Vol. 1065 No. 4
89. Deputy Mairéad Farrell asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform in relation to the national development plan, his plans for additional investment in infrastructure in the west of Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15892/25]
The Minister knows Galway, the west and Connemara. He has seen the impact Storm Éowyn continues to have in certain parts of Connemara and across Mayo. It is very clear from the impact of this storm and Storm Darragh that we seriously need investment in basic infrastructure throughout the west of Ireland. The need in this regard is particularly acute in certain parts of Connemara and Mayo. Will the Minister outline what plans he has for additional investment?
As Minister for public expenditure, infrastructure, public service reform and digitisation, I am responsible for setting the overall capital allocations across Departments and for monitoring monthly expenditure at departmental level. The responsibility for the management and delivery of individual investment projects or sectoral policy strategies within the allocations initially rests with the individual sponsoring Department in each case. Each Minister is responsible for deciding on the priority programmes and projects that will be delivered under their remit within the national development plan, NDP, and for setting out the timelines for delivery. As a result, expenditure is allocated and monitored on a departmental basis.
The Government has committed €165 billion of funding for capital investment under the NDP to 2030. An additional €2.25 billion was allocated in 2024 as part of an update to the NDP which set out revised capital ceilings from 2024 to 2026. In budget 2025, almost €15 billion was made available from the Exchequer for investment in public capital projects, along with €3 billion of funds from the sale of the State’s shareholding in AIB. This level of expenditure is pivotal to consolidate the progress already made, to support balanced regional development, to address key infrastructural bottlenecks more rapidly, and to lead to further improvements in living standards and competitiveness.
In addition, the recently agreed programme for Government sets out that the Government will prioritise an early review of the national development plan, which will be completed in July 2025. The review of the NDP will encompass all public capital investment, as I have mentioned, and will utilise State funds to support increased capital investment levels.
The northern and western region has already seen significant delivery of infrastructure under the NDP in the context of housing and many other projects.
I can list a number of regional transport projects that are important for the west. I could also refer to the national broadband plan and other important priorities.
The Deputy has seen the NDP and some of the projects listed in it. We are reviewing the plan and updating it in the context of the additional capital that is available and that will, as we have stated, be allocated in strategic areas. That will be completed by the summer.
I will be seeking a briefing on the review of the NDP and where it stands. The Minister mentioned housing, which is one of the basic infrastructures needed across Galway, Connemara and the State. I have to ask the Minister, because this was a hugely important issue during the general election campaign, about this number of 40,000 homes. The Deputy was Minister for Finance at the time. I am aware that he is now Minister for public expenditure. It is my understanding that he was advised on 6 November that the target of 40,000 homes would not be reached, but the Government parties continued to put that out to the public. This has a real-life impact on people. The housing crisis and homelessness are having a real-life disastrous impact on so many people. It is really serious to not have full transparency in that regard. Did the Minister bury this matter? What did he do with the information? Why was he not transparent about it? Who else in the Government did he tell? These are crucially important things the people should know.
I reject the Deputy's assertions in respect of that matter. What she outlined relates to CSO and Central Bank data that was already in the public domain and that as debated in the Dáil on the day it was published by her colleague Deputy Doherty and the then Minister for housing, Deputy O'Brien. There were lots of projections across the public domain, and the Government obviously said it was disappointed with the final outturn relating to housing completions. That is why, in the context of the NDP review, we have set out that housing will be a central priority. We are particularly focusing on transport, energy, water and housing to unlock further supply in our economy. These are central to what we have set. As stated, the information the Deputy referenced was not new. It related to CSO and Central Bank data which was published in the weeks prior to that, and that is the context.
This was information that the Minister had. It was information that the Central Bank was pointing to housing outputs for 2024 similar to or slightly below the previous year. Does the Minister genuinely believe that people can have faith in the delivery of the NDP or of what the Government is saying about housing now when, during the general election campaign, two days after the information had been received, it told people that it would hit the 40,000 target? Did the Minister genuinely believe this target would be hit when he was in receipt of information like that? Does he think people can have faith in that? This is a huge crisis that is impacting on most people. There are women who cannot even leave women's refuges because they do not have anywhere to go. There are children who are in homeless accommodation or who cannot even access such accommodation in Galway city and county. This is really serious. Did the Minister honestly believe that the 40,000 target would be hit, even though he was were getting figures or briefings like this?
