Departmental Reports
1. Deputy Mairéad Farrell asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation the status of the Government’s new infrastructure plan, Accelerating Infrastructure-Report and Action Plan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [70883/25]
Dia duit ar maidin, a Aire. The Minister has outlined a new infrastructure plan and clearly we have a serious infrastructural deficit, which I have raised with him numerous times. This infrastructure deficit, particularly in the west of Ireland, is as a result of decades of neglect by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael governments. The Government has promised the earth and has delivered really nothing in terms of infrastructure for the west of Ireland. Why should anybody trust that these action plans will be any different?
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta Farrell. Last week, the Government published the Accelerating Infrastructure Report and Action Plan. It is a comprehensive programme of actions designed to speed up the delivery of critical infrastructure across the State. This action plan responds to well-documented challenges of lengthy development timelines, fragmented processes and rising costs. These have all been identified as major barriers to achieving Ireland’s housing, energy, and climate objectives.
The report is evidence-based. It has been built on the research and analysis of my Department, the views received during the public consultation and stakeholder engagement over the summer, and the expert input and advice from the members of the accelerating infrastructure task force.
The plan sets out 30 targeted actions under four pillars, each addressing a key area of reform. The first pillar is legal reform. Reforms here aim to achieve a better balance towards the common good by addressing the incentives that drive a disproportionate reliance on the courts in planning and regulatory matters. While access to justice remains protected, the reforms will reduce incentives for excessive litigation, clarify rules on standing and remedies, and introduce fast-track pathways for nationally significant projects that are in the common good, through new legislation.
The second pillar is regulatory simplification and reform. This means identifying where regulation leads to excessive process, rather than improved outcomes. It also means examining the structure of our regulatory environment, the practices applied by regulatory bodies and how they communicate with one another and with applicants. In practical terms, there is scope for improved outcomes by applying parallel processes, mandatory statutory timelines and measuring the performance of our regulatory bodies.
The third pillar is co-ordination and delivery reform. This implements the reforms outlined in the programme for Government. It means my Department assumes a more central co-ordination role on the delivery of critical infrastructure, providing certainty to other Departments through multi-year funding commitments to underpin five-year sectoral plans and reforms to the infrastructure guidelines. Across government, it means driving and embedding a delivery-first culture, including a balance between risk and delivery that incorporates the potential cost of delay.
The final pillar is public acceptance. I will set out greater detail on that.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. One of the things I noticed when I was reading the plan was that there are the 30 actions and it seems to me that every single one of them will be delivered in quarter two of 2027. This is a ten-year action plan and it seems that, from what I have read, 2026 to 2027 is when they are going to be delivered. That is obviously a two-year timeframe. My query is in relation to the ten-year period. Is it that they are the actions, that is what happens and then it is left until 2035, or what are the actions coming out of that? Will new action plans be agreed coming out of those or how exactly is that going to work?
The first aspect is on the actions which relate to reform and the majority of them fall in 2026. We have tried to front-load the interventions and actions we make so we can see the benefits of having legal reform, regulatory reform and simplification, better co-ordination delivery and improved public acceptance. They are the four areas identified. Most of those are to be progressed in 2026. We have already set out the national development plan review, which the Deputy will know about, and sectoral plans have been published in recent weeks setting out the trajectory of projects and of priorities across all areas of Government for the next number of years. The Deputy's point about five and ten years obviously relates to the overall capital investment. We have set out the €275 billion over ten years in the five-year sectoral plans. However, the reforms here are not about the investment. They are about how we change the practice and the delivery which is too slow. Doing that quickly is imperative to ensure the investment we have set aside yields improved delivery and that is the nature of what is set out.
I have to be very honest here. I want to this to work. The reality is that the way previous Governments have treated infrastructure has been abysmal and we see the direct results that has had. We see it particularly when storms hit or when people want to be able to build housing, providing housing or be able to attract jobs to areas. The state of our infrastructure has been horrific. I have a number of questions in relation to this. One of the things that makes me a bit nervous when it is Fianna Fáil, is whether there is much of an approach in terms of deregulation. We have seen what Fianna Fáil did previously and the impact that it had and I have to ask that question. I was also a bit concerned that it seemed to me that there was an awful lot of blame-shifting. Of course, we know there are serious issues but it did seem like a lot of blame-shifting from Government and other people. First and foremost, it is very clear that the reason we do not have the infrastructure is because of a lack of investment from Governments.
We have fronted up an investment and taking the investment profile over the next five years, it means we will be one of the biggest investors in infrastructure per capita in Europe and have about 5% GNI*. We have responded to that around the investment piece. However, there is a well-documented need and an evidence base to drive reform and infrastructure delivery and that is why there needs to be much more balance around regulation. We need to cut some rules, regulations and processes which are not adding value but are causing excessive delay. We also need to have a wider debate about the level of regulation around certain areas within the economy to ensure we have growth and delivery as a means to drive the strategic direction of the State. This is all about co-ordination and delivery of reform as well, and that is why the practical measures we have set out in this report will do what the Deputy said earlier in her remarks when she said we all want this to work. Ultimately, it is about how our energy systems, our transport infrastructure and our water infrastructure yields greater abundance across the economy so we can improve investment and increase the opportunities for job creation. That is what we have sought to do in this report.
Flood Relief Schemes
2. Deputy Charles Ward asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation to provide an update on the situation of defective homes built on a flood plain at Elm Park, Buncrana; the predicted cost of installing flood defences to Elm Park; whether he will consider relocating the residents of Elm Park; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [71122/25]
I have engaged with the Minister many times regarding the issue. Despite this, nothing has changed for the residents of Elm Park in Buncrana. I would be grateful if he would provide me with an update on the situation of the defective homes built on a flood plain in Elm Park. What is the predicted cost of installing flood defences and will he consider relocating the residents of Elm Park?
I welcome the opportunity to provide an update to the Deputy on this important matter. In 2018, the flood risk management plans identified that 150 flood relief schemes are required to manage the significant risk from flooding. Since then, the OPW has trebled, to the sum of 100, the number of flood relief schemes at design, planning and construction. These are in the first tranche of the schemes and commencing work on the tranche 2 schemes is constrained by the availability of specialist engineering skills for designing flood relief schemes.
Sixteen flood relief schemes were identified in County Donegal under the flood risk management plans announced in 2018. Twelve of these projects are included in the first phase of implementation, with interim measures being piloted by Killybegs. The Buncrana flood relief scheme has an estimated budget of €6.8 million and, when built, will protect 32 properties. Work on the design of a viable flood relief scheme is progressing and is due to be submitted for planning consent in quarter three of 2027 and completed in 2031. Nine properties at Elm Park that experienced significant flooding in 2012 and in 2017 are included in this scheme's overall benefitting area. The estimated cost of managing the flood risk for these nine properties in Elm Park is about €1 million. This is a viable option and work to progress the design and planning consent is continuing. Donegal County Council is leading the scheme delivery and has been in correspondence with the residents of Elm Park.
I am aware of the flood risk to these Elm Park residents and that these homes are affected by the use of defective concrete blocks in their construction. I understand that all but one of these homeowners have opted to avail of the defective block scheme, at a cost of €2.9 million. I recognise that the residents are concerned about the length of time before these flood scheme works would be completed and have asked my colleague, the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy James Browne, with myself that consideration be given to relocation options. The Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan, has held two meetings with me to explore a viable workable solution for the homeowners. Work on a possible option is progressing with the affected homeowners, the Department of housing, and with local government.
This week, Storm Bram brought another weather warning to Donegal. Storms are becoming more and more frequent and these houses are becoming more and more dangerous. External walls are being damaged by the Crana River at the risk of flooding for these homes. The residents cannot go on living like this. I have asked the Minister of State for a predicted cost for installing flood defences but it is very clear that the construction of these flood defences and giving temporary rental accommodation to these residents will also cost the State. Offering them a long-term proper solution is the only way out of this and it is the only way forward. Temporary flood measures are a complete waste of money and will only temporarily slow down a flow of water and allow evacuation of these properties properly. We have seen people nearly killed in this site. I know we have been looking at this and there have been many meetings but I just do not see why it is taking so long. Will the Minister of State ensure the final decision is made before Christmas to give these people some hope so that homeowners can finally have some peace, knowing that this distressing situation can be solved?
No one knows more than me about Elm Park. I visited it in 2018 after the big flood. I know the pressure those families are under. I have also been in contact with those families.
Since taking office, the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, and I met with the Minister, Deputy Browne. That was during the summer and, since then, we have moved to try to find a solution. However, the Deputy must understand it is not as simple as flicking a switch. We are working collectively and we want a resolution. I do not want people in Elm Park suffering and having to contact me on a daily basis. I want to reach out to them and offer the support they deserve. I assure the Deputy the whole of the Government is working together to find a resolution to help the people in Elm Park. I, more than anyone, want to do that.
There are many ongoing issues in Donegal, including Elm Park, that require the Minister of State's immediate attention. He needs to do far more regarding the flood relief schemes across the whole county. There is still no sign of a flood relief scheme plan for Killybegs, which came very close to being flooded again recently. Residents and businesses are still waiting anxiously, fearing what each storm may bring. Far more needs to be done to protect coastal communities from coastal erosion, especially given the increase in storms we have had over the past year. Houses in Inver face real risks of the coastal defences failing. Those defences must be progressed and fixed soon. The Minister of State has visited Donegal town courthouse. I ask that he ensure the works there are completed as soon as possible in order that the courthouse can reopen. Will he commit to visiting Donegal in the new year to address Elm Park and the other issues in the county requiring his attention?
The Deputy reminds me of a man at a council meeting who is getting all the issues in together. I do not blame him for doing so when he gets the opportunity.
Every time I stand up in the Dáil, I have Deputies, like Deputy Ward, asking me questions. They look to the Government and the OPW to deliver. I have made changes to the minor works scheme to increase the threshold from €750,000 to €1 million. I have notified the local authorities. I put it to the Deputy that he has control to go to his local authority and put pressure on it to drive on schemes. It is not about this side of the House the whole time. We provide the funding but Opposition Deputies keep wanting to blame us. I am not accusing Deputy Ward of anything. I am saying to him that flooding is a huge issue. It is not something on which to score political points because it affects so many people up and down the country, including in Donegal. I am saying to the Deputy to go to his local authority. A number of schemes are set out in Donegal that need to be progressed. We have the money to fund them but I need his help to push the local authority to deliver them.
Protected Disclosures
3. Deputy Mairéad Farrell asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation the status of protected disclosures legislation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [70884/25]
This question relates to protected disclosures. We all recognise the importance of whistleblowers and the incredible work they do for our society in calling out wrongdoing. Unfortunately, doing so for the better of society often comes at their own expense. There was a debate on a Private Members' motion on this issue a few weeks ago. Will the Minister provide an update on whistleblower legislation?
As the Deputy is aware, the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 is Ireland's national whistleblower protection law. Significant amendments to the Act were signed into law in July 2022. The amended Act gives effect to EU Directive 2019/1937 and provides for the establishment of the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner within the Ombudsman's office.
As Minister, I am obligated to commence a statutory review of the Act no later than five years after the date of enactment, which is July 2027. That review must be completed and a report made to the Oireachtas no later than July 2028. I will arrange for the review to commence in advance of 2027 and for a public consultation to take place during 2026.
A number of stakeholders have been pointing to challenges arising from the implementation of the amended legislation, including the protected disclosure processes and procedures. The statutory review will be an opportunity to bring to light any issues arising by consulting a more complete range of stakeholders and hearing their respective perspectives. It is clearly preferable to put forward amendments that are well considered and based on the experience and evidence of all relevant stakeholders. The consultation will provide an opportunity to ensure that is done.
It is important to note that the legislation has only been in force for three years and many of the provisions in the Act have yet to be fully tested in practice and in the courts. The legislation was designed to encourage workers to report instances of potential wrongdoing. Given the amended Act only commenced on 1 January 2023, my Department has only two full years of statistics on the number of reports of wrongdoing received by Departments, public bodies and prescribed persons. The statistics suggest that the volume of reports received is increasing. In 2023, more than 1,100 reports were received, while in 2024, the number was just over 1,500. This increase suggests a greater awareness of the amendments that were introduced in 2022 among workers and that more workers felt motivated to make a protected disclosure under the framework.
