asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce why he gave his approval in advance to a decision by NET to award a steel fabrication contract worth £600,000 to an English firm rather than to an Irish firm (name supplied) whose tender was similar to that of the English firm.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Steel Fabrication Contract.
19.
Representations on behalf of the Irish firm were made to me before this contract was placed. I investigated the matter fully and concluded that it was not a matter in which I should intervene. I understand that the Board of NET based their decision not to place the contract with the Irish firm on a technical assessment of that firm's capabilities.
By whom was the technical assessment carried out?
It was carried out jointly by NET and the principal contractor, Kellogg.
Is the Minister aware that in this case the price of the Irish firm was approximately the same as that of the foreign firm, that the Irish firm had done work of this kind in respect of all of this contract except 27 tons out of 700 tons and that on a number of occasions they went to Spain to study the technique that is used in welding five millimetre sheet steel? They, and consultants whom they employed, were satisfied that they were capable of doing the work. In these circumstances was the Minister's decision, rather than that of NET, to employ an outside firm for a very valuable contract of £600,000, not a dereliction of his duty?
There were a number of inferences or purported statements of fact in that long supplementary. In so far as I can respond, without careful analysis of them, I do not agree that any of those imputations are correct.
In other words, the Minister is satisfied that, in a position such as this where the contract is worth more than twice as much as the celebrated Irish Life contract, this contract should go outside the country with his approval even though he was aware that the Irish firm were capable of doing the job?
No, Sir. Nothing I have said would bear that inference. The Deputy should try not to be quite so twisty and a little bit more accurate.
It is easy to understand why the Minister should get so touchy in the circumstances.
The Deputy should be straight.
In the Irish Life case it was stated that the Minister for Finance was not aware of what Irish Life were doing. In this case, it is as well that the House and the country should know the Minister for Industry and Commerce approved of this contract being given outside the country before it was placed.
We are having statements instead of questions.
It has been on the records of the House for some months that I approved of it before it was placed. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries approved of it.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce approved of a £600,000 contract going outside the country.
The Deputy should get the amount right. He is twisting again.
Would he agree that the technology involved here will be necessary in relation to oil and gas production platforms? If there was ever a contract which should be placed in this country it is this one.
The technical advice from experts which I received was that the contract should not be placed in this country. After a thorough and careful investigation I was satisfied that was the correct advice and that I would not be behaving in the best interests of NET or the country if I intervened to overturn that advice.
What was the reason for that advice?
If the Deputy listened to the answer given he would know. I said: "I understand that the board of NET based their decision not to place the contract with the Irish firm on a technical assessment of that firm's capabilities."
Next question.
Why did a director of NET inform the company concerned, Murphys, that they had got the contract?
I have heard that statement also. I am not in a position to say, if he said that in exactly that form, why he said it.
He does not deny he said it. Why did he say it? When the matter went to the Minister the decision was changed.
We cannot debate this matter today.
Why did Mr. Hynes say that?
The Deputy should get it right. He is making a mess of it.
Mr. Hynes informed Murphys they had got the contract.
Get it right. I did not change the decision.
The names of persons outside this House should not be used.