NI Water: Why open government is more than a slogan for the chattering classes
There’s a very sharply observed piece by Denis Bradley in today’s Irish News, which aside from lauding the work of John Dallat and others on the PAC, an intelligent whistle-blower and some fine words about Slugger, he also let’s slip a few fundamental truths about where the blame lies. And it is not with the politicians:
“…it has caught the two governing parties on the hop. They didn’t see it coming. But anyone who has spent a few nights in the company of northern businessmen will have been anything but surprised. The more outspoken businessmen are saying that the real dirt is still to come. These are the businesses who don’t feel they are in the inner circle.”
He goes on to give Sinn Fein a dunt for not employing individuals outside their own trusted circles who could independently scrutinise the work of the departments under their care. That’s an argument that may have some merit, but only so far as it goes.
But… the Minister for Regional Development, every bit as much as any of his Executive colleagues in other parties, is dependent upon and responsible to the ‘permanent government’ (the career senior civil servants who govern the machine on the inside) for most of the information he is expected to officially disseminates to the wider public.
If someone (or even many people) screw up inside that ‘neutral’ machine then the system dictates it is the Minister who bears the brunt of public anger, and not necessarily the people actually responsible for making the mistake(s) in the first place.
The scale and complexity of the evidence that’s been under consideration here on Slugger for the last two months highlights how unreasonable it is for politicians to continue to take the rap when their highly-paid civil servants breach the trust placed in them to do their job in a selfless way.
The terms of reference chosen for the investigation of Paul Priestly probably reflect the shock being felt within the civil service, as much any attempt to unfairly limit further damage. But it says much about the unaccountability of the government machine that this is only the second such suspension in the whole 150 year history of the British Civil Service.
Certainly in the case of NI Water, some of the most senior guardians of the state appear not to understand the complex mathematics of procurement (of which a great deal more anon) and the fine granular detail of what’s involved in contracting private specialists.
And this is before we even get to the almost designed to be unmanageable PPP deals that litter government across these islands.
But back to Bradley, who finishes by getting to the nub of one of the more significant underlying problems in the NI Water:
…this place has been through a lot, and the Brits, the Irish and the EU have and are throwing a lot of money at the problem. How that money is distributed and who gets the contracts to carry out the commissioned work needs to be clear, open and available to everyone – irrespective of who they are or who they know.
The PAC already has something 3000 pieces of paper to get through, furnished from inside various government departments. It will further review evidence from Declan Gormley and Chris Mellor, along with copious documents and information drawn out by FOI from some of the more active members of the committee.
You can be sure that some very stringent questions will be asked at their next open session.
At last at least one of the safeguarding institutions of Stormont has begun to wake to its own responsibilities. In doing so, they must not get distracted by petty party politics, but keep their collective eye firmly and resolutely on the civil service ball, and resist to the end the urge to begin cannibalising one another.
One swallow does not make a summer. Our fledging democrats will have a long way to go after this saga completes itself. But at least some of them have begun to realise they as elected politicians have legislative teeth with which to bite back.
They don’t just have to take it any more.
Topic: Government, Politics, Society and Culture
Region: Northern Ireland
“Anything not included above is excluded from scope. The following is specifically excluded:
EP capital works contracts (subject to a recent audit of EP Procurement in September 2009, limited sample testing on capital expenditure over £0.5m
within that review raising no major findings); and
The method used to evaluate tenders.
This review has not made any legal judgements in relation to compliance with procurement legislation and has only highlighted relevant exceptions as
potential breaches to the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2006.”
“2) Steps will be taken to inform
all relevant stakeholders
including the Board, the
Shareholder and the
Regulator….. Procurement breaches
All issues noted above in 1 – 5 are potentially
breaches of the procurement procedures or the
Financial Delegations policy and are therefore
potentially employee misconduct cases that may
require disciplinary action.
The Chief Executive in conjunction with the Board
should consider if any action is required to be taken up
with the individuals involved in the various procurement
breaches contained in this report.
Agreed. This will be pursued and any
action will be documented.
Responsibility:
Chief Executive
Action Date:
31 March 2010″
Instead they sacked the Board…
PT glad you extracted this line of responsibility
‘they’ being the minister advised by his senior civil servants and, as in the press release ,with the complicity of the new chairman!!!
however the input from rank and file of NIW is stunning and most welcome-
Good spot, PT. I’ll put this January 2010 document on Scribd as I haven’t spotted it on a DRD or Google search.
interested, sometimes the rank and file need external support, especially if they risk put the family income on the line. I did a story on NALIL some time ago that gave parishioners the confidence to question decisions taken by the clergyman and church management; the clergyman has since been given a position in another part of the diocese.
Contracts Approval report on Scribd.
“Background
A recent independent review was commissioned by the Chief Executive into the appointment of Contracting Out LLP to assist with the Steria contract termination. That review highlighted that the appropriate internal and external Shareholder approvals, as required by the delegated authorities set out in the financial delegations policy, had not been obtained. This applied to both the award of the framework contract to Contracting Out LLP under a single
tender action ‘STA’ and the framework schedule for subsequent work in relation to the Steria exit.”
“Date Issued
(v1) 15 January 2010 (draft)
(v2) 21 January 2010 (draft)
(v3) 22 January 2010 (draft)
(v4) 27 January 2010 (final)”
So, the IRT was established on the basis of the second independent internal audit first draft report?
http://applications.drdni.gov.uk/publications/document.asp?docid=18211
“Contracts Approval Review
Addendum Summary – 10th February 2010
Due to the sensitive nature of the Contracts Approval report it has faced detailed scrutiny by the business. As a result, further
information has only been provided by management following issuance of the final report on the 27/01/10. This has resulted in the
following addendum points:
Explanation of addendum items
Appendix 3, item 5, Huber – the nature of the services provided by Huber is actually the same across the M&E,
Wastewater and E&P business areas. This should therefore actually be stated as an STA that should have sought
Shareholder approval;
Appendix 3, item 9, CLN Solutions Ltd – there is a typo error under ‘evidence of tendering / contracts in place’. Should
read ‘no evidence of internal approval for SQI piece of work, however approved business case for internal controls
assignment’. Previously read, ‘internal approval for SQI piece of work, however no approval for internal controls’;
Appendix 4, item 2 table 2, PwC Data Quality Improvement Stage 1 and 2, lack of business case approval – evidence
has subsequently been provided of approval of project at One Programme Board in March 2009. The One Programme
governance is distinct from the ‘BAU’ financial delegations policy and project with spend over £250k requires approval at
One Programme Board rather than by Chief Executive – no longer an exception;
Appendix 4, item 1, Ollave no business case. Procurement have subsequently provided business case that was
produced for novation of the Steria sub contracts and represented that the costs within this included allowance for work
required by Ollave. However, there is still no evidence available of approval of the costs within this business case;
Appendix 3, item 8, NI Computing Ltd – no evidence of STA approval. Evidence subsequently provided that part of
Telemetry projects within the One Programme and expenditure approved through One Programme governance. Not
officially tendered, although evidence of quotes being obtained furnished. However, due to the value this should have
still gone through proper competitive tender exercise; and
Appendix1 and 4, Alaris Consulting Ltd – STA and no evidence of CE approval on business case. Subsequent evidence
provided by IT to demonstrate that CVs received from various organisations and interviews held to select party, therefore
not actually a STA requiring CE approval – no longer an exception.”
PT, I’ve added the February 10 review to the Scribd document and linked to NALIL blog.
medillen, do you think Sammy Wilson, the Minister for Procurement and chairman of the Procurement Board, should be supporting his ministerial colleague re. these procurement issues?
http://www.drdni.gov.uk/newsDetails.htm?newsRef=1306
“Since my last opportunity to update the Committee I have appointed an Interim Chair Padriac White and three new non-executive directors to the Board of NIW on an interim basis. A full public appointments process is expected to commence shortly”
Who can’t count?
Padriac White,
Plus
Mairtin O Muilleor, Peter Bunting, Lawson Mc Donald and Kevin Steele.
