Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 26 Sep 2017

Vol. 959 No. 3

Other Questions

Living Wage Introduction

Pearse Doherty

Question:

38. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will implement a living wage for all employees of the State; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40461/17]

The issue here relates to State employees and whether the Government, and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Donohoe, are of the view that the Government will implement a living wage across the public and Civil Service and that it will guarantee employees in the direct employment of the State that they will receive a living wage, which is at €11.70 per hour.

As the Deputy is aware, the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection is responsible for setting the national minimum wage, on the recommendation of the Low Pay Commission. The current minimum wage is set at €9.25 and the third report of the Low Pay Commission recommended that this be increased by 30 cent per hour.

The Government welcomed that recommendation. We acknowledge that it is a modest increase but one that is ahead of the rate of inflation and average increases in earnings. This would be the fourth increase in the minimum wage since 2011, and the second under this Government.  I will consider the consequences of this change in the context of budget 2018.

In terms of the public service as employer, it should be noted that the recent Public Service Pay Commission report found that lower paid public servants receive a pay premium of 15% compared to their equivalent private sector colleagues. Based on data available to my Department, more than 94% of public service employees are on salary points in excess of €25,000 per annum. The suggested wage at €11.70 per hour based on the Civil Service 37 hour standard net working week equates to an annual salary of €22,589.

Any of those currently on an annual salary of less than €22,589 could be receiving remuneration in excess of the suggested living wage through additional premium payments in respect of shift or atypical working hours, or are on salary scales that progress to the suggested living wage through incremental progression.

Under the recent public service stability agreement, from January 2018 pay in the public service will be further adjusted.  The pay increases provided for under the agreement are progressively weighted towards the lower paid with benefits ranging from 7.4% to 6.2% over the term to the end of 2020.

I find it bizarre that we are actually discussing this issue at all. It is about people, who are directly employed by the State, who should at the minimum be receiving a living wage that is calculated as the minimum a person requires to live on. In the view of Sinn Féin, the minimum wage should be raised to a point where it reaches the living wage and that it should happen incrementally. There is, however, a point where we can start and we can compare the public service and the Civil Service against the private sector, but I believe that we, the Government Departments and public and civil servants should be taking a lead on the issue. We are not talking about a huge number of people. To put it into context we are probably talking about 1% of the Civil Service and 6% of the public service. There are families, some 3,600 public sector workers, who are reliant on additional State supports such as family income support just to get by.

Is it the short, medium or even long-term ambition of the Government to ensure that every public sector worker who is everybody employed directly by the State will receive, at minimum, a living wage? Is that something the Minister is willing or able to say? Does he believe they should at minimum earn a living wage or are we going to hear comparisons between those in the Civil Service and the private sector?

It would behove the Deputy to better acknowledge the point I made that more than 94% of those who work for our public service earn a salary which is significantly ahead of the living wage. As an employer, the State is already exceeding the level of wages that would be created by the implementation of a living wage policy. Of the employees of the State, 94% have a salary which is in excess of that. In relation to those who are earning less than €20,589 and as I pointed out to the Deputy, they will be likely receiving additional payments for shift work and be on a salary scale which will give them the benefit of increments. The agreement we made recently with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions prioritises those on lower incomes for a faster rate of wage increase. It is precisely because I recognise that those on lower incomes face great challenges in getting by within our economy and have needs which we have a duty to try to meet that we have made a wage agreement that seeks to give wage increases to them at a faster rate than to those who earn more. It is cumulatively because of decisions which have been made in this area for decades that we are in a place in which the overwhelming majority of those who work for the State earn more than the living wage.

The Minister talked about the 94%, which is the same figure about which I talked. I simply put the focus on those earning below the living wage, which is 6% in the public sector and 1% in the Civil Service. It would not require a huge amount of money for the Minister to do this. He referred to pay deals and all the rest. Let us look at the pay deals and the upper end. Let us look at the fact that the additional part of the pay deal for those in the public sector who earn more than €90,000 will cost a total of €55 million. Let us look at the fact that 489 individuals working in the public sector will get an increase of €11,749 per year. That is half the living wage.

The cost of this is in the small few millions. There would also be net savings because 3,600 of these individuals have to rely on family income supplement payments to get by. It is almost question of principle and, forgetting about the year on year increments, whether the Minister believes that within two or three years no one working in the public sector should be receiving less from the State in payment than the living wage? I want to introduce it in this budget and we will show in our alternative budget that it can be done.