The Minister for housing responded to that on the day the CSO figures were published. There were lots of-----
I am asking you.
-----different projections which set out higher levels of completions and which were in the public domain. As has been previously said, the Government is disappointed with the final outturn of 2024.
Disappointed is not good enough for people.
That is why central to the review of the national development plan will be housing supply and infrastructure delivery.
Does the Minister think people can believe that?
We have a lot of constraints and barriers when it comes to housing supply which we need to unblock and which are undermining our ability to deliver the overall level of supply required to help people in the communities we all represent.
But they are not.
Similarly, investment in transport infrastructure unlocks housing development.
Are they going to sleep on buses?
We know about the deficit in water infrastructure. Supporting the capital plan Irish Water has will be fundamental to unlocking the overall housing supply we require. In addition, there are the many of the other capital projects the Deputy referenced around refuges and other areas of priority. That is why we are reviewing the NDP. We are also looking at the delivery systems that underpin capital investment. These need to be strengthened and streamlined in order that we can accelerate delivery from concept to completion.
Does the Minister think people can have faith in that?
90. Deputy Ged Nash asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform for an update on the proposed revised ethics legislation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16243/25]
Will the Minister provide with an update on the Government's plans, as contained in the programme for Government, for updated ethics legislation. He will be well aware that we have been waiting a number of years to see the enactment of legislation that was committed to in the 2020 programme for Government. In fact, it first took draft legislative form in Brendan Howlin's public sector standards Bill in 2015.
I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue. As he is aware, in the recently agreed programme for Government, we agreed to update the ethics in public office legislation. This is on foot of a wide-ranging review of the legislative framework for ethics in public life that my Department undertook during the lifetime of the previous Government. The report relating to that review was published in February 2023. The report's recommendations include that the legislative framework for ethics should be underpinned by a set of overarching integrity principles, that disclosure requirements should be strengthened to improve transparency and that consideration should be given to whether the regime should encompass more office holders. The report also recommends a strengthening of the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO. I am conscious of recent further recommendations in relation to ethics that will also need to be considered in the context of this reform.
This is an area that is complex and that requires careful consideration. I intend to look in detail at the outstanding policy issues, including those I have outlined, and to try to find an appropriate way forward to fulfil the programme for Government commitment. My ultimate goal is to create a fit-for-purpose, easy-to-understand and user-friendly ethical framework that contributes to the quality, efficacy and transparency of our system and builds on the strengths of our existing framework.
I hope the Minister will agree that the standard for this legislation, for want of a better description, was set in the 2015 legislation developed by Brendan Howlin, my then colleague and one of the Minister's predecessors. It has been a considerable number of years since the commitment was made. We have had three Governments since the 2015 legislation was introduced. We have had the review, to which I contributed. I think there were merely ten submissions to that particular process.
Whether the Minister likes it or not, there is a renewed interest in ethics and standards in public life with the invitation to Michael Lowry to participate in Government. The latter was viewed by the relevant tribunal as a corrupt figure, something he has not challenged in the courts. This is a matter of major and genuine public interest. When will the Minister develop the heads of a Bill and bring it to the relevant committee?
In the context of the engagement with the Government Chief Whip and the Attorney General on the legislative programme, that is obviously legislation my Department has responsibility for. We have said we are going to engage in a review. Deputy Howlin was an excellent Member of this House. He did an excellent job in the role I am in. He brought forward the Bill in question, which has not made its way through this House. That is why we are undertaking a review of the statutory framework which the former Minister, Deputy McGrath, advanced. What we are doing is trying to draft that legislative framework in the context of the legislative programme. We will then fulfil the programme for Government commitment. When I have further information about what is possible in terms of a timeline, I will provide it to the House.
The review is ongoing. We will prioritise the drafting of a Bill when we have agreed a legislative framework around it. I want to fulfil the programme for Government commitment and advance the legislation.
There was a commitment in the previous programme for Government. The Deputy spent time as Minister for public expenditure and reform in that-----
I did not.
The Minister has clarified that. I am happy to accept that. I hope then he will bring some renewed vigour, if I can describe it as such, to this particular process. This is fundamental. Parliamentary democracy is a fragile flower. We have seen across the world how bad actors can exploit situations of corruption or perceived corruption. The consequences of that are happening across the world. It is happening on our screens all the time and is having real impacts in the context of the election of populist right-wing leaders to positions of power. When the framework is revised, new obligations are going to be placed on elected officials and public officials, as has been advised in, for example, successive reports from SIPO.
