Others have referred to the speed at which this legislation and the previous Bill on LNG are being fast-tracked through the Dáil. There has not been sufficient time for debate or interrogation. Sufficient time has not been allocated to allow all Members to have input and, potentially, to make the legislation stronger and better, which is really what our job is. It is interesting to see how quickly the Government can get certain legislation through the system. I wish there was an equal emphasis by the Government on getting other things delivered. Why are we not seeing similar speed, energy and focus to get additional battery storage up and running or the interconnector to France, which has been delayed, put in place? It has been repeated many times, but we have less offshore wind energy now than we did 20 years ago. I was on Brittas beach at the weekend enjoying the weather and looking at the seven pillars out in the Irish Sea. There are no turbines on them because they have been decommissioned. The Minister spoke about the Government's priorities and where it spends its energy. It seems that this Government is spending its energy on pushing through solutions to problems that are being created because it has not done the work. The reason we are in this position is because it has not looked at the framework. It has not been strategic. Deputy Ahern referred to metrics in the context of his amendment. I absolutely agree with him. There is a similar thread going through this Bill and the previous Bill, and that is the need for robust analysis and strategic management. We have a similar situation with data centres. Five years ago, I stood in this Chamber and asked for strategic management of data centres because the Government's approach of just rolling out the red carpet was going leave us in trouble. That has proven to be the case. We are there now. It is costing the State and domestic energy users a huge amount of money and is locking us into a very intensive, energy-reliant system. The position with LNG is similar. I do not think we have had a full analysis, review and evidence provided as to why we need an LNG reserve. Are there alternatives? Is there an alternative way to shore up our energy security? I believe there is. I do not think there has been the necessary holistic analysis of the impact that lifting the cap will have. I do not believe that roads capacity was the correct mechanism to use in order to limit numbers at the airport. I do not believe that was ever the right approach. The question for us now is what is the correct metric to use to assess the airport. I do not think that level of analysis has been carried out. I mention that in one of my amendments. Has there been an economic analysis? Are we looking at regional development? Are we taking account emissions, noise pollution, the impact on residents or on housing in the area? When making long-term decisions of this nature, a level of work should go on behind scenes in the context of carrying out the relevant analysis and gathering the necessary evidence. I just do not think that has happened in this instance, and I do not believe it was done in respect of the previous Bill we discussed either. I want to speak briefly to my amendment No. 13, which is in this group and which relates to our obligations. The State has obligations. The Minister signed up to them. He has agreed with our national obligations when it comes to climate. In fact, it was the previous Government brought forward the legislation in that regard. The majority of Deputies in the previous Dáil supported that legislation. We all worked hard to make sure it was as strong as possible. We have European Union directives to which we have to adhere. We must also adhere to and be cognisant of international law. In the rush to get these major development investments over the line, the Minister is really just pushing aside all those obligations. Unfortunately, it should not and cannot work that way. We need to take these issues into account, because the Minister is not just making this decision for the next five years and keeping Michael O'Leary happy for the next five or ten years. This is something that will be with us for a long time. When it is done, the Minister needs to make sure that it is done right. There is an onus and an obligation on him to uphold all those directives and laws he has signed up to. It cannot be the case that he just closes his eyes and pretends he never did so or has workarounds, because it really just does not work that way. Essentially, it is stated in our climate objectives state that an authority has to have regard to them. I do not understand why the Minister is trying to override these basic measures and requirements that we have. This is something we will regret in the long term. I also want to raise point with the Minister that we need to be strategic about this. He has to have the analysis carried out. In this instance, he has not done so.

Sentiment score: 0.10