Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the motion. It is scandalous that the Government will reject it. I want to highlight an issue that underlines the need for the anti-corruption agency with a monitoring and investigative role over public procurement activities for which the motion calls. Public procurement is a key area in which the space exists for public representatives or others to interfere with public processes for the private benefit of themselves, other private individuals or big or small business. There is an ongoing and unresolved controversy which I have highlighted in freedom of information requests and parliamentary questions, and about which Justine McCarthy has written in The Sunday Times. It relates to the very serious irregularities that have been exposed in the tendering process for telecare equipment in the senior alert scheme. I was first contacted about it several months ago by a not-for-profit company that had participated in the tendering process. The company raised serious concerns about the process, particularly the role played by the Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly. The more information that The Sunday Times and I have uncovered, the more it is clear that very serious irregularities occurred and that there are very serious questions to be answered by the Minister, Deputy Kelly, in particular. Months after we started digging, those questions remain unanswered.

At the heart of the irregularities is a meeting that took place on 10 December last year between the Minister, a Department official, Labour Party Deputy Brendan Ryan and two representatives of the company, TASK limited, that went on to be the successful bidder. The meeting happened just days after the deadline for tenders had ended and while Pobal, an agency under the Minister's Department was assessing the tenders. It is suggested the CEO of the company is a supporter of Deputy Ryan. The fact the meeting occurred would appear to be a clear breach of the procurement rules. Although the relevant tender rules, in section 6.7, clearly stated that canvassing shall disqualify, the company that appears to have attempted to canvass went on to be the successful bidder.

Other serious questions remain unanswered. Inexplicably, no minutes were taken at the meeting. A few days ago, I asked the Minister why no minutes had been taken. I received an answer in the name of the Minister of State, Deputy Ann Phelan, which accepted the meeting had taken place and said it was "of brief duration in respect of which minutes were not considered necessary". However, the Minister did not reveal to me what was subsequently revealed to The Sunday Timesafter a freedom of information request, that, two days after the meeting, Pobal, the agency responsible, sent an e-mail to the Department that stated, "the process as a whole is now void and redundant", and that the process was abruptly stopped. Later, the process was restarted. Why did we not receive this information as part of the answer to our question? Was it an attempt to cover it up?

The Department stated that the Minister, Deputy Kelly, had no idea that representatives of the company would be present at the meeting. This begs two questions. Why did the meeting take place in the form it did if it was going to be a meeting between two party colleagues? Why have a Department official there and in such a formal way? What on earth was Deputy Brendan Ryan doing bringing company representatives involved in an ongoing tendering process to meet a Minister unannounced? The notion that it was a meeting for which minutes were not considered necessary, where nothing happened, does not tally with document four, which we received through the freedom of information request, an information note written further to the meeting on Wednesday 10 December which clearly states that following the meeting with TASK the Minister raised a number of issues, particularly the division of the market into ten lots, a minimum standard for any equipment supplied and consultation with suppliers. Why was there a meeting in which nothing happened, apparently, and no minutes needed to be taken, and yet the Minister felt prompted to raise the very particular points that related to the tendering process?

Pobal said the legal advice it received afterwards suggested that the procurement process had not been affected and it was able to restart it. On what basis was this advice given? On what version of the meeting the TASK representatives attended was it based? Surely the legal advice should be published. There are very serious questions for the Government and Minister. On what basis was the 10 December meeting organised if the Minister did not know TASK representatives would attend? Why were minutes not taken? Why did Pobal decide to suspend the process and based on what legal advice did it decide to restart the process?

See this speech in context