Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will answer about one specific project, one of the NDFA's flagship projects, a beautiful school completed in Portlaoise and two in Offaly.

For the duration of that construction contract, some workers used to arrive in their good clothes every Thursday morning to be brought by bus to the North by the subcontractor to collect their social welfare. I have said this on the public record in the Chamber before. When they came home later in the day, they got into their working clothes. Every Thursday morning, a group of them would arrive in their good clothes to sign on. I have said this on the public record. I do not expect Mr. Murphy to know about it. I was asked about specific cases. I will not go into the specifics of the subcontractors who were not paid for their work. It is not enough for Mr. Murphy to say that a contract and a memorandum of understanding have been agreed with the main contractor. The unit that was mentioned a minute ago will appoint someone to do the construction. That person will appoint someone to do ground works. That person will appoint someone to do the block work. There can be four links of subcontractors on the chain.

The same thing applies in the case of the NRA, but I will stick with the NDFA. I have said the same thing to the NRA about people not being paid for delivering tarmac, quarries, stones and supplies. Subcontractors in many school projects have not been paid. In that context, I would like Mr. Murphy to talk about any projects in which the NDFA has been involved in which the contractor went bust and left unpaid debts behind. Is he aware of any cases in which subcontractors, employees and suppliers of materials have not been paid? What can he do when one of these main contractors comes in again? Can he say "Get out of here - I would not deal with you again"? There must be some provision for him to use his own judgment. It is very easy for contractors to give him the cheapest price if they are not intending to pay the registered employment agreement rates. The NDFA is paying them on the basis that they will pay those rates. If those rates are not being paid, the contractors in question can pocket the difference. That is taxpayers' money. This brings me back to the issues of specification, tendering and contract implementation. All of the tendering can be correct, the paperwork can be beautiful and the audit trail can stand up, but there also needs to be a focus on what happens with the registered employment agreement rates on the ground.

I will make it a bit harder by referring to the disappointing response that the Minister gave to a recent parliamentary question. He said that "compliance by contractors working on public contracts would be enhanced if NERA, and relevant Awarding Authorities .... could share appropriate information and thus provide for an effective utilisation of the provisions .... designed to secure compliance with employment law". He went on to say that "data protection" issues mean that NERA cannot even notify the "contracting authorities". I know the Department intends to introduce a workplace relations Bill shortly. That will be of assistance in this regard. The Minister concluded his reply by saying he is "confident that the measures [he proposes to introduce] will provide a legislative basis to facilitate the more effective enforcement of REAs [to which my question referred] for the construction sector in the context of Public Works Contracts." That applies to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform because it is responsible for the OPW.

There is a problem. We get denials all the time. The Minister genuinely said that if an inspection is carried out on the basis of a registered employment agreement, data protection issues mean it cannot actually tell NERA that there is a problem with a contractor on a site. He said he will correct this problem so that if a State agency knows about this and sees this, it can do something about it. Every time a contract is awarded, I would like the NDFA to tell those involved that an unannounced combined inspection of the site in question will be carried out by NERA, the Department of Social Protection and the tax office as a matter of policy. I expect that would frighten many people. A great deal of work is taking place in the black economy. Many people who would be willing to pay the proper rate are not getting jobs because those who are not planning to pay the official rates are coming in with lower prices. If they were to be told by the NDFA that unannounced inspections of their sites will take place, it would buck them all up.

I am not loading all of this on Mr. Murphy. I know he feels I am putting pressure on him. This problem is bigger than his area. He happens to be here today. I would say the same thing to a representative of the NRA, a local authority or the HSE. I am highlighting a bigger problem than he can handle. I ask him to take on board what I am saying. He should use his discretion to help to stamp out much of what is happening. The NDFA should not deal with any contractor who has a record of not paying a subcontractor or a supplier on a previous job. Perhaps Mr. Murphy will say this is a policy issue. I am reflecting a problem that is widespread in the community. As Deputies, when we get an opportunity to raise these matters with State agencies, we are bound to do so. I am not loading all of the problem on Mr. Murphy. I ask him not to be defensive. He should understand what I am saying. I am not criticising him or his organisation. It is a much bigger problem.