Enda Kenny
Question:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of staff in his Department who have applied for relocation under the Government’s decentralisation programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46598/08]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Decentralisation Programme.
Eamon Gilmore
Question:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the number of staff in his Department, broken down by grade, who have applied for relocation under the Government’s decentralisation programme; the number of such staff who have relocated to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3149/09]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:3 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of staff from his Department who have been relocated under the decentralisation programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7055/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
Of the 179 civil servants currently serving in my Department, 28 have applied through the central applications facility to relocate under the decentralisation programme. The breakdown by grade is two principal officers; seven assistant principals; five higher executive officers; four administrative officers; five executive officers; one staff officer; and four clerical officers. Some 25 former members of staff have already been assigned to decentralised posts.
There are no proposals to decentralise my Department or any of the bodies under its aegis. It is a matter for those Departments to which staff from my Department have decentralised to assign such staff to locations outside of Dublin.
Arising from the Taoiseach's reply, I assume some of the 28 have applied for locations that are now stalled under the decentralisation programme. What is happening to the sites that were acquired and are now in limbo until the next review in 2011? In respect of those, has any computation of the loss in value of the sites as a result of depreciation taken place? I am sure some of the 28 staff of 179 in the Department who have applied will go to locations where nothing is happening, will happen or can happen until whatever review is carried out in 2011.
Any such sites will continue to be managed by the OPW as part of its portfolio. It is important to point out that to date a total of €276 million has been spent on the programme but there have been offsettings, savings or reallocation of property to other schemes valued in the region of €556 million.
I thank the Taoiseach. Given the deterioration in the public finances — as the Taoiseach said at the weekend, we do not have a thriving economy just now — the situation is such that we should be up-front about this. In cases where numbers, grades and categories stack up, this process should have been completed long ago. However, in the case of some semi-State agencies, it will never happen and putting it off into a sort of limbo for review in 2011 is not facing reality or being truthful with those communities and people throughout the country.
I support decentralisation. A well planned, properly managed decentralisation programme has always been of enormous benefit throughout the country, no more so than in the Taoiseach's constituency. Is it the case that the 2011 review is only a political smokescreen which suggests that in reality this will never happen in the way it was envisaged for the 53 locations when it was announced originally by the former Minister, Mr. McCreevy?
Are we holding out false hopes for people, including some of the 28 staff from the Taoiseach's Department, that at some future time a decentralisation programme might be put in place when the Taoiseach knows that a review in 2011 means another five or 10 years beyond that before anything is to happen? Would it not be better to be up-front with these people? The transfers that are under way should be finished by now. However, with regard to those situations where there are clearly difficulties or where the numbers, grades and categories do not stack up, perhaps the Taoiseach should tell those communities it will not happen in the way that was envisaged and that we will try to do something else for them in the context of the national development plan.
The right thing to do in the new economic circumstances in which the Government found itself in preparation for the 2009 Estimates was to confirm that there will be a deferral in terms of the provision of accommodation pending review in 2011 in respect of those sites where it was felt, first, there was not a contract in place and, second, it would not have been possible to proceed between now and then. That was the right decision to make.
As I said, more than €350 million of the €556 million was provided by the offsetting of the sale of very high value sites at the height of the property market and the potential for future receipts will be much more limited. There was also property valued at €75 million which was transferred to the Affordable Homes Partnership and the OPW has agreed joint venture development schemes with a value of approximately €125 million, subject to the volatility in the current property market.
It is important to point out with regard to the purchase of sites at the prices available in 2006, 2007 and 2008 that, similarly, those high prices were available in respect of the disposal of many sites. The figure of €556 million in respect of those disposals provides a positive offsetting against the €276 million that has been spent on the programme to date.
