By Mike Thatcher
14 January 2010
Steve Bundred, the man who has come to ‘personify’ the Audit Commission, is moving on after six eventful years in charge. So what next for him and the watchdog he leaves behind? Editor Mike Thatcher finds out
Where do you go next after running audit and inspection across much of the public sector? It’s a natural question to put to Steve Bundred, the outgoing head of the Audit Commission – particularly at a time of likely political change. But it is one that he is clearly reluctant to answer.
Bundred took many by surprise late last year when he announced his intention to stand down as the commission’s chief executive. He says that now is the right time to go, but is giving few clues as to where.
Sitting in an unremarkable meeting room at the commission’s Millbank HQ, the watchdog’s head for the past six years has agreed to a wide-ranging interview with Public Finance. Questions about his future intentions, however, receive short shrift. ‘I don’t have any specific plans at the present time,’ he tells me.
Bundred’s predecessor at the commission, Sir Andrew Foster, is now deputy chair of the Royal Bank of Canada. Earlier incarnations, Sir Howard Davies and Sir John Banham, both became director general of the CBI. But it’s hard to see Bundred taking a similar route.
When pressed, he says that career options will not be restricted to the public sector or the quangocracy. ‘I will look for something that would be intrinsically interesting and make use of my skills and experience,’ he straight bats. In the next few weeks, a departure date will be agreed with commission chair Michael O’Higgins.
But it is unlikely that a canny political operator like Bundred will disappear from view for long. He has carved out a very successful career and is not ready to retire just yet. ‘I’ve just turned 57 and I think I’m still young enough to do another big job. If I stayed here for another year or two, people might start to question that,’ he says.
Bundred is a bit of an enigma in the world of public sector finance. The first qualified accountant to run the commission, he is a former Labour councillor on the Greater London Council. In the 1980s and 1990s, he worked his way up the finance ladder, eventually becoming FD and then chief executive of the London Borough of Camden. A short tenure as executive director of the Improvement and Development Agency was followed by the Audit Commission appointment.
It’s been a fascinating time to run the commission, coinciding with feast and then famine in public spending. As chief executive, a title Bundred preferred to ‘controller’, he has, according to O’Higgins, come to ‘personify’ the commission. He has maintained good relationships with inspected organisations, professional bodies, central government and service users. Moreover, he understood the need for lighter-touch regulation. Initially this was through Comprehensive Performance Assessments and then, last month, via Comprehensive Area Assessments and the linked Oneplace website.
Bundred has avoided some, though not all, of the criticism that has bedevilled other watchdog chiefs – there have been no outrageous expenses claims or Baby Peter type scandals. However, the commission did suffer the embarrassment of depositing cash in Iceland, and then faced accusations of hypocrisy when lambasting seven public bodies for ‘negligent’ investments in the same country.
And Bundred has certainly not been afraid to speak his mind. In a Times article early last year, he suggested that public debt could hit ‘Armageddon’ levels. At a PF round table, he argued that impending budget cuts would be ‘perfectly manageable’, while in the Observer he claimed that a public sector pay freeze could be ‘pain-free’. This latter assertion incurred the wrath of the Daily Mirror, which pointed out that the Audit Commission chief executive earns more than the prime minister and could afford to take a pay cut himself.
It is unlikely that previous commission controllers would have been as vocal, but Bundred is unapologetic. ‘I do feel that anybody in this sort of role has a responsibility to lead and shape the debate about the future of public services,’ he says. ‘When I wrote the Times article, it was obvious to me that we were going to face a period of severe spending restraint and public bodies needed to be preparing themselves. But, at the time, national politicians were saying something different.’
At least now the politicians have admitted that there might be a few problems with the nation’s finances. Unfortunately for Bundred, the main opposition party sees CAA/Oneplace as part of the problem and not the solution. The Conservatives have pledged to abolish it as part of their commitment to slash ‘red tape’.