In the meantime, effective ways to address the issues arising from the ongoing implementation of the protected disclosures legislation include increased training and guidance for employers, regulators and designated recipients, as well as providing more guidance to workers to ensure their concerns are directed to the appropriate channels.
The legislation may only be in place three years but we knew, when it was going through the Houses, that it was far too weak. Everybody agreed on that. It was almost the weakest transposition of the directive that could be made. One of the key issues debated at the time was retrospectivity and how so many people were locked out of the Act's provisions. Has the Minister dealt with EU counterparts on the issue of retrospectivity and whether they, too, excluded people? If not, will he undertake to have that engagement?
I welcome the review because it is needed. When in 2026 will it open in terms of public consultation? What direct engagement has the Minister had with whistleblowers in this regard? The least we can do for whistleblowers is to ensure they have protections in law because, unfortunately, so many of them really suffer as a result of their whistleblowing.
I have had limited engagement on this matter with counterparts at an EU level. The directive has been transposed. Our Presidency in 2026 will allow opportunities for engagement on it. In the context of the review that will be happening in parallel, there will be a greater opportunity to take wider European feedback on this issue. We transposed the directive and legislation was enacted in 2022. Ultimately, I want to make sure, as I am sure we all do, that we have a system that works. It is timely to have a review that takes into account people's full experiences and everyone's interaction with the existing system. Following that consultation, I am open to taking the feedback and seeing how we can have a system that best supports whistleblowers. That is ultimately the direction and context in which I want to see it operate.
This is an issue I am particularly passionate about and I appeal directly to the Minister in this regard. Whistleblowers are telling us they are being failed by the legislation. The Minister has responsibility for it, albeit he has advisers and all of that, and I am appealing directly to him to really look, by way of the review, at the best way to ensure whistleblowers are specifically protected and to take that on board personally. Will he examine whether there are areas in the EU where this process works well and what can be done to strengthen our regime to protect our whistleblowers? I had concerns at the time, which I have raised again numerous time this year, about protected disclosures not going directly to Ministers and those Ministers then being able to say they cannot deal with them because they are with the protected disclosures office. There was an element of concern about that at the time and it is still a huge area of concern. I ask the Minister to look at this personally. It is such an important area and he has such power in relation to it. I urge him to listen to the whistleblowers.
I will, of course, listen to and engage with whistleblowers. The review is really important, which is why we are bringing it forward from 2027 to 2026 to ensure we have broad feedback. They system I want to see operating is one that works for whistleblowers. As I said, we will be able to advance that next year.
Public Sector Pay
4. Deputy Mairéad Farrell asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation the status of the removal of pay ceilings for CEOs of Irish commercial State-owned enterprises; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [70885/25]
I would love to say more about whistleblowers but we must move on. This question is about the status of the removal of pay ceilings for CEOs of State-owned commercial enterprises.
The independent review panel on senior public service recruitment and pay determination processes was established in March 2022 and its report was published in June 2023. It found that pay determination of senior posts should consider best practice in terms of openness, transparency, accountability and the need for an objective evidence-based methodology.
To this end, it recommended that an independent body be established to give independent advice to the Minister on remuneration arrangements for senior posts in the public service and CEOs of commercial State bodies, CSBs. It further recommended that a review of CEOs of CSBs be prioritised.
On foot of this report, the senior posts remuneration committee, SPRC, was established by Government in March 2024 to provide independent and objective advice, supporting consistency and transparency in the pay arrangements attaching to senior roles across the public service. The SPRC was requested to perform a review of the remuneration arrangements for the CEOs of CSBs. Following Government approval, I published the SPRC report on 29 April 2025.
The SPRC made a number of findings and recommendations. The report found CEO remuneration packages have fallen out of alignment with the market and that a transparent and robust framework for the regular review of CEO remuneration was required to ensure remuneration levels are set and remain at a level that is appropriate and equitable. The report outlines fair and appropriate remuneration as a key element in the recruitment and retention of CEOs, who are critical to the State's future development and economic performance.
Having considered the report, the Government has agreed to implement a more structured approach to the remuneration of CEOs. A banded salary structure is being implemented for CEOs, which ranges from their current salary to the market median of the relevant band. In line with the SPRC findings in relation to increased flexibility for boards, it is a matter for boards to propose a point within the relevant band for the body. This is subject to governance and scrutiny. The approval of the relevant Minister is required and then my subsequent consent. There will be no backdating of any changes to pay. I have since written to my ministerial colleagues regarding the operational details.
It is unbelievable to me that being out of line with the market and being competitive only ever in this Chamber relates to those people who are on the highest income. It is never about competitiveness for low-wage workers. It is never out of line for low-wage workers. The Minister's decision to remove these pay ceilings has resulted in pay increases for CEOs of Bus Éireann and Iarnród Éireann of €50,000 and €75,000. Those are insane amounts of money. That is making millionaires out of CEOs at a time when people cannot afford childcare or housing. It shows how out of touch the Government is.
Last year the CSO identified that in-work poverty was 5.9%. That equates to more than 145,500 people in employment who are living below the poverty line. What will the Minister do about their competitiveness and being out of line with the market?
On a wider point, the budgets we implemented this year and in recent years are progressive. That is reflected in the SWITCH model the ESRI has around low-income deciles. The two lowest income deciles have been where the concentration of supports has been in terms of our response from a social protection perspective and the changes around income tax I made as Minister for Finance.
We received recommendations from the independent senior posts remuneration committee. It is important we have a structured way to set salaries within the State. That is why we have a banded structure based on the market median in respect of commercial State bodies. It is important we have that in the context of attracting people to run those companies, whether utilities or other State bodies, so that we drive performance. That is why there has to be a full assessment within the board and with the consent of the relevant Minister, in line with the wider focus on performance within State bodies.
I do not think the Minister can seriously come into this Chamber and say his budgets have delivered for people in poverty. One in five children is living in poverty under the Minister's watch, while 15% of the State's population is living in poverty.