Does the Minister agree that people with criminal convictions should be prohibited from being special advisers to Government Ministers?
I thank the Deputy. Through this legislative reform, we want to have an effective updated standards framework. Such a framework is integral to the quality and efficacy of public governance in our State. It needs to be future-proofed in that context. The regulation of conflicts of interest is obviously central to building trust in public institutions and in the objectivity of public service decision-making. We have the review that was carried out, the previous legislative proposal and other reports. These will all will inform the broader evidence-based context for how we try to draft this proposal. My focus is to fulfil the programme for Government commitment. When we manage to formalise a particular draft or heads, we will engage through the Oireachtas process in terms of pre-legislative scrutiny. We will engage with parties across the House in making sure that it is a fit-for-purpose public governance framework that updates the ethics legislation appropriately and in line with best practice.
91. Deputy Mairéad Farrell asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform his plans for the public procurement system, and to better align it with strategic goals and ethical considerations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15893/25]
I am a big believer in looking at how we use our public procurement system. When I was on Galway City Council, we ensured that there were ways to employ, through social clauses and so forth, people across Galway. There are so many real positives we can use through our public procurement system. Given everything that is going on in the world at the moment, I am of the view that they can be used very wisely. What plans does the Government have to align our procurement system better with strategic goals and ethical considerations?
I thank Deputy Farrell. The programme for Government includes a commitment to review the public procurement process to make it more transparent and to encourage greater participation by SMEs and other entities the Deputy has just spoken about. Working towards this aim and in the interests of setting out the strategic direction of public procurement for the next five years, my Department is developing a first national public procurement strategy. Last week, I launched a public consultation, which is being run by the Office of Government Procurement, that will inform this strategy. The consultation is open for eight weeks – there are seven weeks left at this point – and I encourage SMEs and social enterprises to use this opportunity to help shape the public procurement system.
A key ambition of mine, as Minister of State in the Department, is to make public procurement more accessible for SMEs in the interests of making it easier for them to tender for Government business. That is why I am asking for their feedback through the survey and through workshops we will be running in different regions.
Ultimately, this consultation will inform our strategy, which we expect to be innovative, sustainable and transparent around public procurement that supports competition, ethics and value for money. Groundwork has already begun on this. In June 2024, my Department published a policy statement, Developing a New Public Procurement Strategy for Ireland. In September, in partnership with the European Commission, it ran a national strategic dialogue workshop on the use of green, socially responsible and innovative public procurement. The outcome of this dialogue was the publication of a roadmap towards the new national public procurement strategy.
In parallel with this, the EU Commission launched a programme of review of its procurement regime. That has now commenced, and my Department has been active in engaging and collaborating with counterparts in other member states on this. The Commission has signalled that a draft text will emerge in 2026. It is quite likely that this might happen while Ireland holds the EU Presidency.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire Stáit. I welcome the fact that the Government is having that consultation. It is welcome that we are all thinking more about this issue, whether in the context of SMEs, social enterprises, as the Minister of State outlined, councils and so on.
The EU has long been calling on member states to use the public procurement system in a more strategic way to support industrial policy objectives. Data collection oversight of our public procurement system is poor in comparison with EU peer standards. The data reports we tend to get from the Office of Government Procurement are generally two or three years out of date when they are published. If we are to better use our procurement system, the first step is to have better access to recent data in order that we can know what is happening. That must be interoperable with other public data registries. Our current system seems antiquated in that regard, particularly in comparison with the systems that obtain in other countries. I produced a Bill at the end of the previous Dáil which would begin to move us in this direction. Would the Minister of State be willing to work with me on that?
I have not seen the Deputy’s Bill.
That is okay.
I am absolutely happy to look at it and to sit down with the Deputy to discuss it.
Data collection is a key issue of concern for me. I have tasked the Office of Government Procurement to look at how we can better collect those data. Looking right across the spectrum, from SMEs to social enterprises, it is important to consider how much is being tendered versus how much is actually used at the end of a project.
