'Catalogue of failures' led to spending scandal at Scotland's water watchdog
The Water Industry Commission for Scotland is said to have been wasting public money, 'failing in its responsibilities' – leading to a lack of financial control, failing to follow its own rules, and leaving MSPs with 'deep concerns'.
The Scottish Parliament's Public Audit Committee also found 'significant weaknesses and failings in the Scottish Government's approach' to the watchdog's management.
The findings have come from the committee's latest report into the Water Industry Commission for Scotland (WICS) finances on Friday.
The board's 'inappropriate and unacceptable' spending on training courses for senior staff, benefits to the workforce and, hospitality has already been widely reported.
However, the report said there was also a 'complete failure by the Scottish Government to challenge the culture at WICS', which led to the unacceptable use of public funds.
Speaking as the report launched, audit committee convener MSP Richard Leonard called the evidence he heard about the arrangements at WICS 'simply extraordinary'.
'That the body, charged with promoting long term value from Scottish Water to its customers, itself failed to live up to the standards required of a public body left the Committee with deep concerns,' Leonard said.
'But the Committee is clear that there also appears to have been a serious lack of oversight from the Scottish Government. This failure from those who are meant to be safeguarding the public purse is simply unacceptable.'
The report on Friday is the latest in a series of investigations to try and figure out what went wrong, and how to prevent failures like it in the future.
The Committee has now called on the Scottish Government to review its systems for identifying concerns with public bodies to ensure any issues are caught at an early stage.
The water watchdog first came under scrutiny in 2023 after an Audit Scotland report found evidence of 'inappropriate spending'.
That original report found almost £75,000 of WICS expenditure did not meet public spending rules and £20,000 did not represent value for money.
More specifically, the report revealed that the former chief executive of WICS had an expense claim for a £170 Mulberry wallet approved during his time on the board.
Alan Sutherland also put glasses costing £290 on his expenses, among a number of 'bulk' claims which appear to have been approved en masse without proper oversight.
Further investigations later revealed that Mr Sutherland had claimed a £400 high-end restaurant meal on an office credit card, with the expense being paid despite failing to provide a receipt.
He stood down from the board within hours of an Audit Scotland report being released.
Mr Sutherland's departure cost the public purse £105,488 as he was paid six months' salary and legal fees were incurred.
WICS also spent more than £77,000 on a course for a senior executive at Harvard Business School in the US. A further £2,600 was claimed to provide every staff member with a £100 gift card for Christmas.
The report recognised that there has been widespread Board and management departures from WICS, and indeed from the Scottish Government, since the first audit reports were published in 2023.
The Committee also confirmed that no further non-compliant spending was found between January and March 2024, but they said 'this must be kept under close scrutiny'.
Nonetheless, the audit committee called on the current WICS board to undergo refresher training on their roles and responsibilities to ensure that the failure of responsibilities does not happen again.
It also called on the Scottish Government to review its systems for identifying concerns with public bodies to ensure any issues are caught at an early stage.
'We have heard about significant changes within WICS and the organisation's commitment to improve the governance arrangements. These are clearly welcome. But we want to see concrete evidence of these changes to ensure that the unacceptable culture that was in place has truly gone,' Leonard said.
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
STV News
25 minutes ago
- STV News
For Women Scotland launches legal action against Scottish ministers on gender
A campaign group which won a legal victory on the definition of gender is taking action against the Scottish Government over policies it says are 'inconsistent' with the ruling. For Women Scotland's legal battle with Scottish ministers on the definition of a woman ended in the UK Supreme Court, which ruled in April that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex. However, the group said that it now has 'little choice' but to take further legal action as some policies regarding transgender pupils in schools and transgender people in custody remain in place – which the group said is 'in clear breach of the law'. The schools guidance for single-sex toilets says it is important that young people 'where possible, are able to use the facilities they feel most comfortable with'. The prison guidance allows for a transgender woman to be admitted into the women's estate if the person does not meet the violence against women and girls criteria, and there is no other basis to suppose that she poses an unacceptable risk of harm to those housed in the women's estate. For Women Scotland has now applied to the Court of Session seeking to quash the policies, which it says are 'inconsistent with the UK Supreme Court judgment of April 16 2025'. It has raised an ordinary action for reduction (quashing) of the policies relating to schools and prisons. In a statement, the group said: 'Nothing has persuaded the government to take action and both policies remain stubbornly in place, to the detriment of vulnerable women and girls, leaving us little choice but to initiate further legal action. 'The Scottish ministers have 21 days to respond to the summons. If the policies have not been withdrawn by then we will lodge the summons for calling, and the government will have to defend its policies in court. 'We are asking the court to issue a declarator that the school guidance and the prison guidance are unlawful and that they be reduced in whole. 'We are also asking that both policies are suspended in the meantime.' A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'It would be inappropriate to comment on live court proceedings.' For Women Scotland previously brought a series of challenges over the definition of 'woman' in Scottish legislation mandating 50% female representation on public boards. The last step of these ended in the Supreme Court ruling, which the campaign group's supporters hailed as a 'watershed for women'. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Glasgow Times
