I have allowed Deputy Gene Fitzgerald to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of Question No. 6 on today's Order Paper. The Deputy has 20 minutes, and the Minister has 10 minutes to reply.
Adjournment Debate: Leinster House Closed Circuit TV.
First I want to thank the Chair for allowing me to raise this matter. I raise it because of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply given earlier today by the Minister for Finance.
The first point I want to make is that the Minister arrived in this House today badly briefed. The question was in regard to the placing of a contract to improve the security arrangements within the House. The Minister said he could not give me the information I wanted because it had to do with security. Being a security matter, especially one like this, it should have been handled with absolute competence and efficiency from the beginning. I have no hesitation in saying that if I were still over there the present Government would not be asking the question I am asking tonight. I want the Government to give certain assurances to the House because they are responsible for placing this contract and it is an indictment of the Government's handling of the matter that this question is being raised here tonight. Today I asked for a categoric assurance that the blueprint of the House and the plans for this work did not at any stage go outside the jurisdiction of the House while the contract was being prepared or since. I am entitled to seek now that categoric assurance from the Minister. Can the Minister tell me that the plans and blueprint for this installation in the House did not go to the headquarters of the UK company that took over the company awarded the contract? Can the Minister also assure the House that the Belfast office of this UK company did not at any stage have those plans or blueprint? In the interests of security I want the Minister to give those categoric assurances.
I also want to know if, in these plans, there was a commencement date and a completion date, and if so how much time has expired since that completion date was reached. I suggest that approximately six weeks has elapsed since that completion date was reached and I suggest that a few more weeks will elapse before the contract is completed. A more simply way to ask the question would be to ask when will the work be finished and why was it not finished in time.
Were any materials specified in the plans and blueprint? I am sure the Minister is aware that some of the materials needed can be made by companies here. Was any consideration given to the possibility of using materials of Irish manufacture or did all the materials come from this UK company that I have referred to?
If we were in Government there would be no need for anybody on this side of the House to raise such a question. I submit that the handling of this whole exercise has been incompetent and inefficient indicating a lack of knowledge of basic security in Dáil Éireann. If the powers that be cannot handle a contract of this nature in a proper fashion, how can we expect them to govern the affairs of this country? I accept that the Minister of State is honest, sincere and hard working. It is most unfair to allow him into this House with the type of brief that he obviously had today. The question I put down was very specific and very broad. I asked for details of the contract. The Minister said he could not give me those details because of the security matters concerned. I have already said how absurd it is that a security matter should have been handled in the inefficient way that it was.
The question was very broad, asking for details of the contract for the installation of closed circuit television in Leinster House. There are many angles to that question and the Minister chose to hide behind the security angle. There were angles that had no reference whatsoever to security — cost, contractor, duration, completion date, materials, Irish content and so on. I asked the Minister the date originally given to the contractor for the completion of the work and the Minister replied that he did not have that information. I sympathise with him in his predicament in not being supplied with even basic information of that nature. It is not good enough for any Minister to come into this House and hide behind security. Even if he were entitled to do that, surely the supplementary questions I asked had no relevance to security matters.
I do not wish to drag this out but I want a reply from the Minister — I understand he has ten minutes to reply. I want a "yes" or a "no" answer. Did the plans and the blueprint for this contract go at any stage to the head office of the UK company that took over the company awarded the contract? Secondly, did the plans at any stage go to the Belfast office of that UK company? I want a categorical assurance that in both cases they did not. They are extremely important questions to which I want an answer. Why was no consideration given to the use, where feasible, of Irish materials? Some materials could not have been got in Ireland, but some Irish materials could have been used.
On what date did work commence and what was the original completion date according to the plans and specifications? What has been the reason for the delay, particularly in recent weeks? I estimate that the work is already five to six weeks behind time. I am sure the Ceann Comhairle and every Member of this House shares my concern about how this grave matter of security appears to have been handled. The Minister of State in the next few minutes will have an opportunity of allaying my fears and reassuring the House that all is well and that all was handled properly. Can the Minister of State categorically deny that the plans went out of the jurisdiction? Can he explain why the original completion date has passed and tell the House when the work will be finished and why Irish materials were not used? I am serving a very useful purpose in raising these questions. If the Minister of State cannot reassure the House on these matters, I will leave the House tonight with questions unanswered and a grave question mark in regard to the competency and efficiency with which this whole project was handled. If it has been mishandled, look at the risk the Members of this House are running.
Tenders for the security works at Leinster House were sought from five selected, reliable firms, all of whom had been vetted in advance by the security forces and the Garda authorities. It was necessary to let each of the tendering firms have plans showing the location and extent of the works. The plans were issued in confidence to the firms, all of whom were Irish. All the plans were returned.
All the firms in question are in the security business and their reputations rest on their integrity and their confidentiality in such matters. The suggestions made by the Deputy are mischievious and irresponsible.
Rubbish.
They reflect on the integrity of the Garda authorities who visited the firms and of the firms themselves. There was no element in the works which would have required that the plans be sent out of the jurisdiction for the purpose of tendering and I have no reason to suppose that any of the firms did so.
That is not answering my question.
How would the Deputy suggest that any firm could tender without receiving a copy of the plans? The works are well advanced and should be completed in the next week or two.
I categorically deny suggestions made here today that the Minister for Finance was in any way involved in the selection of a contractor for this project. In actual fact, the Minister was not aware of any of the details of the contract.
What incompetency.
The tenders were invited and processed by the Commissioners of Public Works in accordance with proper procedures.
A security item?
The contract was placed with the Irish firm which had submitted the lowest tender.
Be honest. Are they still Irish?
The contract for the security works was placed with the company on 11 August 1981. The firm was registered in Ireland — registered no. 61364. That firm are still registered in Ireland, with an Irish base and Irish directors.
That is not the question. Owned by—?
No case can be made that plans or anything else was sent out of this country — outside the jurisdiction of this House.
The Minister does not know.
I am asking the Minister were they or were they not? The Minister is not answering.
The firms who got the blueprints or plans, which they had to get, were vetted as safe security firms by the Garda Síochána and by every means possible to the Commissioners of Public Works to ensure the secrecy and security of this position.
The question is, were they or were they not?
These are reputable firms, cleared by the security authorities. What the Deputy is saying is mischievous.
Not at all.
Would the Minister answer my question and we will know where the mischief lies.
That is a reflection on the Garda authorities who gave these firms clearance. Allegations were made in this House today against the Minister for Finance that he made an order that a particular contractor was to get this job. I categorically deny that.
What about a categorical denial of my allegations?
The Deputy's allegations have no substance in fact. I have no reason to believe that any of these plans went outside the jurisdiction of this country.
That is not the assurance for which I asked.
Does the Minister know?
The five firms were cleared by the Garda authorities——
But does the Minister know where the blueprints went?
——and that is good enough for me and for the Commissioners of Public Works, apparently.
This is very important.
I want to answer, as far as I can, all the points which have been raised, one of which was that delays occurred in the contract. There was a closing date which has been exceeded and that is not for the first time.
It took a long time to get that out of the Minister.
This is a common occurrence in contracts of this sort. Work is well advanced and will be completed within the next week or two.
How long behind time?
If the Deputy had been more specific in requesting the dates they could have been given to him. The contract was signed on 11 August and it was then a matter for the contractor to set his own starting date. This is a wellknown procedure in all contracts. A reasonable time must be given to the contractor to being work. Work having started, there were some delays in the delivery of materials and the closing date was not met. It was hoped that work would be completed before the resumption of the Dáil.
By 6 October.
The date was 9 October. There are delays in the completion of almost all contracts and it is unusual for a contractor to finish on the exact date. As I said, there were delays in the delivery of materials.
Where did they come from?
That does not matter. The Deputy has already said that most of the material used was not produced in this country.
I said "some".
Most of the material could not be produced here. The Commissioners of Public Works always recommend that as far as possible Irish material be used. We are precluded from insisting on that. In this contract worth £165,000, about £15,000 was expended on Irish material and this was the maximum possible.
The implication seems to be that there was something shady in the placing of this contract. We approached five Irish firms which we felt were capable of doing the job. No outside firms were approached. I have given the registered Irish number of this firm and if the Deputy wishes to communicate with me I will give him a list of the directors. This firm was cleared by our security authorities and the Garda. They are a reputable firm and are doing a good job. It should not be suggested that because they are three or four weeks behind time we should fire them out. Is that the suggestion being made by the Opposition? They are making much ado about nothing. I stand over the actions of the Commissioners of Public Works in this matter and I refute allegations that anything improper occurred.
Were the plans in Belfast and London? The Minister does not know.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.55 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 25 November 1981.