2026-05-13

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 1: In page 5, to delete lines 22 to 26 and substitute the following: “(4) A draft of the designation order shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas, and the order shall be made only after a resolution approving the draft has been passed by each House of the Oireachtas.”. I want to talk about the concentration in the hands of the Minister of huge power under this Bill. I am generally supportive of the intention of this Bill and what the Minister is trying to achieve. However, there is not sufficient oversight of this or transparency about it. As I have said before, any legislation has to be drafted keeping in mind any Minister and indeed any Government being in that role. What is being proposed in my amendment and in a similar amendment from the Labour Party is very reasonable. It is simply that the designation order shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas, and the order shall be made only after a resolution approving the draft has been passed by each House of the Oireachtas. That allows for proper scrutiny, debate, questions around the process, how this designation was arrived at, and whether one project is being prioritised as critical infrastructure when another is not. The current provisions in the Bill put the onus on Members of the Opposition to use limited Private Member's time to put down a resolution. Smaller parties and groups may not have time to do that. Just to ask questions about the designation should not require having to put down a motion in Private Member's time when we have limited opportunities to do that. This is a sensible proposal. I do not see the issues with it. It would give greater transparency and oversight to the process, and put more confidence into it. The Oireachtas, Members of this House and the general public have a right to know why these decisions have been made, why certain projects have been prioritised, and why certain projects are not being prioritised. This will prove to be controversial because there will be geographic areas, for example, that do not get their infrastructure project prioritised and they will wonder why that is the case when other areas did. In the past, there have been instances of certain parts of infrastructure getting a much higher priority than others. We are talking about not just prioritisation under this Bill but also the money behind that, which is public money. The more oversight we have of that, the better.

I echo Deputy O'Callaghan's concerns about this. We obviously want to see infrastructure delivered quickly in this country. Our biggest concern with the Bill in general is the disapplication of the climate action Acts. Given that is a power that will be given to the Minister, it is important that the Dáil and Seanad have a say in any project that is designated. Our amendment would essentially flip the burden. Rather than something being annulled requiring a resolution from the Dáil, we would say it will not take effect until a positive resolution is passed by both Houses.

These are modest amendments reinstituting some form of democratic oversight. I presume the Government is going to oppose them, because the whole purpose of the Bill from the Government's perspective is to gut democratic oversight and democratic input into the planning system. The public should know where this is coming from. The Collison brothers, two filthy-rich Irish billionaires, have developed seriously undue influence over the Irish Government via the neolibertarian think-tank, Progress Ireland. First, it was changing the law to allow landlords to rent out beds in sheds by getting rid of planning permission for cabins in back gardens. Now, they are driving this Bill to gut democratic input into the planning system so that what tech billionaires see as critical infrastructure can bypass normal democratic checks and balances. Presumably the Minister will oppose a modicum of democratic oversight as proposed by these amendments. It does not take a genius to know what this will mean. It will mean data centres driving household electricity costs even higher, hoovering up all the renewables that are added to the grid, just like they have been doing for the past ten years. The next item on their agenda is normalising nuclear power. The mindless parrots over on the Government benches are singing along to that tune now too. The last we heard of the Collisons was them jogging through Tel Aviv, tweeting that it is great to be back, during a genocide. These Zionists are disciples of the notorious Koch brothers. For decades, they have bankrolled and astroturfed for far right, neoliberal and libertarian causes around the world, including Javier Milei in Argentina, climate denialism, and, of course, Donald Trump. Ninety-year-old Charles Koch, the closest thing to a real-life Mr. Burns off "The Simpsons", is an idol for these people. Last summer, Patrick Collison gave a keynote address at a gathering of libertarians in Washington, DC, where he eulogised Charles Koch as inspirational. The Ayn Rand Institute, the Cato Institute, the Adam Smith Institute, and the Mercatus Center, all shadowy, Koch-funded, right-wing think tanks, are co-thinkers and fellow travellers of Progress Ireland, with 1,000 ties that bind them together. It is genuinely scary stuff. The Government will oppose this amendment which is about a modicum of democratic oversight. Progress Ireland's innovation policy lead, Sam Enright, recently hosted a conference to discuss whether Milton Friedman was the greatest economist of all time. The fact that he was the architect of Pinochet's neoliberal reforms in Chile, which would only be enforced by a military coup and brutal dictatorship during which an estimated 40,000 people were tortured, is no problem for these guys. If anything, as the Collisons' attitude to Israel shows, it is probably a plus. When Progress Ireland launched an appeal for funding, it bragged that, "Ireland is highly conformist and is more prone to deference to elite or expert consensus than our British counterparts." That was said to be a positive in its pitch for funding. I am making this speech to warn everyone who is watching that what we are experiencing right now is a key moment of corporate takeover. Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the right-wing Independents are lapping it up like the corporate lapdogs that they are. We have to wake up and stop the Collisons before it is too late. This amendment is a very small step towards doing that.

