Jack Chambers
Dublin West · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“We have been clear about the absolute necessity to protect the huge ecosystem of digital and infrastructure investment in Ireland over the past ten to 20 years. Part of that has been the wider and ongoing discussion on the security of subsea cables.”
“Progress in achieving balanced regional development and detailing the delivery of the NDP is monitored through regular updates on the capital investment tracker and the MyProjectIreland interactive map viewer.”
“The tax strategy group examines the different options that are available to the Government during the summer. That informs the respective tax package that will advance. We have to honest about the measures we take in terms of taxation. They have to be sustainable and affordable in the long term. USC brings in about €5.5 billion per year.”
“I am not privy to the interaction the Deputy had with the Minister for housing on this, but the Local Government Fund distributes the respective funding across different local authorities, and Galway County Council and Galway City Council would receive allocations through that. I was clear in my initial response to Deputy O'Hara.”
“My Department has taken a proactive and co-ordinated approach to supporting the responsible and effective adoption of AI across the public service.”
“More broadly, the achievement of balanced regional development is a key priority of this Government and is at the heart of Project Ireland 2040, which includes the national planning framework, which sets out the wider spatial strategy for the next 20 years, along with the national development plan, NDP.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,309 lines we hold for Jack Chambers, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 27.
“Sinn Féin policy is a complete and utter failure. It is a dishonest policy position when it comes to improving housing supply. It is populist waffle. In Dublin Central, Sinn Féin opposes housing project after housing project, day in, day out, which young people could be living in. That is the issue.”
“That is why we have put significant capital investment aside to support our approved housing bodies in terms of cost rental and drive an increased supply of social homes through local authorities while we improve the overall supply situation. We are seeing the moderation happen in CSO data. Increased supply will help overall with the affordability supports Sinn Féin continues to shamefully oppose.”
“It will provide enabling infrastructure locally to deliver more homes in the villages and towns across the country that have had constraints around water systems, being able to connect energy and other local infrastructure constraints, which have harmed housing supply. This Government will continue to invest in infrastructure and provide affordability supports for young people, which Sinn Féin continues to oppose. It needs to front up young people about why it continues to oppose affordability supports for them. We want to match that with continued increase in supply in terms of social homes across the country.”
“-----again promoting local objectives and NIMBYism over the greater good. That is Sinn Féin's policy, namely, opposition on the ground and attacking Government at a national level. It is just not good enough. It is not serious politics. We need supply-side interventions which drive tens of thousands more homes and completions across the board and matching the record level of support in terms of social housing delivery with affordability support which bridge the gap for young people. That is what is working. That is what will ensure we have increased supply in 2026, with the reforms we are introducing around increased zoning and the measures being taken by the Minister, Deputy Browne, on the housing infrastructure investment fund.”
“Why does Deputy McDonald continue to oppose Government policy that supports affordability? There are tens of thousands of people who have benefited from the help to buy scheme that has bridged the gap for young people who are working hard and want a Government that supports them to bridge the gap in terms of affordability supports. Sinn Féin opposed that. Many Sinn Féin councillors across different local authorities, and even Deputy McDonald in her own constituency, Dublin Central, continuously oppose homes and supply opportunities-----”
“That demonstrates the sustained Government investment in accelerating progress in housing delivery. We have seen that increased supply will help moderate overall price growth and help to ease affordability challenges over the next number of years, as we ramp up supply across the board. That is why that level of investment in capital infrastructure and housing has been prioritised by Government in our national development plan. The CSO data showed that prices fell month on month for the first time in almost three years, at minus 0.2% in February, following a period of moderation, and 1% for consecutive months. Prices have remained stable between March and April, respectively. The policy of Government is working. The reforms introduced by the Minister, Deputy Browne, are working.”
“This Government wants to give hope to young people and people who want to get an affordable home. It is the single biggest focus of the Government in everything we do. It is about building hope around delivering more home ownership, delivering an increased supply of social homes and ensuring that we bring affordability to all of our interventions. That is why all of the reforms that we have introduced are about trying to increase supply, something that Deputy McDonald does not acknowledge in all of her contributions. She attacks, criticises and objects but does not support policy which works in enabling greater supply. In 2025, we had record delivery and strong growth. Some 17,500 starter homes supports were delivered in 2025, the highest annual total recorded and a 21% increase compared to 2024.”
