Ceisteanna ar Sonraíodh Uain Dóibh - Priority Questions
For the record, Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 6 will be grouped. I call Deputy Doherty.
My understanding is that priority questions cannot be grouped.
Yes, priority questions cannot be grouped.
I have been informed that they can be grouped.
I have never seen that in the history of the Dáil. Priority questions are-----.
They can be grouped with other priority questions but not with other oral questions.
I ask that they not be grouped, with the indulgence of the Chair. It is not fair for them to be grouped. Question No. 1 relates to a major issue.
I apologise for being a few minutes late. I was not aware of the change in the time. I did not mean to keep the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach or colleagues waiting. I am in his hands with regard to this. Important announcements were made last night. I am happy to answer questions in whatever way the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach sees fit or whatever way can be agreed by the Dáil. I have been briefed to the effect that these questions are grouped but I am happy, given the seriousness of the issues involved, to handle them in any way the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach feels is appropriate.
I propose that we not group them
I am happy with that.
I thank the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach for that.
Trade Relations
1. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance to outline the potential impact on employment and tax revenues from possible US tariffs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16502/25]
This question relates to the potential impact on unemployment and tax revenues as a result of the announcement of US tariffs. We heard what Donald Trump had to say last night, with 20% tariffs being imposed on this State. Pharmaceuticals will not be the subject of a tariff, although we hold our breath in relation to that. We have the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, and Department of Finance modelling on 25% tariffs and a reciprocal tariff from the EU and their impact in the context of job losses and potential income from taxation. Has any early work been done on what these tariffs will look like when it comes to jobs? In all circumstances, the analysis shows that employment will continue to grow, even on the basis of the 25% tariff scenario. The modelling to which I refer estimates that the impact on the public finances would be approximately €500 million. Given what was announced yesterday, it appears that the impact will be somewhat less. Will the Minister elaborate on this matter?
Before I get into the important specifics the Deputy raised, I will reflect on the announcements relating to the tariffs introduced by the Trump Administration. Free trade has been at the centre of the Irish and European economies for many decades. However, it is clear that the global economic landscape has changed. Tariffs are being imposed in respect of trade into the United States at a level that is historically high. We are moving into a trading and economic world that will change. This will have consequences for the Irish economy and the global economy.
To better calibrate how we respond to these unprecedented challenges, we must first aim to understand their potential impact. To that end, my Department and the ESRI recently published an analytical paper where several tariff scenarios were modelled. The analysis showed that modified domestic demand, which is the most meaningful way of measuring our economy from a jobs and income point of view, would be 1% to 2% below its non-tariff baseline over the medium term, depending on the extent of tariffs.
The potential impact on GDP is greater, between 2.5% and almost 4%, although changes in GDP have less impact on the ground. From an employment perspective, we assume it would be around 2% to 3% lower compared with the non-tariff baseline. In that context, we are talking about 55,000 to 85,000 jobs that either might not be created or could be lost or affected due to these measures.
To go back to Deputy Doherty's specific question, given that the position relating to tariffs only became clear last night, the global response is not yet clear. What we will do is begin modelling in respect of what we know. The Government will aim to publish that modelling in the annual progress report that is due to take the place of the stability programme update. We are aiming to do that in the coming weeks.
Given that the ESRI and the Department of Finance have worked out these models, I put it to the Minister that we should very quickly have information on the 20% scenario outlined by the Trump Administration last night. The analysis done by the ESRI and the Department of Finance examined the potential impact of a US Administration tariff and gave us the numbers for it. They also looked at the impact of countermeasures from Europe. These are still unknown, but different scenarios were assumed. In all circumstances, in the context of jobs, public finances, tax, the economy and businesses, it was shown that countermeasures from the European Union would have a significant impact on Ireland.
On modified domestic demand, the analysis carried out was based on a 25% tariff. The Minister referred to it decreasing by 1% to 2% from the baseline. Am I right in saying that we would still see growth right throughout the four-year period that has been assessed? In other words, modified domestic demand and GDP will continue to grow in all scenarios. Indeed, employment would also continue to grow, despite it being a reduction from what would be the case in a non-tariff scenario.
Based on the papers published and the analysis we have done, the answer, which is subject to a number of assumptions, is that the Deputy is broadly correct. The issue is what happens to the assumptions. The assumptions in the paper in question assume that investment levels will be stable in our economy. The question is whether the assumption relating to the decisions made, their impact on the global economy and the ability of American companies to invest elsewhere will hold in the time ahead. The second assumption in the paper relates to the fact that we could not at that point identify the impact of sectoral-specific measures and what that impact might do to individual companies or groups of companies in our economy. I have been making the point that on the basis of what we know, we are moving into a scenario of lower growth and lower employment growth. However, I have been equally clear that there are other scenarios that could affect that. This is why, in the time ahead, it is critical that we look at how we can negotiate with the US to see if we can avoid the darker and more damaging scenarios coming to pass.
The key here is negotiation and de-escalation. We need to get to a point where sensible and cool heads prevail. What happened yesterday was an act of economic sabotage by the US Administration in respect of its own economy. What was done will push up prices for American consumers. Obviously, the analysis was based on a 25% tariff, which was more severe than what we have seen, particularly as a tariff of 20% on pharma has been excluded at this point. This would probably allow for GDP growth of approximately 2% to 2.5% in the next number of years, which would be positive. Would that be correct?
In the context of EU countermeasures, I am deeply concerned that we could have a scenario where, as the ESRI and the Department have indicated, countermeasures will impact on jobs, economic growth and the public finances and will obviously push up prices for consumers. What is the Minister's concern in this regard and in the context of the fact that EU countermeasures could give rise to a proper trade war? The US Administration has adopted a unilateral position. We need to get into dialogue with the US Administration in order to try to de-escalate matters and get it to reverse its decision. We have to be careful that we do not step into a trade war.
I am struck by the value the Deputy places on negotiation and dialogue, particularly as his party made clear it would not go to the Oval Office. The Deputy's party leader and the First Minister of Northern Ireland indicated they would not engage with the United States across the St. Patrick's Day programme.
Not true.
That is the case.
She was on a trade mission there the week before.
Given that his party made clear it would not engage politically with the Trump Administration, why is he advocating the benefits of negotiation? Why is he making the case for the benefits of dialogue? I welcome the fact he was doing so, but how is that consistent with the announcement his party made, to some fanfare and prominence, that it did not want to engage with the political Administration and leadership of the United States of America? With regard to the narrative he is developing here, if he does want to see negotiation happening, how does he believe that negotiation could be successful in the absence of the European Union being willing to either consider or implement measures to respond to what the US has done?
It is interesting that the Minister would not answer my question on support for tariffs that will lead to prices for Irish consumers increasing. For his information, Michelle O'Neill was on a trade mission to the US in the week before St. Patrick's Day. We will continue to use our influence. If Deputy Donohoe, as Minister for Finance, wants to score political points on this serious issue, that is disappointing, particularly in light of what we are facing.
2. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan asked the Minister for Finance the mitigation measures his Department will implement given the recent ESRI working paper on the impact of deglobalisation and protectionism; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16440/25]
Given the very serious announcements last night, what mitigation measures are going to be put in place?
The response the Government will put in place has three different levels. First is the engagement we will have with the institutions of the European Union and other governments in the EU to look at what the response should be. We believe any response should be proportionate and needs to create the incentives and environment within which negotiation can take place. Second, through IDA Ireland, we will engage with companies that will be affected by what has happened. It is important to be open and to continue to be honest by saying that what we need to do now is to focus our efforts on how we can identify new markets. We must also look at how we can engage and support our companies in engaging with other trading partners with a view to increasing trade and investment. Third, as we take those two steps, we will have to examine whether there is an opportunity for us to engage with the United States of America through the EU in all this. I hope and believe such an opportunity will develop.
The measures put in place by President Trump will not only affect the economy of the world, they will also have a significant effect on the economy of America. The President of the European Commission has been very clear in outlining that we want to negotiate and see if we can find a scenario in which jobs and incomes are not further affected and the progress we have made with inflation will not be jeopardised. Those are the three different layers of our response, namely, engagement with the EU, engagement with companies here in Ireland that are going to be affected and then, I hope, an opportunity for negotiation to develop with the United States.
I agree that the priority must be to minimise the damage. A major amount of work will have to be done on that. In respect of support measures for impacted workers and sectors, will anything be done domestically? Will anything be done at EU level? I previously suggested that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund should be repurposed to support specific sectors during this crisis.
In the context of the differential in tariffs between the UK and the EU, of 10% and 20%, respectively, has modelling been done on the potential impacts of this and on the issues that could arise in terms of the effect on cross-Border trade? Is that a particular risk that Ireland faces? What are the Minister's views on that? What can be done about it?
The Deputy referred to three issues. First, the impact on our economy of the response to what has happened in the US was modelled in the paper published by the Department of Finance and the ESRI.
The response of the EU to this will become clearer in the time ahead and we will aim to influence that and, of course, be part of it.
Second, the Deputy is correct; the issue of the implication of all of this across trade flows on our island is an important matter. The Government, through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, will now have to engage closely with colleagues in the Government of the United Kingdom and obviously within the Northern Ireland Executive as well to look at how we can understand and deal with this issue.
Finally, in terms of how we then deal with the issue of supports for companies that are affected, tomorrow, the Tánaiste has convened a trade forum where the different representative bodies of the employers that are affected by this will be present. We will look, through the Industrial Development Authority, IDA, and Enterprise Ireland, EI, at what response can be put in place but our first priority at the moment is to look at negotiation and see whether we can avoid the worst becoming permanent.
With regard to the EU response, I agree that it needs to be level-headed, and that negotiation is the way to go. I also accept as part of that there is the potential for further actions by the EU. It is not realistic to think that that will not be on the table if negotiations do not work. There is a particular risk for Ireland in terms of the differential trade tariffs between the EU and the UK. We could have a scenario where the EU is taking retaliatory action and the UK is not, which could make that gap even more severe. Is that particular issue being worked on in terms of our interactions with the EU and how that could affect Ireland more than other EU member states?
Again, that is an important point. Every country is affected in different ways by the changes that have happened. However, there is a particular uniqueness to what it could mean due to the vital arrangements and agreements that are in place to recognise and protect the all-island economy in the context of dealing with Brexit. We understood this was a risk. It is one that has already been raised with the European Commission. It is an issue, of course, on which we will have to engage very closely with our colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive.
At this point in time, given the announcements are only a few hours old, I am sure the Deputy will appreciate it is not possible for us to go into the detail quite yet of how we will deal with this, but it is an extremely important issue that is important to acknowledge here today. In terms of the response from the European Union to this, clearly, none of us wants to be in this position. There is a clear consensus from contributions so far regarding the need to negotiate and see whether we can get an agreement to lead us away from the precipice we are now on. It is not clear to me, however, that we will get to that point unless we indicate how the EU would be willing to respond from a trade point of view. However, the European Commission, correctly, is going to take time to engage with member states of the EU on this but stressing that negotiation is our preference.
Mortgage Interest Rates
3. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance the steps he is taking to protect mortgage prisoners from extortionately high mortgage interest rates; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16503/25]
The scandal of selling off mortgages to vulture funds has never been addressed. Just this week, the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, FSPO, legislation passing through the Seanad is finally giving people access to the financial ombudsman. That was only one of the many promises that mortgage holders would be treated the same that was broken. What steps is the Minister going to take to protect mortgage prisoners from extortionately high mortgage interest rates? We know they are being fleeced by the vulture funds. The Minister promised, along with others, that there would be no difference if their loans were sold on to mortgage funds. What an empty promise when we now see so many people paying extortionate interest rates in the hands of these vulture funds.
I am, of course, very aware of the difficulties the increase in interest rates in recent years has caused to many mortgage borrowers. From a regulatory perspective, the Central Bank has put in place a range of measures to protect consumers who have or who are taking out a mortgage. The consumer protection framework, which applies in the same way to all regulated mortgage entities such as banks, retail credit firms and credit servicing firms, seeks to ensure that lenders are transparent and fair in all their dealings with borrowers.
