The Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, is most welcome to Seanad Éireann.

Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 4, 8 and 15 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 7, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:

“ “emergency” means a situation where the State is experiencing a significant and protracted physical disruption of gas supply, or other catastrophic deterioration of the supply situation, and where—

(a) all relevant market-based measures have been fully implemented, exhausted, and proven insufficient to meet gas demand, and

(b) non-market-based measures must be introduced to safeguard gas supplies to protected customers, in accordance with the criteria for an Emergency Level under Article 11(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1938.

For the avoidance of doubt, an emergency does not include localised network constraints, or routine seasonal increases in gas demand where physical supply remains available.”.

A number of us on this side of the House have concerns around what this is opening us up to.

We are concerned that we do not have the correct protections and safeguards in place to ensure that the supply will be State-owned and State-led because it is not included in the definitions in the legislation.

This amendment seeks to define genuine emergency supply. We want to make sure it is written into legislation and we do not see any mission creep whereby this facility is allowed to become a de facto gas intake facility that would increase our gas intake more broadly.

There are huge environmental concerns around this. It should be a last ditch option. We are not delighted about the disapplication of the climate Act, first and foremost, in this legislation. If it is to go ahead, it is crucial that there are safeguards in place. The world is literally on fire in some places. We have a forest fire in Ireland for the first time in years perhaps. I know we sometimes have them in the Mourne Mountains in the North. This is cause for concern, not just for future generations but for us today. The impacts of climate change are terrifying, and there are people dying in Europe because of the heat. We have serious concerns that this proposal will facilitate further carbon emissions. Effectively, we are disapplying the climate Act and our climate obligations at a time when we should be leaning in to climate policies and sustainability, which this legislation does not do. I cannot fathom why we are taking this approach.

I understand the Government's arguments around energy security but, at the same time, we are not doing anything. Look at our offshore wind. We are absolute laggards when once upon a time we led in Europe. There is no sense to it. Instead, we are forced to resort to this because of inaction and a lack of adequate planning for decades by the Government.

We feel there could be a de facto gas intake facility, which would not be an emergency, special-use only facility for when we really need it, just in case. The Government will spend €1 billion on this facility, which it called temporary. That is a huge investment for something that is temporary. My understanding is that this is €1 billion of taxpayers' money for a facility that will be used by private companies. They will benefit from the existence of this facility but it will cost €1 billion in taxpayers' money to establish it.

The Department has stated this facility "will provide the resilience required to support our energy transition" and that "the reserve will only be used in genuine emergencies", yet there is no definition in this Bill of what the Government means by an emergency and when that would apply. To prevent this reserve from creeping towards a permanent facility used for the general provision of energy, we need an up-to-date comprehensive energy security review. An amendment put forward by my colleagues in the Social Democrats and signed by a number of us in this House would evaluate all energy security alternatives, such as battery storage and alternative sustainable fuel resources. As the Minister of State will know, our capacity for storing renewable energy in Ireland is rubbish. With all of the great weather we are having, people, businesses and individual households can send power back to the grid, but it is not being stored in the capacity that it should be. We need cheaper battery storage for individual households as well.

It is important that an emergency does not include routine winter demand increases, seasonal demand spikes and local network constraints where gas remains available. The Bill does not clearly explain when the LNG could be activated. Without a clear definition, the threshold for using the facility would become increasingly broad, the strategic reserve could become a normal part of gas operations and operators could justify using it for reasons of commercial convenience. We are concerned that this is going to become utterly normalised, rather than being this so-called last-ditch option to be used only in a real emergency. We have absolutely no definition of what that means to the Government. An emergency could mean very different things to me and to the Government. When the world is on fire why are we leaning not towards climate-friendly, green, sustainable energy sources but towards something that is so incredibly harmful for our planet?

On climate change and the climate emergency, we cared about it in 2017, when we had "Fridays for the Future", and in 2019 but now, a few years later, we have forgotten about it. Now, it seems like it is so far down the line that we are all happy to engage in cognitive dissonance, stick our heads in the sand and pretend the world is not literally on fire, not for future generations but for our generation today, as people die from the heat in Europe.

I am a member of the Joint Committee on Climate, Environment and Energy which examined this issue in some detail. As the Minister of State will be aware, I looked at this issue for a number of years prior to that, and he and I engaged on it when he was a Member of this House.

Interestingly, when the committee examined this issue the evidence and case for this terminal were not strong, and the warnings and dangers about its impact, environmentally, socially, in terms of security and financially, were really severe and serious. The case that was being made was limited. The committee produced a cross-party report, which, in its opener, states that there is only one very narrow kind of scenario in which such a terminal might be an appropriate solution and other appropriate solutions might be possible instead. In terms of the wider emergency pressures, the wider crisis we are facing and the wider issues of security and energy security, LNG does not deliver what we need in terms of energy security. It does not deal with the crisis we are having in terms of energy security. That is dealt with by renewables. It does not deal with the climate crisis and the emergencies that have been created. In fact, it intensifies the crisis and the problems we are facing in terms of climate change and related emergencies. It does not help us in those scenarios. It helps only in this very narrow scenario, which is in the case of an interconnector cable being broken. That is it. We are spending €1 billion on this one hypothetical scenario when we have real scenarios such as the climate crisis that is accelerating and which we can physically feel, yet we are not he putting the same equivalent resources into tackling those issues of energy security. I know some things are being done on renewables and batteries but, again, there is a big question of what €1 billion adds further to what we are doing and what that would look like.

There were a lot of concerns about balancing out and whether this was the right decision to make, some of which I will come to in later amendments. There was a cost-benefit scenario which only looked at whether a terminal is a better cost when compared with wind or battery, not compared with wind and battery. That is ludicrous because we know that renewable energy and battery storage are needed. That is the combination we would be using and seeking to intensify and deliver in an emergency scenario. That is where the investment can deliver more, not just for that specific scenario but for the wider range of energy security scenarios we have.

In the time between the committee initially scrutinising this issue and raising a lot of serious concerns and the Bill coming before us, the volatility and insecurity associated with gas, particularly this kind of LNG, have only intensified. We have seen it in relation to what has happened in Iran and the Strait of Hormuz. It is clearly not a safety net; it is a vulnerability.

On the emergency scenario, while giving credit to an emergency, if one were to arise, it is still not a great solution because it does not give us six months' supply. We were told we needed to do this because of the N-1 standard. What was unequivocally dealt with in the committee's hearing, and it is in the committee's report, is that the N-1 standard - can demand be met on an individual day? - can be met by demand-management measures, on the day. We can meet the European standard using demand-management measures. The committee was very clear on that. It is not the European N-1 standard making us do that. That angle was put to bed. What we were left with was this one hypothetical scenario of a damaged interconnector, and the idea that we might need six months of supply. The problem with that is an LNG terminal does not deliver six months of supply because the gas has to be vented and replaced every two months. Even if we had an LNG terminal, at an absolute maximum, if an event were to happen on the day after a new supply came in, there would be two months' supply available.

Otherwise, you are talking about ships bringing fuel in to replenish the reserve rather than ships being brought in with fuel for an emergency. I just want to be clear that doing this is not even great in an emergency scenario.

Here is the problem. When we were talking about this at a meeting of the committee, only one emergency scenario was identified in which this could actually be relevant. "Emergency" in the Bill could mean anything. There is no definition. We do not know what is meant by "emergency". Are we going to say that, because one hypothetical scenario we used to justify the €1 billion expenditure is not occurring, we should use the reserve for other emergencies, such as a bad day or a day when all of the gazillion large energy users we have added to the grid want to keep going and we also have a heatwave or cold day? What is going to count as an emergency?

I am worried that the scenario in which the provision is actually relevant is so narrow. The gas would literally be vented into the air. We would not and should not be using it in the system, but it would add to our emissions every two months. I worry that a narrative will emerge that we should use it for some other emergencies.

Amendment No. 1 makes it very clear that what is proposed should be the last resort. It should happen only after all relevant market-based measures have been implemented. Those market measures should include the demand-reduction strategies that are eligible under N-1, including demand reduction by large energy users, and should have been implemented, exhausted and proven insufficient. We are in a situation where only non-market-based measures can be introduced to safeguard gas supplies. This does not include localised constraints or routine seasonal increases in demand where physical supply remains available. That is amendment No. 1.

