Select Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 8 Feb 2023

Vote 43 - Office of the Government Chief Information Officer (Revised)

Chairman

I ask everyone to please turn off their mobile phones. I remind members that while they have full privilege while on the campus of Leinster House, they may only be entitled to partial privilege if they are not on the campus of Leinster House. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

We are discussing the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2023. I welcome the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, Deputy Donohoe, the Minister of State, Deputy Ossian Smyth, and their officials. I invite the Minister to make his opening statement.

Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform (Deputy Paschal Donohoe)

I thank the committee for the opportunity to present the 2023 Estimates for my Department’s group of Votes. I am joined by the Minister of State with responsibility for public procurement and eGovernment, Deputy Ossian Smyth.

The group comprises a significant number of Votes, including Vote 11 - public expenditure, national development plan delivery, and reform; Vote 12 - superannuation and retired allowances, which covers Civil Service pensions; and the Votes for a number of offices under the aegis of my Department, including the State Laboratory, the Public Appointments Service, PAS, the National Shared Services Office, NSSO, the Office of the Ombudsman, the Secret Service, the Office of Government Procurement, OGP, and the Office of the Chief Government Information Officer, OCGIS.

The Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, will address questions relating to the Office of Government Procurement and the Office of the Chief Government Information Officer. I will address questions regarding the other Votes.

Officials from my Department and the bodies under the Department’s remit have played a central role in responding to the challenges of the cost-of-living crisis. I thank all who have been involved for their collective efforts in this regard.

In an overall context, the 2023 total gross allocation for my Department's group of Votes, comprising nine distinct Votes, shows an increase of 3.3% on the 2022 allocation. The overall gross figure for 2023 is approximately €1,053.5 million compared with €1,020 million in 2022. This is driven by an increased Estimate provision to Vote 12, targeted and minor increases to enable the delivery of essential services and, finally, to meet the additional salary costs associated with the extended Building Momentum public service pay agreement.

I will say a word about each individual Vote and provide a little more detail. My Department has a wide range of objectives, as set out in its Statement of Strategy 2021 to 2023. The Department’s mission is to serve the public interest through sound governance of public expenditure and by leading and enabling reform across the civil and public service.

In announcing the nomination of members of the Government in the Dáil on 17 December last year, the Taoiseach stated that the title of the Department would be changed to the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. The relevant order came into operation on 1 February 2023. The Department will develop, and submit for my approval, a new statement of strategy within six months. I will be happy to hear the views of the committee on the priorities for the next strategy.

The net allocation for the Department’s Vote 11 has increased by €4.8 million in the 2023 Estimate. The main driver of this increase is an increased pay allocation provided for in the context of the extension of the Building Momentum pay agreement. The pay allocation also reflects a small number of additional posts for the staffing of the new Brexit adjustment reserve and the national recovery and resilience plan units. In non-pay areas, there is an increase in the grant to Transparency International in order to meet Ireland's obligations under the whistleblowing directive and the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022; an increase in the grant to the Economic Social Research Institute, ESRI; and an increase in the regional assemblies technical assistance grant.

I draw the attention of the committee to the fact that there is a single programme for the Department in 2023 in place of the two programmes in operation last year. This is due to the fact that in 2022 the Department completed a strategic review of its operating model. The Department has since implemented a significant divisional reorganisation and has also set out a number of new ways of working as an organisation. This has resulted in the single programme for the Vote, including working in a more integrated way, focusing on strategic long-term policy, prioritising the climate agenda and driving digital delivery.

The remodelled Department aims to reinforce the synergies across the various strands of its responsibilities, whether they concern public expenditure, public service management and development, or the promotion of transformation and innovation across the public service. The single programme better reflects the activities of the Department, although it does mean there are some challenges when seeking to directly compare the 2023 and 2022 Estimates. The Department’s name reflects a renewed determination of the Government to roll out infrastructure delivery as quickly and efficiently as possible. As Minister, I oversee the process for setting the overall capital allocations across government.

As members know, the national development plan, NDP, was published in October 2021, providing a detailed and positive vision for Ireland over the next decade. It sets out a range of actions to strengthen infrastructure delivery, maximise value for money and ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that projects are delivered on time, on budget and with the benefits targeted at the outset. In 2023, over €12 billion will be made available from the Exchequer for investment in such projects. Reflecting the changed name of my Department, I am currently examining the support structures and levers available across government in order to maximise the delivery of housing, schools, hospitals, roads and public transport.

I will move to the other Votes. Vote 12, superannuation and retired allowances, primarily provides for pension and retirement lump sum costs for civil servants, including prison officers, and pension payments for dependants. The Revised Estimate I am proposing represents an increase of €21 million, bringing the allocation up to €807.6 million, which is 3% higher than the 2022 gross Estimate. This reflects a higher number of pensioners on the fortnightly pension payroll. Other bodies under the aegis of the Department provide important services to large numbers of clients across the civil and public service.

I have provided for a modest increase to Vote 14, the State Laboratory, to allow the laboratory to comply with new EU food safety legislation for analysis relating to food safety; respond to an increased level of requests for toxicology analysis of post-mortem samples for the Coroner Service; and maintain ICT capability to meet the requirements of the 2021 public sector cyber security baseline standards.

For Vote 17, Public Appointments Service, there has been a 6% increase in allocation overall. This will cover the cost of implementing the Building Momentum pay increases for the year. The capital allocation has increased by 8% for a project to replace the recruitment IT system which is scheduled to go to market in the year.

Vote 18 is for the National Shared Services Office. It has played an important role in the reform of public services in recent years through the delivery of HR services and payroll services to clients across the civil and public service. It is leading its largest transformation programme to date, the financial management shared services programme. This went live to eight clients in 2022. The 2023 allocation will enable the continued provision of HR services, payroll services and finance shared services, and also enable the office to progress the further roll-out of financial shared services.

Vote 19 refers to the Office of the Ombudsman. It will allow the various constituent offices to deal with their respective workloads as well as providing for the set-up of the new office of the protected disclosures commission. It will enable continued investment in ICT modernisation, which will support the office to meet the challenges of delivering essential services to the public.

Vote 39 refers to the Office of Government Procurement. This is a key element of our public service reform agenda. Procurement of goods, services and works costs the State €18.5 billion every year. It is essential, therefore, that the public service operates in a co-ordinated and efficient manner to allow professional, sustainable and more transparent public procurement. Some of the main initiatives involve working across the public service to increase the use of centralised buying arrangements; supporting NDP delivery by further developing the competencies of public service bodies in commercial aspects of planning, procurement and contract management; further developing and implementing a medium-term strategy for construction procurement, including through the capital works management framework; further developing the overarching policy framework for public procurement in Ireland, including promoting social and green environmental considerations; supporting Future Jobs Ireland and the climate action plan through focused initiatives in strategic procurement, including the incorporation of social and environmental considerations, in line with the programme for Government; and continuing to enhance SME access to public procurement.

Vote 43 is for the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer. This drives the Government’s digital agenda across the public service. Working collaboratively, it develops and delivers public service digital platforms, making Ireland an exemplar in the delivery of high-quality digital public services. In addition, it provides a suite of common applications, services and supports to Government Departments and agencies under its build to share initiative. The OGCIO is in the process of engaging with prospective client public bodies that seek to on-board during 2023. The OGCIO was established in 2020 with an Estimate of €21.7 million in net terms, which has risen to €43.3 million in 2022. The office is financed from the central Exchequer and Exchequer-neutral transfers from other public bodies, which amounted to €1.2 million in 2022, to meet the growing internal demand for its services, while ensuring that citizen-facing activities continued to expand. The OGCIO was awarded €23.5 million over two years, €18.5 million in 2022 and €4.5 million in 2023, via the European Union recovery and resilience programme, to develop a national low latency platform that will enable all State bodies to avail of the benefits that 5G and other technologies offer in supporting the provision of high quality digital services.

