Jack Chambers: Defends removing Section 15 to speed projects

Amendments 1 and 2 in the first instance and then I might, look I know people have raised the Climate Act so I might, if it's useful just to come back on that specifically. So I'm not accepting these two amendments. There's a clear process for the designation of individual projects and programs 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 program. Specifically an order may be annulled if a resolution annulling the order is passed by Dáil Éireann within the next 21 days in 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 that the government makes and I think this reflects wider accountability but also wider, broader questions can be made of me or of my department as would occur through the normal process as we would have set out at committee. And while I intend to recommend the designation of only a small number of projects or programs 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 an accelerating the pace of critical infrastructure delivery and this is in the broader framework of the accelerating infrastructure plan I published late last year. Part of this wider work includes taking a cold hard look at the legislation and regulatory processes 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 there will be an efficient use of time and could add an additional and unnecessary layer of uncertainty to the infrastructure development process and in that context I won't be accepting the amendment. I was asked a question there around specifically relating to private projects and on page four on section one page four of the bill it specifically says a project means it's something funded by capital investment by or on behalf of the state or by on behalf of a public body so some of the statements around private data centers are just inaccurate in relation to this bill and this bill does nothing to enable them in the context of critical infrastructure that's actually set out and in the detail of the bill. There's also been reference to section 7 disapplying section 15 of the Climate Act and this is an important and substantive change which we discussed at length at both at second stage and committee stage and I strongly remain 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 and there's been a lot of what I describe as misinformation and the motives for this provision and its practical impact. Section 15 of the Climate Act and the court's recent interpretation of this section effectively establishes a potentially an extra barrier to infrastructure by creating a new avenue for judicial review. This avenue is where the public body has had adequate regard to a range of climate policies and strategies in their consideration of any development proposal. This is not idle speculation on my part. Published analysis of the recent Supreme Court judgment on cool glass by legal professionals and others has noted that the higher evidential bar that will 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 will be inherently subjective assessment. Indeed one published, one piece of published legal analysis specifically noted that quite how decision makers to square away potentially conflicting objectives and obligations is likely to be decided in another decision of the court on another day and this is a tangible demonstration of the uncertainty that the application of section 15 is adding and could add to infrastructure development. The Irish 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's no change whatsoever to our ambition targets or indeed our climate policies as a result of this legislation. Similarly the role played by public bodies in the achievement of our climate targets is set out at multiple levels and is reflected in strategies policies and investment plans. It includes assessment of the climate environmental impacts of any proposal that they may 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 for. 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's also an abdication of responsibility. Leaving it to the courts for example to determine how on commission planala should weigh the public safety benefits of a road improvement versus the potential impact in emissions is not something that should be determined by the courts on a case-by-case basis. I believe 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 programs just simply removes one avenue for potential additional review. It does so on the basis that the provision could delay the development of infrastructure and introduces uncertainty in the development system. As the accelerating infrastructure report demonstrated there's a clear link between the increasing number of judicial reviews over time and the hesitation and consequent delays that this risk introduces into decision making processes and we have to be responsive to this. This in line with action six of our plan where the government undertook to responding more rapidly to precedent where warranted. I want to be clear that I view judicial reviews as an important tool that ensures that the decision made by bodies when they're 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 particular test of significant number of decisions made by public bodies has the practical effect of potentially delaying the development of critical infrastructure. That imposes real costs on taxpayers and on society in general. People have referenced the Galway ring road multiple projects critical projects it could missed over 20 years which are going through process after process people want us to get things done and not be outsourcing responsibility or risking delivery of projects at 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 minimize emissions where it's cost-effective to do so.