Oneplace – with its red and green flags to indicate poor or innovative performance – is the commission’s Big Idea. It might be a collaboration involving the Care Quality Commission, Ofsted and the inspectorates of Constabulary, Prisons and Probation, but the Audit Commission is clearly the guiding force. In fact, when asked about his successes by PF, Bundred’s first answer is the launch of the Oneplace website.
So it would be understandable if the possible demise of CAA (and, by implication, Oneplace) were the reason for his departure, but he emphatically denies this. In fact, he asserts that Oneplace will eventually win over the doubters. ‘If there were to be a Conservative government, it would be elected on the basis of a strong commitment to greater transparency as a tool of accountability. It is hard to imagine that Conservative ministers would want to deny the public access to the wealth of information that exists on this site,’ he claims.
Providing citizens with information at the touch of a button is a major goal of all the parties, he points out. The Oneplace site has apparently been well received by the public. While the commission estimated a maximum demand of 2,500 simultaneous users, in practice the website had 8,000 for most of the launch day and 11,000 at its peak. But those at the sharp end have been less than enthusiastic.
A number of high-performing councils have suggested that CAA/Oneplace is costly and ineffective. The London boroughs of Hammersmith & Fulham and Wandsworth, in particular, have insisted that they will cap staff time spent on meeting commission requirements. Jon Rouse, chief executive of the London Borough of Croydon, recently told PF that the new inspection regime ‘looks completely out of kilter in terms of the fiscal situation that we find ourselves’.
This is the nub of the argument – that onerous inspection regimes are not appropriate in an age of austerity; they do not fit the zeitgeist. Bundred, of course, doesn’t see it this way.
‘In terms of the zeitgeist, both the government and the opposition parties are talking about giving greater freedom and flexibilities to local government. The more government proves itself willing to let go and give greater power to local authorities, the more it is going to want to know what is actually happening with these powers and flexibilities.’
He adds that the commission has reduced its inspection fees to local government from just over £11m in 2008 to just over £6m in 2009. And he defends the wider role of the inspectorate in improving services. ‘At no point have we sat back and rested on our laurels. We have recognised the need to refresh our thinking, to raise the bar in relation to the standards that we expect,’ he says.
‘When the shadow chancellor says that local government is the most efficient part of the public service, then obviously the credit for that goes to the people in local government who have made it so, but have no doubt that the commission has also made an important contribution.’
The commission can certainly take some credit here, but there are still areas of concern. This was clear from the CAA/Oneplace results, where only 15 authorities received top marks (compared with 62 under the CPA). The new regime is undoubtedly tougher, but greater progress might have been expected.
There is a similar story in financial management. Last December, Bundred wrote an open letter to Communities and Local Government Secretary John Denham complaining about the timeliness and quality of councils’ financial reporting. Ten authorities were named and shamed for failing to publish audited accounts in time.
Bundred says that NHS financial management has definitely improved. But he questions ‘whether the capacity of the finance function in some smaller councils is adequate to the tasks that they will confront’. Asked if performance in local government has worsened over the past six years, he responds: ‘I am not sure, but what has happened is that the demands have got greater.’
So, there is clearly still work to be done. But Bundred will be remembered as a successful watchdog chief, who led the Audit Commission through difficult and challenging times. And the commission itself? Will it survive or could it become part of a larger body?
A number of trial balloons have been floated that suggest this could be on the cards. John Tiner’s review of the National Audit Office in 2008 recommended that a merger between the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission should be considered within six years (that is, by 2014). But Bundred says that ‘bringing the two organisations together would never be easy’ and is dismissive of a wider, super inspectorate.
‘I have not heard any politician say they want to reconfigure the current landscape of inspectorates, and the notion that there will be one big inspectorate for the whole public sector is fanciful.’ Maybe. However, Bundred himself is nothing if not an original, sometimes contrarian, thinker. And in a climate of mergers, cuts and efficiency drives, perhaps we shouldn’t rule anything out.
