I welcome the Minister, Deputy Chambers, to the Seanad this afternoon.

I am pleased to be here this afternoon and to have the opportunity to present the Critical Infrastructure Bill to Seanad Éireann following its passing through the Dáil. I acknowledge the support that the Bill has received from the vast majority of parties in the Dáil and I look forward to hearing the contributions of Senators this afternoon.

This Bill short - it has ten sections - but its length belies the potential it will release into the system to speed up the delivery of critical infrastructure in the State.

What we are trying to do in bringing forward this legislation is to provide the statutory basis for the acceleration of decision-making around those projects and programmes that are considered to be critical infrastructure. The objective is to provide a clear signal and direction to the whole system that the projects and programmes that are designated as critical infrastructure under this Bill represent the country's key priorities and that the expectation is that all reasonable steps will be taken by public bodies, both individually and collectively, to move these projects and programmes forward as quickly as possible.

It is intended that the focus will be on a small number of projects and programmes in the realms of transport, water and electricity infrastructure. These are the projects that release the potential for the delivery of all other infrastructure, whether economic or social.

The Bill forms a key pillar of the Government's broader infrastructure acceleration agenda, signalling a significant shift toward fast-tracking strategically important projects deemed essential to the State's economic and social development. It is worth noting, however, that the Bill is just one element of the Government's overall plan to accelerate infrastructure. The report published last December sets out a series of 30 actions and related sub-actions under four key areas to speed up the delivery of critical infrastructure. Most of these actions are to be delivered in 2026 with my Department taking the lead. Each action has a clear timeline for delivery and key performance indicators, KPIs, to assess its delivery and its impact on improved infrastructure.

Turning to the specifics of the Critical Infrastructure Bill, I will now outline the various provisions in the Bill and explain the key features of each section.

Section 1 of the Bill is the interpretation. It addresses the definitions of some of the key terms used in the Bill. In this section, the Bill provides that "infrastructure" is anything that enables the essential facilities and systems of the State to function effectively and includes, but is not limited to, transport facilities, including ports and airports, and transport systems, including roads and railways; energy generation, transmission and distribution systems; and water supply, wastewater and waste management systems. It defines a "project" as something the purpose of which is the delivery of infrastructure, and is funded by capital investment, by or on behalf of the State or by or on behalf of a public body. A "programme" is a collection of two or more projects that are intended to achieve a common purpose. It is worth noting the limitation of this definition to by or on behalf of the State or a public body. This demonstrates that the Bill is solely targeted at State infrastructure. This section also defines an "authorisation” as an award, approval, decision, licence, consent, permit or other authority required, granted or made, by or under an enactment or otherwise, to enable a project or programme to proceed, in whole or in part.

Section 2 notes that nothing in this Bill will affect existing or future obligations of the State under European Union law or existing or future entitlements of the State or any person under European law. This is included to demonstrate that the Bill will not interfere in any way with our EU commitments, whether these are on our climate change targets or environmental protection more broadly.

Section 3 of the Bill deals with how projects or programmes will be designated as critical infrastructure. In summary, the Minister for public expenditure will make a recommendation to the Government in respect of an individual project or programme. The Government will consider the recommendation and, if approved, an order designating a project or programme as critical infrastructure will be laid before the Dáil. This section also lists those factors that the Minister for public expenditure may have regard to in making a recommendation to the Government. It also provides for democratic accountability by allowing the Dáil to annul any order laid before it designating a project or programme.

I intend to commence the process of identifying projects and programmes for recommendation to Government after the Critical Infrastructure Bill is enacted. My focus will be on recommending those projects or programmes that facilitate critical infrastructure across the energy, transport and water sectors with a particular focus on infrastructure that will support housing but the legislation does not preclude other infrastructure types being designated.

Section 4 of the Bill defines who the legislation will apply to and what their relevant functions are. It is intended to capture all public bodies that have a role in the authorisation of critical infrastructure projects or programmes and defines their functions as being those functions that relate to critical infrastructure.

Central to the Bill is section 5, which sets out the six core duties that relevant public bodies will be required to carry out in respect of critical infrastructure. Public bodies will be required to prioritise any functions they must perform in relation to designated critical infrastructure projects or programmes above their other duties. They must also take the necessary steps to accelerate their consideration of the designated project or programme and avoid any undue delays.

Relevant public bodies must also reduce the time required for any decision in relation to a project or programme and make every effort to parallel its processes with the authorisations that may be required by other public bodies. Next, they are required to co-ordinate, prioritise and sequence their functions with any other public bodies and to manage risks and constraints. Finally, a public body must allocate its resources appropriately to fulfil its duties under this legislation.

An important point to emphasise is that this Bill does not seek to determine or influence the decisions that public bodies will ultimately reach. Instead, it provides the framework for the Government to signal the small number of projects or programmes that are considered most vital to the public interest and mandates that public bodies need to accelerate their decision-making processes with regard to these projects and programmes.

Section 6 of the Bill allows the Minister for public expenditure to issue directions to any relevant public bodies. This is an important safeguard that will allow me or any subsequent successor to intervene in circumstances where a public body is not effectively implementing this legislation. It is unlikely that this power will be exercised frequently but if it is exercised, it will only be a direction for the purposes of the public body carrying out its functions under section 5. I cannot use a direction to circumvent other legislation or to determine a decision. In addition, I am required to consult with the Minister responsible for the public body in question before any directions are issued. These directions may require the provision of information on the measures that the public body has adopted and the outcome of these actions. The provision also allows for a direction to be issued requiring a public body to adopt such measures as may be deemed necessary for the purposes of carrying out its duties.

