Why did our Treasury Minister Eddie Teare seemingly find it impossible to state that he takes “a dim view” of government contractors who fail to settle retentions with sub-contractors after work is signed off? The question was posed by John Houghton. While it may well be government policy to distance themselves from this procedure it does seem a fairly straightforward question.
Mr Quirk continued the line of questioning referring to the fact that the money in question is public money. ET was requested twice to answer the question of whether he took a dim view of contractors who unfairly withhold moneys. Mr Teare appeared unable to confirm this and countered with replies containing seemingly negative remarks about the subcontractor in question.
Of course we don’t know all the details but would it really be so difficult to confirm that in principle public money should not be withheld by contractors if a job is signed off and fully satisfactory? Why was ET unable to confirm this? Does he have a cosy relationship with certain contractors?
Why was the Kirk Michael land swap hastily carried out in the summer recess? We need to know a lot more about government land and contractors. (Not an accusation – just a request for more transparency).
Let’s hope Mr Teare will honour his promise made at public meetings in 2010 with regard to conveying the (dim) views of his constituents, in respect of two tier planning, to Mr Bell.
It’s reminiscent of Orwell’s Animal Farm. We are all equal but some are more equal than others?
(Around 50 minutes into programme)