I am happy to present the 2023 Estimates for my Department’s group, approval of which will allow the individual Votes to continue to meet their responsibilities and deliver essential services. The Minister of State, Deputy Ossian Smyth, and I will answer any questions members may have.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

I assume we will discuss the Votes in sequence.

Chairman

The Deputy can discuss them whatever way she likes.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as teacht os comhair an choiste den chéad uair mar Aire sa Roinn seo. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire Stáit arís as teacht as comhair an choiste. I welcome the Minister in his first time coming before this committee as Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. I am going to put questions on a Vote-by-Vote basis.

If others need to do it differently, that is fine.

My first question relates to the Brexit adjustment reserve, BAR, and how much has been drawn down to date. Can the Minister give an indication of what will be drawn down for the remainder of the year and for what purposes?

My other question in regard to that relates to page 3 of the briefing note provided by the Department. There is a reference to the recruitment of staff to administer it. Can the Minister advise how many staff and how much it will cost?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I will begin with Deputy Farrell's questions on the management of the BAR. Currently, it has a total of €5 billion in 2018 pricing. The eligibility period for the expenditure runs from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2023. The bulk of our allocation will come through pre-financing. We have received approximately €361 million for 2021 and €276 million for 2022.

I will answer the question about staff. I will ask my officials to provide the information on the drawdown while I am doing that. We will have two units with regard to the national recovery and resilience plan, NRRP, and the BAR. There will be eight staff within the BAR, which will be one principal officer, two assistant principal officers, two administrative officers, two higher executive officers, and one clerical officer. There will be eight staff overall involved in delivering against the BAR. The total cost of the unit for the BAR and the delivery of the NRRP is €1.5 million. Just looking at the allocation, we will have perhaps €700,000 to €800,000 involved in the cost of staffing the BAR unit. I will come back to the Deputy with information on the drawdown of the BAR.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

I thank the Minister. It is fine if he incorporates the information into a reply to a different question. Two of the Department's primary functions are to manage public expenditure and to reform the Civil Service and the wider public service for the better. We are all aware of the scandals regarding the nursing homes. Some justified it on the basis of keeping costs down for the State, but as has rightly been pointed out by professor of law, Conor O'Mahony, the focus should be on ensuring that the legal and constitutional rights of citizens are not breached. That would be a much better reform. It is one that would ensure there would be no litigation and hence there would be no need for such a legal strategy. As the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, how does he hope to improve the alignment of those two goals, namely, keeping costs down and improving reform of the Department in particular in regard to such incidents?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

In regard to the governance and legal issues referred to by Deputy Farrell, overall across the Government they very much sit with the individual line Departments. We monitor overall governance issues and become involved in issues in which the Department has a very explicit role. In terms of the balance between the management of public expenditure and the fulfilment of the obligations Departments have to citizens, I have an overall role with regard to the allocation of funding to each Department but I then depend on individual Departments to seek to get the balance right between the use of that money and the competing demands with regard to it.

On the point about the recent public debate on nursing home charges, I will very briefly refer back to the report on this topic that was published by the Attorney General yesterday. In the report, he made clear the rights and expectations of citizens who were in nursing homes that some of the cost of that care would be supported by the State. That was very explicitly legislated for by the Oireachtas on many different occasions. What was not legislated for in this particular area of public interest is that the State had an explicit role to meet the cost if a citizen for any reason needed to avail of a service through a private sector service provider. That has been made very clear in the report from the Attorney General yesterday. To deal with the broad question regarding how this is dealt with by the Government today, it is a balance that needs to be struck by each Department, and we play an overall role in the allocation of funding.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

In the context of managing public expenditure versus reform for the better, which is the context in which the Department was set up, our views on that particular strategy might differ. Are there strategies in place which may help to manage costs but breach, for the want of a more correct term, the reform function in terms of people's rights? How does the Minister manage to balance the reform function coming into play as well? In a situation where something could potentially cost vast sums of money, the Minister will have his public expenditure hat on, but at the same time he must examine the issue in the context of wider reform.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I will go back to Deputy Farrell's question on the Brexit adjustment reserve fund before I respond to the question she has just put to me. In terms of spending to date on it, provision has been made in budgets 2022 and 2023 for Brexit mitigation projects which will be included in the final BAR claim. These amount to €390 million overall, and further allocations will also be required in 2023 in respect of spending for developments in Rosslare Europort. What I refer to there in particular is the kind of change that might happen to upgrade the infrastructure to ensure that we can better meet the customs sanitary and phytosanitary, SPS, checks and control needs that will require to be delivered at the port for UK goods traffic. It is €390 million overall. I will come back to the Deputy and the committee with further detail on that spend, and any spend that we might accrue in 2023 with regard to BAR funds.

To go back to the point the Deputy put to me a moment ago, where we do differ is the very large amounts of money to which she referred to which the State would potentially be liable if it looked to fulfil an obligation which the Oireachtas did not legislate for. The cost commitments, which were created in this area, were as a result of successive Acts of the Oireachtas and the additional potential liability on which we differ, as is made clear in the Attorney General's report, which is at issue, are rights for which the Oireachtas did not legislate and the State did not create the expectation that we would be able to fulfil.

The broad point she makes regarding the trade-offs that exist between the management of public expenditure and the reform agenda of the Department is a very fair one.

It is frequently the case that to realise more medium-term benefits through spending now and to recoup benefits tomorrow through reforms, claims and legitimate needs like that can face stronger competing claims from how we meet the needs of today and fund urgent needs in our existing public services. For this reason, the Department looks to maintain an overall reform agenda, particularly within the public service, with regard to the digital transition, modern HR practices and procurement reform, to try to ensure there is a central impetus in the reform agenda of Government.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

To follow up righting the wrongs of the past, this committee have been heavily involved in the updating of the protected disclosures legislation. It appears from the funding allocation that the protected disclosures office has been established. Will the Minister confirm that it is now up and running and that it is now actively seeking protected disclosures at this point?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

It is up and running. It does not necessarily play a role in seeking protected disclosures. Its role is to be the appropriate and strong recipient of disclosures and to manage them in a way that is in accordance with the legislation to which the deputy just referred.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

It is up and running and those people who would like to make a protected disclosure can do so at that office at this point. Is that correct?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I am sorry, I missed the Deputy's question. I was just looking at a figure.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

No problem. The point is that it is up and running now and if somebody wanted to make a protected disclosure, he or she could do so at this point?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

Yes, that is correct.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

The Minister may be aware that I have introduced my own Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Bill 2021. To be fair to the then Minister, Deputy Michael McGrath, he took on board many of the recommendations from this committee and recommendations that I put forward as well. However, I was always very clear with the Minister that I still had some serious concerns regarding some failings in the new legislation. One concern was with regard to making the legislation retrospective and the impact that has on people making protected disclosures. We have heard very powerful testimonies from witnesses in this committee of the very real-life impact that making protective disclosure had on their lives. I had drafted an amendment to do this, which I felt was probably one of the most crucial aspects to do. However, it was not taken on board at the time. If the Minister is ever looking to amend the legislation again, I will 100% be bringing that forward to him again.

Another issue I had been raising was the provision of free legal aid and psychological counselling services to whistleblowers. I see there is an estimated increase of 42% under subhead A15. Is all of that financing going on the setting up of the office? Are there some additional moneys available there? Is that something the Minister would consider with regard to whistleblowers? At the end of the day, we as a society have a huge debt to these people because of their ability to come out and speak truth to power and bring some of the scandals that we have seen in the past to light.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

Regarding the figures on the costs, the vast majority of that cost is simply going into the setting up of the office and the work that is needed to make sure it is fully operational.