Because of the variety of work public and civil servants do and because of shift work and so on, there are a variety of work agreements and arrangements. That is the reason we have a public service pay agreement. The Deputy asked me what are my principles. We are making faster rates of wage increase available to people who earn less. That is me putting my principles into action. We need to ensure that those who earn less within the public service and Civil Service have the opportunity to have their wages fully restored. Perhaps the Deputy has shifted the Sinn Féin position on this matter, but my understanding is that his party welcomed the ratification of the recent agreement and understood that there are some people who work in our public service and Civil Service who are on higher levels of wages because of the markets in which they operate, for example, hospital consultants and those who provide specialised services. We must remunerate those people so they continue to provide those services within our State. That is why they are getting increases that are larger in cash terms than those who earn less. We are doing so because we need them to work in our State to provide services that matter to our society. If the Deputy is asking what is my commitment to those on lower pay, I point to the fact that we have a wage agreement in place which will provide them with a path to wage restoration that is not available to many who earn more.

Capital Expenditure Programme Review

Joan Burton

Question:

39. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform when he anticipates the publication of outline details of the revised capital programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40354/17]

Can the Minister tell the House when the revised capital plan will be published and provide an indication of what it will contain?

It will be published in December. As I have answered a number of questions on the matter already, I emphasise, briefly, that it will look at how we can have levels of public capital investment that will better sustain the long-term growth of our economy and society. It will look at ensuring we have the right levels of investment to deal with the changing demographic profile of our society. It will involve decisions on the level of capital expenditure we need to respond to balanced growth across the entire country and deal with issues such as Brexit.

Does that include an actual date?

I said it would be published in December.

In December. Normally, this place goes on holidays by 20 December. As such, can we have an indication of the actual date?

It will be 24 December.

Will the plan include additional funding for the national maternity hospital? While planning permission has been granted, the Department of Health has warned that it does not have enough money to deliver major projects, including the national maternity hospital and primary care centres. We are talking about a disaster if what the Department of Health has been suggesting turns out to be true. The Department has said it needs an extra €2 billion. By the standards of the HSE and in my experience of sitting at Cabinet, that is small money. Is it really going to be held back on €2 billion? It has also said it needs another €2 billion for extra infrastructure and IT. I do not know. We also need additional bed capacity.

What are we doing in relation to a subject that is close to my heart and that of the Minister, namely electric rail lines, in particular to Maynooth and south Kildare to open up vast additional lands for housing at moderate prices?

The Department of Health is, of course, pressing the case, as are other Departments, for more funding. I make the point which the Minister for Health, Deputy Simon Harris, has also made that the level of funding now available to the Department of Health is at the highest it has ever been in the history of the State. While the Deputy points to needs to which we must respond, including welcome news such as the receipt of planning permission for the national maternity hospital, we should acknowledge the progress on the national children's hospital and the new hospital facilities in Portrane. I am engaging with the Minister, Deputy Harris, to determine the right level of capital funding we can afford as a country to make progress on the priorities Deputy Burton outlined in health.

The electrification of our rail network to attain higher speeds and capacity is a matter the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Shane Ross, is raising with me. I am working with him to see what kind of funding we can agree to make progress on a number of priorities, which might include the one referred to by the Deputy. He is raising many matters with me.

The Minister's comments on the HSE and the Department of Health fill me with dread. That is based on experience. These guys know how to ask for a great deal of extra money and they do not move or do anything unless they get it. Given the clear bed shortage in Irish hospitals and the requirements of the national maternity hospital, the Minister's comments today do not fill me with positive hope and expectation.

Transport and housing in the modern world are intimately linked. In another country, one can take a train to the capital city, such as London, Paris or Amsterdam, or a major employment area, within an hour. We could do that if we electrified the Maynooth rail line and the south Kildare rail line as far as Portlaoise.

The Government is talking about being up early in the morning. Hopefully, that produces some sense of vision. However, there are wonderful towns on the lines in question where thousands of houses could be built at much cheaper prices. It would release a vast amount of additional housing potential. It would also bring us into line with what happens on the gold coast in Dublin - the east coast line – a rail line which Garret FitzGerald electrified more than 30 years ago. I am urging the Minister to have some vision and ambition with the capital plan.

I am sorry that my words did not fill the Deputy with hope. What might have filled her with hope is that we are finally making progress on the national children's hospital-----

We set aside that money, however.

