2026-04-16

2. Deputy Conor Sheehan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation when the Critical Infrastructure Bill 2026 will be enacted; the way in which it will comply with Ireland’s obligations under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 given the limitations that will be imposed on legal challenges; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27880/26]

I ask the Minister to outline when the Critical Infrastructure Bill will be enacted and how it is going to comply with our obligations, as they currently stand, under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act, given that section 15 of this Act is going to be disapplied under section 7 of the new Bill.

The Critical Infrastructure Bill is a central pillar of the Government’s broader infrastructure acceleration agenda. The need for a Bill to fast-track a limited number of strategically important projects through approval processes was identified in the Accelerating Infrastructure Report and Action Plan published last December. This Bill has been drafted and introduced. It passed Second Stage only this week. Its primary aim is to allow Government to designate certain projects or programmes as critical. This then requires all public bodies that may have an authorisation function for these projects or programmes to prioritise consideration of them within their approval processes. In practical terms, this means that relevant bodies will be required to prioritise, avoid delay, reduce timelines, parallel processes and co-operate to fast-track designated infrastructure but, other than modifying the application of section 15, the draft does not undermine or change any existing statutory processes or rights. The Bill and associated explanatory memorandum were published and, as I said, Second Stage progressed on 14 April. It is my intention to bring the Bill through both Houses of the Oireachtas before the summer recess and then commence the Act without delay. I propose to disapply section 15 of the climate Act to designated projects because of the delays this section may give rise to. It has opened up and risks a new channel for judicial reviews of the decisions of public bodies. The impact or risk of this is that it could slow the pace of infrastructure development and introduce additional uncertainty. Delays to infrastructure roll-out are, in my view, a key reason, in many instances, why we are not building the low-carbon economy we all want to build, particularly in the climate and renewable space. The report by Mario Draghi on EU competitiveness, for example, specifically identified Ireland as having the slowest approval process across the entire EU for renewable electricity. Designated projects or programmes will still have relevant climate considerations built into their development. Every Exchequer-funded project, for example, is already required to measure and price its greenhouse gas emissions under infrastructure guidelines. Under this Bill, climate and environmental obligations will still apply, such as the use of low-carbon cement in construction and many other areas. Disapplication simply removes an unnecessary layer that could drive further judicial reviews that undermines the development of critical infrastructure.

First, I will go back to what I said on Second Stage. I am disappointed that we could not do even some limited, quick pre-legislative scrutiny on this Bill. I think we could have teased through some of these things. I want to go back to a point the Minister made there. He was talking about building the low-carbon economy but in his concluding remarks on Second Stage he referenced, for example, the ring road in Galway which, in my view - and I know there are many views on it - is hardly the best example of climate-sustainable development. In particular, could the removal of section 15 stop a piece of critical infrastructure from being prioritised because it could have, for example, positive climate benefits? I am talking about a new train line and potentially a new Luas line. Could that apply to data centres under the Minister's definition of "critical infrastructure"?

I do not have the legislation in front of me right now but if the Deputy looks at the Bill itself, the infrastructure definition refers to State-funded projects, for example. The designation is clearly around State-funded or supported infrastructure. I hope that clarifies that point. I know it was raised; I referenced that in my closing remarks on Second Stage as well. What we are trying to do here is remove this ambiguity and broad statutory interpretation that could emerge from section 15 relating to critical infrastructure projects. I used the example of the ring road simply because in the aftermath of it receiving permission, we already had NGOs saying they were going to use section 15 to try to get it caught up in more knots in the courts. It is my point that this has gone through all the approval stages and has been going on for decades, and we should get it done and built. We should not have further legislative ambiguity in a piece of legislation which potentially undermines a critical piece of infrastructure. Most of the infrastructure that we are seeking to build out is in public transport and our grid development, all to build a low-carbon future. For regions in the west of Ireland and elsewhere, we do need to build out important strategic road projects which also enhance connectivity and growth.

I do support in principle what the Minister is trying to do here, even though I may have some issues with the way he is trying to do it. There is a piece in the infrastructure task force report on the Minister for justice seeking to put the judicial review process on a statutory basis. Surely that would address the issue the Minister is talking about in terms of judicial review. I have concerns here, which the Minister did not address when he responded to me, on what exactly could be defined as critical infrastructure and whether the State could define something. We have seen a worrying precedent in the Dublin Airport passenger cap and the LNG terminal. I am just concerned at this proposal to give the Executive power to disapply a public body duty under the State's climate Act to perform actions that are consistent with our climate goals.

We want to lift the passenger cap. I do not believe it is a matter for broad deference to the courts to decide on that matter. We are very clear in our objective within Government to lift the passenger cap and to grow passenger numbers at Dublin Airport. I do not believe the climate legislation should be used to undermine that. It is an economic necessity for Ireland to do that. Similarly, we have critical infrastructure which should not be undermined because certain NGOs can take cases in respect of it, or anybody can bring uncertainty. People have a right to take judicial reviews but we as legislators should seek to remove ambiguity within our legislative framework. This presents risk within our legislative framework. That is the context around critical infrastructure. When it comes to what the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, is doing on LNG, there are also energy security concerns which have been brought to light in recent weeks which we have to respond to and be honest about. He is working on that separately. We are very clear that the definition in respect of infrastructure relates to State-funded projects or programmes. Obviously there would be a limited number which are designated in that context, which we brought to the Dáil as well. We have to get momentum in this. If we continue to be deferential, provide ambiguity and have multiple legal avenues and judicial reviews, no matter how much spending we put aside for infrastructure, we will not improve delivery.