I’m grateful to Roger Darlington for drawing my attention to the PAC's Report on Ofcom’s effectiveness as a converged regulator. I’ve previously been a mite critical of the organisation, both for its value-for-money claims and – a related issue - for its tendency to be rather selective in its success stories. The PAC effectively echoed both criticisms during its oral evidence session on 10th December, with Stephen Barclay being particularly brutal on Ofcom’s efficiency claims. For example:
“So, we have an organisation that spent £80 million on the merger, on being set up; the actual reduction in total spend is £70 million; and a fair chunk of that £70 million is being made up of the benefits of the merger, such as getting rid of properties, rather than what I would call traditional efficiency savings… You're dressing up merger benefits as efficiency savings and then you're double-counting them over the years compared to the methodology set out by the NAO”.
Ed Richards proved to be a pugnacious defender of Ofcom’s record (and arithmetic) but even he must have wilted a bit under the Committee’s relentless and forensic scrutiny. After a particularly heated exchange, Barclay dealt a shuddering blow:
“Mr Richards, it's the role of the Committee to ask questions. I'm sorry if that upsets you”.
No comments:
Post a Comment