This morning, we engage with the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation to examine its appropriation accounts for 2024. On behalf of the committee, I welcome officials from the Department: Mr. David Moloney, Secretary General; Mr. David O'Sullivan, assistant secretary at the Office of Government Procurement; Ms Mary O'Donohue, director at the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer; Ms Niamh Duff, principal officer in the corporate division; and Mr. John Pender, principal officer in the work and pensions division. We are also joined by an official from the Office of Public Works, OPW, Mr. Conor Sreenan, who is attending in representative capacity and is a State architect and principal architect. Finally, we are joined by the officials from the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, including Mr. Seamus McCarthy, the C and AG, who is a permanent witness to the committee, and Mr. Brian Hill, the audit manager.

Before we begin, I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references 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 both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege. This means that witnesses 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 that this privilege is not abused. 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 witnesses comply with any 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.

I call the Comptroller and Auditor General to deliver his opening statement.

Four 2024 appropriation accounts are listed for examination this morning. The Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation is the Accounting Officer for all four, reflecting the responsibility of the Department for the development and administration of a number of cross-departmental functions in specialised and technical areas. I issued clear audit opinions in relation to each of the accounts for 2024.

The 2024 appropriation account for Vote 11 - Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform records gross expenditure of €57 million, charged to a single expenditure programme. Pay accounted for €30 million, while grants to support aegis bodies accounted for just over €15.7 million. At the end of 2024, the Department had a surplus of €2.6 million on the Vote for surrender.

Vote 12 - Superannuation and Retired Allowances is used to pay all Civil Service pensions, which are administered on a shared services basis by the National Shared Services Office. The gross spend on Vote 12 in 2024 amounted to €871 million, up 7% from 2023. Receipts into the Vote, mainly comprising of employee pension contributions of civil and public servants, amounted to €727 million. The Vote received employee contributions totalling €618 million in respect of the post-2012 single public service pension scheme. This was €78 million, or 14%, more than estimated and represented the bulk of the surplus for surrender of €80.6 million.

While I issued a clear audit opinion on the account for Vote 12, I drew attention to a disclosure about errors in public service pay and pensions administration that affected the Vote. As a result of the errors, the Department made an unprompted voluntary disclosure to Revenue in 2024 in respect of underpayment of chargeable excess tax liabilities. Arrears of €2.3 million were paid in 2024, along with interest of €469,000. A Revenue audit of the treatment of chargeable excess tax and pension lump sum withholding tax commenced in July 2025. The Accounting Officer may be able to provide an update on this. Chapter 7 of my report for 2024 examines these matters in more detail and that chapter remains to be examined by the committee on another occasion.

The Office of Government Procurement carries out specialised functions in relation to the procurement of goods and services by public bodies in Ireland. This includes the putting in place of framework agreements that public bodies are generally expected to use to procure required goods and services.

The 2024 appropriation account for Vote 39 - Office of Government Procurement, records gross expenditure of €19.5 million, and a surplus for surrender of €2.9 million.

The Office of the Government Chief Information Officer provides ICT shared services and has an oversight role regarding ICT-related initiatives for Departments and agencies. This includes video and data services, email and productivity applications and cybersecurity. The 2024 appropriation account for Vote 43 records gross expenditure of €50 million, and a surplus for surrender of just over €2 million. Members may wish to note that, from 2026, Votes 39 and 43 have been amalgamated into Vote 11.

Arising from its responsibility for central control and oversight of public spending, the Department sets the standard accounting policies for all appropriation accounts and issues binding directions for 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. Full implementation of this multi-year project may require some legislative reforms in due course.

Nine new standards came into force in January 2024, and chapter 3 of my report for 2024 summarises the progress made by Departments and offices in complying with those standards. Twelve Departments and offices and one departmental fund received temporary derogations from one or more of the accounting standards for their 2024 accounts. Five Votes and the fund have indicated they will achieve full compliance with those standards for their 2025 accounts. Seven Votes have indicated longer timeframes of two to five years to achieve compliance with the 2024 standards. A further seven accounting standards have come into effect for the 2025 year of account and subsequent periods.

Chapter 4 is a recurrent annual report which aggregates and summarises the results of all appropriation accounts. This serves as a permanent record, as there is no other source of aggregated appropriation account information. The annual chapter also highlights any exceptional matters that concern Vote management and Vote accounting generally.

The special report on today's agenda reviews the use of public resources in the delivery of the Brexit infrastructure programme and how the delivered infrastructure is being used. The Office of Public Works was responsible for delivery of the infrastructure programme and acted as agent for the sponsoring agencies whose operations were expected to be most affected by Brexit. Planning for Brexit infrastructure was undertaken co-operatively by the agencies involved against a very uncertain background as to what form Brexit would eventually take, what facilities would ultimately be required, and when. A business case prepared in October 2018, which assumed a worst-case outcome, set out the nature and scale of the facilities to be provided at Dublin Port, Rosslare and Dublin Airport. Ultimately, the infrastructure programme comprised the development of 27 individual projects across the three locations. The projects were delivered and became operational over the period 2019 to 2022. Aggregate expenditure recorded by the OPW for the 27 projects was just under €108 million. To save time on delivering the projects, the OPW used a construction contractor it had engaged from October 2018 for the repair and maintenance of Government property and for delivery of minor construction projects. Payments under the maintenance contract were based mainly on unit prices set out in a schedule of rates.

The cost of the Brexit programme of projects was a multiple of the expected value of the maintenance contract. Only around a quarter of the Brexit construction expenditure was based on the contract schedule of rates. Other project costings relied on quantity surveyor advice on current market prices. Examination findings indicate that many of the Brexit infrastructure facilities were underutilised or were out of use. This underuse reflects mainly the fact that the eventual Brexit agreement was more benign than was planned for. It may also be partly attributed to other factors such as rapid changes in technology, trade patterns and supply chains following Brexit, and the challenges public bodies originally faced in accurately assessing and projecting the infrastructure needs when there was little detailed data about trade flows on which to base requirements.

We conclude that re-evaluation of Ireland's Brexit infrastructure is necessary to ensure that available facilities are put to the best possible use in a timely way. The report also recommends that Revenue should develop relevant performance indicators for port traffic flows and automate the recording of transaction times, for example, using automated number plate recognition technology. This would allow for better assessment of the throughput and utilisation of facilities at Dublin Port in particular and help inform decisions on the optimum future use of existing facilities.

I thank Mr. McCarthy for that. I now invite the Secretary General to deliver the opening statement on behalf of the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation. As set out in the letter of invitation, Mr. Moloney has five minutes to make his opening statement.

I thank the Chair and committee members for the opportunity to attend today to discuss the appropriation accounts for which I am responsible and as outlined by the Comptroller and Auditor General: 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; and Vote 43 – Office of the Government Chief Information Officer. I remind the committee that the Office of Government Procurement and the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer are divisions of my Department and, as the Comptroller and Auditor General said, the three Votes will be amalgamated in 2026.

As he also said, the agenda also includes chapter 3 - Central Government Accounting Standards and chapter 4 - Vote Accounting and Budget Management, in addition to a special report on the topic of Brexit. I will briefly address key elements of the agenda, but first, I would like to provide the committee with a short overview of the role of the Department.

The mission of my Department is to drive the delivery of better public services, living standards and infrastructure for the people. The remit of the Department can be summarised across three areas: governance and oversight of public expenditure; building capacity across the civil and public service; and delivering effectively across key policy responsibilities under our remit. With regard to public expenditure governance, the Department promotes and supports the efficient, effective and sustainable application of resources in line with the annual budgetary parameters with the aim of delivering economic and social progress. Through our goal in building capacity, the Department is supporting the development of a public service workforce that can meet the current and long-term needs of a changing society and environment. To support effective delivery, the Department is driving an ambitious programme of reform through the public service transformation strategy, the digital public service plan, the public procurement strategy and, under our new remit, infrastructure, through the accelerating infrastructure action plan.

I will turn very briefly to the individual appropriation accounts. The first is Vote 11 - Office of the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation. In relation to my Department's financial performance in 2024, the appropriation account for Vote 11 shows the net outturn was €53.9 million, compared with an Estimate of €56.5 million, giving a surplus to surrender of €2.6 million. The second is Vote 12 - Superannuation and Retired Allowances. In respect of Vote 12, the net outturn for 2024 was €144.8 million, compared with an Estimate of €225.4 million, giving a surplus to surrender of €80.6 million. The surplus was primarily due to greater than anticipated contributions received from the single pension scheme. The third is Vote 39 - Office of Government Procurement, OGP. The OGP's appropriation account shows a gross outturn of 87% of the budgeted allocation. The OGP surrendered €2.93 million of its €22.4 million allocation to the Exchequer at the year end. The fourth is Vote 43 - Office of the Government Chief Information Officer, OGCIO. The net outturn for the OGCIO Vote in 2024 was €49.8 million, compared with an Estimate of €52.8 million.

In relation to chapter 3 of the Report on the Accounts of the Public Services 2024, in 2023, the Government agreed to commence the introduction of central government accounting standards based on international public sector accounting standards, IPSAS. They are being phased in over a number of years. The first nine priority standards came into effect for the 2024 financial year, a further seven were introduced for 2025 and another seven will be introduced this year. It is planned to have at least another six accounting standards in place for the 2028 financial year, bringing the total number of standards up to 29.

In relation to Chapter 4 of the report, overall gross expenditure in 2024 was €104 billion when spending on the Social Insurance Fund and the National Training Fund is included. Spending in 2024 supported investment in the public sector workforce, digitalisation and climate initiatives, and enhancing infrastructure.

My Department's role in the delivery of Brexit was one of monitoring and oversight. In that context, my Department chaired the Brexit infrastructure group, bringing together relevant Departments and agencies to oversee delivery. Following that process, ongoing monitoring of progress was maintained through the Brexit infrastructure working group and the Brexit infrastructure group.

The committee has indicated there may be other matters relevant to my Department that may be raised today. I look forward to engaging with members over the course of the meeting.

I thank Mr. Moloney. Due to our late start, the meeting will be suspended at approximately 12.45 p.m. and will resume shortly thereafter. I now open the floor to members. Deputy Neville is the lead speaker today. He has 15 minutes, with all other members having ten minutes each. If time allows and the witnesses are agreeable, I will allow members back in for a short round of supplementary questions.

I thank the witnesses for their attendance. My first question relates to the meeting of the budget oversight committee on Tuesday where it became clear from our engagement with Department of education officials that the €460 million gap in that Department's budget was known about on budget day. What is the witnesses' view on that?

The budget process is a fairly well known and straightforward process. The Government sets an expenditure ceiling.

I am asking specifically about the €460 million gap in the budget of the Department of education. Was it known about on budget day? Was the budget put together with a €460 million hole?

That is not the case.

It is what came through at Tuesday's committee meeting.

It is important to explain the process.

No. I do not want to go through the budget but is Mr. Moloney saying his Department was not aware there was a €460 million gap?

No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is there was not a gap. There was a disagreement about what was the appropriate allocation for education. That disagreement existed for all Departments, not just education. All Departments wanted more money than they were allocated in the budget.

The Department of education said it needed €460 million more and Mr. Moloney's Department said it was not getting it. That left it with what we call a structural deficit. Since then, I understand the gap has extended to €647 million.

The Government has agreed on an additional allocation to the Department of education of €646 million.

I was out by €1 million. We knew there was a structural gap of €460 million on the day of the budget and it has since increased to €646 million. Rather than decreasing, the gap increased by 50%. What happens now? Will money be taken from other Departments?

Once again, the bid was higher than the allocation, as it is for all Departments. On foot of developments, including in relation to institutional abuse, special needs and the overall payroll, the Government decided that an additional €646 million would be provided to the Department of education, of which €200 million would be provided within the expenditure ceiling. That left another €446 million that has to be funded within the expenditure ceiling, which is binding. That amount is to be funded in the longer term through a levy on other Departments.

Other Departments will pay for something of which there was an awareness at the time. Will Mr. Moloney clarify whether it was the case that there was a similar structural gap in 2022? Is it correct that an additional €925 million needed then?

The bids Departments make are always higher than their allocation.

We had officials from the Department of education in here a couple of months ago, at which point they were €1 billion over budget. Last year, the Department was €580 million over budget. I am sensing a trend here. If we are aware-----

I agree with the Deputy that there is a trend since 2022 of the Department of education not adhering to its budget-----

The figures are €925 million, €850 million and so on. If we add them up, the expenditure has been €4 billion over budget since 2022.

Yes, €4 billion.

That is massive. It is crazy.

It is, but the thing to point out is that between 2021 and 2025, there was an increase of 37% in the funding for the Department of education. In the budget settlement for 2026, there was an increase of 10%. In those circumstances, it is hard for me to accept an analysis that says there was a funding gap or that the Department was underfunded.

Does Mr. Moloney think the Department of education is being mismanaged?

The Department has failed to manage within budget in a significant way since 2022.

School transport costs, for example, have gone up by 34% in the past 12 months. Are there 34% more students going to school? I do not know. I was asking the Department of education officials those questions but it seems there is a larger question about public spending.

The issue with school transport, as I understand it, is that the budget was set on the basis of an increase in school transport fares. The extent of the increase that was subsequently agreed by the Government was somewhat lesser than anticipated and that created a need for that part of the sum.

I asked a simple question at Tuesday's meeting about how many children get taxis to school paid for by the State every day. The officials did not have that number. When I asked whether it was ten, 20 or 100, they said it was in the thousands but they had no sense on the day of the exact number. That is maybe illustrative of how costs have gone.

I have asked about the Department of education because its situation is topical and the officials were at the budget oversight committee the other day. More generally, is it correct that State expenditure has increased by approximately €38 billion, or 40%, in the past three years?

I would have to check that. Did the Deputy's figure reference the past three years?

That is since 2023, so we are probably into year four. By what level has State expenditure increased in the past three or four years? That probably is a fairer question.

No problem. It increased by €36 billion between 2019 and 2024. I can work out for the Deputy the number for the past three years.

We can take it that it has increased along similar lines since then, so my numbers for the past three our four years probably are not wrong. Are we getting value for money on the basis of that expenditure?

Obviously, there are large amounts of public services and infrastructure being delivered for that expenditure. There have been significant increases in social protection rates and in public service pay. There were significant increases in public servant numbers, including doctors, teachers and nurses, over that period. The question of whether the increase in services that arises from that investment is commensurate with the increase in investment is one on which we are very engaged and on which we quiz Departments all the time. We recently set out a value-for-money circular asking Departments to stand over and justify the money that was being spent. As part of the budget process, the Minister has now placed reform and efficiency as a key part of the Estimates discussion, which would not have had a central part previously. We are very mindful of value for money. We are mindful that public services are delivering more to a wider population. However, we are also very mindful that the increase in expenditure is very large. We are conscious that in some sectors, the increase in activity that is obvious does not seem to be as large as the increase in funding.

My concern is that, as we all know, the increase in money coming in is from a corporate tax windfall of about €21 billion, which is a significant amount. Is that creating a culture where there is a sense of being able to keep spending without having any accountability? I am very conscious that €102 billion of capital spending is set out up to 2030. As Mr. Moloney outlined, that is overseen by his Department, within reason. I know it goes down to other groups. Is Mr. Moloney confident the €102 billion of capital expenditure can be delivered within budget, given what we have seen in the past couple of years?

In terms of value for money for the taxpayer, budget management and sticking to the budget parameters that are agreed at budget time are a key element of that for all Departments, and most Departments do stick within budget. Effective financial management leads to effective delivery.

On the capital plan, there is a very significant increase in capital investment. It is concentrated in transport, energy and water for housing. There are some very major projects involved that will be complex and challenging to deliver. We are seeing a significant uptick in delivery. The work we are doing on the accelerating infrastructure task force is intended to remove barriers and speed up the bits of that process that might get delayed.

One issue we talked about this morning prior to the witnesses coming in was the write-off by Irish Rail of €50 million for the network management software project. What is Mr. Moloney's view of that write-off?

I do not have full sight of that. It is an IT project in a commercial State company, but we have become aware of it in recent weeks. We talked to the Department of Transport to try to get full sight of it because this clearly concerns-----

The risk is it is emblematic of what is going on.

That is a fair question, but I do not know if we know that it is emblematic of what is going on yet. I suppose we have to look at the facts more closely to see what lessons have to be learned from that. On the face of it, it is a significant impairment, and it is something we are concerned about and are following up with the Department of Transport.

Using that as an example, what does the Department see as its role in the governance of a project like that? Part of our issue in this committee is that it is Irish Rail, but Irish Rail says it is NTA sanctioned and the NTA says it is getting the money from someone else. Everybody is kind of responsible, but nobody is really responsible. Ultimately, who is the person responsible? Typically, what we find here when we go to ask the person responsible, they have left the company two years ago or they have moved or whatever. That is typical of what we find. We try to get it out of the people, but in a situation like that, what is the Department's role in oversight and governance? I include the Office of Government Procurement because there is an ICT element here as well. What role does the Department have there?

In broad terms, our role is to set out the governance frameworks, guidelines and the conditions that have to be followed by people in Departments. Accounting Officers are then responsible for compliance with those frameworks, rules and procedures. Irish Rail, which is a commercial semi-State company with its own board, operates under company law and is independent in its day-to-day operations. In those terms we are relying on the Department of Transport to maintain active oversight of those issues. As I say, we will-----

Mr. Moloney sees it as more for the Department of Transport.

I see it fundamentally as a matter for the board of Irish Rail and, after that, for the Department of Transport.

What does Mr. Moloney believe the consequences should be? That is the one word I do not hear often enough.

As I said, I do not know the facts of the issue.

Fair enough, but at the same time, what does Mr. Moloney believe the consequences should be? Is there enough accountability?

Again, I do not know the facts, but if there is an impairment of that size, we would be anxious to learn lessons from it and to find out how that was-----

We have €7 million wasted on electric buses that are costing €20,000 per week to store because we have no place to charge them. This is just one minor section of the State. Unfortunately, Mr. Moloney’s Department is overseeing public expenditure. I will not say the buck stops with the Department, but ultimately that is the flow of funding. We will have the other groups in, but I would like to get Mr. Moloney's view in order that it will help us engage with the other groups later on.

The role of my Department is to set out the governance frameworks and guidelines other Departments' Accounting Officers need to adhere to. We do that through public financial procedures, a value for money circular and the infrastructure guidelines. We have those and we regularly monitor the performance of Departments in relation to those. We have teams that track performance within Departments and have conversations with Departments to make sure that compliance is occurring.

Does Mr. Moloney have any ongoing monitoring role in that or does the Department just present the rules, tell people to follow them, and if it hears back a year later that they were not followed, such is life, and everyone goes on with their business?

We have a monitoring role, but we do not have an enforcement role, just to be clear.

That is interesting in itself. The Department can monitor but it cannot enforce, and it can give the money. I will switch topics. The National Children's Science Centre is something that has come up quite a lot. Mr. Sreenan is here from the OPW. It seems the OPW has responsibility, or has been given responsibility, for delivery of the National Children's Science Centre. Is that correct?

The Office of Public Works is subject to a legal obligation.

Exactly, it is a legal obligation. By whom was it given that legal obligation?

The legal obligation has arisen through a process of a series of arbitrations.

No, originally. Was it the Department of Finance? I think it may have been. The OPW was the designated body to deliver it.

The project runs back to 2003.

Will Mr. McCarthy clarify that?

The problem was that the OPW did not have authorisation in 2003 to enter into a commitment and, subsequently, the commitment has grown.

What is the situation then for the OPW? Is it waiting for someone to assign a Department or funding? How has this grown legs? It seems money is being spent on this. There are legal obligations and arbitrations are continuing. What is the end point going to be from an OPW point of view?

Where we stand at the moment is that the legal obligation is the outcome of a final award and arbitration process. We are conscious that funding for a sponsoring agency or approving authority has yet to be identified.

Will the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation give funding authority?

I will not answer on that Department's behalf.

Mr. Moloney?

Our role with regard to capital allocations is that they are agreed by Government and Department. Individual Ministers then decide on what projects that money will be spent within each Department. We do not, at the centre, determine projects. We determine funding envelopes.

Are the witnesses happy with the money that was spent on the Brexit project? First, for the OPW it is how different entities were sought from a procurement perspective and then how those buildings have been utilised since.

Yes, I am happy with the money spent on the Brexit-----

On the Brexit project, on Dublin Port.

Yes, on the facilities and ports. I am happy with the way that money was spent. It was an urgent need. It was a huge risk to the economy, our trade was threatened, and we had a very uncertain outcome, but that was money well spent.

I will pick up on some of the previous questions. At the outset I want to make a personal observation. The number of scandals being covered and overseen by this Department would bring down governments anywhere with a properly functioning government. It seems to be par for the course for this Department and Government to accept all of these misdemeanours and move on. The first example is something that has come up on several occasions over the past year. We are a year on from more than 30 former and serving Ministers being overpaid due to errors in their pensions. I believe a number of them still have not entered a process to repay what they owe and ten of them are currently serving Ministers. When will this be resolved? It is unheard of. The public and normal workers and pensioners would not be offered the same indulgence. When can we see a resolution of this?

We discussed the issues in some detail last year and I am happy to discuss them again. On the resolution of cases, agreements have been made and delivered on with all current Ministers. There are up to 82 former office holders who may be affected by this. There will be discussions with them establishing the facts and all that sort of thing. It has been subject to fairly intense efforts by the NSSO, which is responsible for day-to-day management of this. My understanding is that-----

We are a year on from this being uncovered, and the Minister confirmed on the floor of the Dáil on 28 May that there are multiple people who have not entered a repayment process. A year on they are still holding on to public money they were never entitled to in the first place.

Which they did not get through their own fault. I mean-----

I appreciate that 100%.

-----we are absolutely committed and there are-----

I opened today on misdemeanours within the Department and that is why I am putting the question.

It is within the NSSO, which is a body under the aegis of the Department. The issue is that everyone has individual-----

I am just looking for a timeline.

As I say, we are not responsible for implementing the arrangements. We discuss it with the NSSO all the time and quite intensively-----

You have no timeline?

-----and we know that the NSSO-----

We are three minutes into this and I am still not getting a timeline.

Eighty-two people are affected. There are only 17 who are yet to make an agreement. I do not have visibility on those 17 cases, so I do not know what sort of timeline is practical. I do not know the personal circumstances of those people. Some of them are likely to be retired. I have no visibility of that because it is the NSSO which looks after that on a day-to-day basis. We do review and progress is reported to us. The progress has been that of the 82 identified, all but 17 have payment plans in place.

I am going to move on to the €646 million deficit in the Department of education and the levy that has now been imposed on other Departments. I said at a meeting of the committee on sport and media that a 1.4% levy is being applied to the budget of the Department of Culture, Communications and Sport. I am sure other members will attest to that being the case in the Departments that they are working with and are interested in. Why should other Departments suffer? Why are they being penalised for consistent mismanagement of money under another Department's remit? Surely there should be sanctions on the officials who oversaw the overspending in different Departments. Have there been any sanctions in any way for not managing budgets effectively? Mr. Moloney already highlighted one Department that has not managed its budget effectively from 2022. Are there sanctions on any Department or in any area where there is consistent overspending?

On the €646 million and the levy, under the EU fiscal rules we have binding multi-annual ceilings. In order to achieve the fiscal policy the Government has set out, where one area of Government is given more money it has to come from somewhere else because the ceiling is-----

I appreciate that. Surely Mr. Moloney can appreciate our position when we are advocating, making pre-budget submissions and contributing to discussions and whatnot for all our different areas of interest and all of the areas that have come through our constituency offices around the country. At some point over the next few months, we are going to be told by Departments that they do not have money because they have been hit with a levy or that something may have been possible if they had additional money and were not paying a levy. Every area, across the board, is going to be cut in some aspect as a result of this levy.

Given the significant level of spending increase that is planned for 2027 under the medium-term fiscal plan, it is unlikely that any Government Department will receive a nominal cut but it may receive less than it would otherwise have.

That is my point.

Once you allocate the money to one thing, you cannot allocate it to something else as well. That is part of the fiscal discipline implicit in running a sustainable budget under a multi-annual framework.

In relation to the €19 million additional funding for SNAs, has it been identified, in particular, where that money will come from?

The €19 million was provided for as part of the €646 million. The detailed allocation of that is for the Department of education. The Minister for education and the Accounting Officer will decide where that goes.

It has been reported in the media that new powers have been given to the Department of public expenditure and reform to tackle overspending. Has Mr. Moloney any detail on that?

No new powers have been given to the Department of public expenditure and reform to tackle overspending. What we have done is to rearticulate our existing powers by setting out clearly an escalation process where spending is not in line with budget, we have made clear the measures we intend to implement where Departments do not remain within their budgets. That is a new statement of the type of tools that we have at our disposal. It is notice to Departments of our intention to very actively use them.

Does that involve any sanctions?

It involves-----

Are we learning from all this overspending?

-----limits on what Departments can spend. There is engagement with the Departments as a first step. Information is exchanged. There is reporting to Ministers and the Government. There is the option of limiting the delegated sanction available to Departments. They are able to make their own choices across a wide range of spending. Where there is overspending, it is within the Minister's gift to withdraw delegated sanction and we can withdraw-----

That is within the Minister's gift?

The power to sanction is a ministerial power.

Coming back to the debacle of the science centre, I have called the whole thing "a vanity project". I believe that at this stage. I asked this question previously and did not get a specific answer or clarity. Has there been consideration of what it would cost to walk away from the project completely? What would be the worst case scenario in respect of the financial ramifications? What would be the liabilities? We are already hearing that €5 million has been spent with no explanations and absolutely nothing to show for it. Due process does not seem to have existed in this whole debacle from the get-go and the only people benefiting are those in the science centre itself. The public purse and taxpayers are not benefiting. If we have not done so, can we initiate an analysis of what it would cost to walk away from this project, compare the data and consider what might be the best course of action, going forward?

It is important to remember that this is not a standard project. It is not something for which there has been a business case approved by a Minister of Government. No Minister of Government has approved the business case for this project.

They are still spending money.

The building of a second children's science centre is a project that is being promoted by a group of people who have pursued a very legalistic mechanism to create a legal obligation on the Government to build this second children's science centre. In the context of that process, I can assure the Deputy that many options have been and are being considered. It is a very legalistic process.

Are we considering-----

It is not-----

-----what it might cost to legally walk away from this project, once and for all? It is a "Yes" or "No" question.

All options are being considered.

So, that is a "Yes".

It is a legalistic process so-----

There is consideration.

All options are being considered.

I want to ask the Office of Public Procurement the type of consideration that a Department or State agency should make before entering a competitive market. Are there protocols or policies to guide that? I am aware of a case where two individual companies were providing a product and then a State agency was developed, a free, competing project, using EU funds and State funds. That drove the two commercial companies to the wall, using public money. What protocols and policies are there in that respect?

My colleague will come in on that question.

I thank the Deputy for the question. If I understand it, when raising a competition through the Office of Government Procurement, we provide significant advice and guidance. We have guidance around the directive and commercial guidance around what organisations should consider. It clearly starts with the need. What do they need? It then moves to consideration of what is the market ready for and we recommend that a pre-market consultation is considered. This is a long way from running the competition. Once you understand the market capabilities and your need, you are in a better position to design the competition. Specification is then important, whether it is an input or output specification. In particular, there is consideration of commercial requirements, such as limitations of liability, liquidated damages, SLAs, but also escrow and ownership of the technology and who will make amendments to that technology as the product or service goes along. That brings you to the stage where you can launch the competition.

It is only at that point you will realise if the market will bite, if it is of interest to the market and what it will push. Based on that, you can go and evaluate the tenders and there are a lot of supports, advice and guidance available for organisations for running public procurement competitions and telling them what they need to do, including the range of competitions that are there. A competition could be a standard open competition, a competitive dialogue competition or an innovation partnership. That moves them along to coming up with an award. There is a decision point there around the award. Should we go and award the competition? Once it is awarded, then you enter into the contract. What is important about the contract is not just the services and the product. It is also all those commercial requirements, including the SLA, the milestones in building and testing the product, and asking where the code goes, if it is a software product, and how is it enhanced. That moves on to all the commercials. Once the contract is signed, it is a matter for contract delivery and the important part, which is contract management. We have guidance around that for organisations.

I know I am out of time but is there any consideration of the impact that it might have on existing Irish companies that are already operating in the field? I am sorry, Chair.

Could Mr. O'Sullivan respond briefly if he can?

Sure. The Government's policy is to support SMEs, so all competitions are designed to support them. It does not have to be a full public procurement competition. There are lighter variations in terms of three quotes for a national competition. SMEs are at the heart of Government procurement strategy. In fact, they are well recognised in the upcoming procurement strategy that is with the Minister.

I want to return to the national children's science centre. There was a sense or feeling in the room the last time when the chairman of the OPW was here that this was a 23-year saga that seemed to have no end. There was a desire by the Committee of Public Accounts to try to bring people into a room and get a solution. The chairman of the OPW told the committee in February that he is legally bound by the December 2025 arbitration ruling to deliver the building by the end of 2029. Does Mr. Moloney accept that is the case?

There was agreement to enter into a binding arbitration and the arbitrator found that the children’s hospital should be built.

The science museum.

The children's science museum.

So there is a legally binding arbitration decision to build the science museum by the end of 2029.

There is an arbitration decision based on a process that the two parties agreed would be binding.

Does Mr. Moloney also accept that the chairman said he cannot build that without funding?

That is obviously true. Yes. We can deal with that-----

Then the State has a question – to build or to breach. Does Mr. Moloney accept that is the choice?

Again, there is certainly a choice about whether or not to build a second children's science museum. In order to achieve that, there would have to be a sponsoring Department, in order words, a Department would have to supply its funds to that process.

Yes, but there is a legal obligation on the State at present.

Yes, there is an arbitration ruling.

That obligation is to build it by the end of 2029. I understand that there is a further obligation that requires it to go to tender by the end of this year. Does Mr. Moloney accept that?

I am not familiar with that further obligation.

The chairman confirmed that the OPW intends to go ahead with that tender because that is what he is obliged to do. We are going to face a scenario where we are going to proceed with a tender for a multimillion euro project where there is no funding, no element of it is funded through the national development plan and there is no sponsoring Department.

I am not aware that any Department has allocated any of its NDP funding to it, and there is not a sponsoring Department.

No. I accept that. If Mr. Moloney was writing an opinion piece in The Irish Times, that might be a satisfactory view for him to have, but as the Secretary General of the Department of public expenditure, I would expect him to have a keener interest in a responsibility that the State has, in other words, an interest in trying to resolve the issue, or the other way of doing it is to limit the liability to the State.

I have been involved in some of the conversations and my understanding is that over the 23 years there have been numerous attempts to find a resolution to this issue. Of course, when the issue began, there was not already a children's science museum. There currently is, so the rationale for the original proposal is more complicated by that fact. I know we have at different times engaged with project promoters with a view to alternative sites and exploring the potential for different types of partnerships.

All of that is the road to how we got here. We now have a legal obligation on the State and there is a simple choice to build or breach.

Yes, there is an arbitration ruling.

Mr. Moloney says that like it is not something he has to deal with. There is a simple choice: to build it or to breach the arbitration decision.

In order to-----

Could I maybe make an observation in relation to that dichotomy the Deputy is presenting there? The obligation is to provide a premises under lease for 20 years. It is not a case of building a building and handing it to the science museum. I think there is a significant distinction there, particularly if the alternative is to price the cost of walking away.

Then of course we have the cost of it operating. That is a whole separate conversation. I just feel that the chairman of the OPW came to the Committee of Public Accounts with a very significant problem. My feeling is that he was not getting a hearing from anybody else in any other Department or any other place as to how he might be able to resolve it. As a member of the Committee of Public Accounts my concern is that this rumbles on and that we will have another arbitration and another legal hearing. Whatever about the rights and wrongs of how we got here – there are very significant questions about that - the question is what we are going to do to limit the liability now. My understanding is that the OPW – it said it here - is not in a position to resolve that.

As I said, the only way it can be resolved is by a Department allocating NDP funding to it and, as yet, no sponsoring Department will do that.

Does the fact that Mr. Moloney's Department is the parent Department of the OPW in any way bring further clarity to the decision?

No, we are not directly involved in implementing OPW projects. I suppose there is a value-for-money question. There is a real problem where people are being charged with delivering value for money and, at the same time, being told that there is potentially a cost of tens of millions of euro associated with a particular project.

I accept that, but we have had at least 13 years of very significant legal costs accruing. That is also depleting the assets of the State. My understanding is that, as we sit in this room now, there is no clear strategy as to how we resolve what would appear to be an obligation on the State. As a member of the Committee of Public Accounts I am not satisfied that is a way of protecting the public finances. Mr. Moloney is not telling me he is going to come up with a strategy or make a counter-offer. I am not expecting him to divulge all of that here at the committee, but my point is that nobody is giving us a commitment that anything is going to happen, and there is every likelihood that in five years' time somebody else – another Secretary General or another chairman of the OPW - will come before us and say it is still not resolved.

There is a very large bill. There are value-for-money considerations. There have been significant changes since the idea was first mooted. We have engaged with the OPW. The Minister for public expenditure and reform met a number of years ago with the project promoters. It is not a lack of engagement, but it is a very legalistic process. Within the confines of what has been run as a very legalistic process, I suppose the next steps need management in that context.

Let me ask a different question. Is it a priority of his Department to assist the OPW to resolve this?

We have sought to assist the OPW to resolve this on different occasions but the options that have been explored have not been acceptable to the project promoters.

Project promoters have their own interests. They rely on legal arrangements which they entered into with the OPW and they are exercising their legal opportunity or the benefits that they see from a legal arrangement. We would not expect them to do anything else. My point is that for very significant reasons there is an obligation on the State. I have real concerns about that. I do not see anybody attempting to resolve it. Perhaps the OPW might come in. Following the chairman's appearance here in February, what correspondence has he engaged in with the Department of public expenditure or with any other Department? Second, what strategy does Mr. Moloney intend to adopt to limit the liability of the cost to the State?

I will work backwards. In terms of limiting liability to the State, as I said before, the Office of Public Works is deeply conscious of its legal obligation that is set out through terms in the final award as an outcome of the arbitration.

We are also deeply conscious of the fact that as of yet there is no funding source, sponsoring agency or approving authority. We are working in that space. To the Deputy's first question, if I remember it correctly, there has been correspondence between the Office of Public Works and several Government Departments, including the Department of further and higher education, the Department of Culture, Communications and Sport and the Department of Education and Youth.

Since February?

Yes, since February. Communication has been ongoing since February.

The chairman of the OPW said here that he has an obligation to go to tender by the end of the year. That is my understanding or my recollection of what he said. Does Mr. Sreenan want to correct that if I am incorrect?

Maybe I will just give a point of information, rather than saying it is correct or incorrect. One of the terms of the final award is to have, effectively - in simple English - the design completed and ready to tender on 31 December of this year. There are other terms within the award that relate to the pre-qualification of contractors.

Is there someone in the OPW at the moment completing a design to be ready for tender by the end of this year?

We are working on it.

The OPW is currently working on the design for a tender. Is that correct?

We are working on it, as is our obligation, as legally set out.

We could be working on a design for a tender that may never go to tender.

I understand this is frustrating, Deputy. I am trying to respond to the legal obligation that the Office of Public Works has with respect to the terms of the final award, so that is what we are using our best endeavours to meet.

Does Mr. Sreenan see how a member of the public would see this as a waste of public money and have a perception that nobody is in charge of resolving this project?

It is a legalistic process. There is no Government Department sponsoring this project. That is the fact of it. The value-for-money considerations involve not just the legal fees that have been expended to date and not just the procurement fees that are potentially going to be extended, but also the actual cost, which runs into tens of millions of euro for a second children's science museum, on the footprint of a site of a national cultural institution, under current parameters. There are also the ongoing running costs and the lack of provision for those. I agree with the Deputy that there is a range of value-for-money concerns in relation to this project.

I am not sure there is any point in asking any more questions. I have to say to the Cathaoirleach that at the end of ten minutes I am absolutely no clearer as to whether there will be any resolution of the problem that was put before us in February. For the first time in my time in the Committee of Public Accounts I am not sure what to do next.

It is deeply concerning, to be honest. There is a failure even to acknowledge there is a legally binding agreement. Constant reference has been made to an arbitration agreement. It is deeply concerning and I am sure other members will maybe explore a number of other angles there because the further exposure of the taxpayer is grave. Deputy McGrath is next.

I want to pick up on the science museum at the outset as well. Deputy McAuliffe has probed as best he could. Unfortunately, I think we are all still in the dark as to where this will ultimately land. With respect, I have to say that I am not getting any sense of urgency from the Department of public expenditure in relation to this. When were the last meetings between the OPW and the Department on this issue? When was this item last discussed in a substantive way?

I do not have visibility on that. We discuss the OPW all the time but I have spoken to the chair of the OPW about this issue since he was last at this committee.

How long ago was that, approximately?

He was here in February, so I would have spoken to him shortly after that, in February or March.

Was there ongoing engagement, or are we talking about one discussion?

We meet regularly and we have discussed a number of items.

Specifically on the science museum.

We have not met to specifically discuss the children's science museum.

Is that not an alarming statement that Mr. Moloney has not met the chairman to discuss the science museum given the impending deadline in relation to the OPW's legal obligations?

Once again, there is a legalistic process in place that can be typified in a number of ways. A legally binding arbitration conclusion has been reached. We are very mindful of the issues that raises from a value-for-money perspective, both in terms of the moneys that have been spent and in terms of-----

I respect that, but who is going to resolve this issue? Who is going to decide on a course of action here, if it is not the Department of public expenditure?

As I have said several times, Deputy, it cannot be resolved without a sponsoring Department.

I understand that, but there is no Department that can magic up €70 million or thereabouts to progress with this project. Mr. Moloney knows that as well as any of us. Ultimately, how will this be resolved?

There is €12 billion of capital available this year.

Who would Mr. Moloney see as the most likely sponsoring Department?

I do not see any sponsoring Department as prioritising this project, as things stand.

Would Mr. Moloney have a view on which should be the sponsoring Department?

I do not, really. There are a number of Departments whose remit could extend to this, if we think about further and higher education, education, children or culture. There are a number of potential Departments but none of them have-----

I say respectfully that those answers are not giving us any confidence that there is a solution in sight here. We still have no idea who a potential Department will be. Can I ask a clear question? Has anyone in the OPW or the Department of public expenditure taken legal advice on the cost of walking away from this?

Again, it is a very legalistic process. It is being managed by the OGP. As I said earlier, we have discussed all aspects of the options that are available.

Has there has been discussion around walking away?

There has been discussion about all options.

Including walking away?

There has been discussion about all options, including whether that is possible or not.

The Comptroller and Auditor General wants to make a point, Deputy McGrath.

From memory, there was some consideration of that matter around 2013 when a smaller project was envisaged. Subsequent to that, the OPW committed to a much more significant project in a more sensitive location.

I want to move on, but just finally on this, in my view unless the Department of public expenditure grabs this by the scruff of the neck it is not going to happen. It is as simple as that. We are now in June and there is a clear commitment by the OPW and it has confirmed it is working on this, so it is spending more money in terms of preparing a design for a potential tender that may or may not happen and we have no idea where this project is going ultimately. It is deeply frustrating. I am moving on.

I want to move on to the education budget and the €646 million. Would Mr. Moloney accept that this is a catastrophic failure of a budgetary process?

No, I do not accept that. The education budget has gone up by 37% between 2021 and 2025. The budget settlement originally gave it a further 10%. Government has now decided to allocate it €646 million, bringing the year-on-year increase over 15%. That reflects a number of things, with the Government's prioritisation of the education sector being one of them. That of course has consequences for the Votes.

What were the surprise items in terms of the responsibilities of the Department of education that were not foreseen at the last budget? We had line of sight in terms of the special education demand, for example. What were the surprise items that brought an additional €646 million requirement?

The special education requirement identified at budget time was changed very significantly post budget. There are arrangements around the school transport fees that were envisaged at budget time. The Government took different decisions in relation to the timing of school transport fare increases.

It was a combination of issues. I want to ask about some of the other Departments now having to shoulder some of the responsibility. We have seen €39 million from the Department of justice. Other Departments obviously have some idea of their figure. The Department of housing is also going to bear some of the responsibility here, to the tune of €5 million, at a time of a national housing crisis. Am I right in saying that?

Yes, €5 million on a REV of €4 billion.

How is that justifiable, at a time when we have 17,500 people in homeless accommodation and we have a huge emergency in relation to housing, that we are imposing a levy on the Department of housing to make up for an overrun in the Department of education?

Can Mr. Moloney understand how that would really frustrate the general public out there who are suffering the day-to-day consequences on housing?

It is important to recognise that the capital spending in housing is fully protected. There is a very large level of capital spending. On the €5 million from the housing budget that we would be seeking there, we would expect to yield through efficiencies across the Vote of the Department of housing and we would not expect it to significantly impact on the support for housing.

I want to move on to one issue in the Department of education, the pupil-teacher ratio. There is a commitment in the programme for Government to reduce it from the current level of 23:1 to 19:1. There was no movement on it last year. There has not been any movement in the past three years. Would Mr. Moloney envisage movement on that this year?

I suppose that is a matter for discussion in the budget context. Obviously, at the moment, at primary level there are 12.6 pupils per teacher and at secondary, it is 12.1. The staffing schedule uses a very different way of calculating pupil-teacher ratios which leads to different numbers but there have been significant increases in numbers in the education sector over recent years. I suppose one of the things that has happened is that the number of pupils, which we expected to fall, has not fallen in the way that we expected. That is particularly because of international developments and that is that.

Would Mr. Moloney agree that the commitment in the programme for Government in terms of reducing the pupil-teacher ratio has to be honoured?

The programme for Government contains a number of policy commitments which, I believe, Government is determined to honour.

Okay. I will turn to the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council and its recent commentary in relation to public expenditure. It is quoted as saying that public expenditure has lost its anchor, that we are now in a position where we will be borrowing to save as a country, that the national debt is projected to go from €220 billion to €250 billion in the coming years and that €5 of every €6 collected in corporation tax is now being spent. That sounds like a fairly damning indictment of our control of public expenditure.

The report was less about the control of public expenditure and more about the setting of spending targets by the Government. The Government, obviously, has set multi-annual spending ceilings. If we look back, we see multi-annual expenditure of 8% or 9% on average. As we look forward, over the next number of years we see a moderation of that, to some 6% or so. From the point of view of expenditure policy, Government has to manage the needs of the growing population and an ageing population and balance that against the need for fiscal sustainability. From a macroeconomic point of view the world might be seen in a certain way but we also have to provide services, provide income supports and provide capital.

Would Mr. Moloney accept, in terms of the two future funds that were established, that the idea that we would be effectively borrowing money to put into those funds is counter to the spirit in which they were set up?

It is an allocation exercise to decide what it is you are borrowing money for above everything that Government spends. Taking account of the application to the funds, the Government is still going to generate very significant surpluses that are forecast over the medium term. Then, I suppose, on the question of whether in a given year some of that borrowing could be seen to go into the funds, given the once-off and transitory nature, and potentially the cyclical nature, of some of the some of the corporation tax, it is probably a more important principle that the funds continue to be funded.

What is Mr. Moloney's opinion on the corporation taxes? Are we over-reliant on corporation tax to fund day-to-day expenditure?

That is really a matter for the Department of Finance but Government has been really clear that there are elements of risk associated with an over-reliance on corporate tax, that a large proportion of the tax base is now down to corporation tax and that our expenditure policy has to moderate.

We are spending €5 out of €6 of that bumper corporation tax. It sounds like an over-reliance on something that may not be sustainable.

It is something of an allegation in terms of which taxes you think are funding what but the reason that there is a moderation of spend in the medium-term fiscal strategy is a recognition of the risks associated with a narrowing of the tax base.

Finally, in relation to housing and the whole cost-rental model, it has been reported that Mr. Moloney's Department is very much opposed to cost rental. Is that accurate?

I suppose when we look at different housing supply, we would have a concern about the value-for-money of cost rental versus other provision. In particular, it is clear that the cheapest per unit provision of social housing is local authority build on local authority land. So it is not that we are against any housing option but that we would be very much in favour of a supply mix that would tap into local authority build as an important source of social housing.

Okay. I want to probe this more. I might get a chance to come in later but I thank Mr. Moloney for that.

I thank Deputy McGrath. We will take a short break for ten-to-15 minutes.

The witnesses are welcome. We never talk about the projects that are delivered well - broadly on time and broadly on budget - and there are many. This committee focuses on the projects where there are serious issues. We see week in and week out the leakage of public money. I assume the Secretary General takes that seriously.

I thank the Deputy for the welcome. She is absolutely right that most public service projects get delivered on time and on budget. Some can be complex and we have to learn lessons when they go wrong, but certainly, where we see waste, we are very concerned.

I focus on procurement and accountability and I want to make sure public money is spent well. What I have seen - and I have tested this at this committee and through parliamentary questions to the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation - is that, while we have put an emphasis on improving procurement processes, there is no real monitoring and accountability during and after projects; there is no central tracking of delivery and execution after contracts; we have blurred accountability across Departments, sub-Departments, agencies and sub-agencies; and it is difficult for us to ever find anyone accountable or see that anyone is ever held accountable. The public say this to me all the time, that no one is ever held accountable. We see today that, in an Irish Rail-NTA IT project, €50 million was just written off, and there is absolutely no accountability for the €7 million spent on electric bus storage for buses that are not in use. The people in Fingal badly need more buses. It is simply not good enough. This committee is supposed to drive accountability. The Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation is absolutely supposed to drive accountability but we never see it.

I have a few questions to go through. We mentioned at this committee earlier that we emphasise the importance of agencies and Departments being transparent and accountable to the Oireachtas and this committee. That has also been lacking, unfortunately, and the Secretary General has a role to play in ensuring all agencies and Departments are transparent to the Oireachtas and this committee. In project monitoring and execution, in the UK there is the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which maintains central oversight of major projects and gives each one a traffic light status so it can easily identify when projects have gone amber or red. Why do we not have a similar system?

For infrastructure projects under the national development plan, NDP, we have a capital tracker, which we are working to improve. It will try to give better information on the progress of individual projects. Under this round of the NDP, through the publication of sectoral plans by Departments, we have already attempted to give greater clarity on what Departments are providing with their NDP allocations. The project tracker is intended to give updates on progress in those and signal where projects are falling behind.

When things are going wrong, is the Department Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation notified of serious issues on major projects?

Yes, we expect to be. We talk to all Departments on a regular basis - all the time - and we have formal arrangements in the infrastructure area. On the major projects in particular, we expect the project tracker to be able to anticipate delays, pick up on problems and help to address them.

To intervene, absolutely.

I received a response from the Minister telling me that there is no central tracking of the original budget versus actual out-turn. Why not?

I think we would have it for major capital projects-----

I am asking about capital projects and IT projects.

-----but sometimes with other projects and procurement generally, the systems in place are set up to ensure an efficient and effective procurement process. When people conclude - get the IT service they want or procure the goods and services they want - they rarely go back to fill in the outcome data. Therefore, what we want to get to is to achieve what the Deputy said, in understanding what we get for our money and being able to evaluate that more fully. We are not yet at that place. We are attempting to get there, so the Minister-----

I will move on because we agree that we are not where we need to be. It is incumbent on the Secretary General to drive us to where we need to be, and I would suggest that is urgent given the serious leakage we see at this committee week in and week out.

On performance and accountability, there is a strong emphasis by the Department on frameworks and Accounting Officers being responsible for ensuring compliance and value for money, yet failure never translates into consequences. Between 2020 and 2024, we had penalties and fines for the late transposition of EU directives of more than €13 million. There are other directives with Departments that are already late, such as the EU pay transparency directive. As I said, we have already seen various projects like the Irish Rail one and various issues with NTA projects. The Secretary General mentioned that the Department of education failed to manage to stay within budget, but there are no visible consequences. When the Secretary General was tested on the Department of education, the reasons he outlined for the budget overruns were policy matters, so is he charging the Minister with running over budget and absolving the civil servants for any issues with keeping in budget?

