COVID corruption commissioner unlikely to recover taxpayers’ money

The appointment of Tom Hayhoe as the UK’s anti-corruption commissioner has been criticized because it is unlikely to result in significant recoveries from taxpayers, according to leading audit and advisory firm Blake Rotenberg.

Fiona Verney, a partner at the firm, questioned the value of the role, especially given the time that had passed since the alleged corruption occurred during the pandemic.

“Four years after the events took place, it is not clear why Rachel Reeves believes this appointment will achieve more than previous investigations, including the 2020 National Audit Office review or the Boardman review in 2021,” Verney said.

Hayhoe’s 12-month term has also been criticized as insufficient for such a complex investigation. Vernie warned that those involved in questionable activities during the pandemic had years to hide evidence, making recovery efforts more difficult.

Although Hayhoe is expected to make recommendations on future government procurement processes during crises, Verney asked what additional insights this could provide beyond existing reviews, including the coronavirus inquiry led by Baroness Heather Hallett and the agency’s ongoing investigations. National Crime in Potential Criminal Offenses Related to Personal Protective Equipment. .

The delay in appointing Hayhoe has also come under scrutiny. Despite being pledged in Labour’s manifesto, it took five months from the formation of their government for the appointment to be finalised, with repeated public promises of an imminent announcement.

Vernie expressed support for efforts to investigate the fraud and recover public funds, but warned that the cost of Hayhoe’s role could outweigh the financial recovery he achieves. “This appointment could easily cost the Treasury more than it will recover, and is unlikely to shed light on any new information,” she said.

These criticisms raise broader questions about the effectiveness of retrospective investigations and the balance between accountability and the cost of pursuing historical cases.