Public Accounts Committee: Dept. of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform.

Deputy Marc Ó Cathasaigh: I am going to dwell on the idea of the public sector spending codes a bit, for me to be clear in my own mind. There is a 2013 document, a substantial
revision in 2019, and then this updated circular in 2023. I have all the parts. I will quote from
the national development plan, NDP, from a section on the climate environmental assessment
of the NDP review:

“It should also be noted that many of the measures included in the NDP Review are under
development and all measures will still be subject to the full rigour of the Public Spending
Code. This requires, amongst other matters, a detailed quantitative assessment of the specific impact on greenhouse gas emissions a measure will have.”

I have not seen any mention at all of the impact of greenhouse gas emissions in any of those
three documents. That is why I was asking whether I was missing a piece of the jigsaw. It the
public spending code entirely silent on the issue of climate emissions? Is that not part of the
review process at all?

Mr. David Moloney: I will ask Mr. Meaney to answer that. Certainly, in the NDP review,
we looked through some of the projects with a climate lens. When we are thinking about
value for money, we think about adopting, in public works contracts and other things, a whole
lifecycle approach which takes into account carbon emissions. Therefore, certainly within our
general process——

Deputy Marc Ó Cathasaigh: I certainly think value-for-money requirements should include return to the public good.

Mr. David Moloney: Mr. Meaney can possibly answer to the very detail of the public
spending code itself but we are conscious across all we do of the potential cost associated with
carbon emissions.

Mr. Kevin Meaney: There is an additional document of considerable length within the
code, which goes into a lot of technical parameters particularly around economic appraisal
around carbon emissions and how to value those. Our key metric is called the shadow price of
carbon. All large infrastructure projects, when carrying out an economic assessment, should
include the shadow price of carbon, which is based on the embodied carbon within the piece of
infrastructure that is being planned.

Deputy Marc Ó Cathasaigh: If Mr. Meaney says it is in the detailed technical documentation, why is it not front and centre? There was this high-level review among secretary generals
in key capital spending Departments in April 2022, which led to this updated circular in 2023,
and six key principles are referenced there. I contrast that to the national investment framework
for transport in Ireland, NIFTI, for example. That puts the climate Act and the climate action
plan front and centre. I carried out a word search on the NIFTI document. The word “climate”
features 72 times, yet I did a similar search on these three documents and there is nothing. This
is the key spending gateway. It is really where the rubber meets the road. This circular was sent
around earlier this year but I do not see the climate Act or the climate action plan referenced
anywhere. Will Mr. Meaney explain that?

Mr. Kevin Meaney: On the new guidelines being produced for the public spending code, it
is planned to be called the infrastructure guidelines and that is due to be published very shortly.
There is going to be a specific consideration of climate and climate impacts very much at an
earlier stage in the project life cycle. It is not another process. In terms of the technical material
and the focus all Departments should have, however, there will be a greater focus at an early
stage around climate impacts and, as the Deputy said—–

Deputy Marc Ó Cathasaigh: This high-level review among the Secretaries General happened in April 2022. The climate Act was in place at that stage. There have been several climate action plans. Why am I not seeing climate in the key principles if this next piece of work
is right there? When is this going to land?

Mr. Kevin Meaney: The work was already ongoing. We had colleagues from the OECD
supporting on that and looking at international best practice, and the work was ongoing at that
point. The review by the Secretaries General was very around some of the early dialogue on
that balance between what is a robust, sensible consideration at an early stage weighed against
the need to deliver some vital projects. The climate work was ongoing. In terms the shadow
price of carbon, one of the rationales for why a lot of the technical material is on the side is
that targets are changing quite regularly and we are regularly updating the issues based on the
up-to-date targets—–

Deputy Marc Ó Cathasaigh: I am hearing an awful lot of jargon. I am aware of the shadow price of carbon. Let us not have smoke and mirrors on this. This is a key document on how
we direct and spend public money for the public good, but at the moment it is entirely silent on
climate and the life-cycle emissions impact. Deputy O’Connor referred to metro north. That is
key infrastructure that should, in the longer term, have a positive contribution to make in driving down our emissions, and it should be a key consideration in process. It would feature in the
NIFTI, but I am seeing it nowhere at all in the public spending code. When are we going to get
concrete guidelines with respect to the public expenditure of money on huge projects that pays
attention to the climate Act? What is the timeline?

Mr. Kevin Meaney: The new infrastructure guidelines will definitely have a strengthened
focus on climate and the impact—–

Deputy Marc Ó Cathasaigh: When will we see these new guidelines?

Mr. Kevin Meaney: They are nearing finalisation. We will need to go to our colleagues
in different Departments and sectors to have a review, but it will be in the coming months—–

Deputy Marc Ó Cathasaigh: Can Mr. Meaney give me a more specific date? That is very
hazy.

Mr. Kevin Meaney: Our hope is that by year end but definitely, our target is within the first
quarter of next year, at the very latest.

Deputy Marc Ó Cathasaigh: Okay, it is within a shorter period.

Mr. Kevin Meaney: Yes.

Deputy Marc Ó Cathasaigh: I might put a couple of questions on the chief information officer to move to a different subject. We were all very worried and affected by the HSE briefing
that happened, and I wanted an overview of what kind of investment we are putting in subsequently. I know it is sometimes a case of closing the door after the horse has bolted, but what
kind of investment are we now putting in to support the work of the chief information officer?
What kind of overview do we have of the type of cybersecurity incidents that have occurred in
the past 12 months? Are we putting enough investment in there and have we invested enough
to remediate the breach that happened within the HSE?

Mr. David Moloney: We have continued to invest and the Office of the Government Chief
Information Officer, OGCIO, has continued to focus on issues relating to cybersecurity. Of
course, the National Cyber Security Centre has the primary policy responsibility for that. Each
sector provides for its funding and arrangements in respect of cybersecurity but they do that
with the assistance of the chief information officer and the National Cyber Security Centre. I
think it is fair to say that right across the public service, since the HSE cyberattack in particular
and the damage that was done, there is a renewed focus and concern around protection at various levels, so that is something we prioritise, are very aware of and fund directly through the
OGCIO but also within the departmental ceilings.

Deputy Marc Ó Cathasaigh: Turning to the gender pay gap information, the Department
would have a strong role in how other Departments report on their expenditure. This committee
previously recommended that gender pay gap information be included but the Department is
doing it differently, publishing the information mid-year and not in the appropriation accounts.
Is there a reason gender pay gap information is not included in note 5?

Mr. David Moloney: The appropriation accounts land quite a bit after the end of the year
and we are inclined, with information such as that relating to the gender pay gap and to some
extent with EU funding, which was another request for the appropriation account, to publish
that more quickly and get it out closer to the end of the year to which it applies.

Deputy Marc Ó Cathasaigh: How are we doing, in short, on the issue of the gender pay
gap within the Department?

Mr. David Moloney: The statistics are there. The mean gender pay gap means that, on
average, men are paid 5.71% more than women. I think that has improved