Kieran O'Donnell (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the thrust of the Bill albeit there are aspects of it around which I have concerns. The Bill is about getting the most economically advantageous tender and how that process should work. A fundamental point, to which Senator Higgins referred, is that one cannot have the final decision-maker involved in any way in the process. Section 2(4)(b) of the Bill provides that "In applying subsection (2), contracting authorities shall not include a best price–quality ratio in a case to which the National Development Plan relates where the price criteria is greater than 50 per cent". Ultimately, we have to get value for money. I do not fully buy the argument that one can absolve contractors on the basis that there was not enough emphasis on quality in a tender process. If one is building, one should be building to standard. There are regulations in place according to which one must build. Therefore, I am nervous that if one brings the issue of price down to 50%, one may not actually get value for the taxpayer. It is something I am concerned about.

The Senator said there was an exemption in section 4, which relates to departing from the contracting criteria. Section 4(1)(b) provides that "The requirements of paragraph (a) do not apply where the chief decision maker of the contracting authority or contracting entity concerned is satisfied that there is no material difference in quality between the potential options". Once again, whatever criteria and weightings apply should be dealt with in their entirety. One might now have a situation where a person says that in fact the bulk of the criteria can be parked because they are all the same and simply go back to price. It might undermine the Senator's argument about it not being solely around price.

A review is ongoing between the Department and stakeholders around the best way to get value and around social considerations. I place the matter in a local context for myself. When we had the regeneration projects under way in Limerick, I would have liked to see more local workers involved. Typically, however, projects had to go on eTenders under the public tendering process to which anyone could apply. However, a requirement was later brought in that 10% of people had to be employed locally, which I supported strongly. I understand that Senator Higgins has met the Minister and that there are discussions taking place. I fully understand the import of the Bill but I will always look for unintended consequences. As such, I do not particularly like the fact that the Bill prescribes that not more than 50% of the decision on a contract can relate to price. The worry is that those other aspects could be open to abuse. I suggest we come up with some other basis. Decisions cannot be solely on price because that has given rise to unintended consequences too and there may have been a race to the bottom, albeit we do not know if that is the case, and a review is ongoing.Value for money is also important. I do not want a situation to emerge where contractors come in who are aware of the process involved and who kick the value for money issue down the road. We are taking money from taxpayers and we have to spend their money wisely. I understand the point of carrying out public projects, but we can never get away from the fundamental point that if people are paying income tax or if they are on social welfare and are paying VAT on the goods they buy, we have to ensure we spend their money wisely. That point is often lost in the process. When I speak about taxes, I am not referring to taxes paid by people who are working but rather all taxes, including income tax, companies paying corporation tax, VAT and stamp duty. We have to ensure we get value for money. This is an important matter, and I welcome the discussion, but I do not support much of the detail proposed. I support the social aspect of it, but I will let the Minister put the Government's view. I regard this as a working document.