Regarding free legal aid, it is up to the office to come to me and my Department and make any proposals it wishes to ensure that those who make protected disclosures are not deterred by a high level of legal fees or costs that they might be concerned about in the future. To give some information in relation to current policy and how we are looking to respond back to the issue the Deputy has raised, since 2017, my Department has provided a grant to Transparency International Ireland, TII, to assist in the operation of its Speak Up helpline and the Transparency Legal Advice Centre, TLAC, to advise and assist workers in making protected disclosures. Anybody who calls the helpline will be assessed under the TLAC practice area and could be offered support if it is deemed appropriate and may even be offered an appointment with a solicitor. Those who were involved and have availed of this free legal advice have up to this point, on average, attained legal advice with a value of approximately €10,000. The increase for this grant in 2023 is from €285,000 to €405,000. Through our engagement with TLAC and TII, we look to provide support for any legal costs that may be incurred in the making of protected disclosures.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

We heard at first hand from the people who were affected by making protected disclosures. I feel strongly that it should have been retrospective. That not being the case has had a severe impact on these people

My final question under Vote 11 is around the new name of the Department and the reference to NDP delivery. Anything that hopes to improve the delivery is very welcome. I am looking forward to seeing what happens in relation to that. What is the Minister specifically focused on doing regarding the speeding up of delivery? We saw the underspend in terms of capital expenditure last year and we often hear about significant capacities within the construction sector as well.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

With the Department, I am currently evaluating what steps can be taken to deal with the issue of delivery. The increased level of capital investment within our economy in 2016 stood at well below €4 billion. For 2023, it is just above €12 billion, so over seven years it has tripled. I want to look at the steps we can take that will lead to the spending of that capital allocation inside the year for which the funding is made available. This work is not yet completed. I am working on it with my officials and with the Secretary General of the Department. The areas I am looking at include the role of the oversight body for our national development plan, the operation of our public spending code, the role of different organisations, and if they need further support. They are instrumental in turning money into reality on the ground. We are also looking at the impact that inflation, the changed economic environment and the lack of key skilled staff in a number of areas is having on the delivery of projects. I do not propose an extended inquiry into this. I am aiming to draw this work to a close in the next few months, no longer than that. We will then work with my Department to turn our name change into a mandate change.

I look forward to talking to committee members about this work at another time.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

I welcome the Minister. As he indicated, his title has changed since his appointment in December. I am sure he will agree that a change in title is not sufficient and that there has to be a change in function and expertise within the Department to ensure there is delivery of the NDP. How does he see resources within the Department being allocated to ensure there is not just a change in name but also a driving on of delivery of the NDP?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

There are three different areas of consideration. The first is the question of how, within the existing structure and resources, we can get to a point at which we are not just looking at how we manage and even contain expenditure within a given year but also how that expenditure translates into the delivery of a small number of very important capital projects for the Government. At this stage, I do not believe getting to that point will require a significant resource change. I say that because when I look at how Vote 11 is set up, so much of it goes towards the Vote teams, the staff of which have an incredible understanding of the operation of the Departments they engage with and monitor.

Second is the work the Department already has under way regarding how we can put an additional resource against how we deliver the NRRP and the Brexit adjustment reserve fund. When we are looking at additional resource, we are looking also at the question of whether a very small number of State bodies will need additional support within the year to deliver against the expectations the Government has of them.

The third area I would look at is how we can support the work of the Minister of State, Deputy Ossian Smyth, and the Office of Government Procurement in our procurement strategy for the year. Again, as with the first point, I do not believe this will of itself involve a huge amount of additional resource, but it will involve looking at how we use the existing resource in a different way.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

I thank the Minister. How does he envisage the interaction between his Department and other Departments in respect of the delivery of the NDP? Looking at two areas, the NDP has a big responsibility, for instance, in the delivery of public housing and of infrastructure in respect of climate. What does the Minister see as being the interaction between his Department and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, say, or the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications? Does he see any material change in the way Departments will interact with each other to ensure delivery?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I see two areas of change. The first will be through the operation of the oversight body for the NDP. In that body, which consists of senior civil servants, the two Departments the Deputy referenced already are appropriately and strongly represented. The issue I want to consider is whether the oversight body is playing a proper remit in the delivery of capital spending inside a given year. The second area, on which I need to do further work, is the question of what the interaction will be between individual Vote teams within my Department and the Department whose expenditure the team manages. I will consider whether that needs an adjustment or rebalancing in light of the changed mandate of the Government. In the first area, I am clearer regarding the need to look at the oversight body. The second area will need a little further thought and work to see whether it is an axis of engagement that needs to change.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

Is the Minister satisfied that we are not simply seeing a change of nomenclature and that there will be actual changes in governance and delivery from his Department as a result of the change in responsibilities?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

The truth is that there is always a risk it will only be a change of name. That risk is there, and the Secretary General and I are very much aware of it. That is why, in answering a question Deputy Mairéad Farrell put to me, I made the point that this is a change of name that has to become a change of mandate. It is something I am determined to do. As a first stage, I will be completing an evaluation process I have put under way on some of the topics Deputy O'Callaghan has just raised. Out of that, I will bring some proposals to the Government in the coming months. When that is done, there might be an opportunity to brief the committee on how we are trying to go about doing more than changing the name of the Department.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

I have one more question on Vote 11. The increase in the funding under the Brexit adjustment reserve is a result of the recruitment that is going on. The Minister may have dealt with this in his exchange with Deputy Farrell. Where are we on that? Is the recruitment ongoing at present?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

Is the Deputy referring to the Brexit adjustment reserve unit?

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

Yes.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I understand the recruitment is complete. There are eight individuals in the Brexit adjustment reserve unit and ten in the NRRP unit .

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

What are the people in the Brexit unit doing?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

They will be doing three particular things. First, they will be engaging with the European Commission to ensure we are accessing the money on time for projects that meet the criteria of the fund. Second, when the funding is accessed, they will work with Departments to ensure the money is spent in the way that is intended. Third, they will look at both the communication of that work and how we can verify with and prove to the Commission that the money is being used as intended. The last point is at the heart of our success in securing cohesion funding. We gained the worthy reputation of using cohesion funding well. Given the Brexit adjustment reserve was set up following calls from Ireland and a few other countries, I am determined to be able to show the EU that we are using the money in the way that is intended.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

I thank the Minister.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I welcome the Minister and the Minister of State and congratulate them on their new roles. I have a few questions for them. Public procurement is a very important issue at present. There are many obstacles, some perceived and some real, that have dogged delivery in public procurement over many years. What can the Minister or Minister of State tell us at this stage about the way in which they intend to go about dealing with that issue, recognising that we must advertise adequately, allow the various participants to be assured their case is being properly dealt with, and eliminate unnecessary delays, which is obvious, while, at the same time, going through the necessary procedures to protect the public interest?

Minister of State at the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform (Deputy Ossian Smyth)

That is a very good question. The Deputy and committee members will appreciate that public procurement has to work within not only Irish law but European law. We are constrained by that. There are basic principles that apply when the State is buying goods or services. It must do so in a transparent way. It must act in a non-discriminatory way that enures everybody gets a fair chance. It must give good value and it must get good quality. We have to achieve those aims. There is a difference between private procurement and public procurement in that a private sector body procuring goods and services is not constrained legally in that way.

One of the most important things the Office of Government Procurement has done in recent years is set up the Commercial Skills Academy to train public sector buyers in how to buy things in a way that ensures quality and value for money. The office is providing that service.

In other words, it trains procurement officers in charge of purchasing in government divisions to buy in a way that delivers value to the taxpayer. It does not have to involve central government; it could be a local authority.

We also want to ensure small and medium businesses get their fair share from Government expenditure. We do not want circumstances in which only large companies win business. As it happens, the majority of the moneys spent by the State already go to SMEs. To make sure that happens, I regularly meet representatives of the SME groups. For example, I met representatives from the Small Firms Association and many of its members this morning and answered their questions on what we can do to improve procurement. Very shortly, I will be presenting to the Government a revised set of guidelines on how it can purchase things in a way that favours small businesses. Those guidelines have been drawn up by working with the representatives of small businesses, Enterprise Ireland and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to ensure we have rules that favour small business. As part of this, we propose to change the procurement thresholds. I will not give away everything in the relevant document because it is at draft stage, but our proposals for the Government will really have been worked through with the representatives of small businesses so the latter can get more of the money the Government spends.

We have seen a change in Government expenditure policy in recent years whereby the Government has continued to spend in the face of negative effects in the world economy. Public sector expenditure will be a very important part of keeping the economy, including small businesses, afloat in the future.

Small companies trying to win business from the Government have to apply online. They have to go through the eTenders system to win a bid. We are delivering a new eTenders system this year. For the first time in many years, we will be replacing the entire system and training companies to use it. It will make it significantly easier to bid for a Government contract. When one bids for a second contract, one’s information from the first will be stored on the system, meaning one does not have to type it all in again, and so on.

The Office of Government Procurement has many things to work on this year and has made considerable progress. I am happy it is going in the right direction.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I thank the Minister of State. May I explore the matter further? Complaints I have received over the years have mostly been from small traders who wanted to tender for the provision of goods or services. Some found it very difficult. I could never understand how it could be difficult if the procedure was followed exactly. Will there be particular emphasis on the need to ensure everybody’s tender gets viewed and processed and is put into the draw?

Deputy Ossian Smyth

I have not had a complaint to date that people’s tenders are not being considered. Once you bid for a contract, you really have to be treated equally in law along with other bidders. The process is complex the first time a company bids for a Government contract, particularly if it is a small organisation. A very large organisation might be so large that it has a division that does nothing else but bid for Government contracts. Such an organisation gets used to the process and is skilled in it.

What I would say to any small company that desires to bid for a contract is that it should take part. If it finds at some point in preparing a bid that it needs help, it can contact the tender advisory service in the Office of Government Procurement. It has a helpline and offers information to guide businesses in the process. The contracting authority - the body running the competition, which might be the Department of Health or Department of Defence - will answer a question a company has on a particular bid; however, if the company is still confused about the whole process after the question has been answered, it can go to the Office of Government Procurement and seek additional information. In some cases, a company is so small that it is unlikely to win the bid. It may be felt that its turnover is so small that it is taking on a job that is far too large for it to handle. That is understandable, for example, if the size of a contract is a multiple of the company’s turnover in any one year.

We say to companies that have specialist skills and feel they could compete well that they should join consortia involving larger companies so they can take part. That is something we try to do. We have also advised public sector bodies to divide very large contracts into lots. Where there is a catering contract, for example, there could be one for the south east, another for the north west, and so on. This allows for smaller contracts that appeal to smaller companies with a regional focus.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

The most important point is that the tenderer is satisfied that his or her tender is examined adequately. One cannot qualify or should not qualify a tender, even though attempts have been made to do that from time to time.

I will not tell the Chair the anecdotal evidence circulating but I dealt with a lot of it in times gone by. I am referring, in particular, to cases where people said they had been tendering for ten years but never got through the process. They asked how that could happen and I had to investigate. I instructed the person concerned to put in several tenders under different headings or companies. That sorted it out fairly quickly. It is like the three-card trick man in that if you know what is under A and B, what is under the middle box is obvious to everybody concerned. I am anxious to ensure that what I describe cannot arise.

I will move on to the question of European law. To what extent do we examine the continued advance of European law in such a way that it might restrict the ability of the State to do what is necessary at any given time?

Deputy Ossian Smyth

We have a role in forming European law at the Council. In addition, we examine how other jurisdictions cope with European law, because they face the same rules. I asked my Department to engage with the Dutch procurement body to determine whether it was taking a different approach and whether there was something different that we could do that would give a better outcome for companies. In any procurement competition, there is only one winner, meaning everybody else is aggrieved. One party is happy and all the other companies feel let down. That is the nature of the competition. There are more dissatisfied people at the end than satisfied people.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

They are happy enough if they are satisfied that due process has prevailed. It is important that they, in addition to the Government, have confidence in the system.

Deputy Ossian Smyth

Any company that fails to win a tender is entitled to the information on why. It is entitled to find out what it went down on.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

Given recent developments, how will retrospective legislation make progress on or inhibit Government policy and budgetary processes, for example? We produce a budget every year, and five years later we have to introduce something we should have introduced before. On what basis can this be done? Is it legal? If the Government does not adhere to the budget, it has a problem. If it fails to deliver or respond adequately to pressing needs, it is an issue for it at that stage, but if, as in several situations at present, it has to retrospectively spend what it should have spent five or ten years earlier, based on the expenditure not having been Government policy before, what is the position? I see references to strategies, for instance. It is not a matter of strategy but of Government policy at the time. Policy is of particular significance.

Any deviation from it can leave Government heavily exposed. I emphasise that not as a criticism, but merely as one who has watched the system over a number of years. We have all seen countless situations in relation to good causes that emerge after the event. That should be strictly provided for, but the State cannot overly indulge in responding retrospectively to good causes in such a way as to endanger the integrity of its finances.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I make two points in respect of the Deputy's excellent question. The first is that there are inevitably going to be trade-offs between how we respond to legitimate challenges and issues of the past, including those of yesterday, recent years or further back, and how we meet the needs of today, let alone in the context of how we invest in the future. Those trade-offs may not always be visible to the Oireachtas, let alone to our country, but they are there. The most basic example is that in the summer economic statement, the Government accepts a recommendation and agrees on the overall size of the budget for the following year. Within that recommendation, an indication is given regarding how much funding will be available for new policy decisions. If Governments engage in spending programmes to set right or respond to issues from our past, it absolutely will influence the amount of funding that is available to deal with the issues of today and tomorrow. That is not to say that we should not respond to many legitimate matters that we, as an economy and a society, are grappling with; it is simply to say that there always are trade-offs.

That leads me on to my second point regarding how we manage those trade-offs. In seeking to decide the balance between money that we allocate to deal with the issues of the past versus the issues of today and tomorrow, part of our consideration in that regard is whether we are being asked to spend taxpayers' money in respect of issues that were Government policy in the past or were explicit priorities that were legislated for by the Oireachtas. That is really important in then determining how we should allocate today's money against yesterday and tomorrow. The Government that has already made significant allocations to deal with legacy issues - economically, in the context of mica and defective concrete blocks, and, socially, to try to provide some alleviation and recognition of the harm and suffering that was caused in mother and baby homes. In making such decisions, we always have to be aware of the balance that the Deputy suggested.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

Is there any danger that a trade-off may set a precedent for future deliberations?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

Yes. There is little doubt that how the Government responded in respect of properties that were ruined by mica in turn framed the response it had to make with regard to dealing with apartments that were affected by defects. When you make a decision in one area, it frames decisions that you may make in the same area in the future. That is why then when the Government gets into issues relating to the eligibility for public services or eligibility to access public money, we have to be so careful in ensuring that we understand the consequences of decisions that are made, and how that could play out across all of Government.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I have a couple of other questions, but I will ask one final question on this subject. In the context of building faults that emerge after the event and it falls to the Government to us Exchequer funding to remedy them, apropos of nothing but apropos of everything, I am interested in those that did not have faults, those whose construction was in keeping with the best possible standards and where no liability landed on the State afterwards. How do we proceed in that regard in terms of equality of treatment? For example, what if I were involved in large construction contracts and decided that I was going to cut corners all over the place and avoid my responsibilities - and insurance companies avoided their responsibilities - despite the fact that legislation is in place in that regard? The Building Control Act was supposed to carry with it responsibilities for insurance companies, professionals, local authorities and everybody else. Obviously, none of those responsibilities was shouldered. If they had been, the State would not have had to dip its hand into its pocket. It was a very urgent cause.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

The Deputy's questions reflect the key point to the effect that on the issues that I have referred to regarding legacy construction issues, for both of those matters it did involve the standards of that time not being met, either in construction or in the use of raw materials. Of course, that is really relevant to the decisions that Government has to make.

On the Deputy's question regarding on how we then look at how we can recoup some of the cost, this has been a very challenging matter for the Government because, for example, when it comes to these construction issues, in many cases the companies that were involved in the work that gave rise to these issues are either no longer around or are no longer around in the same way or in the same form. This means that the State has to assume a higher cost.

I will make two final points. This is why it was worth having the debate and making a difference in bringing in the concrete levy. It may ultimately be at a value that is lower than I proposed. Nonetheless, having a measure like that in place for the many years that it will be in place brings in money that makes a difference. We should do that because it is a principle worth standing over. Second, it is why the work that the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage has under way regarding a new regulator in this area is going to be so important. That is something that I very much support. It is worth acknowledging, though, that looking at much of recent building that has taken place in Ireland for commercial and residential property, the standards for those building that are now required to be met are so different to where we were a number of years ago. That is a very positive development to ensure that there is less chance of a recurrence of these issues.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

My final questions relate to Vote 14 - State Laboratory. Has the State Laboratory been modernised sufficiently to allow it to meet the requirements relating to, for example, food hygiene or the Coroner Service, as the case may be?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

The way we are doing that is through the recruitment of new staff. Those staff are being recruited to allow the laboratory to meet some of the standards to which the Deputy just referred, in particular those that the Coroner Service has with regard to post-mortem samples and those relating to the new EU legislation on food safety.

The way that need is being met at the moment is through the recruitment of staff. I should also say that the budget for training and development for that organisation is now also increased by 15%, or €50,000, from €325,000 to €375,000, so there is additional training for existing staff as well.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

Is it possible in its present format for the State Laboratory to expand its operation to deal directly with the various questions raised either from hospital analysis or from other sources, such as animal analysis? Are those laboratories sufficiently alert and do they have sufficient capacity, expertise and equipment to be able to deal with almost any source, or do we still have to export the samples?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

They are in a position to meet the needs of many different clients, which range from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine all the way across to the Office of the State Pathologist. They have an incredibly wide range of clients whose needs they must meet. Do they have the ability to meet those needs? Yes, I believe they do, but it is also worth saying that this is an area in which we are experiencing significant recruitment difficulties. We had an underspend in the pay subhead for this organisation in 2022 and the main reason for that was challenges in recruitment. The management of the State Laboratory are bringing forward work and plans to look to address the recruitment delays we have in the third quarter of this year. I believe they can meet the needs. Can they always do better and can they better meet the needs of the clients they have? I am sure that is the case, as it is the case with any State agency. As I have said, the particular challenge we have is how we can recruit highly specialist staff in this area.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

Is it possible to expand their services to cover more of the requirements arising from the health sector and hospitals in regard to either new or existing diseases or the analysis of various requests that come before the health services? Is it possible for the national laboratories to expand their services to deal with those, rather than having to send them abroad?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

On a couple of occasions, the Deputy has raised the issue of the sending of work abroad. I do not have that detailed information regarding what share of their work is performed outside the jurisdiction but I will ask my officials to get some information on that, given the Deputy has raised it twice. What I can tell him is that the kinds of targets that the State Laboratory has include, for example, the aim of analysing 14,800 different samples across the year, of assisting our coroners in the delivery of 4,000 different statements and of supporting the tests that need to be done to the amount of 700,000 tests in 2023. The level of output for this body for this year is very high and was very high in 2022. I will come back to the Deputy on the issue of what kind of work is sent from our laboratory to laboratories outside our jurisdiction.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I will make the suggestion that we expand the laboratories to cater for the kinds of situations I have referred to. It would obviously be more reliable, provided we have the expertise, to deal with these situations at home rather than to have to export them.

There are another couple of small issues I want to deal with on the Vote.

Chairman

I am conscious of time.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

We are going Vote by Vote.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I am going through the Votes.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

I was doing Vote 11.

Chairman

Deputy Farrell wishes to come back in.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

Do no worry. I will not be left quiet.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I have to ask about the secret service. How secret is the secret service in this country and do we get good value for money there? I expect we do.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

As the Deputy will know, the officials of the Comptroller and Auditor General oversee the issues in regard to use of money for the secret service Vote and that is a task they take very seriously. They verify the use of the money for the activities of those it was meant for.

In regard to the operation of the secret service Vote, at this point, I have to ask the Deputy to bear with me as I say to him it has been a custom of the House for some time that I do not answer questions in regard to the use of money for that Vote. That is for very good reasons and I ask that the Deputy respects that tradition with regard to this Vote.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

Of course, I respect it. I will invite my colleagues to come back in.

Chairman

We have had a submission made to us by retired health officials, and that is set out in report No. 42. We had the Minister, Deputy Michael McGrath, here and we were asking for a response as to why they are not getting the payments that are due to them, as recommended when they won their case. They continue to fight for the payment they were awarded. We have not got a response from the Department to the issues raised. Will the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, respond to the transcript of the meeting which was provided to his officials and give us an explanation as to why those affected, who come under report No. 42, are not being paid what they are entitled to?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

This refers to staff who were working for the HSE. I am advised that efforts were made to reach agreement on this matter but they were not successful. I understand the matter will be subject to a Labour Court hearing on 17 February. Therefore, at the end of next week, there will be a Labour Court hearing that I am sure will play a role in bringing the matter to a conclusion.

Chairman

Given the failure to reach a conclusion on this up to now, which side was holding out? Was it the Department or those affected? It has gone on for years.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I know it has gone on. It relates to a report from 2007 so it has been going on for 16 years now. I am not aware of which side was playing the stronger role here in terms of agreement not being reached but, clearly, there was a very significant disagreement if this issue has gone on for so long.

Chairman

Okay, we will come back after 17 February and pursue the matter again.

A number of senior civil servants and those in universities and the world of academia have years added to their pensions on retirement. How many have benefited by this practice over the years? For example, how many benefited last year? What is the cost difference to the State?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

We do not have the information available here but I will get the information and write to the committee.

Chairman

Just to be clear, we are looking for the numbers involved, maybe over a number of years, and then the cost and so on.

With regard to the procurement process, I want to raise the issue of the International Protection Accommodation Services.

The Minister oversees the different Departments, the procurement process and so on. Why have so many of those providing accommodation services and so on to the State not been paid for months? In one case it has been four months. They are providing a service for those from different parts of the world who have been displaced, and specifically for the Ukrainian population. They are paying food bills, energy bills and all the rest of it, and they have not been paid.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I am aware of this issue. It came up in the Cabinet committee on Ukraine at the start of last week. I understand that due to the volume of claims and payments needing to be processed, it is not happening at the speed which those providing services want and should get. The reason, as I said, is due to the number of claims being administered by the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. I understand that efforts are now being made to provide more staff to turn these claims around more quickly. I accept the problem raised by the Chair. The Department is aware of it and we will take what steps we can to ensure the people providing these services are paid more quickly.

Chairman

Is the procurement process being adhered to? How are these properties being procured in the first place? Is it in line with what the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, said earlier on? If it is, there has to be examination of the property and there has to be a contract in place. There has to be an agreement for payment at a particular time. Is the Minister of State aware of how all of that is achieved?

Deputy Ossian Smyth

I am not aware, but I can tell the committee what the rules are. The situation is that the Department is the contracting authority - it engages in the contract and follows through on the procurement rules. I expect it would be done through emergency procurement. In that case they would not have to follow all the rules because they are in the position of trying to house people who have arrived on a plane in the past few weeks. They are trying to find any accommodation they can as quickly as possible. I do not know whether in the terms of the contract there is a clause specifying when the money would be paid, but I expect that there is. They are legally bound by whatever they have signed up to. The answer to the question is that they are unlikely to be following the normal rules of procurement. They have probably gone through emergency procurement and taken out a rapid contract with whoever the supplier is.

Chairman

I take it from the Minister that it has been discussed by the Cabinet, which is aware of the overall problem through the country, and that steps are being taken to address it.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

Absolutely. It was discussed last week.

Chairman

Okay.

I understand the case that is being made on legacy issues. I am sure the Minister has read the The Irish Mail on Sunday and has seen the headlines - both outside and inside - about issues in the Department of Health and the HSE. There is a whistleblower called Shane Corr. His name is a matter of public knowledge. What does the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform do about that? Is the Minister concerned about the procurement processes in the Department of Health? Is he concerned about the money that may have been lost in the administration of that Department, as outlined through reports in The Irish Mail on Sunday and through television programmes that included commentary from the whistleblower, Shane Corr? What is being done about that?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I understand the disclosures from Mr. Corr were made directly to the Committee of Public Accounts, which has considered them. We engage with general issues around value for money within the health system all of the time. If I were to identify any area of Government expenditure that is the subject of high levels of focus from my Department, it would be the expenditure within the Department of Health. That is simply because its expenditure levels have grown so much in recent years. The issues to which it is responding are complex and very demanding. We help the Department and work with it on the use of money. I know the Office of Government Procurement would like to play a greater role in procurement practices in the HSE as they relate to the sourcing of goods and, at times, services by different hospitals. As the Chair knows, in many cases hospitals still have independent management structures. We do a lot of work with the HSE and the Department of Health in this regard.

Chairman

Some of the allegations made by Mr. Corr seem very concerning from the position of the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. The Minister can tell me if I am wrong, but I would have imagined that his Department would have reacted immediately to those allegations to determine the truth and the facts of the matter and to insist on the Department taking the appropriate steps to address or correct the issue. Does that happen, or is it left solely to the Department of Health?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

It has happened in this case. However, the organ within our State which performs that role is the Attorney General. At the heart of this issue is entitlement to public services and funding. It was therefore appropriate for the Attorney General to do the work he has done over the past week. We then made the report publicly available. Mr. Corr is providing a valuable public service with the issues he is raising, as do whistleblowers in general. However, where my views may differ from those of the Chairman is that I believe the heart of the nursing home charges issue is that the State has never legislated for us to be obliged to deal with costs relating to private nursing home care. That is the key issue.

Chairman

I understand that. Separate from the issue that received the main headline, other issues relating to the Department of Health were raised inside different editions of the newspaper. It is those issues I am asking about at the moment. Does the Minister get a report from the Department of Health on each of those issues? I am not necessarily referring in this case to the refund issue.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I understand. We engage with the Department of Health at official level beyond weekly on issues that are raised publicly and that matter to both Departments. Yes, we do. The understanding of both the Department of Health and my Department regarding the use of public money by the HSE and our health and social services has, in my view, very significantly improved and changed in recent years. We accept there are issues we need to do better on. I am aware of the reports raised by the Chairman and the material supplied by Mr. Corr. We look at these issues all of the time with the Department of Health, regardless of whether this is prompted by information in the public domain.

Chairman

Finally, I will turn to refunds, although not necessarily specifically on that issue. That the Department has a legal arm to stonewall a person until such time as discovery is asked for shows the might of the State against the individual. Not many individuals can stay the course until the point of discovery. They will just leave it. I have seen the same tactic - I will not call it a policy - used with many whistleblowers. One can pick any of them, including those who are publicly known like Maurice McCabe, Noel McGree, Julie Grace and Seán O'Brien etc. They would have to pursue cases that cost a fortune to have their rights vindicated.

Surely we will come to the point where, rather than any Department spend money stonewalling a citizen, there is an obligation on the Government to observe the rights of that person and not spend a fortune defending the indefensible. That is being missed in this discussion because that has been the attitude of the State right down through various Governments. It defends, stonewalls and stalls and it uses legal tactics to ensure the person, be it an individual or family, is utterly defeated. Then the State learns no lessons from it.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

The whistleblowers the Chair has referred to, with the information they have made available to us, have played an important role in our public life and in helping us improve how we make public services available to our citizens. The issues the Chair has raised are the reasons last year the Minister, Deputy Michael McGrath, brought in legislation to improve our whistleblower regime. That is also why we now have an Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner. It is to try to respond to the important issues the Chair is raising and to try to treat those who are bringing forward information for the public good in a better and more fair way.

Chairman

I will finish by saying that in the case of Noel McGree a decision has been made and the Department continues to refuse to honour the outcome. There is an outcome and a report in the case of Julie Grace but there has been no sign-off on the report. This has gone on for years and years and it is the same with Sean O'Brien. I could name more cases but there is a trend that reflects the attitude I am trying to explain. For those whistleblowers who are still awaiting the outcomes or having their cases dealt with, they should be dealt with efficiently and in an upfront and honest way by the State to bring closure, one way or the other, and I would encourage that to happen. I understand that the new legislation is in place and I would encourage whistleblowers to use that service and legislation, where cases are emerging, to ensure their voices are heard.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell was going through the Vote.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

Sometimes the fact that I am half-German comes out in me and I do things in a direct way. I was listening with interest to what the Chair was saying and he put it well when he described the experience of this committee when it comes to people coming up during our deliberations and us seeing the impact. I hope that going away from this meeting the Minister understands the importance the committee places on fairness for whistleblowers.

I will go to Vote 12. It links back to a question I was asking earlier and it links specifically to pensions and retirement. It is about the Department's two roles in managing expenditure and promoting positive reform. We know from the past, due to commissions of investigation and so on, that a lot of money has been paid by the State for all of that. We also know that people have not always felt that accountability has come to the fore and that we have not always seen the positive reform many would have hoped for. One of the proposals that came out of the Mahon tribunal on pensions was quite interesting to me. It was that Oireachtas Members who were found to have engaged in certain types of gross misconduct could have their pension rights withdrawn. In 2012 this proposal was endorsed by Deputies from both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. The current Ceann Comhairle and the current Minister for Finance supported it and the former Minister for Justice, Frances Fitzgerald, supported it and she went on to say it could be applied to senior officials. Then it was suggested at the time that the then Government was planning to establish a constitutional convention to look at the matter. Has that been considered since and would it require a referendum?

I ask about the referendum because back in 2012, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael McGrath, who was not a Minister at the time, was of the view that a referendum would not be required. I will mention and highlight it to him again in relation to that former view on an ethics review. He had said there was some legislation on the books already that dates back to the 19th century that could potentially be amended to achieve this. I had a quick look to see if this had been done in other jurisdictions and I found some examples. Under the European Commission's code of conduct, a Commissioner can have their rights to a pension or other benefits withdrawn if they breach certain legal obligations. In India, a former Government official can have their pension withdrawn or reduced if found guilty of grave misconduct. Is this something that was raised after the Mahon tribunal and is it still being considered? Would it require a referendum?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I want to be of help to the committee in pointing out that Oireachtas pensions are not paid for from Vote 12; they come from the Central Fund. What will be paid for here are the pensions of civil servants.

On the two questions the Deputy put to me, I am not aware of the matter having been given consideration for many years and I have not considered it. Since I have not considered the matter I cannot give the Deputy an accurate answer to her question on whether it would require a referendum. However, I would expect that there would be significant issues of property rights that would at least require legislation. I am not in a position to inform the committee this afternoon whether it would require a referendum beyond that.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

On Vote 14 for the State Laboratory, I noticed that the Minister mentioned in his opening statement that this is to help the laboratory to comply with new EU food safety legislation. Have there been requests for increases in funding to look at how the State Laboratory could be used in different ways? I have seen that in other countries it could sometimes be used if a particular medication has a huge cost for people due to patent issues, for example. Has that been looked at?

My other point is on something that was noted in the briefing document on the State Laboratory. There was an increased level of requests for toxicology and analysis of post-mortem samples for the Coroner Service. I wonder if the Minister would comment on that as well.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

There have not been any demands placed on the State Laboratory to perform the kind of assessment of medicines or drugs the Deputy has referred to. My understanding is that the Health Products Regulatory Authority, which is the main regulatory body in that area, would evaluate and regulate medicines and life science, rather than the State Laboratory.

On the demand for toxicology services, I understand that there has been a significant demand for more tests within this area. Given that there is more of a demand for these tests, there is an increased time to respond back and the State Laboratory will be looking at what steps can be taken to reduce the service times in this important area.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

Vote 15 is on the secret service and I noticed that every year the estimated cost is the same figure. What projections are used?