Amendments Nos. 4, 2 and 8 are Sinn Féin amendments and I will leave it to its members to speak to the specifics. They tackle the same core issue. The key question is that of what is going to constitute an emergency, and the slippage in what is used in defining an emergency.

Am I right that amendment No. 15 is in this grouping? I probably would not have put it in this grouping.

Yes.

Amendment No. 15 actually tackles a separate issue. I do not know whether I want to let the Minister of State contribute on the emergency aspect now and then come back in on amendment No. 15, because it deals with a quite different topic, namely ownership and operation. I could refer to both now.

I do not mind.

Maybe we will deal with them separately given that amendment No. 15 is on ownership and operation, and the question of whether this will genuinely be public.

I have called this a Trojan Horse in the House before. This week, a new version of Homer's Odyssey is being released in cinemas nationwide. It is the tale of Odysseus's protracted journey following the end of the Trojan War. We all know the Trojan War ended when the cunning Greeks infiltrated the fortifications of Troy using a horse that was filled with Greek warriors. I know we might not have been talking about this, but this is a Trojan Horse. To say that the gas is for emergency use is an absolute Trojan Horse. It is going to be used in our energy mix. There is nothing else we can call it but a Trojan Horse.

People question the strategic thinking of the Trojans in bringing a wooden horse filled with danger into their city. Historians, no doubt, are going to refer to this legislation in that way, because the reserve is not going to be used solely for emergencies.

We are trying to define what an emergency is. There is no definition. Seven years ago, we led the way in the international community by committing to phase out oil and gas exploration. In fairness to Fine Gael, its former member Tony McLoughlin, who lives in my area, was actually behind banning the importation of fracked gas. This has been settled Government policy ever since. This amendment, which would reassert the commitment to reduce and legally phase out the use of natural gas, should not even be controversial at this stage; it should be accepted as a given. We are obliged to comply with our legally binding carbon budget targets. All this amendment does is reiterate that we will ensure compliance with these legally binding carbon budgets.

We have tabled many amendments. According to the summary, the purpose of this Bill is to secure a supply of gas in the event of an emergency, yet it does not include a definition of an emergency. An emergency needs to be defined so the Bill will not allow and encourage the incorporation of gas that the Oireachtas has authorised for use only in an emergency into the day-to-day energy mix.

The definition included in this amendment makes very clear what constitutes an emergency. That is why I wish the Minister of State would accept it. Without a definition of an emergency, there is a risk that we are going to be using filthy, horrible fracked gas in our energy mix. If the Government really believes the gas is for use in an emergency, why does it not accept this amendment?

Before I call the next speaker, I welcome Senator Frances Black and her guests: Shay Black, brother of the Senator, and Erica Pagels, from San Francisco – or, more accurately, Berkeley, which is just outside San Francisco – which is a nice part of the world. I thank Ms Pagels for coming over. I thank Senator Black for bringing her guests here. I am sure Shay is her favourite brother, just as the last brother she had here was also her favourite. Shay is most welcome to Seanad Éireann.

I am going to speak to amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 8.

Amendment No. 2 makes it absolutely clear that the strategic emergency gas reserve is exactly that: an emergency reserve. It cannot become another source of gas for day-to-day commercial supply or market management. As my colleagues have said, we need to know what "emergency" actually means when it comes to this reserve. If we are establishing this facility on energy security grounds, it must only ever be used in a genuine emergency, as defined under EU rules.

Amendment No. 4 places a clear sunset clause on the reserve. It ensures that the facility would remain a temporary response to a specific energy security challenge and not become a permanent piece of fossil fuel infrastructure that would undermine our climate commitments.

On amendment No. 8, I will keep my remarks short and sweet. The amendment strengthens accountability by requiring the Minister to report annually that the reserve is being maintained solely for emergency purposes and remains a temporary measure.

I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House on this Stage. I thank Senators Stephenson, Higgins, Cosgrove and Collins for their contributions. In fairness, having listened to them outlining the background to their amendments, I can fully understand where they are coming from. I share their concerns about the climate and take their points about the really negative impact of fossil fuels and the burning of them on our climate, and the impact that they are having domestically, across the rest of Europe and in countries where we see starvation as a result of the abuse of this source of energy.

This is a last-ditch measure that we have had to introduce to put ourselves in a position to have security of supply in the event of a rupture in one of our connections to the North Sea supplies through the UK.

On Senator Stephenson's point about the very significant cost, she is correct that the gas will be used by private companies. Private companies use gas and in the event of a rupture, they would be in the same position as every other gas user. Gas users include hospitals, schools and large centres of employment that require gas. That is what it is about. It is not as if we are doing something just for the benefit of corporates' balance sheets; it is about ensuring the economy can ride out an event. Such an event is unlikely, I hope, but it is possible.

What is really important is that, from a Government perspective, as was the case with the previous two Governments, we regard gas and oil as transition fuels. We have a very clear agenda for powering our economy from renewable sources. Yes, we have fallen behind on the deployment of offshore wind turbines. Yes, we were the leaders at a stage, but we have a very strong pipeline in place.

There are about 5 GW going through the planning process at the minute, at various different stages, as part of what are referred to as the phase 1 projects. Those are developer-led projects. Sites have been identified and have to go through a significant amount of clearance.

This is under way. We hope that about 5 GW will be energised by 2031 or 2032. We expect by 2030 that much of this construction will be under way. The State pivoted through initiatives of the previous Government to take a plan-led approach to developing offshore renewables. We are undertaking a national designated maritime area plan, which is effectively a plan to identify suitable sites around our coastline for offshore renewables. We will have this completed by the end of 2027 and this is aimed at having an additional 15 GW of electricity on the grid by 2040. We are very clear on the direction of travel. The component referred to in the Bill is purely about getting us there. We know, it is accepted, and I take the point on trying to reduce insofar as we can the use of gas and encouraging insofar as we can large energy users to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels, even in that interim.

Longer term, a recent report from the ESB would indicate that to get to net zero by 2050 will not be done on just wind or solar alone but will require batteries. Even in addition to batteries, it will require some liquid fuel. The one that has the best chance to emerge will be hydrogen. We are developing a hydrogen strategy in the Department. We are planning ahead but we must also be clear about the here and now and what we do today, tomorrow and next year in the event of a rupture to the gas supply. This was not as acute until more recent years, and particularly as a result of the renewed assault by the Russians into Ukraine and its usage of the grey fleet we know it uses, on occasion menacingly hovering in waters close enough to our EEZ, and sometimes within it with no clear intent. It would be foolhardy of us not to put in place the capacity in the event of a rupture to the gas supply to get us through those difficult days.

I accept the motivation of the amendments but the Bill is about getting through the planning phase. There will be another Bill towards the end of the next term, which will consider the operations of the facility when it is constructed. In the discussion we are having now, I want to fully explain where we are going on it, and it is at that stage we will engage on how we deal with an emergency and what the operation of it will be. Our discussions then might be more fruitful in terms of that legislation. I will not accept the amendments and we will have a conversation again on the legislation when it is published and I will happily come back and go through it in detail. This applies to a lot of the amendments today because this is just about making the appropriate changes to allow for the appropriate assessment to be done to get through the decision the Minister will take on the planning and the construction works that have to take place around it.

Another point raised was regarding in what event it might be used or whether it could lead to greater usage of gas. This is not at all the intention. The intention is to have it as a strategic reserve. Technologies are advancing and Senator Higgins mentioned the idea of flaring and boiling off. Technology is improving. I am no expert on this but I have read a little about it and it can be done in a closed loop way. Previous technologies required a boil-off every number of weeks or months. We have moved beyond that but I will clarify it when we are back in discussions on the next occasion.

The Government wants permission to build it and to suspend the climate Act so it does not apply and get it built. This is important because it should be borne in mind that building this terminal is not just about this terminal, as it will also open the door to commercial, which I will come to in a moment. It is reversing years of Government policy whereby we had the fossil fuel divestment Bill and the ban on fracking, because this will include fracked gas. There was also, of course, the policy prohibiting LNG which we had. It was not law and should have been law. The then Minister, Eamon Ryan, should have made it to law and it was wrong that it was only policy.

We are reversing all of these policies that have helped to keep commercial LNG at bay. We put measures into our planning and development Acts that allow for a fast-track planning process not just for this LNG structure but any LNG structure. It is a fast-track planning process so it goes straight to An Coimisiún Pleanála. A lot is being asked and saying we will discuss what happens with it later is not really on. If the Minister of State is asking for so much to be set aside, and so many new risks to be taken on, he cannot say we will decide how we do it later. A recommendation of the committee and of many of the experts we heard from is that there should be a single Bill rather than seeking permission to build it and then talking about what we do with it. This is not good practice.

The Minister of State cannot say we do not want to discuss whether there will be an emergency. Sure there is detail in it but the key issue is that what he is asking of the Oireachtas, which is to agree to it being built, is on the argument of there being an emergency. It should be very clear what the emergency is. I mentioned previously that the committee said our N-1 obligations could be met through demand management. It agreed there was one scenario, an incident relating to the interconnectors, but noted it would do little to insulate Ireland from more generalised risk to energy security and, in fact, what the Government should be doing is accelerating onshore, decarbonisation and secondary fuels and fast tracking other interconnectors and all of the rest that the Minister of State has described. The problem is that a lot of our renewable energy is being immediately absorbed by the increase in usage.

Nonetheless, I have some practical questions. We need a little more on what the emergency is because it is not sufficient to say we will deal with it then. The emergency is the ground on which the Minister of State is asking for the normal planning process and the climate Act to be suspended. We need to know what the emergency is. If it is the case that there is an exit plan by 2040, it should answer the amendment tabled by Sinn Féin. The groupings are a little bit strange because I have also tabled a sunset clause amendment, which will be dealt with later and has not been grouped with Sinn Féin's sunset clause amendment. If this is about a transition and getting the house in order, there should be a sunset clause. We need a sunset clause. If it is going to be temporary, then temporary needs to be quantified in the Bill.

Amendment No. 15 is also grouped with this amendment and this is a core issue in respect of ownership and operation. In the amendment, Senators Harmon, Cosgrove and Noonan and I are asking that the designated strategic gas reserve would remain exclusively in public ownership and under State control and would not be transferred or outsourced in whole or in part to any private commercial entity. That is vital. It is part of the core rationale as to why all of this special waiving and fast-tracking is being requested and the reversal of so much previous Government policy. I remember a moment, and I am sure the Minister of State does, when Ireland was going around the world selling green bonds on the back of our anti-fracking legislation and our fossil fuel divestment laws. We were selling bonds whereby Ireland was the future and getting into leading world anti-fossil fuel and climate change conferences yet we have this happening now.

The committee is very clear on this. All provisions in the Bill that allow for development or operation by commercial entities must be explicitly limited to public bodies.

The committee looked for this to be explicitly limited, both the development and operation, to the public bodies. That was a very clear message from the committee. Our amendment does the same thing. It says that it cannot be transferred to private commercial entities; it must be a designated public body; the Minister would not direct, permit or authorise any send-out of the gas unless the CRU has formally certified that a gas supply emergency exists that cannot be resolved by any other balancing; and all large energy users operating within the State have been curtailed. This is another one. I see now why it is grouped. It is because part of it is on the public ownership and the other part is that there is curtailment, if necessary, of large energy users in terms of minimum operation of electricity and natural gas consensual process. The Minister of State might touch on that. Will he talk to the emergency? What comes first in terms of demand reduction? That is not operational. That is policy. What are the policy measures that are going to be activated in terms of demand reduction and other measures before this last tier gets used? What measures are there in terms of ensuring that this is only under public ownership and only under public operation, as the committee has called for?

I will speak to amendment No. 15. If the stated intent of the FSRU is for it to be an emergency reserve, then the logical thing to do is to put it into public ownership. There should be no question that this will go to private providers. There is no room at all for commercial operators to make a profit out of this really dangerous gas. If we are going to end up with it as a reserve - I do not think it is a reserve - can we make sure it stays in public ownership and legislate for that? The Minister of State told us it will only be used in emergencies but that is not clear in the Bill because there is no definition of an emergency. If there is an insistence that it is going to be there, this amendment would provide a safeguard that it would only be used in an emergency, it would remain in public ownership and it will not open the door to commercial operators, which is a real threat. It would be great if the Minister of State could speak to that.

I thank both Senators for the amendments they are putting forward and the sentiment behind them. I will deal with the points about the emergency. The Government made it very clear that a decision was taken, based on a decision taken by the previous Government in November 2024. It looked to Gas Networks Ireland, a State entity, to bring forward a series of measures as a solution to the very real threat, albeit one we hope to never have to deal with. The then Government made very clear at that stage that this would not be a market play. It was not an injection point into the grid that effectively allowed for a competing entity to sell gas into the Irish market. If that was the case, we would have done it in an entirely different way. That was a very clear policy statement.

The fact is that GNI will have ownership and control of the entity. As the Senators know, the piece of kit – effectively the ship – will be leased in. There are a number of these around the world and they move on. First, we are not investing in the kind of infrastructure that had been a feature of discussions in the past. Other sites were identified by corporate players outside of Ireland that saw opportunities on a commercial basis to use LNG as a tertiary source of gas supplied into the network. The State did not engage with that option. It looked at ownership and control. At the core of this policy decision, which the legislation is attempting to implement, is that this would be retained and owned by the State. It was not a market play or another opportunity to reduce the price of gas, etc. It was not about an additional quantum of gas being utilised. It was purely about the strategic reserve. That was at the core of the Government decision at the time. It was the core of the policy paper and it is still very much the case, as set out here.

Senator Higgins is right that this legislation is about getting through the building of the facility. There will be further legislation in relation to its operation. The Senator asked me directly about an emergency. From my perspective, an emergency is in the event of a rupture to the gas supply. As she is aware, we have an adequate supply coming through two interconnectors from Scotland, but it is effectively North Sea gas. We have some gas coming from the Corrib reserve. That has six or seven years of supply left, so it is dwindling. I am not a scientist but where there are very significant reserves of gas, it tails off towards the end, so there is not the same rate of supply on a daily or monthly basis as when the reserve was at its full capacity. The Corrib reserve is going to peter out. Corrib gas is down to maybe 10% of what we utilise now.

Senator Higgins is right that the previous Government, when we were in opposition, supported then Deputy Bríd Smith and others on ending licensing of further drilling for oil and gas because we just did not think there was a long-term future in it. I still do not think there is. I stand over that decision, yet I am able to explain the necessity that we have today, which is to give ourselves resilience in the event of something unforeseen happening to that reserve. I respectfully differ with Senator Higgins. I know all the Senators present have a long track record of campaigning on these issues but it is not the Government pivoting towards using more gas at all; it is quite the opposite actually. This is a recognition that we have to get to a better place, and we do.

We can talk about sunsets, but the fact that it is a temporary facility in the first instance would send a very strong signal on what the policy is about. When we get to a point where we do not have to depend on it any more, it will be moved on to the next location. There will be some infrastructure on shore but it will be limited enough. That might cover the point.

There were three issues. I have given my thoughts on the emergency. The commercial piece is very clear. This is managed by GNI in a non-commercial way. It is purely for storage. It is not meant to be an infusion of gas into the network in a market-sensitive way. That is not how it is going to play out. On the ownership piece, because GNI is a State entity, it is managing all of that. To me, that effectively answers the worries and concerns the Senators might have had in regard to those particular amendments.

Again, with absolute respect, the issue is that the Minister of State is giving us his understanding but that is not the same as having it in legislation. The position taken by the then Minister, Eamon Ryan, and some others was deeply wrong and regrettable. They relied on a policy statement, rather than bringing in the prohibition that should and could have been brought in on public policy grounds under EU law. Ireland would have had very strong grounds, in particular given our national ban on fracking and hydraulic fracking. When we should have had a hard legal measure we had a policy position. We saw that as soon as Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil were in government together and the Green Party was gone that policy changed. It flipped.

Simply saying "Our policy is" or "I envisage it is this" is not the same as having a definition of "emergency" in the Bill. We do not know what this Government or a future government might decide is its version of an emergency. I appreciate that the Minister of State speaks in good faith about what he thinks it will be, but unless it is in the Bill, that can change, much like the Government that went around the world selling green bonds and saying it was against fracking, fracking is horrendous and came from a Government backbencher at the time. Now, we are suddenly okay with it having an input. Those things change. That is why the law needs to be got right.