No, I am not. We talked about two types of overrun in the Department of education. One was a failure-to-maintain-within-budget type of overrun.

The other was decisions taken by Government subsequent to the budget which, of course, the Government and the Minister are entitled to do.

What are the consequences for senior public and civil servants for not staying within budget, for this huge leakage and for non-transposition of EU directives? Why does Mr. Moloney not see the Department's role as making sure they are held accountable?

Within the legislation and practices that are in place, we have a role in overseeing governance accountability. We do that, as the Deputy quite rightly said, through various frameworks we have that the Deputy is familiar with. In terms of then identifying issues that need to be dealt with, they are subject to audit by the C and AG under the legislation. They come before the PAC and are questioned on the legislation.

The Department cannot impose consequences.

We do not have an enforcement role in our capacity as a Department.

The Secretary General is responsible for reform. Surely, this is an area that badly needs reform. We see consequences in other civil service regimes right across Europe and none here. No one seems to care that €50 million has been wasted on the Irish Rail project. No one seems to care about the electric buses. My constituents are asking me why they do not have more buses in their area, and why they cannot get local buses to move people from our sprawling towns into the town centres and connect them with the rail networks, and I do not have an answer for them. Politicians are accountable on a very regular basis. They are accountable in the Dáil. Ministers are accountable in the Dáil, in the media and at the ballot box but in regard to civil and public servants - I will not say all of them - there are certain Departments and agencies that repeatedly have these issues and there is absolutely no accountability, so why would they learn from it?

Civil servants are accountable in the same way that any other employee is accountable.

In the private sector, which I worked in, this would not happen. You would not have a project where there were serious issues in 2022, where you would pump in millions more and reward the contractor by re-baselining the programme, agreeing to give them a lot more money, and then spend as much in project support to prop up a failed contractor. That would not happen in the private sector. It would have been terminated. It is simply not good enough here.

Very briefly, I will move on to the children's science museum. Who is the chair of the OPW accountable to? Who is their boss?

There is legislation establishing the OPW. I would have to check what the parameters of that legislation are but the chair is a statutory office in its own right.

Surely, they must be accountable to someone.

The Committee of Public Accounts. The chair of the Office of Public Works is an Accounting Officer and is accountable to this committee.

Who is their boss?

They are a statutory officer set up under legislation.

There is no boss.

Typically, as a statutory officer, they would be the head of the organisation. They would be the boss. There is a Minister of State, obviously.

The OPW has been hung out to dry in regard to this project because no Department is going to put their hand up for it. I have serious concerns about this project. I believe it is a white elephant. How we have got here is deeply unacceptable and should not be allowed to happen, but the fact is the OPW is being hung out to dry, and there is the cost. The taxpayer, again, is going to be funding litigation and more issues with this project, and probably some huge termination payment. It is absolutely outrageous. Unfortunately, the Secretary General's Department funds the OPW and it needs to take a more central role in trying to resolve this, if it is really concerned about leakage of public money.

As I explained earlier, we have been involved in attempts to resolve this but they have not been successful and the discussion has been maintained within a very legalistic process.

That is not acceptable. We cannot keep doing this. The chair of the OPW may be accountable to this committee but we cannot resolve it. We cannot fund the issue. We cannot give them instructions to negotiate. It is not acceptable. It needs to be resolved and if that means the Secretary General's Department talking to the Department of the Taoiseach, somebody needs to make a call on this and try and get out of it for as little as possible. It has gone on far too long, unfortunately.

I thank the witnesses for coming in. I want to ask some questions about the Critical Infrastructure Bill. The Bill gives the Minister almost unfettered discretion about what to designate as critical infrastructure. Does the Department of public expenditure and reform have a list of types of infrastructure that would be deemed critical?

I thank the Deputy. I suppose the Bill imposes on the Minister the ability to bring to Government a list of designated projects. They are designated by Government order, to be clear on that framework. On whether we have, in the back of our minds, the first list, I think we have clear ideas about the areas of greatest interest in the sense that for the past number of years and in the national development plan review, we have been really clear that transport, energy and water for housing and competitiveness are the key infrastructural priorities. They are what we fund. In designating critical projects, we would expect critical projects to be dominated by those areas. We have to wait for the Bill to become law in order to go through the process.

Does that list in the back of the Secretary General's mind include data centres?

It is not me that chooses the list. Data centres have not been part of the discussion, although grid capacity certainly has.

Another aspect of the Bill, which from my perspective is one of the worst parts of it - I know the Secretary General cannot comment on it - is the disapplication of section 15 of the climate Act. That is the section that requires public bodies, including the Minister, to perform their functions in a way that is consistent with national climate policy. Where did this come about? The Critical Infrastructure Bill kind of flows from the Accelerating Infrastructure paper. It was not recommended in Accelerating Infrastructure that section 15 of the climate Act be disapplied. Where did it come from if it did not come from Accelerating Infrastructure?

The whole concept behind the Accelerating Infrastructure plan, as the Deputy knows, is to delayer, simplify and, in a reasonable way, speed up infrastructure projects. In that context, all things are looked at. The disapplication of section 15 is obviously a policy matter but it does reflect decisions that are being taken in another piece of legislation. I am trying to remember what the other piece of legislation was. I think it relates to temporary energy generation but I cannot swear to that. There was a model in an earlier piece of legislation where disapplication, in order to make sure the project got delivered, was implemented. It falls to be considered because we are looking around at all options to speed up the process.

The Department had the Accelerating Infrastructure report, produced by it in December 2025, which did not recommend the exclusion of climate obligations but then, when we got the Bill, it was included. Was it the Minister who wanted to include it or did it flow from the Department's own internal discussions?

It is a policy matter, and all policy matters are decided by Government and Ministers.

Yes, but I am asking a particular question about how this particular section of the Critical Infrastructure Bill ended up as it did. When the Secretary General's Department drafted the report that laid the basis for the Bill, this did not exist as a recommendation and then it became a recommendation. Was that because the Minister said, "I am making a policy choice and this should go in"? Then, of course, I do not blame the Secretary General for following his Minister; it is his job to do that. Is that what happened?

As I said, to the best of my knowledge, it was just something that fell to be considered as the Bill was being developed. The Bill was obviously recommended by the report but then the Department would start looking at options. I have not really prepared for this and I do not have to hand a timeline of ministerial involvement in the discussion.

Okay.

Certainly, for the reasons I explained, we are trying to implement the acceleration of a taskforce, but as we implement it, new things come up all the time; new ideas about how to accelerate or what red tape to cut, and we have a number of groups that work on that with us.

Do you consider our legally binding climate obligations to be red tape that can be cut?

The legally binding obligations under the Climate Act are policy and I definitely cannot comment on the merits or demerits of policy.

It is law; it is not policy.

Law is an expression of policy.

Mr. Moloney does not think he can comment on the law.

To the extent that-----

I am not saying you can say whether it is a good law or bad law, that would be policy, but you accept that our climate obligations are legally binding.