Audit Commission 'never had a day at the races', says boss
The chair of the Audit Commission has written to Eric Pickles to complain reports of the quango’s spending activities were inaccurate.
Michael O’Higgins published a letter on the Commission’s website this afternoon arguing that its 2,000 staff had not been told of its abolition by email and that the Commission had never refused to publish its spending.
He also expressed interest in a John Lewis-style staff buy-out of the Commission, which has been mooted by some sources.
The letter said that contrary to newspaper reports over the weekend, the Commission had never refused to disclose its spending.
Mr O’Higgins wrote: ‘The chairman wrote to the Secretary of State on 9 June offering to publish its own £500+ spending data from July.
‘The Commission was asked by the Department of Communities and Local Government to delay publication to meet CLG’s own timetable for disclosure, on 12 August 2010.’
He also said that the £8,000 paid to Newmarket racecourse was not for a ‘day at the races’, but for training events for local authorities and the NHS. Neither was there a bias towards fortnightly bin collections, he claimed.
Senior managers also held as many face-to-face briefings with staff as possible about the closure, the letter said, but an email was also sent out so that no-one would read news reports before learning about the Commission’s fate themselves.
Mr O’Higgins wrote: ‘We have been disappointed and dismayed at the misleading press reports in response to your announcement.
‘I am sure that you share our concerns at these factual inaccuracies, and would not wish them to be repeated, so we are publishing the attached corrections, with this letter, on our website.’
Have your say about the future of social housing inspection and regulation - take part in our online survey. You could win £100 in Marks & Spencer vouchers.
The deadline for survey responses is 25 August. Results and analysis will be published in Inside Housing in print and online on 10 September.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (26)
Yoric Irving-Clarke | 17/08/2010 8:39 am
Suggest anyone reading this reads "Systems Thinking in the Public Sector" by John Seddon to get some idea of what a waste of tax payers money the Audit Commission has been!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17/08/2010 8:40 am
Publish all of the costs over £500 then. I am also interested in all of the money that the Audit Commission spent on stands at Local Authority and Government events. How much did that total?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
michael barratt | 17/08/2010 9:02 am
Although I have considered the Audit Commission to be somewhat timid at times at least the organisation provided a ‘fit for purpose’ mechanism for inspection and audit of public finances. I have great reservation concerning high priced accountancy firms inspiring the same level of confidence in their ability to provide a cost effective independent scrutiny and who will guard the guards?
Similarly, who if anyone will assess the quality of services provided by local authorities, especially in regards to retained housing stocks and the cost effective of their expedition of repairs and future major works - those working in partnership deals with them?
If it had not been for the Audit Commission’s, District Auditor’s letter in December 2005, would Savills have reviewed their May 2006 assessment of £60million to meet Decent Homes Standard in Crawley West Sussex and subsequently in March 2007 reduced the amount to £ 25.3 million as applied to the local authority’s housing stock. A sum Crawley Borough Council were further obliged to reduce to £2.7million in a strict interpretation of Decent Homes Guidance?
SEE: www.indoubt.co.uk
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17/08/2010 9:09 am
Fit for purpose for audit. Definitely not fit for purpose for inspection. Even the Audit Function it has been argued can be carried out much more cheaply using private sector firms. So no reason to keep it and it will save hundreds of millions of pounds in scrapping the inspection aspect of this.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17/08/2010 9:57 am
So, Eric Pickles has been spreading lies and innuendo, according to the AC? I don't think we should be surprised coming right on the back of security of tenure issue. No doubt it was also published in the Mail and the Telegraph for good measure? We wouldn't want the truth to get in the way of a good story, let's face it.
The AC did have its shortcomings without a doubt, but it has also helped improve many poor performing and 'coasting' organisations. And if anyone thinks that the likes of PWC or KPMG will provide such a service at anything but the vastly inflated private sector rates, dream on.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dave Hollins | 17/08/2010 10:06 am
I agree with anon 9.57am. How did these lurid stories get into the press, rubbishing the AC by spreading stories that turn out to not be true. They could only have come from Pickles to back up his decision. So much for greater transparency and less spin from the coalition.
There is a genuine debate to be had about the audit commission and what it has achieved, but it reads too much like the final revenge of the firends of Lady Porter.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paine | 17/08/2010 10:28 am
The rather tame response of a merely putting a statement on your own website beggars belief. Other orgs in the coalition's crosshairs take note: you will need to strongly counter lots of negative spin.
As someone who marched and also stormed the council chamber during homes for votes, I do accord the AC some respect. Without them we wouldn't have had Walterton and Elgin Homes and the rest, as they say, is history.
But there is also a sense that some bodies, faced with this challenging and flawed sector that seldom acknowledges same, have retired far from the madding crowd and are ill-equipped for the roughing up Pickles and Shapps will relish dishing out.
Fix bayonets!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
worried well | 17/08/2010 10:41 am
I just do not agree that the Audit Commission improved public sector organisations. Coasters or otherwise. The Audit Commission was a highly effective campaigner for its own mythology. It spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money having stalls at public sector events lobbying and advertising its own approach. People are still too afraid to comment openly on its approach. Not once has it evolved or changed how it approach inspection in response to criticism. Each of its inspection reports and approach read like a checklist in a compliance audit. This is not improvement.
I am sure that there will be plenty on here now desperately trying to justify their own existence. I know in my organisations entire teams established to service the Audit Commission checklists are feeling pretty nervous.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Junior | 17/08/2010 10:50 am
Well I've read the breakdown of these costs and again your just like the MP milking the system. Well its taxpayers money and look could of build a few homes. I wish I could treat myself in that way. Perks.....
It make anyone living on a limited income sick to the stomache.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17/08/2010 10:52 am
His rseponse is childish and unprofessional. It shows that Pickles made the correct decision.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment