Mr. Paul Quinn:

I understand Departments are responsible for collecting information on their own construction arrangements and I am advised they have to publish it.

The Deputy asked about the review of public works contracts. We published, just prior to Christmas, a set of interim recommendations for implementation. These recommendations have been welcomed broadly by the construction industry, which is good. In fact, the industry is anxious that we implement the recommendations quickly, which is welcome. The majority of the interim recommendations will involve changes in the first calendar quarter. One of them will extend into the second calendar quarter because of its complexity.

The Deputy has mentioned, in particular, that there is a new role envisaged within the public works arrangements, namely, a dispute convener. For larger contracts, I understand the process applies for values in excess of €10 million. A dispute convener would be appointed at a very early stage in the contract and his or her role would be to try to resolve disputes as they occurred during the life cycle of the project, rather than hitting a brick wall, which would involve the walls coming down and the project stopping. In such circumstances, people walk off site and difficulties ensue from everybody's perspective, not only that of the workers but also those of the State and contractors. When works stop, it is very difficult and costly for everybody.

The dispute convener's responsibility is to keep the parties talking and become familiar with the project, the arrangements and progress made. Another duty is to iron out issues as they arise and keep momentum going in a project. This may stop issues becoming part of more formal contract dispute arrangements, conciliation, arbitration and, ultimately, court proceedings. I guess the colloquial term would be "nipping things in the bud" in trying to have them resolved early and on site.

In regard to the site at Kishoge, we discussed the matter previously. There are a number of layers of protection that the State ensures within the procurement process. These place obligations not only on the main contractors but also on subcontractors. They apply at tender stage in terms of declarations that the parties will adhere to and are clear on parties' obligations regarding social welfare contributions and tax, in regard to which there is clearance. At award stage, the parties must certify their tax clearance certificates. Most importantly, at implementation stage, the contractors and subcontractors have to adhere to all legal obligations. To continue to be paid, they must submit on an ongoing basis a certificate, under clause 5.3, stating they are continuing to adhere to all obligations. They must maintain records indicating they are discharging these obligations. The State has the right to audit the payments and withhold payment if certification is not provided. Ultimately, it can terminate the contract if the contractor fails to remedy a problem.

The Deputy asked, in particular, about my office's ability or oversight of these matters. On occasion, we are drawn into arrangements such as those mentioned, but we do not have a mandate or operational capability to oversee the thousands of projects in train. On oversight, we rely on other bodies such as NERA which has expertise in matters of payment and the payment of social welfare, etc. It is the compliance body in these matters.