25 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Rail campaigners say potential 5.5% fares rise would be ‘ripping off' passengers
July's Retail Prices Index (RPI) measure of inflation – which is often used to determine increases in the cost of train travel – will be announced on Wednesday. The Government has not confirmed how it will determine the cap in regulated fare rises for 2026, but this year's 4.6% hike was one percentage point above RPI in July 2024. Banking group Investec has forecast this year's July RPI figure will be 4.5%, which means fares could jump by 5.5%. Bruce Williamson, spokesman for pressure group Railfuture, told the PA news agency 'it would be outrageous' if fares rose by that much. He said: 'What would be the justification for jacking up fares above inflation? There isn't any. 'It's ripping off the customer, driving people off the trains and onto our congested road network, which is in no-one's interest.' Mr Williamson said he would support the Government marking its nationalisation of train operators by freezing fares. He continued: 'One would hope that there would be some efficiency savings and economies of scale that you get from having a more integrated railway. 'But of course, I strongly suspect that if there are any savings to be had, they'd be swallowed up by the Treasury and not passed back to the passengers, which I think is wrong.' Ben Plowden, chief executive of lobby group Campaign for Better Transport, said: 'Rising fares are not just burdening passengers, they are putting people off rail travel. 'Our survey found that 71% of people would be more likely to take the train if fares were cheaper. 'Public support for nationalisation plummets if fares continue to rise, so as the Government progresses plans for Great British Railways (GBR), it must take the opportunity to reform fares and make rail travel more affordable.' GBR is an upcoming public sector body that will oversee Britain's rail infrastructure and train operation. About 45% of fares on Britain's railways are regulated by the Westminster, Scottish and Welsh Governments. They include season tickets on most commuter journeys, some off-peak return tickets on long-distance routes, and flexible tickets for travel around major cities. The Department for Transport (DfT) said there will be an update on changes to regulated fares later this year. Operators set rises in unregulated fares, although these are likely to be very close to regulated ticket increases because their decisions are heavily influenced by governments. A DfT spokesperson said: 'The Transport Secretary has made clear her number one priority is getting the railways back to a place where people can rely on them. 'The Government is putting passengers at the heart of its plans for public ownership and Great British Railways, delivering the services they deserve and driving growth. 'No decisions have been made on next year's rail fares but our aim is that prices balance affordability for both passengers and taxpayers.'
Glasgow Times
25 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
For Women Scotland launches legal action against Scottish ministers on gender
For Women Scotland's legal battle with Scottish ministers on the definition of a woman ended in the UK Supreme Court, which ruled in April that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex. However, the group said that it now has 'little choice' but to take further legal action as some policies regarding transgender pupils in schools and transgender people in custody remain in place – which the group said is 'in clear breach of the law'. The schools guidance for single-sex toilets says it is important that young people 'where possible, are able to use the facilities they feel most comfortable with'. The prison guidance allows for a transgender woman to be admitted into the women's estate if the person does not meet the violence against women and girls criteria, and there is no other basis to suppose that she poses an unacceptable risk of harm to those housed in the women's estate. For Women Scotland has now applied to the Court of Session seeking to quash the policies, which it says are 'inconsistent with the UK Supreme Court judgment of April 16 2025'. It has raised an ordinary action for reduction (quashing) of the policies relating to schools and prisons. In a statement, the group said: 'Nothing has persuaded the government to take action and both policies remain stubbornly in place, to the detriment of vulnerable women and girls, leaving us little choice but to initiate further legal action. 'The Scottish ministers have 21 days to respond to the summons. If the policies have not been withdrawn by then we will lodge the summons for calling, and the government will have to defend its policies in court. 'We are asking the court to issue a declarator that the school guidance and the prison guidance are unlawful and that they be reduced in whole. 'We are also asking that both policies are suspended in the meantime.' A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'It would be inappropriate to comment on live court proceedings.' For Women Scotland previously brought a series of challenges over the definition of 'woman' in Scottish legislation mandating 50% female representation on public boards. The last step of these ended in the Supreme Court ruling, which the campaign group's supporters hailed as a 'watershed for women'.
