Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have a few initial questions, with the first one on procurement, which I have been considering. I might come back in later as I am going through the hard copy of the full report. I have produced legislation and engaged with officials in the Department on quality public procurement. The use of price quality approaches means that rather than going with the lowest price that meets the technical specifications, emphasis is placed on a price quality ratio. This is done successfully in other countries. One of the key issues that has arisen is how quality is measured. That almost comes to the same issue that is being examined in the budget. As we move towards a well-being budget and other indicators, there is a need to find appropriate measures to indicate quality.

I wish to note that project overruns have been mentioned. When a decision was being made on awarding the tender for the national children's hospital, which is a high-profile project, a 25% weighting was given to quality whereas a 75% weighting was given to price. I have pushed for major projects to have a weighting of 50%, at least, for quality. I am interested in hearing more about how that procurement issue is being examined. Specifically, I want to hear about how some of the performance report indicators that have been created as part of the performance report could be useful in developing quality indicators in contracts for public services.

My query on green budgeting also ties into green procurement. I am interested in the witnesses' views on how we can do more to ensure we have shadow budgeting on carbon budgeting within projects, particularly concerning scope 1, scope 2 and scope 3 emissions. We need to include emissions that are in the supply chain as well as those that are in the ground. I want to learn how that should and could be better factored into budgeting and procurement. This is really relevant, particularly for the next couple of years, because the front-loading of action is key. As well as looking to environmental projects, I am interested in the hearing from the witnesses on how we can do better to proof other projects around their impacts. For example, are there things that we cannot afford to do in a particular year because our emissions are too high and they would add too much to our national targets?

I am extremely interested in equality budgeting. I am glad to see it has featured properly in the performance report. I feel like it had momentum before it seemed to get a little sidetracked into piloting. What is the next stage for equality budgeting? Is it happening across all Departments? I have read the examples that were tagged in the report. A few of them are specific, positive measures that promote equality. In the performance review, how can we improve the equality proofing of general decisions? I am not simply referring to specific measures to promote equality for specific groups? If we have a new taxation policy, for example, will we examine its impact on equality? Is a new area of public service, such as a new area of transport expenditure, gender-proofed and gender-analysed? I am asking about the actual proofing of general budgetary decisions, separate from specific projects.

I ask the witnesses to explain more about two aspects of the section on equality budgeting. How quickly will the well-being budget framework be established? Will we begin to see that in budget 2024 or has it begun to trickle through?

Lastly, on the sustainable development goals, I noticed a little bit of tagging in the report. Again, that seemed to be in the equality section. Perhaps the witnesses will comment on how the sustainable development goals might be integrated into the budgetary cycle and how that might fit with the well-being framework.