Specifically with regard to variable rate mortgage holders, the Central Bank's consumer protection code requires all regulated mortgage creditors to explain to borrowers how their non-tracker variable interest rates have been set and to clearly identify the factors which may result in changes to variable interest rates. In this context, the Central Bank is continuing to update its consumer protection framework, and Deputies will be aware that it launched an enhanced consumer protection code this week which, following an implementation period, will come into effect next year.
The Central Bank has also engaged intensively with regulated firms on the operation of specific aspects of the consumer protection framework to make sure there is capacity in place to: manage applications by borrowers to switch their mortgage or mortgage provider; ensure there is no discrimination against borrowers based on where they currently hold their mortgage; ensure changes in mortgage interest rates are in line with mortgage terms and conditions; and have supports available to borrowers in or facing arrears.
Also, a number of measures were introduced by industry in 2023 to support borrowers who wish and are in a position to switch their mortgage. This included the provision of an aligned industry-wide set of initial eligibility criteria to facilitate people who are switching their mortgage from a non-bank to a bank.
That is all cold comfort to people who are mortgage prisoners. The Minister was one of the cheerleaders who cheered this on and told them all there would be no difference and that it would be no problem whatsoever and they would have the same protections. However, he failed to deal with the main issue we are addressing.
There are 7,000 mortgages holders that are now being charged over 8.5% with the vulture funds. There are 100,000 mortgage holders who saw their interest rate go up over 6% last year. To give a bit of context, if somebody has a mortgage of €300,000 and is paying 6%, he or she is paying €1,800 per month, which is over €6,000 more than somebody with a high street lender fixing at just over 3%. That is €6,000 more out of people's pockets. If someone is one of the 7,000 who is being charged 8.5%, he or she is paying €12,000 more because his or her loan was sold to a vulture fund. We know that during that time, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil sold the Irish people a fairy tale, telling them that they would be no worse off. The reality is that these mortgage prisoners are worse off, and they need a way back to normal banks. They cannot switch because some of them are in arrears or have been in arrears in the past. Has the Minister anything to say with regard to providing a pathway back for these people so that we have normal lending rates as opposed to what is now happening with rates of 8.5% and 6% and with over 100,000 mortgages in that position?
I have three points in response to that, the first of which is that the best prospect we have to see all mortgage holders pay lower interest on their loans in the time ahead is to see a change in general interest rates within our economy. I welcome the decisions that have been made in recent months by the European Central Bank, ECB, in that regard.
Second, I emphasised at all times during this very difficult period for those who had their mortgages sold on that their rights from a legal point of view would not be affected. That is the case. I outlined that in my answer.
That was not the case.
Third, what we have seen is some switching take place and I, of course, want to look at how we can see further switching take place from the non-bank back to the bank sector.
First of all, that is not true. It was not the case. On vulture funds, until last week those people were not able to even go to the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, a legal provision that everybody else had until I pointed it out to the Minister and forced that to be changed.
The Minister said he would not mind if his mortgage was sold to the vulture funds. He made that statement to try to guarantee or give comfort to people that everything would be okay. I put it to him that there are 7,000 homeowners who are being charged an interest rate of over 8.5%. There are 100,000 homeowners who are being charged an interest rate of over 6%. They are all with the vulture funds. Why did this happen? Because the Minister, and Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, allowed this to happen. They blocked legislation that would stop this happening. They told people they would not be better off. The Minister should talk to the family that has now been paying €12,000 more per year on their mortgage because that loan was sold off to a vulture fund. That is the change. That is the difficulty. To tell them they have the same rights and entitlements is not the issue here. The are being screwed royally by these vulture funds, and the question is: what is the Government going to do? Is it going to continue to sit back and allow tens of thousands of Irish consumers to be fleeced in this way?
I always acknowledge, and will do so again, that it was difficult and there were moments of high anxiety for those who saw the ownership of their loans or the mortgage on their homes or properties switching. I know that the impact on those affected has been difficult. For many, it has resulted in their mortgage payments and their interest rates being high.
At the same time, I must be honest in emphasising what I can and cannot do. What I can do is look at the changes that have been made in the consumer protection framework to ensure there are rights in place and levels of protection are available. I have outlined that to the Dáil. What I could not do was intervene to block decisions banks were making. Had I done so, it would have had other consequences for our banks and their ability to lend, contribute to our economy and, in turn, support others who wish to access mortgages and loans.
National Treasury Management Agency
4. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Minister for Finance further to Parliamentary Question No. 95 of 4 July 2024, the timeline for the NTMA to fully divest from all Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, ISIF, global portfolio investments in companies on the UN Human Rights Council database of business enterprises; the details of the ISIF’s direct investments in companies on the UN database totalling €4.2 million; the details of the ISIF’s indirect investments in eight companies on the UN database totalling €9.4 million; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15674/25]
As the Minister knows, for more than eight years, the UN has maintained a database of businesses involved in specific activities in the occupied Palestinian territories. I followed my original question up with a number of questions. What is the timeline for the NTMA to fully divest from all of Ireland's strategic investment and global portfolio investments on that UN list and the details of ISIF's direct and indirect investments into the companies on same?
The Ireland Strategic Investment Fund is a €15 billion fund comprising the discretionary portfolio of €8.4 billion and the directed portfolio of €6.2 billion. It has a double bottom line mandate to invest on a commercial basis in a manner designed to support economic activity and employment in Ireland.
According to the most recent NTMA annual report, from inception to the end of 2023, ISIF generated an annualised investment return of 3.1%, or more than €2.3 billion, in investment returns across its portfolio, affecting and supporting 42,454 jobs in the economy. ISIF has complete independence in implementing its investment strategy under the NTMA Acts under an investment committee reporting to the NTMA’s board.
The UN maintains a database of businesses involved in certain specific activities relating to settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. It was developed in 2020 with an update in 2023.
At the end of 2023, direct investments by the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund in companies on the UN database were approximately €4.2 million in 11 companies and its indirect investments were €9.4 million and included eight companies. ISIF divested from six of these companies, with a total value of approximately €2.95 million, across 2024. The six companies were Bank Hapoalim BM, Bank Leumi Le-Israel BM, Israel Discount Bank Limited, Mizrahi-Tefahot Bank Limited, First International Bank of Israel Limited and Rami Levi Chain Stores Limited. At the time, ISIF determined that the risk profile of these investments was no longer within its investment parameters. The level of holdings at the end of December regarding companies on the UN list was €4.2 million in 11 companies.
I thank the Minister. I will look at those figures and I appreciate his answer. I respect the NTMA and the subgroup. I was on the public accounts committee and remember the NTMA's proactive approach to divestment from fossil fuels and to former Deputy Thomas Pringle's Bill. I welcome that, and the NTMA grasped the nettle when the time came.
The Minister listed several Israeli banks and a retail chain. It is welcome that we have divested from them, but we are still investing. In the overall scheme, it is a small sum of money, but we are still investing in companies and banks in territories that are illegally occupied. I want to know the timeline of when we will divest directly and indirectly from those companies, given our stance on Palestine.
I thank the Deputy for recognising the work the NTMA has done in this and other areas and particularly the work ISIF has done. The Deputy is familiar with that. I have outlined the divestment that has taken place and it is important for me to emphasise to Deputy Connolly that the operational independence of ISIF is very important to this space. It manages €15 billion of our money, which is invested in jobs in Ireland and contributes to the economic growth and development of our country at a time when we will need new sources of economic investment and growth. It operates independently of me and is well aware of the sensitivity and importance of the investments the Deputy has referred to and, indeed, the questions being put to me.
I respectfully make the case, which the Deputy has already acknowledged, that these investments as a share of ISIF's total portfolio, not to mention as a share of the investment in the overall Israeli economy, are extremely small. However, Deputy Connolly is raising issues of principle and I am aware of the correct and deep concern the Irish people have regarding the suffering of the people of Gaza.