-----and the fact that work is under way on this. It is a project for which the Deputy well understands the need. Funding was set aside for it but additional funding had to be identified and made available to deliver the project, which I did precisely because I recognised the need to support projects such as this. I understand fully what future investment we may need to make in the national maternity hospital and for additional bed capacity.

As the Deputy sat around the Cabinet table she understands, as well as I do, that I have a certain amount of money that I have to make available to fund priorities. I, and other Ministers, have to make choices in it. If those words and that process do not fill the Deputy with hope or inspire her, I hope she would take account of the fact that we are hoping to allocate a further €4 billion to projects. I am hoping to be able to make choices that move forward projects that show our country that projects, such as the national maternity hospital or the national children's hospital, are capable of delivering to our citizens the better services I know they deserve and need.

Freedom of Information Remit

Mick Wallace

Question:

40. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his views on the 40-plus agencies that are either fully or partially exempt from freedom of information requests; his further views on whether these exemptions are in the public interest with regard to accountability and transparency; if he will consider conducting a review of the agencies that benefit from such exemptions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40247/17]

I am looking forward to the Minister filling me with hope. It will not even cost him money to do it.

The 2014 Freedom of Information Act was heralded as ground-breaking and progressive legislation by the former Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. At the time, we pointed out many problems with it, but they were obviously ignored. It is three years since the Act was put in place and these problems have now come to fruition in many areas and practice.

What are the Minister’s views on the 40 or more agencies that are either fully or partially exempt from freedom of information requests? What are his views on whether these exemptions are in the public interest with regard to accountability and transparency? Will he consider conducting a review of the agencies which benefit from such exemptions?

The Freedom of Information Act 2014 introduced a modernised, consolidated, restructured and more accessible system. It repealed the 1997 and 2003 freedom of information Acts. The Act extends freedom of information to all public bodies and automatically includes newly established bodies, unless specifically exempt.

As part of the analysis and consultation during development of the Freedom of Information Act 2014, the inclusion of bodies such as commercial State bodies and regulatory bodies was considered in consultation with relevant Ministers at the time.

Part 1 of the first Schedule to the 2014 Act lists the bodies partially included and Part 2 of the first Schedule lists the bodies exempt from the Act.

The agencies included in Part 1 are largely those with regulatory, quasi-judicial or financial functions where scope of the Act is limited to certain functions only. Decisions were made on the basis of needing inter alia to protect examinations or investigations, tribunals and dispute resolution functions, as well as to protect personal information and to comply with certain secrecy obligations under EU rules.

With regard to the commercial State bodies listed in Part 2 of the Schedule, important considerations informed and guided the approach taken. The assessment was that, in general, and consistent with the approach adopted since this legislation first came into effect in 1998, commercial State bodies should not be subject to freedom of information requirements. The rationale for this approach is the risk of the uneven competitive market environment that would be created in circumstances in which commercial State bodies operating in a competitive market were subject to freedom of information but their private counterparts were not. Notwithstanding this, the Government decided that State companies operating in a monopoly market, should be and have been made subject to freedom of information.

I am satisfied that the reasons for the full or partial exemptions stand and are consistent with the public interest. I hope the Deputy will acknowledge 600 bodies are now encompassed by this legislation.

There are many bodies still not open to scrutiny. The Minister says exemptions are proposed in the public interest so as not to affect a body's ability to perform its core functions and commercial performance. I am not sure this complies fully with EU rules. We have been in a battle with Bord na Móna for several months regarding its employment of Accenture. It has confirmed to me that it entered into several contractual commitments with Accenture in 2014 but refused to give me the cost of each contract stating the organisation does not come under freedom of information and, accordingly, it is not obliged to give me the information. I have checked this with the EU. An EU procurement directive states contract information, including the cost per contract, of commercial State bodies must be published.

Will the Minister check whether commercial state bodies which do not disclose cost of contracts are in breach of EU procurement directives? Sadly, Bord na Móna stopped talking to me as well.

I play no role in freedom of information decisions made within this legislation. If I were to play a role in this, it would undermine the whole spirit of the legislation. I cannot comment on an individual decision made by Bord na Móna and the inquiry the Deputy put in. I imagine the reason it made that decision is that the freedom of information unit in Bord na Móna would have contended that making that information available to the Deputy might have caused commercial difficulty for the organisation and other tendering processes which it has under way, in turn undermining its ability to get good value for the taxpayer. That is a general principle established in the commercial State sector in tendering and procurement processes. I expect Bord na Móna is fully compliant with European Union law in this area. As I said, its evaluation of commercial sensitivity may have played a role in the decision made. However, as I said, I play no role nor would seek to play a role in any individual decision made because that would undermine the whole thrust of this legislation.

