Vol. 885 No. 3
1. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the nature of the sectoral agreements, commitments and understandings in place under the Lansdowne Road agreement; if he will publish full details of same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26605/15]
I ask the Minister to outline the nature of side deals, sectoral agreements, commitments or understandings that are in place under the Lansdowne Road agreement and if he will publish details of those which do not feature in the substantive agreement.
The context of the discussions that I initiated with the trade unions and associations representing public servants across the public service was the need to plan and provide for a measured unwinding of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Acts. My aims were also to secure the continuation of the productivity measures introduced under the Haddington Road agreement, honour the Government's commitments under that agreement and provide for a continuation of the stable industrial relations agreement and structures in the public service which have served our recovery well. Any outcome also had to be consistent with our international obligations under the Stability and Growth Pact to manage our public finances in a prudent manner.
The Lansdowne Road agreement, if ratified by the trade unions, will extend the terms of the Haddington Road agreement to September 2018. Given the complex industrial relations processes within the public service, issues on matters of local interest are raised on an ongoing basis between sectoral management and trade unions, with or without the assistance of the Labour Relations Commission or involvement by my Department. I understand that at the time the agreement was being negotiated, the Labour Relations Commission was asked to resolve a number of sectoral discussions on matters of local interest. These discussions do not form part of the proposed public service agreement, are not part of the overall pay settlement and are not in the document on which public servants are being balloted. Copies of any agreed outcome to industrial relations issues in other sectors are not retained by my Department.
For the Deputy's information, the following issues were raised by Civil Service unions with officials of my Department and agreed with the assistance of the Labour Relations Commission. First, the previously agreed approach to resolving anomalies on pay between former Health Service Executive and Combat Poverty Agency staff transferred to the Department of Social Protection in 2010 will be applied from 1 January 2016. Second, various matters raised by the Civil and Public Service Union, including an outstanding claim for loss of "bank time" which was abolished in 2010, a review of pay and allowance structures for attendants in the cultural institutions, some anomalies highlighted by the union on leave entitlements and issues relating to the redeployment of some Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine staff are to be subjects of further discussion and-or referral to arbitration, as appropriate. Third, as a pilot, staff will again be able to take up to 1.5 days of flexi-leave per month, subject to an overall limit of 13 days per annum.
My understanding from the Minister's reply is that it was coincidental that these discussions occurred at the time the Lansdowne Road agreement was being negotiated. The relevant public sector trade unions probably believed the talks were an appropriate time to raise these issues as it would allow them to return to their members with something that, while not part of the deal, would perhaps make the agreement a little more saleable.
I note the list of points the Minister raised. I have also heard media reports about issues such as the fixing of the registration fee for nurses, a flexitime system for assistant principal officers, recruitment to assistant principal grade being subject to open competition, outsourcing and the carrying forward of flexitime work arrangements of up to six days per quarter.
Outside the Lansdowne Road agreement is the Minister in a position to indicate how many of these types of issues have come back to him for approval?
When all the senior negotiators for every trade union in the public service have been in the same building, often on the same floor and in the same rooms, as the senior negotiators for each line Department for a protracted period of time - as the Deputy will know there is a good deal of waiting time in all these negotiations - bilateral discussions can take place on issues that are not part of the pay agreement but that have been niggling or outstanding for a long time. Sometimes those issues can be resolved over that period of time, when advantage is taken of the proximity of negotiators involving representatives of public servants and line Departments or agencies. That is not surprising. I have indicated the issues that were raised with my staff, for which I am responsible. There were other issues. For example, the Deputy instanced the registration fees for nurses and I know that issue was raised with the HSE staff and with the Department of Health negotiators who were there. Those are issues because there were anomalies and they were addressed and resolved bilaterally, but they are not part of this agreement.
I accept that point. It can be a useful tidying-up exercise and everyone believes in taking a practical approach to issues that can be dealt with. The Minister might comment on two issues that we were told came up in that discussion. One issue is the question of outsourcing. Some people believe that this agreement will restrict the level of outsourcing, which might be a value for money issue about which the Minister must have a concern. Outside the Lansdowne Road agreement, the Minister said that some of issues we just talked about may have an impact on Estimates in line Departments. Is it possible during a future Estimates debate that any concessions during the course of the year as a result of industrial relations negotiations could be flagged by way of a note from the line Minister explaining them? For example if there are three, four, five six or seven points teased out, some may involve a cost or some may be cost neutral. Is it in the public interest that people know what is going on?