Before we move on, I caution Members with regard to mentioning the names of people who are not present or are outside the House. While it can be Deputies' opinion, it is not fair to use derogatory terms when there is no one here to defend themselves. That is a caution, please.

I support the amendment. It is a commonsense amendment that requires transparency, openness and discussion. There is really important work to be done regarding infrastructure. We really need to get it right now. The Government is bringing forward a plan, which we support, but it is not going far enough. I will give a couple of examples. The point was made by a number of speakers about transparency and what projects go ahead in what areas. I represent Cork North-Central. For over 25 years, there has been talk about a northern ring road. The southside of the city has a massive ring road, all the way from Ballincollig, into the tunnel, and out to Dunkettle. We have nothing on the northside. The question that people ask me about transparency and honesty is who made the decision to pull the northern ring road. Why was it made? Transparency is so important because this was part of a plan 20 years ago, and now it is not, and the Government has allocated a couple of hundred thousand euro to a project. People might say, "You are being parochial about the northern ring road, Tommy," but the northern ring road is key for the city, because if there is a crash in the tunnel or on the south ring road, there is chaos in Cork. It is vital infrastructure. How do I find out where that vital infrastructure is? How do I get answers? How do we debate it? Who picks the projects? Are they picked on merit or are they picked because of who is in power or who the Minister or Taoiseach is? These are vital questions. That is why if we come in here and we have a debate, people can get answers and we can go back to our constituencies.

Please, Deputy. Put your hand up if you want to speak.

We have the same issue with northern distributor road. We have an elective hospital that was promised 20 years ago. It is vital that these pieces of infrastructure are delivered not alone for northside of Cork city but for Munster. Someone made a point about delivering infrastructure quickly. That is impossible. It will never happen on this island, especially in the Twenty-six Counties, but we could aim to deliver it in a reasonable amount of time. I represent people and we cannot get more jobs into the northside of Cork city. We cannot get more investment in. Why? It is because we do not have the infrastructure to support the business. I want to make one last point. We want to see a college campus on the northside of the city. Education is the key to success for individuals and the country. Why has the northside never got funding? Why has there never been a college campus on the northside of Cork city? I cannot get answers. This amendment will allow people to come into this House to discuss issues openly and transparently. This is not to kick the Government. This is to work with the Government and to say that we need fairness and transparency.

The background to this Bill is this country is grinding to a halt in so many ways. Right across the country, critical infrastructure that is necessary for all our lives is grinding to a halt and it is having disastrous effects on people's lives. It is water infrastructure currently. Uisce Éireann came into the infrastructure committee and stated that it will take until 2050 before the gaps in the water infrastructure that are currently blocking the building of homes will be filled. In a housing crisis, that is a startling admission. The Navan to Dublin rail line was promised in 1994. The earliest possible chance currently is 2036. People who started work in 1994 will have retired by the time the rail line is built. The Midleton flood defences were promised in 2015 after Storm Frank and no planning application has been put in yet. We have a massive crisis in terms of infrastructure builds in this country. Regulation is important. There is no doubt that we need regulation to make sure that we have environmental, safety and working standards, but regulation can often be like a pendulum. We can have times when there is too much regulation, and we have times when there is not enough regulation. At this moment in time, we have times when we have too much regulation happening, especially in terms of the climate action Act. The climate action Act is preventing lifesaving projects from going ahead in this country because the balance in terms of people's needs is simply not there any more. We see projects like the Galway ring road being stopped, in large part because of the climate action Act. This has led to tens of thousands of people being stuck in traffic for long periods of time, with all the damage that it does. In the North of Ireland, we have a similar Act that has actually put a stop to the development of the Derry to Dublin road, which, in itself, is leading to significant deaths among people. We need a rebalancing in terms of this. There needs to be a realisation that this Bill only goes some direction in terms of what is needed. It prioritises some of these infrastructural projects and it does so on the basis of what the Government thinks should be prioritised. This means that there is a natural deprioritisation of other projects. We need the whole system to be made far more functional, far more efficient and far faster. I have a question for the Minister, Deputy Chambers, and he may have answered it before. I know it came up in the committee. Will the Bill cover private projects such as data centres, etc.? Will the Minister go on record and answer that query? I would appreciate it. This amendment does look for some level of oversight and engagement with this Chamber and it is a good amendment.

