HL Deb 04 December 1984 vol 457 cc1218-9

2.56 p.m.

Baroness David

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what guidance was given to those carrying out the value-for-money audits in further and higher education colleges in 1984, and what steps have been taken to make sure of uniformity of approach.

The Earl of Swinton

My Lords, I understand that all the teams involved in this Audit Commission review took as their starting point a study carried out by the former Audit Inspectorate entitled Colleges of Further Education: Guide to the Measurement of Resource Efficiency. The use in all 165 audits of the concepts developed in this study, alongside normal audit inquiries and observations, helped to ensure consistency of approach, as did central Audit Commission training for the auditors concerned, and general oversight by the Audit Commission.

Baroness David

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I hope that all the people who carried out the inspections did in fact read the document that he mentioned. But how could uniformity be achieved when such very different teams went into the colleges—sometimes accountants such as Price Waterhouse and sometimes staff of the district audit commission? Why was it that in some cases the unit costs approach was adopted and in others it was not? In fact, in some cases the unit costs were actually excluded from consideration. Would the noble Earl not agree that any effective comparison of institutions must be based on concepts of unit cost, including the question of examination success?

The Earl of Swinton

My Lords. I have already said that the Audit Commission has been concerned to ensure as consistent an approach as possible. I believe that auditors bring their own valuable skills to their audits, and the issues they raise and the conclusions they reach must be taken seriously by all concerned.

Lord Mulley

My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl—and I apologise for having last week given him a Privy Counsellorship, which was an error of speech which I trust may be corrected in due course—whether he would not suggest to his right honourable friend that where judgments of educational value are involved, educational specialists should be employed? Her Majesty has some excellent and independent inspectors who are very well qualified to do that. If we send in accountants to all these colleges, shall we not reach the point of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing?

The Earl of Swinton

My Lords, it is for the Audit Commission themselves to decide where they go, and it is not for my right honourable friend to "send them in", as I think the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, said. He did not send them in. As I said in my earlier answer, I believe that auditors bring their own valuable skills to their audits, and we probably have something to learn from them.