I propose to take Questions Nos. 302, 303 and 304 together.
The change to the approval process for major capital projects enacted as part of Action 23 under the Accelerating Infrastructure Action Plan removes the requirements for Ministerial approval at Approval Gate 2 of the project lifecycle. The decision was informed by work undertaken by officials in the Infrastructure Division of DPER throughout 2025, which identified this area as one that was potentially causing unnecessary delays. Delays in infrastructure delivery increase project costs, reduce value for money, and hinder sustainable productivity and economic growth.
Following engagement with experts in the Major Projects Advisory Group, relevant Departments and key agencies, it was found that the approval of the preliminary business case stage (Approval Gate 1) and the final contract awards (Approval Gate 3) are the key points where Ministerial consent is most critical, and where additional expenditure is likely to occur post approval. Ministers are required to bring a Memorandum for Government seeking consent to approve the proposal at Preliminary Business Case and Final Business Case Stage prior to the awarding of a contract. Before seeking this consent, Ministers must be satisfied that the proposed project represents value for money.
Entering the main procurement process following Approval Gate 2 is a technical stage in the project lifecycle and does not require the same Ministerial level of oversight once the project is in line with the approach set out in the Preliminary Business Case. Going forward, Major Projects at Approval Gate 2 will be sent to the Approving Authority for review, where the Accounting Officer will check the completeness of the brief. If the Accounting Officer is satisfied that the project complies with the requirements of the Infrastructure Guidelines, sectoral guidance, the Capital Works Management Framework, and clear value for money criteria, they will grant approval for the project to proceed to tender. This is part of the overall Accounting Officer role in terms of accountability, delivery, regularity, propriety and ensuring value for money. The Accounting Officer of the funding department is responsible also for notifying Government should adverse developments occur, including unforeseen cost increases or changes to the proposal scope, which call into question the desirability or viability of the investment proposal.
Adherence to the Infrastructure Guidelines themselves is ultimately the responsibility of the Accounting Officer of the relevant funding department. It is a matter for each Accounting Officer to decide whether processes in place in his/her department/ office/body and associated agencies are appropriate to ensure compliance with the Infrastructural Guidelines, manage capital budgets overall and manage budgets at an individual project level. As such, granular data in relation to individual projects in terms of project cost escalation are a matter in the first instance for the relevant Accounting Officer and officials in the their department/office/body and are not collated centrally in my Department.
