Dear Sir or Madam,

Please provide details of any member of staff employed by the Audit
Commission who is identified as providing services to the
Commission for Local Administration England ('CLAE') whilst
employed by the Audit Commission with the knowledge of the AC - in
particular Independent Chair of the CLAE's Audit Committee. These
are in the same building (Millbank Tower) as the AC - so possibly
minuted meetings might occur in 'elevators'.

Please additionally provide details of any rules that the Audit
Commission might have to ensure the independence of its audit
function, and if these enable its staff to assume positions for
other Non-Departmental Public Bodies - and be identified as being
responsible to the Secretary of State for the accounts (including
probity issues) of these other public bodies despite these bodies
not being subject to audit by either the AC or the National Audit
Office.

Yours faithfully,

Stuart HARDWICKE CARRUTHERS

Thank you for your request for information received on 6 August 2008.
You asked for:
1. Details of any member of staff employed by the Audit Commission who
is identified as providing services to the Commission for Local
Administration England ('CLAE') and
2. Details of any rules that the Audit Commission might have to ensure
the independence of its audit function, and if these enable its staff to
assume positions for other Non-Departmental Public Bodies - and be
identified as being responsible to the Secretary of State for the
accounts (including probity issues) of these other public bodies despite
these bodies not being subject to audit by either the AC or the National
Audit Office.
The Audit Commission is committed to the principles of the Freedom of
Information Act (FoIA) and will wherever possible provide all the
information requested unless constrained by another statute or by an
exemption within the FoIA. Please note that some information you have
requested may not be provided to you; this will only be information that
can be withheld by law. In most cases the reasons will be explained to
you along with your copy of any information that can be released to you.

Your request is being considered and you will receive a response within
the statutory timescale of 20 working days, as defined by the FoIA. That
date is 3 September 2008.
I may need to contact you if the request needs to be clarified; this is
to ensure that we provide you with the information you require.

Yours sincerely

Diane Skinner
Information Policy Manager

Audit Commission
Business Information Services Directorate
Westward House
Lime Kiln Close
Stoke Gifford
Bristol BS34 8SR

Tel: 0844 798 6262
Fax: 0844 798 6270
[mobile number]
Email: [email address]

For Freedom of Information (FOI) requests please email
[Audit Commission request email]

Please think before you print this email

show quoted sections

Alleged Breach of s10 and s1 of the FoI Act by the Audit Commission
Appeal to Information Commissioner

On 05 August 2008 I submitted a Freedom of Information Request to
the Audit Commission [‘AC’] requesting details of records related
to external employment positions held by its directors [TAB 1]. The
request was acknowledged, and it was identified that a reply of
some sort would be received from the Audit Commission by 03
September 2008. The AC holds a special position in relation to
management of public bodies, and identifies that it ‘needs to lead
by example’. It is important due to its role that the independence
of its staff is demonstrated, and that they are not subject to
external influences (i.e. act on behalf of bodies that are subject
to their audit by their organisation either directly or
indirectly). If this was to occur both their independence and
credibility would possibly be identified as suspect.

It is clear that the AC has failed to respond by 03 September 2008
(breach of s10 of the FoI act), and that as a consequence it has
failed to meet its duties under s1 of the FoI Act.

The Information Commissioner is requested to investigate, and to
issue a decision notice identifying breaches of the FoI Act by the
Audit Commission, and to require the AC to make the requested
information available.

A copy of the request is posted at
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cl...
as is a copy of this appeal to the Information Commissioner.

Yours faithfully

Stuart Hardwicke Carruthers

Dear Mr Hardwicke-Carruthers

I write following your e-mail dated 4 September 2008.

Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to your request.

Please find attached our response:

<<RFI 878 Response RFI 878.doc>>

Yours sincerely,

Gary Shipsey
Compliance Manager
BIS - Information Management

Tel: 0844 798 6286
Email: [email address]

For Freedom of Information (FOI) requests please email
[Audit Commission request email]

Please think before you print this email

show quoted sections

Dear Gary Shipsey,

Many thanks for your response. I am in agreement with your
comments. It is my intention to complete the complaint to the
Information Commissioner only in relation to s10 of the FoI. This
is mainly because of the important position that the Audit
Commission holds.

I am aware that the Audit Commission has no involvement in the
Commission for Local Administration in England (CLAE). I understand
that this work is done by a commercial firm. However, it does have
substantial involvement with the client base of both the CLAE
(particularly local authorities) and the office of the
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. CIPFA also has a
substantive role in determining 'accountability' of local
authorities. It is my personal belief that the Audit Commission
should be involved with these organisations (maintain a watching
brief). I am very pleased to see transparency.

Unfortunately, most local authorities take considerably longer than
20 days to respond to the Local Government Ombudsman when an
investigation is launched. Indeed about 50 per cent take over 28
days to respond (and the time for a response can be considerably
more). A number of local authorities are also identifying that the
LGO is personally responsible for their complaint management
records (and some have even identify that they have lost all their
records), and for all decisions related to complaints against a
Council. This is a nonsense as the Council's should be producing
monitoring officer reports (particularly related to local
settlements). These are doubtless issues of which the Audit
Commission is aware.

You will possibly also be aware that a very large number of current
Council's (i.e. those that also act as electoral districts) as
defined by s2 of the Local Government Act 1972 appear to have
failed to appoint either an Electoral Registration Officer or a
Returning Officer. This appears to have implications for 'duty of
care' by the staff of a Council to the elected representatives and
their constituents. I have encountered this issue previously when a
Council admitted to having failed to appoint either (after about
six years). This is believed to be a significant risk issue.

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Hardwicke Carruthers

<<Access Information Complaints Procedure V2-0.pdf>>
Dear Mr Hardwicke-Carruthers

Thank you for your e-mail of 5 September 2008 at 15:44.

I note that you wish to complete a complaint to the Information
Commissioner in relation to Section 10 - Time for compliance with
request - of the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA).

Please can you confirm whether you wish to lodge a complaint with the
Audit Commission about our level of compliance with Section 10 FoIA with
regards your request reference RFI 876.

I ask because I understand that Section 50(2)(a) of the FoIA requires
that our internal complaints procedure should be exhausted before the
Information Commissioner's Office will make a decision on any complaint
lodged with him, and that this is not the case at present.

Please find attached our complaints procedure.

Yours sincerely,

Gary Shipsey
Compliance Manager
BIS - Information Management

Tel: 0844 798 6286
Email: [email address]

For Freedom of Information (FOI) requests please email
[Audit Commission request email]

Please think before you print this email

show quoted sections

Dear Gary Shipsey,

Many thanks for your reply. There are only two issues that I wish
to raise. The first relates to delay, and on this you have already
apologised. The second relates to the fact that it would be helpful
if it was identified that this procedure existed when the Audit
Commission responded on 08 August 2008 and subsequently.

I shall be writing to the Information Commissioner accordingly, and
identifying that the two issues are progressing through your
complaints system, and that resolution is expected.

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Hardwicke Carruthers

Dear Mr Hardwicke-Carruthers

Please accept my apologies for the oversight of not attaching our FoI
complaints procedure when responding to your request on 5 September
2008.

Yours sincerely,

Gary Shipsey
Compliance Manager
BIS - Information Management

Tel: 0844 798 6286
Email: [email address]

For Freedom of Information (FOI) requests please email
[Audit Commission request email]

Please think before you print this email

show quoted sections

Dear Gary Shipsey,

The issue is resolved. And have written to ICO identifying that it
is

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS