This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jul/17/sfo-richard-alderman-public-accounts-committee
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| MPs blast ex-SFO boss over severance packages for senior staff | MPs blast ex-SFO boss over severance packages for senior staff |
| (2 months later) | |
| The former director of the Serious Fraud Office showed "a disregard for the proper use of taxpayers' money" in agreeing severance packages worth a total of around £1m for three senior staff without securing necessary approval, Westminster's spending watchdog has found. | The former director of the Serious Fraud Office showed "a disregard for the proper use of taxpayers' money" in agreeing severance packages worth a total of around £1m for three senior staff without securing necessary approval, Westminster's spending watchdog has found. |
| In a scathing report, the Commons public accounts committee said "a catalogue of errors and poor judgment" by Richard Alderman had undermined the SFO's reputation and damaged the morale of its staff. | In a scathing report, the Commons public accounts committee said "a catalogue of errors and poor judgment" by Richard Alderman had undermined the SFO's reputation and damaged the morale of its staff. |
| And the committee published a letter which Alderman sent to them just days after a gruelling evidence session before the cross-party group, in which he acknowledged it was "justified" in criticising his actions and offered "my deep and unreserved apology". | And the committee published a letter which Alderman sent to them just days after a gruelling evidence session before the cross-party group, in which he acknowledged it was "justified" in criticising his actions and offered "my deep and unreserved apology". |
| The auditor general Amyas Morse last year refused to sign off the SFO's accounts because of an "irregular redundancy payment" to the former chief executive officer Phillippa Williamson, who took voluntary redundancy in April 2012, just four days before Alderman's own departure. In December last year, the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, reported that Alderman had agreed further severance payments to senior staff without following due process. | The auditor general Amyas Morse last year refused to sign off the SFO's accounts because of an "irregular redundancy payment" to the former chief executive officer Phillippa Williamson, who took voluntary redundancy in April 2012, just four days before Alderman's own departure. In December last year, the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, reported that Alderman had agreed further severance payments to senior staff without following due process. |
| An investigation ordered by Alderman's successor, David Green, found that the decisions to make Williamson, the chief operating officer, Christian Bailes, and the technology head, Ian McCall, redundant were taken by the former director alone without informing ministers and that he failed to get Cabinet Office approval for the CEO's severance agreement. | An investigation ordered by Alderman's successor, David Green, found that the decisions to make Williamson, the chief operating officer, Christian Bailes, and the technology head, Ian McCall, redundant were taken by the former director alone without informing ministers and that he failed to get Cabinet Office approval for the CEO's severance agreement. |
| There was no evidence that he had explored redeployment within the civil service for the CEO or COO – both of whom had been performing well enough to merit bonuses the previous year. | There was no evidence that he had explored redeployment within the civil service for the CEO or COO – both of whom had been performing well enough to merit bonuses the previous year. |
| Total severance packages were £464,905 for Williamson, £437,167 for Bailes and £49,885 for McCall. A payment of more than £400,000 was made to enhance Williamson's pension, despite not having the necessary approval. McCall's package included £34,45 to which he was "not contractually entitled". And Alderman decided on a £15,000 special payment each to Williamson and Bailes to avoid grievance actions, despite legal advice that there was no suggestion of any such claims. | Total severance packages were £464,905 for Williamson, £437,167 for Bailes and £49,885 for McCall. A payment of more than £400,000 was made to enhance Williamson's pension, despite not having the necessary approval. McCall's package included £34,45 to which he was "not contractually entitled". And Alderman decided on a £15,000 special payment each to Williamson and Bailes to avoid grievance actions, despite legal advice that there was no suggestion of any such claims. |
| The committee also condemned the "astounding" working conditions which Alderman agreed for Williamson during her four-year stint at the helm of the SFO, under which her home in the Lake District was designated her place of work. She worked at home two days a week, and travelled to London to work at the SFO three days, with the taxpayer footing the bill for travel and hotel costs totalling £98,946. | The committee also condemned the "astounding" working conditions which Alderman agreed for Williamson during her four-year stint at the helm of the SFO, under which her home in the Lake District was designated her place of work. She worked at home two days a week, and travelled to London to work at the SFO three days, with the taxpayer footing the bill for travel and hotel costs totalling £98,946. |
| Richard Bacon, a senior Conservative member of the PAC, said: "The former director Richard Alderman's decisions showed a disregard for the proper use of taxpayers' money and a woefully inadequate grasp of the importance of Managing Public Money, HM Treasury's guidance document on the role of an accounting officer. By deciding the size of severance packages, and not seeking alternative placements for staff, he failed to follow due process. | Richard Bacon, a senior Conservative member of the PAC, said: "The former director Richard Alderman's decisions showed a disregard for the proper use of taxpayers' money and a woefully inadequate grasp of the importance of Managing Public Money, HM Treasury's guidance document on the role of an accounting officer. By deciding the size of severance packages, and not seeking alternative placements for staff, he failed to follow due process. |
| "We welcome the new director's work to strengthen SFO governance and board-level decision-making, which aims to prevent a director from independently taking such actions in future. The new director should also explore all possibilities to minimise the cost to the taxpayer, including requesting that the recipients of special severance payments repay the money." | "We welcome the new director's work to strengthen SFO governance and board-level decision-making, which aims to prevent a director from independently taking such actions in future. The new director should also explore all possibilities to minimise the cost to the taxpayer, including requesting that the recipients of special severance payments repay the money." |
| The report found that Alderman's actions and decisions took place amid "a culture where external advice and scrutiny was to be avoided wherever possible and with an apparent need for secrecy". Green told the committee that, under his predecessor, the SFO used confidentiality clauses in severance agreements and did not maintain records about a promotion awarded to Williamson. | The report found that Alderman's actions and decisions took place amid "a culture where external advice and scrutiny was to be avoided wherever possible and with an apparent need for secrecy". Green told the committee that, under his predecessor, the SFO used confidentiality clauses in severance agreements and did not maintain records about a promotion awarded to Williamson. |
| "This catalogue of errors amounts to a case study in how not to run a public body," said the committee, which urged the Cabinet Office and Treasury to implement safeguards to prevent a repeat of the "debacle". | "This catalogue of errors amounts to a case study in how not to run a public body," said the committee, which urged the Cabinet Office and Treasury to implement safeguards to prevent a repeat of the "debacle". |
| After appearing before the committee in March this year, Alderman wrote them a letter admitting that his actions "fell short of what the committee are entitled to expect from an accounting officer". | After appearing before the committee in March this year, Alderman wrote them a letter admitting that his actions "fell short of what the committee are entitled to expect from an accounting officer". |
| He wrote: "The purpose of this letter is to give you and the other committee members my deep and unreserved apology for the way that I handled these exit agreements. My failure to ensure personally that all of the relevant consents in these important issues had been given and documented fell well short of the standard that the committee are entitled to expect from an accounting officer. | He wrote: "The purpose of this letter is to give you and the other committee members my deep and unreserved apology for the way that I handled these exit agreements. My failure to ensure personally that all of the relevant consents in these important issues had been given and documented fell well short of the standard that the committee are entitled to expect from an accounting officer. |
| "I also apologise for the fact that I did not recognise this until after the hearing. I gave my evidence honestly and in good faith. It was clear though that the committee expected more from an accounting officer than I had done. It was as a result of those strong comments from the committee at the hearing that I reflected at length on what I had done. I came to the conclusion that the committee were right. I am sorry that I did not recognise this earlier and give you my apology at the hearing last Thursday." | "I also apologise for the fact that I did not recognise this until after the hearing. I gave my evidence honestly and in good faith. It was clear though that the committee expected more from an accounting officer than I had done. It was as a result of those strong comments from the committee at the hearing that I reflected at length on what I had done. I came to the conclusion that the committee were right. I am sorry that I did not recognise this earlier and give you my apology at the hearing last Thursday." |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |