This morning, we will engage with the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation to discuss its report on the accounts of the public services 2023.

We welcome the following officials from the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation: Mr. David Moloney, Secretary General; Ms Niamh Duff, principal officer, corporate division; Mr. John Pender, principal officer, work and pensions division; Mr. David O’Sullivan, assistant secretary, Office of Government Procurement; and Ms Kate Ivory, principal officer, infrastructure division.

We welcome the following officials from the National Shared Services Office: Ms Bernie Kelly, NSSO CEO; and Mr. Seán Reilly, NSSO head of corporate services.

Finally, we are joined by officials from the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General including: the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, who is a permanent witness to the committee, and Ms Irena Grzebieniak, deputy director of audit. The witnesses are all very welcome.

I will explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards reference witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege. This means they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege and it is my duty as Cathaoirleach to ensure this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory with regard to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with such direction.

Witnesses are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity, by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

I ask Mr. Seamus McCarthy to make his opening remarks.

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. As members of the committee are aware, the Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation is the Accounting Officer for a number of Votes, reflecting the responsibility of his Department for the development and administration of a number of discrete cross-departmental functions in specialised and technical areas. I issued clear audit opinions in relation to each of the four appropriation accounts for 2023 on this morning’s agenda.

The 2023 appropriation account for Vote 11 - Office of the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform records gross expenditure of just over €50 million under a single expenditure programme. Departmental staff pay accounted for €29.9 million. Grants to support the Department’s aegis bodies accounted for just over €11.7 million. At the end of 2023, the Department had a surplus of €4.6 million for surrender.

Vote 12 - Superannuation and Retired Allowances, is used to pay pensions to retired civil and public servants across a wide range of departments, offices and agencies. The gross spend on Vote 12 in 2023 amounted to €814 million. Appropriations-in-aid, mainly comprising employee pension contributions, amounted to €618 million. Receipts of employee contributions in respect of the post-2012 single public service pension scheme were €112 million, or 28%, higher than estimated. This is the main reason that the net outturn on the Vote for 2023 was a surplus of €111 million for surrender.

While I issued a clear audit opinion on the account for Vote 12, I drew attention to a matter disclosed by the Accounting Officer that related to controls over payment of chargeable excess income tax, CET, liabilities to the Revenue Commissioners. CET liability arises at the point of retirement for those retiring on high-value pensions. There is statutory provision for the tax liability to be paid on behalf of the pensioner by the pensions administrator with the recovery of the related debt over 20 years through reduced payment. Pension administration is carried out on behalf of the Vote by the NSSO. Of 21 cases where a CET liability had been identified between 2015 and 2023, the reductions in pension payments had been duly paid in each case, but the tax due had been paid to Revenue in only six cases. The tax due in respect of the other 15 cases amounting to €2.3 million had not been paid. A correcting payment, including a related interest charge, was made to Revenue in 2024, and this will appear as a charge on the 2024 appropriation account.

The Office of Government Procurement, OGP, carries out specialised functions in relation to the procurement of goods and services by public bodies. This includes the putting in place of framework agreements that public bodies can use to procure required goods and services. The 2023 appropriation account for Vote 39 Office of Government Procurement records gross expenditure of €18.8 million. The surplus remaining unspent at the end of 2023 amounted to €3.4 million.

The Office of the Government Chief Information Officer, OGCIO, provides an ICT shared service to a number of Departments and offices. This includes video and data services, email and productivity applications across the public service, and cybersecurity. The 2023 appropriation account for Vote 43 records gross expenditure of €44.5 million. The net surplus on the Vote at the end of the year was €953,000.

Arising from its responsibility in relation to central control and oversight of public spending, the Department sets the standard accounting policies for all appropriation accounts, and issues binding directions around public financial management and procedures and the corporate governance of public bodies. The Department is leading a project to move central government accounting from the current modified cash basis to a more standard accrual basis. This includes the development of a new framework of central government accounting standards, a number of which came into force in January 2024. These will impact the 2024 appropriation accounts, which I will publish in September.

Chapter 3 - Vote accounting and budget management is a recurrent annual report which aggregates and summarises the results across all appropriation accounts as a permanent record. It also highlights any exceptional matters that potentially concern vote management and vote accounting generally. In that regard, the chapter in respect of vote accounting in 2023 explains the accounting treatment of certain advances of funds to the Office of Public Works for the development of Terminal 7 at Rosslare Europort. The works at Terminal 7 commenced in 2023 and I understand are expected to be completed later this year. The overall approved budget is €236 million. The project is being managed by the OPW on an agency basis on behalf of the main public bodies that operate in the port, which are the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of agriculture, An Garda Síochána and the Health Service Executive. Because of the agency arrangement, the costs of the project are being met pro rata by the user bodies. In 2023, amounts totalling €132.7 million were advanced from Votes 9, 20 and 30 to the OPW to meet the costs of development as they arose. By the end of December 2023, the OPW had disbursed €51 million to the contractors. The remaining €81.7 million was recorded by the OPW as credit balances in favour of the three Votes. The Department’s public financial procedures indicate that only the amounts certified by the OPW as disbursed fell to be treated as charges in the 2023 appropriation accounts. However, exercising his statutory powers, the Minister for public expenditure determined that the total amounts advanced to the OPW in 2023 were appropriate for charging in the 2023 accounts. I am required by law to report on the correctness of the payments recorded in the appropriation accounts. I am satisfied that the statutory determination of the Minister made the charges in 2023 correct. However, to facilitate parliamentary accountability, audited financial statements need to be reliable, consistent and clearly understood by users. Given the departure from the public financial procedures principles and from the standard accounting policies for appropriation accounts in respect of the charges totalling €81.7 million, I considered it necessary and appropriate to draw this matter to the attention of Dáil Éireann.

I thank Mr. McCarthy. We will now move to the opening statements of our other witnesses as set out in the letter of invitation. They have five minutes to make their opening remarks. I ask Mr. David Moloney to make the opening statement on behalf of the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and the members of the committee for the opportunity to attend to discuss the appropriation accounts for 2023. Much of what I have in my opening remarks has been covered by the Comptroller and Auditor General so I will endeavour to summarise it quickly. I am here to discuss Vote 11 - Office of the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation; Vote 12 - Superannuation and Retired Allowances; Vote 39 - Office of Government Procurement; Vote 43 - Office of the Government Chief Information Officer; and Chapter 3 of the Report on the Accounts of the Public Services 2023.

