NI Water Timeline: “Administrative procedures are the responsibility of management…”
I’ve been working on a timeline of the NI Water story just to try and put some of the material we have into some kind of objective order… I’ve gone for completion rather than trying to hone in on any one aspect… However a number of things jump out…
- One is how long Priestly is in post before any of the problems identified by MacKenzie emerge (Hansard also tells us Nicola Brennan conducted three successive audits without finding them either).
- Two, how at the most critical stages in the development of this story MacKenzie chooses (presumably because NI Water meet DRD 80 times a year, whilst he only meets his own Board 10 times) to keep Priestly in the loop before his own chair.
- And three, intriguingly the manic flurry of activity only begins once MacKenzie threatens to resign… Priestly literally convenes the IRT overnight, and produces that set of conveniently ‘gerrymandered’ references…
For those of you with the patience, it is worth going directly to Dawn Purvis’s taut line of questioning (almost 4/5 of the way down the page) in the last PAC session. But, it seems to me, she neatly wraps up the grand deception (if deception it was) in this paragraph from Hansard:
I do not see, and neither has it been explained clearly, where four non-executive directors are culpable for those alleged failures in governance; I see breaches in administrative procedures, which are the responsibility of a management team.
I cannot find where there have been failures in governance, particularly as the independent review team reported that the frameworks and the appropriate approvals were in place and that the board had received assurances from the executive team that it had been informed properly and fully.
Under interrogation Priestly uses a classic dog-ate-my-homework excuse when he is asked precisely what changes he demanded from the IRT report “I thought that I had that information with me”, but he doesn’t ante up. Anyway, here’s the time line (more anon):
- 3 December 2007 – Paul Priestly is appointed Permanent Secretary of the Department for Regional Development.
October 2008 – NI Water is designated as a Non Departmental Government Body: as Lian Patterson put “it [initially] was reclassified for public expenditure purposes only and for all other areas all other “.
February 2009 – Laurence McKenxie interview for NI Water CEO’s job
7th April 2009 – Conor Murphy confirms the reappointment of all Board members…
28th July 2009 – Laurence McKenzie is appointed…
10th August 2009 – McKenie discovers one contract, which in his view did not represent particularly good value for money.
15th September 2009 – Laurence McKenzie designated as NIW Accounting Officer by DRD Permanent Secretary. This fundamentally changes the CEO’s relation to the Board and to Mr Priestly who now becomes his line manager.
September 2009 – Nicola Brennan publishes Internal Audit Report highlighting process isssues requiring moderate improvement. There is no mention of any Procurement Breaches.
September 2009 – DFP issue Exemplar status to NI Water in procurement practices.
27th October 2010 – McKenzie brings breaches to the Board who instruct him to conduct an Internal Audit Review.
Tuesday, 12th January 2010 – McKenzie receives a copy of Brennan’s ‘contract approvals audit’.
Friday, 15th January 2010 – McKenzie calls a meeting of the executive management.
Monday, 18th January 2010 – McKenzie circulates a summary report to the Board (in a two page email) and later that morning to the accounting officer (ie, the Permanent Secretary) in DRD. At 9-40am he tenders his resignation.
Tuesday, 19th January 2010 – Priestley decides to form an Independent Review Team (IRT) and advises Chairman he is setting up the IRT and informs him who will be on panel.
Wednesday, 20th January 2010 – The IRT is assembled and has its first meeting with the Permanent Secretary. McKenzie at a 10-30am meeting and in response to a question from Chairman Chris Mellor confirms he still intends to resign. Then withdraws his resignation that evening around 5-30pm in message left on Chairman’s mobile.
Thursday, 21st January – Just after midnight, Priestley writes to Gary Fair, Head of the Shareholder Unit reporting back from meeting with IRT and also asking him for clarification of what they might need to sack Directors. Later in the day, the Board gets sight of a full copy of Brennan’s Audit Report (note that McKenzie has it from the 12th January).
Friday, 22nd January – After a day spent trying to speak to the Permanent Secretary, Mellor emails Priestley confirming the shift in McKenzie’s decision on the Wednesday. He further notes that the whole board (including Price, but minus Gormley) is in favour sustaining the resignation.
Saturday, 23rd January – McKenzie confirms that he has taken legal advice that he is entitled to withdraw his resignation because the board had not accepted it in writing.
