Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This Bill comes at a timely moment, as I am sure the Minister of State will agree, when her Department has launched a review of the public procurement system. I hope this review will be constructive, that it is not just a box-ticking exercise and that we look at the nuts and bolts of this issue. How the Government deals with this Bill and the review will be really important.

I have worked with a number of Ministers, depending on the Department in question. When I introduce legislation, I have always told them that I am open to working with them. I do not just complain about the issues I see. Rather, I bring forward solutions. I have introduced numerous Bills during my time in the Dáil, some of which have been accepted and others that have not. I am here to work with the Government on these issues. I hope it is willing to work with me. There can be a reflexive attitude whereby the Government is unwilling to agree to things that come from this side of the House solely on the basis that they come from this side of the House. I hope that will not be the case with this Bill. What I have always said is that if the legislation is good, then it is good legislation no matter who introduces it and we should work with it.

We are talking about the Transparency and Social Value in Public Procurement Bill 2024. The Minister of State and I discussed procurement yesterday at the finance committee. The Minister of State acknowledged that there were serious deficiencies when it came to data collection on the spending on public procurement. People would be shocked if they realised that we spent €22 billion per year on public procurement and that the State was the biggest spender in the State. We have a responsibility when it comes to how that money is spent, not only in ensuring we spend it wisely, correctly and within budget, but in how it impacts on all of society. We know there is a money multiplier effect. When money is spent within a local economy, it can have an impact on that local economy. We always need to make sure we have that in the back of our minds when we talk about this.

We do not have timely data on the number of contracts that ran over cost last year versus the number of contracts that came in on cost. We do not have the total level of cost overruns in big contracts. We have no idea how many of the contracts that concluded last year came in on time versus how many came in behind schedule. We have no idea what the most popular type of procurement procedure was last year, such as how many contracts were awarded directly versus how many went to competitive tender. How many SMEs won contracts? We do not have this information to hand. How many contained social clauses to promote some social labour or environmental objectives? We do not have the data on that.

In the last Dáil term, I contacted a range of local authorities and State bodies asking them about their use of social clauses in public contracts. A huge amount of them did not know what I was talking about. Some responded to my survey saying they adhered to the minimum wage. That is the law; it is not a social clause. That just shows how much we are operating in a system where we do not know what is going on. We are operating within a black box system when it comes to public procurement. The situation currently is one of “No data, no problem”.

My Bill is not going to revolutionise the procurement system. It would, however, provide a reformist Minister with an important tool of oversight with which significant reforms could be made. The laissez-faireattitude when it comes to public procurement in this State is hopelessly outdated. I drafted the Bill in such a way that a money message should not come into the equation. The information the Bill would like to see as part of the report is already largely being collected by the individual contracting authorities. It is just not being collected centrally in a timely fashion. It is not published, presented or analysed in a strategic way. We are talking about €22 billion. We should be able to know what is happening with that money.

There is an analogue approach to public spending in a digital age. While I hear great things from this Government about AI, the digital transformation and so forth, when it comes to a public spend of €22 billion per year, the most up-to-date report we have is from 2019. That was six years ago. I had not even been elected to this House at that stage. It seems nothing has changed since. If the director of a major company asked the chief financial officer, CFO, for information on the number of contracts awarded directly last years versus the number that went to competitive tender and the CFO was unable to tell the director that information and only had data from six years ago, that CFO would not be long in the job. I am not equating the public and private sectors to the same extent. I am just making the point that we do not have that data to be analysed.

I understand that the review of the procurement system was probably put in train some time ago, perhaps before Deputy Higgins was a Minister of State, but she is the Minister of State with responsibility for this area now. I hope she is serious about the reform that needs to happen and that we can work together on this Bill. Not only is it timely legislation, but we have a duty in this regard, given of our positions in this House. The Bill is not a party political one. It is a Bill that tries to get a certain amount of work done. I do not know anyone opposed to the concept of having more data on a €22 billion spend, considering the lack of any kind of concept of what exactly is going on.

This Bill is compliant with EU directives, so there is no issue there. It follows on from some of the recommendations of the European Commission about using our public procurement system to promote industrial policy purposes. What those purposes are will depend on the Government of the day, but I cannot imagine the Minister of State would disagree that it is better to have such tools at her disposal than to not have them.

This Bill would not even involve the Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Government Procurement, OGP. As the Minister of State rightly mentioned yesterday, the OGP is not a regulatory body. The Bill would involve the Minister using his or her powers to have this report compiled. The Bill also sets limits so that contracts of a small value would not be included. Therefore, it is not creating some unnecessary administrative burden on contracting authorities. If the Government is serious about tackling wasteful public spending and the prudent management of the public finances, it should support this Bill. If the Government is only interested in staying on the old "lessons will be learned" merry-go-round, then it will not support this Bill. In issuing external value for money reports and going about business as usual, I am sure some excuses will be found to oppose it.