In each of these instances the mission of my Department is to drive the delivery of better public services, living standards and infrastructure for the people of Ireland. To support this, we undertake a range of actions under our three strategic goals of enhancing governance, building capacity and delivering effectively. In 2023, the surplus to surrender of €4.6 million was partly due to savings on payroll of €2.7 million and a saving of €2.2 million related to the management of EU programmes.

During 2023, the Department implemented a divisional reorganisation following a strategic review of its operating model in 2022. This means the Department now works in a more integrated and joined-up way. Where there were previously two separate programmes, there is now a single, unified programme.

In respect of Vote 12 - Superannuation and Retired Allowances, the net outturn for 2023 was €195.9 million, compared to an Estimate of €306.7 million, giving a surplus of €110.8 million. The surplus primarily arose due to greater than anticipated contributions received from the single public service pension scheme, as well as underspend on established Civil Service pensioner lump sums.

I am the Accounting Officer for Vote 12. As provided for under the public financial procedures and in accordance with the relevant legislation, I discharge my obligations by preparing to the best of my ability an accurate appropriation account, ensuring lawful and efficient use of funds, maintaining internal controls, co-operating with auditors and being accountable to oversight bodies. In relation to shared services, I rely on a letter of assurance from the NSSO.

During the course of the Comptroller and Auditor General's audit of the Vote 12 appropriation account for 2023, and as set out in the statement of internal financial control, weaknesses were identified in the internal control environment within the NSSO and within the Vote 12 oversight processes. The issue related to the payment of chargeable excess taxes to the Revenue Commissioners by the NSSO. A review of the Department’s internal controls was concluded and we made changes to our oversight arrangements.

In relation to the OGP, over the past decade public procurement has grown to become a much larger part of public spending, now accounting for an estimated €18.5 billion of public money awarded through procurement competitions each year. Public procurement has also taken on a much more strategic role. It is now a key tool for delivering broader economic and policy goals, such as managing inflationary pressures, supporting SMEs, advancing green and social initiatives or driving innovation and new technologies. In relation to the OGP’s financial performance in 2023, the appropriation account shows a net outturn of €18.25 million, giving a surplus to surrender of €3.4 million. The surrender was driven in the main by savings on pay costs and some delays in commencing two projects that aim to digitalise existing procurement processes.

In relation to Vote 43, the OGCIO Vote supports the Department’s vision for a single, shared ICT platform across the Government and drives the digital government agenda. It leads on digital service delivery and innovation, oversees ICT initiatives across Departments, and represents Ireland at EU level on public service ICT and egovernment.

A Supplementary Estimate of €4.9 million was approved in November 2023 via the Brexit adjustment reserve fund and this funding was used to extend the national low latency platform, NLLP, to the ports of Dublin, Rosslare and Cork.

In regard to chapter 3, in terms of overall performance, gross voted expenditure in 2023 was €94.9 billion when spending on the Social Insurance Fund and National Training Fund are included. Spending in 2023 supported investment in the public sector workforce; improvements in public services for a growing and changing population; investment in digitalisation and climate initiatives; and enhancing infrastructure. Spending in 2023 also reflected measures to address external developments, such as cost-of-living packages, aid for those affected by the Ukraine war, and supporting public services with the legacy impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Thank you for the invitation, a Chathaoirligh. We are happy to take any questions the committee may have.

I thank Mr. Moloney. We will suspend for a break at 12 noon and then resume shortly afterwards. We will now open the meeting to members. The lead speaker today is Deputy Connolly, who has 15 minutes. The next speaker will be Deputy Byrne, who, like other members, will have ten minutes. If time permits on the conclusion of that round of questions, I will allow members back in for a second round.

I welcome the witnesses and the officials from the Department. It is a very important Department. I do not envy them their job. In comparison, our job is a little easier. They are required to deliver better public services, living standards and infrastructure for the people of Ireland. I cannot think of a more important job. They are also responsible for governance, so there is a particular onus on them.

I am going to look at Votes 11 and 12. I will ask a few general questions. I do not wish to appear curt but I just want to get answers as best I can. That is all. I respect the work the witnesses do, but there is a particular onus on them in regard to governance and responsibility and their own Department showing example to all the other Departments.

I want to very quickly deal with something that arose today. We have already agreed that we will respond to this correspondence. It relates to the submission of annual reports. A letter from the Department of Transport points something out, although it does not really matter to the presentation of annual reports. Guidance was issued on 30 May by the Department of An Taoiseach on the management of these financial reports. Is Mr. Moloney aware of that? The consequences from our point of view is that those financial reports will not appear before us for scrutiny until the autumn because it appears they have to go to the Cabinet first. First, is Mr. Moloney aware of the guidance that was issued on 30 May? Second, will he explain how some annual reports go before the Cabinet and others do not? To us, it appears to be random. Will he answer those questions, please?

There are a huge variety of State bodies that produce annual reports.

Is Mr. Moloney aware of the guidance issued on 30 May?

I have not seen the guidance but I have heard of it and I understand the rationale behind it.

Was the guidance not sent to Mr. Moloney in his very important role?

It would certainly have been sent to my Department. I just have not seen it specifically.

What does he understand the rationale behind it to be?

The Department of the Taoiseach is trying to manage Government business in terms of the agenda of the Government, in particular in the run-up to the summer break. That may be the rationale.

Perhaps Mr. Moloney could read it and come back to us on it. The consequence for us is that financial reports will not appear here for our scrutiny until later when the Comptroller and Auditor General has signed off on the reports. Now, there will be a delay. In the case of the Department of Transport, those reports will not be brought before the Cabinet until after the summer recess. That is uimhir a haon.

Uimhir a dó is whether Mr. Moloney can throw any light on how reports go to Cabinet. I understand only some financial reports go to it. It would appear random. Mr. Moloney can correct me if I am wrong.

There is a huge variety of organisations that produce annual reports. My understanding is that most annual reports that go to the Government do so on the basis of the legislation underpinning the establishment of the body or in some cases-----

Yes, before the Government.

Perhaps Mr. Moloney could just reflect on that and come back to it because it is not clear. Some financial accounts do not go to the Cabinet and others do.

If Deputy Connolly has particular examples, we will happily follow them up.

This letter Mr. Moloney is not aware of is one example. I will leave it with him to come back to us on it. The Chair might come back on it.

Of course.

I want to ask specific questions about the pension in Vote 12, but first, given the Department's remit, what sort of targets does it set for itself to achieve in terms of providing infrastructure and improving daily life? What are the Department's performance indicators or metrics for achieving what it sets out to do?

We have a statement of strategy and each year we have an annual business plan that sets out the various actions the Department will take.

How does the Department measure it? We have 16,000 homeless and we have a housing crisis. The Department has a significant role in that regard. I will not be specific, but I am just highlighting that. To me as a layperson, we are utterly failing in the achievement of the wonderful vision set out for the Department. How does Mr. Moloney measure the achievement in his Department?

We do that in a number of ways. We produce a lot of analysis each year demonstrating the outcome and impact of money that has been spent. We work with colleague Departments, in particular the Departments of Finance and the Taoiseach, on a well-being framework in terms of equality budgeting and well-being generally. At that very general level, we look at things like life expectancy and performance in the programme for international student assessment, PISA.

Are there key performance metrics? Could Mr. Moloney name some of them?

The metrics we look at include things like life expectancy and quality of life indices as regards the health sector. We look at things like the accomplishment as measured by the PISA assessment in education. There are some very high-level indicators. It is less straightforward in other areas. When we look at the social protection area, we look at the ESRI's SWITCH model and the impact of those measures on different groups within the income distribution. That is the kind of approach we take.

I have one more specific question. Children's Health Ireland, CHI, was before us and the former CEO confirmed that she had been there for five years and then a further five years. It was an employment matter. She said she was automatically entitled to a contract of indefinite duration. Was the Department aware of that?

Yes, certainly my Department would have been aware of that.

Was Mr. Moloney aware of that?

Yes, I was informed of it.

Will Mr. Moloney put that in context for me? What are the numbers in terms of what was before us in the context of the former CEO getting a contract of indefinite duration? I do not wish to focus on that person who was before us. What are the numbers in that position?

Is the question on how many people are on contracts of indefinite duration in the public service?

Yes.

I do not have that information, because that would arise organisation by organisation. I would not know how many of the 370,000 public servants are in that position. It is something that has been a focus of HR policies. It is a situation we normally seek to avoid.

I understand. There are reasons the Department would seek to avoid that. It is important. Has a review ever been carried out on the numbers?

Each organisation would look at that for itself. We have not carried out a review across the entire public service.

I understand. The Department has a very important oversight function. It deals with a significant amount of money and very important areas. This issue came up for us at a meeting. What review, if any, has been carried out on this?

We have not carried out a review across the public service of the number of people on contracts of indefinite duration.

I welcome the review of the national development plan in terms of our obligations on climate change and biodiversity. What is the status of the review?

The review of the national development plan is ongoing. As Deputy Connolly is aware, it is a commitment in the programme for Government and the intention is that the review would be completed by the end of this month.

Can Mr. Moloney share any of the outcomes of the review with us?

We are at a very late stage of the negotiation but we have not completed the review yet. I am not able to share that in advance of completing the negotiations.

Okay. I am watching the time, so I will move on to chapter 12, which deals with superannuation and retired allowances. Issues were identified in the statement of internal control. I understand the issues were highlighted by the Comptroller and Auditor General, not by the Department. Is that correct?

Yes.

It did not arise from the system of checks and balances working.

Is that not an issue in itself for the Department?

Yes.

Mr. Moloney highlighted that, when this issue arose through the good work of the Comptroller and Auditor General and his team, a review was carried out. This is all new language for me. Once a pension goes over a certain value, which I believe is €2 million,-----

Yes.

-----there is a tax liability at a very high rate of 41% and several individuals crossed that threshold. Is that right?

Yes.

As a result of work done by the C and AG, EDEN carried out a review from 2015 to 2023. Is that right?

Yes, I believe so.

It would be helpful if Mr. Moloney told us because these are very important issues he should be leading me on.

Sorry. If the Deputy wants me to set out the issues, I am very happy to do so.

I just want Mr. Moloney to quickly confirm some things. The review done was not a proactive one. As a result of that review, several cases were identified. I am reading from the Department's internal financial controls. We have 15 cases where the income tax was deducted from the individual retirees but not paid from the Vote. It was good the deduction was made. I am right in all of this?

Yes, the appropriate payment plan was put in place regarding those individuals.

The money was then not passed on to Revenue.

Exactly.

How did that happen?

It was an error in the oversight arrangements. In some cases, though not all, the money was not passed over to Revenue. In respect of the review we did, the idea was to put in strengthened oversight arrangements to ensure the money went to Revenue in future.

I have read all of that and I understand the Department has strengthened this. Every group that comes before us tells us it has strengthened its processes. In our own lives, we must also reflect on ourselves. I am not here to preach; I am here to find out information. The office did a review and there were 15 cases. This was an accountancy exercise. The money was deducted but left somewhere and not passed on to Revenue.

It was left in the Vote and not passed on to Revenue.

It was left in the Vote. That was a pretty serious mistake.

Yes, it was a significant error, as the C and AG has rightly pointed out.

I am a little confused on the next issue. Reading the report, are there a further 21 cases?

There were 21 cases in all, of which 15 did not have the money passed on to Revenue.

A review uncovered 15 cases where the income tax was deducted but not paid over. Of the 21 cases where a chargeable excess tax liability has arisen to date-----

Over that period.

Does that 21 include the 15?

Yes.

Only six payments were paid to the Revenue.

Yes.

How did that happen?

It was an error in the system that did not automatically trigger the payment to Revenue, and that is what we looked at in the review.

Is Mr. Moloney telling me this has now been rectified?

Yes.

A full review has been carried out. Is that another review on top of the review from 2015 to 2023?

No. The review follows on from the C and AG's work. We looked at the processes in place to ensure this would not happen again.

Is there only one comprehensive review?

Yes, in respect of that CET issue.

Is there another review in respect of other issues?

More recently, other issues have arisen relating to CET and there are other reviews on those issues.

I will come to those now.

In 2023, there was only one review.

In 2023, there was one review regarding that cohort of 21 cases, which have been sorted out and the mistake has been rectified.

Yes.

Mr. Moloney signed off on that on 5 July 2024 and said no other weaknesses in internal financial control were identified regarding the 2023 cases.

Correct.

Mr. Moloney was aware there were other issues when he signed off in July 2024.

In July?

Yes. Mr. Moloney's signature is dated 5 July 2024.

No, at that stage I was not aware of other issues. I do not believe so.

When did the other issues come to Mr. Moloney's attention relating to underpayments and overpayments of pensions?

That happened earlier this year in late March.

How did that come to Mr. Moloney's attention? Through the media or the Department's own processes?

The most recent set of issues was brought to our attention by the NSSO.

How did it come to the NSSO's attention?

The issues arising and identified in quarter 1 of this year were identified through a Revenue spot check. Revenue requested, through the Department, a sample of calculations to confirm if CET had been calculated correctly. The issue the Secretary General discussed was an issue of non-payover. Everything was calculated correctly but the final step had not been taken. The Revenue audit of sample cases highlighted that six out of 11 cases had not correctly calculated the chargeable excess tax.

It came from a Revenue spot check, not from any internal processes.

Yes.

That in itself is difficult for us, is it not? The NSSO is the oversight body and is under that Department. We look for reassurances from every Department that practices are working, yet here it came from the C and AG and a Revenue check. What is the extent of the difficulty that arose this year and was identified through Revenue? What is the extent of people affected and the overpayments and underpayments?

We have identified 23 cases. When the issue first arose as a result of that sample, I commissioned the team to do a full review to go back to when CET originally came in. Those 23 cases have been identified as possible CET-owing and, to date, 19 have been validated. There is a liability of €1.4 million that had not been calculated for those 19.

Sorry, I am over time but I am sure my colleagues will follow up.

I thank all the witnesses for joining us. I might pick up where my colleague left off. What prompted the 2015 to 2023 review that uncovered the 21 cases in the first place?

It arose out of a C and AG review of the account and an exercise he carried out.

For my own understanding, Mr. Moloney stated to Deputy Connolly that when he signed off on 5 July 2024, a full review had been carried out. He was not aware of any further issues outside the 21 at that stage.

That is correct, Deputy.

Was Mr. Moloney confident that corrective measures had been put in place?

Yes, for that issue.

Will Mr. Moloney explain the other review that is ongoing and how many cases have been identified, if any?

The current review relating to CET, as the CEO has explained, is ongoing. There are several issues that have been discussed in recent times regarding the calculation of payments in the NSSO. The organisation is working through those issues to identify who and how many people were affected. Ms Kelly can give more information on the numbers but at any point in time, because we are working through those issues, the numbers change. The committee should be aware of that caveat.

Is there an indicative amount?

I do not have the current estimate of how many people are affected by the CET but Ms Kelly would have that information.

Right now, we have identified 23 cases. We have done a comprehensive review, starting at the higher grades right down to assistant principal grade. There are several cases out for query at present. To give context, the calculation of CET also includes any private pension, AVC and so on that someone joining the Civil Service has. There is other information that needs to be collected in order to do the calculation. There are some queries out so there is a possibility the figure could go up but it is likely to be less than 30 cases.

If I may come back to Mr. Moloney, the corrective measures in July 2024 that he was confident in were put in place. How has there been a downfall in them, given another 20 to 30 cases have arisen since then?

The issue in 2023 was that the money was not paid over to Revenue but the money was calculated. The issue currently is that CET was not calculated in regard to these cases because it was not understood they were subject to CET or that the standard fund threshold was reached. I understand that happened for a number of reasons. As Ms Kelly said, one of the factors was that some people may have private pensions. Another possible issue might be that the standard fund threshold, when it was established, was seen to apply only to the most senior grades in the public service but, in fact, it is a value threshold and is not related to grade. That may have caused some confusion.

One of the things the Minister has asked for, and the chair of the NSSO is in the process of commissioning, is a full end-to-end review in order that we fully understand these issues. At the moment, we are giving the best information we can based on the work done in recent months in catching up on the issues. We will procure a full audit of the issues and, at that stage, we will have a much clearer view of the full range of causes. For the moment, the factors I mentioned are what we see as the most likely source. Using an external auditor, we will validate that.

Going back to the original 21 cases, where six payments were made to Revenue and 15 were not, Mr. Moloney's explanation for that at the beginning of the discussion was there was a significant error. Was it an IT error, a human error or just arising from a lack of understanding of the obligations?

It was a weakness in oversight, policies and procedures. Money owed to Revenue should be paid to Revenue.

I was coming to that. For the NSSO to collect just over €2.3 million in tax for a period of nine years and not hand it over to Revenue is quite a significant oversight. I am sure Mr. Moloney will admit it is not minor in any way, shape or form.

To clarify, and the Accounting Officer may be able to give a view on this as well, the deductions were not resulting in cash pile-up. What was happening was the pensions payable to the individuals were reduced in quantum. There was not a deduction from what they were paid; it was just never paid to them. Therefore, cash was not building up in a suspense account that would have triggered an earlier realisation there was a problem. It is actually a very complicated calculation and I can see how the errors would have occurred. The important thing is to have systems that trigger an early detection and an early resolution.

I appreciate that, Mr. McCarthy.

A broad range of groups have been affected by the pensions issue. The Minister, Deputy Chambers, has been very clear that he is initiating a scoping exercise to identify the number of retired civil and public servants whose pensions will need to be checked. The figure that was quoted is a maximum of 13,000 people but it may not reach that. Has Mr. Moloney any idea what the number is at the moment? Is it foreseen to reach 13,000?

The numbers keep changing. When we initially addressed the issue publicly, the number was 13,000 people's pensions potentially needing to be checked to see whether they were affected by the issue that affects work sharers. I do not have the current number because that work is ongoing but Ms Kelly will have an approximation of it.

Will Ms Kelly indicate the number?

We do not have a validated number at this point but we expect it to be much lower than 13,000. That figure was picked as the largest possible scoping we could have because those people are in our system in receipt of a pensionable allowance but may not be impacted by all of this. We are working to validate the number.

On the overpayments, what is the intention or parameter as to how that money may be recouped?

Where overpayments arise, a repayment plan is put in place with the person who has made the overpayment and the money is fully recouped.

Will that be done under the Public Service Pay and Pensions Act? Is there legislation defining the process?

I will check the legislative basis but the policies and procedures we operate are really clear that overpayments are fully recouped.

Is it a realistic expectation that they can be recouped, bearing in mind that a lot of these people may be pensioners? An example being cited is of a pensioner who may owe up to €280,000. Over what timeframe is it intended for such recoupments to be made without crippling and crucifying pensioners in their remaining years?

The large numbers relate to the chargeable excess tax for people who have a standard fund threshold of greater than €2 million. The legislative provisions for this are that the money can be paid by the employer but must be repaid over 20 years. The 20-year period is set out in legislation for that particular overpayment. It is not an immediate tax bill. It is the impact of the standard fund threshold on the pension that should be paid over the 20-year period.

Not to be the grim reaper or a pessimist in any way but if people do not have 20 years, is there a realisation that there may be a loss and not all this money is recoupable?

The legislative provision is that the liability expires upon death.

That suggests there is a realistic expectation that not all this money may be recouped.

That is correct. If a person passes away during that period, the legislation provides that the debt is extinguished.

That relates to undercharges on pensions. Have any cases been identified where people were overcharged and would be entitled to rebates?

I am not aware of any overcharging in regard to the chargeable excess tax but Ms Kelly may have more information.

I am not aware of any such overcharging. Each chargeable excess tax charge is validated through the Department before it is agreed with the taxpayer.

I thank the witnesses.

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for their attendance. My main focus to begin with is the review of the national development plan and the key areas of focus in that regard. The Labour Party has a focus on education. Is that a key focus for the Department?

It absolutely is. We begin with a €165 billion national development plan and the Government has announced its intention to greatly expand that. Within the overall figure, education is a key focus, alongside health and other social issues. The previous Government, in its last budget, and this Government, in the programme for Government, have put a priority on delivering certain things, including, in particular, the water grid upgrades and transport services needed to deliver housing. That does not mean other areas are not in receipt of very significant moneys under the NDP and will not be in receipt of very significant moneys under the revised NDP. In fact, education is an area where the capital spent has increased hugely over the past ten years.

What is the Department of public expenditure's oversight of how the Minister for education is spending money on particular issues arising within her Department? This year, for example, we see a serious issue consistently happening in respect of special educational needs provision. Is advice provided to the Minister for education in terms of how she should spend the money allocated to her Department?

The main role of the Minister for public expenditure is to agree the allocation with the Minister for education and, within that allocation, the latter considers priorities. In terms of the overall management of that budget, we are constantly engaged in discussion with the Department of education at official level on how the budget is being managed and, in particular, how it is being managed with a view to meeting priority needs.

For example, at the eleventh hour the Department of education opened up 400 new special classes this year but the allocation for the budget would have been made last October at budget stage. Was there any negotiation between the Department of public expenditure and the Department of education regarding extra funding being needed and being allocated for special education needs, in particular?

There are ongoing discussions and there have been discussions specifically on that topic. One of the decisions the Government took since the previous budget was to provide an additional sum of money for education in 2025, an amount of €210 million.

When was the €210 million provided?

It is being provided in this year, in addition to the provision set out in budget 2025.

In regard to the review itself, who is carrying it out?

We are. My Department is carrying out the review.

There is no additional cost to the review.

No, it is a process whereby we engage with other Departments as we have been since early in the year and we bring proposals. The Minister has engaged extensively with his colleagues. He has had a number of bilateral engagements with all other Ministers at this point. That is the process. It is discussed at official level with the various teams and Departments. Then there are political level engagements as well and that will come to a head during the next two weeks.

I know Deputy Connolly touched on this, but Mr. Moloney cannot provide any sort of indication of outcomes from that.

At this stage we are still in the final negotiations phase, so I am not able to at this point.

In regard to projects within the national development plan, for example, there is the Cork to Limerick motorway, which is a significant project we hope to get over the line eventually because it has been ongoing for a number of years. I refer to the Department's oversight of the Cork to Limerick motorway in terms of spending on that. Obviously, that is something that has been brought to its attention. In terms of communication with the Department of Transport, in particular, or TII, is there a commitment from the Department of public expenditure to build that road network?

The Minister's role is to set the allocation and the Minister for Transport will then decide within that allocation what the priority projects are. That would account for-----

Does the Minister for public expenditure at any stage say to the Minister for Transport that this project is something that is necessary?

The Department, in terms of its engagement, would not select individual projects within the transport allocation, but we would engage with the Department in relation to projects in terms of value for money and suchlike.

That is an important question in regard to value for money. The Department itself understands the issue of value for money in terms of capital projects, in particular, or large projects within several Departments. How does the Department value that value for money in terms of the projects being spent on by each relevant Department?

We have capital appraisal frameworks that allow us to estimate the benefits of projects and set them against the costs. As part of bringing forward any project, including the M20-----

Does the Department have oversight of the capital projects?

The delivery of capital projects is overseen by the Departments themselves and reported to us. We publish the capital tracker for the major projects.

Has there been any capital project that has been reported to the Department that has not been value for money, in the Department's opinion, maybe during the course of the previous Dáil term and coming into this new Dáil term? Can Mr. Moloney name one capital project he believes has not been a value for money project, from any Department? Has the Department of public expenditure identified a project that has not been value for money?

There are projects that do not meet the value for money criteria.

Which projects?

For example, recently the Minister for housing took a decision about a PPP bundle that it did not represent value for money. As part of the process, there are decisions that are taken to indicate some projects are not value for money. All these projects are attempting to meet a need and it is often a question of seeing if the need can be met in a different way that is a value for money way. That really is the emphasis.

The public would probably be thinking that there have been a number of capital projects. Are there particular capital projects that have taken place during the previous Dáil term and into this Dáil term that Mr. Moloney would say have not been value for money at all? Can he identify a particular project, or perhaps a number of them, over every Department?

There are a number of projects that have come into the public domain very clearly that the project promoters have admitted are not value for money. We do have that in regard to some projects.

What is then done in terms of the Department's role? The project comes to the Department and it says the project is not value for money. Is it a case of saying it is not value for money, so we will move on now? If a project comes to the Department's attention and it is made clear it is not value for money, does it just move on?

The way our public capital appraisal works is that we insist a value for money appraisal is done. That is generally a financial appraisal. Then, depending on the value of the project, it will fall to a Minister or to the Government to decide whether, on balance, that project should be proceeded with or not.

The oversight arrangements were mentioned in terms of the pension errors. What has Mr. Moloney done in terms of the oversight arrangements? Obviously, there were errors within the oversight arrangements. What has Mr. Moloney done, in his role as Secretary General, to identify those errors? Is it specific staff within the Department who made those errors or is it a system within the Department?

In terms of asking for a review to be carried out, which I did, it was weaknesses in the oversight arrangements. There was the potential to strengthen the oversight arrangements within both the Department and the NSSO, so the reporting of where money is due to Revenue and whether the money has been paid is now put on a more regular footing. I can give the Deputy more detail on that if he would like it but that is effectively it. Ms Duff is the finance officer involved.

When did the Department complete the review of the oversight arrangements?

Will Ms Duff answer?

Following the C and AG's audit of Vote 12 last year and the errors being highlighted, the Department did a review of the processes in place. We depend quite regularly on the NSSO giving us reports for CET and then we rely on those reports and record those numbers in our appropriation account. Prior to the C and AG's findings we did that on an annual basis and subsequently what we did was that we went through the whole process and identified what information we needed from the NSSO. We looked at the frequency of the information we were getting and what kind of data we were getting. We also created a shared file depository, so it means we can double check the data the NSSO provides to us.

