Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I speak as someone who comes from a construction background. The report refers to subcontractors. There should be a system whereby when payment is made to the main contractor, there is a list of the subcontractors that are on site. It is a problem, not everywhere but here and there, that those subcontractors are owed money. They can find it difficult to do a final sum with some larger firms, and many of these subcontractors need to be paid fortnightly. It becomes a major problem. I refer to small operators who do not qualify under the procurement guidelines as they lack the necessary level of turnover, which is a problem with the procurement rules. We need to ensure there is protection there because these firms are vulnerable; there is no point in saying they are not. We have heard the stories that go around in the different parts of the country. A subcontractor might be owed €24,000 only to be told by the contractor that they would receive €20,000 and that would be it, and they might have their tongue out for it. I would encourage the Government to insert a guarantee that in any project undertaken with the Department of Education and Skills, with Transport Infrastructure Ireland or whatever Department or agency, any list of subcontractors which the main contractor had on site would have to be signed off on before the State would pay the main contractor any money.

I do not have a problem with the principle of PPPs if they are done right, but only if they are done properly which is the problem, for the simple reason that the State is bound by certain constraints when borrowing money. Borrowing is effectively off-balance-sheet if it is done the right way. However, I have a big problem with primary care centres. I know of situations where a deal has been done on a primary care centre - it is usually for a period of 25 years - in which the loan the banks are giving the builder are for a duration of 18 years. The rest have a few pounds out of it. The problem is that we were not smart enough. Had we inserted a clause that we could pay €1 for that building after 25 years we would nail it down, because the contractor had been paid for it. Instead we must enter into a new contract with those people for a further 15 or 20 or years. This is an awful gap in what we are doing and ought to be nailed down. The Minister of State is looking at me but I have checked this with some people who have had such a contract and this is the reality.

There are roads for which we seek funding. I have no problem with this being done by PPP. There is the cost, the interest and must be a bit of space for people to make money because there is no point suggesting they will enter into something to lose money. However we need to nail the process down, whether it is over a 20 or 25-year period, in order that at the end of that period, the asset returns to State ownership for a minimal sum. It cannot be some balloon figure near the end.

Those the two things that I would like the State to examine. There are roads that are planned or that are not even on the cards as yet for which this could be used. There is a budget, say €1 billion or €800 million, and it is impossible to deliver everything one wants from that. No one is codding himself or herself that it is possible. There is a opportunity, however, over a 20 or 25-year period to deliver the infrastructure that is needed through PPPs. However, I emphasise that we need to nail down the process and do it properly. If it is used for roads and insufficient traffic goes through, the State will have to pick up the difference and no one is cribbing about that as that is the agreement entered into by the State. I worry about the system being used for primary care centres, however, because I know some of those builders and it is an open goal for them. We need to go back and look at some of the projects that were done and we should watch what we do in the future.

See this speech in context