When I first got elected to the Dáil, I became my party’s spokesperson for public expenditure. The first thing I wanted to do was look at the issue of procurement. I met the OGP and looked into the issue. The first thing that shocked me was that we did not have the information. In the context of better public spending and everything else, this Bill makes sense. It also means that State bodies would have a lot more information as to what worked and did not work. We can always learn from one another. At the moment, we are relying on freedom of information requests or an investigative journalist to uncover large cost overruns or wasteful spending of public money. As the Minister of State with responsibility for this area, I imagine she does not want to be answering questions about issues she was not aware of due to a lack of data and that she only ever became aware of because someone got a tip-off or found out the information some other way.

It comes down to how we look at the money we spend for the public and economic good of our citizens across this State. Looking at different parts of this State, I think of areas like Donegal that are infrastructurally far more difficult to get to than others. Conamara is another example of an area with bad infrastructure leading out to it. We are trying to get private capital into these areas to get businesses started in order that there be more and better job opportunities for people. If we are the biggest spender in this State, then we need to look at how we spend that money to employ people and get people on apprenticeships. For example, when I was on Galway City Council, we put forward and passed a social clause in terms of labour activation to include the apprenticeship model. That means for some young fella or girl who has decided that he or she wishes to do an apprenticeship, there is a big capital project. The Government is saying it is big into the infrastructural aspect and wants to invest in that space. No matter who is awarded the contract, a big capital project just up the road from that young person would give him or her that opportunity because of the labour activation element.

This would ensure that there are not only the jobs but the apprenticeships. I do not need to labour the point because the benefits of this are quite clear. I do not think there is any reason not to support this Bill. I will listen to what the Minister of State has to say and I will see what comes out of that. Sometimes, we need look at how things can be done differently and more simply and not just think that this is the way we have always done it and not change it.

Emer Higgins (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after “That” and substitute the following: “Dail Eireann resolves that the Transparency and Social Value in Public Procurement (Bill 2024) be read a second time this day 24 months, to allow for consideration of the complex legal issues in the Bill and how they interact with the Companies Act 2014 and the EU’s eForms (electronic procurement notices) Implementing Regulation; and also to allow for the European Commission to have completed its revision of the Public Procurement Directives, which the Commission have timetabled to commence in early 2026; and for such considerations to be taken into account in further scrutiny of the Bill"."

As the Minister for State with responsibility for public procurement, digitalisation and egovernment, I thank Deputy Farrell for giving us the opportunity to discuss public procurement on the floor of the Dáil Chamber. I have tabled a timed amendment to the Deputy’s Private Members' Bill, primarily for the following three reasons. First, because a review of public procurement directives is happening at an EU level and it is imperative that our national legislation is in compliance with EU directives, and indeed with our own legislation such as the Companies Act 2014.

Second, because, as the Deputy mentioned, we are in the middle of drafting our first ever national public procurement strategy and I firmly believe that any new national legislation needs to be drafted in the context of the feedback we have got from our public consultation. I thank the Deputy for her submission to that consultation. Third, because - and I hope this is good news - a lot of what is asked for in this Bill is actually already happening through eForms and I will speak a little bit about that shortly.

In addition, there are some legal concerns with the language in the Bill, in particular with definitions and I can elaborate on those. That is why I am asking that my officials be given two years to work at EU level to review and update legislation at a national level to transpose directives into Irish law and to finalise and implement our first ever national public procurement strategy to shape the future of public procurement in Ireland.

As Members know, public procurement is a fundamental, crucial component of democratic governance, of economic well-being and of sustainable development. From building roads and power stations to purchasing pharmaceuticals and securing waste-collection services, efficient use of public resources contributes to better delivery of services. Public procurement also serves as a significant policy instrument, which Governments can use, as the Deputy said, to propel changes in public service delivery, to create jobs, and stimulate private sector growth in a balanced way.

A well-performing public procurement system increases citizens' confidence in Government and private sector competitiveness, especially by levelling the playing field for small- and medium-sized businesses, including micro-enterprises, start-ups and social enterprises. I thank Deputy Farrell for her work in this space, which I know has been based on a shared desire to achieve better outcomes when it comes to procurement.

The 24-month deferral is necessary to allow for consideration of the complex legal issues in the Bill and to allow time for the European Commission to have completed its revision of the public procurement directives. The previous revision of the 2004 directives commenced in 2012 and was not completed until 2014. We do not know how long it may take for the European Commission to look at its revisions but it looks quite likely that Ireland may well - as I said in the committee yesterday - hold the pen on this, as this may happen while Ireland has the Presidency in the second half of next year. Once the directives have been made, time would then be needed to be allowed for the Office of the Attorney General to review the legal text for transposition into EU law. Hence, a timeframe of at least 24 months for the deferral is required for the legislative process, for when the EU directives become national law.

In relation to the data elements of the Bill, Ireland has implemented EU regulations on eForms. which are electronic public procurement notices. They already capture much of the information the Bill is seeking to introduce. I will focus now on three key areas in making the case to the House for the deferral of the Second Reading for 24 months. The Bill has the potential to contravene EU law and second, there are concerns over amendments to the Companies Act 2014. This Bill would pre-empt the new public procurement strategy and would duplicate current regulations on data capture.