The Minister presumes the company is in compliance with the EU procurement directive. Will he check it for me because we are of the opinion it is not?

We put in many freedom of information requests. Sometimes we get satisfactory answers; sometimes, we do not. Recently - a while back - I put in a freedom of information request about NAMA’s freedom of information system to see how it works on a day-to-day basis. Pádraig Corkery, the freedom of information manager in NAMA, on a request I put in on Project Eagle stated:

The freedom of information is from Mick Wallace, so I am trying to close off any angles of attack in advance.

That does not sound like a State agency that is interested in transparency and accountability.

In another example, I put in a request to the Central Bank about the Ulster Bank global restructuring group and all emails regarding it from 2016 to the present day. It charged me €250 to retrieve information. When the Act was introduced in all its glory by the former Minister, we were told we were getting world-class legislation and it was the best thing since fried bread. I believe the Minister should have another look at the legislation. It is not perfect and could be improved in the interests of transparency and accountability, as well as the public interest.

Again, I cannot comment on individual decisions made under freedom of information legislation.

As I explained, if I were to get involved in that, it would challenge the non-political nature of how these decisions are made in the first instance. The Deputy named an individual who works for the freedom of information unit in a particular organisation and read out an email he received relating to a decision that organisation was making. However, there might well be another context or there might be other matters relating to that decision of which I am not aware. For that reason, I will not comment on an individual decision that has been made. If the Deputy has concerns about the implementation of the legislation generally or a concern that it is not being implemented in the way the Oireachtas intends, I am open to having a discussion with him about that and hearing his views on the matter, but not about individual decisions because that would not be appropriate to this legislation.

I did not ask the Minister to comment on individual situations but to review the legislation.

The question has been answered. If the answer is not to the Deputy's satisfaction, there are other ways to deal with it.

Public Procurement Contracts

Richard Boyd Barrett

Question:

41. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his plans for new legislation to ensure proper wages and conditions for workers and full tax compliance, with particular emphasis on bogus self-employment, in all public contracts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40479/17]

I ask the Minister to answer the question both in respect of individual instances and the general principle. Should companies that get public contracts, that are then found to be in breach of the law and of fire safety standards and that fail to comply with the tax code be banned for ever from being awarded public contracts? I will go into a little more detail. Before the summer recess, I raised the issue of the refurbishment of Dolphin House and the failure in that instance to comply with the tax code. I have just left the meeting of the Joint Committee on Education and Skills at which Western Building Systems-----

The Deputy had 30 seconds to put his question.

Okay. I will return to the issue of Western Building Systems.

Deputy Boyd Barrett's question is whether the Minister has plans for new legislation in this area. There are no plans for legislation covering procurement, but I can give a more comprehensive answer when the Deputy asks his more comprehensive question.

On 5 July last, I pointed out in the House that workers had been working on a public contract for Purcell Construction, which is the developer, and Rapid Developments, the subcontractor. The workers were employed since April or May and still had not received payslips. Even after I raised the matter with the Minister, which was followed by a raid by the joint investigation unit, JIU - although that raid was a joke - the workers still have not received payslips. In August, they finally got a notification that they were PAYE workers as of 23 August, but there was no reference to the fact that there was no tax, registration or anything else since their employment began in April or May. This is a flagrant breach of the law, and this is a public contract.

I have just returned from the meeting of the Joint Committee on Education and Skills at which Western Building Systems, which built six schools in flagrant breach of fire safety standards, was discussed. Another one that has not come into the public domain is Whitehall College of Further Education, also built during that period, in respect of which, I understand, legal action is being taken by the Office of Public Works over the company's failure to comply with proper standards. Are these companies seriously going to continue to be awarded public contracts? It is outrageous. In the case of the schools, children are being put at risk. The company signed off, fraudulently in my opinion, on fire safety in those buildings, which were then discovered to be defective on multiple occasions. Will those companies get further public contracts? I do not believe they should.

I will try to answer the question - as it relates to the Department - which is in respect of procurement. I should explain that public procurement already includes provisions for the protection of labour rights.  Public procurement is the acquisition, whether under formal contract or not, of works, supplies and services by public bodies.  National rules governing public procurement must comply with the relevant EU and national legal requirements and obligations.  Under EU law, public contracts above a certain value must be advertised EU-wide and awarded to the most competitive tender in an open and objective process. The aim of European and national rules is to promote an open, competitive and non-discriminatory public procurement regime which delivers best value for money.