The Minister talks about an independent recommendation committee on the pay of CEOs in the top 1%. Where is his independent recommendation committee for people who are working, earning and living in poverty?
It does not wash with anybody for the Minister to come into this Chamber and tell us the budget delivered for low-paid workers. The Minister has chosen instead to line the pockets of the top 1% of earners, increasing their pay by astronomical amounts of €50,000 and €75,000. Most people do not earn those amounts, let alone get an increase of that scale. What will the Minister do to ensure competitiveness for low-wage workers?
The Deputy saw the recent budget and the intervention we made around child poverty. It was a significant intervention on child poverty, the biggest in years. That was the child support payment and it was done with the engagement of the sector. We want to address the issues with child poverty in our country.
The facts are clear about the €300 million-plus expenditure on child poverty measures next year to try to narrow the gap. The Government, led by the Taoiseach and his Department, has put a real focus on child poverty because of some of the statistics the Deputy referenced.
This is separate and distinct from an informed decision made by a board assessing CEO pay. It is populist to pit one against the other.
It is not. Children in poverty.
Ultimately, we want utilities that have strong leadership and that are matched with the market median so we build an economy and State which can address child poverty and give people the support they require.
The Minister must know that narrative is what is causing this.
Flood Risk Management
5. Deputy Aindrias Moynihan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation the plan to advance flood defences for Crookstown, County Cork; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [71225/25]
When it floods in Crookstown, it floods people's homes and businesses and it blocks off the R585, a key artery in and out of west Cork, the Bantry line. It becomes impassable and the centre of the village quickly becomes flooded. What plans are in place for flood defence works in the village of Crookstown?
I thank the Deputy. I understand the River Bride overtops its banks upstream and downstream of Crookstown bridge. Flow paths through properties cause flooding to some 23 properties and on local and regional roads. The road drainage is unable to discharge to the river during flood events.
The 2014 Lee catchment flood risk assessment and management programme studied the flood risk at Crookstown and did not identify a viable major scheme to manage that risk. It recommended localised flood mitigation measures be progressed through the Office of Public Works' minor flood mitigation works and coastal protection scheme. This scheme does not extend to mitigating flooding to the road network. Cork County Council, with OPW funding for nine staff to support the delivery of its programme of flood relief schemes, is leading the Crookstown flood relief scheme.
The minor flood mitigation works and coastal protection scheme applies where a solution can be readily identified and achieved in a short timeframe. The criteria for the scheme are under review, following the announcement I made on increasing the funding threshold that is to be made available under the scheme. The OPW expects to advise local authorities of the revised criteria shortly.
Funding under the minor flood mitigation works and coastal protection scheme of €295,000 was allocated to Cork County Council in 2021 for minor embankment and improvement works, construction of flood defences, a storm water pumping station, new drainage pipes and associated works at Crookstown. In its approval, the OPW highlighted these works are a significant interim measure to mitigate flood damage in advance of further works.
While the county council has not drawn down the funding, it has engaged with consultants to design options for further works. While an option has been identified, the council is engaging with funding partners, including the Department of Transport, for these further works.
There is no quick and easy solution in Crookstown, given the way the flooding occurs. A big aspect of it is the junction at Clifford's and the way that gets inundated and flooded. I understand plans are being advanced with the council on a sump and pumping out. It has been conducting some of that work. It is looking around at a checkerboard of funding options, including climate change adaptation and resilience works as well as its own funding.
It impedes any kind of a job being done when it is spending more time hunting down funding streams. For example, when it is waiting to do flood works, it also delays resurfacing on the road and that has occurred for a number of years as well. Could there be one clear path where the council could have the autonomy to get on with any one channel and be able to get on with the work itself?
As I outlined, my Department has fully supported the local authority. I identified and read out the amount of money that was given. It is working with the Department of Transport in trying to deliver further for the local authorities. We have made changes to the minor works scheme. We will work with the local authorities to see where and when we can help. We have always been open in relation to Crookstown and the area. We understand quite clearly the level of pressure the Deputy is under but particularly the residents every time we have rain. It affects everybody. We need to work together and the Deputy has to reach out to the Department of Transport at this time because of where the problem is in relation to the road. There is talk of putting in a sump and that needs to be fast-tracked but where the Office of Public Works, OPW, can help, we will help as regards the minor works scheme.
I thank the Minister of State. First, I acknowledge the co-operation and the back-and-forth with regard to the work that has been done there. We saw it further up the Lee recently, with funding made available in Ballingeary and Inchigeelagh. I acknowledge that and thank the Minister of State. I acknowledge also the co-operation that has been going on in Crookstown. There is definitely no quick or easy answer in Crookstown and if it means engaging with the Department of Transport, I am pretty sure the council will be doing that. Will it need additional resources to take on that responsibility and work in that situation, or will it be able to do it with its existing manpower?
We have given it all the resources it required in terms of staff not just for this area but all the areas. The Deputy is quite correct and I thank him for mentioning what we have done so far in the different areas he came to me about in respect of funding. We have made that available but in this particular one, it depends on the Department of Transport. There is no point in saying it does not. It is either that or it is the local authority's own funding. As I said, we have made changes to the minor works scheme and we will work closely with the local authorities as we have but they have to come back to us to seek funding. If we can offer that support, if it falls within the threshold, then, yes, we will support them. I would say to the Deputy that, ideally, he needs to reach out to the Department of Transport working with the local authority to try to drive on this scheme that bit further. It is going on quite a long time but OPW has been to the front and centre of making money available to it. If it comes in looking for further support, once it comes under the criteria, we will gladly support that.
Apprenticeship Programmes
199. Deputy Donna McGettigan asked the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science the steps his Department is taking to develop and reform the placement and allocation system for apprentices, ensuring that these are reasonably within a commutable area close to where they live; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [67911/25]
One of the biggest issues for apprentices is placements for educational training. While there is an option to swap placements, sometimes there is not enough time to do this or to find someone to swap with. Apprentices have no idea where they will be placed, causing huge stress as they will need to budget for this added expense. Furthermore, the accommodation allowance for this is only €70 per week. Does the Minister accept that more supports are needed in the current cost-of-living crisis? If we consider the cost of rent in the country, the current system is forcing people into paying double for their accommodation and this is not acceptable.
