Robert Syms (Shadow Minister (Local Government), Communities and Local Government; Poole, Conservative)

Given that we are now debating the constitution of the Audit Commission, I should be grateful if the Minister gave us an overview of the changes in this part of the Bill. I may have questions after I hear what he says.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

We have moved swiftly to clause 113.

The policy behind the clause is, first, to ensure that the Audit Commission fulfils the purpose for which it was established and is seen to be focusing on that. The Audit Commission was established to help local authorities to control their costs. That was its prime objective. Labour Members may recall that the Audit Commission was established by the then Prime Minister, now Baroness Thatcher, as part of what was described at the time as an onslaught on local government. That was in the days when central Government was not a friend of councils, unlike the present time, when consensus is the order of the day.

Teasing apart, my serious point is that it is often forgotten that the Audit Commission is there to oversee the books and to ensure that value for money and  efficiency are achieved. The Audit Commission has been a huge help to local authorities in meeting those goals, as we saw again last week in the announcement of findings of the comprehensive performance assessment, which is the second part of the policy in which the changes are set. Controversial though the comprehensive performance assessment was at the time of its introduction and painful though it has occasionally been, it has fulfilled its purpose of securing a general improvement in the quality of local government service provision. Those are the two policy contexts. I am grateful to you, Mr. Chope, for allowing me leeway.

To respond to the hon. Member for Poole, clause 113 reduces the number of Audit Commission board members from the current minimum of 15 and maximum of 20 to a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 15. The number of commissioners that is currently prescribed is more than the ideal number for incisive debate of strategic issues. It is a bit too big and unwieldy. The Audit Commission has been carrying vacancies on its board for almost two years and is operating with only 13 members. Experience shows that that is a sufficient number to carry out the relevant functions. The Audit Commission’s chair and chief executive have expressed the view that the statutory requirement should be decreased as proposed. We are about to embark on a recruitment exercise to bring the number of board members up to 15 from this summer.

The proposals have been advanced by the chair and the chief executive of the Audit Commission and I believe that 10 to 15 board members are sufficient for proper decision-making experience and proper scrutiny of the Audit Commission’s work, without being unwieldy and over-bureaucratic. It is a question of balance and judgment. I think that it is best to take the advice of the chair and the chief executive and agree to the change.

Robert Syms (Shadow Minister (Local Government), Communities and Local Government; Poole, Conservative)

I am happy with what the Minister said.

Peter Soulsby (Leicester South, Labour)

I wish to speak briefly about the size of the Audit Commission board. I was a member of it some years ago and I can confirm what the Minister said. Even at that stage, it was felt that the 15 to 20 size was above the optimum. The reform to reduce its size will make it more manageable. It will continue to provide proper oversight and enable good representation of those who have an interest in the work of the commission. In addition, governance will be significantly improved.