14 January 2010
Steve Bundred, the man who has come to ‘personify’ the Audit Commission, is moving on after six eventful years in charge. So what next for him and the watchdog he leaves behind? Editor Mike Thatcher finds out
Where do you go next after running audit and inspection across much of the public sector? It’s a natural question to put to Steve Bundred, the outgoing head of the Audit Commission – particularly at a time of likely political change. But it is one that he is clearly reluctant to answer.
Bundred took many by surprise late last year when he announced his intention to stand down as the commission’s chief executive. He says that now is the right time to go, but is giving few clues as to where.
Sitting in an unremarkable meeting room at the commission’s Millbank HQ, the watchdog’s head for the past six years has agreed to a wide-ranging interview with Public Finance. Questions about his future intentions, however, receive short shrift. ‘I don’t have any specific plans at the present time,’ he tells me.
Bundred’s predecessor at the commission, Sir Andrew Foster, is now deputy chair of the Royal Bank of Canada. Earlier incarnations, Sir Howard Davies and Sir John Banham, both became director general of the CBI. But it’s hard to see Bundred taking a similar route.
When pressed, he says that career options will not be restricted to the public sector or the quangocracy. ‘I will look for something that would be intrinsically interesting and make use of my skills and experience,’ he straight bats. In the next few weeks, a departure date will be agreed with commission chair Michael O’Higgins.
But it is unlikely that a canny political operator like Bundred will disappear from view for long. He has carved out a very successful career and is not ready to retire just yet. ‘I’ve just turned 57 and I think I’m still young enough to do another big job. If I stayed here for another year or two, people might start to question that,’ he says.
Bundred is a bit of an enigma in the world of public sector finance. The first qualified accountant to run the commission, he is a former Labour councillor on the Greater London Council. In the 1980s and 1990s, he worked his way up the finance ladder, eventually becoming FD and then chief executive of the London Borough of Camden. A short tenure as executive director of the Improvement and Development Agency was followed by the Audit Commission appointment.
It’s been a fascinating time to run the commission, coinciding with feast and then famine in public spending. As chief executive, a title Bundred preferred to ‘controller’, he has, according to O’Higgins, come to ‘personify’ the commission. He has maintained good relationships with inspected organisations, professional bodies, central government and service users. Moreover, he understood the need for lighter-touch regulation. Initially this was through Comprehensive Performance Assessments and then, last month, via Comprehensive Area Assessments and the linked Oneplace website.
Bundred has avoided some, though not all, of the criticism that has bedevilled other watchdog chiefs – there have been no outrageous expenses claims or Baby Peter type scandals. However, the commission did suffer the embarrassment of depositing cash in Iceland, and then faced accusations of hypocrisy when lambasting seven public bodies for ‘negligent’ investments in the same country.
And Bundred has certainly not been afraid to speak his mind. In a Times article early last year, he suggested that public debt could hit ‘Armageddon’ levels. At a PF round table, he argued that impending budget cuts would be ‘perfectly manageable’, while in the Observer he claimed that a public sector pay freeze could be ‘pain-free’. This latter assertion incurred the wrath of the Daily Mirror, which pointed out that the Audit Commission chief executive earns more than the prime minister and could afford to take a pay cut himself.
It is unlikely that previous commission controllers would have been as vocal, but Bundred is unapologetic. ‘I do feel that anybody in this sort of role has a responsibility to lead and shape the debate about the future of public services,’ he says. ‘When I wrote the Times article, it was obvious to me that we were going to face a period of severe spending restraint and public bodies needed to be preparing themselves. But, at the time, national politicians were saying something different.’
At least now the politicians have admitted that there might be a few problems with the nation’s finances. Unfortunately for Bundred, the main opposition party sees CAA/Oneplace as part of the problem and not the solution. The Conservatives have pledged to abolish it as part of their commitment to slash ‘red tape’.
Oneplace – with its red and green flags to indicate poor or innovative performance – is the commission’s Big Idea. It might be a collaboration involving the Care Quality Commission, Ofsted and the inspectorates of Constabulary, Prisons and Probation, but the Audit Commission is clearly the guiding force. In fact, when asked about his successes by PF, Bundred’s first answer is the launch of the Oneplace website.
So it would be understandable if the possible demise of CAA (and, by implication, Oneplace) were the reason for his departure, but he emphatically denies this. In fact, he asserts that Oneplace will eventually win over the doubters. ‘If there were to be a Conservative government, it would be elected on the basis of a strong commitment to greater transparency as a tool of accountability. It is hard to imagine that Conservative ministers would want to deny the public access to the wealth of information that exists on this site,’ he claims.
Providing citizens with information at the touch of a button is a major goal of all the parties, he points out. The Oneplace site has apparently been well received by the public. While the commission estimated a maximum demand of 2,500 simultaneous users, in practice the website had 8,000 for most of the launch day and 11,000 at its peak. But those at the sharp end have been less than enthusiastic.
A number of high-performing councils have suggested that CAA/Oneplace is costly and ineffective. The London boroughs of Hammersmith & Fulham and Wandsworth, in particular, have insisted that they will cap staff time spent on meeting commission requirements. Jon Rouse, chief executive of the London Borough of Croydon, recently told PF that the new inspection regime ‘looks completely out of kilter in terms of the fiscal situation that we find ourselves’.
This is the nub of the argument – that onerous inspection regimes are not appropriate in an age of austerity; they do not fit the zeitgeist. Bundred, of course, doesn’t see it this way.
‘In terms of the zeitgeist, both the government and the opposition parties are talking about giving greater freedom and flexibilities to local government. The more government proves itself willing to let go and give greater power to local authorities, the more it is going to want to know what is actually happening with these powers and flexibilities.’
He adds that the commission has reduced its inspection fees to local government from just over £11m in 2008 to just over £6m in 2009. And he defends the wider role of the inspectorate in improving services. ‘At no point have we sat back and rested on our laurels. We have recognised the need to refresh our thinking, to raise the bar in relation to the standards that we expect,’ he says.
‘When the shadow chancellor says that local government is the most efficient part of the public service, then obviously the credit for that goes to the people in local government who have made it so, but have no doubt that the commission has also made an important contribution.’
The commission can certainly take some credit here, but there are still areas of concern. This was clear from the CAA/Oneplace results, where only 15 authorities received top marks (compared with 62 under the CPA). The new regime is undoubtedly tougher, but greater progress might have been expected.
There is a similar story in financial management. Last December, Bundred wrote an open letter to Communities and Local Government Secretary John Denham complaining about the timeliness and quality of councils’ financial reporting. Ten authorities were named and shamed for failing to publish audited accounts in time.
Bundred says that NHS financial management has definitely improved. But he questions ‘whether the capacity of the finance function in some smaller councils is adequate to the tasks that they will confront’. Asked if performance in local government has worsened over the past six years, he responds: ‘I am not sure, but what has happened is that the demands have got greater.’
So, there is clearly still work to be done. But Bundred will be remembered as a successful watchdog chief, who led the Audit Commission through difficult and challenging times. And the commission itself? Will it survive or could it become part of a larger body?
A number of trial balloons have been floated that suggest this could be on the cards. John Tiner’s review of the National Audit Office in 2008 recommended that a merger between the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission should be considered within six years (that is, by 2014). But Bundred says that ‘bringing the two organisations together would never be easy’ and is dismissive of a wider, super inspectorate.
‘I have not heard any politician say they want to reconfigure the current landscape of inspectorates, and the notion that there will be one big inspectorate for the whole public sector is fanciful.’ Maybe. However, Bundred himself is nothing if not an original, sometimes contrarian, thinker. And in a climate of mergers, cuts and efficiency drives, perhaps we shouldn’t rule anything out.