Regarding the potential impact of the Bill when it comes to law, the Bill’s scope is related to that part of public expenditure which is covered by the EU procurement rules, deriving from Directive 2014/24/EU. However, that directive covers the procedures to be followed in relation to the award of a public contract and not the terms or the performance of the contract itself. The Bill therefore is erroneous in seeking to extend a legal application to give further effect to the terms of that directive into aspects outside of and beyond the provisions of those directives. There is no corresponding reference in the title of the Bill to the statutory instrument which transposed provisions of the EU directive into Irish law. These regulations are SI 284/2016, that is, the European Union (Award of Public Authority Contracts) Regulations 2016, which I will hereafter call the 2016 regulations.

It should also be noted that in October 2017, Ireland signed up to the Tallinn declaration on egovernment. A key aim of this declaration is to create a more efficient digital public administration across Europe. This marks a new political commitment at EU level on significant priorities towards ensuring high-quality, user-centric digital public services for citizens and seamless cross-border public services for businesses. The “once-only principle” provided for in this declaration sets out that citizens and businesses should only have to provide information to public administrations once, with data being reused across different services. The provisions of this Bill in respect of data gathering and reporting might not align with this “once-only principle”.

As mentioned, the Bill pre-empts the European Commission’s revision of Directive 2014/24/EU. The Commission has commenced the evaluation phase of the revision process, which has been ongoing for several months, and the Commission is focusing on competition, cost benefit, internal and external coherence of the legal framework governing procurement, relevance and EU added value, as well as transparency and integrity.

The evaluation will be followed by a regulatory impact assessment of the proposed legal text. Following the impact assessment, the Commission intends to publish the draft legislative proposal in early 2026 and has indicated it wants the legal process completed by end of 2026 or early in 2027, which may fall under Ireland's Presidency. At present, it is difficult to see how this ambitious timeline will be met, and the revision of the legal framework will extend beyond these current parameters. Work is already under way by the EU Commission that will impact on reporting requirements, eForms and the public procurement data project and it may also introduce conflicts with the current EU legislative framework. It is imperative that any domestic legislative proposals do not conflict with the current or future EU binding legal requirements on reporting in public procurement. Further consideration of such legal issues is required. Therefore, Deputy Farrell’s Bill would seem premature to this ongoing process. There is the potential that by the time the Bill is enacted, it may contravene the new EU directives.

It also has the potential to add to the complexity of the public procurement regime, which is against the trajectory of the European Commission and its intended reform of the public procurement regime in response to concerns on falling competitiveness in the public market, a deregulatory environment in Brussels and a desire to match public expenditure through procurement to the strategic needs of the EU.

I welcome the continued focus on simplification of EU regulations to boost EU competitiveness and to provide legal certainty to businesses. It is important that the implementation of EU regulations becomes more effective, striking the right balance between sufficient regulations to protect consumers and EU citizens while allowing our firms to innovate. The Bill has far-reaching effects beyond procurement, as it seeks to amend the Companies Act 2014. Section 8 of the Bill seeks to create an entirely new framework whereby the Registrar of Companies will be given a new, as yet unclear role in relation to public contracts and disqualified persons. This will require the sharing of information on all public contracts within the scope of the legislation and introduces new requirements whereby the Courts Service, the Registrar of Beneficial Ownership of Trusts and the Examiner of the High Court will be obliged to report to the registrar of companies.

The registrar of companies has extensive functions under the Companies Act 2014 in relation to the incorporation of companies; the registration of a range of post-incorporation documentation throughout the company lifecycle; the enforcement of the Companies Act 2014 filing obligations of companies and the making available of company-related information to the public.

All of the information filed with the Companies Registration Office is company specific and filed individually in respect of each company. As the fundamental role of the Companies Registration Office is the maintenance of a central repository of statutory information, as required by the Companies Act, it is not considered appropriate or desirable that the registrar have any function in relation to public contracts. There are in excess of 320,000 companies on the Register of Companies and it is considered likely that the majority are not engaging in public procurement with the State. Accordingly, only a small cohort of those on the register are likely to come within the scope of the Bill.

Section 8 also provides for the provision of prescribed information from the registrar of beneficial ownership of trusts. This information is held by the Revenue Commissioners and a matter for the Department of Finance but it should be noted that what is being proposed appears to involve a duplication of effort in that such information would also be maintained by the registrar of companies. Furthermore, there are limitations on access to trust information held by the Revenue Commissioners and restrictions would also apply if such information was to be provided to the registrar of companies.

The section also provides for the provision of information by an examiner of the High Court in relation to public contracts involving a person who is an undischarged bankrupt. It should be noted that section 132 of the Companies Act prohibits an undischarged bankrupt from being a director, a secretary or otherwise involved in a company unless he or she has the leave of the court.

