Drop veil of secrecy

Published: 8 October, 2010

• ISLINGTON Council requested an independent audit of the systems and controls used by Partners for Improvement in Islington (PfII) for street property Private Finance Initiative (PFI) schemes but instead PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) was appointed for the task (Probe reveals overcharged repairs bills, October 1).

True, it is not unknown for companies trading in traditional, advice-giving professions, such as accountancy, to work both sides of a dispute, trained as they are to exercise objective analysis of facts within a confined range of expertise. 

However, in the case of PWC it has only ever worked on the promulgation of PFI schemes and for landlords.

Nowhere does PWC present any evidence of it having ever worked to further the interests of tenants or to represent the public interest against PFI.

On the basis of the page and a bit that the council has allowed into the public domain concerning PWC’s report, the public can only conclude that 10 per cent of the £210million worth of building work carried out by United House for Islington is being paid for without it being completed.

It would neither have been in PWC’s interest nor competence to find fraud.

That could only be done by a judge sitting in an appropriate court of law. PWC did identify “control weaknesses”.

Presumably, United House exercised “control weaknesses” in submitting the wrong properties as completed and it was then a coincidence that the PFI quality control team exercised “control weaknesses” when checking them.

The way forward is clear.

The council, better still, the district auditor or Audit Commission, should now commission a proper, independent inspection of a much more substantial sample of PFI-managed housing.

This time the inspection should not be confined to leasehold properties and the inspection should continue widening its scope while “control weaknesses” are found.

As ever, it is the leaseholder’s bills that reveal problems with financial control but we should remember that the costs also come back to ordinary tenants in their rents.

One of the reasons why there was no support for the use of PFI for housing in Islington was that it was popularly expected to offer bad value for money.

The combined expertise of the council, central government departments and the PfII consortium, all wishing PFI to work, over the course of years of negotiation and delay, manifestly failed to put into place robust procedures.

If the more sceptical public are to be able to constructively lobby for these matters to be dealt with responsibly in future the first prerequisite will be the dropping of the veil of secrecy that has covered them till now.

CHRIS GRAHAM
Tollington Park, N4

• DR BRIAN Potter has to be congratulated for yet again exposing the overcharging of leaseholders, and indeed the council itself, by contractors and consultants undertaking major repairs and improvements to the council’s housing stock.

Much of the £700million of taxpayers’ money spent on trying to achieve the last government’s Decent Homes programme was wasted due to poor specification of contracts, the dominance of the small cartel of large companies allowed to tender for work on this scale and the council’s inability to effectively manage and enforce the terms and conditions of large contracts.

These contracts are far too restrictive and need to be broken down into manageable units, which would open them up to competition from smaller companies.

This would boost local business and employment while giving an opportunity for proper local control.

It would also have the potential to cut costs, particularly the historic waste inherent in past and present large and long-term contracts.

DAVE BARNES
Islington Taxpayers’ Alliance