Great. I wish the witnesses well.

I thank the Deputy.

I thank the witnesses. I will pick up where we finished there. In Mr. Moloney's opening statement, he was very clear, and Ms Duff just clarified that point. Mr. Moloney pointedly said, "... in relation to shared services I rely on a letter of assurance [from the accounting officer] from the National Shared Services Office." Was he trying to draw some kind of distinction between his governance responsibilities as it relates to the NSSO versus all of his other governance responsibilities or what was his purpose or motivation in clarifying that point?

No, I am the Accounting Officer for Vote 12, so the integrity of that reporting is my responsibility. I was simply making the point that in large parts of my responsibilities, where they are delivered by third parties, public financial procedures and-or legislative frameworks can exist where I am entitled to rely on certain statements of assurance I have been given. It is no more than that. In regard to the issues that have arisen, we see ourselves as having a very active role in identifying what the issues are and helping to fix them within our own processes and within processes elsewhere.

We envisage the NSSO and the HR and finance units of line Departments having a significant role. We believe the end-to-end issues will be addressed in the context of the review the Minister has asked the chairman to commission.

From a governance standpoint, the separate issues of the Revenue Commissioners underpayment and the pension overpayment are both important, perhaps one more than the other. The buck stops with Mr. Moloney as Secretary General of the Department. Was he trying to muddy the waters by stating he relies on an assurance statement from the CEO of the NSSO? Was he trying to draw any kind of distinction in that regard?

Absolutely not. I was simply clarifying what arrangements are in place.

Not paying the Revenue Commissioners the moneys owed to it is about as serious an issue as can possibly be imagined. Any businesses watching will be aware that the impact on businesses that do not pay the Revenue Commissioners is unbelievably serious. What is the impact when an issue emerges? I take the Comptroller and Auditor General's point on the complexity involved in the particular type of tax that was not paid to the Revenue Commissioners, but what actions do the Revenue Commissioners take against either the NSSO or the Department when underpaid?

In relation to the 2023 CET issue, obviously the Department has paid interest, and any further action that the Revenue Commissioners could take in terms of penalties is a matter for them. They have not come back to us with a determination on that.

How much interest has been paid to the Revenue Commissioners in relation to this?

A sum of €430,000.

The Department has paid €430,000 in interest penalties arising from this issue. What Mr. Moloney is saying is that the Revenue Commissioners reserve the right to take further action against the Department on the underpayment. Is that correct?

I am not sure if the Revenue Commissioners actively reserve the right but they do have the right, in closing out the case, to consider whether penalties are appropriate.

What could they look like? What penalties could the Revenue Commissioners conceivably impose on the Department in addition to the €430,000 in interest?

I am not sure. It would be a matter for Revenue to calculate and present to us.

In a circumstance where a voluntary disclosure is made, there may not be penalties. Again, however, there are rules around this. We can provide a brief for the committee on this.

Aside from the imposition of the interest penalties, do the Revenue Commissioners have direct engagement with Mr. Moloney as the Accounting Officer of the Department or Ms Kelly as the Accounting Officer of the NSSO, or is it simply the case that they state what has been found in a random audit? As the Comptroller and Auditor General has pointed out, Mr. Moloney made the voluntary disclosure. Is it just a case of correspondence to correspondence, or do the Revenue Commissioners come in and have a look at what is going on?

To clarify, €468,744 is the exact figure. I do not want to get it wrong for the Deputy.

I thank Mr. Moloney for that.

In both organisations, teams of Revenue Commissioners officials would engage on an ongoing basis. The Revenue Commissioners do audits, ask questions-----

This is obviously very different. It essentially concerns an enforcement action because the Revenue Commissioners were not paid moneys owed to them. I am referring to that type of incident, in particular. Does it happen quite a lot that the Department omits to pay the Revenue Commissioners moneys owed to them? Perhaps it has happened from time to time but I would not have thought so.

I am not aware of any other incidents affecting the Department, but overpayments and underpayments do occur occasionally, including, I suppose, where the Revenue Commissioners have a different calculation. Therefore, I would not exclude it.

However, has it happened before that interest penalties were imposed upon the Department?

In very minor instances, we would get charged prompt payment interest and things like that, but no, not-----

Not to the amount of over €400,000.

No.

Therefore, this was a unique scenario.

To move on to another issue, we had the former CEO of Children's Health Ireland before this committee last week and she made clear that, in relation to her former position as CEO, she had been automatically given a contract of indefinite duration because of two five-year, fixed-term, consecutive contracts. The outworking of her asserting that legal right through a mediation process with the hospital, and, as I understand it, the Department of Health, was that the Department of Health had to write to the Department of public expenditure and reform seeking sanction for her to remain in a new role at precisely the same salary she would have had if she had remained on as CEO. How problematic is it that a Minister who is determined, against the wishes of the board, not to reappoint a CEO is essentially stymied? A new CEO can be appointed but the taxpayer has to ensure that whoever is taken out of the position has to stay on. Is this unique to CHI or does Mr. Moloney believe there are wider issues? There are over 900 non-commercial State entities, according to the CSO report in 2023. Could this affect hundreds of CEOs? What is his view on that?

I do not believe so, but the issue does arise from time to time. The legislation is such that contracts of indefinite duration can and do arise. As I indicated in reply to Deputy Connolly, the management of that in more recent years has been much more active across the public service. There is much greater awareness of what triggers a contract of indefinite duration. As an employer, you have a legal responsibility you have to meet, and that is not avoidable. I do not wish to comment on any individual HR case or person. In many cases, there might be a negotiation of some kind or a suitable alternative role might be found, but it certainly is a restriction.

Does Mr. Moloney's Department supervise other Departments that have a function in respect of bodies and CEOs under their aegis to ensure a situation like the one in question does not arise? If so, how?

The management of that is a matter for individual Departments and individual Accounting Officers. With regard to the engagement people have around sanctioning requests, there is a very clear view in my Department that contracts of indefinite duration should be avoided. That is a conversation that often happens in relation to CEO renewals or applications for CEO renewals. Where somebody was seeking sanction from my Department to reappoint an existing CEO, we would ask a number of questions about it. One of those questions would be on the potential to create a contract of indefinite duration.

I have a final question on another issue. How concerned is Mr. Moloney that the moneys his Department awarded to the Department of Health, that were then given to the NTPF and other waiting list initiatives and that were subsequently granted to hospitals for a specific purpose, were not in fact used for the purpose intended? How concerned is he, as we head into budget negotiations, about moneys his Department might allocate to the Department of Health that then go to the NTPF? Is his Department taking action on that?