Having been denied the opportunity to tease out some of the provisions of this legislation by the decision to waive pre-legislative scrutiny, giving a mere 60 minutes to the debate on Report Stage is entirely inappropriate. I have deep concerns about what the Government is doing tonight. It is seeking to undermine the climate action Act by the back door. More significantly, by the provision of section 7 of this legislation which disapplies section 15 of the climate action Act, it is actually going to make it more likely that challenges against big infrastructure projects will be successful. I will repeat that. By disapplying section 15, it is more likely that challenges to big infrastructure projects, particularly infrastructure projects that are going to help us reach our climate targets in the area of public transport, will be successfully judicially reviewed in the courts. I want to take the House back to the decision of the Supreme Court earlier this year relating to Coolglass and section 15 of the climate action Act. Coolglass Wind Farm Limited had applied to a wind farm in County Laois. The then named An Bord Pleanála rejected that application on the basis that the Laois county development plan said that there should be no wind farms in particular areas. The Supreme Court held that An Bord Pleanála had not applied its section 15 obligation to consider the climate obligations of this particular wind farm development and did not consider its pro-climate benefits. Section 15 was the critical factor in the Supreme Court overturning a rejection of planning permission. The Bill that the Minister is putting forward provides that section 15, which we have demonstrated protected a major infrastructure project three months ago, will no longer apply to those projects. This entire piece of legislation is being conveyed on the basis of changing the law to get stuff over the line and to get these big projects delivered. The one time that section 15 was actually used in our courts, it was the decisive factor in a rejection of a wind farm swinging to an approval. This notion being put forward that what we are doing is going to help us deliver big infrastructure projects is entirely wrong, and this is demonstrated by a recent decision of the Supreme Court. Earlier in this process, I referred to three real-life judicial reviews against public transport projects: the judicial review of the Luas in Finglas, the judicial review of DART+ West and the judicial review in my constituency of BusConnects between Blanchardstown and the city centre. In each one of those cases, an individual was protecting their private property rights through a judicial review. I did not agree with those judicial reviews. I wish that they had not gone on. I am glad that two of them have been resolved, but someone exercised their rights. These were not environmentalists. These were not people with climate objections. These were people with a personal property right objection to these particular projects. Time and again, they are the source of the majority of judicial reviews that come before the courts, not environmental matters. This Bill does nothing to restrict the ability of somebody to take a judicial review on the basis of protecting their property rights, the much bigger driver of judicial reviews within our courts. In each of those cases, and one of them has been litigated before the courts, the National Transport Authority, the body taking the projects forward, strengthens its case for getting acceptance of those particular projects by saying that it is implementing its climate objectives by bringing them forward under section 15. We have to very clear: we are taking away the extra protection that section 15 gives to these particular projects, and public transport projects are explicitly listed as one of the areas that this Critical Infrastructure Bill is to apply to. It has been described as something that will help deliver these projects. It is exactly the opposite. We can be sure that as this Government and future governments advance major infrastructure projects, and particularly in the area of public transport, they will be judicially reviewed. They always are. People do it because they do not like the compulsory purchase order and they do not like losing a piece of their land. They have a right to do that. However, by passing this Bill tonight, we are making it more likely that those judicial reviews will be successful. We are making it more likely that public transport projects will be successfully judicially review by courts and plans with planning permission will be overturned. We are doing that wilfully. I have raised this throughout. The Minister has at no point come back and explained why he is ignoring the powerful decision of the Supreme Court in the Coolglass case. That judgment shows that section 15 of the Act protects projects that are seen to have a positive climate impact. We are wilfully doing that today. I want to put it on the record of the House that this Bill will not advance big public transport projects. It undermines and lessens the chance that they will get planning permission. It particularly strengthens the case of those who want to judicially review for personal reasons.

I am glad to get the opportunity to say a few words on this Bill. I will give the Government the benefit of the doubt because, for too long, this country has been starved of infrastructure. We are strangled and tied down and I cannot see the benefit of this amendment by insisting that we are to go through this Chamber. I realise all the different political views that different Members have from different counties. We would finish up without agreement on anything important that we need for our counties. Each of us would be fighting our corner, which we would be well entitled to do. For my part, Kerry has been starved of an awful lot of infrastructure. For instance, in Kenmare, we have no public water supply at the present time. Many towns and villages have inadequate treatment plants. There are villages without any treatment plant like Scartaglen and Curragh where the sewage is being drawn into Killarney. It is the same story in Beaufort where the sewage is being drawn into Killarney. We have all these places without any treatment plants. We must find the best way to hurry these things along. Uisce Éireann has a lot of work to do but we cannot be seen to be holding it up inside this Chamber with debates as to whether it should be Beaufort or Brosna or some place in Limerick or Cork. We are behind in so many ways now. For a country that is first to bring in every type of new regulation, we are behind with many of the critical infrastructure projects that are needed. Even when it comes to the basic local improvement scheme, LIS, we are way behind in Kerry, with some 560 to 570 roads on the LIS. People appreciate the last half or quarter mile to their door. We can do all the motorways and national primary and secondary roads but the road to the door should also be good. The people of Kerry and rural Ireland are entitled to a road to their door every bit as much as the people in Dublin 4. I cannot and will not support this amendment tonight. We have been waiting for so long. There are judicial reviews, analysing and scrutinising and we are paying environmental objectors money each year to object to projects. That is the actual truth of it. You could not build a hen house now anywhere without some fella putting in an objection, and he could be 100 miles away. I am glad to get this opportunity. I will support the Government on this. If it does not work, then I hope I will be back here telling the Government that it is not working. I am giving it the chance to put this Bill forward to see whether it will help us because we are in a desperate way. People who need planning are waiting far too long. It is time to do something about it. This has been promised for a long time and I hope it works. I hope, for the Government’s sake, that it works.