I thank Deputy McGettigan. I understand well the issue that she raises and I share her concern. It is well-placed. I have heard this myself from apprentices out in the field in different locations. I have heard about the challenges they face when they are sometimes placed somewhere far from home and how difficult that is to manage. Finding accommodation, of course, is a big complication as part of that as well.
I know the Deputy raised this issue before the committee recently when she was there with SOLAS. I have raised it with SOLAS myself on a number of occasions, including very recently. I have actually asked SOLAS as a starting point to review the current placement and allocation system for apprentices, and then to fix it, and to identify any opportunities for improvement. I have also heard anecdotally from engagement with employers who are taking on many apprentices that there can sometimes be a degree of arbitrariness in the system. Even though there is supposed to be a design and methodology in place, it appears that does not always manifest. This is something I have asked SOLAS to look at and take on.
It is worth noting that apprenticeships are national programmes. As with every other post-secondary education route, it is not possible that every programme will be provided in every educational institution. An apprenticeship may be delivered through a particular local ETB but it is actually a national scheme. In our own county of Kildare, which myself and the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach share, farrier apprenticeships are available. They are not available anywhere else, as I understand it, and that is because there is a particular speciality and set of knowledge within Kildare. There are probably exceptions. If people are doing a farrier apprenticeship, Kildare is where they go to do it. There are other skills. Wind turbine maintenance is available on the coast in Tralee, for example. There are other skills that are particular to specific areas. There is also the situation where apprentices are given an offer of a placement and they can decline that if it does not work for them. They can say "No" and then the place will be allocated to the next person on the list to take up. They get up to three refusals.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. I welcome that he has been in contact with SOLAS, as have we on the committee. In some cases, we were finding at the committee that someone in Donegal was going to Cork and someone from Cork going to Donegal, both doing the same apprenticeship. It just beggars belief how that happens so I welcome the fact that SOLAS will review, and also fix, this. During recent committees, we heard directly from apprentices about the challenges for their placements. The situation is affecting all ages of apprentices now within a wider age range as the demographic for apprentices has changed significantly, as the Minister knows. There are now more and more apprentices who have families to support and mortgages in one location. This means that their responsibilities at home would be severely impacted as they would need to leave for 12 weeks. It is not sustainable. I welcome the fact that the Minister is going to get SOLAS to look into this. It should stop this whole lottery basis and apprenticeships should be closer to home.
Again, I agree with the Deputy. Part of the situation is that when an apprentice is offered a place, they are offered the next available place. There is pressure on for good reason. I put that pressure on myself to get as many people trained as quickly as possible. I addressed some of the backlogs that had previously arisen during Covid, etc. As a place becomes available on a particular course, the student will be offered the next available place. That may not be close to home but they do have the option to refuse that place. They can do that up to three times without any consequence in terms of their allocation or their place in the queue. Sometimes, by doing that they can wait and get a place closer to home. Some apprentices come forward and say they are happy to travel because they want to get through their programme and out the far side and increase their earnings, etc., by doing so. Supports are available in particular circumstances as well, particularly for members of the Traveller community, young people from particularly disadvantaged groups and learners from other under-represented groups in further education. There are some targeted schemes and financial supports available to assist in particular circumstances.
The only issue there is that they have to accept a placement within seven working days of the notification date. If they start declining, there is a fear that they may not ever get placed on this. It is an absolutely hellish situation out there for student accommodation and there is the fear too that if they do not accept the place they may not get accommodation. This process should ensure fairness for all apprentices. The Minister has said that himself. Is it fair for apprentices, many of whom are paid below minimum wage and are already paying extra rent, to be forced into living in unregulated digs because of their placement? They also may not even find a place to live and instead have to make long commutes. Once again, let us hope SOLAS rectifies all this for them.
The Deputy will be aware that there are allowances available to the apprentices who have to travel. There are various different rates and different bandings depending on whether they are travelling 5, 10 or 20 miles, right up to 40 miles or more. There are different travel allowances available to apprentices to help them in meeting those travel costs. While the issue is a real one, and one which I have asked SOLAS to examine and tackle, there is an induction module for apprentices when they start. Depending on the particular apprenticeship, and I gave the example of the farriers located in Kildare but there are many across the country, it should be known by people entering that these are based in a particular limited location. Equally, some of the larger courses, like those for electricians, plumbers or wood manufacturing, are available more widely and in those cases it is reasonable to expect that a place closer to home would come available. I expect a certain degree on knowledge on the part of the apprentice. Certainly, that should be communicated during the induction stage. Even though there may be a seven-day window to accept or refuse the place, there should have been an awareness of what is likely to arise long before that stage.
Third Level Education
200. Deputy Donna McGettigan asked the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science the steps his Department is taking in relation to the reports that a €17 million business school at University College Cork has been permanently shelved; and for an update on the status of the matter. [67912/25]
The plans for a business school at UCC have been in development for the past three years, with reports that an architect firm had signed a contract of €3.5 million in 2022. From my understanding, the project was expected to cost over €100 million and was slated to start in 2024. This would have also included the provision to accommodate 4,000 students. The statement from UCC stated the college would provide an update on Cork university business school in the new year. Are we now in a situation where millions of euro of taxpayers' money is effectively down the drain? Will the Minister clarify what the situation is?
I hope the Deputy will agree that value for money is a key component of every State-sponsored project or use of State funds. UCC is an autonomous institution. It manages its own projects and capital and it is responsible for the oversight, planning and management of its capital development plan. The university has a review under way in light of increased construction inflation. The increase in construction costs and materials in recent years has been well ventilated and that has an impact on provision and delivery of various projects. On completion of that review which is currently under way, UCC will submit its capital plan to the governing authority in the coming months; I expect it in the new year. Provision of €25 million was made for the business school in 2019 under the higher education strategic infrastructure fund. Approval in principle was granted in 2019 and the total cost of the project at that time was estimated at €105 million, with a delivery of a 17,000 sq. m custom-built business school on a site on Union Quay being examined.