“I move the following Further Revised Estimate: Vote 26 — Education and Youth (Further Revised Estimate) That a sum not exceeding €13,642,152,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 2026, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Education and Youth, for certain services administered by that Office, and for the payments of certain grants.”
“As noted, however, reforms in 2022 to the capital works management framework contracts, in particular, the introduction of limits on liability, went a significant distance towards improving the risk position in public consultancy and construction contracts. All the members of the project team engaged with the public sector undergo a pre-qualification process where their financial capacity is considered. The technical capability criteria also investigate the perspective project member's track record in delivery. As a result, there is a reasonably high level of confidence in the capacity of the tendering field to deliver a particular project. Where issues of negligence do arise, taxpayers would expect that the State should be in a position to recover losses where there is insurance available.”
“For the benefit of the committee, a net contribution clause is a clause agreed in a contract between parties, which, in the case of wrongdoing, limits the liability to that share of any total liability for the same damage for which the party itself is personally responsible. These clauses are not used in the capital works management framework that governs public construction contracts because the Civil Liability Act 1961 provides that where two or more defendants are current wrongdoers, they are fully liable for the damage suffered by the plaintiff. This means that in the event that one of the defendants is unable to meet the judgment against it for its portions of damage caused, the other defendants, that is, those who are joined in any action, could be liable for the full amount and not just their own respective portion.”
“Amendment No. 9 seeks to require a report to be laid before the Dáil, within six months of the passage of this legislation, on the potential impacts of introducing a net contribution clause to public construction contracts. I do not propose to accept this amendment, first, because the focus of the Bill is the designation and fast-tracking of critical infrastructure projects and programmes to existing authorisation processes; it does not extend to construction or procurement matters. More pertinently, however, I believe that the reforms already introduced to the capital works management framework will provide many of the same benefits without placing excessive risk on the taxpayer.”
“I do not believe it is necessary to have this legislative amendment as this work is already under way and will be a core focus of my work over the coming months.”
“To give an example, MARA has introduced a number of reforms with my Department to reduce the regulatory burden and streamline the processes to speed up the delivery of critical infrastructure, including applying the principles of proportionality. We are going to see a reduction in time in that respect. Further work is under way to assess bottlenecks and to identify solutions and ways in which permitting can be taken in parallel, as opposed to sequentially. These reforms will be progressed through changes within the permitting bodies and Departments and some legislative change may be required. We will also be using the joint utilities and transport clearing house to enhance and progress co-ordination and reform. The Bill will help to drive some of these reforms too.”
“This work has involved engagement with the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, MARA, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, An Coimisiún Pleanála, the National Monuments Service and broader regulators, such as the Commission for Regulation of Utilities, CRU, local authorities, the HSE and Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII. Just last week, my Department hosted a workshop with all of these bodies that was focused on co-ordination and engagement within the regulatory system in the delivery of critical infrastructure. The need to improve efficiency and drive reform is central to the work of the unit. Regulatory reform across the system is already showing progress.”
“I thank the Senator for her amendment. I agree with the broader sentiment of the amendment. Work is already under way within the Department and across the regulatory system. I do not, therefore, accept this amendment because of the work which I will describe. In February of this year, I stood up an infrastructure regulatory simplification unit in my Department. The unit is working with regulators across the system to streamline permitting processes, with a particular focus on critical infrastructure.”
“I ask the Senator to reflect on that in the context of the county she represents and the need for an uplift in infrastructure. Some of that may be related to road infrastructure where people in Sligo and other counties in the west, such as with the Galway ring road and other instances, want to see delivery. Should we risk that delivery because of a judge's interpretation of section 15 of the climate Act or should we ensure the Oireachtas and the Government, who are accountable and elected, can deliver a particular project if they want? We should not have that uncertainty brought in by people who want to use judicial reviews to achieve different objectives. That is why providing clarity and direction in this section will improve wider delivery.”
“In fairness, we have had good discussions with our colleagues on that in terms of how we can both learn in terms of better and improved infrastructure delivery and how that can improve connectivity for Border communities and counties. Resourcing has increased exponentially for many public bodies and agencies. This is a question of improved performance and prioritisation so we get better delivery. The solution across public services is not always increased headcount. We need to better assess how systems work and how they prioritise their staffing towards improved delivery and accelerated timelines. That is why regulatory agencies and bodies need reform as much as increased headcount in many instances if we want to see improved delivery.”