The Deputy referred to ethical sourcing. The Office of Government Procurement has, as she will be aware, a sourcing division that employs 127 staff. All of those staff have successfully undergone ethical procurement training, which the Deputy might be interested to hear. The Chartered Institute of Procurement Supply, CIPS, has awarded the Office of Government Procurement certification in ethical procurement. As part of that, it has received the Ethical Kitemark accreditation and is also included on the CIPS corporate ethical register, which is a really positive development.
That is really good. I am delighted to hear the Minister of State talking about data collection. I did a survey a few years ago asking different public bodies about their use of social clauses. One body responded by saying that it paid the minimum wage. Obviously, that is not a social clause; it is the law. You have to do that.
I wish to flag another thing, which comes on the back of the Minister of State’s mention of ethical considerations. It is good that staff of the Office of Government Procurement have done that training because we can all do with extra training. The EU Commission has stated that there is nothing precluding member states and contracting authorities from including ethical considerations as a criterion for awarding contracts. A significant number of local authorities in this State have passed motions supporting ethical procurement policy. It is always really good when councils are looking at this as well. The response they keep getting from their respective chief executive officers, however, is that this would infringe upon the EU’s procurement directions. When the statements of the EU Commission are presented to them, they maintain this position even though it flies in the face of reality. Will the Minister of State commit to speaking to the Office of Government Procurement about this matter?
I am happy to speak to it about that matter. It is worth noting that the feedback I have been getting is that local authorities often source locally. That is really positive. We need to ensure that this is baked into our frameworks going forward to make sure we are being socially aware and that transparency, value for money and efficiency are top priorities for all procurement, whether that is in the context of local authorities or the various Departments.
We have a sourcing team to support any Department, local authority or bodies like the HSE when it comes to sourcing particular goods. I encourage more of our procurement experts in these entities to reach out to the sourcing department in the Office of Government Procurement because its staff are procurement professionals who have a great handle on this matter. This expertise is available to them and it can be used to help them shape their tenders, applications for competitions or smaller bids. It can also be used to help them source suppliers. That is an efficient use of Government resources.
92. Deputy Sinéad Gibney asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform if his Department has taken any steps to address issues with the fast accrual (uniformed) single public service pension scheme for uniformed services recruited after 2013; if his Department plans to address these issues; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16472/25]
The changes to the public service pension scheme in 2013 essentially created, first, an anomaly and, now, something that has crystalised into policy in respect of fast accrual. Has the Department taken any steps to address issues with the fast accrual single public service pension scheme for members of uniformed services recruited after 2013, specifically the lack of a supplementary pension until they reach State pension age? Has the Department any plans to address these issues?
The single public service pension scheme is a statutory public service career-average defined benefit pension scheme, established on 1 January 2013 under the Public Service Pensions (Single Scheme and Other Provisions) Act 2012. The single scheme was established to place publicly funded retirement benefits on a more sustainable footing in the context of longer life expectancies. All new entrants to the public service hired after 1 January 2013 are members of this single scheme.
Members of the Permanent Defence Force, firefighters, members of An Garda Síochána and prison officers are categorised as members of the uniformed accrual cohort of single scheme members. The uniformed grades have certain enhanced benefits that other members of the single scheme do not have in recognition of their earlier retirement age, such as early payment of scheme benefits. This enables them to accrue more single scheme benefits over expected shorter public service careers in these roles. Once members of the uniformed accrual cohort reach their normal retirement age as provided for in section 26 of the 2012 Act, they can retire at that age and receive their occupational retirement benefits accrued at a higher rate, including their retirement lump-sum and pension benefit payments.
These benefit payments are separate from, and in addition to, any future entitlement that they may have to the State contributory pension, which is administered by the Department of Social Protection.
While members of the Defence Forces and other uniformed accrual members have mandatory retirement ages lower than the State pension contributory retirement age, they are still able to work in other employment in the intervening period while fully accessing their single-scheme pension benefits, subject to abatement, where applicable, if in the public service. In 2024, in recognition of changing demographics and a desire for each member of the fast-accrual category to continue working for longer, the Government enacted Part 11 of the Courts, Civil Law, Criminal Law and Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) 2024. This allowed work to be done by officials in my Department and those in other Departments. The legislation allows for an increase in the mandatory retirement age for uniformed staff to 62 years for those who choose to avail of it and applies to single scheme and pre-existing public service pension schemes. I will get back to the Deputy on the rest of it.