Public procurement procedures require applicants to meet certain standards when applying for public contracts.  In this regard, applicants are required to make declarations relating to their financial standing, legal standing and the payment of taxes and social contributions.  They must also be compliant with relevant labour law.

Prior to the award of a public works contract, the successful applicant is required to produce a current tax clearance certificate from the Revenue Commissioners.

The management of the tendering process for a public contract is a matter for each contracting authority.  It is the responsibility of each authority to ensure that tenderers comply with all the requirements of the process.

Once awarded, the conditions of the public works contracts require the contractor to certify compliance with employment law, to maintain records of all those employed on the site, regardless of whether they are employees of the contractor or subcontractors, and the hours worked by them.  Where requested, the contractor must also provide details of the payments made to those employed on the site.

Where the contractor fails to comply with their obligations under the contract or employment law, deductions may be made.

Enforcement of tax, social welfare and employment law are matters for the relevant State authorities, including the Workplace Relations Commission, the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection and the Revenue Commissioners.

With regard to the construction area specifically, I understand the matter Deputy Boyd Barrett raises, or it might be a related matter, is under consideration by our colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Breen. I will bring the Deputy's question to his attention.

That was a scripted answer telling us what we already know. I have given two examples of companies that received significant public contracts worth a great deal of money. There is proof in the case of Western Building Systems and strong evidence in the case of Purcell Construction and Rapid Developments, in the Dolphin's Barn development, that they are breaking the law. In the refurbishment at Dolphin's Barn they are breaking the law in terms of the tax code and conditions of employment for workers. It is still happening, even after a raid took place. The workers still have not received payslips and the employer is now trying to tell them that they were only employed on 23 August even though the workers can show pictures of cheques they received from this company back in May. This is breaking the law. When companies are found guilty of that will they continue to get public contracts or will the contracts be taken from them? Western Building Systems built schools and is building rapid-build houses in Poppintree - God knows what they are like in terms of fire safety. It was involved in construction at Temple Street hospital, as well as building extensions to Beaumont Hospital. The company has built all of these things and we have known for at least two years that it was in flagrant breach of fire safety standards. Will it get more public contracts?

The question Deputy Boyd Barrett is asking now is completely different-----

The Minister without interruption.

The question asks the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his plans for new legislation. Deputy Boyd Barrett has raised a serious-----

The Minister of State did not quote all of the question.

It continues, "proper wages and conditions for workers and full tax compliance, with particular emphasis on bogus self-employment, in all public contracts; and if he will make a statement on the matter". No details were supplied and there were no details relating to the contracts the Deputy mentioned. The Deputy has raised specific issues on the record of the House. The Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection can be notified of the situations the Deputy has identified. The Deputy asked me the question on the Order Paper today and I have answered it. I also answered it on the basis of legislation-----

I am asking if there will be sanctions against companies that are not in compliance.

Perhaps the Deputy will let me finish. The Deputy is also asking the question, I presume, in the context of legislation that he and his colleagues have proposed. The Department has serious concerns about the legality of that legislation and that has also been communicated by the Attorney General. I do not disregard the severity of what the Deputy suggested. I have no proof of it. This is not a court of law and it is not a place where we can pass judgment on people or their reputations. The specific cases to which the Deputy refers should be brought to the attention of the relevant State authority, in this case the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection.

Brexit Issues

Bernard Durkan

Question:

42. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the degree to which his Department has noted negative or positive impacts from Brexit; the steps required to be taken to address such issues; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40416/17]

I am seeking to evaluate the extent to which the Minister has had an opportunity to address the opportunities and challenges arising from Brexit and whether it is likely to be possible to intervene in a positive way to minimise the challenges and to take full advantage of the opportunities.

Clearly Brexit will pose significant challenges for Ireland. The Government is committed to addressing these challenges, mitigating the impacts and taking the best advantage of available opportunities. Last May, the Government published a document setting out in detail its approach to Brexit and the structures it had put in place to ensure a strategic and whole-of-Government response to it. This identified the key priority issues for the negotiations between the European Union and United Kingdom and also mapped out the wider domestic response.

