Page 2772 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 14 August 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Another method, particularly with larger jobs, is that firms quote to be project managers and to provide their expertise in the construction of a large project - for example, a school, or something along those lines. They then hire out to other subcontractors and, in effect, subtender to other subcontractors to do the work, to provide the concrete, to put in the electrical work, et cetera.
In cases of project management this is the standard arrangement which is entered into with all firms, not just Shelleys. The arrangement is that the firm acts as an agent, if you like, for the Government in providing that expertise. When work is performed by a subcontractor the arrangement is that the subcontractor will be paid by the agent, the agent then sees the Government and says, "There's the work. It has been done to the standards that we have asked the contractor to do it to. We have paid him. Please provide the money to us so we can continue. We get our cut off the top; our cream off the cake".
I can see from the look on the faces of the Opposition that this comes as a complete mystery and surprise to them. It seems remarkable to me that if you are going to raise a matter of public importance and have as your trump card a letter from Public Works - as if, as I have said, it was evidence of treason - you should not bother to check whether this is the normal procedure. I can assure the Assembly and I can assure you, Mr Acting Speaker, it is. In all aspects of the relationship between Shelleys, as a contractor for the Government, and the Government, the proper, legal and correct procedures have been adopted. It is not our fault and it is not our problem if Shelleys, for whatever reason, goes into liquidation.
In relation to the other works, the other sort of jobs we are talking about - for example, where they have contracted to build a road or a sewer - if they go into liquidation and find that they cannot pay for the subcontractors who are working for them, the Government is no different from any other principal tenderer or principal lessee. For example, if it was a large business organisation that was building works, and Shelleys had worked for them, won the job to do so and had gone into liquidation, the tenderers and subcontractors would not be coming to them saying, "Pay us because Shelleys owe us money".
It has been noted, also, that Mr Connolly said that the word was out about Shelleys for quite some time. This did not prevent the subcontractors from working for them. If they were so concerned about the arrangements for Shelleys they should not have worked for them. I know of some subcontractors around this town who did just that. I shall leave further arguments to show the ridiculousness of this matter of public importance to be followed up by my colleague Mr Jensen.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .