers under the Local Audit and Accountability Act.

This sort of probe is unprecedented, but given the circumstances, should be one that our entire sector welcomes. If there is one thing that everyone should take from this episode, it is that opposition and backbench members really can make a difference.

The Conservative and Labour Parties in Tower Hamlets have worked tirelessly to hold the mayor to account; plugging away with minimal thanks and often in the face of repeated obstructions. It is largely thanks to their efforts that Tower Hamlets is finally being subjected to the sort of scrutiny that is standard practice in all other authorities. 

Bob Neill is a former local government minister