The significance of the risks arising from Brexit is reflected in the Government's national risk assessment for 2017, which identifies areas where Brexit poses a specific risk, particularly to the economy. In my Department, this approach is reflected in our statement of strategy for the period from 2016 until 2019 and our risk register. The challenges posed by Brexit are kept under constant review. A dedicated Brexit EU North-South unit is responsible for co-ordinating the response to Brexit across the Department and plays a full role in the cross-Department structures that support the work of the Government.

The Government is using a highly consultative approach through the all-island civic dialogue process and other stakeholder events. This has enabled us to hear from stakeholders about the Brexit impacts they are experiencing.

Across Government, work is continuing on Ireland's wider response to both the challenges and opportunities posed by Brexit. This builds on ongoing research and analysis by all Departments.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Arising from the review and ongoing assessment of the position, has it been possible to balance the positives and negatives of Brexit as part of an effort to ascertain the extent to which it is possible to intervene to meet the challenges? To what extent has the possibility of infringing state aid rules been considered with a view to dealing with the more sensitive challenges that may present in the shortest term?

In terms of the broader action the Government is taking, this is the reason we are aiming to introduce a budget that will increase capital investment in a number of important areas of the economy. While we intend to do this work in any case, the challenge posed by Brexit makes it even more necessary. We will follow up on the budget with a ten-year national capital plan to be published in December.

The Deputy asked what the position was in respect of the balance sheet of potential gains and losses from Brexit. In recent months, I have noted that the opportunities in financial services and banking arising from Brexit are very significant for the economy. The entire economy, not only Dublin, can benefit from this development. I continue to be aware of the great risks posed to the economy and export competitiveness, in particular the risks posed to agriculture by currency shifts and possible future trading arrangements.

Is the Minister confident it will be possible to meet these challenges? Reference has been made to transitional arrangements. Is it possible that such arrangements will result in a loss of bargaining position that may not be to our advantage at a later stage?

The British Prime Minister, Ms Theresa May, articulated recent developments in her speech on Friday last. While a significant amount of work remains to be done and there will be difficult negotiations later this year, the renewed focus of the British Prime Minister on a transitional period and its duration and the focus the United Kingdom is now placing on customs policy are important matters for Ireland and the economy. A longer transitional period and a customs policy that is close to current customs arrangements would mean the opportunities would remain but the risks could begin to decrease. All of this must be viewed in the context that the overall challenge Brexit poses to the economy will continue. It is significant that our largest trading partner is exiting the European Union in the manner proposed. The Government is under no illusion as regards current and potential challenges.

Public Services Card

Catherine Connolly

Question:

43. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his views on the public services card; the circumstances in which the card will be required; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40462/17]

I ask the Minister to a make a statement on the public services card. While he addressed the issue earlier, I ask him to make a statement in response to the serious concerns raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his report. The Minister referred to the report but did not refer to the issues highlighted in it regarding the serious concerns expressed by the Data Protection Commissioner. What has the Minister learned from the report and the concerns of the Data Protection Commissioner? The public services card project commenced in 2004, yet we do not have legislation 13 years afterwards.

We do have legislation for this project. The Social Welfare Act to which I referred has been revisited on many occasions and provides the legislative foundation for this Bill. What I referred to earlier was separate legislation which will address the use and sharing of data in future as the opportunities and need to share them increase. The Bill has a firm legislative footing in section 263 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, which has been revisited by the Oireachtas on many occasions. As I stated, our responses to the queries raised by the Data Protection Commissioner, in particular with the Department of Social Protection, will be published shortly.

I am most unhappy with the Minister's answer. If he were to read the transcript of the relevant meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts and the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, he would see that no business case was provided for the public services card and the costs of the project or its positives were never evaluated. The estimated cost of the public services card now stands at €60 million. I am sure it is a matter of concern to the Minister, given his responsibility for public expenditure, that €60 million will be spent on a project for which no business case was ever provided, which was introduced on an ad hoc basis and the implications of which were never discussed.

On the issue of legislation, while we have the Social Welfare Act to which the Minister referred, we are waiting for the promised Bill on the storage, collection and, more important, sharing of data. Various answers refer to memorandums of understanding that do not exist.

I ask the Minister to grasp the seriousness of what has taken place, with an identity card being rolled out without any discussion, honesty or acknowledgement of its implications for privacy and the sharing of data, particularly in view of what emerged in the Committee of Public Accounts.