We are not getting hard measures to copper-fasten the ownership and operation as being public and copper-fasten a definition of emergency. We are not getting solid measures on those safeguards. The other safeguards we have, which are our planning laws and climate laws, are being either fast-tracked or suspended. We are suspending the existing safeguards and are not putting hard safeguards into this Bill, and we are being asked to go on faith. We have seen the dilution in the position in this regard and the deterioration of the commitment in being against this type of hideous accelerant of the climate crisis.

This is one of the dirtiest fuels. It involves the production of methane, which is an accelerant. As the Minister of State rightly said, and I know he understands, we are doing this at a time when there is no global space in the atmosphere for it. Anything extra should be happening in developing countries that have been hit by this climate crisis and have not caused it. We are keeping digging and we are buying what people who keep digging are producing. That is the problem.

I accept that we are here to discuss it but, frankly, it is not enough to have the Minister of State’s good faith in respect of what he interprets an emergency as being. We have to vote on what is in front of us, and what is in front of us is ambiguous and dangerous.

I thank the Senator very much. I think I made very clear what my understanding is and also what the Government’s position has been for some time. An emergency is when or if, and hopefully never, a significant rupture happens to one of the interconnectors and we need an emergency backup to get us through difficult times. Of course, all efforts would be taken at that stage to mitigate, insofar as we can, the demand and manage it. Certain circumstances, however, could arise where we would have no choice but to use what is in the strategic reserve, and that is what it is there for.

Turning to the Senator’s point about the position we have taken on green bonds and all of that, I still think that there is consistency in the approach and the policy here. We have sent very strong messages right around the world about where we are going with our energy mix. We are pivoting away as fast as we possibly can to a greener, brighter future for us, with less impact on the environment. Even if we move beyond the environmental necessity or imperative of doing this, it also gives us an edge in terms of energy security.

We have been debating for a number of years the necessity of doing this from the perspective of carbon emission reductions. What has happened since 2022, however, again referencing the invasion of Ukraine and the impact that had on the supply of oil, and the recent US initiative in the Middle East, the impact that is having on the Strait of Hormuz and the consequent impact on the global price of fossil fuels, creates an economic imperative, even if we choose to ignore the climate initiative or the necessity to address it. It is about having a supply of our own energy on our doorstep so that we are not dependent on the goodwill or bad actions of others.

We are driving ahead with that really aggressively, to the extent that recently the Taoiseach set up an office known as the offshore energy clearance house. This is to ensure there are no unnecessary delays or any of the bureaucratic stumbling blocks that often arise and delay major projects. I am sure we could speak about them for a number of hours here. I would not have to mention many and I am sure the Senator would identify them. The Government is absolutely committed to driving ahead with the agenda of previous Governments in moving away from fossil fuels.

Much and all as I would like to say that we can do that today, we have to recognise that we have to transition, bring our economy with us and cover, insofar as we can, any potential interruptions to supply. I hope the Senator will understand that from our perspective. I have set out the issues with commerciality and the ownership of GNI. As I said, there will be a Bill relating to the detailed operations of the entity, and we can have further discussions about it. I am not asking the Senate to have faith. This is just about the construction phase, addressing planning and getting us to a point where we can move ahead with all of that.

I am sorry but I just do not buy the argument that it is security. A floating LNG storage facility in Qatar was blown up. It is actually more of a risk to our security to have a floating LNG terminal.

This whole thing is mad. Paul Griffiths, CEO of Predator Oil and Gas, publicly said 12 months ago that he would not live near an LNG terminal. He said, “Accidents can happen, so keeping facilities well out of the reach of habitation is vital”. He went on to say, "There’s like a one-in-1,000 chance perhaps of an accident happening, but when an accident does happen [ - he did not even say if - ] it would be catastrophic".

As for the idea that this is about some kind of energy security, it is not. It is actually the opposite. It is a real threat to our security. Why do we have two Bill? Why are we debating this Bill and then having to debate another one? It does not make any sense. I cannot understand it. This is a Trojan horse being railroaded through. I cannot understand why we would want to have two Bills on the very same thing. Why is the operation of the facility not included in this legislation? Why can the amendments not be accepted? That would be it sorted. I do not understand.

I thank the Senator very much. This Bill is going through the planning laws and addressing the issues that arise in the construction of the jetty, what all that is about and the facility that has to be built on the shoreline to allow it, in the event of a necessity, to connect into the gas grid. That is that bit. The operation is an entirely separate issue, and that is why we will have dialogue about it, legislation on it and a discussion on it. Trying to put the two together, quite frankly, would not be the best approach. The Government has taken that decision, and we will happily go through all of that as we work it through.

I take the Senator’s point about the Trojan horse. There is nothing that I will be able to do to convince her otherwise. She has a very clear position on that, and I accept she has reached that point from her own thinking. I can assure her, however, that as a politician on this side of the House, I do not accept that position. The policy position and the legislation are very clear that this facility is only for an emergency.

Why else would we do it in this way? If we were going to do it in a manner that allowed for a market-led approach, then we would not be putting the burden on the State to build the facility at that cost of €1 billion. That is €1 billion that could be utilised for something else. If we were to do it, however, to get the private sector to pay for the security - I think it is accepted on all sides that there is a necessity for some security in terms of the gas supply - and if the Government were to say it would provide that through a market-led private consortium and initiate an auction to allow entities around the world to bid for it, as sure as night follows day, that would increase the use of gas. LNG would be coming in at a lower price, so more of it would be placed into the grid system and the market generally, and that would have the consequence the Senator spoke about.

If that were the approach the Government had decided on, we would be taking a completely different approach. The Senator would rightly be identifying those issues and we would have an extra €1 billion to utilise on something else. The State has taken a view, however, that is consistent with our desire and our commitments to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 2030, and onwards to 2040 and 2050, that this facility is strategic, as it says, that it is only for storage and that it is not meant to be a market play and cannot be a market play. The ownership will be in the hands of GNI, which has responsibility for the infrastructure and not for the provision of gas. That is not its thing. It buys gas into the system from different sources. I am not going to be able to convince the Senator, but I can reassure her that what she suggested is not what is at play here. I do not foresee any future Government taking decisions such as that.

I think Senator Higgins's point was she wanted something in the legislation because a future Government might take a different opinion. A future Government might take a different view and it would also be able to change the law in those circumstances to facilitate whatever its ultimate policy might be.

We have to be mindful of what this is attempting to do. It is attempting to put the legal framework in place to implement a policy that has been clearly set out as to what we are trying to achieve here. I would ask the Senators in good faith to accept that. Of course, if the Senators push their amendments, I will have to reject them. I accept where the Senators are coming from and the points they are trying to make. From the Government's perspective, we are on the same side as the Senators in terms of what they want to achieve. We think that what the Senators are proposing is unnecessary and is already catered for.

Before I go to the next question, as this is the last sitting day before we break up for the summer, I thank Martin and all the Seanad staff, all the ushers, all the people who work in catering and all the people in the Oireachtas community, including the staff who work around the Upper House, for all their work. Martin and all the Seanad team have done a great job this year guiding us all in what sometimes can be quite challenging times. I also thank those members of the Garda Síochána who keep us safe in here, but also the Senators' own staff and all the staff, as I said, within the Oireachtas, particularly Grace Coyle and Sarah and Caoimhe in my own office. I am sure all the Senators' staff are looking forward to seeing them leave in many cases, and giving them a small break for a few weeks. I hope the Senators all enjoy the weather and come back safe in the new term. I thank the Senators all for being here.

Is amendment No. 2 being moved?

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 7, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:

" "Emergency use only" has the meaning as defined by the N-1 infrastructure standard defined by EU Regulation 2017/1938 only. A Strategic Emergency Gas Reserve under this Act and all future Acts relating to its construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning cannot be used for management of day-to-day energy demand;".

Amendment Nos. 3, 12, 13 and 16 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 8, after line 39, to insert the following:

" "hydraulically fractured gas" means liquefied natural gas, or natural gas in any other form, that has been produced, in whole or in part, by means of hydraulic fracturing within the meaning of section 5A of the Petroleum and Other Minerals Development Act 1960;".