I do not think any line Minister has any difficulty in explaining what was agreed by their negotiators during the process. I want to make it clear that it is not part of the overall agreement and it is not part of what has been balloted upon. I will raise that with colleagues if people want to raise it with line Ministers.
In regard to the outsourcing question, we have a procurement process which examines value for money issues very rigorously. One of the issues, and this was raised with me directly by unions in the past, is to make sure that when one is comparing models, either procurement of a new service internally or externally, that one is comparing like with like and that all the factors would be taken into account. Clarity in regard to that was all that was provided. There will be, and there will remain, in the provision of any new service a rigorous evaluation to ascertain what is the most efficient and cost effective way of providing that service for the public, whether it will be internally or externally.
2. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the pay related provisions in the Lansdowne Road agreement for annualised salaries over €65,000; in addition, details of the full pay restoration provisions for salaries in excess of €65,000, at the conclusion of the Haddington Road agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26504/15]
The Minister has described here again this morning the Lansdowne Road agreement as a mechanism by which he proposes to unwind the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Acts, FEMPI, to use his language. Much of the commentary around this agreement has focused on people in lower pay grades and my question seeks to complete the picture. I have asked the Minister the implications of this agreement for earners on annualised salaries of over €65,000 and to provide detail of the full pay restoration provisions for those on the same salaries in excess of €65,000 at the conclusion of the Haddington Road agreement.
As part of the measures required to repair the Government finances and meet our international commitments to reach a GDP deficit target of 3% or below this year, it was necessary for the Government to secure agreement with unions and associations representing public servants for the introduction of significant productivity measures and also additional pay cuts for public servants earning over €65,000 from 1 July 2013.
Following detailed negotiations, agreement was reached with the unions and associations on a collective agreement, the Haddington Road agreement, under which public servants earning annual salaries of over €65,000 had their pay reduced by between 5.5% and 10%. There was also a commitment in that agreement for the restoration of the 2013 pay cuts in two equal phases. The recent proposals for the extension of the Haddington Road agreement, which is the Lansdowne Road agreement, simply reconfirms that position.
The Government intends to honour that commitment subject to the acceptance by the unions and associations of the Lansdowne Road agreement proposals. Under these proposals, for those public servants on annualised remuneration up to €110,000, restoration will be in two equal phases; the first phase of restoration will take place in April 2017 and the second phase in January 2018. For those on annualised remuneration in excess of €110,000 restoration will be in three equal phases with the first phase due to take place in April 2017 and the two remaining phases in April 2018 and April 2019.
The pension related deduction measures contained in the Lansdowne Road agreement also apply to those on annualised salaries over €65,000. On 1 January 2016, the exemption threshold for payment of pension related deduction will increase from €15,000 per annum to €24,750 per annum - that is the exemption threshold - and on 1 September the exemption threshold for payment of pension related deduction will further increase further from €24,750 per annum to €28,750 per annum.
I thank the Minister for that reply which was very helpful. Let us consider this in the round. Rather than looking at the Lansdowne Road agreement and Haddington Road agreement separately, they must be viewed as a whole to understand what is happening in respect of what the Minister calls a measured and prudent unwinding of FEMPI. Those earning less than €65,000 will have about €1,000 per annum in their pocket. Nothing has been done about the additional hours being worked, which the Minister knows is causing great difficulties, particularly for many women, parents and carers within the public and Civil Service. There is a very partial approach for those set of earners but once one earns over €65,000 one will see a full unwinding of FEMPI in pay terms and it is in inclusive of allowances in the nature of pay between €65,000 and €110,000. It seems to be a tale of two unwindings - very partial for those under €65,000 and comprehensive for the higher earners.