In the context of this amendment, some accountability has to be brought to the Dáil. I support the Bill because it is needed. It is basically putting critical infrastructure projects to the top of the pile, to put it in simple terms. I note that the Minister said earlier, which he said previously, that private infrastructure projects are not part of this. The one thing I will say is that there are projects waiting for years. Galway hospital is one such example. It is critical infrastructure that is needed because it covers the west, north west and all that area. We all know about the Galway outer ring road that has been on the go for 30 years. As I said to the Minister earlier, there are two issues we have to address as public representatives. If they are not addressed, we can put the Bill to the ceiling of the Dáil Chamber. First, the habitats directive is blocking progress on any building job around the country, whether it is a road, sewerage or water project or works at an airport, port or wherever. We must do something with that when Ireland holds the Presidency. There are a lot of sceptics who will go against the Government if it opens its mouth about this, but let us call a spade a spade and call out the rigmarole one has to go through. A snail that did not exist in Sligo held up a water project for ten years. Let us think about that. The lunatics are running the asylum to be quite frank about it. That is what is happening. We must address that. Second, sooner or later, politicians will have to face back to the climate Bill. I am watching what the courts have decided on and some of what they have said. I am fearful for road projects and other types of projects with some of the definitions I see coming out of the courts on the climate Bill. If they go down that road, legislation will have to be brought in to try to resolve that so that we will be compatible with the courts. I am not criticising the courts but we must be compatible with them so that this works. Those are the two issues I address to the Government. We support the Bill but unless those two issues are addressed, we are in trouble.

Look at Deputy Healy-Rae.

It was not my phone.

It was not his phone that rang and he thinks he is a hero.

Why do Members always look at me?

I wonder why.

I call Deputy Michael Collins.

In principle, we will be supporting the Bill because of the importance it holds for the much-needed projects out there. I was in Galway recently and I met a lot of people in relation to Galway University Hospital. Staff are working in shocking conditions, with scaffolding in place for the past two years slattering around the place like frisbees. It is a bit of a joke in this modern era in which we live. Some 4,000 brilliant staff are trying to work under those conditions. Who has the final say as to where all these projects will go? I have been a Member of the Dáil for the past ten years and I have been bringing up passing bays on the N71 in west Cork and on the R586, but nothing has happened. A fortune of money was never needed. These projects are desperately needed. A bypass is needed in Innishannon, while in Bandon there is the need for northern and southern relief roads. These all remain undone 20, 30 and 40 years later. However, every year before an election, an announcement will be made that there is money to look at some project. Some fella will make a couple of hundred thousand euro but there will be no shovel in the ground. One of my councillors, John Collins, asked that question at a meeting recently. He asked when our shovel will be in the ground, and he could not get answer. That is all we want to know. We do not want to hear about more reports because reports end up finding snails and worms, and we know what that means - the can is kicked down the road. It is the same with the bypass in Bantry. It is very difficult to come up here and to be kind of giving out while not seeing the progress that is needed for areas to progress. If this Bill is going to be supported by us, I want to know who has the final say about the projects that are being picked. Is it going to be where the most Ministers are? Is it going to be in the bigger cities while the smaller towns and villages throughout Ireland, where critical infrastructure is equally as important, will be forgotten about? Work is desperately needed in areas like Roscarberry, Ballydehob and Goleen where raw sewage is pouring into the tide. There is a desperate need for Uisce Éireann to build new sewerage services. In fairness to Uisce Éireann, it met us recently across the road. We cannot get it to sit down with us even if we have a developer. In one of those towns, I have a developer who is willing to invest and build a plant with Uisce Éireann, but it will not sit down with us. We have been asking it to do so for five or six weeks. That makes me very doubtful about where all this money is going to end up and who will have the final say. It is fine to say that we need critical infrastructure as it means the projects that are desperately needed will get to the top. However, councillors in County Cork will soon vote on a county development plan that has no vision and cannot have a vision because most wastewater treatment plants in the county's towns are full and bursting at the seams. It is a vicious circle. Money is critically needed for a lot of these projects, but is it going to be provided or am I going to be back again in five years' time telling this House that nothing has happened with these projects and we are still in crisis, even though we supported the Bill for critical infrastructure projects that were supposed to get to the top for delivery? I do not want to harp on too much but these are hugely important issues. I would like to know where the funding we are voting for will go and who will have the final say. Will politicians and the political body have any say or are we going to be squeezed out, with the final say going to the most senior politicians? In fairness, if we are supporting this, the least we deserve is an answer here and that everybody will have a say in this and will feed into the whole process. We could then go back to people and say that while we did not get the bypasses, we might have got passing bays. That would be a great start. I know of a lot of accidents in west Cork caused by people becoming frustrated behind lorries and tractors. The Minister, Deputy Chambers, and the Minister of State, Deputy Fleming, have been down there themselves. Imagine travelling from Bandon all the way west to Skibbereen before being able to pass a vehicle during the silage season. Lord God, there is something wrong somewhere. A few simple passing bays could be put in. That is where money like this should be going. It is what I keep asking for. I never ask for a fancy flyover. I just ask for common sense solutions so that people travelling on those roads at least have some safety, people who have a genuine reason to travel slowly can be easily passed and there are no serious accidents on the roads. As I mentioned, hospitals and other critical infrastructure projects need to be put at the top of the list. I know from talking to people about the Galway ring road that it is a serious issue. There is a chronic traffic issue in Galway city. I met the groups down there and they told me about it. I did not need to be told, though, because I travel around there myself. It is chronic to get through Galway at the present time. I would hate to see projects being announced now just before the election, but we need a concentration on major projects so they are done for the people and people see where their money is going. They are taxpayers. They are honest to God, hard-working taxpayers and they deserve to see their money being spent wisely and to get something back for what they continue to give. Some €500 million left over in the National Oil Reserves Agency, NORA, fund has not been spent. At the same time, I am trying to get rural transport projects across the line for rural communities. These are simple, good projects in villages and towns that transport does not reach, yet there is €500 million there. I do not know why funding is so scarce or why that money cannot be spent or given back to the people in some way. I recently met a person in Dublin who has been 20 years living in this country. He said it is a great country but it is badly run. I had to agree with him. He is from Nigeria. It was a simple statement but he is 100% right. This is why we need to make sure the money that will be available, and there could be a lot of it, is spent right and on the projects that are needed. Whether that is University Hospital Galway or passing bays in west Cork, the focus needs to be on those projects. People should be able to go into a hospital in Galway without having to look at scaffolding or see slates flying around like frisbees for the next two years. Money needs to be spent and there needs to be delivery for the people of Galway. Do not be smiling. I am being honest.