My committee colleague, Deputy Durkan, highlighted it well when he said ours is probably the most secret secret service out there when we consider that in other countries it is fairly well known among the general population that there is a secret service. My first question is about the figure being the same every year. Why are there not increased projections for our secret service?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

The projections are done on the basis of looking at the outturn from the previous year and the evaluation the Comptroller and Auditor General provides of the use of that funding. Therefore, the outturn for the previous year is looked at and my Department, in conjunction with other Departments, then forms an assessment as to what the appropriate and necessary figure will be for the following year.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

Deputy Durkan will be left wondering about our secret secret service. It is a secret in Ireland but not in other countries. The secret service could be all around us. Who knows?

As for Vote 17, relating to the Public Appointments Service, something else that was dealt with at length on the committee before Deputy Donohoe became Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform is the significant pay increase we saw for a senior official. It was above the bar and, obviously, as the Minister will be aware, was a matter of significant public interest. Our committee, along with the Committee of Public Accounts, issued a joint report on the matter. At the time we requested that the Commission for Public Service Appointments, CPSA, appear before the committee as the regulator of public service appointments. It felt that it was inappropriate for it to come before the committee to discuss that matter. I did not really understand the rationale behind that. One of our concerns at the time was that granting such pay increases could set off similar demands in other positions. I had seen recently a report in the media that senior officials in another Department had sought quite significant pay increases. Does the Minister share the concern that a significant pay increase in one Department may well have knock-on effects?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

This is why it is important to look at these issues in the round and why the Minister, Deputy Michael McGrath, established an independent review panel in respect of the issue of recruitment to and remuneration for senior posts in the Civil Service. We need to assess what the appropriate level of remuneration is for some key posts at Civil Service level and in our semi-State bodies. I expect to receive the report on that matter either at the end of the first quarter of this year or early in the second quarter. That will then allow me and the Government to consider what the overall strategy is on pay at the most senior level of our Civil Service.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

I look forward to our having that conversation at that point. I just felt that those reports indicated that the concerns we had raised on the committee were perhaps coming to fruition, but I respect that we will look at that in more detail at another point.

My other question about this Vote relates to the new requirement post 2030 that 20% of the Civil Service will have to speak Irish. Has that been factored into any change in the Estimates at this point? I am aware that there is a committee looking into this, but is it doing so in the context of the Estimates? Furthermore, is the Government taking a wait-and-see approach until 2030 or is it looking to increase recruitment before 2030?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

We are working on it now because it is a very challenging area. As the Deputy will know, the Oireachtas enacted the Official Languages (Amendment) Act on 22 December 2021. That Act includes a target that one fifth of all new hires by 2030 must be proficient in Irish. We have a long way to go. At the moment, according to an audit undertaken by the Irish language commissioner in 2022, it is estimated that 0.4% of posts are designated as Irish-speaking and that only 1% of hires to the Civil Service annually are certified as fluent in Irish. We therefore have a lot of work to do now to make progress on fulfilling that goal in the legislation. The Public Appointments Service, PAS, is now holding general Civil Service competitions in Irish at clerical officer level all the way up to principal officer, PO, level. As the Deputy will know, it is already the case that some Departments and Government offices may recruit fluent Irish speakers through their local recruitment licences as well. We also have a research project under way with the University of Galway that will lead to the preparation of a national plan for Irish-language services.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

There is one thing that always stands out to me and that I do not understand. It is something we can probably use in the Dáil Chamber but it is not used, although it will be seen in other countries. I think it was in use when Ursula von der Leyen was here. I am sure the Minister sees it all the time in his other role. We do not use the interpretation services in the Chamber. Sometimes things I want to raise affect places where people speak Irish. Sometimes, however, I might have only a certain amount of time to speak, and then I will have to choose one language in which to speak because, obviously, I want the Minister to be able to answer my question. I am not trying to trick him or her out; I am just trying to get the answer to the question. However, I also want to represent the people in the language they speak and use daily. The interpretation services are something we all should probably look into using more in that sense. It should not be considered that a Member is caught out if he or she uses headphones. They should be seen as just normal to use - as they would be in other countries and, surely, in the EU and so on - because we use different languages in this State.

To move on to Vote 18, relating to the National Shared Services Office, can the Minister confirm how many public bodies it was intended the NSSO would serve and how many it currently serves? Furthermore, how many bodies have yet to be brought in under the NSSO?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

Approximately, we now have HR shared services supplied to 44 public service bodies, payroll shared services supplied to 57 public service bodies and financial shared services provided to 48 public service bodies. They are the three different services the NSSO provides and they are supplied to between 44 and 57 different bodies. As for the target for bringing in additional public service bodies, I will have to come back to the Deputy as to whether we are looking to bring any new organisations into the NSSO. At the moment, however, I would say the vast majority of them are covered by the NSSO structure.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

I think I read in one of the briefing documents that eight Departments are currently involved. Am I correct about that? What is the update on the other Departments? Are they not to be brought in? If they are, what is the timeline?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I think the eight to which the Deputy referred are under the financial management shared services programme. The aim is to bring in another eight this year.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

Another question I have is about something that has been raised with me by quite a lot by friends and constituents and just in general. I thought I would ask it in the context of the NSSO, but it may not come under this Vote.

If we have these kinds of shared services that presumably use some kind of modern accounting software, would it be possible for workers to choose how often they are paid, whether it be weekly, bimonthly or monthly? Many people who are paid monthly find it more difficult to manage for the end of the month. Especially given the rising cost of living at the moment, is that something that could be looked at? I would imagine if things were done on a software, presumably it would not be that difficult to change it.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

From my understanding, the vast majority of civil servants are paid either weekly or biweekly. We think very few are paid monthly. Would it be possible to change the frequency of payment? I would imagine that would be a tough thing to do because it is part of the employment contract. I imagine that the State, as an employer, would also have to consider the cash flow consequences involved in changing the frequency of payment and allowing employees to determine when they want to be paid. However, I do not think the Deputy asked that. I think she asked about employees putting a request in as to when they will be paid. That would probably be a difficult request to be able to fulfil across all of our public servants. In any event, I understand that nearly all are paid, at most, fortnightly.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

I also noted that there was a 67% increase in the cost of non-pay administration for the NSSO, which went from €9.9 million to €15.5 million. Can the Minister advise what that relates to?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

What expenses is the Deputy referring to?

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

The non-pay costs. I have to look at it for myself.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

This is all due to IT costs. It is administration non-pay. The NSSO, understandably, is a heavy user of IT. A significant investment incurred in the renewal of annual licences. There was also an increased IT allocation to allow the upgrading of an important IT system for the NSSO.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

Okay. It is quite significant. At that cost, they would definitely be able to change the biweekly to weekly.

Moving on to Vote 19, I ask about freedom of information, FOI, given that there is proposed legislation coming down the line. It is another area that I drafted a Bill on. However, given the reality of the way these things operate, more than likely, the Minister’s Bill will come forward before mine. One of the things my Bill proposed to do was oblige public bodies that refuse an FOI, but then on appeal have to give out the information, to refund the applicant the cost of the appeal. If the public body was then required to disclose the amount paid out in refunds in its annual reports, this would give an indication of how well that body was performing its obligations with regard to FOI. Does the Minister have any plans in that regard?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I have asked that I am recused from legislation in that area for the time ahead. I believe that is the appropriate step to take. The Minister for Finance, Deputy McGrath, will be dealing with that matter. I understand the FOI legislation will come in front of the Dáil for Report Stage shortly. I will ask my officials to pass on to the Minister, Deputy McGrath, the issue the Deputy raised for consideration in advance of it reaching the Dáil.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

He is actually in the committee next week, so I can ask him about that. I had not put the two together. My other questions might be the same, but I will ask some of them regardless and see how we get on.