A definition of fracked gas or hydraulically fractured gas is required to accompany a reiteration of the ban that was introduced on fracked gas and which is necessary to protect our environment. We banned the fracking of gas in this jurisdiction on health grounds and environment grounds for the good but if we allow imported fracked gas to be used, we will be hypocrites. It is wrong that it is fine for us to ban it here but it is fine for us then to import it. It is not right.

The amendment defines "fracked gas", which does not appear anywhere in the Bill. This, with amendment No. 13, would make clear that the importation of fracked gas would not be possible under the Bill. LNG particularly when sourced in the US, is usually derived from fracking. In Pennsylvania, we can see the devastating consequences, not only environmental consequences but health consequences as well. This is why we have included a definition of "hydraulically fractured gas" as meaning "liquefied natural gas, or natural gas in any other form, that has been produced, in whole or in part, by means of hydraulic fracturing within the meaning of section 5A of the Petroleum and Other Minerals Development Act 1960". That Act defines hydraulic fracturing and, after amendment in 2017, banned the practice of fracking in Ireland. Unfortunately, it did not ban the importation of fracked gas.

As I said earlier, it was a brave move banning fracked gas in Ireland at the time. As I said about former Deputy, Tony McLoughlin, in fairness, he did a lot of work up in our area. Deputy Scanlon did as well. They did a lot of work in the area.

Subsequent Government policy introducing a de facto ban on the importation of fracked gas will be overturned to develop this LNG facility. It is definitely hypocritical for us to say that it is grand for us to import it, that we do not want to have it here ourselves but it is grand for us that other countries can have the damage of fracking and then we will import it.

I hope the Minister of State will consider those amendments.

As I said, credit is due to former Deputy ,Tony McLoughlin as well as to former Deputy, Thomas Pringle, of course, who brought in the Fossil Fuel Divestment Bill. These were measures, loudly trumpeted by the Government, that came from backbenchers, both on the Government and Opposition sides. We made a decision collectively as a Parliament to say that fracking was wrong and that we did not want fracking happening in Ireland, and it was for very good reason. It was for environmental reasons. It was for safety reasons. It was for all of the climate reasons. It was very real.

The idea is a striking and unacceptable hypocrisy. We agreed fracked gas was wrong because the fracking of gas is this incredibly intensive process that produces incredibly dirty and dangerous fuel in an incredibly dirty and dangerous way. It is the cracking of earth deep down to release emissions that might otherwise never see the surface.

We said it was wrong, so we should not then say it is okay to buy it from other places.

I support amendment No. 3 and the other amendments relating to this, but I also have my own amendment. It is amendment No. 12, which states we should limit importation of liquefied natural gas from any country not party to the Paris Agreement, as well as limiting any LNG produced by hydraulic fracturing. Amendment No. 13 focuses solely on the importation of LNG obtained through hydraulic fracturing. There are amendments tackling the wider issue of fracking and saying fuels obtained through it should not be part of the Bill, but I want to specifically talk about importation. The majority of the European Union's imported liquefied natural gas, approximately 58%, comes from the United States, a country that is not party to the Paris Agreement, which has abandoned the idea of global and national climate targets and whose President is paying energy companies to stop building renewable energy. They are so actively hostile to renewable energy and so deeply committed to "Drill, baby, drill". That is what is happening in the United States right now. It is not just not party to the Paris Agreement, but is actively working against climate action. It has abandoned the concept of common but differentiated responsibilities that is core to the Paris Agreement and to the global movement for climate justice and against climate breakdown.

It is a minimum and should be in this law - the Minister of State should accept this amendment - to say it is bad enough that we suspend our own climate Act in respect of this terminal. We have to suspend the climate Act because there will not be a climate justification. The narrative we have heard is about transition and renewables. If that stood up, the Minister of State would be able to work within the climate Act because that logic could be checked against that. If it really was a transition, the Minister of State would not have to suspend the climate Act. It is one thing to suspend our climate Act, but it is another to support and facilitate the efforts to torpedo global climate action that are happening in the United States.

We should not import fracked gas because it is immoral. It comes from real places with real communities that are immediately and terribly impacted by fracking, as well as having an impact on the atmosphere that surrounds our beautiful planet, which we are destroying. As the Minister of State said, it impacts not just on business but on the liveability of large portions of this planet. This is as real as it gets. The idea we would be part of that in terms of fracking is hideous, as is the idea we would take up to 58% of it from a country that is working against climate targets and where we know the drilling part of the fracking will not be measured. This is not a one-off. We will not only buy LNG if it is an emergency. Rather, we will buy and use it every day this terminal is in existence. Every two months, because of the venting mechanism, we will be refilling it.

We are signing up to be customers of liquefied natural gas - potentially fracked gas, potentially coming from a country that is busily fighting against climate action and trying to fast-track our route to destruction. We will be doing that every year in the budget and every day in the terminal. Every two months, we will get another shipment in. We will actively be part of it. That is not a hypothetical; that is the reality of building this terminal.

If it is not going to be used, then let us find our gas elsewhere. If it is going to be such a rare circumstance, then let us not take liquefied natural gas that comes from hydraulic fracturing and let us not import it from a country that is busy destroying climate targets. Let us not give support to the fossil fuel industry, which lobbies nationally and internationally against climate action. If it is going to be such a rare usage, the minimum the Minister of State should be able to tell us is it will not be hydraulic fractured gas and will not come from countries not party to the Paris Agreement. That last is currently the United States, but who knows in the future who else might be relevant there? I think that is a minimum. I hope the Minister of State will accept these amendments.

I understand clearly the Senator's position on fracked gas and I share it. I mentioned Tony McLoughlin, Eamon Scanlon and a number of others who worked on behalf of campaigns. There was a group in Fermanagh, a group in Clare, a group in Sligo and there may have been others.

Eddie Mitchell.

Absolutely. There was quite a campaign against that. We all saw the damage hydraulic fracturing could do to certain environments and the impact it could have on groundwater. That stands, but it is a whole different ball game for us in terms of the procurement of supplies to fill a strategic reserve. That is effectively traded on international markets. We go to the markets, as the State will, through GNI to procure the gas. It is a commodity. I do not think we can start to decide who we take it from and who we do not.

I need to get clarity for the Senator about the latest technologies for boil-off of gas and whether it has to be filled every couple of months. My understanding is that is changing significantly at a global level and it will be possible to have a reserve without the necessity to utilise it or boil it through on a frequent basis. I will get the Senator more information on that.

The Senator raised the 2021 policy statement on the importation of fracked gas. That statement was to remain in place pending completion of the review of Ireland's energy security. When we put that in place, it was clear that we did not want fracked gas in our network as a competitive element. However, it was recognised that if we had to build a strategic reserve, liquefied natural gas would be the source of that and there was potential for fracked gas to be part of that. We made it clear that the policy statement would only remain in place until the security review had been done. The review has been completed, so that position changes. The security element is now decided by the Government and by Government policy to have a facility for storing LNG. Procurement of that will be done on the open market, will be based on commodity prices and will not dictate one way or another what the source of that is. That is the appropriate way to deal with the situation.

At all times, it is about minimisation of LNG usage in our grid mix. It is only in case of an emergency. I have told the Senator what I believe the Government's position is on that emergency and what is involved there. We will not be accepting the amendment.

The Paris Agreement.

The Minister of State recognised that there was a grassroots movement and the documentary "Groundswell" captured it. There is also the documentary "Gasland", which was made in America and came out in 2010. We know it is going to come from America. Again, this is the Trojan horse. We know that if it is going to be LNG, it is going to be fracked gas and it is going to come from America. We know that it does have to be vented. The majority of LNG is methane and is 80 times more warming than carbon dioxide. It is 33% more damaging to the atmosphere than coal. Why are we having it at all? It is fine for us not to have it here. We know the detrimental affects it has on communities and we successfully stopped fracking from happening in our country, so why is it okay for the Government, as Senator Higgins said, to say "Drill baby, drill". Why is it okay that we are going to say it is fine for communities in places like Pennsylvania to have their lives destroyed? Communities have been destroyed by it. It is sinking into the water supply and we know there are not only health concerns but environmental concerns around areas where people are living. Has the Minister of State seen that documentary? It is really good but it is also terrifying. Why would we say that it is grand for those communities to get along with fracking and we will accept the product? More and more, I think it is the Trojan horse.

I would like an explicit answer in relation to the Paris Agreement component of my amendment as well.

