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

Sentiment score: 0.00

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-----

Sentiment score: 0.07