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this very important Bill. I do not support the amendments. It is important that we get this legislation passed and allow critical infrastructure to be built in the quickest possible time. I hope the Minister will have an opportunity to visit Ardnacrusha power station some day. To give some background to that, in 1896 a young engineer who had qualified through UCD was over working in the province of Pomerania in Germany. His name was Thomas McLaughlin and he came back home to Ireland at Christmas in 1923 aged 27. After being with his family, he spent the Christmas period trying to convince various Government Ministers - I will not try to name them - that a hydroelectric scheme similar to the one opening in Pomerania that year could be done in Ireland on the lower River Shannon. Given the differential in flow from the Galway area down to Killaloe and further down to Parteen, he said this could work in Ireland. In December 1923, the Government accepted what a 27-year-old bucko, who was home on holidays from Germany, had to say. Construction started 18 months later and Ardnacrusha took just four years to build, with 5,000 workers. During those years, we saw an influx of workers into our area, including a huge number of German contractors via the Siemens-Schuckert company, and a large cohort of 1,000 people from the Connemara area. During that period, our local club won its only county title in those years. The match report stated there were four languages heard on the pitch that day, English, Irish from the Connemara men, German and bad language. On a serious note, this proves that in the early years of this State, coming out of the Civil War with all the strife those years brought, and the economic uncertainty we were facing into, and with a population not knowing what their future held, we were able to build the biggest public project in our country, the likes of which has never been surpassed in the past century. That is a template for what we should be doing. The meeting Thomas McLaughlin had with the Government that Christmas is commemorated on a plaque at the entrance of Ardnacrusha power station. It is wrong that key projects are being held up year after year. I was elected to my local council at the age of 21 in 2004. There was joy in the area that summer because land had been acquired to build a sewerage scheme. I am sad to say that 22 years later, it has not been built. The Government has been actively working on it but it needs to benefit from this legislation. There are so many projects, not just in Clare but in every constituency, that could benefit from this legislation. I could rattle off a list of them. I read recently one of the Minister's statements, which I hope to convey correctly. He said that when this legislation passes two of the test projects he would like to see were the redevelopment of the GPO site and the redevelopment of the National Concert Hall.

They are for delivery under the National Development Finance Agency, the NDFA.

Those are to be administered by a different organisation. It is important that other projects also move at pace. University Hospital Limerick dominates so many debates in the House, whether at question time or during questions to the Taoiseach. I would like to see that project, above all others, progressed and advanced. A balance needs to be struck between advancing critical infrastructure and public projects and listening to the voices of objectors. It concerns me hugely that just this week, a large wind farm company objected to, and had overruled, planning permission that had been granted to a private family for a private dwelling just outside Thurles, County Tipperary. The reasons it opposed planning and put the family through the wringer of An Coimisúin Pleanála had nothing to do with the principles of renewable energy or wind turbines and their rotational impact. The objection dealt with the county development plan and the entitlement the family would have, as local rural people, to live in the local rural area they originate from. This is fundamentally wrong. The company in question, Orsted, would want to take a good look at itself. If it intends to become a feature of the rural Irish landscape providing renewable energy, it needs to understand that it has to coexist with families in the area. We cannot have one without the other. Families will continue to exist. This did not occur in my constituency of Clare but it is something we are seriously concerned about as the company tees up other projects in the west.

