Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

That may be the case but the liquidator is not here. Representatives of the NDFA, a State organisation, are before the committee with officials from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. We are trying to reform the public service and how public expenditure is managed by having one person assume the roles of Minister for Finance and Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. I know of plenty of people who have been subcontractors to main contractors working for various agencies of the State and have been let down to a greater or lesser extent. They had to take the hit because, as specialist subcontractors, they needed to get similar work in future. If they had walked away and decided not to deal with the State again, they would not get any further work. We saw the size of Carillion, which had 42,000 employees and was a significant business before it went wallop. People take the hit when the main contractor fails.

It is not right that the system allows Carillion and other main contractors to obtain money from the State and then let down the subcontractors who are doing work on schools, Garda stations, courts and universities, from which all of us will benefit. I know of examples of subcontractors being let down to a greater or lesser extent because extras were added on or payment was delayed. While they did not go under as a result, they were not far off it, certainly during the crash. The Department must find a model that protects the funding. I am aware of the argument that the risk is transferred in these contracts. That would be great if it were the case, but the risk is transferred to the poor subcontractors who are then left behind. That is what happened in this case. It is not right that we pay out large amounts of State money to companies such as Carillion which then let down their subcontractors. I understand the State has paid out 85% of Carillion's money. Is that correct?