2026-02-12

2. Deputy Ged Nash asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation to outline the accountability measures in the accelerating infrastructure action plan; the way he intends to implement and enforce them; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11340/26]

The accelerating infrastructure task force action plan was published towards the end of last year. Key to that plan is the accountability measures referenced in it and how they are implemented. The Minister, Deputy Chambers, might take the opportunity to put on the record of the House the details around accountability measures in that plan and how he intends to enforce and implement them.

In drafting the accelerating infrastructure report, there was extensive engagement with ministerial and official level colleagues to ensure clear ownership of actions and the expectations for delivery of these actions. On publication, Departments were required to set out how they will implement the series of actions under their remit and ensure individuals know what they are accountable for. My Department will be managing the monitoring and reporting on delivery of the actions in the report and action plan, which will be led by my infrastructure division. It details 30 headline actions for delivery by quarter and sets out target outputs and outcomes to be achieved. All lead Departments have been engaged with over January and this month to provide an update on the delivery of quarter 4 of 2025 and quarter 1 of 2026 actions and the relevant structural changes within their sectors to aid the delivery of the 30 actions. All actions required for delivery in 2025 have been completed as of January 2026. Some of the key deliverables include the publication of the national development plan review in 2025 and the subsequent publication of all national development plan sectoral plans. As committed to in the programme for Government and the accelerating infrastructure task force, a step-change in investment for the energy, water and transport sectors has been approved. The sectoral plans detail over 200 specific projects that are being prioritised, with a particular focus on those projects going to tender or construction within 2026 and 2027. This is with the specific aim of providing certainty to the construction on the pipeline. With regard to the Government’s consultation on the scale of fees for environmental judicial reviews by the Department of climate, we will publish the consultation on fees for environmental legal costs, which will, in effect, limit the cost the State pays in environmental judicial reviews. We have had the first meeting of new joint utilities and transport clearing house, which will ensure shared understanding and collaboration between the utilities and transport sectors and greater co-operation in infrastructure delivery. I chaired the first meeting at which there was a wider discussion about its terms of reference and work plan over the coming weeks and months. The Minister for justice, Deputy O’Callaghan, also brought heads of Bill to Government to place the judicial review process on a statutory footing, which were published on 6 January 2026. These give a wider indication of some what is being implemented. At this point, there are no significant indicators for actions that are off track, and good progress is noted for actions required for delivery in quarters 1 and 2 of 2026. I will go into the wider piece in my second contribution.

The Minister will be aware that we in the Labour Party gave the action plan a fair wind. We did so because of the absolute dire situation this country faces in terms of infrastructure development, most notably in housing. The kind of economic development we all want to see simply will not happen if we do not address the key concerns we all have around housing provision, renewable energy, transport links and improving connectivity around the country. Will the Minister put on the record, in terms of the accountability measures outlined in the plan, any legislative interventions that might be required this year? For example, I notice there is a heavy emphasis on accountability for regulatory bodies and different agencies that will be responsible for implementing the plan. Are there any key legislative interventions that will be made this year to make that happen and ensure accountability really is at the heart of this, rather than having mere words peppered throughout this report?

The task force is continuing to ensure we have challenge meetings and continued oversight of delivery. We have a Cabinet committee on infrastructure and the critical infrastructure Bill, and we will bring the scheme to the Government in the coming weeks. That will place clear obligations around the prioritisation of infrastructure across regulatory bodies and agencies when it comes to trying to speed up infrastructure delivery across the State. I have also said in my role in terms of sanctioning respective Departments and agencies that co-operation and delivery of infrastructure is something that will be central to wider requests that are received through the year and the budgetary process. The accountability structure is there in terms of Cabinet committees and the utilisation of the wider sanctioning position I have. The critical infrastructure Bill will prioritise infrastructure delivery and place obligations on those involved in the infrastructure lifecycle around what they are expected to do and in what time. All of that will yield improved delivery and better accountability as through the year.

We will be watching this very closely. The reason we gave the report a fair wind was because of the dire situation with infrastructure in the country. According to the IMF and others, our infrastructure is about one third behind comparable countries. Accountability is key because that has been one of the significant missing pieces. The problem is that if it is everyone's responsibility, it is nobody's responsibility. Ultimately, the Minister will be chairing the task force. My understanding, from re-reading the report yesterday, is that where issues around delays occur, the infrastructure division of the Department will deal with them but they could potentially be escalated to the task force and subsequently to the Cabinet subcommittee. Mention was made of sanctioning Departments and agencies that are not performing, for example. It would have been a perverse situation if this kind of process were in place in recent years, given that we have had the Department of housing overpromising and under-delivering for years. We could have a situation in the annual budget round and the Estimates process, where the Department of housing, in the context of what the Minister is seeking to do here, could essentially be sanctioned with a reduction in its budget for not performing. Are financial penalties for under-delivering Departments the kind of thing we are talking about in this regard?

There are variety of mechanisms in that regard. It is about trying to drive compliance. There are obviously sanctions and requests received relating to staffing. For example, if a particular agency is not delivering in line with what we have set out in the infrastructure report, a request for additional staffing might be a consideration or how we restructure or reform a particular agency if it is not contributing to wider delivery. That is an example of it. If things are escalated and we do not see delivery and change, then sanction plays a role in terms of driving progress and reforming. We cannot allow drift to occur. I acknowledge support of the Deputy and indeed that of many in the Opposition who wish to co-operate with this. It is fundamental for the wider future and long-term progress of the economy that we drive better delivery and reform. These are pragmatic steps that will make a difference. They have a good evidence base. Accountability is key and that is why the majority of the actions sit within my Department and the infrastructure division, so that we can drive that co-ordination piece over the next number of months.