I will jump on one phrase the Minister used. I know it has been essentially a policy that Government spokespeople have used. It is that people are "able" to work after the age of 55. I raised this question on the back of a meeting I had with Dublin firefighters and their union representatives last week. They spoke to me about the specific dangers that their vocation introduced into their lives. They simply have lower life expectancies and poorer quality of life after retirement and higher incidences of cancer and addiction. Recent research from the World Health Organization, WHO, backs this up further. It is not good enough that we are simply saying to firefighters and people in those uniformed services that they can just work after that age. The stopgap of bringing it forward to the age of 62 is welcome but it is not enough and the Minister knows this because, as an Opposition TD, he tabled a motion in 2019 related to the Defence Forces that highlighted this issue. Will the Minister please tell me what he is actually going to do to help those firefighters who are retiring at the age of 55?
I will finish by giving some further context. We brought forward the increased mandatory retirement age for those who choose to avail of it. The legislative change also allows uniformed members of the single scheme to continue accruing referrable amounts towards their occupational pensions for the additional years now worked. These members will continue accruing pension benefits on a fast-accrual basis up to the age of 60.
Another issue that is occasionally raised by the single scheme uniformed members is access to a supplementary pension, which exists in pre-existing public service pension schemes. However, supplementary pensions have never been a feature of the single scheme, nor is it envisaged that they will be. The wider context, which the Deputy can appreciate, is to try to have some sustainability in the overall pension system, which has been well flagged by many external and independent experts.
We all engage with many uniformed service members of the State who do an incredible job on the front line. However, we are trying to get the balance in the context of what represents a longer term risk. We see the actuarial analysis around that in terms of the total pension liability the State has.
I appreciate the liability of the State in terms of pension services but the fact that the supplementary pension has not been a feature since 2013 shows that these uniformed services are a casualty of that policy.
Besides the moral obligation we have to these workers who have provided crucial services to our society in the course of their careers, I would also speak to the retention issues that this drives. In a recent survey of more than 2,000 members of the services recruited after 2013, fewer than 1% were not concerned about their pensions and three quarters of them did not believe that they could serve until the mandatory retirement age, partly due to the pension issue. This means that, rather than waiting until age 55 - according to Government policy, they should then seek other work - they are asking themselves at the age of 40 whether they should seek other work. This is leading to the issues we are seeing with recruitment and retention in these crucial services that our communities rely on.
I appreciate the feedback the Deputy has received. I regularly engage with all the uniformed members myself. I again acknowledge the work they do. The context of the 2013 scheme when it was introduced meant that it was the largest reform of public service occupational pension schemes in the history of the State. That was to try to put them on a sustainable footing by acknowledging the demographic changes taking place and the actuarial analysis and liability that those changes reflect. That is the context in which this has been managed.
The previous Government made decisions relating to the State pension age, as it was important to give certainty to many members of the public. There was a huge campaign in 2020, which we responded to. That was the right decision. All of these decisions have a broader context that we have to acknowledge. The decision against increasing the State pension age was the right one in that instance. We want to make sure that the overall State pension system is sustainable and manageable in the context of the other priorities we have.
93. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform the total overruns in public infrastructural projects in each of the past five years. [15639/25]
The previous Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Governments had a reputation for incinerating public money through wastefulness in public projects. We have numerous examples, from the Gucci bicycle shed to the WRC wall, to the national children's hospital, to the ventilators that never worked. The Minister of State, Deputy Moran, does not have that reputation and I think he could bring change to the Department. What cost overruns does the Department know about that the Minister has not told the public about yet?
Securing value for money is a central priority for this Government and is at the heart of all decision making at every stage of a policy, project or programme's life cycle, and it should be. Delivering value for money is about securing the efficient and effective use of public resources in the pursuit of better public services, living standards and infrastructure for the people of Ireland. Achieving value for money is the responsibility of each Minister and Department spending public funds. The Accounting Officers of those Departments and offices are accountable to the Comptroller and Auditor General and their respective Oireachtas committees for that spending. Accounting Officers must ensure that capital projects for which they have statutory responsibility are managed and delivered effectively. The Accounting Officers must decide whether the processes in place in their Departments, offices or bodies are appropriate to ensure compliance with the infrastructure guidelines; the management of capital budgets overall; and the management of budgets at an individual project level.
