Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Quinn and am delighted to see him. I would like to believe that this will not be a one-off event. The work that the office is doing is of such significance that we need to get into a rhythm of exchanges, feedback and oversight.

I will not ask for a direct answer now, but I will say something for Mr. Quinn to consider. He mentioned how the community and voluntary sector had been caught under the procurement process. Many in the sector are concerned that they will be outplayed by for-profit organisations. Those in the sector work to a different ethos. While the committee has an extensive work programme, it would be interesting to tease this argument out and to hear from The Wheel and other such organisations. I urge Mr. Quinn to watch this situation carefully so that we do not throw out the baby with the bath water.

I will make an observation on circular 10/14 relating to a matter that I have raised with Mr. Quinn and Mr. Campbell previously, namely, access for SMEs and micro businesses to the tendering process. The office's exhortations to them to form alliances and networks do not always work and have caused them considerable difficulties. Some of the businesses in question are in Deputy Creed's neck of the woods and elsewhere. People have lost business. This approach needs to be reworked, as it does not work for everyone and no amount of training courses or encouragement will alter that.

What, if any, engagement, oversight or role does the office have in the flagship infrastructure enterprises, for example, Grangegorman and the children's hospital? What linkage has the office with NAMA or other organisations in respect of the development of Dublin's docklands?

The witnesses are aware that, like others, I am keen on social clauses in large contracts. Mr. Quinn referred to piloting 11 projects. While this is to be welcomed, it strikes me as being timid.

The new European regime recognises in a more expansive way that it is not solely a question of price because there are consequences and knock-on effects for State expenditure from a social point of view, in terms of long-term unemployment, poverty and environmental concerns. Beyond the 11 projects, what is the game plan for implementing these clauses? Can we be assured that, within the boundaries of the law, the office will be as imaginative and expansive as it can in getting a return for society and the community?

In his opening remarks, Mr. Quinn stated that responsibility and accountability for legal compliance rests with the organisation which undertakes the tender because the OGP lacks the resources and mandate to perform this crucial task centrally. Is that a desirable state of affairs? I ask that in light of the experience of school building projects overseen by the Department of Education and Skills, which gave rise to worrying controversies with, for example, Rhatigans and Kishogue college in Lucan. There are similar cases elsewhere in Dublin. I am concerned that while the office maintains rigorous standards of compliance for those who enter the tendering process, without a tight oversight mechanism the process could become sloppy and wide open to abuse.

I have many other questions but the Chairman will not tolerate anything that stretches the committee's time unreasonably. The definition of value for money is not just about price; it also includes quality and other factors. I ask Mr. Quinn to set out the definition of value for money to which the OGP works.