Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

It may sound like a strange thing to say and I mean no disrespect to anyone here, but this is similar to the last meeting we held with the Minister in that there are 14 public servants here and seven elected representatives. Often I wonder whether it is the best use of people's time to have so many people here now. It is important that we get answers to all the questions we ask at these meetings but I wonder whether it is the best use of people's time.

Public procurement is an important issue for us and we have discussed it in the committee before. The Government is seeking to ensure that value for money is inherent in the agreements in Europe. Will the Minister examine other elements of value for money? Value for money does not necessarily mean the lowest cost of a particular contract. Ireland has a negative record because a good deal of procurement goes outside the State vis-à-vis a comparison with other European countries. There are others costs, including the cost of unemployment, costs relating to secondary procurement that would result from procurement and costs associated with taxes, social welfare, rates and wages. All of these costs are lost when public procurement goes elsewhere. Could these be included in the understanding of value for money? For example, in my hometown, Navan, a school is being build in Johnstown. Most of the staffing for the building project are not local. Can we build local needs into public procurement to ensure it has a better effect on the locality? Yesterday, we heard the story of the HSE auctioning contracts, etc. The bunching of procurement into large contracts in the State prohibits smaller, typically local indigenous businesses from securing these, with the added costs to the State.

I recollect the Minister stating that the position of the Government on the customs union group is to engage actively and contribute constructively to the debate. Will the Minister provide more feedback on what exactly the Government's attitude will be in this area?

The Minister referred to unitary patents and agreements. Obviously if the changes create an efficiency with regard to businesses not having to take out patents in different jurisdictions, then we would be in favour of it.

One of the secondary outputs of patents, royalties and licences is the transfer pricing policy carried out by large multinational companies. An important debate is under way in Britain at the moment over the moral situation, whereby large multinationals shirk their responsibilities and ensure they do not pay their fair share of taxes. When dealing with patents, is it possible to ensure that loopholes with regard to transfer pricing on the basis of licences, etc., are not exploited to the detriment of the tax take of countries?

There is a major need to reform state aid in this jurisdiction. There are European guidelines on what regions can afford foreign direct investment grants. My own county of Meath, for example is not in the BMW region and cannot, therefore, give the same level of grant aid to foreign direct investors that would be possible only 15 miles away in a neighbouring county. This is up for renegotiation in 2013 and we should build into our Government's negotiating stance the argument that the whole regional basis for grant aid is out of date because of the recession.

There are several good points on what needs to be done with regard to industrial policy but there is a danger that it could be just rhetoric if it is not backed up by stimulus investments to ensure that we achieve the job creation we hope for. The target of 3% of GDP for research and development by 2020 does not look realistic because we are so far behind as it is. I ask the Minister to outline his views on that