No. On the contrary, the Deputy is fundamentally wrong. The whole focus of the Lansdowne Road agreement was to concentrate pay restoration initially on the lowest paid. If one considers what has happened with the unions, that is the reason the recommendations for acceptance have come largely from the lower paid. The ones that are resisting, such as the Association of Higher Civil and public Servants and the association representing doctors, feel that pay restoration is not quick enough for the higher paid and that is their complaint. Therefore, the Deputy is quite wrong. We have to understand what FEMPI is. The Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Acts amount to emergency measures to cut pay. We have to restore that because although I laid a report before the House on 29 June in regard to the need for the FEMPI legislation to continue as the economy recovers, and thankfully that recovery is continuing and please God it will continue, there will be a case to be made that the FEMPI legislation should fall and we need to have an orderly unwinding of that.
What I would say back to the Minister is that he is guilty of a very deliberate sleight of hand because he is deliberately insisting on looking at the Lansdowne Road agreement and setting aside the Haddington Road agreement. We have to view the two of them to understand what the Minister's unwinding of the FEMPI legislation looks like and what the consequences of it are. He has provided a partial level of relief for those earning less than €65,000. I am not surprised that workers in that category and their trade unions would recommend acceptance of some relief.
That is entirely logical and if I were in their shoes, it is what I would do. To understand the dynamics of what is going on, one must consider both the Lansdowne Road and Haddington Road agreements. At the top of the tree, there is no pay restoration for those on more than €110,000, and that is good, but for those between €65,000 and €110,000, there would be a full restoration of pay. That is a very different approach from those earning less than €65,000. Despite the Minister's rhetoric, the focus has not really been all about the lower earners. I acknowledge that he has given a bit but he has been far more generous to people earning more money.
Again, the Deputy is just not right, but she knows that. The Lansdowne Road agreement focuses entirely on the low paid.
The Haddington Road agreement.
The Deputy is talking about the Haddington Road agreement but we debated that at length. People knew what was coming in that agreement and there was a solemn commitment that when we cut people's pay, we would, in time, restore it. It was an emergency measure and there is no legal authority simply to cut people's pay forever.
They are all emergency measures.
It had to be done in a structured way. I am now beginning to unwind that process so it does not fall by court challenge. I am doing it in a focused, fair way, initially restoring pay to the lowest paid. That has been acknowledged and understood by the trade union negotiators, who have their members' interests much closer to their hearts than the Deputies opposite.
3. Deputy Shane Ross asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the action he plans to take in response to the recent warnings from the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council regarding public expenditure. [26505/15]
What action does the Minister intend to take in response to the recent warnings from the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council, IFAC, about public expenditure?
The Government established the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council to provide an independent assessment of the fiscal stance in each budget and stability programme as part of the new medium-term budget framework. Given the Government's priority to ensure the ongoing sustainability of the public finances, I welcome the independent perspective provided by IFAC. As this House is aware, we have undergone a significant period of fiscal retrenchment and the fiscal adjustment has enabled us to return sustainability to the public finances, created jobs and created the conditions to support a return to economic growth. On the spending side, gross voted expenditure was reduced from its peak of just over €63 billion in 2009 to €54 billion in 2014. During that period, current spending was reduced by nearly 10% and capital spending was reduced by half.
The spring economic statement in April outlined that fiscal space of the order of €1.2 billion to €1.5 billion is expected to be available for budget 2016. Fiscal projections in the statement and the stability programme update are based on a technical assumption of a budgetary package of between €1.2 billion and €1.5 billion in 2016, split evenly between expenditure and tax reductions. IFAC noted that giving information about the level of indicative fiscal space for the forthcoming budget was a welcome development in terms of fiscal transparency. The post-2016 forecasts in the stability programme update and the spring economic statement reflect a no policy change scenario. As highlighted by IFAC, a consequence is that the forecasts show a decline over the medium term in the overall ratio of spending to GDP and do not include provision for increases in areas such as pay bill, welfare or capital. However, the no policy change scenario would involve a structural adjustment considerably higher than is required under the Stability and Growth Pact, and, as stated clearly in the spring statement, it is the Government's firm intention to make only the minimum adjustment required under the pact rules in these years. This means that additional fiscal space will be available and the Government will decide on it case by case. It will be a matter for the Government to decide at budget time.
I thank the Minister for his reply. The problem is that the fiscal advisory council has continually made statements and issued 11 reports but the Government picks and chooses what it likes from those reports but does not take much notice of anything that it does not like. The council has indicated that the Government is ignoring, in its own forecasts, the tax and expenditure statements it has already made for 2016. There is no question that we will reach our deficit target of 3% this year but the council has argued that for 2016, the Government has refused to acknowledge its own forecasts of spending pressures, tax reductions and other very important matters. This would affect the budget adjustment, which the Minister has correctly stated is €1.2 billion to €1.5 billion. The fiscal advisory council has argued it would be far more appropriate at a level of nearly half that number, or €700 million. Does the Minister intend to take that advice or ignore it?
Is the Deputy a social democrat now in his latest reincarnation? On my way from Wexford I have seen posters about retaining a swimming pool. The Garda station was his campaign last year. The Deputy opposes every expenditure reduction, so I am interested as to whether he is academically interested in reducing spending or if it is an actual interest.
In each of the past four and half years of this Government, we have set out our deficit targets and fiscal strategy to achieve those. We have achieved them all comfortably. The advice we had last year from IFAC and others was that we needed a more robust reduction in expenditure than we provided. Last year, we did not reduce expenditure but rather increased it slightly, as the Deputy knows. We will still comfortably meet the deficit target. The target set out in the budget of 2.7% has been revised to 2.3%, as the Deputy knows, in the spring economic statement. Assuming that the budgetary parameters do not alter between now and August, we will set out what will happen next year. After that, each Government will make a determination of the split, for example, between taxation and expenditure. That will be a matter to be debated in the election.
I thank the Minister as he has answered my question fully, although he did not mean to. It is quite simple. He is going to ignore completely the advice of the fiscal advisory council. It specifically indicates that the structural deficit requirement reduction is 0.6% but the Government will come in at 0.3%. The council has specifically warned about the real questions about the credibility of projections for Government spending. It is a fairly tough indictment from an independent body and I wonder if there is any point in it existing if the Government is going to ignore those pieces of advice that it does not like for electoral reasons. The fiscal council has been understanding and indicated that it understands why the Government is acting like this. It is for electoral reasons. It has said as much in almost totally decoded language.
I congratulate the Minister on informing the House that the IFAC is now a redundant body. When the Government gets a report from IFAC, does it meet its representatives formally to receive and discuss the report?
The Deputy does not need a Minister at all as he answers his own questions.
It is more efficient. It is an efficiency measure.
There is really no point in being here at all. The Deputy is either completely deaf or he has decided that he does not like the answer he has heard. He has put words into my mouth that I certainly did not say. If he listened to what I said, he would know that I welcome the creation and advice of the IFAC. We do not necessarily accept all advice that we get. The Deputy is absolutely wrong on the basic point. The advisory council has stated that our movement towards structural balance will be of the order of 0.3% and the Government has stated that it will meet our requirement, which is a movement of not less than 0.5%. The arbiter of this - the referee who determines the level - is the European Commission, and its evaluation of the spring economic statement is that the movement will be 0.8%. We can take the figures and choices and, so far, the Government has been right.
4. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his views on whether the conditions for a financial emergency as set out in financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, legislation still apply; his plans to unwind this legislation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26606/15]
What are the Minister's views on whether the conditions for the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest, FEMPI, Acts still apply and will he outline his plan for an orderly winding down of the legislation? When will we have the report now due relating to the FEMPI legislation?
On the Deputy's last question, the report is already before the House. I signed off on it on 29 June and it should now be available in the Oireachtas Library.
The Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2009, the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Act 2009 and the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act, 2010 were introduced unilaterally by the previous Administration to deal with the fiscal crisis. The Government introduced the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Amendment) Act 2011 on foot of a referendum of the people, and the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2013 following negotiation and agreement with public sector trade unions. These Acts are collectively known as the FEMPI legislation.
In my statutory role under the FEMPI legislation, I am required to carry out a review and report to the Houses of the Oireachtas on the operation, effectiveness and impact of the Acts and to consider whether any of the provisions of the Acts continues to be necessary. As I indicated, my most recent report was completed and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas in accordance with the legislative requirements on 29 June. Regrettably, given the scale of the financial crisis arising from the actions of the previous Administration, it is required to continue the FEMPI measures in operation. The expenditure reductions and savings generated by the legislation remain an integral and necessary part of the financial adjustment required to meet our deficit targets under the Stability and Growth Pact.
