[Skip to content]

Public Finance logo
News and expert comment on public policy and finance
Public Finance Facebook Public Finance Twitter Public Finance YouTube
.

Stay of execution for Audit Commission raises fresh fears

More information

By Lucy Phillips

23 February 2011

The future of local government audit has been thrown into disarray after it emerged that the Audit Commission is likely to remain open well beyond its planned abolition in 2012.

The Audit Commission has confirmed to Public Finance that a memo was sent last week from chief executive Eugene Sullivan to all staff saying that the spending watchdog might remain open until 2014. Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles originally announced that the commission would close in 2012.

A spokesman for the watchdog today added: ‘The timetable for the Audit Commission’s abolition and the introduction of a new audit regime for local public bodies rests with ministers and Parliament.

‘We understand the timetable for the necessary legislation to abolish the commission, and put in place a new local audit framework, means we are likely to keep some powers until at least December 2013.

‘We have had to make some internal assumptions about what this might entail.’

PF now understands that the uncertainty is creating ‘a difficult task’ for the Audit Commission management, who are in the process of substantially slimming down the organisation. About 300 of the commission’s 2,000 staff have left since the abolition was announced in August and another 300 are working out their notice.

Staff morale is reported to have plummeted while there has been little progress towards achieving the commission’s ‘preferred option’ of transforming the in-house audit practice into a mutual.

A working group, which includes Audit Commission representatives, the Department for Communities and Local Government, CIPFA and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, is meeting in private to look into the consequences of the watchdog’s abolition.

This is running alongside an inquiry by the Commons communities and local government select committee in which experts have slammed Pickles for his ‘hasty’ and non-evidence based decision to close the Audit Commission.   

But relations between the DCLG and Audit Commission look to have reached a new low as a source from the department accused the commission of ‘making a desperate move to keep going for longer’.

Audit Commission chair Michael O’Higgins replied: 'The commission is working with government to ensure the transition to a new audit regime that is fit for purpose is completed in the shortest timescale possible. We have no desire to continue going, following our abolition announcement, any longer than is necessary.'

Fresh concerns have also been raised about the costs of abolishing the commission. The £50m of annual savings that the government expects to make from its closure is dwarfed by the £450m costs that are expected to be incurred through staff redundancies, pension liabilities and breaking property leases – although fees for the latter are likely to be less if the timetable for closure extends beyond 2012.

Lord Beecham, former Labour chair of the Local Government Association, told PF that the decision to abolish the Audit Commission was ‘another example of the government deciding to do something and then looking into the consequences, financial and otherwise’.

He added: ‘It’s ideologically driven and based on a narrow view of what the commission is about.’ There had been no prior consideration of what would happen to the watchdog’s remit aside from financial audit, he said. 

Beecham said that he hoped there was a ‘rethink’ going on but things had probably gone too far for a policy u-turn.  ‘I can’t see him [Pickles] backing off this one,’ he said.

A DCLG spokeswoman said: ‘The government has stated that reforms to the local audit regime are likely to take effect from 2012/13. A first consultation on the details of a new audit framework is planned for late March. Following this consultation, the government will then publish a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny. Following such consultation and scrutiny it is the government’s intention to introduce the necessary legislation at the earliest opportunity.’

For more on this issue, see David Walker’s PFblog.

Comments
I don't believe that some of the damaging comments in this article are true! For example, staff morale has not plummeted, you just have to see the deadlines we continue to meet by continuous work hard and (free) overtime to evidence this.

You should re-consider your statement "relations between the DCLG and Audit Commission look to have reached a new low".

Can you please report only truths and not reported guesses in the future.

Audit Commission employee (23/02/2011 15:49:54)

The reasons why the Audit Commission finds itself in the state it does are very well summarised in exhibit 4 on page 28 of John P Kotter's book 'Leading Change' published by Harvard Business Press. Maybe all quangos reach this state? Nonetheless, from my personal experience, the people at the coal face in the Audit Commission weather bad management and leadership well in any situation and they deliver their outputs by deadlines consistently. Good morale or not, professionalism will hold them together.

Warren Park (23/02/2011 16:38:29)

Stay of execution raises fresh fears? For who? My apologies to the Audit Commission staff but the only fear I can see is that it will take longer to get rid of this unwanted and unnecessary organisation

Jim B (23/02/2011 22:54:56)

There has been stuff in the news recently about the parlous financial state of cities and states in USA, Spain and other countries. No British local government is in anything like this level of indebtedness. I wonder why that could be - robust audit regime??? This is a benefit of effective regulation - to abandon it would be a great risk.

David Davies (23/02/2011 23:30:25)

I don't care much for the Audit Commission but I have the greatest respect for the audit side of the organisation. I have had dealings with them over the years and I found them excellent - much better than auditors from private firms.

A LV (24/02/2011 13:29:53)

I agree with Jim B above. It should go and as soon as possible too. It is nothing to do with the abilities of the individual auditors but everything to do with the stranglehold that the Commission has on the whole business of published accounts. Choice is always good.

Mike K (24/02/2011 20:34:23)

I think the Audit Commission has been a force for disclosing more information in the world of accounts. However, that is also the direction of travel of accounting standards and legislation for the last 20 years.

The issue here is a challenge to the whole role of accountants and auditors. Less so in the public sector perhaps, but decision makers, such as investors, want assured forward looking predictive information immediately at the time they are making a decision. As for the annual accounts, they are much less important and the assurance needed there is primarily high level performance and whether they are free from fraud and error.

But private sector auditors in particular can't even assure that accounts are not materially misstated due to fraud or error - as was the case with the banks. What on earth use are they and shouldn't external audit be brought to an end? Why pay for it?

Auditors appointed by the Audit Commission are more prepared to stand their ground than auditors in the private sector. To that end we don't want a fall in standards in probably the one robust sector of external audit - the public sector.

Warren Park (25/02/2011 13:56:09)

Warren Park seems to be making an excellent case for not only scrapping the AC but also significantly reducing the scope and scale of public sector audit. If it is of questionable use in the private sector why should the private sector have to pay for a service that goes beyond being a Rolls Royce service?

Jim B (25/02/2011 23:29:47)