Water row reveals political weakness

IN THE interest of saving face and restoring trust among its soon-to-be paying customers, Irish Water is expected to provide some clarity on how it spent €50m on outside consultants in its back to back committee appearances over then next 48 hours.

But while some of the issues around the utility company might be put to bed for now, outstanding questions will linger about the political system itself that allowed such spending to go on un-noticed, but for the astute questioning of RTÉ’s Sean O’Rourke.

The way the information came to light and the reaction of ministers since, highlights the dysfunctional nature of the Oireachtas system which the coalition had so boldly promised to “overhaul” to bring about more accountability and transparency.

The issues that will be put under the spotlight today at the Environment Committee, and tomorrow at the Public Accounts Committee, are issues that should have been examined when the legislation setting up Irish Water was discussed.

On Nov 5, Labour backbencher, Kevin Humphreys submitted a parliamentary question asking the minister “the amount that has been spent by Irish Water on consultancy services in 2013 and if he will indicate the companies or persons involved”.

The response, from junior minister, Fergus O’Dowd, said the spending was “a matter for Bord Gáis/Irish Water and these costs are not being funded from the exchequer”.

A similar question was put down on Nov 19, when Fianna Fáil’s environment spokesman, Barry Cowen, asked for information on “the consultants that have been hired by Irish Water to date; the length of their engagement and the total costs to date and the final estimated cost”.

Again, Mr O’Dowd said that “expenditure on the programme, including consultancy, is an operational matter for Irish Water”, but that he would ask the company to liaise directly with Mr Cowen.

The question arose again in the Seanad, on Dec 4 when the legislation setting up the agency was being discussed.

Mr O’Dowd said that, “as for the question of consultants and how much they will cost and who they are, the key point is that any cost placed on the cost of water will be imposed by the regulator and such costs must be placed there transparently”.

He said: “There is no question of there being hidden costs.”

A week later, as the coalition were busy celebrating their, “single biggest achievement” and “very significant milestone” of exiting the bailout, the final stages of the legislation setting up water charges was rushed through the Oireachtas.

On the day of the bailout exit itself, there was some heated discussion in the Seanad, including some confusion over whether the service would be subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

Sinn Féin senator David Cullinane proposed an amendment to the bill that would explicitly state that the company was subject to the act. It was his understanding from speaking to Mr Dowd that “only in the initial establishment of Irish Water that the Freedom of Information Act does not apply but that once it is up and running, it will apply”.

Mr O’Dowd said it was “not a matter for the minister for the environment, but for the minister for public expenditure and reform”.

He said: “I understand the inclusion of Irish Water under this legislation will be further considered by that minister.

“That is as far as I can go.”

There was little clarity on whether it would be subject to the FoI Act, and zero answers on the cost of consultant contracts, when the legislation was rushed through the Dáil with just four hours of debate, on the final day of sitting before Christmas.

Answers to these questions might be drawn out of Irish Water boss, John Tierney, when he is questioned by TDs and senators today.

But by then, the entire debacle will have made a mockery of the Programme for Government promise to “radically overhaul the way Irish politics and government work”.