Monday, 25th January 2010 – The board (minus Gormley) meets formally in Belfast to consider Brennan’s internal audit in detail. The IRT starts work at some point during this week.
Monday, 15th February – IRT submits the first draft (v1) of its report. On this same date Paul Priestley confirms to NI Water’s Chairman that Peter Dixon and Laurence McKenzie had met on 5th February. The Permanent Secretary does not believe this brings into “question the independence of the review”.
Tuesday, 16th February – McKenzie accepts the report is factually correct.
Wednesday, 17th February – 8.30 Priestly writes to the IRT suggesting that they should not feel constrained by the (already Gerrymandered) Terms of Reference.
Thursday, 18th February – At some point during the day, the IRT submits their second draft (v2).
Friday, 19th February 2010 – Don Price complains in an email about “how the IRT [seem] determined to find Governance failures by the Board rather than working with the Board to ensure the necessary corrective actions”.
Monday, 22nd February – Deadline for comments on submissions on v2 of the report.
Thursday, 25th February 2010 – Final draft is published.
Thursday, 11th March 2010 – On the advice of Paul Preistly (and Lian Patterson) four of five Non Executive Directors are sacked by email.. Don Price, chair of the Board’s audit committee, is retained after agreeing to implement the IRT report and agree to “terms”. Terms which, so far as we understand, have not yet been disclosed to the PAC.
Monday, 15th March 2010 – Minister Conor Murphy makes a statement to the house naming two members of the Executive Management group – George Butler (Asset Management) and Ronan Larkin (Finance & Regulation) – will be investigated. Neither have direct oversight of procurement.
Monday, 28th June 2010 – PAC rejects Chris Mellor’s offer to give oral evidence to the committee’s hearing and asks instead for him to lodge written material instead. It cites a convention of only calling Accounting Officers.
Wednesday, 30th June 2010 – Minister appoints an interim set of four Non Executive Directors by an emergency process, three months after the original sacking.
Thursday, 1st July 2010 – PAC cross examines MacKenzie and Permanent Secretary Priestly…
Friday, 2nd July 2010 – It is believed that two more members of NI Water senior management team are being investigated in the wake of the PAC meeting…
Monday, 5th July 2010 – Peter Dixon, a member of the IRT and CEO of Phoenix Gas, writes to the Chair of the PAC complaining about the manner in which the PAC conducted its interrogation.. John Dallat and Patsy McGlone respond by writing to the Phoenix Board and their private equity owners asking if Dixon’s attack is a reflection of the management and owners.
Monday, 19th July 2010 – The Chair of Phoenix Gas and former Head of the NI Civil Service Gerry Loughran writes back to John Dallat explaining that Mr Dixon has “very limited knowledge of the Assembly’s accountability processes” and that having had this explained to him by the Board, Dixon now withdraws his letter.
As a footnote, we have an unconfirmed report that Deloitte are now reinvestigating the deep dive report that the IRT (including their senior partner Jackie Henry used to base their findings on. If they are, it would be useful to find out whether they are funding that themselves or being paid out of the public purse. (Not to mention whether Phoenix Gas continued to pay their CEO during the pro bono period of nearly a month he gave to the working of the IRT).
In any case, any such investigation by Deloitte cannot touch the purpose to which the redrafted report was put by the Permanent Secretary (and his Deputy Lian Patterson): ie the recommendation to his minister that a Board – which demonstrably had no direct responsibility for the problem in hand – be sacked.
Topic: Government
Region: Northern Ireland
Excellent work Mick!!
It certainly raises a lot of questions, one of them being why was Mc Kenzie informed two days into the job that he was going to be made accounting officer, and why was this not
discussed prior to taking up the post, say as part of the recruitment process, or at least at interview stage?
“On my second day in post, Mr Priestly made me aware that he intended to appoint me as
accounting officer. I did not really know what an accounting officer was. I had to do some fast
reading to understand what my responsibilities were. I realised quickly that I would carry
personal responsibility. I took that very seriously”
A further point on this, at the time of letting the contract who was the Accounting Officer for NIW?
Was the Chair and Acting Chief Exec the AO or the Sub Accounting officer. There is a critical difference. If he was a Sub Accounting Officer then the Perm Sec in DRD as AO was responsible for the processes and for assuring himself directly that the governance systems were appropriate AND were functioning correctly
‘- 28th June 2010 – PAC rejects Chris Mellor’s offer to give oral evidence to the committee’s hearing and asks instead for him to lodge written material instead. It cites a convention of only calling Accounting Officers.’
This would certainly appear to be ‘convention’, as it isn’t the first time it has occurred.
But it raises two points.
One, it used to be ‘convention’ to stick small boys up chimneys. Did we continue doing it or challenge those conventions? Are the PAC saying that everything is set in stone, and nothing can ever be changed within the broad framework of their existence?
Two, more importantly, PAC seem to ignore ‘conventions’ when it suits their purposes, such as the ‘standards in public life’, which appear to have been breached, and acknowledged as breached, by the main suspects. I believe that PAC have questions to answer regarding the apparent hypocrisy in their position, which appears to change according to who is on the stand.
I’m exceptionally keen to hear Mr. Mellor’s side of the story (aka ‘the truth’) and see where this leaves Priestly, McKenzie and the PAC.
Thanks Mick, the water is clearing slightly so to speak.
‘One is how long Priestly is in post before any of the problems identified by MacKenzie emerge (Hansard also tells us Nicola Brennan conducted three successive audits without finding them either).’
This point is core.
Could it be that audits didn’t reveal any issues because no issues existed?
It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that problems were simply produced for…what purpose?
Presumably, beyond Nicola Brennan’s ‘failure’ to find the non-existent(?), NIAO also signed off NIW’s accounts without identifying issues.
Either there were issues or there weren’t. If there were, then NIW’s own Audit team, and the NIAO’s Audits need to be put under the spotlight as both having ‘failed’. If there were no issues in the past, how did ‘issues’ only come to light more recently with the same chap praised by the Minister subsequently hung out to dry?
I have my own theory on this one.
go on willie tell us!
It would we great to hear Chris Mellors account of events, is he on record anywhere with a response?
“It would we great to hear Chris Mellors account of events, is he on record anywhere with a response”
I think that for any type of clarity we NEED their side of the story.
At present the timeline might indicate that perhaps McKenzie at least was acting in “good faith”.
or did he panic and over re-act to a minor issue?
“28th July 2009 – Laurence MacKenzie is appointed…”
Mick, surely that’s the date he moved into his new office. He was appointed the previous April.
Equally is it possible that DRD civil servants panicked at the thought of another CEO of NIW resigning, and instead decided to rid themselves of the Board who had now confirmed “no confidence” in the CEO.
This was before the IRT was convened, and the TOR defined.
PT, it would appear that those at the recent July 1 PAC meeting were unfamiliar with the Hillyard IWRP Strand 2 report [28 Jan 2008] as the latter refers to the roles of the two accounting officers:
2.31 We believe that these concerns can be resolved through the leadership role of the Minister and through his accountability to the Assembly. As stated above, the Department operates under the direction and control of the Minister. As long as NIW remains in the public sector it will require a sponsoring Department and a senior civil servant to take on the role of Accounting Officer, alongside the Chief Executive as Accounting Officer in NIW. Where there is tension – for example between social and environmental priorities – it is the Minister’s responsibility to reconcile them, in consultation as appropriate with his Executive colleagues. The function of the Department is to advise and support him. …
22. The Permanent Secretary is personally answerable to the Assembly for the Department’s use of public funds, including money allocated to NIW: he has designated the Chief Executive as the Accounting Officer for NIW, who is answerable for the use of public money within the company.”
Far be it from me to pedantic Nevin, but Mc Kenzie was actually appointed in March 2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7939297.stm
In the private sector the Head of Communications would be central to evaluating how such announcements/matters might be presented and the ‘impact’ of actions/options. FOI might be useful there to understand the communication between the Head of Comms and the Chairman/CEO, and also with DRD talking to the head press/media/comms people there. Think the Head of Comms once worked for the Parades Commission, so his take on transparency and accountability in such high profile public/political situations might be?
Drumlin,
I’d love to tell you about another case that replicates the shenanigans in this one to a remarkable degree.
I would be in a position to name names on that one, but I think Mick would not be best pleased with that action, so for now, in this forum, at least until that issue raises itself here or elsewhere in public, I’m afraid I HAVE to keep my powder dry.
The instant it attracts some public interest (if ever) I’m in a position to point certain people in a certain direction, regarding names.
Mr MacKenzie:
I say that coming from an environment where there had been robust controls and where procurement was taken seriously and was approved at the appropriate level. Therefore, I believe that the culture in the company was that it believed that it had been freed of its shackles.
