John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Mr. Howard refers to the public interest also. There is an interest of Irish society in this. The State is not just something that is abstract, out there; we are the State. It is in the interests of the State that the subcontractors be paid in order that they keep their businesses open and keep people employed. Whether it is urban or rural Ireland, employment is absolutely necessary. What we are endeavouring to do here, as Deputy O'Sullivan has said, is to find a resolution to this problem, notwithstanding that most of the State players are running in the opposite direction, covering themselves ten times over. That is not going to work with us. That is certainly not going to work with the subcontractors. From a policy perspective, looking to the future, there may be a lot to learn from this. It baffles me as to why a single adjustment to an overall contract cannot include the payments made regardless of where the subcontractor comes in, whether it is the main subcontractor or whether it is subcontractors down the pecking order. It must be possible to police this to ensure that the money is spent correctly. That is on the policy front. I do not accept the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform's position that it just writes the and sits back. The Department has a role in this in this. The Department pays the Department of Education and Skills. The Department pays presumably the taxpayers' money into the NDFA or whoever it is. The Department has an obligation to ensure that it is spent properly and correctly. Where a contract is in place, and being blackguarded in the way the subcontractors are being blackguarded, I believe the State has an obligation to exercise the rule of law. I am going to ask Mr. Howard to consider that and I do so on the following basis.

This is a letter from a local firm that was engaged by the companies concerned here. Their customers would include the Department of Education and Skills, the HSE, occupational therapists, speech therapists, preschool and primary schools. It is a player in all of this work already. They were encouraged to meet the buyer, that is how they describe it. In 2016, Enterprise Ireland, the NDFA and the Department of Education and Skills had a "meet the buyer" event in Carlow. This firm was invited into that. It was given information about the process and how it could get involved. It was a Government-led initiative to meet the buyer and all the main players were there. If I was going to that as a business person, I would feel comfortable about it because it is in fact the Government I am going to be dealing with. At this event this firm met Sammon Contracting. They go on then to say that, with the high level of Government agencies involved, they thought "what could go wrong?". This project is Government backed. Here one has a small family business, caught up in the day-to-day affairs of keeping itself afloat, acknowledging all the main players here and saying this seems to be a good move.

Sammon Contracting then contacted this firm and said that it wanted to make a statement about how it finished its work so it wanted the subcontractor to apply the highest standards possible to the school furniture that it would be providing. This company worked with Sammon Contracting to get them through the Department of Education and Skills requirements for that area. This subcontractor was constantly engaged with the Government, as it would see it. I would have the same feeling if all of this was going on, and it was going on.

Carillion then collapsed. The firm was informed by Sammon Contracting, and it has the letter, that all would be okay and that the project, which involved the Government, would proceed as planned. It was told by Sammon Contracting then to remove the furniture from the Ravenswell site, and they moved it into long-term storage. This subscontractor has now lost €84,000, and this can be applied to any contractor, I am just giving an example that I have here because it is in our correspondence pack this morning. Any contractor that is owed an amount of money, in this case €84,000, in another case in Kilkenny with Walsh's, it is owed €250,000. That will cripple the company. Companies that we heard from here are generations in the business.

I can tell the witnesses that they will be disgusted with the response that they have heard this morning from all of the State agencies. These agencies have a big basin over there and they are all washing their hands of any connection with this. The letter from the National Treasury Management Agency, which concerns me, talks about the NDFA being in ongoing discussions with the company and the assigned certifier to ensure that all necessary building control certification will be available to secure a valid certificate of compliance. It reads as if the NDFA is desperately trying to find a route around the proper method of certification, so it can get off the hook.

On one side we have correspondence saying "it is not us; we have nothing to do with it", then on the other side we have the National Development Finance Agency is answering to us here and telling us differently, and they are endeavouring to reach agreement with subcontractors. What subcontractors? Is it those subcontractors that are here with us or is it some other set of subcontractors? Who is the NDFA meeting and what are they talking about.? I will let he witnesses answer but I want to get through this correspondence here first.

The correspondence continues to state that it is necessary for Dutch Infrastructure Fund, DIF, together with its subcontractors, Woodvale, and the assigned certifier, to examine alternative methodologies to satisfy he building control certification requirements. The NDFA is as bad as Sammon Contracting and Carillion for dodging the bullet. It is going to get into bed with them and to screw those subcontractors that are due the money they are owed. That is what that reads like.

The correspondence goes on to say that the buildings and works will be adapted in the event that agreement cannot be reached. Have the witnesses no respect for the subcontractors? That is an appalling statement to make. The letter goes on to state that it is a distressing time for the subcontractors, but that Sammon Contracting, which has already been paid for the work, is now in liquidation. One can hear the water running on the hands again. I find that offensive coming from a Government agency.

I want to refer also to the correspondence, signed by the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Richard Bruton, which simply tells the subcontractors that the Department will not be paying them, because the Department of Education and Skills was never party to these contractual arrangements. In the letter from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, I believe it is, it states that it is the Department of Education and Skills is the Department that is responsible. If I was a subcontractor, I would be absolutely baffled by the number of State agencies that are involved in this that are running in the opposite direction.

The last question is on the payment of €250 million over 25 years. Who has been paid? What is left over? Can the NDFA liaise with the contractors and the subcontractors to get the certification? Will the NDFA only accept certification from the people who delivered the goods and services? Carillion has gone broke and is in breach of contract. Down the line, there are only contractors who have not been paid. Can the witnesses answer those questions?