The Senator's reference to the Paris Agreement was that the United States is no longer part of it. That is a decision its democratically elected Government has taken.

We decide who we import from.

Please let the Minister of State answer and I will let you back in, Senator.

To be consistent, we purchase oil and gas on the commodities markets and that is the intention here. We are not going to stray from that. We need to look at the bigger picture as to what our ultimate objective is. I do not agree with the Senator's comments about a Trojan horse. Our objective is to have a safety mechanism to address any rupture to the security of supply as we transition from the use of fossil fuels to a greener economy. If I was arguing that we should now be taking fracked gas from the United States or wherever, through an injection point into the grid as a method of reducing the overall cost of energy, the Senator's argument would be well made. I am not minimising the Senator's argument but it would have more validity. We are just looking at this as a methodology for transitioning away from fossil fuels. All fossil fuels are harmful to the environment. The Senator is right that methane has a much higher concentration and is more impactful by what is referred to as the carbon dioxide equivalence. It is much greater than carbon dioxide but it also has shorter life in the atmosphere. It dissipates over time whereas carbon dioxide does not. Let me be clear that I am not making the case for methane. I am just making a point. From our perspective, we are trying to put in place that security piece on a transition. We recognise that the wind is not always blowing, the sun is not always shining and battery storage is not where it needs to be right now. Of course in all of those there will be greater advances and I have indicated that we have great hope for hydrogen and ammonia as the ultimate enablers to decarbonise our entire energy mix. Instead of depending on electrons, which is the electrification everybody is talking about, there is a recognition now here and across Europe that we will need some liquid or gas molecules as part of the future. Hydrogen is more likely to be the source of that energy. The Department is working on a longer-term strategy on hydrogen. We have had good engagement on it. I spoke at a couple of events recently. As part of the pre-Presidency work Hydrogen Ireland had brought its counterparts from around Europe to an event in UCD to show that there are opportunities emerging here from the potential for hydrogen as we capture more offshore wind and convert to hydrogen. There is a better future ahead. The Trojan horse here is about getting away from fossil fuels and towards a cleaner, safer and more secure supply of a resource and an energy that is within our own remit and grasp. I thank the Senators for their contributions.

Some €900 million is to be spent on the development of these. It is a lot of money to be investing. If it is going to be temporary why not invest it in renewable energy that is not going to be temporary? Nine hundred million euro is a lot of money.

It is, but it is not an either-or situation. If €1 billion could sort it out with more batteries, wind or solar then that is the route we would be taking. We are investing very significant amounts of money in our electricity grid. This year, the State will put about €3.8 billion into EirGrid and ESB Networks to strengthen the grid to enable it to take more renewables. That will allow them to borrow about €18 billion, which will be spent between now and 2030. The State is making very large investments in our overall energy architecture and infrastructure. That notwithstanding, there is - for want of a better expression - a gaping hole in our energy security. I would much prefer to see €1 billion being spent on anything else than on this but it is an imperative. It has been identified as a very significant risk to our energy security. It would have a long-term impact on our economy, not just on our hospitals and schools and those that use energy but on some of our large energy users that are very large employers. The negative impact of a loss of gas could do very significant damage to the reputation of the country, which has taken a lot of time to build up. It has been built on the back of successive Governments' industrial policies and Ireland's attractiveness for inward investment. The IDA and others have put so much time and effort into it. It would be remiss of any Government in possession of a report on our energy security that identifies a strategic risk not to respond in the way we are doing, the very significant cost notwithstanding. It is the appropriate thing to do in the circumstances that we find ourselves in.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 9, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:

“ “temporary” has the meaning that a Strategic Emergency Gas Reserve under this Act and all future Acts relating to its construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning shall be in operation for a limited time frame of 10 years only;“the Regulator” means the Commission for the Regulation of Utilities;”.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 10, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:

“Expenses

4. (1) The expenses incurred by the Minister in the administration of this Act shall, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure,Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.

(2) The expenses to establish a Strategic Emergency Gas Reserve under this Act and all future Acts relating to its construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning will not be socialised across household and SME energy bills.

(3) The Minister must mandate that the CRU carries out an assessment on the impact of the expenses incurred on household bills under this Act and all future Acts relating to construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of a Strategic Emergency Gas Reserve.”.

I will keep this very brief. This amendment is around the cost of this facility not being passed on to households. At a time when bills are so high for energy in this country it is something about which we seek an amendment. The amendment protects consumers from footing the bill for this facility. Families and small businesses are already under enough pressure from high energy costs. Before any costs are imposed, the CRU should assess the impact and ensure that these expenses are not simply added to electricity and gas bills for the public.

I thank the Senator. This amendment relates to the cost recovery mechanism that will apply to the strategic gas emergency reserve. The standard approach for cost recovery for security of supply measures and investments to meet EU regulations is through the existing regulatory framework and achieved over the lifetime of the asset. Identifying opportunities to minimise the potential impact of this cost on energy consumers is a key work stream of the project and is currently under way. The scope of this consenting legislation is limited to what is necessary to allow an application for development consent to be submitted later this year, which is critical to achieving accelerated delivery of the project. It is intended, as I mentioned previously in relation to one of the other amendments, to bring a memo to Government later this year to draft the strategic gas emergency reserve operational Bill. There will be provisions contained in that relating to the operation, use and cost recovery mechanism, as well as a number of other policy matters identified by Oireachtas Members in the pre-legislative scrutiny report, which was done, as Senators know, with the committee.

Amendments Nos. 6 and 34 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 10, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:

"State-led

5. (1) The Strategic Emergency Gas Reserve constructed, operated and maintained under this Act and all future Acts relating to its construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning will be a State-led asset.

(2) Any permission granted under this Act and all future Acts relating to construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of a Strategic Emergency Gas Reserve must be explicitly limited to a public body only.”.

This amendment relates to the facility being State-led, which we have been calling for since the beginning. Energy security is a matter of national interest. This amendment ensures that any strategic gas reserve remains in public ownership and under State control. Essential infrastructure should serve the public interest rather than private commercial interests. We submitted amendments both here and in the Dáil and Seanad because we believe that energy security, as with food security or any kind of security for this country, should be State-owned. We should not give our gas or electricity to outside State companies.

When the Minister first introduced the legislation, the facility was specifically referred to as State-led and that it would be a State-owned gas storage facility. We have not had the assurances from the Minister that the facility will be State-owned. Well, pardon me, the Minister has said that it will be State-owned, but that is not legislated for in the Bill. This is about making sure that the line in the Title of the Bill reflects that it will be State-led and State-owned.

As the Senators have identified, the amendments relate to the ownership of the strategic gas emergency reserve. The strategic reserve will be in the form of a floating storage regasification unit, which is the ship that we talked about. It is to be owned on behalf of the State by the system operator, Gas Networks Ireland, which Senators, and particularly those who are members of the committee, will be well familiar with. An application for development under the project-specific pathway provided for in the Bill is limited to Gas Networks Ireland or such other public body as may be specified by the Minister. Further legislation and policy measures will, as I said, be brought forward later this year to ensure that the operation of the gas reserve is in accordance with the Government decision of March 2025, which was very clear that it would be in State ownership. I have already rehashed for Senators on a number of occasions the fact that the decision was taken not to involve private enterprise. It will be off market or out of market where it concerns the supply of gas to the reserve.

Amendments Nos. 7 and 28 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 10, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:

"Gas demand

5. (1) The Minister shall ensure that a Strategic Emergency Gas Reserve established under this Act and all future Acts relating to its construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning does not lead to an increase in gas demand.

(2) The Minister, within 12 months of the commencement of this Act, shall lay an annual report before both Houses of the Oireachtas which demonstrates that the Strategic Emergency Gas Reserve established under this Act and all future Acts relating to its construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning is not leading to an increase in gas demand.".

This amendment relates to the increase of gas demand. This amendment relates to the reserve and security of supply so that it is not going to be for outside vested interests when it comes to gas consumption. This amendment requires the Minister to demonstrate annually that the reserve is not driving greater dependence on fossil fuels. The Minister knows that we have an okay, if not good, track record in this country so far in trying to come off fossil fuels. We have used an awful lot of initiatives. It would be nice to know that this does not push us backwards from where we are at the moment.

