Jennifer Murnane O'Connor (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Carillion was vetted, however, and look at where we are today. Mr. Cahillane said the NDFA vetted Carillion to the best of its ability yet this is where we are today. This is where the problem is. The whole issue of vetting, the process of tendering and everything like that have to be looked at. It is like my colleague, Deputy Browne, said. We are promoting local work here. We are dealing with taxpayers' money. I know taxpayer's money is not involved yet but payments will begin from the time the schools open. We need to be looking at all this.

The State will benefit from the subcontractors' good work when the schools are complete, but it is benefiting from stolen goods. Is that illegal? Are we leaving ourselves open to a legal process? That needs to be looked at. This could lead to a legal process. Jobs will be lost because of this mess - and it is a mess - which will result in these subcontractors, these small people, having to get social welfare. This is going to cost the State money. If this does not get sorted we could end up with a legal battle. Some good working men and families will be out of work because of this. In the long term, risks are taken but this does not make sense to me. I cannot understand it. I was so disappointed when I listened to the report that was read. There was no thought given to the subcontractors. Everything was about the NDFA's agreement. I am sorry to say this, but all it is worried about is its agreement with Carillion and getting the schools opened. The subcontractors do not matter. The NDFA has its job to do and it does not matter who gets paid once Carillion is paid. Sammon got 98% of its money. That is fine, but that money was not passed on to the subcontractors. Where is the accountability in that? It does not matter who it is, there is not accountability. This is a State, this is a Government and this is a PPP process. This has to be right. As previous speakers have said, look at where we are with regard to the banks. It is déjà vu. We seem to be doing the very same thing again.

I have a question for the Department. This is very important. I read this month that the Australian construction commissioner said that the issue of non-payment of subcontractors' money is widespread and has resulted in many businesses going to the wall and jobs being lost. The commissioner's office launched a campaign to protect the subbies and the contractors who now do not risk being excluded from tendering for nationally funded building work. The reason I bring this up is that it was part of what I heard when I was listening to and working with the subcontractors. This has been going on for years. It is unacceptable. The regulation Australia has introduced is good. I want the Department to look at it. I do not know whether it is aware of it. It has been good. I have been monitoring it for the last few weeks. A really good proposal is being put forward for the subcontractors. I ask the Department to take that on board and to make sure that we do not again end up where we are today, which is in a situation in which subcontractors are not being paid, because that is unacceptable.

These subcontractors are Irish citizens who contribute to the State daily in so many ways, including by contributing revenue with the understanding and expectation that it will be dispensed properly. These subcontractors, however, have been deliberately denied outstanding payments. When Sammon went into liquidation the first creditor to be paid was Revenue. That means that the State has financially benefited from the contract already. Why can these businesses not be reimbursed? Why has that not happened? The first one to paid when Sammon got its money was Revenue. The witnesses are aware of that. That goes back to the taxpayer. Why are our subcontractors not being paid from that money? Can the witnesses tell me why the subcontractors sitting in the room are not being paid from the money Sammon paid Revenue? Revenue was the first payment Sammon made when it got its money. Will the witnesses answer that for me?