I have indicated in the report that, subject to the ratification of the proposals made by the public services committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, and the associations representing public servants, the Government approved my proposal to bring forward the necessary amendments to the legislation to facilitate implementation of the agreement during the course of next year.
I thank the Minister for his response. He has indicated that he will make any change that might be required to the FEMPI legislation to facilitate the latest public sector pay agreement. However, he is saying, on the one hand, that we are still in a financial emergency and, on the other, that we can give pay increases to public servants. I agree with the latter but not the former. The FEMPI measures were introduced in 2009 and we are now in a different landscape as a result of the agreements we put in place. The Minister inherited these measures and largely implemented them faithfully, which has led us to a situation where there is no longer a need for the emergency measures as originally contemplated in 2009. Will he talk to the Government Chief Whip about organising a debate on the FEMPI legislation in this House or, alternatively, arrange for a debate on the matter at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform? I am sure the Minister would welcome the opportunity to attend a meeting of that committee to discuss the most recent report. It would be very helpful to have that discussion before the summer recess.
Holding debates in the House is a matter for discussion among the Whips. I do not agree with the Deputy that we either have all or none of the FEMPI legislation, which is what he seems to be saying. There is consensus arising from the previous debates we have had on these matters that the measures must be wound down over time. We cannot take a hit of in excess of €2 billion in one fell swoop. It must be done over time so as not to jeopardise the economic progress the Government has made. Assuming that the public sector unions endorse the Lansdowne Road agreement, the provisions in it will require legislation to bring them into effect. I will bring that legislation to the House in the autumn, at which time we will have a full debate on the proposals.
Would the Minister be amenable to my asking the secretariat of the finance committee to invite him to attend a meeting to discuss the issue? Such engagement would be very useful because we have not had a discussion on the FEMPI measures for some time, either at the committee or in the Chamber. I hope the Minister will agree to it. If he does, I will ask the Chairman of the committee to arrange a meeting as a matter of urgency.
The difficulty is that there is not very much time remaining in this session. I hope I will be able to facilitate the discussion the Deputy is proposing. I would certainly welcome such an engagement.
5. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will clarify that public bodies are not restricted to using public procurement framework agreements such as the managed print services framework agreement and are free to use local providers; if he will issue a circular to this effect; his views on the implications of this clarification for other existing public procurement framework agreements; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26607/15]
My question relates to public procurement framework agreements, particularly the managed print services, MPS, framework agreement. There have been controversies and legal actions on foot of that framework and its related circulars. Will the Minister clarify that public bodies are not restricted to using public procurement framework agreements such as the MPS and are, in fact, free to use local providers? Will he agree to issue a circular to this effect? In addition, will he give his views on the implications of such clarification for existing public procurement framework agreements?
I thank the Deputy for her question. The reform of the public procurement system across the public service is a key element of the public sector reform programme. Fragmented procurement arrangements have facilitated, among other things, suppliers charging different public service bodies different prices for the same goods and services. Public procurement savings are necessary to enable public service organisations to deliver much needed services within the tighter budgets they must now operate.
Since the start of the procurement reform programme, total savings of €100 million across 2013 and 2014 have been reported by the Office for Government Procurement, OGP, and its partners. The reform of public procurement is being carried out in a manner that recognises the clear importance of small and medium-sized enterprises, SMEs, in the country's economic recovery. The recently published report of the OGP, Public Service Spend and Tendering Analysis for 2013, indicates that 93% of public service procurement expenditure was with businesses in the Republic of Ireland. This was based on an analysis of €2.742 billion worth of expenditure across 64 large public service bodies and involving more than 35,000 suppliers.
All public bodies are keenly aware of the importance of maximising the value for money achievable when procuring commonly acquired goods or services. The central procurement frameworks and contracts established by the OGP are designed to optimise benefits for the public service through the strategic aggregation of its buying power. The managed print services framework agreement is no different in this regard.
Public bodies are reminded that such central procurement frameworks are targeted at securing best value for money and facilitating contracting authorities to deliver services within their budgetary constraints. In this regard, public bodies are encouraged to use the arrangements. The benefits arising therefrom include cash savings, administrative savings from reduced duplication of tendering, greater purchasing expertise, improved consistency, enhanced service levels and legal certainty. Officials are also reminded that it is Government policy that public bodies, where possible, should make use of all such central arrangements.