This highly complex framework will need careful consideration and extensive consultation with the Companies Registration Office, the Department of justice and the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment in order to understand the impact and extent of the proposal. Further consequential legislative change may be required. The requirement for contracting authorities to report on contract performance for all above-threshold competitions will be burdensome and would raise the potential for legal challenge, particularly if these reports are to be used in relation to access to future competitions.

The Government is already progressing programme for Government commitments to increase transparency and embed sustainable - including green and, as the Deputy specifically called out, social considerations - in public procurement. The programme for Government identified developing Ireland’s enterprise base as a focus over the next five years, from backing small businesses and start-ups to scaling up indigenous firms. The role that public procurement can play in this is emphasised by the Government’s commitment to review the public procurement process to ensure greater participation from SMEs, including micro-enterprises and social entrepreneurs.

This is why the Minister, Deputy Chambers, and I are leading on the first ever national public procurement strategy. It will set out the strategic direction of public procurement over the next five years. While public procurement can be a key lever in bringing about wider Government and societal objectives, it is not the primary lever. Therefore, a collaborative and unified cross-government approach is required to join up the use of public procurement to achieve greater value for money - not just price and sustainability but also the social clauses the Deputy mentioned, economic well-being and resilience.

The public consultation for the strategy was launched in March and ran until recently. We also held three strategy roadshows in Dublin, Cork and Athlone, which were attended by a variety of stakeholders including public bodies, industry bodies, utilities, suppliers, social enterprises and SMEs from across the country. Key themes consulted on included strategic public procurement, transparency, informed delivery, digitalisation and value for money.

Deputy Farrell made a submission to the consultation for the strategy, setting forth her plans for her Bill, which would allow me to produce a report for all contracts above a given threshold and that this information would be connected to other freely available public registers, thus improving the overall interoperability of the system. I thank her for making that submission. There are some really good ideas in there. It was one of 143 submissions we received and my officials are reviewing those in addition to the feedback we received from our regional workshops, which gave us the opportunity to delve into those issues in more detail. We will be using those ideas and the lived experiences of SMEs and central purchasing bodies to help shape Ireland’s first ever national public procurement strategy and I hope the Deputy agrees that it is important that those views are reviewed and responded to in terms of being included in the strategy before we implement new legislation in this space.

A clear ask from that consultation was the removal of red tape and unnecessary bureaucracy. That leads me to our third area of concern, which is that this Bill appears to duplicate current regulations on data capture. The duplication of legislation or of requirements is something we would like to avoid, in terms of the businesses that have been in touch with us. The data that the Bill seeks is already being captured under the European Commission’s implementing regulation 2019 for eforms, which are digital standard forms used by public buyers to publish notices on Tenders Electronic Daily, which is the official tendering platform for the EU. The primary purpose is to enhance transparency. The secondary purpose is to capture the data the Deputy mentioned. That is why we badly need them.

I have further information, which I am sure can be read into the record, on eforms but I will conclude because time is against me. The Commission continues to evolve these eforms as part of the longer term strategic objectives within the European Public Procurement Data Space, PPDS. It is expected that Ireland will in due course participate in the PPDS initiative which will further increase transparency of public procurement.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State may make a further contribution. Deputy Nash will be aware speakers are called in order of who was in the Chamber first, so Deputy O'Reilly is next. She has ten minutes.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There should be no difficulty there. I thank my colleague, an Teachta Farrell, for bringing forward this legislation. I also thank her, as the Minister of State did, for all her work on this issue.

I cannot quite make sense of the Minister of State's amendment to postpone the Second Reading of the Bill for 24 months. I operate according to the principle that it is never the wrong time to do the right thing. The Minister of State said it is necessary to put it back to allow for consideration of complex legal issues. We are legislators and the committee process is supposed to allow us to do that and to deliberate. Nobody on the Minister of State's benches or these benches has ever bought legislation to the Dáil assuming that every word of it was perfect, nor would anyone be arrogant enough to do so. Ministers as well as members of the Opposition frequently say we recognise there will be a need to tease out issues, but that is what the committee process is for. It is regrettable that the Minister of State seeks to postpone the legislation.

The Minister of State also mentioned we could be in danger of collecting too much data, yet she nodded, as I did, when an Teachta Farrell went through how tortuous it can be to get that information because it is not collated. I respect the fact the Minister of State might be concerned there could be too much information collected but I do not think we are anywhere near that space yet. In fact, we are a million miles away from it.

