Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I listened to some of the debate. I apologise if I repeat some of the questions that have already been asked. I was trying to make sure I was on the premises in order to contribute.

I will begin with the Office of Government Procurement. Ms Stewart spoke about developing the criteria, which is really important work. She referred to what the OGP will use for assessing green public procurement and the question of the circulars. Given the significance of the climate crisis we face and the extraordinarily narrow timeframes we are operating within, it seems that most of the measures are still in that kind of voluntary space. We are still talking about a voluntary space with a little bit of assistance in terms of looking to shift the culture slightly. We are going up against a very strong and embedded set of practices which can militate against that.

EU law was mentioned in terms of the European legislation. Of course there are three options within the European legislation.

There are a number of options on the transposition. There are options, all of which meet the most economically advantageous tender criteria, but the options in terms of basic approach are lowest price or price only; price-quality ratio, where you look at a balance between price and quality; and life cycle costing; or indeed a combination of the latter two. The witnesses will be aware I brought forward legislation which sought to implement the practice, which is the case in the Netherlands, where price-quality ratio or life cycle costing becomes the default rather than lowest cost, because when you have lowest cost only, that is what ultimately trumps and wins the contract.

You can set technical specifications to ensure there is space for good practices, and maybe Ms Stewart can comment on those because, in our circular economy report, we pointed to specific technical specifications that could be used, for example, reuse of paint, which is something that is being looked at, and there are a few other examples of technical specifications that may be made. You give a wider scope for best practices to be rewarded if you have quality or life cycle assessment, you give that advantage to those companies that are engaging in things that are genuinely thinking in a life cycle way or that are able to offer more in terms of environmental quality in their submission, and you ensure they are not disadvantaged by the underbidder.

Perhaps Ms Stewart could comment on that fundamental choice at the beginning. I know there are supports for those who choose to include quality criteria and suggestions for some criteria they may use, but what shift and move can happen for that fundamental first decision to make procurement be based on quality as well as price? Also, what level of weighting should be given to quality? Perhaps Ms Stewart has suggestions for what weighting she thinks should be given to quality. Should it be 50%? We know in the national children's hospital it was, I think, 75% price and 25% quality, and I think it has probably shown. Also, within quality, what weighting does Ms Stewart believe should be given to environmental considerations?