I understand that the university and the governing authority have full intention and full ambition to develop a world-class business school. They are committed to the project. It will advance. However, value for money is a key consideration. Space utilisation and optimisation in the preferred location must be a feature, as must student access and accessibility, synergy and the ability to leverage other parts of the existing campus. There are a number of considerations that are currently being examined in light of this review but I am assured that the ambition and intention remains to deliver a world-class business college of which the city and the college can be very proud. However, I do not expect that it will be the same proposal as has been previously presented.
It is no secret that universities are continuing to deal with chronic underfunding for the best part of 30 years and there does not seem to be any let-up on that front. This means many universities have a heavy reliance on international students, who pay costly fees towards the Irish university sector, and potentially this is a factor in this project not going ahead. According to the Irish Examiner, the UCC business school plan was reliant on the expected income to the business school coming from international students. The publication also recorded that during the first post-pandemic year of 2022, 52,000 student visas were authorised in the State. That increased to 60,901 last year. According to statistics provided to the Dáil in May, figures for this year are not in yet but the indications are that there has been a drop-off in the number of students, particularly Chinese students, coming here.
Why do our State-owned universities have to scramble for funding elsewhere? Is there not a need for funding contingency in these types of situations?
For clarity, I am not aware of any impact on this particular project as a result of any kind of funding withdrawal or shortfall. It is news to me if that is the case. It has not been raised with me by any of the college authorities or anybody else in the sector other than by way of the Deputy's suggestion today on the floor of the Dáil. As such, it is fair to say it is not a factor here. What is strongly a factor is delivering value for money. I hope the Deputy agrees with me that it is important State funding is used well, wisely and to deliver maximum benefits for the institute and for the student population it serves.
The ambition remains to develop a very high-end business school in the ambit of UCC. However, a wise reassessment is taking place of the overall project specifications, scope and cost envelope as part of the capital review plan. I am heartened that the college authorities are doing that. It is a wise approach to the use of State money and the ultimate outcome will be far stronger for it.
I welcome that there is still ambition for this project. However, ambition is not reality or actual work on the ground. Is the Minister aware of any timeframe for how long the review will take? What happens if we are left with an unfinished site? That site could accommodate 4,000 students. Meanwhile, students continue to struggle to afford extortionate rents in the private market. We are now in a situation wherein the university has paid out millions of euro on a development that is, in effect, abandoned for now, although the Minister says the ambition to progress it is still there. This should not be happening. Hard-working taxpayers have a right to know what has happened. Can the project be taken over by the Department to ensure the site is developed to house students if what is planned does not go ahead?
The Deputy will have to forgive me for saying I am not entirely sure what she is asking. On the one hand, she is calling for me to spend more money and, on the other, she is talking about being careful with taxpayers' money. I am a little confused as to what her ask is. Value for money is a key consideration. UCC is an autonomous body and a very well-run institution with an extremely competent chair, president and board. They have told me they intend to publish their renewed and revised plans early in the new year and we will then see the shape of the new business college. It certainly will be stronger for the process that has been gone through. Throwing good money after bad would not be wise. Proceeding with a project that, at a specification and cost level, may be far in excess of what is appropriate or necessary would not be a wise move. I am speaking hypothetically but I hope the Deputy agrees with me on that principle. I look forward to UCC publishing its revised plans for the business school in 2026. The university will have my full support for the next steps.
Scientific Research
201. Deputy Jen Cummins asked the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science his plans to ensure universities have up-to-date and working equipment for the sciences. [66948/25]
What plans are there to ensure universities have up-to-date and working equipment for the sciences? We discussed this issue following Science Week. I would like to know how universities can be fully funded to ensure they have the most up-to-date equipment. We need our researchers to be working with equipment that is fit for purpose and fit for the future, particularly in the sciences.
This is a timely question. On 26 November, I launched the new INSPIRE research infrastructure programme, which provides €750 million for capital investment in research infrastructure across the State and all our HEIs. It is a landmark moment for Ireland's national research and innovation system. As I am sure the Deputy has done, I have met with various stakeholders from the higher education system, including deans of research and presidents, and members of the research community, including PhD researchers and students, as well as industry representatives and employers, who ultimately will seek to take up the ideas that emerge from research and employ the skilled graduates who flow from the institutions.
INSPIRE will commence early in the new year. It has already been launched and the capital has been secured through the national development plan. It is a successor to the programme for research in third level institutions, PRTLI, which ran in the first decade of the century and was pivotal in sowing the seeds for the very strong research and innovation ecosystem that was built upon it. It withered on the vine to an extent over the past decade or so, having not been renewed since 2010 or 2011. My party promised a new initiative in this area in our manifesto and it was included in the programme for Government. I was particularly pleased to deliver it in our first year in office.
Under the overall NDP capital envelope, there is some €4.55 billion for my Department, €2.45 billion of which is being allocated to research and innovation of different hues. The INSPIRE programme has a number of different layers, one of which is to refresh equipment, systems and facilities across the HEIs. That will give them the base layer of equipment they need to perform world-leading, excellent and impactful research. There is another layer for very large-ticket items that are particularly expensive and complex and which one institution may struggle to purchase and manage on its own. The intention is to have a shared infrastructure portal whereby larger items like supercomputers and wire banks can be purchased by one institution and made available to all that want to avail of it. We will have a national management system for that.
I am interested to see how that shared portal will work. I understand a lot of this equipment is incredibly expensive but, I assume, very important to have. I would like to hear more about how that will be managed.
Are we ensuring our PhD and postdoctoral researchers are being fully supported to be able to work in this area? I refer specifically to those who receive stipends and I am asking whether they are adequate.
There is a second element to my question. The Minister recently announced that the rent pressure zones, RPZs, will not apply to private student accommodation. I am very concerned that we will put all this equipment into universities but, at the same time, raise student accommodation prices twice in the next couple of years, out of line with what is happening in the rest of the country. I am concerned we will invest in this, which we should, but then we will not have he students or researchers coming in because student accommodation is unaffordable. I am delighted the Minister is able to put this amount of money into higher education but I am concerned that we will get all the equipment and then we may not have the students because accommodation is so expensive, particularly in urban areas.