Clearly, serious issues have been signalled in relation to that. We are very concerned about those issues. We are aware that, in the first instance, the Department of Health is taking action regarding them. We will engage with interest on the review and oversight of what is happening and how extensive the practice is. However, as with all of these things, the first step has to be the establishment of the facts. Once we have established the facts, we will be better placed to recommend actions to the Government, including the Minister.

I thank Mr. Moloney.

I thank the witnesses for joining us this morning. If they do not mind, I am going to pick up on Deputy Geoghegan's points on CEO positions. What I am struggling to get my head around a little is that despite the policy of the Government and Department on not wanting to extend CEO contracts automatically, we hear there is legal entitlement to extend them. I am not talking about any individual but about the role of CEO.

Are we relying on people to not avail of their right? Is that the reason this is not endemic? How many CEOs has Mr. Moloney received similar requests about in the past 12 months?

There has been a conversation about at least one other CEO post in this regard in the past 12 months.

Who is that?

These are individual HR issues. I can tell the Deputy the same conversation has been had in another situation. In the code of practice for State bodies we say there can be two five-year terms for CEOs. That is the policy position. We believe that reflects good governance practice, in that the person could be the head of an organisation for ten years and then we would provide fresh thinking and a change for all those good organisational reasons. That is what drives the policy position as set out in the code of practice. The legislation is as it is and under the legislation a contract of indefinite duration can be triggered under certain circumstances. The legislation also allows that situation to be managed in such a way that a contract of indefinite duration is not triggered. We fully respect the legislation and people's rights under it, but the legislation does provide a framework that can be managed in a way to avoid the creation of a contract of indefinite duration. Mostly, that implies just following the code, which specifies two five-year terms and completion.

I am conscious that Mr. Moloney does not want to speak about that other person. Are legal proceedings under way in that regard?

No, that was just an administrative conversation. My recollection is that it finished without any contract of indefinite duration being triggered.

There was correspondence from the Department to CHI indicating that, as part of the sanction for the role of strategic director, another national director post in the HSE had to be suppressed. What does that mean?

In our view if a senior role is to be created then, if possible, that should be compensated for elsewhere in the HSE. What we are calling for is a reprioritisation of senior management roles, unless there is a strong argument to increase the level of senior management roles.

I was trying to understand it from the correspondence. Is it the case that one position was lost across the entirety of those positions within the HSE because another position had to be created in CHI?

Our view is that unless there is a strong argument for increasing the number of very senior managers within the HSE, then the choice to add one will affect other positions.

Yes. In that correspondence it was also suggested that having regard to the potential ongoing legal and operational risks the Department needed to be assured that this was the most economically cost-effective outcome. Is Mr. Moloney assured that was the outcome?

It is cost effective in the sense that there is no net additional cost.

I am concerned about the policy implications of the fact that we have had to suppress a director role in another HSE department. There is a hypocrisy between the policy and the legislation. Do we not face a significant issue, whereby we could lose multiple HSE directors or similar roles if multiple CEOs decide to avail of that entitlement, which is their right? Policy is meant to be the driver but instead we are going to have to do something different.

I may not have properly explained the position. There is not an automatic entitlement to a contract of indefinite duration.

The Minister refused the extension for this role on multiple occasions.

I do not want to comment on any particular case but, for example, if a contract was extended multiple times, that might create the conditions in which a contract of indefinite duration was triggered. There are clauses in the legislation that could trigger a contract of indefinite duration, but a CEO serving two terms, which is done, would not trigger a contract of indefinite duration.

I thank Mr. Moloney very much for that.

I will not ask him about specifics with regard to the national development plan, but who is involved in the negotiation process? Does he share my concern that it is politically vulnerable in terms of cost effectiveness and the policy on public procurement? Is there a risk with the national development plan as it stands, and the negotiation process, given that we have seen people say on the public record that they have secured this, that and the other in the national development plan review? Mr. Moloney says we are still in negotiation. Is it politically vulnerable?

To answer the first part of the question, initially, it is engagement between my Department and other Departments. We have teams that look after each area of expenditure and they engage with line Departments. Ministers put in their bids and set out their priorities and asks. It is a public policy process and choice. Fundamentally, it is the priorities within the NDP, and the relative importance of priorities within it is not a technical matter, it embodies a range of policy choices which in the final instance will be made by the Government.

Is there a risk with premature announcements or the position some are taking to the balance between value for money and procurement? I refer to the case of commitments being made without any sort of business case being put or feasibility study being undertaken.

Negotiations are what they are. No money can be spent without a business case or the appropriate procurement and value-for-money rules being followed. The Minister puts a suggestion before the Government about the allocations, which is what will happen in the next couple of weeks, and then Ministers are responsible within their own areas to decide priorities. Once they present projects, all of the governance in terms of value for money and public procurement kicks in then. A Minister is not able to spend the money without undergoing those processes.

I have another quick question. The Minister reported in April that a task force was being set up to tackle the slow pace of infrastructural provision and that expertise from Uisce Éireann, EirGrid and the ESB would come to the table, meet on a monthly basis and report in July. Could he provide an update on the status of the task force? Has it met, how often and has the report been made yet?

A report is being drafted and the ambition is to present it to the Government by the end of July. A couple of things have happened: in addition to the organisations mentioned by Deputy Farrelly, we have An Coimisiún Pleanála and secondees have been allocated to the Department from all those organisations to form part of an infrastructure team which is looking in particular at barriers. The first phase of the report at the end of July will be about barriers to infrastructure and identifying what the key barriers are with a view to seeking to remove them.

The accelerating infrastructure task force, chaired by the Minister, has met but I do not have the exact number of meetings. I can provide that information to the Deputy. I would say it has met four times but I will confirm that.

We will not hold Mr. Moloney to that.

It is a very active group. It has the CEOs of the major utilities and a number of external members who have significant experience. As things stand, all that is up and running and on schedule.

I thank Mr. Moloney very much for his time. I appreciate it.

I will quickly turn to Ms Kelly with regard to the status of the inquiry. It was reported that the cost was €13,000. When does she expect it to be fully complete and communications made with everybody affected?

Since we had the direction on the issue in terms of the correct calculation, we have undertaken a review. We do not believe it will be near €13,000.

We have started by identifying cohorts within that and we will be working on the first cohort, which contains about 2,000, over the next weeks. We are trying to automate the solutions so we are testing over the next few weeks to validate that we will be able to get that correctly. We have put a programme of communication under way since the issue was raised. We spoke to colleagues in the Retired Civil and Public Servants Association, RCPSA, a few weeks ago about the issue, to clarify it. The association has since put two statements on its website stating that no action is required by anybody on their behalf, and that we will reach out and communicate. We continue to engage with the stakeholders and we will advise them of the progress we are making.

