andMr. Reynolds asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs why tenders for ducting in the Sligo and other districts have been cancelled and new tenders sought as per recent advertisements.

I am not clear what tenders the Deputies have in mind when they refer to tenders having been cancelled. If they supply additional details I will have further inquiries made.

Tenders were received last month for ducting work in the Sligo area and these are being considered at present.

Is the Minister of State aware that towards the end of June or the beginning of July last tenders were sought, opened and sanctioned and contracts given to certain contractors in the Sligo district? That self-same work has now been readvertised and selected contractors have been asked to supply tenders again for exactly the same work as was advertised last July. Would he care to comment on that, or if he is not aware of this, would he please say so?

I wonder if the Deputy is on the wrong side of the House with so much information at his disposal.

I am wondering what facts the Deputy is trying to establish because I do not know what question he is asking.

I will name one. Does the Minister know anything about the districts around Boyle?

The Deputy is allowed only to ask questions.

For the information of the Deputy the last contract for ducting in Sligo was placed in May 1980. It was extended in March and June 1981 and is now concluding. Tenders for new contracts were invited in October 1981 but the closing date for them was November 1981. These tenders are now being evaluated. I wish the Deputy would make up his mind as to what he is talking about. Those are the facts.

Is the Minister of State aware that in June of this year the tenders for contracts for ducting in the Boyle area were sought by public advertisement, were submitted and opened and contracts granted? Is he aware that in October of this year the self-same work, identical in every way, was readvertised——

In the Roscommon Herald?

—— in the Roscommon Herald— selectively regarding those asked to supply which was peculiar, opened but not yet granted? Is the person who received the contract in June of this year now going to be told by the Department that he is not eligible, despite the fact that the Department in June sanctioned the acceptance of the self-same tenders? I specify one — Boyle.

Before the Deputy listens to fireside stories he should listen to the facts, which are that the contracts were advertised in local papers and the contractor who replied had difficulty in getting a bond which is a very important factor in a contract for undertaking work. That was then advertised in the national papers. That is the only reason. I will tell the Deputies, in case they are disappointed about these tenders being cancelled, that no tenders have been cancelled and no work has been stopped.

They were readvertised.

They were readvertised for the reason I have just given but I cannot get that through to the Deputy.

Has the Minister of State the following information? I have it, so he should have it. Is it a fact that the person in question was never in his life asked to submit a bond? Is he aware that out of courtesy and in fear that he might not get the contract he supplied a bond from the Insurance Corporation of Ireland and that it was sent back to him by the Department? Does the Minister of State not think now that he should understand and comprehend that that is not the manner in which the operations of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs have proceeded? If he says it was wrong in the past it is a reflection on the Department. Secondly, does he think that the people are not aware that it is part of a telecommunications delay tactic in implementing the five-year programme when a Government of six months say there has been a delay of six months in installation and building while they have done nothing? Would he care to comment on that?

Deputy, you have a great source of information, but you are here to ask questions, not to impart information.