The abolition of the Audit Commission came as a shock, despite the fact that all quangos are under threat. Ministers’ current attitude to an appointed body such as the commission is not dissimilar to Mary Tudor’s view of her younger half-sister Princess Elizabeth in 1553: would it be better to execute her, imprison her in the Tower or keep her on a short leash at Court?
Sadly from the commission’s point of view, communities secretary Eric Pickles chose the ‘execution’ option. There had been bad blood between the two since it was revealed earlier this year that the commission had hired a public affairs company to help manage its dealings with Pickles. In his interview with the Daily Telegraph on Saturday, the secretary of state made it clear he believed the watchdog had lost its way.
There was little detail from Pickles about whether or not he believed the commission was doing a good job. Local government and other audited bodies have long had a love-hate relationship with the Audit Commission. Councils, which are elected after all, never really enjoyed being judged by an appointed body. On the other hand, they came to relish receiving good Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) scores.
There is no doubt the commission, on the ‘let’s shoot the messenger’ principle, took some of the flak for the previous government’s obsession with a Topsy-like growth in regulation, targets and performance measures. Yet it was the commission that sensitively handled, in turn, performance indicators, the Best Value regime, CPA and eventually Comprehensive Area Assessments.
Labour ministers hadn’t the foggiest idea what they meant by a ‘Best Value regime’ when they took office, yet the commission managed to create one. It was perhaps this capacity to deliver effectively for Whitehall that convinced Pickles the commission was not an element of the new ‘localism’.
The Audit Commission managed to mediate between central and local government on a number of issues. National studies allowed the commission to publish reports that showed how central government often behaved in ways that impeded local efficiency and effectiveness. Latterly, there were wise reports showing how, for example, in spheres such as regeneration the government had created such a plethora of institutions, grants and initiatives that it was almost impossible to make sense of them.
Since May, Pickles has intervened in Doncaster Council on the basis of Audit Commission investigations. In a small country such as England, ministers will often feel under pressure to act in an attempt to mitigate gross failure within local provision. It will be interesting to see if health secretary Andrew Lansley will choose, in the longer term, to keep the Care Quality Commission or Monitor, and whether education secretary Michael Gove will retain Ofsted.
The logic of the government’s approach would surely imply that quasi-market forces should be sufficient to ensure quality outcomes in health and education? Oddly, these regulators appear likely to inherit functions from the Audit Commission.
In future, councils will be able to choose their auditors. If Pickles and his colleagues are true radicals, they will now have to accept that there will, from time to time, be public service failures that will be left to the electorate to sort out through the ballot box, or through some kind of ‘market’ solution. Central intervention would surely be misplaced – you cannot be a ‘half localist’. We will have to wait to find out how far David Cameron’s government will be willing to defend such painful outcomes.
The Audit Commission is a victim of forces beyond its borders. It will be interesting to see if there are soon calls for a replacement.
Tony Travers is director of the Greater London Group at the London School of Economics. He was a member of the Audit Commission from 1992 to 1997