With amendment No. 28, which we have submitted, we would replace the existing section 33 with a new section. We are spelling out the hard-won protections of the climate Act. This is the third time that the Government has adopted anti-climate policy. There is the Critical Infrastructure Act, the Dublin Airport (Capacity) Bill and now this legislation. The Government does not want to go down as the anti-climate Government, but there is risk of that happening if these protections are not put in. We tabled these amendments so that these protections would be put into the legislation.

This amendment removes section 33. As I said, section 33 is yet another disapplication of the climate Act. This is becoming a pattern. The Government seems to acknowledge that the climate Act exists but thinks it does not apply to anything it wants to do. That is not how it works. It is not how climate works. It is not how climate science works. Emissions do not stop hitting the atmosphere because the Government has a really good reason why it wants to do something. That is not how it works. It is damaging the credibility of the Government, a Government that is going to be representing Europe at the Conference of the Parties, COP, in Turkey later this year, if it says that we have a climate and development Act but disapplies it all the time.

This amendment would replace section 30. The new section 30 would keep the application of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act. We do not have time to go through it because of the guillotine, unfortunately, but amendment No. 28 sets out what it means to be thinking about the sectoral emissions ceilings and the carbon budgets when it comes to the management of gas. We spell out all the many ways that what is going to happen here is likely to be extremely relevant for the purposes of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act. There are so many ways in which the Act is relevant to what is being proposed and it is being disapplied. As I say, because of the time limitations I cannot go through the list of ways but this is really dangerous. It is not just symbolically bad. In practical terms, it is a very poor decision. It will lead to a number of subsequent poor decisions within the construction, planning and operation of the facility. There are so many points at which this project should be checked against the climate Act - not just in the general concept of it but in its operation and construction. Instead of doing that, instead of checking it repeatedly against the climate change Act, at each decision point we are suspending it altogether.

I thank the Senator. From our perspective, the fact that the reserve is State-led and transitional in nature, meaning it is for emergency-use only, will ensure that it does not support increased gas consumption. That has been the kernel of the issue for us, with a view to minimising the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as mitigating the risk of standard fossil fuel assets. I am being somewhat repetitive, but the single purpose here is to provide security. It is not about growing the use of fossil fuels. It is quite the opposite. We have a clear policy agenda around where we are going to power our economy and where we are going in terms of electrification. I have been open with Senators about the challenges we face for electrification out to 2050 as we try to get to net zero. Doing that without the continued use of some gas or liquid fuel will be difficult, based on the science of the here and now.

That is where we see hydrogen as being a potential component of the energy mix. We need to get there, however, and we need to do so with as much of the potential risk covered as we can. It is not about trying to reduce the price of energy by bringing in another more harmful fossil fuel. It is quite the opposite. That is where we are aligned in terms of our objective but I know that the Senator views it differently and I recognise that.

If it was aligned with the climate objective, it would be aligned with the Climate Act.

I move amendment No.8:

In page 10, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:

“Temporary and emergency use

5. (1) The Minister shall ensure that a Strategic Emergency Gas Reserve established under this Act and all future Acts relating to its construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning is temporary and for emergency use only.

(2) The Minister shall lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas annually which demonstrates that the Strategic Emergency Gas Reserve is temporary and for emergency use only.”.

Amendments Nos. 9 and 18 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No .9:

In page 10, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:

“Meaningful public consultation

5. The Minister shall ensure meaningful public participation, including—

(a) accessible publication of all technical material,

(b) community impact assessments, and

(c) public hearings where significant local effects are identified.”.

This amendment is around consultation. Communities deserve to be properly informed and consulted about infrastructure of this scale. This amendment provides for accessible information, community impact assessments and public hearings where significant local impacts are identified. As the Minister of State knows from living in County Clare with wind farms and whatnot, consultation is important because it can be dragged out as if the consultation side for the public is bypassed, they can think there is something going on that may not be going on. It is to ensure that the public are on board and consulted with hearings or public meetings. If this goes ahead, which it will, this proposed amendment would ensure that there is not uproar, litigations and judicial reviews whereby everything gets dragged out. It is just to keep the public informed and consulted throughout.

Amendment No. 18 seeks to ensure that if there are going to be environmental impact assessments, they will include the evaluations of the vulnerability of the development to risks of major accidents or disasters relevant to the project and the direct or indirect impacts of the development on human health, safety and the well-being of the adjacent communities. That is not me making up some language. That was a recommendation of the committee and those are factors within environmental impact assessment reports. There are characteristics commonly used in environmental impact assessment reports and the decision was made in the drafting of this Bill to not include those established areas of impact assessment, such as the risk of major accidents and disasters and the direct and indirect impacts of the development on human health, safety and the well-being of adjacent communities. Why would we have an environmental impact assessment that does not include these two factors, specifically when the committee, as well as local communities who spoke to the committee, called for those to be included?

We are obviously going to oppose the Bill, but this is trying to strengthen it, and we hope that the Government will consider putting it in so that if this facility is going to be built, there is some commitment that safety has to be the priority in it. That is all this proposed amendment is trying to do, and we hope that the Government will consider accepting it.

I thank the Senators and, as I have said, I recognise their bona fides and their good faith. Any application for approval to carry out designated development under this process will be subject to environmental impact assessment and appropriate assessment. Key features of this process are a public notice of an application and publication of the application, as well as public consultation on the contents of the application. Members of the public and designated authorities may also make submissions and observations as they would to the Minister relating to the determination of an application by the Minister, and these submissions must be considered when the Minister is making a decision on an application for designated development under the Bill.

A robust, fit-for-purpose gas safety framework is essential to protect lives and property, and it is of the utmost priority as we seek to deliver the strategic gas emergency reserve. Liquified natural gas is one of the main methods used for storing natural gas, and it is a method deployed at scale internationally and subject to thorough international and EU legislation and regulation.

On the point about consultation, on Tuesday of next week I have organised for members of the local community to meet with Gas Networks Ireland, GNI, which is very much part of that engagement. It rightly recognises that there will be concerns about a large-scale project like that. GNI had a number of engagements in the local community where its representatives were available for a number of hours in the evening to allow people to come and chat through their concerns. That is advancing with the committee that has been established because like any other major piece of critical infrastructure, there is a community benefit fund and we need to look at that for the next piece of legislation in terms of how that is recognised, whether it be statutorily or otherwise. I certainly would favour that piece of it. There is also then the putting in place of the appropriate governance that is necessary to manage whatever that funding stream is to assist the community and see some benefit and gain for it. That is very much part of our thinking there, so we are aligned on that. I will not be able to take the amendment but I get the spirit of what the Senators are at.

Amendments Nos. 10, 26 and 27 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 10, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:

“Decommissioning

5. The Minister shall, within 12 months of the commencement of this Act, outline a plan for decommissioning any Strategic Emergency Gas Reserve constructed, operated, maintained or decommissioned under this Act and all future Acts relating to its construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning.”.

Amendment No. 10 is around decommissioning. If this is a temporary reserve, which is in the name of the Bill, we reckon there also should be a strategy put in place for its decommissioning, whenever that may be, and that it is not left to the next government to come up with a strategy. Looking into the future, if this is five, ten, 15 or 20 years down the line, we could have an anti-green Government and having a decommissioning plan in place beforehand would alleviate the fear that this could go completely sideways. I know that the Minister of State hopes that it is so but Fianna Fáil may not always be in government. Just in case.

Maybe we will have Sinn Féin in at some stage and we will have a grand coalition.

Just in case.

Do not worry, Senator, we would not allow that.

It is about having a plan in place for if or when we do not need the reserve and that it is not left up to the Government of the day.

We are also looking for a proper plan on decommissioning and for the CRU to be able to take the Climate Act properly into line in its operation.

I thank the Senators for the amendment. I would welcome having all of them in government as some stage. I have no doubt that they would find it challenging on occasion, maybe not as challenging as me because they would not have the firepower coming back at them to challenge them as well as they are doing to us on this occasion.

The scope of this legislation is limited to what is necessary to allow an application to get through development and to get the consent to be submitted towards the end of 2026. This is critical to achieving the accelerated delivery of the project, which is at the core of this legislation. As I said previously, there will be further legislation and policy measures that we will bring forward later in the year to ensure the operation of the strategic gas reserve in accordance with the decision that was taken back in March and that will also include addressing the end-of-life provisions.

