NI Water: Minister failed to pick up Board’s early questions about Dixon?
Okay, another bullish performance from Minister Murphy here on the UTV report, though it is rare to see such a normally competent performer stuck for words in front of a camera.
What’s complicated things for him was the robust nature of the questioning from Conall McDevitt, on the amount of work the Minister did to come to his conclusion that the Independent Review Team was indeed independent.
He reasonably asserts that he cannot be across all the correspondence coming in and going out of the department. But he is also inviting the committee to believe that his former Permanent Secretary either deliberately mislead him (we know he misled the PAC before before admitting that he had Dixon’s letter), or kept him in ignorance to an extraordinary extent.
Adds: Sam McBride asks some pertinent questions in the News Letter this morning..
Is the Minister also asking us to believe that he not see the communication sent to Paul Priestly from the Board questioning the independence of Peter Dixon shortly after the IRT was convened?
At the very least, his own political antennae should have gone up when a CEO of another (but very different) privately owned utility with the potential for a very significant conflictof interest should NI Water ever be privatised was appointed to the IRT.
As we noted some weeks back when Priestly was suspended, it looks like the Minister was sold a pup by his Permanent Secretary to the extent that both he and his party are no longer in a position to work out what’s real and what’s not about the true story of NI Water.
Pure denials of knowledge he should by now have made it his business to find out will not suffice.
What’s perplexing is the extent to which the Minister is continuing with a narrative that is any case substantially falsified by the fact that Dixon was a willing participant in his own Permanent Secretary’s attempt to undermine the investigation of the PAC.
And how can he be certain that all of this is nothing more than – to use his own description from his UTV interview - a side show? Or does he feel so locked in by vested interests that he has no freedom to move independently on any of this?
Topic: Government, Politics
Region: Northern Ireland
PT, you’ve said it much more succinctly than I ever could. These OJEU rules -the exceptions- are what Catherine Thompson, the lawyer, speaks about at length.
It’s worth noting for anyone watching them, there’s an exceptionally helpful power point presentation running alongside the video of the speakers, which sometimes, particularly in the case of Ms. Thompson, simplifies things.
William, succinct ?
If only…
Just trying to do a few things at once, and the brain isn’t up to it at the best of times
‘What was the £28m spent on?’
Stuff that was actually done.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/fresh-fiasco-for–northern-ireland-water–as-pipes-are-wrong-size-14864161.html
Although it isn’t quite clear if it was done RIGHT, first time around.
Kernel of the story: NIW waste half a mill on laying the wrong sized pipes.
Centre of Procurement Excellence, how are you?
See this is where I have a problem.
The DRD is quite happy to utilise “loopholes” in the OJEU for awarding contracts – £6 million in the case of the Rathlin Ferry, but is now “damning” NIW for apparently doing the same?
Splog er it was just over £4 million officailly, unless you are adding in the harbor works that were done to “secure the bid” from Mr O Driscoll, and the cost of the catamaran.
Of course the company was losing so much money apparently within the first 8 weeks of the £4 odd million contract, that they allegedly had to make staff redundant.
(FunnY, how it was the person who presumably raised concerns with NIAO)
So, £6 million might indeed be closer to the mark, as I had also forgotten that DRD decided they were going to pay some of the new company’s insurance or bonds as well, after the tender was awarded….
PT, it’s all being done in the public interest, without the benefit of a consultancy fee
The more information the committees put online the more assistance they can get from concerned taxpayers. Slugger et al provide a useful public service; that’s good for democracy.
Patterns of Failure
PAC has carried out its first thematic investigation and its report was published in June, 2010.
I’m told that it’s keen to hear from anyone who can spot other thematic problems eg in-house investigations rather than more obviously independent ones.
The floor is yours ….
William, has PAC been ‘neutered’ already? Donnelly had already made an appearance during the course of the July 1 ‘grilling’ so it now looks bad for PAC when it can’t continue in the same vein.
David Gilmour CV. He’s currently with BP.
‘I’m told that it’s keen to hear from anyone who can spot other thematic problems’
If PAC are going to hear ‘evidence’ about different issues then I think that one of the ‘thematic problems’ they need to address is that of flawed and in some case totally untrue allegations laid out as solid auditing work by the likes of the NIAO.
They need to re-examine the extent to which investigations by the likes of the DRD and others were what we’ve now come to know as ‘show trials’ and just how groundless or downright flawed or corrupt these were in themselves from the outset.
Although I do think PAC referring to a ‘lack of expertise’ in others (the tables shown via the link) is just taking the piss.
I’ve just been told that ‘the Hansard transcript of Wednesday’s Ctte session will be on the website later today’.
I note the repeated difficulties with project management skills and the PACs assosiated link to economists, accountants and procurement experts.
where are the engineers in the these upper levels – they are the ones with the expertise and skills in these domains
-too many lawyers and economists and not enough engineers
A point well made, interested. Can I suggest you send it on to PAC?
committee.publicaccounts@niassembly.gov.uk
http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/record/committees2010/RegionalDevelopment/100901GovernanceNIWater.htm
The video recording is being chased down and should be online shortly.
its also an issue in other sectors, like telecoms investment
but not close enough to provide anything useful
Weren’t Ernst & Young the long term auditors of NIW? Has anyone asked to see their accumulation of reports as they carried out audit after audit?
Btw ” Mike Scott”
Clever name.
Im sure the Department of Finance, amongst others have been receiving these reports-they appear to have a whole unit there with an emphasis on fraud prevention-separate to NIAO and stakeholders group and counsumer council and…
The Minister 3: “Before I took any action, I met the four directors involved and gave them an opportunity to present to me any issues around the report, how they felt it should be brought forward and what they felt their responsibilities were in relation to it. I gave them an opportunity, in writing and face to face, to present me with their opinions on what should be done.”
Is the Minister’s statement at odds with IIRC claims that the sacked NEDs had no such opportunities?
Here’s a quote from the NIW licence [pdf file] which is relevant to the position of the directors:
“6A5A(a) the composition of the board of directors of the Appointee should be such that the directors, acting as such, are able to act independently of the parent company or controlling shareholder and exclusively in the interests of the Appointee;”
NIW Ltd is the Appointee and, presumably, DRD is the parent company.
You must be joking. I spend my life trying to stop engineers spending money unnecessarily. Get your scope right and then me and my ilk to can contain the commercial chaos engineers leave behind.
E&Y were the internal (outsourced) auditors before NIW built up an internal resource. KPMG continue to be the external auditors.