Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 5 July 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1604 contributions

|

Public Audit Committee

“National Fraud Initiative in Scotland 2024”

Meeting date: 26 September 2024

Jamie Greene

I will come on to an example in a second, particularly with regard to housing benefit, but what about any benefits that are recouped? Perhaps I should call them “savings”, given that that is what you are calling them—although I have to say that what you identify as savings seem to be what I would identify as the value of fraud. Nevertheless, we will call them savings for now. The potential upside of councils participating in the initiative is the identification of these so-called savings, but there is no cost or charge to them. Is that correct?

Public Audit Committee

“National Fraud Initiative in Scotland 2024”

Meeting date: 26 September 2024

Jamie Greene

In that same paragraph, you say that savings—to use that term—have increased from around £15 million to more than £21 million in a short space of time. By default, there is an increase in the value of the activity, but that does not necessarily mean that there is an increase in fraudulent activity. It is just about the value.

Public Audit Committee

“National Fraud Initiative in Scotland 2024”

Meeting date: 26 September 2024

Jamie Greene

I guess that where I am heading with all this is that what strikes me about the whole conversation this morning is that perhaps that is where there is a failing in the process. Dealing with that might help you to deal with the issue that you mention in your key messages and to move from saying that it is not clear whether fraud has increased to a position where you can take a more definitive view. Having done the work that identifies the savings and fed all that back to the bodies involved, you could let them do their thing in identifying what is fraud, what is valid and what is erroneous and where there are systems issues or manual issues, and then they could feed that back to you. You could then insert another section in future reports that says, “Having identified the savings, this is what we think the outcomes were.”

I appreciate that that would be an extra piece of work for you and that it might even be outside your statutory requirements, but would that extra piece of analysis give people more confidence in the value of the work that you do? Do you see where I am going?

Public Audit Committee

“National Fraud Initiative in Scotland 2024”

Meeting date: 26 September 2024

Jamie Greene

To be clear, is it your understanding that there is no clawback from local authorities or, indeed, any payments to local authorities from the DWP?

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2022/23 Audit of the Water Industry Commission for Scotland”

Meeting date: 19 September 2024

Jamie Greene

Talk me through what happened next. The options were debated, and I understand that the option that was chosen was a settlement agreement. Is that correct?

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2022/23 Audit of the Water Industry Commission for Scotland”

Meeting date: 19 September 2024

Jamie Greene

I would like to close the session by picking up on an issue that I asked about the previous time that we met. Clearly, the optics are difficult. I presume that you would have preferred to have come in today to talk about the positive work that WICS does and the good work that, I am sure, your staff do, for which we should thank them. However, the media coverage and the scrutiny at the highest level—from the Parliament, the Government and the Auditor General—must be uncomfortable and difficult, and rightly so. After all, we are talking about public money.

Do you accept that the optics of all this have created the very unhelpful view that, for those at the highest level of the organisation, it has been something of a gravy train for a considerable time? Although that might have ended, it has happened, which is the problem. People have lost confidence and faith in the governance of this public body.

The second part of my question is about what happens next. Is there a case for a clear separation of the two functions—of the part that oversees a public nationalised industry such as the water industry and has a very important role to play, and the organisation’s more commercial arm, which wants to go out, wine and dine, and travel business class, because that is what commercial companies do in seeking new business opportunities? The problem that we have had until now is that combining the two and trying to pretend to be both has led us to some of these issues, as well as the governance issues, which I have no doubt individuals will have to face the consequences for. What should we do next?

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2022/23 Audit of the Water Industry Commission for Scotland”

Meeting date: 19 September 2024

Jamie Greene

What is your opinion on that?

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2022/23 Audit of the Water Industry Commission for Scotland”

Meeting date: 19 September 2024

Jamie Greene

You made the link. I have it in front of me.

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2022/23 Audit of the Water Industry Commission for Scotland”

Meeting date: 19 September 2024

Jamie Greene

Are you saying that, despite the fact that he was on retainer for a number of years, no one in the Government knew about it?

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2022/23 Audit of the Water Industry Commission for Scotland”

Meeting date: 19 September 2024

Jamie Greene

I want to backtrack a little. Were dismissal and gross misconduct the same option or separate ones?