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?

My understanding of the SUSI development, which is the online system for students to get college grants, is the contract was actually awarded to the City of Dublin VEC, which subsequently became the City of Dublin Education and Training Board. It made the arrangements on how what was a new and very ambitious computer-based application system would be delivered. As the Deputy knows, contracts in Ireland are governed by Irish and European contract law. SUSI was a very new system established for a large number of students applying for student grants. Approximately 50% of students who go to college in Ireland get full or partial student grants, so we are talking about a lot of people. For years, until my colleague, the former Minister, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, set about mandating that a new system be established, the complaint had been that many students did not get their grants until months into their college courses. There was general agreement that this should be addressed.

There were definitely teething problems, which we read about, but the City of Dublin VEC, subsequently the ETB, was available to Oireachtas committees on a repeat basis to go through everything on SUSI. I am happy to say the SUSI system of college grant applications is now deemed to be one of the best new systems installed by any Irish Government. The Deputy probably knows from the university in her constituency that the feedback from students' unions, parents and individual students is that college grants are now paid on time. The overall SUSI project has worked extremely well despite teething problems.

The Revenue Commissioners are responsible for the administration of the property tax, and I can only go on their reports that there is a very high level of compliance with the property tax, and that it has worked in a very efficient and very effective way.

The Deputy asked for information on sub-elements of the contract. The Government has introduced legislation on lobbying and a register of lobbyists. We have expanded very significantly on the Freedom of Information Act, which was partially dismantled by the previous Government which brought in restrictions. All I can say is that, rightly in terms of accountability, all the information on contracts relating to all elements of public service is now available in a much speedier and more timely way as a consequence of the legislation the Government has introduced, particularly the broadening of freedom of information and the introduction of legislation on lobbyists.

These are both tremendous developments in terms of our democracy and the reporting and accountability that the Deputy rightly seeks.

I acknowledge that both of those Bills are very important, but "speedy" is not a word I would use in respect of some entities that are covered under freedom of information. It is not all of them; some Departments are good, but others are not. For example, the Irish Water call centre contract falls just outside the timeframe for freedom of information requests by a number of weeks. I can understand that there would be a confidentiality issue when a contract is being decided before it is awarded, but afterwards there is no reason that should not be fully transparent.

Getting certain information from Irish Water is like pulling hen's teeth. I looked for information on this very point last September and I got a reply containing information I could have picked off its website in December. I have had to seek a review on it, looking for the very information that would give me what the Tánaiste is telling me I can have. That is not a criticism of the legislation, but some entities are not using it as she described and it is very frustrating. Confidentiality and commercial sensitivity are routinely rolled out as a reason not to give information. In some cases that is reversed under review. Could the Tánaiste answer me that question in respect of the investment? Does she know what the investment into that company was? It happened in December 2015. What was it for and how much was it? If she does not know, could she come back to me with that information, if it is possible to get it?

In terms of freedom of information, even the company I raised is not served by the lack of transparency. Freedom of information is not functioning as well as it might be. If there is a Department that falls down on that, it is the Department of Finance that I find it most difficult to get information from.

I am not familiar with the detailed operation of the company about which the Deputy is concerned. My understanding is that it is a company based in Cork, which has a significant number of employees. I am not au fait with the details of its financial arrangements or its financial standing or position, but if there is information we can acquire to assist the Deputy, I would be happy to seek to do that if she would let me know what her detailed queries are.

In respect of Irish Water, it has been a start-up over the last two years.

There is no ombudsperson.

We now know, for instance, that 61% of people are paying their water bills.

There is nowhere to go to complain.

When the water conservation grant was-----

If people have complaints, they cannot complain to anybody.

-----issued by my Department, including to people in rural Ireland on group schemes and with their own private wells, we received and were able, on behalf of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, over a relatively short period, based on an online application system-----

Which you got consultants to devise.

-----to pay it to well over 800,000 people. We are all aware there have been difficulties and teething problems in the set-up stages of Irish Water-----

There is no ombudsperson.

That is an understatement.

-----but the point is that Irish Water is now providing a service. Even during the recent floods, thankfully, the standard of water quality, which was a major risk in terms of the flood episodes-----

Hear, hear.

-----throughout the country, was maintained.

Thanks to the county councils.

I spoke to Deputy Michael McGrath about the Cabinet discussions on the impact of the flooding. One of the areas-----

What kind of water went into the boat?

-----about which people were most concerned was that water quality would be affected by the flooding.

Hear, hear.

We had boil water notices down our way, in east Cork.

I am happy to say that the number of episodes of water quality being affected was, thankfully, kept very low and they were of very limited duration. This the advantage of having a national utility-----

They were in place for several days.

Several days.

-----which is now cleaning up our rivers and lakes through an active programme of restricting the dumping of raw sewage into lakes in Ireland at about 42 different points.

Hear, hear.

I think the councils were doing that.

Who was doing that but the county councils?

We are also subject to the EU water framework directive.

It is a wonder you got into the boat at all.

We were able to stand aside from that as a country for a considerable period, but not any more. If Deputy Murphy would send us the details of the queries-----

Write me a letter.

-----in respect of the company with which she has a concern, we will be happy to assist her, if that is possible.