The Taoiseach makes all of that sound as if the State is making a profit on decentralisation. If it is such a financial success, why is he cancelling it? In the statement the Government made on 14 October that it would not go ahead with the remainder of decentralisation, it was stated it was doing it for budgetary reasons. However, when he is asked questions about property costs, acquisition costs, fitting-out costs and so on, he is able to quote all of these figures to us to the effect that the Government is getting more in than is going out. Has there been a net cost to decentralisation and if so, will the Taoiseach tell us that cost? If there has not been a net cost, what is the budgetary consideration on which he based the decision to cancel the remaining phases and to review these in 2011?
The last time this round of questions took place, we discussed the numbers decentralised from Dublin. When the then Minister for Finance, former Deputy McCreevy, announced the decentralisation programme the plan was that 10,000 civil servants would be decentralised from Dublin to other locations. We now know that 2,500 have been decentralised to other locations, but that less than half of these are from Dublin. Of the remaining 3,500, only half of these will be from Dublin also. Can the Taoiseach tell us the total number decentralised from Dublin, as opposed to the 10,000 anticipated under the McCreevy plan?
What was actually being decentralised was 10,000 posts. We were not decentralising 10,000 Dublin people out of Dublin; we were decentralising 10,000 posts.
That was the justification.
They were posts out of Dublin.
That is what we were doing. It is posts that one is transferring.
Yes, Dublin posts.
When those people——
That was the justification given at the time.
When people decentralise and go on to retire, the post remains and is filled where the vacancy arises. It is the posts that one is transferring. It is important to point that out. It is not the case that when people's time is up they will not all relocate back to Dublin. That is not the idea, the idea is to transfer posts. That is a very important point, which I thought would have been understood at this point.
Anyone working in the Civil Service had the right to apply for decentralisation to his or her preferred position. As a former trade unionist, I am sure the Deputy would agree there should be no discrimination in respect of people's ability to relocate based on their original location. I do not believe that is a principle to which the Deputy would subscribe. All civil servants had the right to relocate to whereever they wished, subject to that being a suitable location, to having the skill sets necessary, or to having the ability to take up the retraining for moving from Department to Department.
I do not have the figure. The Deputy should speak to the Minister for Finance about whether there are any more specific figures available.
The decision of the Government in October 2008 will facilitate the location of up to 6,000 posts in 40 locations outside of Dublin. This is made up of 2,600 posts already moved with an additional 3,400 in train at present. I cannot give the geographical addresses of those people in terms of where they are from. That is not available to me. The Deputy should check with the sponsoring Department if that information is available.
The success or failure of the programme is not dependent on what percentage of people are Dublin people. They are all public servants who had a right to relocate if they so wished. Some were from Dublin and others were not. Some may have been living in Dublin for some time but still regard themselves as Galway people, such as Deputy Gilmore. The same applies to County Offaly also.
Yes indeed, and very proud of it.
The point is well made at this stage and I do not have to labour it any further, if the Deputy will excuse the pun. The question of costs relates to property costs, which I have given. The needs of the programme are assessed in the context of the Estimates process each year. Funding is approved on the basis of the particular projects being progressed in the relevant period. Originally in 2004, a notional gross figure of €900 million was put on the decentralisation process. As a gross figure it did not include any possible offsets in terms of what other funds would become available to the State as a result of the decentralisation process. The figures I have given are the property costs and the offsets as opposed to the costs on the property side show a positive figure in the region of €280 million.
I would like to return to the net cost. The Taoiseach indicated the estimated cost of the decentralisation process when it was announced was originally put at €900 million plus. The Government made a decision that it was going to put the decentralisation process on hold — in effect end it — and review it again in 2011. The statement issued by the Government at the time said that this was being done for budgetary considerations. The problem I have with this — I ask the Taoiseach to help us out with it — is that when both Deputy Kenny and I ask him questions about the costs, specific questions about the costs of the acquisition of property, fitting out, rental costs and so on, he replies in terms which suggest that the State has been doing very well financially out of the decentralisation process, that because all this property is being acquired in the areas to which civil servants are to be decentralised and properties elsewhere are being released, this has created a net gain for the State. Is there or is there not a net cost or has there been a net cost to the decentralisation process to date? Can the Taoiseach tell the House what that net cost is because this does not add up? If money is being made on decentralisation, why would the Government cancel it for budgetary reasons? What is the net cost?