“One of the things that surprised me was a reluctance to engage with the Department; I was told from early on to keep it at arm’s length. I recall a non-executive colleague telling me to watch them. He told me a story about the frog that boiled: they will make the water nice and warm for you and keep making it warmer and warmer; you will get friendly with them until one day they boil you; therefore do not tell them too much”
Might it be possible that MacKenzie felt that he would be held personally accountable for any failings and indeed
” I realised quickly that I would carry
personal responsibility. I took that very seriously”.
Could Mr MacKenzie, indeed have felt like that frog, and as a result tendered his resignation before he was er “pushed”?
“Mr Priestly:
Laurence had been with the company for a couple of months; he had uncovered this and brought it to my attention and I was shocked when he did. He told me that he had resigned. I asked him the reasons why he had resigned, and I said to him: “This is foolish, Laurence; it is you who are uncovering this malpractice.” I assured him that I would take the matter seriously and that we would put in place an independent review that would quickly produce a report to get to the bottom of the affair.
On that basis and with my agreement, he decided to try to withdraw his resignation. The board of Northern Ireland Water contacted me to say that it was minded to refuse to allow him to withdraw his resignation. I said that, if the board did that, I would get the Minister to get Mr MacKenzie kept on the board and that Mr MacKenzie could not be allowed to resign.Mr McLaughlin:
That is very interesting, but I want to finish the point. I take some reassurance from the support that you offered to Mr MacKenzie. However, you reported to your board that you had uncovered a very serious issue, but the board did not support you. Is that not what provoked your resignation? When you offered your resignation the board accepted it, but now Mr Priestly tells us that some board members said that they were of a mind not to accept your retraction. It is a very interesting little sequence, is it not?
Mr Priestly:
May I develop the point? The chairman and other members of the board approached me and said that I was overreacting. My reaction was that they did not seem to understand the seriousness of the matter: public money was involved and what happened should not have happened. However, I could not persuade them of that.”
Paul Priestly
“I assured him that I would take the matter seriously and that we would put in place an independent review that would quickly produce a report to get to the bottom of the affair.”
That’s a very telling statement i.e would getting to the ” bottom of the affair” not actually be the priority rather than producing ” a report” and surely why did it need to be done so “quickly”?
‘- 19th February 2010 – Don Price complains in an email about “how the IRT [seem] determined to find Governance failures by the Board rather than working with the Board to ensure the necessary corrective actions”.’
Exactly. Working to an agenda set by….???
It seems wholly clear that the purpose in assembling the IRT is to work to that ‘gerrymandered’ framework of investigation under discussion.
Judging by the actions of certain individuals, it appears that we need only look in one direction for the individual with a particular agenda -to create a few ‘victims’.
Of course, this isn’t unique to the NIW issue. It’s wholly apparent that the DRD, and key figures within it, were also determined to create a few ‘victims’ in the context of the Rathlin Island ferry debacle.
Right now, the question is ‘why?’. What’s the purpose on embarking on a one-man crusade, slash and burn, mixed metaphor ‘war’?
What’s the satisfaction in it? Clearly, judging from recent performances, it isn’t the triumph of good over evil. Recent performances have suggested a certain economy with the truth, and there’s some brass neck involved to turn in a piss-poor performance like that without blushing or feeling ashamed.
So…tough it out. But there is some sort of deeper lying malaise at the heart of it.
I can’t see any value in it other than the personal satisfaction of generous remuneration from others currently not being investigated for contract breaches.
‘he had uncovered this and brought it to my attention and I was shocked when he did.’
What, exactly, had he ‘uncovered’?
All very John Le Carre in its language, but essentially we’re taking ONE contract that McKenzie -and McKenzie alone- did not regard as ‘good value for money’.
He has looked at figures on a page, and maybe a specification that, on paper, doesn’t look right. Did he ask for details from the contractor as to why costs were high? And regarding costs, whose figures are we going on as to what represents ‘value for money’?
A consultant’s? McKenzie’s own assessment of a fair price? We need to know.
That’s the problem with these theoreticians who have never done a proper day’s work in their lives. It’s all reduced to a pile of figures on a page, and no real grasp of what real work entails or where costs can mount.
‘Uncovered’? Even that language is couched in ‘fraud’ type overtones. He looked at an invoice, the same way anyone else in NIW could have done. And did. And appear to have been totally nonplussed about.
McKenzie needs to outline the contract under discussion, the costs involved, and we need to hear from the contractor as to how those costs stacked up.