In a previous answer, I was told by the former Minister for Finance: "My officials are in contact with the NTMA on an ongoing basis across a range of issues, including those arising from the Illegal Israeli Settlements Divestment Bill 2023." I fully understand ISIF is independent but there is a policy issue in respect of illegal occupation. The Minister admits and accepts there is a country committing genocide and that we are investing in its trading companies. We still have a sizable proportion, albeit not in the overall scheme of things. Direct and indirect, it comes to more than €10 million. To bring home and put focus on what we are talking about, this refers to: the supply of surveillance and identification equipment for settlements; the wall and checkpoints directly linked with settlements; and the supply of equipment and materials facilitating the construction and expansion of settlements. This is the list drawn up by the UN more than eight years ago to say we should not be investing in those companies. I appreciate the Minister is making the case it is a small percentage, but it is morally significant, not to mention the genocide taking place.
I thank the Deputy for raising this. While I make the case that the share of the overall portfolio of ISIF's investments is a small one, millions of euro is a lot of money for the Deputy and me. I accept that point.
The Deputy raises very important foreign policy and human rights issues. My Department engages with ISIF and the NTMA on these and other matters. The concerns and issues the Deputy has raised are very well understood.
The Deputy referred to issues of policy. I must emphasise again that, given the scale of the portfolio ISIF manages and how much of our money it manages overall, it is important that I respect and support the independence of the board and the decisions it makes. Divestments have already taken place and the ISIF board will determine what is the right investment in a way that is consistent with our independence and the mandate it has. It is well aware of the issues the Deputy raises and the exchanges the Deputy and I have had on a regular basis on this.
Housing Policy
5. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance to outline any engagement he has had with the Central Bank on tax incentives and other demand-side measures for housing; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16504/25]
What engagement has the Minister had with the Central Bank regarding tax incentives and other demand-side measures for housing and will he make a statement on the matter, particularly in light of what appears to be the Governor of the Central Bank pouring cold water on the latest apparently back-of-the-envelope policy on housing from the Minister for housing? It is reported that the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, will meet the banks regarding that proposal. What discussions has he had with the Central Bank on this and what is his view regarding banks lending and reducing the level of equity builders would need to have when lending for housing?
My officials and I regularly engage with the Central Bank. However, I have not had any engagement recently with the Central Bank on the specific issue the Deputy has raised, which is the issue of tax-based support for housing.
The issue in the Irish housing market and so many of the social and economic difficulties that it is now causing are caused by a shortfall in supply. For more than a decade, the level of homes we have been building has not been in line with the needs of our society and the change in our demographic and economic growth. An increase in the supply of new homes remains a priority aim of Government policy. I will continue to work with my Cabinet colleagues to ensure that any further interventions in the housing market are appropriately calibrated, represent the best use of public money and boost the supply of homes in the public and private sectors.
A range of tax-based measures are already in place, namely, the help to buy scheme, the rent tax credit, the vacant home tax, the residential zoned land tax and the residential premises rental income relief. The Deputy will appreciate that decisions regarding taxation measures are made in the context of the annual budget. He will also know that I am not going to comment in advance of any decisions that are yet to be made.
We discovered during the election period that many of the Minister's colleagues, maybe himself included, went out and argued that there were going to be 40,000 houses delivered last year, which we know was a big lie because the Department of Finance had provided an assessment to the then Minister before the election that that was not possible. Indeed, there was a risk of fewer being built than in the previous year, which is what actually transpired.
The Central Bank is pouring cold water on and disputing the Government's housing projections for the next three years. It believes that the Government will deliver 13,000 fewer homes than projected over the next three years. The Government is trying to justify measures whereby banks should lend to developers where developers have less skin in the game themselves. The Central Bank has come out and poured cold water on that.
Surely the Minister, as Minister for Finance, is engaging with the Central Bank on this matter or is his Cabinet colleague doing a solo run? Double-digit price inflation is back for the first time in eight years. It was 11.6% last year. There is a role for the Central Bank in controlling inflation.
It is reported that the Minister is to meet the banks concerning this idea about less equity from builders and more lending by banks. Is that actually on the cards?
I will be meeting our banks to engage with them on the greater role they can play in regard to housing because we all know how much more we need to do. However, I have to recognise two different points. First, the banks are independent of the Government. Second, they are independently regulated. I will be engaging with them to see what further measures we can put in place that lead to more lending and more homes being built. However, I fully respect the independence of the Central Bank, as does the entire Government, because we know the stability of our financial sector is vital to more homes being built in the time ahead. We will consider additional measures, as we always do, in the run up to the budget from an investment point of view and also in the context of the review of the national development plan that is taking place.
Will the Dáil be given some clarity as to the Minister for Finance's position? Does he agree with his Cabinet colleague that banks should lend more to developers on the basis that the developers would have less equity? That is the proposal that has been made. It seems a bit hare-brained and Celtic tiger era, but it is not the first time we have seen something like it.
We deserve to know what the Department of Finance and the Minister for Finance's position is. The Governor of the Central Bank has clearly poured cold water over the idea. I could not believe that the Minister for housing would make a statement like that without even discussing it with the Minister for Finance or the banks, but then, it is Fianna Fáil we are talking about, so I will leave it at that.
What is the Minister for Finance's position? What is the position of the Department of Finance? Does the Minister for Finance agree with the Minister for housing's assessment that banks should lend more to developers with less equity provided by those developers? Will the Minister answer that question clearly because I would like to know, in his engagement with the banks, whether that is something that is going to be under consideration?
I absolutely support all of the excellent work that the Minister for housing is doing in looking at what further measures can be put in place to lead to more homes being built. Regarding the Deputy's question, I support looking at ideas that will make more loans and more support available in our economy to lead to more homes being built. However, the Minister for housing and I do not want to see anything happen that leads back to the return of levels of lending and commercial practices that only create further difficulty. The Minister for housing will have the same view as me in that regard. What he is doing, as is his right, is looking at the different options that can be put in place to lead to more homes being built. He and I are clear that we do not want to see anything happen that is a source of additional financial risk because if that additional financial risk happens, it will only lead to more homes being built in the time ahead-----
Does the Minister support the proposal or not?
I have answered the Deputy's question.
It is still not clear. Does the Minister support the proposal?
Trade Relations
6. Deputy Naoise Ó Cearúil asked the Minister for Finance the proactive measures his Department is implementing to mitigate and support the most vulnerable sectors of the economy from the potential risks for substantial economic disruption due to impending US tariffs. [15890/25]
Given the recently announced 20% US tariffs on EU goods, which is double the 10% rate applied to Britain and Northern Ireland, and considering the exposure of the Irish economy, particularly export-reliant sectors and jobs, what proactive and specific steps is the Minister's Department taking to support those most vulnerable, including multinationals, SMEs and workers in mitigating these deeply concerning economic risks?
I thank the Deputy for raising the significant announcements that were made during the night. The Government is initiating a number of steps, but the Deputy will understand that I need to be honest and clear in setting expectations of what we can do. This is a deeply serious issue. Unfortunately, it is a significant moment in how global trade is conducted and what that can mean for jobs, income and prices all over the world, most particularly the country that the Deputy and I are trying to play a role in guiding through all of this.
As to our engagements and proactivity, it has been in publishing our best estimate regarding what it will mean for our economy. I have been engaging with fellow finance ministers in the EU and across the world on this. A further meeting on this situation will be happening at the end of next week in Warsaw where we are being hosted by the Polish Presidency of the European Union. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade will be engaging with fellow governments as early as Monday. Before that happens, he has convened a meeting of our trade forum in which all Ministers who are involved in this will be present along with all of the representative bodies. I believe that meeting will happen as soon as early tomorrow afternoon, given the seriousness of this issue.
Regarding the supports that we can make available to companies and how we engage with them, that engagement will be through such organisations as the IDA and EI. We are talking about trade, for Ireland alone, of tens of billions of euro. If that were affected in any way, no Government could put in place measures that could take the place of that trade. What we will have to do is engage with companies individually to see how we can assist them in finding new markets or dealing with negotiation that awaits.