Before I was elected, as Deputies will know, I worked as a trade union organiser. We used to say repeatedly to Government that the State should be careful to spend its money where workers' rights are protected. We in the trade union movement recognised the State is not just a big spender, but can be a driver of employment policy and a driver of and positive agent for workers' rights. Unfortunately, in the rush to privatise essential public services, using, as we knew it would, the vehicle of the Office of Government Procurement at times, taxpayers' money is spent in areas where workers' rights are not only not being protected but are being absolutely ripped up. There are companies in receipt of massive State contracts that think it is okay not to recognise trade unions. All they have to do is the minimum. All they have to do is write back and say, "We're paying the minimum wage." That is really the only legally enforceable right a worker has. The State could use its money to drive decent pay and conditions or it can take a hands-off approach, which is frequently what happens. I have been in the Labour Court with employers who have judgments and decisions against them and know there is no way they can be compelled. I know from the data, and it perhaps can be seen in newspapers as well, that companies with a really bad record on human rights know they can ramble back into another Government contract without there being any comeback at all. I have said in the Labour Court and in other forums that the irony of this is high-paid civil and public servants, who are union members and have benefited from trade union membership, are working on these contracts.

There are employers who will not implement Labour Court recommendations. A Labour Court recommendation is made and employers will not implement it because they do not have to. One arm of the State is providing the contract and giving big money to this company and another arm of the State is saying that they need to come halfway to do something decent for their workers. However, there is no compulsion on them to do so. While this is happening, the data is not being collated. If the Government has no data or information, then it cannot be the driver for decent terms and conditions for workers. These companies know that when the Government is spending the €22 billion, and they are getting some of it, there is a continuous pipeline that they are going to be able to tap into again and again. It does not matter if there are outstanding Labour Court judgments against them.

Deputy Nash will recall that I was on the picket line with Patricia King outside a major Department where the cleaners were being treated appallingly, but the Government was funding that company. The Government recognises trade unions but this company would not recognise the union. Not only would they not recognise the union, but they would not pay the appropriate rate. When the workers went on strike, the company threatened to lock them out and sack them. The women who were cleaning said to me that this is the Government, and the Government is paying for their jobs essentially. The Labour Court is an arm of the government, yet we have a situation whereby there is absolutely no onus on it to respect workers' rights. The State is a massive player.

Deputy Farrell's Bill seeks to ensure that the State has information to act ethically. It is literally giving the State and the Government the benefit of the doubt on the basis that perhaps some of the stuff that goes on happens because people are not aware it is going on in a systematic way. Effectively, Deputy Farrell's legislation gives the Government the data and information that it can use to then act in the interests of workers and, indeed, in upholding workers' rights. It does not make any sense for the State to have, as the Minister of State and other Members have said, sophisticated industrial relations machinery. We have said it many times, and it does exist. The Government is on a hiding to nothing if it gets a Labour Court recommendation that an employer simply will not fulfil. That employer knows, whether they fulfil the Labour Court recommendation or not, it can still get another lucrative Government contract. If this data is collected and analysed properly, the State will realise it is not acting in the interest of workers. It is not using its massive spending power in the market as a driver for decent terms and conditions and for workers' rights. However, equally it is using its money to fund organisations that are essentially disrespecting another arm of the State because Labour Court recommendations are being ignored. In some instances, we have established rates of pay in industries and those too are being ignored.

It does not any sense to put this off for 24 months because that time could be used by us in committee and in the Chamber to debate and tease out those complex legal issues. No legislation is ever without its consequences. We cannot simply snap our fingers and either change the law or bring in a new law that is not going to have consequences. That is the purpose of committees and debate. We were elected here to have those discussions. As it stands, the State does not use its massive spending power as a driver for decent terms and conditions for workers. Perhaps, some of the reason it does not is it is not aware to the extent to which this is going on. The collection of data would be useful in that regard but it equally would provide the State with valuable information to harness the power. It is €22 billion - that is not nothing - which is a lot of power that could be directed in a positive way. That is simply what an Teachta Farrell is seeking to do with this legislation. I urge the Minister of State to consider withdrawing her amendment and working with the Opposition on what is essentially decent and worthwhile legislation.

Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I congratulate my colleague Deputy Farrell for bringing this Bill forward. It is significant legislation. It very much aligns with the work that the Deputy has done since she entered this Chamber in 2020. She is very much focused on the question of public procurement and driving economic and social change through the development of responsible public procurement systems. It is quite extraordinary when we consider that €22 billion of taxpayers' money, generated by the hard work of Irish citizens, will be spent on public procurement this year. To put that in context, that comes in at approximately 20% of what we expect the State to spend next year. That is a significant amount of taxpayers' money. We could be doing much more with the resources we have to generate the kind of change environmentally, socially and from an employment of view in this country that many of us in the House believe ought to occur. In the context of Deputy Farrell's chairing of the Oireachtas joint committee on finance, we will deal with procurement issues over the next period. It is very much on our work agenda because we all believe that improvements need to be made to how services and goods are procured in this State. We are not using all the opportunities provided to us to drive the kind of change we need.

I have studied this area carefully over the years. A number of initiatives can be taken to improve the situation for everyone. I think the Minister of State will agree, given she referenced this broadly in her remarks, that public procurement can be used as a way in which we can drive better outcomes, for example, for SMEs. I sought to do that a number of years ago in a different set of circumstances when the country was in greater difficulty economically than it is now to try to make sure that indigenous enterprise was assisted in obtaining a greater share of the pie through public procurement. SMEs with limited staff, facilities and supports available to them found navigation of the public procurement system quite difficult and quite onerous from an administrative point of view. There are ways in which we can simplify that. The House often divides when we talk about regulation. I believe in regulation but not overregulation. I believe in smart regulation. One side of the House appears to think that deregulation is a good thing; I do not. I believe in smart regulation and certainly not burdening SMEs or anybody else with ridiculous forms of regulation. Smart regulation supports good business and good business practice. It ensures a level playing pitch.