It would also be interesting to see if the likes of McKenzie have ever looked at invoices from the perspective of contractors providing ‘excellent value for money’ and reporting it. The culture appears to be that everyone is on the take, at all times, and in all circumstances. Which isn’t remotely true. Many (most?) contractors offer excellent service and value for money, but we never hear of these theoreticians uncovering that, do we? I wonder why that is?
Maybe poor Laurence had heard how DRD normally treats whistleblowers…
I wonder if perhaps he mentioned that he had gone to his “chum” Peter, and by way of reassurance it was suggested that Peter form part of the IRT, just so that Laurence could be convinced that they were not out to get *him*. Of course it helped that Peter and Paul already knew each other, with Northern Ireland being such a “small place” and with Peter being a NED on Belfast Harbour Commission.
Ah, yes.
Reassurances from the IRT.
I’m sure that such matters were never discussed. After all, such issues might lead to accusations of gerrymandering the framework of this ‘independent’ review who tellingly appear to have been instructed to produce at haste, rather than forensically.
‘Maybe poor Laurence had heard how DRD normally treats whistleblowers…’
Anonymously?
Six phase of a big project:
1. Enthusiasm,
2. Disillusionment,
3. Panic and hysteria,
4. Search for the guilty,
5. Punishment of the innocent
6. Praise and honour for the nonparticipants.
How much that amusing little vignette is reflected in the repeated actions of the DRD.
But surely then MacKenzie would have immediately informed Paul, that Peter was in fact his “chum”, and that his inclusion in the IRT would “certainly give(s) rise to a perception” of a conflict of interest?
Paul and Peter with their vast knowledge of accountability and transparency would have realised that Peter should not have formed part of the IRT, and Paul would have looked elsewhere.
Paul Priestly:
“You work with people believing that they are being professional and have high integrity, but I have to tell the Committee that, at various points during this affair, we four witnesses have felt exposed and vulnerable. I have found myself having to give support to Laurence, Lian and Nicola. I have found myself going to the Comptroller and Auditor General for support and asking whether I am doing the right thing, and, thankfully, I am being encouraged that I am doing the right thing.
It has been difficult for the people who thought that they were doing the right thing to feel that we are not and that we are almost victimised. I am not looking for your sympathy, but it has been tough.”
Aw my heart bleeds Mr Priestly… Where was the support for others uncovering ” an inept process”? I don’t recall any particular support for the “witnesses” there.
Two little dickie birds….
Another point on this. The Assembly was reconstituted in MA 2007. So if the errant contracts had been in existence for 3 years that means they were let in 2006 under Direct Rule by the NIO.
So why is the PAC in London not dealing with this?
Peter, Paul and Larry.
There’s a folk group in it. Songs like ‘Golden Vanity’, ‘Best of Friends’, ‘Delivery Delayed’, ‘Don’t laugh at me’, ‘Have you been to jail for Justice’, ‘Take off your Mask’, ‘Sweet Survivor’ and ‘Whsipered Words’.
‘I have found myself going to the Comptroller and Auditor General for support’
Holy f***!!!!! See what I mean about the ‘independent’ NIAO?
What errant contracts, Cynic?
All we have so far is that Priestly claims McKenzie ‘uncovered’ something that HE didn’t think was right.
Based on what we know, I think we’re entitled to ask questions about this so-called ‘errant contract’.
You’re right. Three years. NIW’s Internal Auditor apparently found nothing. The previous board found nothing. The NIO found nothing. The NIAO reported nothing.
So what, exactly, is the ‘errant contract’? One man’s personal opinion that it didn’t represent ‘value for money’. From where I’m stood, that’s not any real basis for ‘fraud’ or wrongdoing. It’s just a personal opinion. And, until we hear otherwise, not a very sound personal opinion. The performance in front of PAC suggests not very sound judgement. So why can’t he find out about this contract and have its ‘value for money’ independently -properly independently- assessed?
I still like the Elvis tribute best
http://www.ents24.com/web/artist/59201/Paul_Priestlys_Elvis_Tribute.html
I appreciate the correction, PT.
“I got an e-mail
from an individual who worked in the organisation that stated that that person wanted to award a
named individual the contract continuation for 2010-11, which was 130 days at £775 a day”
But still cheaper than what they paid out for Independent Review
“Is it true that you paid one person £1,100 a day, another
£800 a day and that £350 was thrown in for secretarial expenses?
