It is a bit regrettable that we did not have a copy of the Minister's speech when we started but I am sure that can be addressed for future debates. I am pleased to see this legislation. I understand it was first proposed by Senator Higgins and the Civil Engagement Group in the Seanad. I thank them for their work on this very important issue. I also thank the Deputies who brought the Bill forward for debate in the Dáil. This legislation builds on work done by my colleague Deputy Mairéad Farrell who, in 2021, introduced her policy report, Towards A New Strategy For Progressive Procurement, and followed that with her Transparency and Social Value in Public Procurement Bill 2024. For Sinn Féin, this is a very important issue. We believe that where the Government is spending taxpayers' hard-earned money, it should be aware that it is a significant player in the market and a driver of quality or, indeed, of low standards. That choice is the Government's. This legislation would ensure the Government makes those choices in favour of decency and quality, not just the lowest common denominator and the lowest possible price all of the time. How their money is spent is important to people. Obviously, they want to see value for money and of course they are aghast, as I am, when they see the costs for the national children's hospital spiral out of control. Of course, they want to see that value-for-money element. They also want to know that their money is being spent in pursuit of decency. The Government is a major player here. How it spend money really matters. I know from my previous work in a trade union that we had disputes with the Government, and in some instances its agencies, in relation to trade union recognition, so riddle me this: how can one arm of the State say, through the Labour Court, that there should be a collective agreement, while the other arm of the State can say it will continue to do business with a company even though it does not respect workers' rights or the determinations of the Labour Court? Whenever these arguments were put to various Governments made up of Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, the Labour Party and, more recently, Independents and the Green Party, the answer that came back was the Government had to be careful because it is charged with spending taxpayers' money so it has to ensure we get value for money. Value for money does not always mean the lowest common denominator or the cheapest possible option. Value for money, in many instances, actually means spending money where workers' rights are protected and in a way that is decent and a driver of quality. The Government is indeed a big player in this market. I should not be a bit surprised that this Government is opposing this legislation. As I and others have said, this Government is allergic to accountability. Transparency is a different world from where this Government exists. This legislation is very simple. The Minister of State sought to convolute the issue and make it sound like it was more complicated than it is. In truth, however, this legislation is very simple. It puts quality as well as price into public procurement decision-making. The Minister of State extolled the virtues of his Government but he did not mention its greatest hits of procurement. He failed to mention the €330,000 bike shed, the €1.43 million security hut for Leinster House or the €7 million of taxpayers' hard-earned money spent on a failed IT system for the Arts Council. This is all before we even consider the massive cost overrun of the national children's hospital. The Minister of State expressed concern about the potential this legislation has to put up the costs. He said this had happened in Holland where costs went up by 3%. Jesus, there has been a 300% increase in the cost of the national children's hospital. The Minister of State seems unbothered by that, but 3% is going to keep the Government up at night with worry. I cannot accept the arguments that were put forward. The legislation seeks to limit the practice of lowballing. I have seen that in action. I have seen companies, large global multinational corporations and SMEs go in with figures that are absolutely unattainable. They know that. They did it with home helps. They know the decision will be made on the basis of money. They go in with the lowest possible price and are then sure they will get the contract. Thereafter, whose business is it? It is the business of the poor unfortunates who have their time cut back. It was public procurement policy and the outsourcing of the home help services that led us to what is called the 15-minute call. Previous to that, a person got an hour with their home help. It was a minimum of an hour. Because of the Government's procurement policies, that time was whittled away and companies are now in pursuit of the big value-for-money lowest common denominator of 15 minutes for an elderly person. What can you do in 15 minutes with an elderly person? You cannot wash, shower or change them. You can barely have a conversation with them. There is not a cup of tea and no dinner. You could probably not light a fire in 15 minutes. That is where ignoring quality, standards and human rights gets us. I am long enough in here to know not to plead with the Minister of State because I know well that once the decision is taken, there is very little that can be done. However, even at this stage, I urge the Minister of State to go back to the senior Minister and discuss this legislation with him. As has previously been indicated, there is nothing the Minister of State has cited as a concern that could not be teased out, addressed and dealt with on Committee Stage. I would go so far as to say that is exactly what Committee Stage is for. It is where we scrutinise legislation and make it as good as it can be. In truth, it is the principle of this legislation, not the outworkings of it, that would enshrine transparency, accountability, human rights, equality and quality. That is what the Government has a problem with. The problem is not with the mechanics of the legislation because the Minister of State and I both well know that this can be worked out. The problem relates to transparency, accountability, quality and human rights. The Minister of State should have been honest about that. He is not a bit concerned about a potential 3% rise in costs. Would you go away out of that? Nobody is buying it. Nobody for a moment believes that it is a real or genuine concern because we know, in truth, that costs spiral out of control all of the time. What the Minister of State did not address was how he is going to build in quality, human rights, transparency and accountability, because they are not there at the moment. He read his script well, which is fine, but he did not demonstrate how these aspects are going to be built into public procurement. As it stands, the State is a major player. It was stated previously that this is hard to understand. It is not. Anyone who spends money in a shop understands how it is done. Anybody who spends any money at all understands how this is done. We understand the purchasing power of our own wages. We understand that every year a campaign is run asking people to support local and to drive local jobs. We understand that when we spend money, we are supporting either ethical procurement or procurement that falls well short of that. The outworkings of Government policy result in a lack of transparency and accountability and the lowest possible standards for the people who depend on the Government for support. It is a very simple thing to say, but it is a very important thing to do. The Government should spend taxpayers' money where decency, workers rights, accountability, transparency and quality are the watchwords and not continue with its current practice, the result of which we do not just see all around us, we pay for.

Sentiment score: 0.07