What we and the Minister need to try to do is bring a level of transparency to this debate and try to engender a level of trust. Trust has been broken between the public and the Government in this regard. When the Minister has talked about all the different elements of this facility, the key thing he mentioned is that it is to be a strategic, State-led, State-owned, State-run non-commercial facility to be used in limited circumstances. These amendments speak to those limited circumstances. It is important that the Bill be explicit regarding in what circumstances this facility can be utilised. That is why I and others tabled amendments. I will talk about it being a State-owned and State-led facility because that is another very important safeguard. I was surprised to see that is not discussed or mentioned in the Bill the Minister brought forward, despite the fact that in every discussion we have had in this Chamber and committees and any debate, including when the Minister has spoken about it on the radio, the key thing he says is that it will be a State-owned, State-led non-commercial facility. That is the key message he is trying to get across, yet the Bill does not even mention that. There is a major gap here and it brings about a question of trust and transparency and whether the public can really believe the intentions behind this facility. I tabled a number of amendments to the Bill, including one to deal with the fact the operation of the birds and habitats directive was essentially removed from the Bill. I put in an amendment that called for a review of alternatives to how we can meet the energy security needs through batteries, interconnectors or by forcing companies to have alternative fuels on site. I also tabled an amendment on analysing the impact that this was going to have on domestic bills. For some reason, all of these amendments were ruled out of order on the basis that they were in conflict with the principle of the Bill, which is incredible. I question why they were ruled out. A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I have never seen an instance where amendments were ruled out of order - there is no money message here - because they were in conflict with the principle of the Bill as read a Second Time. I imagine an awful lot of the amendments that go through this House are trying to improve Bills and through that may be in conflict with the Bills' fundamental principles, but I have never seen any amendments being ruled out of order on that basis.
Sentiment score: 0.07
I am taking it up here as well because it is clearly wrong-----
Sentiment score: 0.59
It is clearly wrong to rule out of order amendments that have no money message on this basis. It completely undermines the Opposition's ability to improve, or put safeguards into, this legislation. It is really important that we have safeguards in it and that when Deputies are making decisions in here or when the public is making up its mind about this LNG facility, they are doing it on the basis of full and transparent information. I am aware that the Minister has said that there are energy security risks associated with any potential impact on the interconnectors with Scotland and the gas intake from them, but the security reviews conducted did not look holistically at alternatives. They did not look to see whether they could pull together a plan that would deal with battery storage, alternative fuels and forcing companies to ensure that they had sufficient storage of fuel on site. That is a real flaw and undermines the whole premise of this debate. The information and evidence are not there to support what the Government is trying to do with this Bill. I will get back to the amendment. It is important as part of that that there be a definition of "emergency" on a statutory basis that outlines exactly when this facility can be used. There is a fear that this facility will become a de facto gas intake facility that will end up being run on a commercial basis or, even if it is done on a non-commercial basis, that it will increase our gas usage. I therefore ask that this amendment be considered.
Sentiment score: 0.10
I move amendment No. 3: 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— (c) all relevant market-based measures have been fully implemented, exhausted, and proven insufficient to meet gas demand, and (d) 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;”.
Sentiment score: -0.58