In terms of its capital allocation, my Department has not had significant direct overruns. We have a responsibility for overall oversight and we are responsible for the infrastructure guidelines that replaced the public spending code and were published in December 2023, with an effective date of 1 January 2024. These set out value for money guidance for evaluating, planning and managing Exchequer-funded capital projects. The management and delivery of these must be done in the context of the allocation and the national frameworks, which is a key responsibility of each Department and Minister.
As part of the capital appraisal process for projects under the infrastructure guidelines, projects' sponsoring agents are asked to critically consider the schedule and cost implications of those projects, which is further developed as a project progresses through the approval gates and more information becomes available, for example, when a project moves from the preliminary phase to final business case before the awarding of a contract. This includes detailed financial and economic appraisal, sensitivity analysis, accounting for behavioural influences such as optimism bias as well as consideration of appropriate levels of contingency. I will elaborate more on the governance framework.
The process is clearly not working because we are coming down with cost overruns left, right and centre. One of the reasons for this is that the Government is allergic to accountability and has been for a long time. Even when answering a simple question here on the actual cost overruns over the past five years, this level of accountability is refused. The Minister has not even answered the question that was put on today's Question Paper.
Farmleigh House, for example, is another project we in Aontú have been researching. It was bought and refurbished for some €52 million. Over the past 24 years, it has received approximately 70 delegations that have stayed there. That is an average of three per year. Farmleigh House is empty for approximately 48 weeks a year. In the past ten years, only two delegations, on average, have visited annually. This means that it is costing some €750,000 per delegation. The house is empty for most of the year. This level of waste would not be acceptable in any other location in the country, yet it is allowed to happen under the Minister's watch.
I reject the Deputy's assertion that it is not a consideration; it categorically is. That is why we have put in place many of the governance frameworks around the major projects' advisory group. This has significant external evaluation and assurance processes and addresses the need for value for money in all elements of the infrastructure guidelines, which are published.
That is set out across a number of the frameworks that are submitted to Departments.
The Deputy referenced Farmleigh. A large number of visitors attend Farmleigh, which the Deputy will be aware of. Many of them are from in his constituency. I was there at the weekend when local artists availed of one of the facilities to showcase their local art. It is used for many cultural and other activities, which the Deputy recognised. A large number of visitors use it. I acknowledge that there is public concern about value for money on certain projects. I do not reject that as an issue. I will bring forward a memorandum to the Government in the coming weeks on value for money and it being a central consideration across the Government's frameworks. It is something I want to continue to assess in the context of the overall budgetary envelope we have.
Bureaucracy does not create accountability. Accountability is an issue that is created if there is a cost to an individual for making a mistake over and over again that costs the State. I very clearly asked what the total overruns in public infrastructure projects were. The accountability to the Dáil has not achieved an answer on that here and now. I also asked what overruns were happening in public projects at present that the public did not yet know about. It is important that we put this question in shining neon lights because the Department knows about cost overruns that it will not tell people about yet. That is a real problem for transparency and accountability.
We have a situation where 100 Dublin Bus electric buses did not move an inch because somebody forgot to put in a planning application for a charger. We also have a situation where €300 million has been spent on metro north and not one shovel has been put into the ground. People at home are so frustrated with the fact that their hard-earned taxpayers' money is being incinerated and is not achieving the public infrastructure they so badly need.
That is very inflammatory language, to be frank.
It is true.
You have to balance that against the public service that is trying to deliver on broader policy objectives, such as decarbonising public transport,-----
The buses did not move for 18 months.
-----which is an important public good. You have to balance that against many public servants working in our transport system who want to ensure we advance a major capital project. There are issues with the systems around timelines, sequencing and the delays that happen in public projects, especially those relating to the planning system and the decision-making that happens in that regard. There is general frustration with that. In the infrastructure division we are establishing, we are providing much greater oversight so that we drive the acceleration and delivery of projects that have been outlined in plans for many years. People want to see the outworking and the completion of those projects.
I want to address the value for money concerns that are in the public domain. However, the Deputy's narrative does not give any balance in respect of delivery and things that are happening in the context of the envelope we have given to capital expenditure. It is fair that we should give more balance regarding the public servants who are trying to deliver value for money-----
No quibble with the public servants. It is the Government we have a quibble with.
-----and trying to deliver on our broader social and public objectives when it comes to many areas of capital expenditure.
