Supplementary Memorandum by Steve Bundred,
Chief Executive, London Borough of Camden (AC 27(a))
ENVIRONMENT SUB-COMMITTEE AUDIT COMMISSION
INQUIRY
I have been reflecting further on the issues
raised by Mrs Dunwoody and Mr Benn, during my examination by the
Environment Sub-committee on Tuesday 15 February and feel that
there are answers to the questions put to me which I did not offer
at the time but would nevertheless like the Committee to consider.
I therefore hope that the Committe will be willing to receive
this letter by way of a further memorandum from me.
Mrs Dunwoody recognised my concern about the involvement
of auditors in areas of political controversy, through the link
between best value and ministerial intervention, but questioned
whether there was a solution to this problem. I will not rehearse
here the objections in principle within local government about
ministerial intervention, as Parliament has decided to give ministers
these powers, but such is the nature of the powers that I believe
certain safeguards need to be provided.
There are three strands to this. Firstly, there
must be clear protocols between local and central government about
the circumstances in which intervention might be considered and
the nature it will take in defined situations. Such protocols
have already been discussed and agreed within the central and
local government partnership. Secondly, local government must
be given an opportunity to put its own house in order before intervention
becomes a possibility. Even where an inspection discloses a serious
concern, intervention should not be the first response. And thirdly,
local government must be able to have confidence that the judgements
which are made about individual councils, and which might provide
the trigger for intervention, are fair and reasonable.
It is in respect of this last element that the
real problem arises. Given the variable quality of current VFM
audit and the additional complexity of best value inspections—with
cross cutting themes and each authority packaging services for
review in different ways and to different timescales—there
must be real doubt about whether auditors and inspectors will
have the necessary skills. This argues not only for a review of
training but also for a quality assurance process which is independent
of the Commission itself, and for a right of re-inspection by
a different team if an authority does not believe that it has
been fairly judged.
While maintaining that the accountability of
ministers for the exercise of powers of intervention must be clear,
I do not believe that this logically requires ministers to take
direct responsibility for inspection. Indeed, I would not favour
the establishment of new inspectorates under direct ministerial
control as the independence of the Commission is in my view one
of its great strengths.
Mr Benn asked what more could be done to promote
greater public interest in audit reports. I think the answer is
that the public has a right not to be interested in local government
audit, but when that audit discloses real issues of concern we
can normally rely on the vigilance of the local press to bring
them to public attention. The vast majority of audit reports concerning
my own authority confirm that our system controls are sound and
we are doing a good job. That is reassuring to me but I don't
expect it to excite much interest among the public, who are entitled
to concern themselves with other issues.
Steve Bundred
Chief Executive
February 2000
| 