I understand the points the Deputy raised. I will be addressing student accommodation in the response to a later question, so I will not duplicate that now. The framework on which the INSPIRE programme is built was developed in collaboration with the sector. In March of this year, I put together an expert working group made up of people from the Irish Universities Association, people with experience of the PRTLI programme and expert academics. We very much looked to the sector to see what it needed and to seek its inputs, suggestions and guidance as to what was missing and what needed to be taken into the next stage. I had some knowledge of that from previous engagements but I wanted to formally engage as part of the exercise to put the programme in place. INSPIRE is very much based upon that expert guidance and it has been very warmly welcomed by the sector. Many of the presidents have been in touch with me directly and many of them attended the recent launch. It is great to be in a position now to be able to do this.
Will the Minister explain how the sharing part will work? He said he will address student accommodation presently. I will have to step out of the Chamber but I will listen to what he says. All of these things are interlinked. When we are trying to make third level as accessible as possible, it is really important that all aspects are there to support learners but also the universities. It will put pressure on universities if all those aspects are not there. Is there a timeframe as to when the equipment will be in place? We are in the middle of an academic year and the stuff cannot be magicked out of nowhere. I am sure there are public procurement requirements and all of that. Will it be in place for the academic year of 2026-2027?
The programme will be delivered in two phases and will be managed by the Higher Education Authority in the first phase and by Research Ireland in the second. The first phase will establish a strategic baseline across the sector such that all investments are grounded in a systematic alignment with the particular university or HEI. It is a competitive fund and not a case of there being one for everyone in the audience. Funding will be awarded based upon excellence and impact, in alignment with the university. Universities are encouraged to put together their own proposals and they will be considered by an expert panel. That panel will be entirely independent and I will not have an involvement in it. The proposals will be peer-reviewed by expert academics who probably will be external to the country.
That is how it was done in PRTLI before and it is best practice internationally.
In terms of the shared infrastructure, the way it is envisaged to work is this. They are large items with a minimum €500,000 price tag; some may be multiples of that, depending on the item. Again, it would be a competitive call. All universities, effectively, would be invited in to put forward their proposals. There would be a competitive process that would then go into a central portal, which other universities can share it from.
Technological Universities
202. Deputy Donna McGettigan asked the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science the reason there are no professors at technological universities (TUs); if his Department will review this; if not, the reasons not to include professors under the remit of TUs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [67913/25]
This question is a bit outdated since the rescheduling of the Dáil last week. A recent OECD report on technological universities identified the exclusion of professorships at TU level as a huge shortcoming that should be urgently addressed. The report states the current TU system cannot fully achieve the expectations set out in the Technological Universities Act 2018. I welcome the announcement the Minister recently made that professors will be coming into TUs.
I thank the Deputy. It is something I am focused on and it is in the programme for Government. It is something I have been working on since I took on the position. I am committed to continuing the progress of the technological universities as key drivers of regional and national development. They have fantastic potential and are already realising it. I think I have visited all of them at this stage - multiple sites within some of them. They are a strong regional accelerator in terms of bringing excellence and university education to every corner of the country.
Last week, I announced a new targeted investment of €65.8 million for the technological university sector. That is the targeted enhancement fund, TEF. The projects will run over a 36-month period up to December 2028. That fund includes provision for the technological university professorships. The professor grades will be funded through that. There are some approvals required from other parts of the Government, primarily the Minister for public expenditure, Deputy Chambers. I am working closely with him to finalise the terms and conditions that will attach to those grades. I am confident of resolving this matter before year's end. We are nearly there now but I have been working on it intensely, particularly in recent weeks. That will be a significant milestone. It will give the technological universities the status they deserve and allow professors to be appointed within them, which is necessary for leadership of research projects, enterprise engagement and a status commensurate with their positioning. I am confident we have made significant progress on this in recent weeks. I hope to be able to announce that and get it brought to a conclusion, with agreement from the Government, before the year's end.
There is a huge issue with parity of esteem within further and higher education and that needed to be addressed. There should not be this distinction between our institutions and those wishing to pursue their education, whether at Trinity College or a TU. The development of technological universities has undoubtedly been a hugely impactful and positive change for higher education, boosting regions that otherwise would not have the opportunities for regional development. The absence of professorships has been a massive drawback in developing research capacity, crucial to these landmark TUs. Currently, legacy universities employ between 10% and 15% of their staff at professor level while the TUs have none. What percentage of staff will these new professors represent? Will their pay equal their counterparts' in legacy institutions?
For clarity, I will provide a short recap of the historical position. The original institutes of technology, IoTs, did not have professorial grades. They were amalgamated, largely, to form the technological universities we have now. Within the IoTs, the comparative grade was senior lecturer 3. The scales, grades, bands and job titles did not innately map onto the universities'. In some cases, the legacy job titles, conditions and work programmes did not map either. For example, they did not necessarily work over the summer. In a traditional university, a research professor would have a body of work over the summer months. In an IoT, a senior lecturer would typically finish up at the end of the academic term in May and not return until maybe late September. That is a significant difference. It is not just about giving them a new title, but about looking at their work output, the programmes they take on, enterprise engagement and the leadership role they play in the academic sector and that they are more than capable of playing, but it has to be reflected. That is part of this programme of transition as well.
The potential for massive increases in research and development if professors accounted for 5% of TU staff by 2030 is very significant. This would also increase postgraduate research student numbers and EU Horizon research funding, which could reach €80 million per year. The overall economic impact nationally would be in the region of €2.8 billion. Getting to 5% of TU staff by 2030 would be welcome.
Another important focus of the OECD report is on the comparison of various strands of benchmarked institutions with TU Dublin. The findings show greater levels of research activity and available financial resources at TU Dublin and Ireland's other TUs. A medium-term aspiration from the emerging TU sector is there when a much higher one could be available. The timelines are being closely monitored. I welcome the update the Minister has given us today on this.
They are being closely monitored, not least by me. I keep a programme for Government tracker to make sure we make our targets and, as far as possible, get ahead of target in delivering all the items I signed up to deliver at the start of this year. The OECD report is extremely useful in setting out academic career structures, contracts, senior management and leadership structures and the benefits they bring to an organisation, which are well documented and on which we are all in agreement.