The Deputy has made an appalling series of allegations and accused Ministers and the Oireachtas of engaging with this issue in a dishonest way. My understanding of the Deputy's political philosophy is that she favours the State having a role in trying to provide better services for people. I would, therefore, have expected her to favour the State having a role in trying to provide such services in a more efficient manner. The Deputy inferred - she more than inferred - that there was no legislative underpinning for the public services card and when I explained clearly that there is such an underpinning, she made the entirely unfounded claim that this was a national identity card.

As I and other Ministers have explained on many occasions, and I am happy to do again, it is not a national identity card. People are not required to carry it and it is an offence if such identification is sought from persons. I thought a Deputy who is in favour of the State playing a bigger role in people's lives and trying to make better use of public services would see the merit of this approach, as opposed to making the entirely unfounded allegations she made.

I am not sure why the Minister has personalised this. According to the Comptroller and Auditor General when writing on the public accounts, the "Department commenced work [in 2016] on issues around data sharing, governance and the security of data which will be key elements of legislation currently being developed". I have asked the Minister to address the ad hoc nature of this project, which will cost €60 million. He has not addressed one issue. He has not addressed the question of why it has taken so long to come up with the legislation to which I have referred, and he has sidetracked onto my political ideology and other matters that are immaterial.

Will the Minister respond by addressing the issue of €60 million being spent on a project in an ad hoc manner without a business case having been made? What has he learned from that? When will the legislation be before the House? What has the Minister learned from his engagement with the Data Protection Commissioner? Why do we need this for passports, driving licences and every other service if it is not a national identity card?

I do not like the word "allegations". I do not make allegations - I deal in facts. I read reports and am quoting one now.

The record of the House will show that the Deputy made accusations about the honesty and faithfulness with which this card was rolled out,-----

-----and I called those out for that they were.

The Deputy is not the only person in the House who is motivated by good intentions and is trying to find ways of ensuring that public services are made available-----

Just deal with the issues raised.

-----to people in more efficient ways. Deputy Connolly made a set of accusations that I rebutted. She has made claims about this being a national identity card, which I reject and are unfounded in any comment that I or the Government has made. We are making this card available so that public services can be better provided to people with a view to ensuring that they do not have to supply the same set of information and proof of identity on multiple occasions to different State bodies just to get services from the same State.

We will deal in public with matters raised by the Data Protection Commissioner. I will revert to the Deputy with the detail of the responses made by any Department regarding the concerns of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I will do that in acknowledgment of the fact that this card has been rolled out legally. The Oireachtas has had the opportunity to debate the relevant law many times.

Public Procurement Regulations

Dara Calleary

Question:

44. Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the progress in implementing new guidelines on the public procurement process that will allow small and medium-sized enterprises, SMEs, to compete fairly for contracts; the method his Department will use to monitor adherence to the guidelines; the penalties that will be imposed if the guidelines are not followed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40451/17]

Procurement is still a mystery to many SMEs. It has considerable potential. The Minister has published new guidelines on public procurement processes, but what plans has he to publicise them and, more importantly, ensure that they are implemented and adhered to in order that SMEs are protected by them and know their way around the process?

I thank the Deputy for raising this question. I can give him a more comprehensive answer shortly.

In the weeks since being appointed to my role with responsibility for procurement, it has been my concern and that of the Government that we be cognisant of the impact that any procurement guideline, regulation or rule has on the SME sector. On this basis, the Department's SME leadership group, which is chaired by me and includes representatives of the SME sector, will be convened within the coming weeks.

I have met the Office of Government Procurement, OGP, a number of times and am due to do so again shortly. I am interested in hearing directly from SMEs, which is why I attended - I am sure that the Deputy has as well - the roadshows held by the OGP across the country. More are planned where there is an opportunity for the OGP to engage directly with the SME and other sectors. I am anxious to hear from people like the Deputy about where they believe improvements can be made without impacting on the thrust behind the concept of procurement.

I thank the Minister of State for his response. Holding a roadshow in Leinster House - perhaps in the AV room - would be worthwhile so as to brief Members of both Houses.

I have written to the Minister of State about an issue that has come to my attention, that of small, independent book publishers that are effectively excluded from library tendering. Library tenders are now being handled by large, wholesale providers. They can receive significant discounts from publishing houses whereas small, independent book publishers cannot. Due to the way in which public procurement is handled currently, they are unable to access the library network. Included among them are local society groups that publish local histories and bring a local flavour to the library service, and Irish companies that publish on behalf of well-known authors and find that, due to the procurement process, they cannot access the library network unless they provide unsustainable discounts.

