Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 5 March 2019
49. Deputy Bríd Smith asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the proposed changes to the external workplace investigation service framework; the firms providing services; and the cost of such services since 2012. [10625/19]
View answerI ask the Minister about the proposed changes to the external workplace investigation service framework, the firms providing services and the cost of such services since 2012.
The Office of Government Procurement, OGP, carried out a competitive tender process for the establishment of a framework agreement for the provision of external workplace investigation services available to Departments and other public bodies. The framework has been in operation since March this year and will expire at the end of March. The framework suppliers for the delivery of services under the framework are as follows: Acrux Consulting Limited; Collier Broderick Management Consultants and Raise A Concern Limited.
The OGP is facilitating competitions under the framework for both central government and non-central government public bodies. In that respect it acts in an advisory role, but the individual public bodies using it are accountable and responsible for the competitions under the framework and any subsequent contract.
The number of investigations undertaken by each company and the cost of each investigation are matters for the relevant contracting authority.
The Office of Government Procurement is conducting a competitive tender for the establishment of a new framework agreement for the provision of external workplace investigation services to replace the existing framework when it expires. The competition is being evaluated and the outcome of the tender process is awaited.
According to the Office of Government Procurement, it outsources the service because it offers benefits, including: "Competitive rates; Flexibility in draw-down process to enable end-users to tailor to their own particular requirements; User-friendly draw-down procedures with OGP support; [and] Standardised and improved workplace investigation quality". In common with much of the rhetoric on public procurement, the logic behind it is that it delivers better value, is more efficient and will achieve an external workplace investigation service in a cheaper and fairer way. However, we know from experience with the national broadband plan, the national children's hospital project and CervicalCheck that the rhetoric of private sector efficiency is collapsing and that the neoliberal ideology that underpins it is expensive nonsense. This is another example of the Minister's rhetoric not matching reality. It is highly wasteful and I will give examples to show why I believe that is the case when I have a further minute to respond.
The Deputy referred to neoliberal ideology. I am not a neoliberal, but I believe there is a role in looking at how we can achieve value for money and ensure a variety of organisations will bid for particular projects. The Deputy referred to the national children's hospital. It is a State-funded project that will deliver services that will be available to citizens, young boys and girls. I would have thought that was the essence of the type of public service she would like to see improved, despite, I acknowledge, the great difficulties we have had in the latter part of that process. If she has particular concerns about the tendering process, I am sure she will share them with me now. There are many examples of public services - public transport, roads, primary care centres and schools - that have been really well delivered via the private sector through a tendering process. The Deputy may be suggesting the Government and the public sector should automatically proceed to build every project without a tendering process. I do not believe that is any more likely to lead to value for money than the processes that, by and large, work for us.
There are existing human resources capabilities within each Department and it is a role of the public service to provide human resources in each Department.
We have the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, which provides a human resources, HR, facility. The reason I am concerned is that I am aware of the firms involved, which the Minister has named. I am aware that one of them tells its customers, that is, the Department or the Government, that it guarantees satisfaction for employers. What does it say to workers that satisfaction is guaranteed for employers, but not for them, by a firm that is meant to be providing human resources services? I am aware of one case in which the investigation has been conducted for the past three years. The suspension of the staff involved has cost millions of euro and other staff are feeling highly aggrieved that the process is being dragged out. Moreover, for the individuals concerned, it is like "Run your claw along my gut", because it is not being brought to a conclusion by these very efficient, competitive, outsourced HR companies the Minister is about to re-engage. This is not very encouraging for workers in the public sector. Anybody undergoing an investigation or a possible dismissal is in dismay about this. Does the Minister intend to continue with this sort of an arrangement? What oversight on the costing is he doing to ascertain it is in any way efficient or the best way forward for the public sector and human resources?
Yes, I intend to continue with this process. It is worth emphasising that if these bodies and organisations win the tendering process, they must be in compliance with Government policy. The policy they operate will be Government policy on how employees or citizens are treated, not their own. What we want as an employer is for our employees, the employees of the State, to be treated fairly and impartially-----
It is not impartial to guarantee satisfaction for the employer.
-----and that this be done in a way that is in accordance with Government policy. That is the objective that we as an employer want to meet.
Every time I hear the Deputy talk about employers, I get a sense that she thinks that employers are always pitched in battle with their employees and trying to get-----
We are going to move on.
-----maximum advantage from them. We, as an employer, want to treat people-----
There are Members waiting.
-----who work for us well and the companies that are employed in doing this will have to implement Government policy.