That is why I want to move on to some of the remarks made by Deputy O'Reilly. We also ensure that there is a level playing pitch for SMEs, and indeed, for workers in this country when we use public procurement better, when we drive social and economic change and when we embed the principles, for example, of collective bargaining. As some other states that we like to compare ourselves against in the European Union do, we need to ensure that we do not provide lucrative contracts to companies that do not, for example, recognise trade unions; frustrate the right of people to join trade unions; that do not welcome the concept of collective bargaining - it is quite the opposite; they are actively hostile to it; or that routinely ignore Labour Court recommendations while, at the same time, enjoying all of the benefits of the State's largesse when it comes to public procurement. I recall a number of years ago reintroducing employment regulation orders, EROs, that levelled the playing pitch, for example, for good contract security and cleaning companies and for their staff. This is when we take questions of pay out of the public procurement issue where employers compete on quality and standards rather than pay. Through replies to parliamentary questions, doing some additional research and uncovering the facts a number of years ago, it was found that a considerable number of contractors at that point providing services to the State that were ignoring EROs and simply paying staff what they wanted.

Very little action was taken by line Departments to bring those contracted companies into line. In many ways, we speak out of both sides of our mouths when it comes to public procurement and driving change.

I noted that in her remarks, the Minister of State mentioned that public procurement can propel changes in public service delivery and create jobs to stimulate private sector growth. There was very little about how we could drive environmental improvements or economic change and level the playing pitch for working people. That has to be at the heart of any review of public procurement in this country.

This not something that should divide the House on philosophical or narrow ideological grounds. Questions of good public procurement and driving the change we need through public procurement should not be exclusive to those who describe ourselves as being on the left. Good government, value for money and responsible public spending should be matters that those who regard themselves as being on the centre or centre right should also value. It does not make sense. This is something we should all unite on. A huge amount of public resources go into public procurement every year and the outcomes are not what they might be. No one should be afraid of transparency. We can differ all we want on policy goals. We have these debates, as we should, on the floor of this House, in committees and through the media, but transparency should be something everyone is interested in.

On a number of occasions in her remarks, the Minister of State - I accept she said this in good faith and I have no doubt she was well advised by experienced officials - said we are talking all the time about simplification and deregulation and how that is the agenda of the European Union. This is actually about driving simplification. It may be in a way the Minister of State disagrees with, but I hope she should would concede that the principles of what Deputy Farrell is trying to achieve and which we support are positive. That is why I am disappointed that we have not only a 12-month delay but a 24 month delay, which, in the context of how the Government tends to deal with Private Members' Bills these days, is unusual. I understand a review is ongoing at European Union level and that the national procurement strategy is also under way. The Minister of State also made the point that the e-form system in some way simplifies the situation and makes information publicly available. It does, but to the best of my recollection, it does not make all that information available in one place that is accessible in a way that those of us who are interested in these things we can navigate and which other firms can see.

I remember a number of years ago that an organisation was supported in being set up by my party colleague then Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Brendan Howlin. It was called Benefacts. It drove a huge amount of change and transparency in the not-for-profit sector. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform allowed this organisation to grow from itself - it is now known as the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation - and it provided lots of interesting information about levels of State funding for NGOs and other not-for-profit organisations, the number of staff they had, contracts they had and so on. It was buried a number of years ago, ridiculously. It brought great transparency to that sector. It is a similar kind of effort we are trying to talk about today, bringing greater transparency to an area of public expenditure we should be much more interested in than we are. I had hoped the Minister of State would work with us and allow the Bill to get to Committee Stage for further interrogation and examination, in parallel with the processes that she referred to in her remarks.

I again thank Deputy Farrell for bringing this important legislation to the House. It is a debate that does not get as much attention as it should, given the value of the resources we are talking about and the potential for a progressive public procurement system to drive change at every level of our society and economy. The Labour Party is pleased to support the principles of this legislation and the contents of the Bill.

Emer Higgins (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputies for their engagement on the Bill and in particular Deputy Farrell who worked on it. It has been useful to have the opportunity to discuss public procurement on the floor of the Dáil, important considerations for it and how the Government can ensure better services for the people who come here to live and work and who are born and live here. It is important that we make sure that public procurement is in the best interests of all our citizens.

Public procurement is a key priority for the Government. It is vital to ensure we deliver better public services for everyone. As Minister of State with responsibility for public procurement, digitalisation and e-government, I will take this opportunity to close by sharing with the House my vision and ambition for public procurement. Before I do so, I will respond to some of the comments made on the floor of the Dáil.