I will deal with amendments Nos. 1 and 2 in the first instance. Members have raised the climate Act, so it might be useful to address that specifically. I will not accept these two amendments. There is a clear process for the designation of individual projects and programmes set out in the Bill, as currently drafted. The process already includes a provision that allows Dáil Éireann to reverse any Government decision to designate a specific project or programme. Specifically, an order may be annulled if a resolution annulling the order is passed by Dáil Éireann within the next 21 days on which Dáil Éireann has sat after an order is laid before it. In practical terms, this gives Dáil Éireann ample time to consider any order the Government makes. This reflects wider accountability but broader questions can also be asked of me or my Department, as would occur through the normal process, as set out on Committee Stage. While I intend to recommend the designation of only a small number of projects or programmes, I believe it would be disproportionate to require each designation order to receive an individual assent from both Houses of the Oireachtas. The focus of the Bill is on accelerating the pace of critical infrastructure delivery. This is within the broader framework of the accelerating infrastructure plan published late last year. Part of this wider work includes taking a cold, hard look at the legislation and the regulatory process to determine which ones are fit for purpose and which ones may trap infrastructure investment in process without purpose. I do not believe that adding a requirement for both Houses of the Oireachtas to positively approve each and every designation order would be an efficient use of time. It could add an additional and unnecessary layer of uncertainty to the infrastructure development process. In that context, I will not be accepting the amendment. I was asked a question specifically relating to private projects. Section 1 of the Bill states that a project is something "funded by capital investment, by or on behalf of the State or by or on behalf of a public body". Some of the statements about private data centres are just inaccurate in relation to this Bill. It does nothing to enable them in the context of critical infrastructure and that is set out in the detail of the Bill. There has also been reference to section 7 disapplying section 15 of the climate Act. This is an important and substantive change which we discussed at length on Second Stage and on Committee Stage. I remain strongly of the view that the disapplication of section 15 of the climate Act is necessary to accelerate the provision of critical infrastructure in the country. There has been a lot of what I would describe as misinformation about the motives for this provision and its practical impact. Section 15 of the climate Act and the Supreme Court's recent interpretation of this section effectively establishes a potential extra barrier to infrastructure by creating a new avenue for judicial review. This avenue is where a public body has had adequate regard to a range of climate policies and strategies in its consideration of any development proposal. This is not idle speculation on my part. Published analysis of the recent Supreme Court judgment on Coolglass by legal professional and others has noted the higher evidential bar that would be imposed on public bodies as a result of that judgment. The issue is that in many cases, whether a public body has had adequate regard to climate considerations would be an inherently subjective assessment. Indeed, one piece of published legal analysis noted that how decision-makers square away conflicting objectives and obligations is likely to be decided in another decision of the court on another day. This is a tangible demonstration of the uncertainty that the application of section 15 is adding and could add to infrastructure development. The Government has signed up to ambitious climate targets. We are accountable to our citizens and legally to the EU on the achievement of these targets. There is no change whatsoever to our ambition, our targets or our climate policies as a result of this legislation. Similarly, the role played by public bodies in the achievement of the climate targets is set out at multiple levels and is reflected in strategies, policies and investment plans. It includes assessment of the climate and environmental impacts of any proposal that may be developed. However, the climate Act is clear that the national climate targets will be achieved through the accumulation of mitigation measures that are put in place on a sectoral basis, with each Minister responsible for achieving these targets in the sector of the economy for which they are responsible. Having a parallel system that attempts to determine whether every public body in the approval process has sufficient regard to the climate characteristics of each individual infrastructure development is a real departure, in my view, from the intended structure of the climate Act. It is also an abdication of responsibility. How An Coimisiún Pleanála should weigh, for example, the public safety benefits of a road improvement versus the potential impact on emissions is not something that should be determined by the courts on a case-by-case basis. It would be irresponsible for us in our role as legislators to leave the risks associated with this system in place. Removing the application of section 15 from designated projects or programmes simply removes one avenue for potential judicial review. It does so on the basis that the provision could delay the development of infrastructure and introduce uncertainty in the development system. As the accelerating infrastructure report demonstrated, there is a clear link between the increasing number of judicial reviews over time and the hesitation and consequent delays this risk introduces into decision-making processes, and we have to be responsive to this. This is in line with action 6 of our plan, where the Government undertook to respond more rapidly to precedent, where warranted. I want to be clear that I see judicial review as an important tool that ensures decisions made by bodies carrying out public functions are transparent, fair and accountable and adhere to the principles of legality, procedural propriety and rationality. However, as the administrative complexity of the State has evolved, the application of this test to a significant number of decisions made by public bodies has the practical effect of potentially delaying the development of critical infrastructure. This imposes real costs on taxpayers and on society in general. People have referenced the Galway ring road. Multiple critical projects over the last 20 years are going through process after process. People want us to get things done and not be outsourcing responsibility or risking delivery of projects to the courts. Disapplying section 15 to critical infrastructure projects does not mean that projects will not be subject to climate and environmental assessments. These will still take place as part of the development process for these initiatives. Every Exchequer-funded project is already required to measure and price its greenhouse gas emissions under the infrastructure guidelines. That provides an important incentive to minimise emissions, where it is cost effective to do so. Similarly, every individual-----