Having been involved over many years with tenders for government work, I can tell you that NIW is not alone in its inability to run a proper .i.e. fair/transparent/consistent/ rigorous procurement process. ALL NI government departments/agencies should be examined for their procurement practices. But who should do this? Can we trust them to do it themselves? Not a hope!
again, not wishing to take the focus of todays stunning and very well presented input from “rank and file of NIW” which needs more space for discussion -just for information the annual household water charges in Scotland are £324 and Wales £397. OFWAT does not have control over the max charge in N Ireland-however levied.
http://www.niwater.com/ourboard.asp
“The Board of Northern Ireland Water comprises four Executive and six Non-Executive Directors and provides independent judgement on issues of strategy, performance, governance and executive appointments.^
NIW seems to have got the abacus out.
Well said.
but there is an obvious reason for this… we all have careers/families/mortgages/bills and it is fatal if you raise your head above the parapet… and as the Japanese say “…the highest nail gets hit first…!!!”
Could everybody try once in a while to keep up? Contractor A was hired to advise on the cancellation of the Steria contract. So it was a procurement problem. But hey don’t let the facts get in the way of your conspiracy theories. Is there an Opus Dei link here BTW?
From reading both this and the addendum, it looks very much like an internal control problem, and it looks as if the the internal review was specifically aimed at such.
It happens in every organisation, and whilst 100% compliance is the ideal, it’s not realistic.
Hardly the sinister spin that’s been attached to the above issues.
The method used to evaluate tenders, was excluded from the scope of the review…
PT, I’ve just had a chat with a DRD press officer about the content of the September 1 press release: “Minister Meets With Regional Development Committee”; it appears to have been put together in haste.
Minor points include the misspelling of Padraic (par 6) and a plural object followed by ‘is’ (par 2).
There is a new Chair of the NI Water Board and there are four other new NEDs, not three as stated (par 6) – unless one has done a bunk
The TOR for the Paul Priestly inquiry refer to ‘allegations of irregularities around the awarding of procurement contracts in Northern Ireland Water”. This contrasts sharply with ”governance failures in/at NI Water’ in the DRD press release.
I’m expecting a reply in the very near future from the Shareholder Unit re this August 6 email:
“Can you please list the six NEDs and the respective categories under which each has been appointed to the interim Board?
Were the seven principles of public appointments used in the selection of the candidates, in particular the principle of diversity?
“Diversity
Currently, the make-up of the boards of our public bodies fails to reflect the make-up of our population. The opportunity to appoint the best people is greatly increased when every potential applicant is attracted and encouraged to apply and when individual differences are truly valued. Everyone involved in the public appointments process has a duty to encourage a pool of applicants as diverse as the people of Northern Ireland. By their actions throughout the public appointments process, Departments will demonstrate their commitment to this principle.”
Of the six NEDs, how many would be classified as ‘unionist’ and how many ‘nationalist’?”
The method used to evaluate tenders is suspect – it is at variance with practice elsewhere – and should have been included
Let’s not just highlight NIW procurement practices. All of the government agencies are poorly overseen by the appointed boards in this regard. And we the ‘shareholders’ are paying the price. We have only to look at NIHE and the way it conducts itself – Heating contracts for NIHE houses awarded for a 5 year period have continually been extended this past 4 years without re-tendering!
The prices being paid for the heating schemes in these NIHE houses are double that being paid for providing similar schemes in private dwelling under the DSD (but NIHE administered) Warm Homes schemes – for similar work! Each year that this cosy arrangement continues cost us the taxpayer somewhere in the region of an extra £15m more than it should had the work been re-tendered.
Who is overseeing this? Not to mention the fact that the NIHE appointed consultants policing these high-cost heating schemes are then involved on the other side of the fence as co-contractors benefiting from the Warm Homes scheme! And don’t tell us they didn’t know the cost difference! Sometimes it pays to keep quite. A conflict of interest by any standard. You bet! Incestuous? Favouritism? That would be putting it mildly. Is anyone in DSD checking on all this?