I do not want to create any false hope but as we progress by bringing more energy ashore by getting more renewables on the grid, the expectation is, of course, that the dependence on fossil fuels will reduce significantly, particularly in respect of gas used for electricity generation. That is obviously an important part of it. There are other elements of our economy where we have a good bit more to do, particularly on transportation, etc., and there is a lot of work on there.

However, I get the Senator's point about having a plan towards the end of life and her point about any future Government that may not be as environmentally conscious as the Senator suggests we are; I thank her for that, I appreciate it. I have no doubt that were any of the Members in government it would remain, but we can never predict what the future holds. Neither, of course, can you prevent a future Government from making its own decisions that might differ with where we are at now.

We have to look at this practically, and we need to send signals as to what would constitute the elimination of risk and what would allow you to be in a position not to have that security reserve in place. We will be addressing that at a later stage, and I am sure we will try to find some common ground on that.

Before I bring Members back in, I welcome guests of the Ceann Comhairle to the Distinguished Visitors Gallery today. We hope they enjoy their day.

Amendments Nos. 11, 23 and 24 are related and may be taken together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 10, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:

“Review

5.Any approval granted under this Act shall be subject to review every 3 years.”.

Amendment No. 11 concerns review, in particular, a three-year review. Given Ireland's energy landscape changes throughout time, it proposes there would be a mandatory review every three years to ensure the reserve remains necessary and appropriate in light of developments of renewable energy storage and interconnection. It is really just to keep a review on it, which I do not think is a bad thing. I like a good review.

I thought we were going to get a bigger reveal there.

It keeps us all on our feet, and it is not every year; we have given the Government a bit of leeway there. Every three years is fairly reasonable to ensure it is doing what it needs to and is not going the wrong way.

We have similar amendments in respect of a review. We are looking for a review every five years, which is even more reasonable. However, it is also not just looking at the continued necessity as regard threat or risk but also at what the alternatives may be. If we are in a position where battery and renewables can meet that risk at that point, then we should not be going for this as a preferred option.

Again, we are seeking extra components to the review.

While not wanting to sound repetitive, I will. Effectively, this is about the planning and permitting we need to get through to get the fast-tracking of the construction phase. The Bill coming through later this year is where that discussion can take place. I agree with the Senator that a good review can be welcome; there is nothing wrong with it.

As to what the timing might be, we certainly will be looking at that. It was probably part of the discussions and if it was not, it will form part of discussions around pre-legislative scrutiny of that Bill. That is where Senators can have dialogue with our officials who will be drafting this. Certainly, the principle behind what the Senators are suggesting is a point well made. I do not see a reason for this at this stage but I may have to defend a different position in a couple of months because the legislation has not been put together or fully formatted yet. However, the principle is certainly a sound one.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 11, to delete line 10 and substitute the following:

“(e) the importation and offloading of LNG to the FSRU, where such LNG has been produced by a country which is a party to the Paris Agreement 2015, has not been produced by means of hydraulic fracturing;”.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 11, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

“(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the importation, offloading, storage or regasification of hydraulically fractured gas shall not constitute designated development for the purposes of this Act and shall not be carried out at any facility approved under section 29.”

Amendment No. 14 has been ruled out of order due to a conflict with the principle of the Bill as read a second time.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 11, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:

“Ownership and Operation

7.(1) The designated strategic gas reserve, including any terminal, infrastructure, or facility developed under this Act, shall remain exclusively in public ownership and under State control and shall not be transferred or outsourced, in whole or in part, to any private commercial entity.

(2) The facility shall be operated solely by a designated public body for emergency energy security purposes and shall not be utilised for commercial trading of gas supplies by any private enterprise.

(3) The Minister shall not direct, permit, or authorise any send-out of gas from the designated development unless the Commission for Regulation of Utilities has formally certified to the Minister that—

(a) a gas supply emergency exists that cannot be resolved by standard network balancing, and

(b) all Large Energy Users operating within the State have been curtailed to mandatory, pre-defined minimum operational electricity and natural gas consumption thresholds.

(4) For the purposes of this section, the pre-defined minimum thresholds shall be prescribed by the Commission for Regulation of Utilities.”.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 13, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:

“(l) a declaration by the applicant setting out the proposed sources of liquefied natural gas to be imported to the facility and, in particular, confirming whether any proposed source involves natural gas produced by means of hydraulic fracturing;”.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 14, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:

“Application for exemption to the principal of third-party access

12.The Minister shall, before approval of a designated development, apply to the European Commission for an exemption to Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009, concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC1, Article 36(9), providing an exemption to the principal of third-party access.”.

This is refers to a very important danger that has been highlighted to me, which is the danger of third parties seeking the right to access. This is something that can and has been done in other instances in the European Union. States can look for an exemption in the common rules around third party access, saying they explicitly wish to ensure there will not be third party access to this resource. Will the Minister of State apply to the European Commission for an exemption to Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament concerning the common rules and repealing directive and seek an exemption to the principle of third party access for this facility?

Again, this matter will be addressed in forthcoming legislation on the operation of the facility and those measures can be addressed as part of that. It is not drafted yet but as I said, there is an opportunity for the Senator to participate in the pre-legislative scrutiny and when it comes back to the House. However, I will not accept this amendment on the basis that I do not think it fits this legislation. However, it is an item for discussion under the operational piece.

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 22, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:

“(6) In identifying, describing, and assessing the likely significant effects of the designated development on the environment, the Environmental Impact Assessment Report in section 22 and subsequent assessment shall include an evaluation of—

(a) the vulnerability of the development to risks of major accidents or disasters relevant to the project, and

(b) the direct and indirect, impacts of the development on human health, safety, and well-being of adjacent communities.”

Amendment Nos. 19 to 22, inclusive, are related and may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 23, line 17, after “may” to insert the following:

“in determining whether the designated development is necessary having regard to the purpose of this Act”.

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 23, line 19, after “State,” to insert the following:

“the State’s obligations under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, as amended, including in particular the obligation to pursue the transition to a climate resilient, biodiversity rich, environmentally sustainable and climate neutral economy,”.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 23, line 21, after "section 26" to insert “and the matters specified in subsection (3)”.

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 23, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:

“(3) The matters referred to in subsection (2) are:

(a) an assessment by the Commission for Regulation of Utilities, following a public consultation, of the projected impact of the designated development on domestic utility bills, including any socialisation of costs across households and small businesses;

(b) an assessment by the Minister, following a public consultation, of the potential public health impacts and security risks posed to adjacent communities, including risks arising from industrial accidents, structural failures or attacks on the facility;

(c) an updated energy security review and risk assessment prepared by the Minister, following a public consultation, evaluating contemporary geopolitical scenarios and LNG supply disruptions, impacts on national climate targets, against—

(i) the accelerated deployment of renewable energy,

(ii) battery energy storage systems,

(iii) increased interconnection,

(iv) demand reduction measures for large energy users, and

(v) secondary fuel obligations;

(d) a cost-benefit analysis prepared by the Minister which shall—

(i) be prepared in accordance with the Public Spending Code Infrastructure Guidelines,

(ii) assess the full capital, operational and lifecycle costs to both the Exchequer and energy consumers,

(iii) quantify the security-of-supply costs and benefits under multiple distinct energy demand and supply scenarios,

(iv) include a comparative cost assessment of reasonable alternative measures, including demand reduction, system flexibility, increased storage, interconnection and renewable energy deployment, and

(4) The Minister shall lay each assessment, review and analysis referred to in subsection (3) before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as practicable after its completion.”.

As the time permitted for this debate has expired, I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the Senate of this day: "That section 29 is hereby agreed to in Committee; in respect of each of the sections of, the section is hereby agreed to in Committee; the Title is hereby agreed to in Committee; the Bill is accordingly reported to the House without amendment; Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby received for final consideration; and the Bill is hereby passed."

I welcome again to the Gallery the Black family. Shay Black was here already with Erica Pagels, but Martin Black, another brother of Senator Black, is now here and is also most welcome to Seanad Éireann. Martin told me there were no hard feelings after the Dublin-Kerry game, but that Dublin was robbed. That is according to Martin. It is not the official result. I thank the Black brothers for being here.

When is it proposed to sit again?

At 1 p.m. on Tuesday, 22 September 2026.

Is that agreed? Agreed