Mr. Damien Fagan:

When the companies were hired, they bid the price. The tender document is only half of the contract. The other half of the contract is what the two companies have charged the State. We do not know what they have agreed to; we only know what the State has offered them. This argument has been addressed in the Committee of Public Accounts. When the committee has tried to review the contract to see what exactly is meant to be spent on this programme, a wall of private confidentiality or sensitivity is hit.

Within the make-up of the programme, companies are allowed to charge and subcontract out but they do not have to notify the Committee of Public Accounts or anyone else that they are subcontracting. The companies decide themselves if they want to subcontract. One of the major issues I have with subcontracting is that the companies subcontract to themselves. If we take the example of Turas Nua, it is a joint venture of Working Links and FRS Recruitment, yet it subcontracts back to itself in the form of Working Links. It is part of the main group that was originally awarded the contract.

I cannot be 100% sure why the companies continue to subcontract out but it seems that they have bid at a certain price knowing that they can pass it on to someone else at a reduced price. At the end of the day, however, the taxpayer is paying the bill. We pay the highest price that was offered and the companies then pass it on to a lower price.

The only logical explanation is they are charging more than what it costs to run the programme.