Ms Patterson:
Those rates are correct. The rate of £1,100 a day was £400 cheaper than the government
procurement framework rate.
Mr Dallat:
It was a real bargain.
Ms Patterson:
The framework was £1,500 a day.”
Um something there isn’t computing with me…
“Mr Hilditch:
It has been flagged up to me recently that the jungle drums are out. I hope that nothing is hiding round the corner.”
Indeed.
I have found myself going to the Comptroller and Auditor General for support and asking whether I am doing the right thing, and, thankfully, I am being encouraged that I am doing the right thing.
FAO Mr Priestly
Re: Doing the Right Thing
Click Here
The issue isn’t the quantum. It is the process and what was delivered for the quantum.
First it seems there was no competition for the contract and, it is alleged, parties had a former connection with NIW. That needs to be explored.
Second is that, unless there was a lawful route to procure that service by single tender and it looks as though there wasn’t,
1 as a public sector body NIW was bound by EU and UK procurement law and there should have been a full European procurement process. As there wasn’t, any interested party disadvantaged has a right to sue and to compensation for breach of the law. The normal level of compensation is the value of the contract paid to every disadvantaged competitor
2 as a public body NIW was bound to secure VFM and it is alleged that it didn’t. That very much depends on what was delivered for the cash. It also seems odd for a consultant to be paid a success fee of 3% for ‘identifying’ cost savings without them having to be realised in any way
Cynic,
Does it not depend on the type of service eg Part A or Part B, and the value?
It’s interesting to hear Priestly pontificate about the need for transparency, accountability, bad practice, the need for competition etc.
In fact it’s pretty damn ironic, given the responses given to the European Commission by his department around the time he was getting so “shocked” about what went on at NIW.
Yes …but my understanding is that this one at this value might normally be a full OJEC process. I stand to be corrected though
The thing is Cynic, we do need greater clarity on the issues, but my hunch is that these issues would never have seen the light of day, had Mr MacKenzie not tendered his resignation over this, the subsequent vote of no confidence and the then hastily arranged IRT.
It’s not like DRD to actually invite such litigation, and indeed seem to do their “best” to cover such issues up.
Or are they safe in the knowledge that such litigation is now time barred under EU law? (Six months?)
However, one assumes that proceedings could be brought under misfeasance and perhaps malfeasance…
“It has been flagged up to me recently that the jungle drums are out. I hope that nothing is hiding round the corner.”
He should start worrying when the jungle drums stop.
That’s when certain people get eaten alive (and I guess there’s probably quite a bit of meat on an Elvis impersonator)
PAC v NIW – January 2008 [Priestly not long in post and questions responded to by Sterling]
“23. A specific area of concern is the revelation that DFP guidance does not apply to Northern Ireland Water (NIW). Although DRD indicated that it had impressed upon NIW the importance of operating in the spirit of the guidance, this is of little comfort to the Committee as is the comment by the DRD Accounting Officer that “it more or less owns the company”. It has subsequently emerged that the company has already spent the astounding figure of £16 million on consultancy in the first 6 months of 2007-08.
Recommendation 6
24. It is important that there is full clarity about the position of Northern Ireland Water (NIW). DRD completely owns the company and the Northern Ireland taxpayers pick up the bill for any failure to ensure value for money in NIW. The Committee therefore recommends that DFP guidance should apply in full to NIW’s use of consultants.”
‘First it seems there was no competition for the contract and, it is alleged, parties had a former connection with NIW. That needs to be explored.’
Sometimes, there won’t be competition for contracts. All of this hinged on what work the contract entailed.
Supplying envelopes? Then no competition smells (although a further case could be made for the cost of advertising a contract exceeding any money ‘lost’ on envelopes being marginally more expensive than from supplier B or C).
But let’s assume the contract is for steeplejack asbestos removal, or some other highly specialised work. For one, there’s no competition because maybe one company in all of Ireland or the UK can do that work. And in that case the company write their own cheque and McKenzie can drone on all he wishes about ‘value for money’. Theoretically,’ the work needs to be done, and that’s what you’re paying us to do it’.
I don’t expect desk jockeys like Priestly or McKenzie to grasp these realities of business, though.
This isn’t new or confined practice, incidentally. While construction companies for certain public authorities are subjected to the rigours of application for three year contracts, flooring contractors are not subjected to the hourly rate set down by that authority and essentially write their own cheque and have done for many, many years.