Section 7 disapplies section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act from designated projects and programmes. I do not make this change lightly. Section 15 of the climate Act and the courts' recent interpretation of this section, effectively establishes an extra barrier to infrastructure by creating a new avenue for judicial review. This avenue is whether a public body has had adequate regard to a range of climate policies and strategies in its consideration of any development proposal. Leaving it to the courts to determine whether every public body in the approval process has had sufficient regard to the climate characteristics of each individual infrastructure development is a departure from the intended operation of the climate Act where emissions targets are to achieved at a sectoral level. Removing the application of section 15 to the duties of public bodies in relation to designated projects or programmes will, I believe, lead to a better balance in decision-making that will lead to accelerated infrastructure while preserving the rights of the public to access the courts on the legality of the decisions of public bodies.

Section 8 provides for the power for the Minister for public expenditure to prescribe a person or body to be a public body for the purposes of the legislation. The rationale for this provision is to make sure that additional public bodies can be prescribed in the event of any other legal change that might mean a body has a function in relation to a designated project or programme but is not captured within the definitions already applied.

Section 9 is a standard provision that allows for any expenses incurred in the administration of this Bill when enacted to be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.

Finally, section 10 deals with the Short Title and commencement of the Act. I plan to commence the Act as soon as is practicable after the approval of the Oireachtas and its signature by the President.

I referred to this Bill in the Dáil as ambitious, and it is. We need to be ambitious in our reforms if we are to address this country's infrastructure deficit.

We need to use all the tools at our disposal to drive the system of delivery forward. We need to implement all 30 actions identified in the Accelerating Infrastructure Report and Action Plan, mitigating the 12 barriers to infrastructure delivery identified through my Department’s extensive stakeholder engagement. Only by moving together across all fronts can the required scale of transformation be achieved. The Bill represents the fulfilment of one of the key early actions set out in the plan and will provide the necessary framework for the transformation of the delivery of those projects and programmes that are designated as critical to the social and economic development of the State. I look forward to engaging with the House as we debate this key legislation in the coming weeks. I commend the Bill to the House.

I am delighted to see the Minister back here again today. He is here nearly every week. The legislation he is bringing to us is very comprehensive. As the Minister for public expenditure, Deputy Chambers is evidently going to be hands-on in implementing it. I am curious about how he sees that working. Will he put some meat on the bones that he has shown to us here today? For argument's sake, let us say a key project is envisaged, whether a bridge, water supply infrastructure or whatever else. While it already happens in some cases, although not all, I humbly suggest it would be good working practice to hold a meeting once a month or, God forbid, every Friday morning to bring the head of the ESB and his technical guys on the ground, Irish Water and all of these different bodies together under the Minister's stewardship. The legislation is fabulous in its detail and everything else but we must put the squeeze on and bang heads together to get the result. I know from dealing with a lot of these projects that you are dealing with Irish Water, the ESB and, possibly, Waterways Ireland. The Minister will have seen several of these things himself. Things are pushed from Billy to Jack.

The implementation and how the Minister intends to use his powers will be key to this legislation proving its worth. The Minister might want to give us more detail. If the Minister has decided a specialised project will fall into this category, to push it forward, he needs to bring all of the necessary bodies together to make it happen. How does he intend to make that happen and oil the wheel? I will let my colleague, the Deputy Leader, raise a couple of queries.

The Minister is very welcome to the Chamber. I thank him for the vision and ambition he has shown in relation to this Bill and for bringing it before us. As my good colleague Senator Davitt has said, following up on that vision and ambition is really about collaboration and implementation. It is really important that we address the infrastructure deficit, particularly in areas where the population is growing. The Minister will have noticed that the latest statistics show that the county whose population has grown the most since the 1926 census is by far Kildare, with its population having grown by 326% in that period of time. Our infrastructure has not kept up at all.

While the Minister is looking at the main areas of energy, transport and water, all of which are incredibly and hugely important, we also need to add education to that list at times. In Newbridge, the Curragh, Kildare and the surrounding areas, we do not have enough primary school or secondary school places. About three years ago, there was a contract to purchase a site for a new secondary school to address that demand and to replace the present ETB school, Curragh Community College. It appears that contract to buy the site now needs to be amended. It is a real concern.

With regard to the other areas, I appreciate that it is the government of the day that will designate the projects. However, at this point in time, I am going to be parochial and mention the projects I would like to see designated within the areas of energy, transport and water. With particular regard to transport, Members here will have heard me speak about the need for a second bridge in Newbridge. I have no doubt the Minister has heard me speaking about this as well. It is only 25% of the outer orbital ring road in Newbridge. We do not need an incredible amount of money. It is actually getting close to tender stage. We will possibly need around €10 million. This bridge would make a huge difference. There are five schools in the vicinity of the existing bridge. People are often delayed by up to 30 minutes during peak traffic times. Newbridge is a growing town with a huge population. It is a good commuter town but, when you have to drive through the town to get to the train station or to get on the Dublin road, it takes away from your quality of life. We are all trying to ensure that people have a good quality of life, wherever they live. That is one of the projects I would particularly like to see fast-tracked. It is important and essential to the economic and social development of the town of Newbridge.

I will mention another area. North-west Kildare has huge problems with energy and water outages. I refer to the area of Rathangan, Allenwood, Robertstown and Kilmeage. There are disruptions practically every week. The ESB has spoken about building a new power station, the Blake station, which would serve the north-west area. It has also spoken about a new station for east Newbridge and upgrading the present Newbridge station. It is essential that these projects are delivered as quickly as possible.

I 100% support this Bill, as do our spokesperson on infrastructure and all Fianna Fáil Members. It is innovative legislation. It is really important and will make a huge difference as we get projects done. I thank the Minister for taking the time to listen to me talk about the projects I wanted to highlight and that should be delivered for the people of south Kildare.