We have debated many of these issues in the past. The Minister of State will not be surprised to hear that I do not concur entirely with his assessment of the reformed procurement function for the State. My view is that it has had a number of very negative consequences, but we do not have the scope to debate that issue today. The Minister of State knows, too, that I am very positively disposed towards rigorous public procurement procedures not only to save money and enhance efficiency but also to secure a range of positive social consequences. However, I asked him a number of specific questions which hinged on the managed print services framework agreement. In particular, I have asked him to make it clear, whether he encourages public bodies and schools, in particular, to avail of it, that their doing so is voluntary and that there is no absolute obligation to work to the panels established under the agreement. The reason I am asking the Minister of State to be so specific is that this is one of the frameworks that was challenged in the High Court and the Supreme Court. The challengers won and the Government and the State lost. It is essential that the Minister of State make clear to schools that adherence to the agreement is voluntary and that they will not be penalised for failing to comply with the panels under the framework agreements.
I acknowledge the Deputy's support for the OGP. We have had some useful discussions in the House on these issues, including on the legislation introduced by the Deputy which dealt with the social clauses aspect. That is an issue the working group continues to consider and I hope to be able to report progress shortly in that regard.
Circular 16/13, issued by the OGP and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, reminded public bodies that central procurement frameworks were targeted at securing best value for money and facilitating contracting authorities to deliver services within their budgetary constraints. It went on to state that where a body was not in a position to utilise a central procurement framework, it should be in a position to provide a value for money justification. That justification should take into account the full costs of running a public procurement competition. Public bodies must comply with their obligations under national law and guidelines.
In regard to SMEs, there is room for discussion on what we can do to encourage them to become more involved in procurement. Reform does offer opportunities in this regard, both domestically and at European and international levels. Circular 10/14 put in place a number of measures to encourage SMEs to become involved, which is something we intend to drive throughout the public service.
There is, however, a difficulty.
The circular and the framework have had the effect of locking out a number of SMEs and microbusinesses, some of which have gone under because of the reformed system. Jobs have been lost. To the astonishment of the sector, when it approached the Government and the procurement authority, it was told jobs are not their concern, they were none of their business. That is a consequence of the lack of joined-up thinking and, I respectfully suggest, basic cop-on or a sense of what is happening in the real world. What these businesses need in accordance with the rulings of the courts is for the Minister of State to be explicit that the framework is voluntary and that there is no penalty for sourcing materials and services from local suppliers. They also need in the instance of the MPS framework for the Department of Education and Skills to make that absolutely crystal clear in line with the rulings of the courts to schools right across the State. Businesses and those they employ are seeking that level of assurance and clarity from the Minister of State this morning.
As I have already outlined, Circular 16/13 encourages public bodies to utilise the central framework agreements.
They are voluntary.
I have outlined that where they are not in a position to do so, they must produce a value-for-money justification.
So, they are voluntary.
In regard to that, I have outlined that the value-for-money justification must include the full cost of running a public procurement competition. I hope we have an opportunity to engage in a sustained, lengthy and necessary debate on the purpose of public procurement because it is not a subsidy. Deputy McDonald and I had the pleasure of serving on the Committee of Public Accounts together and would be among the first to criticise public servants coming before that forum who wasted taxpayers' money or failed to seek value for money. What we have here is an opportunity for our SMEs to get involved in a public procurement market that is worth €12 billion a year. I want to work with Deputies on all sides of the House to encourage our SMEs to get involved and provide them with as many opportunities as possible. That is why we have introduced the tender advisory service and the Meet the Buyer event and it is why we are looking at social-----
The reason they challenged it in the courts was because so many of them have gone to the wall.
We have a duty-----
Do not talk down the clock. Give them the assurance.
I am not talking down the clock, the Deputy is interrupting me. We have a duty also to get value for money for taxpayers. We need to encourage our SMEs to get involved in the reform programme and I remain absolutely committed to that. However, we have a duty on value for money. We cannot be hypocritical and criticise public servants for not getting value for money for taxpayers and then call on them to use public procurement as a subsidy.
The Minister of State cannot let SMEs go under. That is what he is doing. That is the consequence.
