Callely’s job in doubt after revelations
Although Mr Callely denies any wrongdoing, his position as a junior minister at the Department of Transport is in grave doubt after it emerged that John Paul Construction paid for his house to be painted in the early 1990s.
In 1991, Mr Callely became the youngest ever chairman of the then Eastern Health Board at a time when the board’s headquarters were being refurbished by John Paul Construction.
John Paul Construction, as one of Ireland’s largest construction firms, have also built scores of other State projects, including Ireland’s first designated third-level school of nursing at Dublin City University (DCU).
In October 2002, Mr Callely laid the foundation stone of the building, which received €25 million in Department of Health funding.
Asked if Mr Callely had ever been in a position to influence contracts being awarded, a Department of Health spokesman said any such contracts would be drawn up by the relevant health boards, hospitals or health agencies involved.
“The department, while approving the award of contracts for some projects (primarily major projects) is not party to the contract or the contractor selection process,” he said, referring the matter to the HSE.
Although sources in the HSE indicated Mr Callely would inevitably have had the capability to influence projects in his role as a health board chairman and later as a junior minister in the Department of Health, a spokesman said it was impossible to confirm anything.
“It predates the HSE and a lot of the people who would have been running the health board are no longer working for the health services,” he said.
A spokesman at the Department of Transport, where Mr Callely has been a Minister of State responsible for traffic since last year’s reshuffle, said he was not in a position to influence any contracts.
Meanwhile, in a statement released following a lengthy meeting with Taoiseach Bertie Ahern yesterday evening, Mr Callely said he was “particularly angry” about the unsubstantiated innuendo that “as a member of the Eastern Health Board, I might have in any way favoured John Paul Construction in a public tender process”.
“No politicians were involved in the adjudication process of the tender which I am sure can be confirmed,” he said.
Mr Callely said he had found himself stuck for a painter when John Paul Senior, who he was friendly with, “kindly offered that he could send some painters around at short notice”.
“I anticipated a bill for the labour would follow. I have checked my records 13 years ago, regretfully I didn’t follow it up and over time forgot about the matter,” he said.
FOLLOWING a number of meetings this afternoon, I would like to clarify issues in the media today. Firstly, I have not done wrong and I am very angry about this unsubstantiated innuendo that I was involved in the favouring of any public contract.
The tendering process is beyond reproach and to suggest that one member of a 38-member board could influence any such contract is not credible. Indeed, the initial contract was awarded before my time as chair.
Indeed, I was a newly elected backbencher. I have today been in touch with my solicitor because I take very seriously any suggestion that I would interfere with the awarding of any public contract.
In 1992, I was refurbishing my home on St Lawrence’s Road. As is often the case, the whole project had dragged out and I was under pressure to move into the house with my family. I was let down by my painters and was seeking other painters at short notice to complete the work in order to be able to move in.
During a casual conversation with John Paul Senior, who I was friendly with, I mentioned my predicament and he very kindly offered that he could send some painters around at short notice.
I was happy to accept his offer as we were behind schedule. The painting materials had been purchased, chosen and paid for by my wife and myself.
To the best of my recollection, two men were put on the job. It took them a number of days to complete the rooms and make the house habitable.
I had no idea who the men were who did the painting, but assumed that they were employees of John Paul Construction. I anticipated a bill for the labour would follow. I have checked my records 13 years ago.
Regretfully I didn’t follow it up and, over time, forgot about the matter. Given the amount of work done, I presume that the bill would have amounted to between £1,500 and £2,000.
In this light of this issue being brought to my attention, I have contacted the accounts department of John Paul Construction to enquire as to whether or not there is an outstanding account to settle with them. I hope to hear from them shortly.
I find the whole episode sinister in the extreme. I am particularly angry about the unsubstantiated innuendo that as a member of the Easter Health Board, I might have in any way favoured John Paul Construction in a public tender process.
John Paul Construction had won a contract for the refurbishment of the Eastern Health Board Headquarters at Dr Steeven’s Hospital some time around 1988.
The contract was won by John Paul Construction through a public tendering process, administered by a project team comprising of Eastern Health Board and Department of Health officials.
No politicians were involved in the adjudication process of the tender which I am sure can be confirmed.
Given the seriousness of the innuendo, which is totally false, I have contacted my solicitors and asked them to review the matter.
IN response to media queries, John Paul Construction can confirm that in the early 1990s it engaged a painting contractor to undertake work on the private residence of Ivor Callely.
Without the benefit of the records of the time, but based on the recollection of the then contracts manager, the company can confirm:
* The work was undertaken by a painting sub-contractor, Philip Lambert, who regularly undertook work for John Paul Construction.
* The work was billed to and paid for by John Paul Construction.
* John Paul Construction did not receive any payment or other benefit from any party in relation to this work.
The company is undertaking a review of its records and will consult, in so far as it is possible to do so, with personnel of the time.
Until this review has been concluded, no further comment will be made.
