Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

Over the lifetime of the Government a number of serious concerns have been raised about probity and accountability. Today I want to discuss yet another which I believe merits scrutiny. This is the awarding of the call centre work for Irish Water to the Cork-based company Abtran. The Tánaiste will recall that Abtran got the contract for the Student Universal Support Ireland, SUSI, grant system, and came under serious criticism, and rightly so, for its failings. It cost an additional almost €6 million. Despite this, it went on to be awarded the property tax contract and Revenue had to step in because initially it failed to cope. After both of these high-profile failings it was awarded the call centre work for Irish Water. We know that Abtran has at least ten other Government and public contracts. One of the criteria for the tendering process for the Irish Water contract was the company had to have a turnover of €20 million for the preceding three years. Given that Abtran had a number of lucrative State contracts prior to the Irish Water contract, the State certainly improved Abtran's ability to meet the criteria laid down in the process. What is interesting is how the contract was awarded and the obvious questions it raises about probity and the awarding of the contract.

Through freedom of information I have established that on 15 February 2012 the private secretary of the then Minister, Phil Hogan, received a fairly informal e-mail seeking a meeting with "Phil" to lobby on behalf of Abtran. On the same day at 5 p.m. an e-mail was sent stating the Minister had agreed to meet the company. On 27 February of the same year we know from Gavin Sheridan's publication of the Minister's diary that the Minister met the person who sent the original lobbying e-mail, Mr. O'Byrnes, and the co-owner of Abtran. In March 2013 the company was awarded the contract.

The Irish Water call centre contract is lucrative. It is worth approximately €50 million over four years. We know through freedom of information that one of the key criteria for the firm to which the contract would be awarded was to have a proven track record. I presume this means a good proven track record. Given the criteria, is the Tánaiste satisfied that despite the very public failings of Abtran on SUSI and the property tax that it was still awarded an extremely lucrative contract by the State? Is she aware that in late 2015, a State investment vehicle invested an undisclosed sum of money in Abtran? Does she know what the money was for and how much it was? Is she concerned about what appears to be the favouring of Abtran for Government funds?

See this speech in context