I will start with Deputy Farrell's remarks on social clauses and local authorities. I assure the Deputy that I am engaged with the Local Government Management Association, LGMA, and I have directly met three of the four procurement officers in the three Dublin local authorities. I have also met local authorities while I have been doing roadshows up and down the country and I remain open to meeting more. I have been taking on board the feedback they are giving me from the ground. They are the people telling me that they are very mindful of the social clauses and they are pushing for more and more clarity on what social clauses mean. While the Deputy's experience may be different in different local authorities, from what I have seen, they have been really engaged in this. I am pleased with that.

From a data perspective, on the points the Deputy made around key performance indicators, KPIs - whether it is delivered on time and on budget - I agree we need to see more happening in this space and that will be part of what happens through our data collection and our national procurement strategy.

Deputy O'Reilly mentioned the benefits of Committee Stage of Bills. I absolutely agree. However, the EU is now revising its directives, so if we go to Committee Stage and make whatever changes we make to the language of the Bill, we will still be left in a situation where the Bill may contravene EU legislation when it is enacted. That is a clear concern.

Deputy O'Reilly also spoke about collective bargaining, as did Deputy Nash, and employers' rights. I take that on board. Some of that was already provided to us through our public submission. Deputy Nash talked about how we can use public procurement to drive better outcomes for SMEs. As I previously served in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, that is something I am keen to do. That is why I have gone out and met SMEs and taken advice from the SME procurement advisory council. We also have the new public procurement advisory council within our central bodies, which is also providing that information to me. We are getting advice from both the SMEs and public buyers, which is important.

Every year, as has been said, billions of euro are spent by the State on goods, services and works. This brings obligations, but it also brings huge opportunity. Public procurement has significant potential to support SMEs and, with that, regional development and the wider economy. The awarding of a public contract can act as a springboard for emerging micro-enterprises and SMEs to expand and export. I was delighted to meet some of the SMEs in that boat in recent months.

The Department continues to work to ensure value for money is at the heart of all decision-making. That is not partisan and does not relate to the side of the House you sit on; it is what the Government is committed to doing. I am keen to use this strategy to explore ways to promote efficient and effective public procurement that achieves the best possible value for money for the people of Ireland. By doing this, I will also look at social clauses and environmental clauses, which Deputy Nash mentioned, and we will shortly be bringing new green public procurement guidelines to Cabinet. That will be in the next month or so, I hope before the recess. They are with the Minister, Deputy Chambers, at the moment and we hope to get them through because we need to make sure we are doing as much as possible in digital, green and social and also when it comes to transparency and value for money.

Ireland has implemented EU regulations on e-forms and that captures much of the information this Bill seeks to. The European Commission’s focus is, like our own, on the simplification of the current complex legal code and a reorientation of procurement to act as a tool for steering investment and increasing competitiveness. That is what I want to see as Minister of State. I want to make sure that we are using our public procurement process to make Ireland a more competitive place and to give our SMEs a bigger slice of that pie while always protecting our transparency and having value for money at the core.

Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

First, I will mention the survey results. The Minister of State mentioned that she dealt with the Dublin local authorities. I cannot remember - I would not say it in this House anyway - exactly who responded in what way but there was a very clear lack of understanding. I am happy to meet with the Minister of State and share my results in a way that shows her how little information is out there, not in the sense of trying to land blame on any person. That is not what that is about. It is more about the fact that the information is not there. The focus has not been there. That focus does, I think, have to come from the Government. It has to come from the Minister of State, in my view.

To be honest, I am quite disappointed that the Minister of State will not be supporting this Bill, or that she is putting a 24-month stay on it. The 24 months in itself baffles me, to be perfectly honest. I have had this done to me on numerous Bills I have had. I have had it done with my protected disclosures Bill and my lobbying Bill, and now I have it with this. To be clear, I do not take Bills lightly. It takes a huge amount of work over several months. I think it took well over a year, maybe a year and a half, to do this particular Bill because when I put a Bill forward I want to do it right. Of course there are going to be issues that will have to be teased out on Committee Stage. That is the nature of it. Unfortunately, as Deputy Nash mentioned earlier, it is probably not the most emotive topic. It is probably not the snazziest topic that really catches people's attention but if people realised the impact €22 billion can have and the way that money is spent, I think it would be quite a snazzy topic for people.

What I do not understand is the concept of kicking this down for 24 months at a time when there is a review of the public procurement system going on. That is ridiculous in a sense because what the Minister of State is saying is that in the midst of a review where we have been told it is the time to consider a progressive reform of the system, this Bill is here to do just that. As a result of that, I think it should be considered. The fact that this has now been pushed back for a two-year period, well after the review will have been concluded, I would imagine, does not make sense to me either. If the Minister of State was saying that the review will be concluded in a certain amount of time and we will revisit it then, that would be fine but if the review is going to take two years, how long is it going to take the Minister of State to make the reforms subsequent to that?

