Victor Boyhan: Backs HIIF, urges clarity on critical infrastructure

Thank you, Comhairleach. Well, firstly, I want to support these amendments. I think they make common sense. I mean, housing, this very day, might I add, I want to firstly thank Minister Yew for coming to the House and your officials for the work you've put into this legislation. But today, we had a great fanfare of the Government Press Office, indeed the Minister for Housing, announcing the housing infrastructure investment fund, the HIIF. If there was ever a case to have housing as infrastructure, it was today with this announcement, May 2026. Indeed, I think everyone in the Senate seems to have circulated to all 31 local authorities, because I've seen 10 iterations in different forms, but this is the crystal clear one. This is the GIS one, which sets out and announces the great announcement. So housing is infrastructure. It has to be infrastructure. It's the Government commitment. When you read the various... I've served for two terms on the Joint Office Commission on Housing Planning and Local Government. I know, everyone in this room knows, everyone in the Parliament knows, the importance of the housing infrastructure. Then we also know, Minister, you will know, along the coast, the East Coast, we have a major deficit in sewage and waste and water, and how that has impacted on housing, and how the former on board planola, now commissioned planola, indicated that it could not grant permission for many, many projects for housing over the last 10 to 15 years, because of the lack of capacity within the sewage system serving along the East Coast, all over to Poolebeg. So again, there was the need for infrastructure. We were told there was this blockage in infrastructure in relation to sewage, in relation to water. Then we all, of course, know about our health and the major health concerns and health plans, and we've heard in various pieces and iterations of legislation around planning, that there are termed serial objectors, or people who are frustrating the planning process in developing major pieces of critical infrastructure, like health and health services. So I think that's an important priority. And then in relation to transport, we see the major deficit and shortage of the transport infrastructure. We see no eastern bypass, yet it's been on the boards for years, about a sea continuation or sea road, a circular road right across the coast. But I know, we look at Galway. I can tell you loads of projects where major deficits of infrastructure have frustrated the rollout and development of roads, job create facilities that bring on jobs, which is so essential to our economy and housing. And then we talk again about energy. And we talk about the need of getting solar energy, wind energy, wave energy. And we're again being told, and I agree to a certain extent about this, and others would have lectured us on it, that there is this hold up in terms of critical energy because of the infrastructure. And we're not getting on with our objectives in terms of producing alternative energy. And that's also a problem. And we see it around the areas of agriculture. But I'm not talking about agriculture because this is not part of this particular amendment. But clearly, housing. And the government, I mean, I want to welcome, this is an amazing commitment and ambition and putting money, or should we say the people's money, where the government wished to go in relation to the housing infrastructure investment. I didn't make that title up. That's the government's position. The housing infrastructure. So we have a housing infrastructure investment fund, millions and millions of pounds, 80 million pounds, supporting two projects initially in the first phase announced today. And I welcome all of that. That's not a criticism. I welcome that, Minister. We have challenges around health facilities. We have challenges around transport facilities, including our ports. We see the Minister talking about lifting bans in Dublin. We see issues around the various ports. We see the ambition, of course, for the Western Rail corridor. Again, something that I support. All these are critical components of infrastructure. Layers of transport of our goods, our people, our economy. And we have to invest in them all. And let's not be afraid to call it infrastructure. So I know the government, and you've indicated before, Minister, that the government will set it out. Nothing's set in stone. You need a certain amount of flexibility in relation to these matters. But I think if we're clear, we need to be clear, and we need to be concise, and we need to be strong in our messaging. And that I don't ever doubt in you, Minister. You bring great clarity to everything you do in politics, and I've observed you for a considerable period of time. And one of the great things I admire about you, you take decisions, you make them simple for starters. You bring great clarity to it. And I don't think it unreasonable to say here and now and send out a clear message to the citizens, the people that you represent. And in line with this, none of this is in any way conflicting with government policy or the program for government. That yes, the government see housing, health provision, transport, energy, transmission, distribution systems, water supply, waste water management as key critical components of a vision and a plan for infrastructure. And therefore, I think there should be some degree of certainty and clarity in relation to these issues and this legislation. There may be another way of doing it outside of this amendment, but I would welcome your considered view on these matters, Minister. Thank you. I also just want to come back just in relation to what Senator Byrne's contribution there. And I would agree with all of that. I just want to come in just before you come back, Minister. I think you said it, you put it right when you said capture. So you could capture these issues like housing, transport, energy. And I think that is correct. I'm