2026-04-16

13. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation to outline the statutory safeguards, oversight mechanisms and independent review processes that will be put in place to ensure that the significant powers assigned to him under the Critical Infrastructure Bill 2026 are exercised in a transparent, proportionate and accountable manner; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27624/26]

On the Critical Infrastructure Bill, it is good that there is a focus on trying to speed up these processes. We have heard from the Minister with responsibility for the OPW that it takes about ten years to deliver a Garda station. That is just one of many examples of how slow these processes are. It is not just about legislation, though. The Bill would give the Minister significant powers in terms of designation. What safeguards, oversight mechanisms or process would be in place to ensure that those significant powers the Minister is assigning to himself will be exercised in a transparent, proportionate and accountable manner?

I thank the Deputy. As I said, 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 number of strategically important projects through approval processes was identified in the action published last December. The Bill has been drafted and introduced on a priority basis to respond to this need. Its primary aim is to allow the Government to designate certain projects or programmes as critical. This then requires all public bodies that may have an authorisation function to prioritise them within their approval processes. This will avoid delays, reduce timelines, parallel processes, and introduce a duty to co-operate across the board. In terms of the safeguards, I will make a recommendation to the Government that a designation order may be made in respect of a project or programme. The decision as to whether to designate the project rests with the Government. Where the Government decides to exercise the order, it must be laid before Dáil Éireann and if a resolution annulling the order is passed by Dáil Éireann within the next 21 days on which Dáil Éireann has sat after the order is laid before it, the order shall be annulled. This ensures that the power to designate projects or programmes ultimately rests with the Oireachtas. In addition, under section 5, I may request a relevant body to provide certain information. That is set out in terms of strengthening project performance across the board. Section 6 of the Bill provides that I may give directions to a particular body to improve performance anchored in its duties and functions. Again, that is to ensure it is on board with broader infrastructure delivery. Many of these critical projects are known. Many are in the national development plan or relate to a State body. There is no mystery about which projects will be involved. Within that, we will have to prioritise to ensure that the projects that are of critical importance receive prioritisation in the infrastructure system. They then need to be fast-tracked through existing approval processes. Separately, we are working on emergency powers to try to skip stages but that will have a much higher legal threshold because it would involve skipping potential stages. That is not in this particular piece of legislation.

I accept there is no mystery about these projects. They are all good projects. I cannot see why anyone would want to bring a motion to the Dáil to annul prioritisation of any of the projects under consideration. That is not really the issue. The issue is the bit of mystery about how the prioritisation will be carried out. What will and will not be prioritised? How will that be decided? That is the bit the Minister and the Cabinet will have information on but the Dáil, Oireachtas and public will not. That is the missing part. How will prioritisation be carried out? Where is the transparency in that regard? The Bill is silent on this. It gives the power to the Minister, subject to Cabinet approval and laid before the Oireachtas but there is no information about how that decision will be made. It does not work if everything worthwhile is prioritised. Decisions have to be made. I accept that but we will be in the dark as to why one good project was prioritised and another was not. If there is no transparency around this, it will lead to a situation where people will question why one project was picked over another important project.

We have a framework set out in the legislation detailing the factors the Minister in my position will consider when designating particular projects. Obviously, I will be accountable to the House as to why a particular project is picked and prioritised. I always respect my duties to the House in that regard. I can already see the political risk in how this will be managed in the House where Deputies will question why certain projects are not being prioritised over other projects. If this is how the Bill is used, it will undermine infrastructure delivery. The key element is that we have a limited number of strategically important projects we can seek to advance. If it becomes too big and if everything is prioritised, nothing will be prioritised. I am very much anchored to many of the strategically important sectors that are critical to Ireland’s future, such as the energy, water, transport sectors. All of those sectors are involved in building more homes and contribute to the wider social and economic development of our country. I take that national responsibility carefully, and it is grounded in how we make decisions around this. I hope, as an Oireachtas, we all get on board with that because, ultimately, if we bog it down with too many projects, the upside of this legislation gets undermined.

The point I always make about legislation is that it has to be drafted not just for this Government but the governments that come after. It has to be drafted for Ministers who will take these responsibilities in the absolute public interest but also for Ministers who may not do that. My concern is having that concentration of power without information around the process. If we have information as to how the decisions will be made on each project, at least we will be able to understand the rationale as to why a certain project was prioritised and another was not. Without that information provided to the Oireachtas, the Dáil and the public, it will lead to people questioning why a project in Cork, for example, was prioritised but one in Galway was not. It will create a problem. If people see how and why the decision was made, it provides a bit of protection to both the Minister and the Government, as well as proper accountability and transparency. We will obviously look at this on Committee Stage but I ask the Minister to consider what I am putting forward.

We have set out a framework on the factors the Minister can consider in the context of designating projects. Anchoring decisions around those are important. I assure the Deputy and anyone in this House that any decision I make on designation will be fully in the public and national interest, yielding overall delivery. I will be accountable to the House in that regard. Prioritisation always creates winners and losers in any scenario, whether it is capital projects or in a budgetary context. Trade-offs happen. For example, we have referenced programmes or projects in the energy sector. We have a programme of investment with ESB Networks and EirGrid that must be carried out. It is fairly clear that it will be a necessary national programme. It is nationwide anyway. There are other well-documented projects that are critical for Ireland. That is what I will be grounded in and the basis on which I will make decisions. We have a framework in place. I will be accountable to the House and transparent about how we come to particular decisions.