A public body that spent more than £77,000 to send a senior executive to take a course at Harvard University in the US has defended the decision, by telling MSPs it invests in its staff to stop them from being “poached”.
The Water Industry Commission for Scotland (WICS) – which regulates Scottish Water – was accused of “poor governance” with public funds in a report by the Auditor General last year, and today faced scrutiny at Holyrood.
Its representatives insisted the culture had changed at the regulator, as they struggled to justify questionable spending highlighted in last year’s audit – including £2,600 to provide every staff member with a £100 gift card for Christmas and £402 on a dinner for two.
The report by the Auditor General found that the “financial management and governance issues found at the commission fall far short of what is expected of a public body”.
After the report, WICS chief executive Alan Sutherland quit with immediate effect in December and was awarded six months’ pay in lieu of his contractual notice period. While an exact figure for this was not provided, in 2021 the commission said the chief executive officer’s annual salary was more than £165,000.
A total of £77,350 was claimed for the Harvard Business School course attended by chief operating officer Michelle Ashford, which included business class flights to Boston.
Approval was only sought afterwards for the expenses, despite Scottish government approval being required in advance for any service above £20,000.
‘We find it difficult to compete with private sector’
Holyrood’s public audit committee criticised the money spent on the Harvard course during its meeting on Thursday.
Advertisement
MSP Jamie Greene questioned whether the organisation had been “running like a private sector business instead of a public sector body”.
Professor Donald MacRae, chair of the board at WICS, said the board should have been asked for approval first and accepted that the value for money for the Harvard course was “not fully demonstrated and the business case was inadequate”.
However, he explained: “WICS is a small public body operating in a very complex and specialised area, and we do find it difficult to compete on salaries with the private sector and actually to retain staff.
“And our staff are frequently subject to approaches to being poached, actually.
“Now, we recognise that our staff are our most important asset, and we take the view that we have to invest in them. And we have to invest in them by offering advanced management training.”
Despite Professor MacRae’s argument about retaining staff, the committee also heard no conditions were put in place ito ensure Ms Ashford stayed with WICS for a certain period of time after attending the course in the US.
Going forward, Professor MacRae said WICS will “still adhere to the policy of investing” in its staff.
But he added the organisation will look for alternative training “within Scotland or the UK at much lower cost” in the future, to deliver “better value for money”.
Richard Leonard MSP, committee convener, accused Jon Rathjen, deputy director for water policy at the Scottish government, of being “complicit” in the failures at WICS, in that he did not challenge the spending on the Harvard course.
Mr Rathjen accepted he “made an error of judgement” in relying on an assurance from the WICS chief executive.
He said WICS had approached the Scottish government to approve the spending retrospectively and refusing it would not have achieved anything.
‘Nice work if you can get it’
With regards to other spending at WICS, MSP Graham Simpson raised a £402.41 meal at the Champany Inn in Linlithgow, West Lothian, where then chief executive Mr Sutherland was dining with an official from the New Zealand government in October 2022.
David Satti, who has recently become the interim accountable officer at WICS, said no itemised receipt had been provided and the expense had been covered on an office credit card, adding: “We have no way of knowing the exact items that were purchased.”
Professor MacRae said the meal had been wrongly coded as “subsistence” but nevertheless had been “instrumental” in securing income of £1.2m from New Zealand.
Mr Simpson was also told that WICS workers sent to New Zealand were allowed to book business class as the flight is over six hours.
The MSP sarcastically responded: “Nice work if you can get it.”
Colin Beattie MSP questioned whether it was “unusual” for a public body to give staff members Christmas vouchers.
In regards to the £100 gift cards, which exceeded the £75 limit for gifts, Professor MacRae said: “You must remember the situation we were in, a situation where we were all operating remotely and still in the process of recovering from COVID.
“That was the background to the decision.”
It was heard that WICS has no intention to give out gift cards to staff members at Christmas in the future.
At the start of the meeting, Professor MacRae said there had been a “change of culture and focus on value for money” since the Audit Scotland report.
But MSP Willie Coffey delivered a damning verdict on the spending at WICS, saying: “I’ve been a member of the parliament, in the audit committee on and off for 17 years, and I have to say to you colleagues that this is one of the worst sessions I’ve ever participated in.”
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Sir Keir Starmer has insisted the “vast majority of farmers” will not be affected by changes to Inheritance Tax (IHT) ahead of a protest outside parliament on Tuesday.
It follows Chancellor Rachel Reeves announcing a 20% inheritance tax that will apply to farms worth more than £1m from April 2026, where they were previously exempt.
But the prime minister looked to quell fears as he resisted calls to change course.
Speaking from the G20 summit in Brazil, he said: “If you take a typical case of a couple wanting to pass a family farm down to one of their children, which would be a very typical example, with all of the thresholds in place, that’s £3m before any inheritance tax is paid.”
The comments come as thousands of farmers, including celebrity farmer Jeremy Clarkson, are due to descend on Whitehall on Tuesday to protest the change.
And 1,800 more will take part in a “mass lobby” where members of the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) will meet their MPs in parliament to urge them to ask Ms Reeves to reconsider the policy.
Speaking to broadcasters, Sir Keir insisted the government is supportive of farmers, pointing to a £5bn investment announced for them in the budget.
Advertisement
He said: “I’m confident that the vast majority of farms and farmers will not be affected at all by that aspect of the budget.
“They will be affected by the £5bn that we’re putting into farming. And I’m very happy to work with farmers on that.”
Sir Keir’s spokesman made a similar argument earlier on Monday, saying the government expects 73% of farms to not be affected by the change.
Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs Secretary Steve Reed said only about 500 out of the UK’s 209,000 farms would be affected, according to Treasury calculations.
However, that number has been questioned by several farming groups and the Conservatives.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:28
Farming industry is feeling ‘betrayed’ – NFU boss
Government figures ‘misleading’
The NFU said the real number is about two-thirds, with its president Tom Bradshaw calling the government’s figures “misleading” and accusing it of not understanding the sector.
The Country Land and Business Association (CLA) said the policy could affect 70,000 farms.
Conservative shadow farming minister Robbie Moore accused the government last week of “regurgitating” figures that represent “past claimants of agricultural property relief, not combined with business property relief” because he said the Treasury does not have that data.
Agricultural property relief (APR) currently provides farmers 100% relief from paying inheritance tax on agricultural land or pasture used for rearing livestock or fish, and can include woodland and buildings, such as farmhouses, if they are necessary for that land to function.
Farmers can also claim business property relief (BPR), providing 50% or 100% relief on assets used by a trading business, which for farmers could include land, buildings, plant or machinery used by the business, farm shops and holiday cottages.
APR and BPR can often apply to the same asset, especially farmed land, but APR should be the priority, however BPR can be claimed in addition if APR does not cover the full value (e.g. if the land has development value above its agricultural value).
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Mr Moore said the Department for the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Treasury have disagreed on how many farms will be impacted “by as much as 40%” due to the lack of data on farmers using BPR.
Lib Dem MP Tim Farron said last week1,400 farmers in Cumbria, where he is an MP, will be affected and will not be able to afford to pay the tax as many are on less than the minimum wage despite being asset rich.