“The outworking of the Senator's argument is that because a road might create a potential emissions profile, should section 15 stop Sligo receiving a road it has been promised for 20 years, is in the national development plan and is hugely important for the economic development of County Sligo and the west more generally? The reason we are disapplying section 15 is to ensure that projects, some of which exist in the county the Senator respresents and others in the west, are built out and can happen. Some of that may be road infrastructure. I highlight the case with the A5 road in the North, which has seen the negative outworking of similar legislation in the North.”
“While I accept the Senator's perspective on the matter, there are issues in Sligo and the north west. A judicial review was taken in respect of the ring road in Galway that related to climate legislation. We have to remove legal avenues that are bringing uncertainty to projects that are hugely important for the west. We have ambitions to do more in the context of public transport and low carbon transport but the Senator knows from Sligo, there are important road projects that are hugely important for regional connectivity, economic development and from a road safety perspective. We know about the infrastructure deficit in the west and north west, some of which is connected to road transport.”
“We had a good North-South meeting with our colleagues in the Executive on the challenges arising from the court's interpretation and how it has ended up in a convoluted assessment through the courts, again undermining a critical project for the North and for North-South connectivity. That is an example of the unintended consequences of legislation. I do not believe the court's interpretation reflects how that legislation was drafted. We have an obligation to respond to legal precedent to ensure that such disapplication occurs where we want to drive delivery. That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to provide a clarified path for projects through the delivery process, rather than opening another avenue for judicial reviews, which are being weaponised here and in other jurisdictions.”
“Similarly, every individual project is also required to undergo a climate adaptation assessment to ensure it does not give rise to undue risks. All other climate and environmental obligations will still apply. Disapplying section 15 merely reduces the scope for one avenue of judicial review. The inclusion of section 7 is therefore vital if this Bill is to be a success. Senator Murphy will be aware of the A5, where we have seen the complicated outworking of climate legislation through the courts. I was in Monaghan and Donegal last week and everyone from the Border communities was speaking to me about that particular project.”
“The inclusion of this provision is a practical response to reduce one avenue of risk of delay to those projects that are designated as critical. There are absolutely no other impacts on climate policy, domestic and international climate commitments, or, as commentators have pointed out, other requirements to consider the climate and environmental characteristics of a project. I reiterate that this change 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.”
“I have previously referenced the key role they play in ensuring that decisions taken are lawful, transparent, fair and accountable, that they adhere to the principles of legality and proper procedure, and that they are rational. However, if we are genuinely seeking urgency and speed in the delivery of critical infrastructure, as legislators, we cannot abdicate responsibility for key aspects of decision-making to the courts. It is fundamentally the duty of Government, as the elected representatives of the people, rather than individual agencies or the courts, to determine the mix of capital investment that needs to be adopted to provide for the needs of our population in a manner consistent with our climate obligations.”
“This creates an additional avenue for judicial review and will ultimately delay the development and delivery of projects and programmes. This runs counter to the key aim of this legislation, which is to accelerate the decision-making process. Action 6 of the Accelerating Infrastructure Report and Action Plan calls for the Government to be responsive to legal precedent that has the potential to delay critical infrastructure. It is our responsibility to address such challenges through legislation to ensure they do not impede the delivery of infrastructure our country needs. I also wish to be very clear that I recognise that judicial reviews may serve an important purpose.”
“I thank the Senators for their contributions. As I outlined on Second Stage in this House, I firmly believe that, if we are serious about accelerating Ireland's critical infrastructure, the disapplication of section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 is necessary. There has been a great deal of misinformation about the purpose and impact of this change. The amendment is included in the Bill because recent precedent has made it clear that the courts have interpreted section 15 in a manner that means that every decision made by a public body is exposed to an inherently subjective assessment of whether that body has had sufficient regard to a wide range of climate policies and strategies in any decision it makes on a project.”
“Given these safeguards and limitations, I do not believe the proposed deletion or the proposed provision set out by the Senators in the amendment are required in this instance.”
“In simple terms, if we are serious about accelerating the delivery of critical infrastructure, we must have limited and proportionate powers to intervene where the system envisaged in the Bill is not working effectively. There is nothing in this legislation that allows me or any other Minister to dictate the decisions of public bodies. The Bill does not permit me to override, undermine or interfere in any way with the independent exercise of a public body's statutory functions. The purpose of the power of direction is to provide a mechanism to issue directions to public bodies solely in relation to how they are carrying out their functions under the Bill. In practice, this means directions can only relate to measures aimed at accelerating the authorisation process and can only be issued in consultation with the relevant Minister.”
“Similar powers exist across a range of legislation, particularly in circumstances where Ministers work with public bodies but do not have day-to-day operational control. There is a further safeguard in place in respect of using the power to direct. I am required to consult the Minister responsible for the public body before issuing any direction. I do not expect the power to be used frequently but it is important that it exists. The approval processes for critical infrastructure are often highly interdependent. A delay in a single authorisation can hold up an entire project, particularly where the authorisation sits on a critical path for that project.”
“Any direction issued will only relate to the measures needed to ensure that a public body prioritises its relevant functions under the Bill; acts promptly and avoids unnecessary delay; reduces the time taken to complete authorisation; works in parallel with other public bodies where practical; co-operates effectively across the system; identifies and manages the risks, constraints and interdependencies; and appropriately allocates the resources needed to do this work. Importantly, all of this must be done without prejudice to the bodies' other legislative responsibilities so I cannot use this power to override existing law or to determine specific decisions. Its sole purpose is to support the timely progression of the decision-making process. This is not unusual.”
“I thank all Senators for their contributions. I am not accepting these amendments. The power to issue directions to relevant public bodies in relation to those programmes and projects that are designated as critical infrastructure is an important mechanism in the overall process. It will allow the Minister for public expenditure to intervene where the framework for accelerated decision making is not being implemented. Crucially, however, this intervention can only be for the purposes of ensuring that public bodies are carrying out their duties under section 5 of the Bill. Linking the power to give directions on the duties of public bodies set out in section 5 sets an important limit.”
“I am satisfied that its objectives are better achieved through the wider programme of regulatory reform and simplification that is already under way and, indeed, the wider direction set out in the Bill in the context of the powers of the Minister to direct a particular body relating to projects that are designated critical infrastructure. I think we have sufficient legislative direction already contained within the Bill.”
“It 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 the tracking and measurement of performance through appropriate key performance indicators. We are also seeing this approach reflected in legislation being advanced by individual Departments. For example, the environment Act 2026 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. Therefore, while I accept the intent behind the amendment, I do not believe it is appropriate to include in the Bill.”
“In certain instances statutory timelines are set out which are different from what are prescribed in the amendment. That potentially conflicts with other EU legislation or its transposition. As I outlined in the Dáil, Senators can be assured that the broader reform of regulatory processes needed to introduce times across suitable authorisation procedures is already well under way. This was a central commitment in the accelerating infrastructure action plan that I published in December. Regulatory reform and simplification is one of the four pillars of that report. In order to drive this work, a dedicated simplification unit is being established in my Department. This work is already delivering results. On 26 March I issued a circular on the principles for better regulation for critical infrastructure.”
“I thank Senator Murphy for the amendment. I am not accepting it. While I agree in principle that authorisation processes should be subject to clear timelines, I do not believe it would be appropriate for me as Minister to prescribe the specific timeline required in the context of this legislation for every individual authorisation process. I will set out why. If such a requirement were imposed by my Department, we would 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.”
“This Bill is very clear in its legislative intent. I think there is consensus on the absolute need to drive and improve delivery and acceleration with greater all-of-state co-ordination in ensuring that water, energy, transport and other infrastructure projects, which Members all care about, are delivered in a much quicker way. That is the single direction intent and I think it is complicating it with pre-legislative scrutiny in the context of serious delays and the need to accelerate delivery. I welcome the fact that the committee decided to waive pre-legislative scrutiny in that instance. I have set out the reasons for not accepting these amendments.”
“Following my recommendation, the 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 and the issue of how a particular project or programme is chosen for designation. Given that the criteria for designation and the associated decision-making processes are clearly defined in law with accompanying checks and balances, I do not believe it is 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. We have critical delays across many areas. I was not willing to spend a period of months going through the Oireachtas in the context of pre-legislative scrutiny.”
