Given that the NFI actively spreads misunderstanding of council tax discount law, it is ironic that somebody thought fit to give it the power to use data matching to identify maladministration and error. It is already asserting that maladministration and error exists where there is no such thing: this is precisely how its figures for council tax discounts fraudulently or erroneously awarded are compiled, by including large numbers of cases where there was no maladministration or error and, therefore, no additional income.
A body which has since at least 2006 misinterpreted codes on council tax computer systems is not trustworthy to decide whether there has been maladministration.
Who decided that the Audit Commission had 'wider powers' to use data matching for this purpose? It appears to be the case that the Audit Commission believes that it already has these powers. But they cannot be an audit function unless the maladministration involves some breaching of financial regulations. So where do they come from? Those proposing this amendment to the Local Audit Bill must h
The government response was that this function would overlap with the functions of the Local Government Ombudsman and there would be no powers to act upon it. So it would cause duplication and be unnecessary. It was concerned about how the powers might be used. Well for once, good for the government.
It is controversial to say that data matching powers used in the capacity under audit powers would not be available to new bodies: they would be available to auditors who have the right to inspect documents and information relating to the accounts of audited bodies. This must come from the data matching businesses who fear losing a stream of income which they had via the Audit Commission.
Members seem utterly naive about the capacities of 'data matching'. These have been displayed in the Cabinet Office's own attempts to use data matching and data mining to get the electoral register up to date. The research report highlighted lack of understanding of the data by those using it as a major issue.
One billion pounds worth of fraud, error and maladministration. This is a lot of money they say. But they are thinking that this is money lost to the public purse. A great deal of this will not be money lost as it includes cases where a single person discount which does not exist is cancelled and replaced by a 'disregard discount allowance' which does not exist either.