I thank the Minister. He will have an opportunity to come back in. The first person indicating is Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett.

The need for these designations to come before the Houses of the Oireachtas is absolutely critical because I do not trust this Government not to bully its way through on things it wants, over the legitimate concerns of stakeholders, in these decisions. I want to highlight again an instance of this, which is very relevant and happened in the last few weeks. Fishers in Dublin Bay, who have been fishing for a very long time and earning their living, have been bullied in the most disgraceful way by EirGrid. EirGrid wanted to do a survey and, without any consultation with the fishers, sent them a notice a week or two before the survey instructing them to get their fishing pots out of the water because it was going to do a survey. The consequences were that the fishers were taken to court. They were terrified. These are hard-working people who had never been in a courtroom in their lives. They were terrified and were landed with costs. I was talking to one of them just now. He was one of the named people against whom Eirgrid took the case and they were talking about €80,000 in costs being made against these fishers. This is outrageous. I raised it a couple of weeks ago in the Dáil. The whole issue is that there is supposed to be consultation, but to me this shows the high-handed attitude that State bodies can have, rather than actually having a process where everybody is heard. One imperative to develop offshore renewable energy is that it is not supposed to displace other industries. That is my understanding of EU directives in this regard. Other people's livelihoods are not supposed to be displaced in the process of critical infrastructure being developed. In this case, what is doubly infuriating about it all is who will be the beneficiaries of these developments for which the State is going to run the infrastructure, the cables and so on. Is it the State or the taxpayer? No, it is private companies like the French state and other European companies that have got the licences for a lot of these sites, which the developers selected. They were not done on the basis of benefit to the State. Do not get me wrong, we need offshore renewable wind and we need it on the east coast, but it should be done on the basis of the most appropriate and suitable sites. It should not happen at the expense of other people's livelihoods, biodiversity and sensitive environments like the sandbanks. These are very rich environments and the spawning grounds for fish, shellfish and so on. They are also the main area where phytoplankton, which produces oxygen, is found. One of the main sources of oxygen and one of the main carbon sinks are sandbanks. If the Government is concerned about protecting marine biodiversity and having the marine protected areas, it should want to designate such areas. Instead, it wants to give it all away to private developers to make profit out of our natural resources at the expense of biodiversity and, in this case, at the expense of the rights of fishers to continue their traditional livelihood. The Government just says, "no, they can select the sites, we will put in the infrastructure for them, and they will run away with the profits". That is what is actually going on. By the way, there is no obligation that the supply will come back to us or that we will benefit in terms of price or anything else from these private concerns that selected their own sites, which the Government gave them the right to do. We are going to pay for the infrastructure. Where have we heard all this before? This is happening on sea, but I have a vague memory that this happened on land as well. In fact, it is the basis of all the rotten corruption that existed in this country in terms of developer-led stuff. The Government will do anything for the developers. What do we get out of it in the end? We get housing that nobody can afford. We get speculation. I suspect the same is going to happen with giving away these sites. It is wide open for the same kind of speculation. We put in the infrastructure for them. We drive the fishers out of the way. We short-circuit any proper planning process. They are the beneficiaries, but they do not actually have to do anything. The Government is leaving it up to them as to whether we will get the offshore renewable energy at all, and they can just sit on it. They can flip it. They do not have to do anything, but the Government has left it in their hands. We are bending over backwards. We are displacing fishers and bullying and threatening them in the courts to the extent that they are fearful that they may lose their houses. That is outrageous. The whole thing is a flipping scandal. We need to develop offshore renewable wind and renewable energy, but it should be us who are doing it. The beneficiaries should be us, the owners of the sites. The site selection should be based on what is best for our Irish society, the environment and biodiversity. The benefits should accrue to the people of Ireland - and, for that matter, the environment - but not to private companies that decide which sites they get and get to run away with profits. We are paying for the infrastructure while short-circuiting the right of stakeholders to actually have any meaningful say in all of this. If they get in the way, they will be bullied and threatened. That is what has happened to the fishers.