I have to say I am disappointed. I probably should not be because it is something I have come across before in this Chamber. I was hoping we would look at tangible actions. Even if the Minister of State felt there were certain issues that needed to be teased out, changed or whatever, we could actually look at tangible actions that we could do. I am worried that there does not seem to be the will there. This is about waste of money and how money is spent. It is also about how we can better spend the money.

With regard to some of the comments the Minister of State made, the EU Commission is currently engaging in proceedings against Ireland for failing to properly enact the fifth anti-money laundering directive because of the manner in which it was transposed. This relates to the issue of trusts the Minister of State was talking about. The State was also in the spotlight due to the use of trusts for listed financial activities, and this Bill would help to improve that. It is bizarre to hear that this is being used in an area where we have been found wanting. This does not make sense to me. When we talk about beneficial ownership, that is a no-brainer, in that we should know where our money is being spent. We should know who the money is being spent on. I think that is incredibly important, and that is what the whole issue of beneficial ownership comes down to. The concept that we do not know just baffles me completely. If the majority of companies in the CRO, as the Minister of State said, are not using public contracts, it is clear there is no massive creation of work here. If the majority in the CRO are not, it should not be really about creating huge amounts of work, and finding out who we are spending the money on should absolutely be a no-brainer.

The Minister of State was also talking about equality budgeting before the committee yesterday and her support for this, and I do not doubt that. On the use of social clauses, I welcome the fact that the Minister of State met with certain Dublin authorities. That is maybe too Dublin-centric in my opinion because we need to look at how our money is being spent across the State to promote both social value and equality. My Bill would help to highlight where that reluctance is because we need to know. If we have the data we can look at where the reluctance is.

We are talking about being prudent with public finances. There is talk about AI and digital transformation while at the same time, we are relying on procurement reports from 2019. It is like a Sunday league football team talking about preparation for qualifying for the UEFA Champions League. The words just have little relationship to reality. Even if the Minister of State never intended to allow the Bill to pass the last Stage, if we had the opportunity to talk about and go through this, the Minister of State would have the opportunity to tease out the issues in the midst of her review. By the time these things get to Committee Stage or get through it, it will have taken a huge number of months rather than waiting the 24 months. The Minister of State is telling us that she has to wait for the EU to tell us what is what, while at the same time the EU is telling us that national governments need to improve the functioning of their own procurement systems. That is what this Bill intends to do. What we are saying, however, is that we have to wait for the EU to tell us what to do.

It has also been found by the Information Commissioner that once a contract is awarded, the contractor and price are no longer confidential, so there should be no issue with connecting procurement systems to other public registries because the commercial sensitivity has, at that point, gone out the window.

The Minister of State also talked about deregulation. We do not even have the data on how the regulations would be applied because there is this black box I was talking about. I do not understand that either. We also had the Draghi Commission, and I know the Minister of State has not spelled it out. Undoubtedly this is part of it but the Draghi Commission was about promoting a new industrial policy. If we are serious about looking at a new industrial policy, there is one arm of the spending in the State that we have control of, and that is spending by the State, which again is the biggest expenditure in the State. We are talking about €22 billion. This is a tool. I have given the Minister of State a tool by which she could use the system for industrial policy purposes but she is saying "not right now". That just does not seem to make any sense to me at all, especially given that we often hear that lessons will be learned. We have often heard, when it comes to an overspend or wasteful spending in the State, that lessons will be learned. Lessons cannot be learned if we do not have the data to look at. We will often hear Ministers come back and say that we never talk about the spending that has come in on time or on budget, and all of those things, but we do not have the data. We need to have the data. In order for anything to work with regard to changing how we do things, we need to have the data.

This information would also be of use to the Minister of State specifically in this instance because she would have those data readily available to her. The Minister of State is at the start of her ministerial journey in this Department but she is going to continue. When she has all of that information to hand, she may come across things where she will think, "Do you know what? I want to do X. This is done well in this place, or this is done well in that place". Somebody might come to her with an idea, or she might come across it through her own research or whatever it may be. Then she could say, "Well at least now I have the data so I will be able to look at implementing it because I have the data to hand".

I am very disappointed because this has happened to me a few times when I have introduced a Bill. I am trying to work with the Government on this. It is not just about giving out. I will give out when needs be but it is also about working with the Government. I take that aspect of this job very seriously and I make sure I am offering solutions. We have a Bill here. It makes sense to me. I have only been in this House five years but at the very start, it came to me straight away and I thought, “Why in the name of God do we not have that information to hand? Why can we not work collaboratively?”. It makes zero sense to me, to be honest, that this is being pushed down the road for 24 months. I hope the Minister of State does not regret this in future when she does not have the information to hand to make it easier for herself to make changes that need to be made. I am sure she has her ideas about what she wants to change, and things will come up over time, but if she does not have the data to hand it will be far more difficult to implement it.

Sin é. Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach Gníomhach agus leis an Aire Stáit. I thank the other speakers.

Jen Cummins (Dublin South Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In accordance with Standing Order 85(2), the division is postponed until the next weekly division time.