Written evidence submitted by District
Councils' Network
1. SUMMARY
1.1 District Councils in England worked effectively
with the Audit Commission through the normal external audit process
and through the consecutive processes of Comprehensive Performance
Assessment and Comprehensive Area Assessment from 2002 to 2010.
With the ending of both these Assessments, and the imminent abolition
of the Audit Commission, our comments on future arrangements can
be summarised as follows:
— We
can show evidence of robust external audit and recommend future
similar arrangements, which will ensure continued sound financial
management across District Councils.
— Over
the past five years, District Council performance has been the
fastest improving within the public sector, from an already high
base. We commend the LGA proposals for self-regulation and improvement
as an important means of maintaining this direction of travel.
— District
Councils provide excellent value for money and have sound arrangements
in place for continuing this success into the future.
2. DISTRICT COUNCILS'
NETWORK
2.1 The District Councils' Network (DCN) is a
special interest group of the Local Government Association (LGA)
and represents the interests of District Councils across England.
Some 170 District Councils are members of the Network.
2.2 District Councils across the country are
committed to high and improved performance of services delivered
locally for their local communities. This high performance, including
the control of expenditure and value for money, is recognised
as an important, but achievable, challenge over the next few years.
District Councils have an outstanding track record of performance
improvement on which to base our responses for the future.
3. DETAILED COMMENTS
3.1 Audit of External Expenditure
3.1.1 Local Authorities in general, and District
Councils in particular, already have proven sound arrangements
for internal audit, verified by the Audit Commission and its contracted
agents in the private sector. These arrangements could be maintained,
in the case of District Councils, by consortia commissioning of
external audit from non-public sector firms (accredited by the
National Audit Office). By using a broad-based consortia of Districts,
the necessary independence of a particular firm from a specific
authority can be assured.
3.1.2 The commissioning by District Councils,
separate from Unitaries and County Councils in two-tier areas,
will ensure that the specific complexities and nuances of District
Council activity can be given full and effective consideration
by external auditors.
3.1.3 We suggest that an essential element in
ensuring the efficiency of such arrangements will be the increasing
evidence-based reliance on the rigorous performance and reliability
of advice of internal audit work.
3.2 Oversight and Inspection of Local Authority
Performance
3.2.1 The LGA, through its Local Government Improvement
and Development (LGID) arm, is developing strong and robust arrangements
for sector oversight of sector performance, as part of its proposals
for self-regulation and improvement. These arrangements will be
based on an emphasis on local delivery for local communities and
on "benchmarking" relevant to those local services.
Using these arrangements, local authorities will have a stronger
accountability to their local communities, with more local focus
and transparency than was available under the former Audit Commission
arrangements. By these means, the divisive nature of media-generated
"league tables" is less likely, which should go some
way to improving the perception of individual authorities, based
on the real local position.
3.2.2 These arrangements will allow the identification
of key early warning signals, working within a small number of
national targets, balanced between County and local District priorities
in two-tier areas.
3.3 Value of money Studies
3.3.1 District Councils have always been committed
to value for money for local tax-payers, as evidenced by our being
in the forefront of the delivery of efficiencies, whilst continuing
to improve performance. It is arguable that the Audit Commission
value for money studies themselves, whilst having some use, were
not in themselves value for money exercises and did not necessarily
produce the desired results, as they were not wholly owned by
the local authority sector. The necessity for reducing costs,
whilst delivering outcomes for local people, driven by financial
stringency, the Localism Bill and increasing transparency of operation,
will collectively encourage value for money. This will be enhanced
by a greater ownership by local authorities and by the increasing
scrutiny of local people, which together will produce the required
outcomes far more effectively than former and current bureaucratic
arrangements.
January 2011
| 