I welcome the Minister to the Seanad and thank him for his engagement and opening statement in relation to this Critical Infrastructure Bill. We have to shy away from thinking parochially here. We have to think of the bigger picture. This is about the economy, sustainability and our future. It is about putting critical infrastructure in place for housing, for jobs and employment, for the development of agriculture, for innovation, for the pharmaceutical industry and for all of the other exciting things that await us and our people, who are highly educated and ambitious to stay here, to work here and to contribute to our economy.

I will refer to two or three points from the Minister's opening statement. As he has said, there are ten sections to this Bill. It is relatively easy to read. The Minister statement reads:

Section 2 notes that nothing in this Bill will affect existing or future obligations of the State under European law or existing or future entitlements of the State or any person under European law. This is included to demonstrate that this Bill will not interfere in any way with our EU commitments, whether these are on our climate change targets or environmental protection more broadly.

I welcome that. That is the sort of clarity we need when we are talking about infrastructure. It is the sort of clarity we need if we want to allay the fears of potential objectors who have had genuine concerns about efforts to build infrastructure projects in the past. The Minister's note also says:

Section 3 of the Bill deals with how projects or programmes will be designated as critical infrastructure. In summary, the Minister for Public Expenditure will make a recommendation to Government

That is also important because people need to know what the projects are. The Minister does not want politicians standing up in Dáil Éireann every day to tell him what they want.

We are legislators by the way. Many people do not quite get the story here. We are the weakest local government in Ireland, partly because we do not have movement by national legislators and the Government to empower local government to make decisions and to communicate on local issues. I welcome this Bill. It is an important body of work where the foundation, if laid and communicated correctly, will aid, abet and assist the progression of our economy and help us all to realise the potential we are ambitious for in our country. That is very important. I wanted to make those two points to the Minister.

When I think about it, I am someone who has come from over 20 years in local government. I know the importance of public engagement and supporting local concerns, but I also take responsibility. We are leaders in Irish society and on policy, and we must be responsible in how we lead. However, the core principles of fair engagement and public consultation are worth pointing out because that is where much of the problems have happened in the past. I hope we can learn from them.

Fair engagement for planning and critical infrastructure is important. I hope we will see sustainable energy in wind and wave. There is also water, gas, electricity, housing, water waste - waste treatment and waste and water networks are very important for critical infrastructure - roads, transport and rail. We have huge potential for rail, including the western rail corridor, and how we embrace telecoms, the ambition around it and rolling it out, and major healthcare. Today is not the day to talk about mistakes in major infrastructural and capital projects for healthcare, but we have a lot to learn from mistakes in the past. We have major challenges around pieces of infrastructure in agriculture, specifically related to the food enterprise. I think of Guinness's initiative down in Kildare and the challenges around that. Compromises were reached, but we could have potentially seen years in delay there. However, it was resolved because there was communication, which is very important.

Best practice emphasises early, honest dialogue with communities and citizens who feel threatened in any way by major projects. We need clear mitigation in planning and structured, open transparency, rather than treating community consultation as a mere regulatory hurdle to be overcome at any cost. Again, we have to learn from that. We need to engage early, not after design. We need to consult communities during policy and design phases well before a formal planning application is made to ensure local knowledge and inputs are there, particularly from our local councillors and local government in this area, but also community activists, NGOs and others that have a view and a knowledge on the ground of what could potentially be a threat to their community or environment. This would also reduce negative impacts.

It is important we make information accessible. The Minister talks a lot about transparency and I commend him on his work in that area. Planners and engineers should be asked, and it should be provided in this legislation that it be obligatory, to translate complex engineering and environmental data into clear, non-technical language to bring clarity to the proposed projects coming through this system. It is important we have outreach, inform our communities, and that we give everybody in our community a strong, independent and equal opportunity to shape critical infrastructural projects and processes. We need to inform, consult, involve and collaborate.

At the heart of any meaningful public engagement, there has to be genuine respect for all stakeholders. We must empower all of them and foster community trust. Trust has simply broken down in many cases. It was those who shouted the loudest, who had more money and who had more access to big Government who got their way too many times. We see all around this country bad planning decisions, and bad decisions generally, that were made and not sustained because the right processes and screenings were not in place, but that is behind us. We are going forward. I like the Minister's legislation because it is positive and is setting out a framework.

What is more important than anything, and I did not hear the Minister say too much about it here today, which is not to say he is not giving it that attention because I know he is, is that governance and oversight of public money are critical in any project. The modernisation of public financial reporting and accounting is central to reforms under way by the Minister's Department of public expenditure, national development plan delivery and reform. Recent public statements by the Minister have left me in no doubt as to his political determination to seek value for money for national infrastructural projects. Addressing capital costs, overruns and public accountability are critical to public confidence. We must get that message across as part of the sell of this important legislation. I very much welcome the Minister's assiduous attention to financial oversight, control and governance in this space. I wish him well.

I welcome the Minister to the Chamber on behalf of the Fine Gael group, as Fine Gael spokesperson on infrastructure.

The Bill before us is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that will be brought forward by this Government over the entire course of this term. It gets to the core point of delivery and ensuring this Government can deliver on the key infrastructure challenges we have. It also ensures some of the largest key infrastructure projects we are talking about bringing forward, such as the metro, airports, ports, major motorways and hospitals, are able to get through the planning process to be delivered as swiftly and quickly as possible.

I am a part of the Oireachtas infrastructure committee. Over the past year, we have engaged with many different stakeholders, representatives of industry and the various State bodies and boards, who have all spoken about the need for the public good to be put right at the heart of our planning process. I have no doubt this legislation is part of the overall process the Minister has brought forward with his colleagues to ensure the red tape gets cut and delivery can happen faster and swifter. In making it possible to have infrastructure designated as critical, we are following what other countries have done in recent years in putting in place a hierarchy of projects where certain projects are above others, which is the right way to go. There is no doubt in my mind that certain projects are critical to the infrastructure needs of the country.

As regards motorways, and looking at my own area, the Minister spoke about how this legislation is going to disallow, in certain instances, section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act. I remember when that legislation was taken in a judicial review by the Friends of the Irish Environment all the way up the ladder into the High Court, where the planning for the Galway ring road was quashed as a result of the courts feeling the application did not take sufficient account of section 15 of that legislation and that not enough consideration had been given to reducing how many vehicles would travel on that road. The impact of that legislation on my area has been the delay by a year and a half of the key motorway we are trying to get built from Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour, which would ensure a motorway runs right from Belfast all the way to Rosslare Port, while the impact of that court case was reviewed in all aspects of our planning permission. This is the real, tangible impact. We are a year and a half behind because of the impact of that section.

The Minister is asking us to support certain projects labelled as critical having that section disapplied. I am not somebody who denies that climate change is having a real impact on the country, nor am I somebody who denies climate change is real. However, I am somebody who recognises there is always going to be a contest between environmental protections and the public interest in delivering infrastructure projects and sometimes a balance has to be struck, where the needs of the public, the economy and society at large means that we have to disallow certain environmental protections. I support that. I know the protections existing in this legislation give a sufficient balance between those two competing interests.

I am also somebody who comes from a county that has seen the impact these delays in planning can bring.

In Enniscorthy, as the Minister is aware, we have had devastating flooding. A fully funded flood scheme of €55 million was allocated 11 years ago, but because we cannot get through the planning process, we have not been able to deliver on that. I have been in correspondence with the Minister on the interpretation in this legislation of what does and does not qualify as critical. I hope flood schemes like that in Enniscorthy, which is part of the national development plan, will be labelled as critical infrastructure. I would like the Minister to commit on the record that not only this project but flood schemes in general in those circumstances can be labelled as critical infrastructure, and where the overriding needs of the public and the national development plan align that the Government will view these as key projects. It is important to have on the record that it is possible to designate certain flood schemes as critical infrastructure under this legislation.

The other thing I want to speak about is the enormous challenges we will have, as we learned at the Oireachtas infrastructure committee, with the balance being struck with the metro north project. It was said that the application for planning permission in that case could have been up to 3,500 pages. If we are going to deliver some of these key national infrastructure projects, we have to simplify even further. It is one thing to say to all State bodies that certain infrastructure is critical and must be prioritised, but the rules and structures we have in place to get planning permission on any of these major projects in and of themselves create a difficulty. If a single page is wrong in such a large document, the whole application fails and has to be done again. I encourage the Minister, his colleagues in Government and the accelerating infrastructure task force to look at the planning process for these major projects. While this will move things a significant way forward, there is always more that can be done.

It was recently highlighted to me that a local authority looking to develop a project involving water from the river or the sea must apply for a marine area consent licence but cannot apply it for simultaneously with the planning permission application. They have to be done one after the other. That means you apply for your marine area consent licence. That could take anywhere between three months to a year. Once you get that, you apply for planning permission, which could take anywhere from three months to two years. Why can both of those not be applied for simultaneously, with one contingent on the other? If there is a condition in one, then it also has to be a condition in the other. When that point was made at the infrastructure council by the chief executive of Wexford County Council, it struck me as common sense. That is maybe something the Minister and his officials can look at.

The Fine Gael group will be supporting this legislation, and I encourage my colleagues in the Opposition to support this legislation as well. It is one of the largest, most significant, most impactful and key pieces of legislation the Government will bring forward this term. I would appreciate if we could get through it as quickly as possible so we can start implementing it as soon as possible.

I welcome guests of Senator Dee Ryan visiting from the United States, who are Joe Nuzzolese, Leigh Volkand and Emmet Kelly from Edwards Lifesciences in Limerick. Killian Keys is also here. I thank them for coming and I thank Senator Ryan for bringing them in. There are also guests of the Ceann Comhairle from New Ross, County Wexford. They are all welcome.

I would like to split my time with Senator Collins.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I thank the Minister for his presence. This is an important piece of legislation. Sinn Féin did not oppose the legislation in the Dail as we recognise that key infrastructure projects need to be delivered as quickly as possible. However, we have many reservations about it that we expressed and we continue to have them, including that the Government requested that pre-legislative scrutiny on this Bill be waived and that amendments we submitted on Committee Stage in the Dail were not supported at all by the Government. It is difficult to understand why the Government would not include housing, education or healthcare projects in the list of projects that enable essential facilities and systems of the State to function effectively. We intend to submit amendments on Committee Stage if and when this Bill reaches that Stage.

We have further concerns with the Bill as to how the Minister will designate what constitutes a piece of critical infrastructure and what does not. The Government does not have a great track record at delivering capital projects. We discussed this yesterday in the context of some OPW projects. There have been major delays and huge cost overruns on projects pertaining to water infrastructure, flood relief, healthcare delivery and transport projects. A glaring example of how not to do critical infrastructure delivery is the national children's hospital, currently over budget by a staggering €1.5 billion, delayed by four years and counting, and with 15 missed deadlines being reported to the public accounts committee. This project must be one of the worst examples of Government mismanagement on record. There are other startling facts and figures regarding capital delivery in the State. Uisce Éireann recently stated to the infrastructure committee that it will take until up to 2050 before gaps in water infrastructure currently blocking the building of homes will be filled. In a housing crisis that is a startling admission, yet Government does not want housing to be specifically referenced as critical infrastructure in this Bill.

On the issue of prioritisation, and the Minister has outlined the process that will be followed, but even if it comes back to it all, it is what the Government has decided and thinks should be prioritised. That raises obvious concerns given the nature of electoral politics. Who decides what is and what merits being called a critical project? That is something that needs to be teased out further as this progresses through its course in this House.

I understand the issue referred to by the Minister on section 15 of the climate Act and some of the impacts it has had on projects. It is a similar issue holding up the A5, which will connect through Tyrone and Donegal into the rest of the country. That matter is in the courts at the moment. There is a responsibility because there is a challenge delivering critical infrastructure to keep pace with development happening across the island. That is something we need collaboration on. We also need collaboration to find ways in other areas where the Government can do that to offset carbon increases that will emerge from some of these critical infrastructure projects. That is a clear requirement that needs to be brought forward.

Section 6 needs further explanation. On the face of it the Minister has the power to issue directions to any public body. That is specifically not the power to change or make a decision, but it can be a power to put pressure on the decision-making process. That might impact on a proper decision being reached. Given the nature of politics in this country, that is something that needs to be teased out further. We intend to come back on some of those. I would be grateful if, today or on the next Stage, the Minister would elaborate on some of those issues raised.

I raise a couple of concerns I have about this Bill, particularly the designation of energy projects, including onshore wind development, as critical infrastructure. While nobody disputes the importance of energy security, renewable generation and meeting our climate obligations, there is a serious question as to whether this legislation risks undermining established planning safeguards and the meaning of public consultation. The definition of infrastructure in section 1 is extremely broad and explicitly includes energy generation, transmission and distribution systems. Onshore wind projects could fall within the scope of this Bill. Under section 3, the Government may designate projects as critical infrastructure where delay or disruption may have economic or social consequences for the State. That threshold is vague and potentially very expensive. It appears entirely possible that large-scale wind energy projects could be designated under these provisions. My concern is not with renewable wind energy or renewable energy itself. My concern is whether the designated process could create a two-tier system, one for ordinary developments and another for projects deemed politically or strategically important.

These concerns are compounded by the Government's continuing failure to update and publish the revised wind energy development guidelines despite repeated commitments over many years. Communities are still relying on guidelines dating back to 2006 despite enormous changes in turbine heights, scale and technology, and the cumulative impact of wind energy projects since then. It is difficult to ask rural communities to accept accelerated planning processes for projects designated as critical infrastructure when the State has failed to provide the up-to-date national guidelines governing setback distances, noise, shadow flicker, cumulative impacts and community protections. The Government cannot on the one hand argue that onshore wind energy is so strategically important that projects warrant a fast-tracked treatment while on the other hand refuse and fail over many years to publish the modernised wind energy guidelines that would provide certainty, transparency and public confidence.

Communities across rural Ireland already feel excluded from decisions relating to large-scale onshore wind developments, transmission infrastructure and grid expansion. Public consultation cannot be a box-ticking exercise. Local residents must retain confidence that environmental assessments, biodiversity protections, landscape considerations and community participation remain genuine and meaningful. If the onshore wind developments are to be designated as critical infrastructure then I ask that the Government clearly outlines what criteria will apply, what safeguards remain for communities, how consultation rights will be protected, why the updated guidelines still have not been published and how planning independence will be preserved. This is very close to my heart. There are two wind developments in County Limerick that are with An Coimisiún Pleanála, and from what I hear there are another six proposed over the next couple of months. There is an awful lot of stress within County Limerick for the residents that it will become just one big wind farm at the end of this.

I understand that all four Senators from the Cross-Party Group are sharing time. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I voted against the decision to waive pre-legislative scrutiny in committee on this Bill. I am disappointed in the framing that the committee needed to do so because this Bill is so urgent. The Government's request to waive pre-legislative scrutiny very much undermines our role as parliamentarians. The urgency behind the delivery of infrastructure without adequate expert analysis on Committee Stage is a direct consequence of the decades of the coalition partners, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, failing in that area. They created that urgency and they stopped us from having an expert analysis on the impacts of this very thin Bill.

The reality now is that Ireland urgently needs to deliver critical infrastructure. We need homes, water services, energy infrastructure and public transport. We need it to be delivered at pace that matches the scale of crises that people are living through. The delays are having very real human consequences, as the Minister is aware, particularly those locked out of housing. Communities across Ireland are being hollowed out. The next generation is forced to leave due to the lack of water supply because Uisce Éireann cannot get the water services for new homes to be built.

I am deeply conscious of the issues with this Bill relating to climate obligations. There is a legitimate fear that in trying to solve one crisis, we risk weakening our response to another. Climate legislation was not introduced as a symbolic exercise, it was introduced because this State has repeatedly failed to act with sufficient urgency on emissions and environmental protections. I do not believe that anyone in this Chamber wants to create a false choice between housing delivery and climate responsibility. We must achieve both. Communities already experiencing the effects of climate change know that these issues cannot simply be parked for another day. Pre-legislative scrutiny would have helped improve this legislation. Scrutiny does not mean obstruction. Where there is urgency, the robust examination can happen within tight timelines and can ultimately strengthen legislation rather than delay it. That, however, was not afforded to us. While I acknowledge the need to deliver infrastructure and housing, it is also important to acknowledge that elements of this Bill represent a real setback in terms of climate safeguards, and this should concern us all. I hope the Minister will be open to engaging with us on amendments on this issue on Committee Stage.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. We all want infrastructure delivered quickly but we as the Labour Party think that the Government has misdiagnosed the problem. This Bill seeks to blame environmental law for the Government's own failings by suspending section 15 of the climate action Act for particular projects. The Government is now abandoning any pretence that our biodiversity, environment or climate should play any role in deciding what we see to be critical infrastructure in this country and whether particular projects proceed. The Bill is effectively putting the duty on public bodies not to comply with the climate action Act in order to meet our climate goals. This was not recommended in the Accelerating Infrastructure report and was not required in this Bill. It removes the duty of public bodies to do that. We believe this is unconstitutional. It is harking back to the monarchs of the late 1600s. In 1690, the Bill of Rights came in to get rid of the monarchs overseeing and deciding whatever they wanted.

This Bill is wrong. We all want to agree with critical infrastructure developments, but we as a party believe that infrastructure projects were not delivered under this current Government and have not been delivered for years because of no long-term strategic planning and a lack of resourcing of our State bodies, planning authorities, local authorities and courts. We are disappointed that members of the Opposition, who we hoped would actually support us in the Dáil, actually voted for this Bill. We hope we have an opportunity in the Seanad now to go through this and that the Minister will accept some of our amendments. The children's hospital has been delayed 19 times, but that is nothing to do with environmental law. It is absolutely nothing to do with the judicial reviews either. It is to do with the failure for strategic planning. The same could be said of offshore wind. The Government has been talking about the development of offshore wind for 30 years. The new project that is going through the planning process at the moment on the east coast will not even happen until 2030 due to the failure to plan adequately.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. The Labour Party voted against this Bill in the Dáil and we will be voting against it here in the Seanad. We will certainly be putting forward amendments to it, which we hope we can have a fulsome debate on. Ultimately, we agree unequivocally on the need to have urgent action to tackle the infrastructure deficit in this country. Ireland's infrastructure deficit is certainly what makes this rich country feel poor for far too many. Many people are suffering because of this but we cannot pit infrastructure delivery against climate responsibilities. We cannot throw climate responsibilities out the window because of this Bill.

For that reason we strongly object to section 7 of this Bill, which would disapply the public body duty under the climate action Act to perform public functions consistent with achieving the State's climate goals. We have to be thinking long term here. The climate is something that will affect everybody on this island in the coming decades. We need to absolutely prioritise this.

It is not clear where this proposal came from. It was not recommended in the Accelerating Infrastructure report, which was ambitious. It speaks glowingly of our commitment to climate targets. We cannot allow ourselves to fall into the trap of thinking that we can prioritise either climate action or infrastructure delivery but not both. I think it is a really regressive step if this Government is deprioritising climate. I think there is a real absence within this Government of voices that are really championing climate. This is really noticeable. We absolutely need to insist that this needs to be taken out of the Bill.

A narrative has emerged that those who want checks and balances on climate, environment and nature have some sort of a degrowth agenda. Certainly that could not be further from the truth. Section 7 of this Bill represents a fundamental attack on the provision of the climate action Act that was passed in the Dáil in 2021 with the support of 129 Members of the Dáil at that time. Five years later, the Critical Infrastructure Bill means that any proposal that is designated as critical infrastructure will no longer have its climate impact examined, be it good or be it bad. Today the Government is seeking to repeal a central aspect of the climate action Act by the back door. We can just see how this might happen. Section 15 of the climate action Act 2021 puts a legal duty on public bodies to perform their functions in a manner consistent with the climate Act. It puts a climate duty on all public bodies. We did this similarly in the last Government with the biodiversity duty under the Wildlife Act, including the National Transport Authority, NTA, An Coimisiún Pleanála, the Minister's own Department of public expenditure, and all of them. Under section 7 of this Bill, when a project is designated as a programme of critical infrastructure, that climate duty no longer applies. It could be the Coolglass wind farm or it could be the Gluas project in Galway. It could be a project that is going to have a negative impact on the environment but in this case the climate Act no longer applies.

We cannot use the climate Act any more to say that this is actually going to be beneficial, this is going to take cars off the road, put people onto public transport and reduce our carbon emissions while giving people sustainable transport options. That is what this Bill is doing and we fundamentally object to it.

I would like to welcome Brian and Laura Richards from Clonmel in Tipperary. Laura's company, PostItLocal, was at the Newstalk changemaker business awards in the Mansion House today. Laura and Brian are with Councillor Máirín McGrath and they are all very welcome. I hope they enjoy their visit here.

The first point that needs to be marked is that there is a big concern around the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny, which has begun to be a bit of a red flag, and then the guillotining of the Dáil debate on this Bill. Where this becomes particularly egregious is when we have legislation which is constraining the action and effect of our laws. This is part of a set of measures which we know will constrain the right of citizens to be part of politics. What I say when I want to encourage people to believe in politics is that politics, in the end, is the decisions we make about how we want to live together. For many people in this democracy a fundamental part of the decisions about how we want to live together, and the mechanism through which the idea that they are involved first becomes tangible, is the planning process. It is one of the acts, alongside voting, that many people engage in, in terms of applying for or having an opinion in relation to planning permission. This is being truncated and I will return later to how it fits with the truncation of another part of people's participation in the decisions that affect their lives and shape the world and environment in which they live, which is the right to judicial remedy and having proper access to our court systems because there is an intersection here.

The language around critical infrastructure and the throwing around of that phrase is all over the narrative about this Bill but the actual thing that is happening in this Bill, to be really clear, is not massive investment in critical infrastructure or the prioritisation of huge public funds towards the delivery of things. It is not about the resourcing of our judicial processes, which we know are under-resourced, or any of the other processes that might speed things up. There are lots of separate bits in this Bill but the actual focus, the significant legislative provision that is happening here is disapplying of section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act. This is particularly galling because we heard a lot of narrative about how having a planning process is a pity because we want to get the green transition quicker. That was part of the selling of this but the Bill exposes the fact that critical infrastructure has never been about the windmills and has always been about the industrial infrastructure, the data centres, the large energy users and the corporate clients. That has always been more of the picture when we talk about critical infrastructure. If it was about the environment or about delivering climate action, we would not be disapplying section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act. That would not be a centre point in this Bill. The Government is talking about critical infrastructure and pushing a narrative about delivering on our goals but it is actually giving advantage to critical infrastructure which does not comply with section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act. By seeking to disapply that section, the Government is effectively giving equal if not more advantageous status to the kinds of developments and infrastructure that choose not to meet the climate targets that we have, thereby digging ourselves and Ireland into an even worse position in relation to our compliance not only with Irish standards but also with our EU obligations and our international obligations under the Paris Agreement.

There is huge discretion given to the Minister for public expenditure to designate a project as critical infrastructure. Again, it says that the Department must prioritise that project and presumably that could be done around the Cabinet table. The Department must prioritise that project but there is nothing around how that prioritisation actually takes effect. It is very vague. The definition of infrastructure is narrow. There is nothing about housing, healthcare, and other critically needed infrastructure but energy generation is in the mix there, and transport is in the mix. There are no safeguards around how the Minister is going to designate infrastructure and how that is going to happen in the future. This is a huge centralising of power in one individual within the Government.

In terms of public duties, what we are losing by removing section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act is the obligation on public bodies to perform their functions in a manner consistent with the climate action plan, the climate action strategy, the national adaptation framework and approved sectoral adaptation plans. We are creating a wild west whereby certain public bodies in some of the things they are doing will not be contributing to what is supposedly our national plan. It is literally the opposite of joined-up thinking. When we ask why the climate Act is being disapplied, we have to say that it points to the danger of huge infrastructural projects, which are responsible for some of the biggest levels of emissions, and which may be or may relate to fossil fuel infrastructure. This is a really dangerous point of reversal of what had been the previous position.

The Minister's power in terms of the designation of projects has been the focus of others but another concern arises in relation to ministerial power in terms of what is a public body. There are the projects, however they may be designated and then there is the question of the public bodies. This is the second blank cheque because a public body means a Minister, a local authority, a body under enactment under the Companies Act, a designated institution or any other person or body prescribed by regulation under section 8. Again, there is a danger here that we have subcontractors, or sub-companies or others under public contract, for example, who are being given this exclusion or this space. It is not clear who, in fact, will be employing this or what they are going to be employing it for.

I would like the Minister to tell us how we are going to know that our EU law obligations are going to be met. There is the issue of disapplying our own climate Act but what about our EU law obligations? Our international obligations are important too. Why is the Paris Agreement, to which we are signatories, not referenced in section 2? There is reference to EU law in the section but there is no obligation around it. Then there is the blank cheque on top of it. This is bad legislation, on top of the dilution we saw previously in the Planning and Development Act and it goes alongside the new announcement on the scale of fees. Those who are being denied proper access to participation in the planning process are also going to be excluded from proper judicial remedy, as they are entitled to under the Aarhus Convention, in terms of the courts. This is all happening at a time when we are also debating the introduction of new powers for corporate courts. We are discussing new powers for corporations in terms of seeking satisfaction from the State at the same time as we are diluting citizens' involvement in the decisions that shape their lives in the places where they live, at planning and at judicial level.

I welcome the Minister to the Chamber. I have not been in his company since the opening of the New Ross greenway, when he and I were both blown away by the gush of lovely Gaeilge that came out of the mouth of the imam.

It was marvellous to realise how multicultural and inclusive our country is when we had such lovely Gaeilge being uttered in our presence by the imam of, I presume, New Ross.

I am looking at the, in many ways, very inspiring legislation before us. In the early days of this Seanad, we had a very good debate on planned regional expansion that would give a balance to the development of the country and ensure that development does not just happen in big urban areas. The one fear that I have is that the significant infrastructural developments will be centred around Dublin - the capital city - and other major conurbations. That is going to allow for the divide between rural Ireland and urban areas in which there is obvious prosperity to develop further.

Another thing that I worry about is the short-term nature of the election cycles in the country. There are four or five years, if we are lucky, between elections. That gives rise to some degree of short-termism in decision-making. I hope that is not something which will have a mal-effect on the proposed legislation, because, as I think we would all agree, meileann muilte Dé go mall; things grind slowly with our infrastructure. That is not to our credit. I would love to see the legislation, as is the intention, speed up the delivery of things.

A few moments ago, I took the opportunity to look at the per capita figures for wealthy nations. The 2025 figures list Ireland as the fourth wealthiest country in the world per capita. If that is the case, why does it not feel like it a lot of the time? Admittedly, it does not come within the ambit of this legislation, but we have a housing crisis. I drive up the M7 and M9 every week. These interconnected motorways are a God's gift to people in the south east, but the road surface means that they do no longer feel like modern motorways.

By and large, I am minded to support this legislation without discussing it in any great detail with my Independent colleagues. I am looking forward to seeing the significance and cogency of the amendments that will be put forward. I will give them due thought and consideration. We would all agree that infrastructural development in this country needs impetus and needs to be the subject of vigilance.

There is one paragraph that I was very pleased to see. It states that chief executives of local authorities must submit their reports to the elected members of those authorities and seek their views and that the elected members may decide to attach recommendations that must be included in the report to the board. If what I have just stated is wrong, I stand open to correction. Like Senator Boyhan, I was involved in local government. Local authority members should be consulted. If they are not, then náire ar an Rialtas.

Iarraim ar an Aire freagra a thabhairt ar an díospóireacht.

Gabhaim buíochas leis na Seanadóirí as an díospóireacht inniu. I thank Senators for their contributions to the debate and their engagement on the Bill.

As I have said on a number of occasions, my priority is the acceleration of the delivery of critical infrastructure that the country needs and deserves. We all want to see speedy delivery of key projects and programmes that are critical to our economy's and our society's continued development and resilience. This legislation will play a key role in facilitating that. It sends a clear signal and direction across government and to delivery agencies and shows the wider public that we are stepping up to the plate to deliver a much-needed critical infrastructure.

I appreciate the views that have been expressed this evening and the broad consensus on the need for reform. We had a lot of contributions, many of which referenced specific local projects. The Bill does not reference specific projects or programmes. Rather, it provides the Government with the power to designate programmes or projects following my written recommendation. It is important that we have a process that allows for the development of critical and national infrastructure. The prioritisation that will emerge from this legislation in the context of delivering things at speed will drive prioritisation in circumstances where we will not be able to allocate or designate everything.

We have tried to reference three critical areas which are the foundations of every community and local economy and that are all geared towards a better national economy in terms of transport facilities, including ports and airports, and transport systems, including roads and railways, energy generation, transmission and distribution systems and water supply, wastewater and waste management systems. We referenced these three areas because they are the categories of infrastructure that underpin the provision of all other infrastructure, whether economic or social. Some have mentioned the needs of other areas in the context of the legislation. While it does not exclude the potential for other areas to be covered, the Bill does state that infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, those areas. As such, it does not exclude the potential for other infrastructure to be designated as critical. The Government has flexibility in this regard in terms of healthcare and other areas. I intend to commence the process of identifying projects and programmes after the Bill is enacted. While I will make a recommendation to the Government, the final decision will be for the Government to make.

We had a lot of commentary around pre-legislative scrutiny. There is a need for scrutiny, on the one hand, and urgency, on the other. There is a need to drive urgency and make progress. That is why the accelerating infrastructure task force has reached a broad consensus around speed, reform and much better co-ordination across the State. That is essentially what we are seeking to do with the Bill.

I disagree with some of the remarks relating to the climate Act. I am strongly of the view that the disapplication of section 15 is necessary in order to accelerate the provision of critical infrastructure in the country. Leaving such projects open to a subjective determination of whether a public body has adequate regard to a range of climate policies and strategies only opens another potential avenue for judicial review and hence delay. I ask the people who are asking me to provide urgency, speed and delivery to stop outsourcing to the big cottage industry that has built up among----

The Minister cannot unpick the climate Act.

-----members of the legal profession and NGOs matters which they, in turn, bring to the courts for decision. We have priorities that we have set out in the national development plan. We want to see these delivered for the communities that we all represent. Of course, all planning permissions and permits will be subject to the processes that are set. Let us not give another avenue to people to take more judicial reviews and delay matters further. To be absolutely clear, judicial reviews are an important tool. They ensure that the decisions made by public bodies when they are carrying out their functions are transparent, fair and accountable and adhere to the principles of legality, procedural propriety and rationality. However, where we can avoid creating unnecessary or duplicate triggers for litigation in the project development process, we should intervene.

The accelerating infrastructure task force report set out the need to rapidly respond to legal precedent. We have a Supreme Court judgment interpreting section 15 that is problematic. We have to confront that in how we legislate, how we legislatively interpret section 15 and how this will affect the future infrastructure needs of our country. We are doing the right thing in disapplying section 15 in that context. Climate and environmental assessments will still need to be carried out as part of the project development process. We are just closing off the opportunity for judicial reviews in certain instances by those who just want to delay projects. I have to strike a balance between the base of legislation and the need to deliver and get things done. I welcome the wide request for urgency in this House on driving delivery.

We are at a critical juncture. We face an infrastructure shortfall. Without decisive reform, the gap in this regard will only widen.

The report and action plan published last December provide us with the blueprint for unblocking the barriers to delivery. The actions set out in the plan have been designed in consultation with the task force, which continues to provide strategic guidance and expert input. The task force worked with my officials to identify the barriers to infrastructure and the solutions needed to overcome them. We carried out extensive consultation last year.

The Bill is a key action set out in the plan. Its purpose is to remove some of the barriers identified during the consultation process. It is a central pillar of the Government's broader infrastructure acceleration agenda, fast-tracking strategically important projects deemed essential to the wider social and economic development of the State. In that context, I say to people that we need to have legal reform and rebalancing of legislation and that blaming resourcing, on the one hand, and ignoring the evidence base, on the other, is not good legislative input. We have to be honest about the need to engage in making reforms in the context of the existing challenges and constraints we face. Too often, the simplistic response in these Houses and elsewhere is to blame resource or staffing allocation when, in fact, underpinning systems need reform or legislation requires change. That is what we are doing here.

The approach taken in the Bill has been shaped by our wider engagement across the economy. Providing clarity in respect of what is a priority and by requiring and empowering public bodies to expedite their decision-making, we will achieve significantly quicker progress on the identified projects. We have not decided what the projects will be, but they are self-evident in the context of what EirGrid, the ESB and Irish Water are trying to do. Many of them are critical projects which, in some instances, are holding back the delivery housing supply and hampering wider economic and industrial development. Everyone in this House knows that we need more housing. We also need more transport infrastructure. We need more renewable energy meet our climate targets. Without adequate water and electricity supplies, our ability to build enough homes for our population will be restricted. An inability to provide secure, affordable and decarbonised energy supplies has an impact when it comes to energy poverty, competitiveness, jobs and our ability to deliver on climate targets. Inadequate transport infrastructure means more congestion on our roads, higher bills and more time spent in cars by so many commuters. The focus on transport, energy and water projects and programmes outlined in the Bill will provide us with a launch pad from which to proceed in order to address all of the country's other infrastructure needs.

In the years to come, I have no doubt that this legislation will be seen as a singular intervention made to address our infrastructure deficit by providing the legal framework for unlocking the acceleration of delivery of the projects and programmes that are critical for our economic and social prosperity. I am thankful for and value all of the contributions which were made and which I take seriously. We will have better engagement on Committee and Report Stages in the coming weeks.

I welcome to the Visitors Gallery Deputy Martin Daly and his guests. I hope they enjoy their visit to Leinster House.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Next Tuesday.

Is that agreed? Agreed.