Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State and all other contributors for their engagement. I am grateful for the support many have given to the Bill. I wish to address a few of the points that arose. I appreciate that if the Bill passes today we will have further opportunities to engage on it.

It is important to be clear that quality is not balanced against value for money. Rather, it is a part of value for money. As the Minister of State mentioned the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, I took the liberty of checking its definition of value for money. It is interesting to note that finding the lowest price is only one third of it. The definition of value for money used by the Comptroller and Auditor General includes spending less, but spending effectively and wisely is equally important. This Bill is an attempt to ensure that spending well and wisely is placed alongside spending less. Those considerations are not in contradiction of the need to spend less, but alongside it, which is important. This week, two or three committees are discussing procurement issues where problems were encountered. These problems could be avoided if time was taken for a little more thought earlier in the procurement process.

I wish to briefly address a couple of concerns. There were questions regarding the criteria. To be clear, there is no scope for the criteria to be discretionary. They must be measurable, objective and clearly applicable to all who apply. There are currently constraints on how criteria are applied and there is not much scope for discretion.

There is concern that this would be used or manipulated. Mention was made of tenderers who may be aware of the process. At the moment those who are aware of the process know that all they have to do is tender an unrealistically low bid and if that is the lowest quoted cost, the contracting authority will be legally obliged to give them the contract. As was described eloquently by Senator Horkan, this is despite the officials in the room knowing that it is not a quality bid. This Bill seeks to address these issues upstream before any companies are involved and before there is a call for tenders. It would take effect at the design stage of the tender to ensure that space to reflect on those issues is provided later when the call for tenders goes out and companies have applied.I had already indicated that I intend to remove the reference to Ministers. The Minister spoke of Accounting Officers being involved in detailed processes. They would not be. It would only be in what I would call exceptional cases, where lowest cost is being used in a very simple way, which will not be detailed, that an Accounting Officer would be involved. In that case they would be involved simply in signing off on that decision. It does not involve them in the process and they are not required to be involved. Where quality is being used it would sit with the procurement officer. I have talked with procurement officers who want to use quality measures, and sometimes feel nervous about whether they would be allowed to do that. This would empower and encourage the appropriate level of procurement officers to go ahead and use quality measures in the right way. It is an empowering piece.

The provision is at pre-call for tender and no companies are involved, so I do not believe there is the concern about company A, B or C. This is before any company has bid, before the process is finished and before any involvement from an Accounting Officer has begun.

We are aware of the unintended consequences: we have seen them at lowest cost. There is 2.4 times the benefit, which is back to the value for money issue. This is what we have seen. It is double the public benefit. There were a few other issues but I will skip over most of them.

On the question regarding the Office of Government Procurement, it would not be in a position to reject a declaration but at least the rationale would have been published because the decision must sit within the discretion of the contracting authority.

I welcome that the Minister has indicated there is a national conversation under way on this. It is very important. The Minister referenced many of the stakeholders and I suggest that he may add another stakeholder. As well as the companies and the contracting authorities, I would add the users of services to the list of stakeholders to ensure the users are heard, consulted with and given an invitation to talk about what it means to use adult diapers, to use a playground, to try to access a building and so on, and that this is reflected. There is a real opportunity there.

Other Members have spoken about potential areas of exclusion such as poor employment standards, the non-payment of subcontractors and tax evasion. That is another part of the procurement landscape, as are social clauses. The Bill, which deals with design and criteria, will sit very well alongside proposals that other parties may bring around social clauses, social considerations and exclusions. It does not attempt to do everything. It is not attempting to intervene at one point in the process but I believe it will change the landscape, the practise and the culture. It could change the experience of the public in a good way, as my colleague, Senator Ruane very eloquently noted, in respect of the trust the public has that their concerns and experience are cared about in procurement in Ireland. I thank all Members who have supported this Bill.