not advocating anything about being parochial. I mean, I think that is right. I think the Minister, you said that before. We can't get into that minutiae and fine grain and parochial projects, albeit not to take away from the very significant damage and flooding that was happened down in Enniscorthy and other parts of Wexford. And so I think that's important that we don't fall into the trap of being parochial and micromanaging this or anticipating or using. But of course there will be political maneuverings. That's the very nature of politics, I suppose, and representative constituency politics. But the Minister and Ministers will come after him, will be, I presume, strong enough. And there will be accountability through this process. I think you also may have been agile and flexible. I think that is also important, and I fully support that too. Prescriptive. No, we can't have a situation where the thing comes to be prescriptive. But we are talking about a very substantial amount of money. It's public money. Remember, we're here as elected representatives. We will come, we will go. That's the very nature of politics. We're here for a period of time, and we're trying to make this as a robust piece of legislation. So I don't support anything that's parochial. I believe it's important the Minister has the flexibility and government have flexibility. It wouldn't be right to be prescriptive about what we're talking about. But I think it's important and what I was trying to touch on, that we capture the absolute importance of critical infrastructure and how it relates to housing, transport, energy, generation, transmission and water supply and waste. And we know that water supply, waste water and waste management are critically important and linked to successful planning consent. And so there is a need for that. And we know one of our greatest crisis is housing. But also we need a vibrant and buoyant and competitive economy. And that's important too. But look, and I also want to put on the record, I am supportive. I said it in the very outset. I am supportive of this legislation. But I do think we are at committee stage. And it is important that we tease out some of these little concerns. But I can tell you here now, Minister, I'm voting for this legislation. I support it. I do think it's important, however, that you know. And it's not too many ministers, and I'll finish on this, it's not too many ministers come into this house in all the years that I'm here that accept any amendments from the opposition. That's a sense of immaturity on behalf of some government ministers who see it just to come in here and say nay, nay, nay. They don't even say it. They read it off a bit of paper usually, hand it to them by a folder. And it's the no, no, no, no, no. And it's an insult to the parliamentary democracy as I see it. But that's just my few words on that, Minister. Thank you. Aineas O'Nara. I regret, Senator Boyne, I'll be continuing that trend on this amendment anyway. But apologies on that. And just to thank Senator Murphy for the amendment, and I won't be accepting it. I've consistently been clear that my central priority is to accelerate the delivery of critical infrastructure, specifically infrastructure in the energy, transport and water sectors. I focus specifically on these areas because they form the foundation of which all other social and economic infrastructure depends. We will not be in a position to build the housing and the health facilities referenced by the Senator in his suggested amendment without adequate energy, water and transport supplies. By accelerating the delivery of this core network infrastructure, we can drive a wider acceleration across all forms of deployment and development, including housing. However, the definition of infrastructure is already drafted in such a fashion that this legislation is not confined solely to the areas listed in Section 1. This is deliberate and ensures that the government has the flexibility needed to respond to emerging and pressing priorities as they arise. The government could, for example, designate the development of a healthcare facility as critical infrastructure if the need arose. That flexibility provided for in the bill is not unlimited. It operates within the clear definitions set out in the bill. In particular, infrastructure must be something that enables the essential facilities and systems of the state to function effectively. Furthermore, any project or program designed under the bill must be developed by or on behalf of the state. The legislation therefore applies to state infrastructure only, not private development. And I'm satisfied that the given flexibility is actually there in the context of the legislation as it's drafted. And again, we have sought in all of our reform agenda to focus on the three areas of water, energy and transport, because they are the underpinning infrastructure for everything that happens. But it doesn't impede us from designating, as you referenced, health infrastructure, for example, or something else that might emerge within the wider definition of infrastructure. Just the wider point was made around what would be the implications of a public body that doesn't. So we've, first of all, they have a duty to cooperate under the legislation, so this is the law that they must. Secondly, we can issue a direction to the public body, and they shall comply with the direction given under this section. So there's a clear legislative direction and an obligation on compliance with respect to public bodies who will be affected by this legislation. And I would say, first of all, if they don't comply with the direction of the law, that has significant implications for a public body. And obviously, if we have a public body that doesn't operate under the law, then there's implications for sanctioning, funding and their wider operation. So I don't think that will emerge because there's a very explicit direction under the legislation that's involved. Look, we're dealing with amendments two to four now, aren't we? Yeah. Okay. So I just want to touch on amendment four, and that's a proposal by Senator Stevenson. The Minister shall lay a report before Dáil Éireann on the rationale and criteria decision-making process used to draft a designation order as soon as may be after it is made. I think there's merit in that. I don't really know what the Minister's going to say, but I'll just say this, Minister. I think there is some merit. And we talk about parliamentary oversight. And again, I share the concerns about the legislative pre-legislative scrutiny being waived. But ultimately, that was ultimately a request from, I presume, you or your department to the committee, and the committee make that decision. And there's nothing we can do about that. But it doesn't all go well for parliamentary democracy all of the time. Pre-legislative scrutiny being scrapped, or pressure being asserted, or a request. Be fair, it's a request. Ultimately, the members have to make that decision themselves. But what does that say, really? This is a coalition government that controls both houses of the parliament. And it's important that we have another side. There will be a day, you know, when the coalition won't be in existence, or half of them will be gone, and another new type will be in. And I think it's important that we protect parliamentary democracy. And I'll have another opportunity at some other stage to talk about it. I don't want to take up time here tonight. But I think it's important for all ministers. And I'm going to say to every minister that comes in here, where any government minister seeks to cut a parliamentary debate, and we see it in terms of guillotine of debate in these houses. And again, I'm not going to stray off that, because I want to stay focused on this. But I think it's a concern. I want to flag it to you, Minister, too. We all need to be concerned if there are powers or forces within this parliamentary democracy that somehow want to stymie and curtail different perspectives and different points of view in the legislative process. But Minister, I'd be interested to hear what you have to say on that. I think there's some merit in terms of this Amendment 4, rather than my few words previous to that. But just to say, I think there's some merit in this. It is Dáil Éireann. We're Sianne and Éireann. So I don't know what people think about us suggesting something for the lower house. But I support this amendment. Thanks. Go raibh maith agaibh, so I'm not accepting these amendments. The draft legislation outlines the process by which individual projects or programmes will be designated as critical infrastructure. While I and future ministers for public expenditure will make recommendations to government regarding projects that may be designated, no project or programme will be eligible for the fast-track process set out in the Bill without a government decision. In addition, as part of the designation process, there's a mechanism in place allowing Dáil Éireann to overturn any government decision to designate a given project or programme. These safeguards place significant checks and balances on the process. Although I anticipate that only a limited number of projects or programmes will be designated, requiring positive approval from both the Dáil and the Sianne for each and every designation could potentially add an additional unnecessary layer of uncertainty to the infrastructure development process. I consider it disproportionate to require every designation order to obtain the approval from both houses. The primary aim of the legislation is to speed up the delivery of critical infrastructure in line with the action plan we published last year. When we are putting in place a framework to support this acceleration, it's important we don't add procedures and processes to the mix that actually end up costing us time through potential delays. Indeed, I'm of the view that providing for Dáil Éireann with the option of overturning any proposed designation order is a more proportionate means of providing the necessary accountability. Section 3 of the Bill sets out the clear decision-making process to be used for the designation. It provides that the Minister for Public Expenditure may recommend to government that a project or programme be designated as critical infrastructure. The government may then decide to make the appropriate order, and the Dáil has 21 sitting days to consider whether to annul that order. The legislation also sets out the criteria the Minister must consider when making such a recommendation. These include to ensure the need to ensure the effective and efficient delivery of the project or programme, whether delays, disruptions or a failure to deliver it could have adverse economic or social consequences for the State, the extent to which the project or programme may positively or negatively impact the delivery of other projects or programmes, its alignment with the National Development Plan and any other infrastructure-related matters the Minister considers appropriate. My role will be to apply a level of constraint on the number of projects designated so that prioritisation and acceleration can be achieved for critical infrastructure. If too many projects are designated, the system will not be able to respond in a manner that accelerates decision-making. It is important that we do not flood the system with designated projects. Following my recommendation, government will decide whether a project should be designated and will be fully accountable to the Oireachtas, as we are with everything else, in the normal course of parliamentary oversight on the issue of how a particular project or programme is chosen for designation. Given that the criteria for designation and the associated decision-making process are clearly defined in law, with accompanying checks and balances, I do not believe it's necessary or proportionate to legislate for a report to be laid before the Oireachtas setting out the specific decision-making process applied in each individual designation. What I would say is, look, we have critical delays across many areas and I wasn't willing to spend a period of months going through the Oireachtas in the context of pre-legislative scrutiny. This is very clear in its legislative intent. I think there's consensus on the absolute need to drive improved delivery and acceleration with greater all of state coordination in ensuring the water, energy, transport and other infrastructure projects you all care about are delivered in a much quicker way. That's the single direction intent and I think complicating it with pre-legislative scrutiny in the context of serious delays and the need to accelerate delivery was something where I welcome the fact that the committee decided to waive pre-legislative scrutiny in that instance. But I've set out the reasons, Chair, for not accepting these amendments. Yeah, I support this. I think it's important time limits need we just look at the children's hospital and see what's gone on and on and on and on and on and I have no doubt there'll be another few on and on and ons before the end of this year. And it is about accountability and it is about public money. So let's not be fooling ourselves here now because, you know, there is outrage by the general public about many public, not them all, there are many that have come in budget and come before time and that always has to be acknowledged too, but there is an anger and an outrage out there about the waste of projects, the time lags, the loose contracts, the loose commitments in terms of timelines for the delivery of projects which are public money. And you, Minister, you have special responsibility and you're pretty focused yourself in terms of looking for accountability from all the departments yourself and the need to be agile and focused and keep tight rein on public expense, public expenditure, taxpayers' money. And I think the taxpayers would expect that. I mean, time and time again over the last few years, Minister after Minister has come out and made some sort of lame excuses about a number of projects. I'm not going to list them all out here, but I can and you know what I'm talking about and people just don't understand what's going on. Who are they accountable to? How has it got to this stage? So I think it's important when you talk about critical infrastructure, as I said, I welcomed earlier the housing infrastructure investment announcements today. People expect them to be delivered on target and delivered within budget. And timelines are critically important to that. So I think we need to send out a strong message that what this amendment is seeking to do is to include relevant time limits within reason. I mean, but to have projects going on and on and on is just simply crazy. And the children's hospital is one of those in mind where the public at large simply do not know how this project, this major announcement, has got out of the grasp of the hands of the politicians that are meant to be ultimately responsible for public finances, public expenses, value for money, projects, critical infrastructure projects that are meant to be delivered in a coordinated, financially controlled and timely manner. So I support this amendment. Thanks, Senator Murphy, for this amendment. So I'm not accepting it and whilst I agree in principle that authorisation processes should be subject to clear timelines, what I don't believe is that it would be appropriate for me as Minister to prescribe the specific timeline required in specifically in the context of this legislation for every individual authorisation process and I'll just set out why. If such a requirement were imposed by my department we'd run the risk of conflicting with existing sectoral specific legislation which already exists in terms of timelines and setting out statutory timelines across multiple areas. It could also create difficulties in relation to EU law and more importantly could risk undermining the independence of certain public bodies, so as you know in certain instances statutory timelines are set out which are different to what you've prescribed here and that could potentially conflict with other EU legislation or the transposition of it. As I outlined in the Dail, Senators can be assured that the broader reform of regulatory processes needed to introduce times across suitable authorisation procedures is already well underway. This was central commitment to the Accelerating Infrastructure Action Plan that I published in December. Regulatory reform and simplification is one of the four pillars of that report and to drive this work a dedicated simplification unit has been established in my department. This work is already delivering results on the 26th of March I issued a circular on the principles for better regulation for critical infrastructure. That circular sets out eight principles that public sector bodies are required to apply in their regulatory processes. One of these principles requires fixed timelines for all licensing, permitting and consenting processes along with tracking and measurement of performance through appropriate key performance indicators. We're also seeing this approach reflected in legislation being advanced by individual departments, for example the Environmental Act 26 includes provisions enabling a minister responsible for the Environmental Protection Agency to make regulations specifying the period within which the agency should endeavour to reach decisions. So while I accept the intent behind this amendment I do not believe it's appropriate to include in the Bill. I'm satisfied that its objectives are better achieved through the wider programme of regulatory reform and simplification that is already underway and indeed the wider direction set out in the Bill in the context of the powers in the Minister to direct a particular body relating to projects that are designated as critical infrastructure. I think we've sufficient legislative direction already contained in the Bill. Thank you.