“These include the need to ensure the effective and efficient delivery of the project or programme; whether delays, disruptions or a failure to deliver 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.”
“I am of the view that providing 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 the 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.”
“Although I anticipate that only a limited number of projects or programmes will be designated, requiring positive approval from both the Dáil and the Seanad 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 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 is important we do not add procedures and processes to the mix that actually end up costing us time through potential delays.”
“I am 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 is 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.”
“The wider point was made around what will be the implications for a public body that does not comply. First of all, they have a duty to co-operate under the legislation. It is the law that they must. Second, we can issue a direction to the public body that it shall comply with the direction given under this section. So, there is a clear legislative direction and obligation on compliance with respect to public bodies that will be affected by this legislation. If it does not comply to a direction under the law that has significant implications for a public body. If we have a public body that does not operate under the law then there are implications for sanctioning funding and its wider operation. I do not think that will emerge because it is a very explicit direction under the legislation that is involved.”
“It operates within the clear definitions set out in the Bill and, in particular, infrastructure must be something that enables the essential facilities and systems of the State to function effectively. Furthermore, any project or programme designed under the Bill must be developed by or on behalf of the State. The legislation therefore applies to State infrastructure only and not private development. I am satisfied that the given flexibility is there in the context of the legislation as it is drafted. 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 does not impede us from designating health infrastructure, for example, or something else that might emerge, within the wider definition of infrastructure.”
“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 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.”
“In response to Senator Boyhan, I regret that I will be continuing that trend with regard to this amendment. I apologise for that. I thank Senator Murphy for the amendment, although I will not be accepting it. I have been consistently clear that my central priority is to accelerate the delivery of critical infrastructure and specifically infrastructure in the energy, transport and water sectors. I focus specifically on these areas because they form the foundation on which all other social and economic infrastructure depends. We will not be in a position to build the housing and health facilities referenced by the Senator in his suggested amendment without adequate energy, water and transport supplies.”
“Similarly, Dublin City Council has a very significant annual budget and has to prioritise across its objectives in any given year. The overall increase in capital expenditure and day-to-day expenditure for arts has significantly increased in recent years, and rightly so. I support the objective to continue to improve that in the years ahead but it is an issue between Dublin City Council and the Department in the context of that particular proposal. We provide the overall funding. We have provided multi-annual certainty to the Department and it concerns how it prioritises that in the context of what is available.”
“It is a decision of those who are prioritising within the Department, the Arts Council and Dublin City Council, which, obviously, has an important interface in running services.”
“We will see how it gets on at the weekend. I understand the issue around the arts complex. There was extensive engagement between Dublin City Council, the Arts Council and the Department of Culture, Communications and Sport. We have significantly increased the capital allocation to the Department in recent years, which has to manage its overall location in that context. Part of that relates to the extent to which the local authority would prioritise it, for example, in the engagement with those who run The Complex in particular. If the Deputy looks at our record, uplift of capital across the arts community has significantly increased in recent years and overall funding for arts has significantly increased in recent years.”
“I welcome all the people from Achill who are here and I hope they have a very good day. Both my parents from County Mayo so I always welcome everyone from that great county. We will not talk about the All-Ireland but we are still waiting-----”
“My Department has been tasked with identifying and addressing the most significant barriers to delivery. The infrastructure division in my Department has taken a stronger oversight and monitoring role for this action plan with all commitments by quarter 1 of 2026 fully delivered. This is a proactive role that allows my own Department to take action where barriers arise in the delivery of critical infrastructure programmes. We have published and brought the Critical Infrastructure Bill through the Dáil and it is now progressing in the Seanad. I can come back when I have further time but the figure of €446 million is all on current expenditure. We have completely protected capital expenditure lines so capital expenditure lines are not affected by the efficiency levy.”
“In total, the Government has committed €275 billion under the NDP from 2026 to 2035. We have published sectoral investment plans to deliver infrastructure at scale year after year. This can be achieved. This will strengthen co-ordination and build capacity in the construction sector. The significant investment made by Government to deliver housing and fundamental infrastructure has been complemented by a considered programme of reform to address challenges within the infrastructure delivery ecosystem. The Government has already made significant efforts to orient itself towards infrastructure co-ordination delivery. The NDP review and sectoral investment plans are providing multi-annual funding certainty and a strong pipeline of projects.”