The Taoiseach can only answer for his own Department, Deputy Gilmore.
I can only answer for my own Department. I can give other information as is available to it. With regard to the property aspects of the decentralisation programme, the notional cost was included in the budget of 2004 because it could not be predicted with great accuracy——
It is all a bit of a notion.
Sorry, it is not a notion. A total of 6,000 people will be relocated by 2011. A total of 3,400 are already in the process of being decentralised. They will be going voluntarily and in line with trade union agreements and in line with the strategic plans of Departments. I often hear people complaining about decentralisation but I have yet to hear anyone in the House saying the level of service in a decentralised office is less than what it was before.People in these areas will tell one that the relocations have been beneficial in a whole range of ways and not just to the benefit of employees and I am glad to hear this. It provides an improved working environment for public servants and also improves productivity, because decentralisation brings with it up to date fit-out and computerisation and information systems which makes for a better position than the incremental acquisition of IT, as was the case in the past.
Why, then, is the Government cancelling it?
One can never find a specific case to justify the level of criticism implied behind some of the questioning. However, decentralisation is a political football which people in the House want to continue to kick around.
That is not the case at all; it was a legitimate question.
I agree it is a legitimate question. I remind the Deputy that all his rural Deputies are unequivocally in favour of it, as stated in the local newspapers.
The Minster for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy Cullen, is not in favour of it.
It is different to the soundings I got in this House about decentralisation when I was Minister for Finance or even now that I am Taoiseach. That is fair enough because we do not all have to rule with an iron consistency.
To answer the Deputy's question, I can only answer based on what is available to my Department. There will be fit-out costs which must be included in the equation. I make these points in the interests of an accurate and balanced debate.
Has the Taoiseach's Department or any other Department carried out a cost-benefit analysis of any of the decentralisation moves that have already taken place? Has there been any evaluation of the net benefit, of the monetary impact and how it impinges on the performance and the smooth running of the said relocated Departments or sections of Departments? Will the Taoiseach give the House an indication if such an exercise has been carried out?
With regard to the various land banks and properties that have been purchased in preparation for planned relocations, I understand there are currently at least five sites that have not yet been developed in preparation for the relocation of the targeted Departments. Among those are two sites in County Waterford that cost in excess of €10.1 million of the €16.3 million involved in the five sites to which I refer — at Waterford and Dungarvan. There was another site in the Taoiseach's constituency in Offaly, one in Kilkenny and one in my constituency, in Cavan, where the Department for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and the HIQA offices were to be located. Will the Taoiseach indicate whether all of these are greenfield sites, or if there are properties involved that would entail ongoing maintenance and security? Is there a continual outlay in terms of the maintenance, upkeep etc. of any or all of these sites, and can he indicate whether the Government intends to proceed with the roll-out of each of the signalled relocations to the five sites in question?
The Government decided in October 2008 to defer any further decision on those matters until 2011. As the Deputy says, the context in which sites are being held under the management of the OPW relates to that decision and therefore there will be no change in their status until 2011 at the earliest. At that stage the Government will revisit the issue, having completed the present stage by which time some 6,000 will have been relocated to about 40 sites throughout the country. I cannot anticipate what the Government's decision will be at that time.
As regards whether these sites are working well, I have had no complaints from Deputies in these areas or members of the public that vary from what one might find in any other area of public administration. Issues as regards irregularity have not been raised on the floor of this House. If people are suggesting there are problems, perhaps they might identify them so they may be dealt with, if they exist.
I am sorry but I do not recall what other issues were contained in the supplementary. Perhaps the Deputy might repeat them.
The Taoiseach talks about problems, and I am somewhat lost by his reply. I asked whether an exercise had been carried out as regards a cost benefit analysis on any——
The Deputy might hang on a second. The problem is that we are talking about the Department of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance is responsible to the Dáil for decentralisation.
The Taoiseach has asked me to clarify the question. I am doing that at his request.
Hold on a second, now. I can only operate within the rules. The rules say the Taoiseach is responsible for his Department and he must answer questions about it in the House. The Minister for Finance is in charge of the whole question of decentralisation. That is the only point I am making.
As regards questions up to this point in time, Ceann Comhairle——
I have said it all along, but perhaps the Deputy was not listening.
No, the Ceann Comhairle has not, with respect, as the record will show——
Yes, I have.
——because I have listened carefully and asked questions in line with the previous speakers. I ask for the same courtesy from the Chair as that shown to Deputy Kenny and Deputy Gilmore. That is no more than my due.
I said the same to Deputy Gilmore.
I have asked the Taoiseach specific questions and I am equally entitled to a reply.
It is not a question of whether the Deputy is entitled to a reply, if the matter is outside the ambit of my Department. However, I am trying to be as helpful as I can be. Since I do not have direct responsibility for the programme I cannot be asked. It is not a question of not meeting the Deputy's entitlements. Of course I shall meet his entitlements, if the questions relate to my Department, but the Deputy is asking me a more general question. The Minister for Finance who has overall responsibility for the decentralisation programme can provide the information.
I do not have the answer to the Deputy's question on the basis of the information available to me because it is outside the ambit of my Department. I try to be helpful when I can as regards general comments
I know that is second nature to the Taoiseach.
Absolutely — I am always as helpful as I can be to the Deputy.
No one is disputing that at all.
I thank the Deputy.
It would look, from the Taoiseach's very poor and thinly veiled responses that the prospect for any of the five sites is doubtful. Specifically, as regards the Waterford case it is a matter of more than just one door flying off over the weekend. We have seen the door flying off other interests there in terms of both Waterford and Dungarvan. Is there not within the Taoiseach's gift the wherewithal to be frank with the House rather than this kicking to touch in terms of 2011? Why will he not be honest and frank with the House and tell the Members here that in respect of the so-called targeted 10,000 relocations or decentralisations, the rollout of that project is finished, over and done with?
The Deputy can ask the Minister for Finance about that. I call Deputy Howlin.
Why does the Taoiseach not tell the people outside this House who are wondering about their future in the service——
In the future the Deputy should ask the Taoiseach questions that are relevant. I call Deputy Howlin.
The Taoiseach should outline to the House now the approach being taken.
I will do my best to stay within the Ceann Comhairle's remit. My question is on the general responsibility of the Taoiseach as Head of Government regarding the decentralisation programme. The original announcement by the Taoiseach was that in a number of cases full Departments were being decentralised. In general Government policy terms, is it still the case that where the full Department, the Aireacht, is moving, all senior officials, including the Ministers, will move? I ask that question because next month the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Minister sitting along side the Taoiseach will be coming to my constituency; I am looking forward to a cycle lane all the way to Wexford to welcome him. Since a very fine ministerial suite will be available for him and the Ministers of State, is it Government policy that Ministers will operate from the decentralised head offices or will there be parallel Aireachtaí in Dublin as well as in decentralised offices in cases where a full Department is decentralised?
The Taoiseach can answer only for his own Department. If he wants to reply, that is his own matter.
From recollection in my previous capacity, the Decentralisation Implementation Group has brought a number of reports to the attention of Government in respect of implementation of the programme and from memory one of them relates to the question of ensuring there is sufficient capacity available to Ministers in respect of their responsibilities here in the Dáil and in respect of their location in Dublin as well as the transfer of Departments to the decentralised location in question, which in this case is in Wexford. The Minister's attendance at that location, therefore, would be facilitated by him having an office and, similarly, he would have an office in Dublin in respect of the job he would have to do here.
Will all the senior officials, including Secretaries General——
I am working from memory, but I think the Decentralisation Implementation Group had a view on that which would allow the Minister retain certain core personnel in Dublin as well. That Aireacht idea has arisen subsequently in the context of discussion and negotiation with trade unions and employee representative groups. I believe the implementation group has come up with a solution that enables neither issue to be mutually exclusive, in other words, we can have people in Dublin on a permanent basis. That would have the net effect of not everyone transferring from Dublin to the Department area. That is my most up to date——
Is it the intention to duplicate ministerial suites in places like Wexford and Dublin?
These are matters for the line Minister, and particularly for the Minister for Finance.
It is not a question——
Is it general Government policy on the decentralisation of the Aireacht, which is the core in the Department?
It is not a question of duplication. It is a question of having a facility available to a Minister were he or she to be located there and working from there and having an office in Dublin. It is not a question of having just one office per Ministry and having to decide where that might be. From an efficacy point of view, a Minister must have the ability to operate from whatever location one is in at any given time. There are Ministers of State who have more than one Department under their aegis who, when they go from one Department to another, are able to work in that Department. These are logistical matters.
To answer Deputy Ó Caoláin, and in an effort to be as frank and candid as I possibly can without him reinterpreting Government decisions, the question of the timing of further work on implementation of the balance of the programme, other than those priority locations announced on budget day, is being deferred pending a review in 2011 in the light of budgetary developments. The Government's preference would have been not to delay any aspect of the programme, but in light of the deterioration in the public finances it has been necessary to curtail capital expenditure across a range of projects. All the projects simply cannot be afforded in the short term due to the current economic situation and this is a sensible and reasoned approach to adopt, given the circumstances.
Did the Taoiseach mention 40 locations or sites throughout the country? When the decentralisation programme was announced, it was announced with a great fanfare of publicity by the then Minister of his own Department——
The Deputy has made that point several times already.
——that 10,000 civil servants would be moved to 53 locations throughout the country. At that time, those on this side of the House said the Government had done no costings or risk assessment. Does the Taoiseach accept at that time the Government, of which he was a member, deceived the electorate in the run-up to the local and European elections in 2004? Regarding space which has been vacated in Dublin, did the Taoiseach's Department or the Government sell off any of it?
The Taoiseach can only answer for his own Department.
No office space has been vacated in the city by the Department of the Taoiseach's office. I reject Deputy Bannon's contention that there was any deception. There are 40 locations with decentralised staff under the programme. There are 12 locations where sufficient progress has not been made for that to happen. As the Deputy knows, there have been particular industrial relations issues in State agencies where there has not been a tradition of cross-departmental relocation, as would be the case with the Civil Service and the issue remains a matter for industrial relations. The only deception I can detect is in the Deputy's question in that he is criticising the decentralisation programme in the House when he has also been in Westmeath extolling it and claiming he is its author in the local newspapers.
What about the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which was supposed to go to Athlone or Mullingar?
Departmental Procurement Policies.
Enda Kenny
Question:4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if there is a corporate procurement plan in place in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46600/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:5 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the main features of the corporate procurement plan operated by his Department; if changes have been made to the plan as a result of the recent announcement of spending restrictions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7521/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:6 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the main features of the corporate procurement plan operated by his Department; if he plans changes to the plan in view of new spending restrictions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8414/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, together.
The corporate procurement plan in place in my Department was developed to implement the requirements of the national procurement policy framework published by the Department of Finance. It reflects my Department's commitment to effective and efficient resource allocation and service provision as prescribed by the Public Service Management Act 1997.
Procurement of goods and services by my Department is carried out under procedures recommended by the national public procurement policy unit in the Department of Finance which is responsible for procurement policy, national procurement guidelines and the application of EU directives. These procedures are designed to ensure that appropriate competitive processes are in place to select the providers of goods and services which represent best value to the Department, taking account of a number of important criteria including cost and suitability for purpose.
The procedures in place in my Department, which vary according to the nature and amount of the procurement involved, require purchasers to specify accurately their requirements; to select an appropriate competitive process; whether by seeking quotations, advertising, use of central purchasing facilities and centrally negotiated framework agreements or more formal tender processes; to evaluate alternatives according to preset criteria; to agree clear contract terms; and to monitor service delivery. The procurement plan is due to be reviewed and updated this year. The new plan to cover a three-year period will incorporate any new measures identified by the Department of Finance to contribute to improving the procurement process.
The Taoiseach is aware that in November 2008 the Government published the action plan for the public service. At that time it was announced that a task force would be set up, a national operations unit, within the Office of Public Works. Four months on, what is the status of that unit? Can the Taoiseach provide an example of what the projected savings will be, as a consequence, for public procurement? They must be significant. There has been talk about them for 20 years.
Four months on, is there an example of a contract for products, goods or services which has actually been agreed under the public procurement operation? What are the consequent savings to the State?
I do not have that sort of detailed information. I can answer in a general manner. The unit has been set up within the Office of Public Works and works to leverage the public service's buying power and organises procurement across the public service of common goods and services such as office equipment, furniture, vehicles, electricity and fuel. Where better value for money can be obtained it will develop further the e-tender system. The unit will also support a more professional approach to public sector procurement through the provision of advice and the organisation of networks of procurement professionals. It was established this year and it has a target of achievable savings of €25 million for this year with increased savings in subsequent years.
In the Government's announcement in connection with the public finances on 8 July last, it stated, "All expenditures by Departments and agencies on consultancies, advertising and PR would be reduced by 50%". What level of reduction has been achieved to date by the Taoiseach's Department?
I refer to a report at the weekend that the Public Relations Institute of Ireland was to seek a meeting with the Taoiseach to discuss the issue of public relations contracts with Departments. Has the meeting been sought? If so, what matters will be discussed?
I understand my Department has complied with the direction on reducing——
Has it achieved a 50% reduction?
I believe so. I do not have specific details but I will get them for the Deputy. I am sure this has been complied with.
A meeting has been sought by the PRII. I recall seeing correspondence to that effect. I do not know whether a meeting has been set. I have no problem meeting its representatives and I will let the Deputy know the outcome.
Last July, the Minister for Finance announced that his Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, would head up a joint procurement task force between the OPW and the Department of Finance. At the announcement, the view was that he would bring forward specific proposals to save €50 million this year. Has the Taoiseach a list of the proposals? Is the task force on target to achieve €50 million in savings this year? What is the impact of the Minister of State's proposals on the Taoiseach's Department?
That question would be best put to the Minister of State. The task force established to set out how to implement the recommendations of the report published in July reported before Christmas and the Minister of State is in the process of setting up all of that now. A question to him would be better, as I can give only the information I have.
Is the Minister of State heading up the joint procurement task force between the OPW and the Department of Finance to drive reforms across all Departments, as was envisaged? Is he engaged in that work now?
Yes, he has that policy responsibility.
Are there guidelines within the Taoiseach's Department or any other Department that encourage the acquisition of goods or services from Irish sources, which would have a beneficial effect on employment in Ireland? Are there major restrictions on what Departments can do in giving such guidance as a result of EU competition law? Is there within the Union any re-evaluation, reconsideration or relaxation proposed of the restrictions that may apply to governments and local authorities that wish to see public moneys expended locally and nationally first? Given the ever straitening economic circumstances, is there a potential benefit to those in employment in terms of corporate procurement from their sectors? What can the Taoiseach tell us regarding same?