94. Deputy Colm Burke asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform if his Department has now received an up-to-date environmental impact study in respect of the Blackpool flood relief scheme; the timeframe for when the public consultation will occur; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16513/25]
This question is related to Questions Nos. 102 and 103. I wish the Minister of State well in his new role in the Department of public expenditure. My question relates to the Blackpool flood relief scheme, which was initiated in 2013. In the past 12 years, little or no progress has been made on the matter. Has the Department received the up-to-date environmental impact study in respect of the Blackpool flood relief scheme? What is the timeframe for when the public consultation will occur?
The River Bride flood relief scheme in Blackpool was initiated in 2013 following a major flood that occurred in 2012 and is expected to provide protection from the River Bride for some 290 residential and commercial properties. The Blackpool area has an extensive history of flooding, with at least 15 flood events occurring since 1974, including recent flood events arising from storms such as Storm Babet. The proposed scheme design includes conveyance improvements, flood defence embankments, walls and pumping stations and has an estimated budget of €20.5 million.
In 2018, the scheme design was submitted to the former Minister for public expenditure for statutory confirmation under the Arterial Drainage Act 1945, as amended, and ministerial confirmation was granted in 2021. In June 2021, this decision was challenged by a community group that was granted leave to apply for a judicial review of the decision. The Minister agreed to consent to an order reverting the evaluation of the Blackpool flood relief scheme back for further public consultation. This resulted in further information being requested from the OPW in support of the request for consent under the Arterial Drainage Act 1945.
The OPW provided a response to this request in October 2022. In November 2023, a further request was made to the OPW to provide supplementary environmental information that required some additional environmental surveys. In line with seasonal restrictions, these surveys were conducted throughout 2024. Additionally, the OPW has recently received and is reviewing a draft update to the environmental impact assessment report, EIAR, which was prepared by the OPW’s consultant. This report was updated to take account of relevant surveys, including field surveys, invasive species surveys, mammal surveys, bat surveys, fisheries surveys, otter surveys and ecological surveys. Supplementary information and an updated EIAR will be submitted to the Minister for public expenditure.
I thank the Minister for his reply but I am getting no answer to the question I raised. I asked when the Minister of State expected to have the environmental impact study back. When will we have a public consultation? When can we move on with this project? It is 12 years on and we have not made one single step forward on this project. I am frustrated. The fact is the OPW submitted the design to the Department of public expenditure in 2018. It took until 2021 for a decision to be made. There was then a judicial review. An environmental impact study was submitted in 2022. By the time the Department dealt with it in 2023, that environmental impact study was then out of date as a result of the report sitting on someone's desk for 12 months. I do not want that to happen again. As the Minister of State outlined, there are more than 290 properties, which cannot be sold at the moment and where people cannot borrow money to redevelop them. As a result, no development has occurred in that area over the past 13 or 14 years.
I understand the Deputy's frustration and that of the people he represents in his constituency. However, once the judicial review came in, that also delayed the process. We have to carry out the environmental assessment. It is very important we do so. If we do not and it is challenged again, the Deputy will be the very one standing up to challenge me on why the proper procedures were not carried out.
I am doing everything in my power to bring this to a conclusion. It is with the Department at present. As soon as we get it out there, I will progress the scheme.
Can we get a timeframe for when the study will come from the OPW to the Department of public expenditure? When will we have a consultation? Have we a guideline? Will it be in three, six or 12 months' time? I fully understand the Department has to be extremely careful because it was a judicial review. However, we now have a situation where an area on the northside of the city is totally at a standstill. People cannot even get money to refurbish many old properties because the banks will not give out money where they cannot get insurance for flood relief. When there was flooding there previously, a lot of damage was caused to properties, so the financial institutions will not risk giving out money again. If people want to sell a property, they are at standstill. I know of a number of sales that collapsed because the people buying who were borrowing money could not get insurance and the banks said they were not prepared to give them the loans they required.
Any public consultation on the supplementary information to be provided by the Office of Public Works will be a matter for the Minister for public expenditure, infrastructure, public service reform and digitalisation. The Office of Public Works will continue to engage with that Department, as appropriate, to further progress the scheme.
It is with the Department and as soon as it comes out - I do not want to be long-winded but I have to wait for that process to take place - I will revert to the Deputy. I will do my best to progress the scheme in the near future.