In terms of the wider development of the technological universities, there have been a number of funding commitments and programmes rolled out in the past year. For example, €90 million over three years has been recently committed to in the transformation fund. The technological university advancement fund has a €50 million envelope over two years. The TU research and innovation supporting enterprise, TU RISE, research programme within the technological universities amounts to €83.68 million. The national technological university transformation for recovery and resilience, N-TUTORR, project has €40 million and there is the targeted enhancement fund, which allows things like project management systems, integrated accounting systems and student record systems to be better integrated across the TUs. They have taken a number of legacy campuses and pulled them together. Part of the funding is to bring them together in an holistic fashion.
Student Accommodation
203. Deputy Carol Nolan asked the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science the steps he is taking to address concerns relating to student accommodation and affordability; if he is aware that these concerns are driving regional disparities and increasing commuting burdens and costs for rural students; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [67669/25]
My question relates to the ongoing shortage of student accommodation across the country. Every year, the problem gets worse. In my constituency, I am contacted by huge numbers of students who cannot source accommodation in Galway, Dublin or Limerick. Unfortunately, the evidence available to us each September demonstrates that the situation is deteriorating rather than improving. What measures will be taken by the Government to tackle this problem?
I thank the Deputy. I am very aware of the high cost of student accommodation and the burden it places on students, especially those from rural or outlying areas, although it is not limited to them. In my own household, which is in an urban area, my daughter has commuted to UCD for the past couple of years and it was not a short commute, despite the fact we are not terribly far away from the college geographically. There is an additional financial burden on students who have to make that commute or cannot secure accommodation.
The student accommodation strategy 2025-2035 will set out Ireland's national policy to support access to appropriate housing and accommodation for students. Through the strategy, I am committed to expanding supports that directly address affordability pressures on students, especially for those who need it most. In budget 2026, for example, I secured an additional €10.5 million to increase all non-adjacent maintenance grants under the student grant scheme by at least €200 - in most cases by more. That means all grants for people who are non-adjacent, which means they live 30 km or more from the college, have increased, and in some cases significantly. That is to reflect the fact that those students have an additional financial burden because they are travelling or having to pay for rent or accommodation. Some 30,000 students can avail of that. The 30 km figure is down from 45 km, so that support is available to more students than ever before.
My Department also provides measures such as the 1916 bursary and the student assistance fund to students with particular socioeconomic difficulties. I was pleased to announce today that I was increasing the student assistance fund again for the coming year by over €10.2 million. It is a discretionary fund available through the welfare officers in the colleges to support students with a range of additional costs and expenses.
That will now stand at €19.3 million for this academic year, which is a record high. In fact, it even exceeds the amount awarded only last year. I am committed to continuing those supports, targeting supports at people who need them most, and making sure the cost of college is mitigated as far as it can be by support from the Department.
I thank the Minister for his response. While I certainly acknowledge that there have been some incentives, supports and improvements, the SUSI grant has unfortunately not been adjusted in line with the cost of living or the costs of student accommodation. We have seen over the past five years how rents in urban centres and many regional towns have risen at rates far exceeding inflation or wage growth.
In regard to the strategy, the delivery of purpose-built student accommodation has fallen substantially short of what is actually required, with only approximately 14,000 of the 21,000 beds targeted under the national student accommodation strategy having materialised by 2024. As a direct consequence, thousands of students now rely on temporary and often unsuitable arrangements such as staying in family homes, commuting long distances as the Minister acknowledged, or depending on the good will of relatives and friends. We really need to tackle this issue and be more ambitious in creating more student accommodation.
I wish to confirm and restate that the maintenance grants have increased significantly in some cases, particularly those on the non-adjacent rungs of the grant system. That is something that is very important to me and that I was very determined to be able to do. As well as that, there is additional support for students with disabilities and mental health challenges. The thresholds have increased to the highest ever level, to the extent that 80% of households are now eligible for at least some form of grant support. Of course, the student fee itself has been permanently discounted by €500 from the base figure I inherited at the start of this year. These are all positive steps.
The technological sector student accommodation programme is a particular accommodation package within the technological universities. Feasibility studies were performed over the past two years and the technological universities were invited to submit proposals, which they have done. The preliminary business cases will be examined in the new year to consider those projects and where they go next. I will come back in the next round.
I acknowledge that there have been some improvements but again, it is just not enough. We need to be, as I said, far more ambitious and deliver more student accommodation. I want to point out that my concerns relate to the fact that when a young person from a rural background concludes that third level education is financially or logistically unfeasible, the loss extends far beyond the individual. Society is deprived of the nurses, engineers, teachers and researchers that we so badly need in Ireland. Therefore, I ask the Minister to address the following specific points in his response to me. What immediate supports or emergency measures is the Department implementing in this academic year for students who are currently sofa surfing or living in unaffordable private rentals? Will the Government now give serious consideration to the introduction of rent controls or caps specifically for purpose-built accommodation? Is the Minister prepared to commit to a ring-fenced, State-led programme of student bed construction? Will he bring forward, as a matter of urgency, an inflation-adjusted increase in the SUSI maintenance grant and a substantial reform and expansion of the rent a room relief scheme?
I am glad the Deputy mentioned the rent a room scheme because that is an important tax relief that is available. Householders can earn up to €14,000 per year tax free by renting rooms to students. It has also been extended to local authority tenants, and at the end of last month, over 5,200 rent a room student beds were on offer in higher education institutions across the country, so that is a very significant measure.
In regard to the stock that is on hand, the Deputy mentioned the level of delivery in her opening question. One issue that is of concern to me is that there are almost 15,000 student beds that have planning permission but have not actually moved to construction. We need to look at the reasons that might be the case. A lot of that comes from viability. I refer to things like the VAT reduction on new apartment building. We will look at the procurement supports that are there and measures we can use to stimulate. Where appropriate, there is funding in the system to make serviced sites available where colleges have sites. They can be encouraged to put them to use for student accommodation to try to get some of those 15,000 beds, and a lot more, unlocked and progressed.