Procurement policy and practice must conform to certain core principles and must be accountable, competitive and non-discriminatory, provide for equality of treatment and be fair, transparent and conducted with probity and integrity. As the Deputies have stated, those kinds of consideration have come into play in respect of what were formally known as "Buy Irish" campaigns, which did not have those constraints imposed upon them. We are now members of the Single Market and people have access to apply for tenders over a certain threshold. The same applies to Irish companies in respect of other EU states in which we compete.
I would take the point that tenders are prepared in a way that would not exclude smaller or medium-sized enterprises, which should have an opportunity. Those who prepare tenders need to be mindful of the need to ensure that people are not excluded by reason of the way in which tender documents are constructed and to be conscious of the need to divide tenders so that SMEs would not be automatically excluded. These kinds of consideration have to be borne in mind in an effort to make sure that local suppliers are given the opportunity in their own country to tender for these contracts.
I welcome the Taoiseach's response, which demonstrated an understanding of the Deputy's question and intent. I appreciate the difficulties involved. Does the Taoiseach agree that careful preparation and management of the tender examination process are required to remain in compliance with current EU directives?
In terms of local government, will the Taoiseach indicate to his ministerial colleague, the leader of the Green Party, that this situation is applicable, not only to Departments, but across the local authority spectrum? I come from a constituency wherein furniture and cabinet making has been integral to generations of workers, but that sector has been devastated by cheap imports and kits, which have become the order of the day. This fact was in the Deputy's mind when he asked his questions.
From the Taoiseach's recent EU engagement, where matters not unconnected with what is at the core of this series of questions were raised, is there a potential for some relaxation of requirement orders within a specified value? Have other ideas been explored? We have a restriction across the board on open access to tendering, but is there no opportunity to ameliorate the situation by considering the order profile in terms of value scale. This might offer some important assistance to Irish manufacturers and service providers in these difficult times.
Are we almost out of time?
Yes.
Arising from the 3 February announcement on the reductions in the range of professional fees in Departments, has a change been made in the Government procurement requirements?
No, it related to where professional fees are charged on the basis of contractual arrangements between professionals providing the State with services. The tendering process deals with the question of value for money more generally. As for Deputy Ó Caoláin's points, the issue pertains to the introduction of reforms such as e-auctioning, whereby people could offer a price on a certain number, consistent with their own capacity, in respect of a much larger tender. In other words, such flexibility must be considered in order that the tender need not be filled by a single supplier, if people have a knowledge of the quality of the product that is being suggested by various smaller suppliers.
Sometimes one must balance the effort to accommodate everyone regarding the submission of tenders with the overall need for value for money. E-tendering or e-auctioning has a benefit in that, for example, one can lump together a tender and achieve best value for money by having a number of local authorities apply for the same type of product or service at the same time. Simultaneously, it enables people to apply without being obliged to fill the tender themselves solely, if the Deputy understands my point. There are ways and means by which the issues pertaining to value for money and the flexibility to ensure the process is inclusive can be worked on, were people to apply their minds creatively to it.
I will take a brief supplementary question from Deputy Doyle.
I refer to tenders that must be advertised on an EU-wide basis. If jobs are placed in jeopardy by awarding such tenders abroad, is the Taoiseach allowed to invoke that clause? I will draw a simple example. The PAYE tax booklet, which involved a relatively small contract, was awarded to a printer outside the State. However, had the Irish and English versions been grouped together, it is possible that it would not have attracted tenders from outside the State. While I do not suggest this necessarily would have been the case, the Irish version of that booklet was printed here and the English version——
Briefly, Deputy.
I understand that if jobs are in jeopardy, the Government can invoke this clause to award the contract locally, even if the lowest tender comes from outside the State.
The Taoiseach, on this specific question.
It is and I do not have the specific answer for Deputy Doyle. However, I take the point, in respect of the preparation of tenders, on the need to do things, which obviously are legal, and no one would ask anyone to do anything that was not above board, but to do them in a way that is helpful.
To the Irish cause.
That is something that should be considered.