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.

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.

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.

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.

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.