The Office of the Ombudsman, unlike the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, has the power to initiate its own investigation and it does not require complaints to be made to it by the public, which is a positive thing. As the Minister is aware, it is something that I had been raising previously. Would I be right in saying that the Office of the Ombudsman, if it is investigating the wrongdoing on the part of a public body, can only make a recommendation for redress and that the Minister has the power to veto an investigation? Is that correct?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I will have to check that for the Deputy. I am pretty sure that she is correct in saying that it is a recommendation. I am reasonably sure that is the case. However, I will have to double-check for the Deputy.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

On that as well, if that is the case, the Minister can check if a veto is then reported. If the Minister vetoed an investigation and if that is reported in the Ombudsman’s annual report, that would be of interest as well.

I have a few questions on SIPO but I might bring them to the Minister next week. I might just move on to Vote 39. I might come back to this because I have a number of questions. I just have to double-check. On Vote 39 in relation to the Office of Government Procurement, OGP-----

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

Could I interrupt the Deputy briefly? While she is raising some matters about the OGP with the Minister of State, Deputy Ossian Smyth, I will step outside for one moment.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

No problem.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I will be right back for any further questions the Deputy has.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

Is it the case the Minister of State will be tabling a Bill this year that will place the OGP on a statutory footing? Is that correct? If that is the case, can the Minister of State outline his reasons for doing that?

Deputy Ossian Smyth

No decision has been made to change the statutory nature of the OGP at this stage. There is not a draft Bill or a heads of agreement or anything. There have been suggestions made that the OGP should be more independent in its function, but no decision has been made by Government on that.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

On data collection, is the Minister of State satisfied that the right amount and right type of data is collected to use public spending for more strategic purposes, such as industrial policy purposes? We can spend up to €19 billion on public procurement, but I find that there is very little data to show where it is going, to what effect and, indeed, how it is benefitting communities. I am aware that the OGP does its tendering and spending analysis. However, that is not done on an annual basis, so there is a lag between the time the data is collected and published. This means that the data, when published, is already quite outdated. In addition, it only covers a sample of the total spend on procurement.

Deputy Ossian Smyth

The more data that is available, the better. For example, when procurement frameworks are produced where there is a recommended supplier, data is obtained from the supplier on how many times that framework was used, which gives us some indication of whether the framework has been useful. We are able to calculate cost savings for different Departments. A job is done whereby cost savings across different Departments are calculated and there is an indication then to what extent the OGP is saving money. One of the key performance indicators for the OGP is cost saving and that is reported in the budget every year.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

Does the Minister of State think there is room to increase the amount of data that is being gathered, collected and looked at? In a lot of senses, that would only help us in ensuring that the way we spend the money is of greater benefit.

Deputy Ossian Smyth

The data being collected needs to be relevant to the goal trying to be achieved with the function of the office. The principal responsibility for expenditure will still lie with the contracting authority. The Department taking out the contract and spending it should be collecting the data. It is important for us see whether the frameworks we make are being used and the degree to which we have compliance with the spending.

In other words, we get a report back from the Comptroller and Auditor General every year to say to what extent each Department or each procurement officer has been running competitive procurement over different contracts. That is the proportion of the contracts that went through a competitive process, so that we can rank and see which Departments are doing well and which are doing badly. We do not just gather data for the sake of it but we should be collecting anything that is relevant on a regular basis.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

It is my understanding that previously the Office of Government Procurement, OGP, had a public works framework agreement for modern methods of construction suppliers and I heard recently that is no longer the case. Can the Minister of State confirm if that is the case? If so, why is it the case given that a number of Departments are looking to promote modern methods?

Deputy Ossian Smyth

The Deputy is referring to a different framework from the construction works management framework, which is being reviewed and updated. I do not have data on that one with me.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

I would love to see that. If the Minister of State could inform the committee, that would be brilliant.

Deputy Ossian Smyth

If the Deputy has suggestions on what data she does not see in the report that she thinks would be useful and would show whether the OGP is performing correctly and she thinks I should collect that data, she can ask me and I will see if I can get it.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

I thank the Minister of State. I am working on a Bill at the moment relating to that, so I will speak to the Minister of State about that. I have one last question. I want to be careful how I phrase this because I do not want to allude to what I am thinking of. If something goes out to tender and I am successful but I do a really bad job and cannot get it done, it has to go back out to tender. Another authority might look to hire me if I put myself forward again but it might not be aware that I failed really badly in what I was supposed to do and that as a result everything was delayed for a very long time. Is there a database so that another authority does not accidentally hire me when I could not do the job before?

Deputy Ossian Smyth

The perception that a supplier has performed a contract badly is not enough to exclude them-----

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

What if the contract had to stop as a result and it had to go back out to tender?

Deputy Ossian Smyth

-----even if the contract stopped. One would have to prove and have evidence that the supplier was the party at fault. A contract might stop because it had been really poorly specified by the buyer. One might have ordered something that was impossible to deliver or that would take too long or that did not actually solve the problem. If the contract stops at some point, to prove, to determine or to have evidence that the supplier was at fault, a court judgment, for example, is the kind of thing that can be used.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

What if there was a court judgment?

Deputy Ossian Smyth

In that case, a supplier could be excluded from making another bid in the future. I think the Deputy's question at the start was whether there is a network for different public sector buyers to tell each other that somebody has been convicted or has been successfully sued. Was that the question?

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

Yes, because if the supplier was found in court not to have-----

Deputy Ossian Smyth

I am not aware whether there is a channel for buyers to share information on particular suppliers who have been found to be non-compliant.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

Could it be the case that if I had been found in court that I had not been able to do whatever I needed to do, was supposed to or contracted to do, then another public body could end up hiring me again?

Deputy Ossian Smyth

That is a very fair concern to have and I am happy to look into it or investigate it and give a more detailed response.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

That would be great. I thank the Minister of State. I might talk to him afterwards.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

In answering a question from Deputy Farrell, I mistakenly believed that she had referred to the protected disclosures legislation. I said I had recused myself from that but my officials told me she was actually referring to freedom of information legislation.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

Yes.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I misunderstood her and obviously misheard what she was raising. The freedom of information legislation process is still under way. I will be involved in that and where it stands at the moment is that there will be a final review report presented to Government for consideration in the first quarter of 2023.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

I thank the Minister. My question specifically related to a person putting in a freedom of information request, not getting the information they asked for and appealing it, which costs money. If it is found that the body should have given the information, would the Minister consider refunding the cost of the appeal to the applicant - this is something I had in my Bill - and requiring the body to disclose amounts paid out in refunds in its annual report? If, on appeal, the decisions of certain bodies are constantly being shown to be incorrect, surely that should act as a deterrent. We want information to be as open as possible.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I am happy to have a look at that.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

Go raibh maith agat.

Chairman

That brings us to a conclusion in terms of our consideration of the Revised Estimates.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

Chair, can I ask another question?

Chairman

A last question because we have to be out of here.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

It will only take a minute. It is my favourite subject.

Chairman

There is no such thing as a minute, but go ahead.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

It is about financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI. To what extent have all the outstanding matters regarding FEMPI been discharged at this time? We had discussions, which the Chair raised, on public confidence in the system, how reliable it is and how far the public can assume that it means what it says. I have had, as I am sure other members have, queries from members of the public sector to the effect that some small elements of FEMPI were still outstanding and remained to be fulfilled.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I imagine the number of FEMPI changes still in place, from a pay point of view, are very few given that the wage restoration process under way is more than complete for the vast majority of public servants. What that query may refer to is the requirement that those in the pension scheme make greater contributions to their pensions in the future. That is a long-standing feature of the changes we made since the FEMPI legislation was brought in that I have no plans to change.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

On the payments promised to various public servants, for instance, the Covid-19-related payments, awards, special awards etc., we got an answer to that earlier. However, to ensure promises are kept to the best possible extent in the shortest possible time and to ensure public confidence in the system, can we expect those payments to front-line workers to be made in the shortest possible time?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I believe the majority of those payments have been made but I will ask the Department of Health for a further update on the matter.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

There are quite a number of them still outstanding, unfortunately. I thank the Chair.

Chairman

The Minister has some information that he will share.