And, incidentally, a senior management figure in that same public authority took it upon himself, a few years ago, to get new windows fitted to one of that authorities buildings, selected a contractor, and issued a series of £1000 small works orders to avoid the nasty business of public tender. The public authority closed the building in question two years later.
Brown envelopes and a very close working relationship? You bet it was.
Did the NIAO uncover this sharp practice? No. What a shocker.
Are that supplier and manager still enjoying an extremely close relationship, work wise? Yes.
Does that manager’s wife hold a position that might be construed as ‘conflict of interest’ as regards their pillow talk?
I have all the names, incidentally. Proving it is another thing. I know I only need suspicion to approach the NIAO as a whistleblower but, frankly, their track record on this is piss poor, and I’m not prepared to give them this info.
It’s best, I think, that the manager and his wife should continue to enjoy holidays at what is, essentially, taxpayers money hoovered away by the contractor they enjoy this close relationship with.
Call crimestoppers or the bbc or utv
But let’s assume the contract is for steeplejack asbestos removal, or some other highly specialised work
Like a ferry service for example? I believe that indeed EU rules allowed them to call for a “simple expression of interest” for small island ferry services.
Problem being that (cough, cough) DRD actually allegedly undertook a competitive tendering process..
Cynic
As one award winning journalist replied “but to what end?”
“I have all the names, incidentally. Proving it is another thing. I know I only need suspicion to approach the NIAO as a whistleblower but, frankly, their track record on this is piss poor, and I’m not prepared to give them this info.”
With hindsight, I wouldn’t bother either…
“You work with people believing that they are being professional and have high integrity, but I have to tell the Committee that, at various points during this affair, we four witnesses have felt exposed and vulnerable. I have found myself having to give support to Laurence, Lian and Nicola. I have found myself going to the Comptroller and Auditor General for support and asking whether I am doing the right thing, and, thankfully, I am being encouraged that I am doing the right thing.
It has been difficult for the people who thought that they were doing the right thing to feel that we are not and that we are almost victimised. I am not looking for your sympathy, but it has been tough.”
Did it apply to DRD in January 08?
I “can find no evidence” to suggest that they were at least “operating in the spirit of the guidance”
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/LSEPublicPolicy/pdf/The%20National%20Audit%20Office,%20the%20Public%20Accounts%20Committee%20and%20the%20risk%20landscape%20in%
‘Call crimestoppers or the bbc or utv’
Unless there’s some femme fatale shagging a young fella, I expect there’s not much mileage in it for them.
Are any of the above bodies covering themselves in glory regarding NIW? Or the Rathlin Island ferry?
‘I have found myself going to the Comptroller and Auditor General for support ‘
Collusion. It’s not an illusion.
Exactly like a ferry service, PT.
Of course, Priestly crying like a baby to the NIAO is just, apart from being a laugh on its own terms, a stark reminder of the man’s naked hypocrisy.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/LSEPublicPolicy/pdf/The%20National%20Audit%20Office,%20the%20Public%20Accounts%20Committee%20and%20the%20risk%20landscape%20in%20UK%20public%20policy.pdf
5.7 (paraphrasing) If NAO are seen to encourage blame culture, it might inhibit riskier strategies that produce value for money in the long term.
Indeed.
Have desk jockeys like McKenzie or Priestly got the necessary skills to recognise such strategies? Or are they rather more concerned in scaling the greasy pole of ‘look at me!!!!’ public sector employment, where their agenda appears to be making a name for themselves as big fellas?
Again, it would be interesting, in fact it’s vital, that we hear Chris Mellor’s testimony on this matter, to determine the extent of self-serving by those in the DRD, or Water Board.
Surely we can catch a quick word when they come off the back nine?
3.5 All VFM reports must be agreed (word for word) prior to publication by the C&AG and
the Accounting Officer for the department concerned, normally the Permanent Secretary
(Roberts and Pollitt, 1994). The rationale for this clearance process is that factual
disagreements cannot go before the PAC, but only a fully agreed report. Clearance can often
be a very fraught process, where the department disagrees with NAO’s judgements. It can
also be very time consuming, with many multiple redrafts, as departments seek to dull the
critiques, or to dispute the findings of NAO reports. Sharma (2007) gives an in depth report
of this process, discussing how a 2002 NAO VFM report into Waste Reduction was altered
between draft stage and final publication:
‘