Mr. Paul Quinn:

I will start with the question on micro-enterprises. Rightly or wrongly, we have bundled all of our conversations regarding SMEs to include micro-enterprises. We have never specifically excluded them in any way. We believe the policies that have been set are inclusive of micro-enterprises because we know they do a huge amount of business in the Irish economy, particularly where larger contracts are broken down into sub-contracts.

In regard to the figures of 95% and 75% cited by Deputy Kyne, we stand over these figures because we provided them to the Minister. They are our best estimate at this moment in time of the composition of expenditure in the Irish economy. They are, however, based on our estimates and our samples. As I noted earlier, we will have substantially more detailed and accurate information towards the end of this year, which we will be able to provide to the Oireachtas, to stakeholders and to the public. I am comfortable that the numbers are of the correct order of magnitude. I do not think we will see a swing of 25% in any of the numbers. I spent the last 20 months examining in detail how the public service spends money. When one investigates what we buy and where we buy it, one realises that a huge proportion can only be bought locally. For example, nobody will come from Berlin to clean a Garda station in Bantry. Similarly, the energy that is used to light or heat that Garda station can only come from local sources. A significant amount of the money we spend can only stay within the economy. Goods can flow across seas in certain areas, such as the high technology and medical space.

In the case of defence and vehicles, we do not produce any vehicles and we do not, by and large, produce armaments in this country. There are some things which, by their nature, must come across but having examined and analysed what information we have over the last number of years, I am still very confident of those numbers. I look forward to the day when I can return to the committee and be able to give solid numbers to the best of our ability based on actual spend.

There were also questions about exports. We continue to work with Enterprise Ireland, and it is involved in most of our working groups, to help businesses get the process of public procurement right. The analogy I generally use is that it is a little like answering an examination question. Once one figures out how to approach and answer the examination question, one will get it right most of the time. Public procurement, because it involves largely the same processes across all of the states in the EU, follows a quite prescriptive mechanism in how it operates. We have worked with suppliers who have been successful not only in winning business in Ireland but also in figuring out that they can win business outside their natural geographic catchment and outside the State as well. I will not mention the names of those businesses.

The final question was about the holistic impact of public procurement. Public processes are very legally bound in what can and cannot be considered within the context of the directives and legislation in place. Every time we run a procurement there is one winner and usually several losers, who are disappointed that they have lost business. Some of them are incumbent businesses and might be losing business they have held for some time. However, that is what is required of us from a legislative perspective. The law requires us to offer the opportunities to the market in an open, fair and transparent way. That is a legal obligation and it is the way we satisfy the taxpayer that we are spending money wisely when it is offered to the marketplace.

Job losses is a very difficult topic and it is very emotional for most organisations, which is understandable. However, a reduction in labour that serves Government clients is not always a bad thing, particularly if it is enabled by new technology, innovative processes or simply more productive models in delivering for the State. Procurement can capture those improvements and in doing that can deliver value to the State, reduce costs and deliver better services. Should we not reward good suppliers who are innovative and find new and better ways to do things with Government contracts? It will build innovative businesses, a stronger economy and ultimately will help those businesses grow outside the State.

Yes, there are downsides to running procurement, but there are upsides as well. It is also important to bear in mind that, by and large, the Government is spending roughly equivalent amounts of money in the economy every year. That supports a certain number of jobs. We generally do not see large scale reductions in jobs that serve the Government. Instead we see displacement, when jobs move from some suppliers to other suppliers. That should be taken into account as well.