Does the 2,000 include all grades? Has it affected all grades?

Yes.

Great. I thank Ms Kelly.

I thank everyone for being here today. I greatly appreciate the contribution of the witnesses to the work we are trying to do here. There is huge public concern at the moment about how public moneys are being managed and spent and concern about transparency across the State and how every competent authority functions. We need to gain an understanding of that because sometimes it is not clear how things happen. Does the Department have a figure for how much was spent on public procurement in 2024?

I referred to a figure of some €18 billion for 2023 in my opening statement. Mr. O'Sullivan of the Office of Government Procurement would have more detail on this.

Oversight of expenditure is obviously important to the Department. If I go back a bit, data is important in making better decisions, informing people and helping in creating evidence-based policy. The EU itself has recognised the importance of data and has published an EU strategy for data. From a procurement point of view, data is important to the State for building confidence in decisions of Government and also for resourcing organisations. In terms of sourcing data, the EU has recognised its importance and is creating a public procurement data space.

Is the figure of €18 billion the public procurement figure for the Department of public expenditure or is that for the whole State?

The whole State.

I want to know specifically about the Department of public expenditure. How much was spent on public procurement in 2024?

That would be a much smaller amount. There are two aspects to the Department's role. The Department itself buys goods and services to function. I do not have that figure.

I have coverage of about €189 million, but that is only what has been published, based on purchase orders online. Obviously there is a significant amount of spending that might fall below purchase-order publishing requirements. I just want to know what the Department's total public procurement is.

The annual budget of the Department, excluding the superannuation Vote, is a good bit less than €189 million. A lot of purchasing tenders would be over a multiyear period. I take the question and we can clarify what is from our Department in public procurement and get the number to the Deputy.

In a wider context with that €18 billion figure, I received an answer from the Department of Health to a parliamentary question regarding the HSE's public procurement. What we found was shocking. Between 2020 and 2024, public procurement in the HSE has gone from more than €1 billion to more than €4 billion. Are there any checks and balances on that or how does the Department feel about this public expenditure and the significant increase? I saw it reported last Sunday in the Business Post that the rate of increase in spending this year was something like 91% and we are only halfway through the year. I want to see how the Department of public expenditure is managing the HSE's ballooning public procurement spend. Do we have any accountability as to where that goes?

The public procurement in the budget in the Department of Health has increased very significantly in recent years. The public procurement would include the procurement of drugs of all kinds - ordinary drugs, high-tech drugs, etc. - as well as cleaning services. It is a figure that reflects a huge range of different types of activities. We manage the overall budget. In the Department of Health and the HSE there are roles such as the Accounting Officer and the accountable person to manage the specifics of their budgets. The Department of Health is one of the central purchasing bodies under our procurement arrangements. We would expect the public procurements to be managed in a way that focuses on value for money.

When spending is rising at such a rapid rate, it is vital that there is value for money incorporated into it. The health budget seems to be ever increasing and ever expanding and will only ever contract when the economy contracts, as opposed to better management currently. The Department needs to ensure that spending is reined in and managed effectively. Why is it the case that the HSE only has to publish purchase orders worth more than €50,000, as opposed to every other public entity, where orders worth more than €20,000 have to be published?

In recent times, we have tried to make the limit more consistent across Departments. Mr O'Sullivan will have the details.

In terms of the public sector, the obligation is twofold; one is through legislation and one is through policy. All organisations are obliged to publish contract-award notices for all competitions, including those that are subthreshold.

Do they?

The evidence we see would suggest not. We are working with those organisations to increase their adherence to this requirement. The public procurement-----

Are there any penalties for public bodies not publishing the contract-award notices?

No.

Are they mandated to do it?

They are required to do it under the statutory instrument and also through Government policy as outlined in Circular 5/2023.

Is it up to the Secretaries General or the Ministers to make sure that the bodies under their aegis are publishing these contract-award notices?

It is a matter for each Accounting Officer, so ultimately, the Secretary General.

Would the Office of Government Procurement be able to provide a list of who is compliant and who is not, at the moment? I doubt that any public body is fully compliant with the contract-award notices, but is there any body that is better or worse?

It is important to bear in mind that when we speak of being compliant that a competition might be advertised today and might not be concluded for a number of months or even years. It is very difficult to say that a body is not compliant with something. Certainly the OGP has a responsibility to look at the tendering data and is working towards that.

In terms of an oversight body, the public procurement advisory group was set up as a working group to look at the development of public procurement. It is focused on data quality and accuracy and is made up of senior officials from the big-spending Departments and the big-spending agencies. It is co-chaired by two assistant secretaries. There is a significant focus on improving the data quality through eTenders.

That is really important. The matter of eTenders is complex enough so it is important that it is accessible to all who are tendering. It is also important for the procurement managers in each State body to have good knowledge. I know the OGP is doing great work to provide information to people and to ensure that procurement is accessible to everyone and that there is shared opportunity across the State.

I refer to the €430,000 in penalties that was mentioned. Sorry, was it €460,000?

We did say €430,000 but we corrected the figure to €468,000.

It is a bit ironic that €468,000 will be paid in penalties from the Department of public expenditure to Revenue. Where does Revenue send the money afterwards?

All revenues to the State go into the Central Fund.

It goes back to the Department of public expenditure to send it out to somebody else again. It is a bit ironic, because the Department is not going to be held to account for that error. The money will be sent back to Revenue, which will send it back to the Department to send out. What do the witnesses feel about this?

It is really important that we identify these issues so that we can correct them. That is the commitment and that is the purpose of the accountability. I take the Deputy's point that an organ of State fining another organ of State becomes something of a circular transaction, but that is the nature of it.

It is particularly relevant for the OGP because it sends the money out to all other entities, if I am correct. That is one of its main functions.

It is ironic that it will pay a penalty but will get it back in the other hand. There is no real punishment or no real cost. The National Gallery, another State entity which was before us, had a nightmare and will have to find the money to figure things out whereas in this case it is: "There is going to be a penalty but, what about it, we will get it back". I do not like that, but what can we do?

In the time remaining, I will talk about the national development plan. Why has there been persistent underspending on some capital projects across the NDP? We got the national development plan, an incredibly ambitious document, but we see so many projects where a shovel has never been put in the ground. How is the Department working through that and trying to get projects up and running?