After listening to Deputy Boyd Barrett, I might misquote St. Augustine: "Lord, make me an ecosocialist, but not if the turbines are in my constituency". I think it is a good quote for that. I have a question for the Minister. I do not think this is in the Bill, but he might be able to clear it up. Can this particular Bill affect any project that has already gone through planning in terms of any conditions that have been assigned to the planning application of an existing project? The Minister might be able to think about that and answer it, if he can, on the record. That is important because if there are existing projects that have gone through existing planning and have conditions attached to them, they should not be reopened. The conditions should be applied properly, etc., on that. In terms of what Deputy Cathal Crowe was saying about Ardnacrusha, the Navan to Dublin rail line was built in the 1860s in three years with picks and shovels. As I said, it has already been waiting 40 years from announcement to completion on it. I was in Deputy Crowe's constituency of Clare on Monday meeting people in Broadford, Ennis and Kilrush. The N68 is the main road between Ennis and Kilrush. It is a dangerous road. It is a very narrow road that is a 45-minute drive. It is the main access route to the west of County Clare. It is wide open for accidents and difficulties and, again, it is one of those projects that have been crying out for investment for a long period of time.

The intention of my amendment is that it could go through the Houses of the Oireachtas in a matter of hours. That is the amount of time that would be needed. It should not be causing any delays. It could happen within a matter of days. Indeed, if the Minister has made a designation, it is not as if the project just stalls in its entirety until the designation order is ratified by the Houses of the Oireachtas. There is still work that can go on in the project. I wish to press the amendment.

We are all agreed that there are delays and problems in delivering infrastructure in this country. The problem is that the Government and the Minister have come to the wrong conclusion about why this is a problem and why this is happening. He is determined to blame judicial reviews and environmental laws and to dump on environmentalists. These are people who are just trying to ensure that the law is upheld as it is and that decisions of our public bodies are made in the appropriate manner. The reason we want transparency and accountability and why we are pushing this amendment is that the Government is giving Ministers, essentially, the powers of monarchs. It is a power to essentially suspend or disapply a law for their favourites. The monarchs' power to suspend or dispense with the operation of law in a way that favoured their favourites was actually outlawed by a bill of rights in 1689. Deputy O'Gorman talked about judicial reviews increasing as a result of this legislation. I think this legislation is potentially open to a constitutional challenge on the basis that we had Supreme Court cases before where Ministers have given themselves power to disapply laws for whoever they want and that has been struck down. I refer the Minister to the case of East Donegal Co-operative Livestock Mart Ltd. v. Attorney General from 1970. The issue at the heart of this is not in relation to the planning process; the issue is the allocation of resources to our public bodies. The national children's hospital has been delayed 17 or 18 times. That is not to do with environmental law; that is to do with a lack of strategic planning and a lack of controls in our procurement processes. We know we are still four or five years away from any offshore wind infrastructure being built. That should be through planning in the next couple of years but the reason it is not going to be built is because our ports are not ready to construct the offshore wind platforms. This is not to do with planning or objections; it is to do with the resourcing and the expertise needed in our public bodies.

I will come back to the central issue of whether this Bill will make it more or less likely that judicial reviews will be taken, and also the question of whether it will mean judicial reviews are more or less likely to be successful after they are taken. The Minister noted that there have been academic articles discussing the impact of the climate Act. He said this is tangible evidence of the risk of section 15 of the climate Act. I am sure those particular academics are absolutely delighted now to have the Minister reference their work. The impact scores for their research are going to go off the charts now that they have been cited in the Dáil. With respect, however, this is not tangible evidence. The tangible evidence we have about the impact of section 15 of the climate Act is the Supreme Court decision in the Coolglass case four months ago, which made it very clear that section 15 applied to a planning decision and was used to overturn the denial of planning permission. Section 15 protected the infrastructure development in that case. The Government's Bill is disapplying section 15 to the biggest types of infrastructure development that the Government and future Governments are seeking to bring forward. This Bill removes legal provisions that have been held to weigh in favour of the granting of planning permission. Throughout all of this debate, the Minister has failed to address the issue of how section 15 has been found by our Supreme Court to benefit these big projects, particularly where they are seen to have a positive climate impact. When judicial reviews are taken against big public transport proposals, as they always are, that provision is going to be denied to them. In future, the granting of a designation of critical infrastructure to big projects may actually be the death knell of those projects because they will be harder to defend in the courts, not easier.

My concern around the issue we are debating now is the rights and supports that are necessary for local communities when they make their objections and when they are pitched against big companies that can steamroll their way through the planning process and onwards. The reason they take judicial reviews is because they feel that they are failed by the process itself and that they are being ignored by the political process. We have been promised, for example, onshore wind regulations in this House since 2006. We have had numerous debates about the regulations. Politicians have done somersaults in relation to it.

As the time for this debate has expired-----

Can I mention before I sit down that they construction of a ring road around Kilkenny is another issue which was held up.

The time permitted for this debate having expired, I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the Dáil of 12 May 2026: "That Fourth Stage is hereby completed and that the Bill is hereby passed." Is that agreed?

It is not agreed.