It is very serious, but by working within our economy, we will find ways of adjusting and responding to the difficult announcements of the night.
I thank the Minister. I appreciate the immediate steps the Minister, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste are taking but Ireland is uniquely exposed. Our export economy depends heavily on the US, which accounts for nearly one third of our total exports. Unlike Britain and Northern Ireland, which face a 10% tariff, we are hit with the 20% rate as members of the European Union, which puts us at a disadvantage. Key sectors such as agrifood and advance manufacturing are now vulnerable, not just in terms of competitiveness, but also in terms of employment, as the Minister mentioned. This morning, IBEC already announced a forecast of a 2% to 3% hit on exports in the short term.
There is a real risk in terms of job losses, investment slowdown and pressure on regional economies that rely on trade-driven growth, particularly around Cork, where people have been quite vocal in the news this morning. The situation is compounded by Northern Ireland's position under the Windsor Framework, which could see trade diverted away from the Republic. We cannot afford to be passive.
I appreciate that negotiations are a key part of this and that the Minister is playing a crucial role in that.
It is vital that we keep the Dáil informed of this and that all TDs be aware of what is taking place. I am aware that employers and workers in Cork will be feeling particularly worried today. It is something that affects everybody but I am conscious that large life science and medicine producers are located in Cork, many of which have been there for decades. Some very important food and drink manufacturers, farmers and suppliers that are located in Cork are also worried about what this will mean for their food, agricultural and drink exports to the US. I am very much aware of this. We are engaging with them to hear their views. We will have to work to see if we can avoid the worst happening in the short term. That is why negotiation is vital, but we will see a big change happening in the global economy and we will need to support employers and firms in moving to that new equilibrium. They know this is happening and we will have to work with them to see how we can continue to support the growth of our economy. As the Deputy notes, our forecasts based on what is currently happening are for a lower level of growth but for our economy to still have very high levels of employment.
I should mention Intel and Kerry Group in my constituency of Kildare North and the impact they might face.
As the Minister noted, we need a co-ordinated and multilayered response to this. First, we should push diplomatically, particularly to our partners in the EU, for a negotiation of exemptions or reductions, especially for high-value sectors like agrifood in Ireland. Second, I would love to see a financial support package to be made available, with grants, bridging finance and tax reliefs for those firms directly affected. This would come under the Minister's Department. Third, workforce supports such as upskilling, reskilling and job transition schemes must be activated. Finally, we must protect not only our businesses, but also our workers and the communities that depend on them.
I pay tribute to the late Mick O'Dwyer, whose passing was announced this morning. Micko was a legend of the GAA, particularly in Kerry, but we have a great fondness for him in Kildare for delivering two Leinster titles and bringing us to an all-Ireland final. I was quite young at the time but they are very positive memories. I acknowledge him and his contributions to Irish life and society over his many years. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam.
May he rest in peace. Many members of the GAA family in Kildare will be feeling particularly sad today. I thank the Deputy for mentioning that.
Regarding the Deputy's constituency, employers like Intel have made a magnificent contribution to the employment and growth of our economy, but they also make an important contribution to the European economy through the work they do in semiconductors and a high level of technologically advanced manufacturing. We will of course engage with companies like those because they and many other employers have been in our country for decades and have contributed to the US. By being globally present, they have allowed US companies to become even more successful. Even at this late stage, that is the case we continue to need to make. Through their presence in Ireland, those US companies have been more successful in the US. Being in Europe has contributed to their global performance. We will continue to make that case and will take on board the important issues raised by the Deputy about employers in his constituency.
I acknowledge the Deputy's comments on Mick O'Dwyer. I had a personal involvement with him in Wicklow GAA. I was sponsor and he was manager. He was one of the most amazing characters I have ever come across. The legacy he has left the GAA world is priceless.
National Development Plan
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 was 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 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 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?
Ethics in Public Office
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 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 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.
Office of Government Procurement
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 and 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.
Pension Provisions
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.
Public Expenditure Policy
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 Questions 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 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.
Flood Relief Schemes
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.