Mr. Robert Watt:

Yes, but there are valid reasons for not conducting a competitive process. There are some valid reasons, which we accept. It should not be and is not the norm, but there are valid reasons, including the extension of a contract, urgency or if there is only one supplier of the goods or services. There are some good reasons for not having a competitive process.

In the vast majority of cases, one should go through a competitive tendering process based on the rules that Mr. Quinn has set out and on the guidelines furnished to the committee. They are not necessarily our rules, they are EU guidelines. The issue for us is the amount involved. The Comptroller and Auditor General's previous report on this indicated that there was spending of between €30 million to €40 million without a competitive process and there was no good reason for the absence of such a process. That is the subset where the problem lies and it is not acceptable. That is the amount and I absolutely agree that it is not acceptable and must be addressed.

I would make the point, however, although I know the Chairman hates when I say this, that the total spend is €10 billion. Does a sum of €30 million or €40 million, in terms of non-compliance with a process, out of a spend of €10 billion represent an okay outcome or is it disastrous? I would contend that we need to do better, that this should not happen but that, in the overall scheme of things, there is a pretty effective level of compliance. It suggests to me that 99.99% of the spend is actually compliant. Is that not the case? Is it material in the overall scheme of things?