Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

If they are dealing with something mechanical, for example, and there is an element of design to it, no independent person can sign off on somebody else's intellectual property. It just cannot be done; therefore, it must engage with the subcontractor, even though the subcontractor has a claim against the Salmon Group. It is doing it because it has to in that case; however, it is not doing it with the other subcontractors that might not have that design element in their work but still pumped their money into the schools. It is not engaging and the people concerned are being left high and dry. That is the point. We are in a situation where the company can cherry-pick and it is doing it for some but not for others. It is doing it for some because it is expedient and it has to do so because there is no way the NDFA's independent inspector can sign off on that type of work. However, the others who slogged it out with their shovels and picks are being left high and dry and their companies are going to close down. That is the reality. Given the amount of money on the hook as we are emerging from a recession and with things picking up at a time when we need labour and so forth, it is a sin that potentially we will have companies closing down. The companies have been in family hands for generations and built or partly built other schools in the State. The pitches on which children will be playing, the floors on which they will walk and the classrooms in which they will be taught were constructed by them. It is not right.

The NDFA is the authority that must sanction the quality assurance in that regard. It is simply not the case that the NDFA has no role when it comes to the subcontractors. It has absolutely no role in the payment of the subcontractors, but it does have a role in ensuring the work the subcontractors did was up to the appropriate standards, as laid down by law. The way to do that is to ensure the contractor the NDFA has engaged receives the necessary certification from the subcontractors. How it does that is up to the contractor. We all know the way it will have to do it, which is through paying them, just as it will have to do with the subcontractors that were involved in the design. I cannot see why the NDFA will not do that. The only argument Mr. O'Neill has given is that they will have a claim against the Salmon Group which is in liquidation, but subcontractors that also have a claim against the Salmon Group in liquidation are involved with the new company. They have to be owing to the design element.

Why not do it for everybody? It would give the NDFA quality assurance. It knows that the schools would be safe and that they would be insured, as would all of the products that were used. It would also provide us with the right conclusion, which is that the companies that constructed the schools were all paid at the end of the day.