Many sectors are affected. The Minister of State might get a chance at some stage to organise a clinic in the AV room. All Deputies have cases of people who are struggling with procurement. Importantly, SMEs are still struggling and are not getting the opportunities that are available. Such a clinic might assist us all in matching them with opportunities.

As the Deputy is probably aware, the majority of procurement contracts awarded by the State in that sector go to Irish companies, which sustains jobs across the country. That is important.

The OGP takes a balanced approach to delivering value for the taxpayer and ensures that public procurement is accessible by all businesses, including the SME sector. This is done in a number of ways, including: undertaking market analysis prior to tendering to better understand the range of goods and services on offer, market developments and innovation, what commercial models are available, the competitive landscape and the specific capabilities of the SME sector; setting proportionate eligibility requirements, for example, insurance and turnover, to support SME participation; breaking tendering competitions into smaller lots, for example, by sector, region, value and so on, to encourage the SME sector to participate and align with the capacity and capability of the marketplace; actively engaging in a range of events to help foster awareness of, and encourage engagement in, the public procurement process; and supporting supplier awareness of the Government's national tendering platform, etenders.gov.ie.

Circular 10/2014 on initiatives to assist SMEs in public procurement, issued by my Department, sets out the policy in this regard. The policy is reiterated in the public procurement guidelines issued in July.

The SME advisory group, which is chaired by me in accordance with the programme for Government, meets on a quarterly basis to address issues concerning SME participation in public procurement. Representatives include the OGP, the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation, Enterprise Ireland, InterTradeIreland, the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, IBEC, the Small Firms Association, SFA, the Construction Industry Federation, CIF, Chambers Ireland and the Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association, ISME.

It is a matter for individual contracting authorities to ensure that their public procurement function is discharged in line with the procurement rules and procedures. The Public Service Spend and Tendering Analysis Report 2015, published by the OGP and launched by me on 19 September 2017, indicates that the majority of the spend analysed is with SMEs.

The OGP will continue to work with industry to ensure that the winning of Government business is done in a fair, transparent and accessible way and Government procurement policies are business friendly.

I take on board the Deputy's suggestion about doing something for Members in Leinster House. I will get my office to make arrangements regarding a suggestion of my own, namely, bringing the Deputy and other Opposition spokespersons on procurement together for a full engagement with the OGP at its offices and to meet the respective tendering groups.

Vacant Sites Data

Dara Calleary

Question:

45. Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the progress made in the implementation of the property asset management delivery plan; if a database has been compiled detailing all property owned by the State and local authorities; the number of properties that are classified as vacant; his plans for these vacant properties; if these properties are suitable for a residential purposes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40452/17]

Regarding the property asset management delivery plan, have we a central database of all properties that the State possesses and the condition of those properties? Where the vacant element of that property is concerned, what can be done for people who are seeking homes or to offer opportunities for community groups, SMEs and so on in areas of the country where they are needed?

The Government's property asset management delivery plan, "Accommodating Change - Measuring Success", was published in July 2013 with the main objective of managing "the Public Service property portfolio in a professional, co-ordinated and efficient manner".

The OPW, with its chairman as the delivery plan’s senior responsible officer, has led these changes across the public service with progress overseen by a steering group. Significant progress has been made and was reported in the final progress report on the public service reform plan 2014-2016 published in July 2017. The utility and further development of outputs will continue long after the reform plan timeframe.

One of the outputs that will require continued maintenance and development is the State property register, which was developed under the delivery plan. It currently has basic details of over 24,000 properties, which are owned or leased by 94 individual organisations, including central Government, local government, the HSE and non-commercial State organisations. As recently as March of this year, it indicated there were 92 vacant properties. They were mainly closed Garda stations which are subject to a review that is currently being undertaken by the Policing Authority.

I am reluctant to say that because those properties are vacant they are surplus. There are many uses for which these properties are being sought and could be used in the future. In direct answer to the Deputy's question, that is the figure his question looked for.

To confirm, there are 24,000 State properties and only 92 of those are vacant. Of the 24,000, how many are under-utilised? How many have space within them that is under-utilised? Can the Minister confirm that only 92 of 24,000 properties are vacant?

The information I have indicates that the State property register has basic details on over 24,000 properties. According to the March read of this information, there are 92 vacant OPW properties. Those are properties that are directly managed by the State. I will see if I can get information for the Deputy regarding every other property. I am only responsible at this stage for the OPW properties but I will see if I can get the information on what properties of other State organisations are vacant.

Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.
Top
Share