Jennifer Whitmore: Demands Transparency on LNG Facility Bill
Jennifer Whitmore challenged the Minister today over the proposed LNG facility Bill, arguing the legislation lacks transparency and key safeguards on ownership, use and oversight. She raised concerns that amendments addressing environmental protections, alternatives and bill impacts were ruled out of order, and called for a statutory definition of emergency.
Jennifer Whitmore says the Bill does not explicitly enshrine the repeated claim that the facility will be state-owned, state-led and non-commercial. She told the chamber this omission creates a gap that undermines public trust and requires urgent clarification.
Whitmore set out several amendments she had submitted, including restoring the Birds and Habitats Directive operation, requiring a review of alternatives such as battery storage and interconnectors, and analysing the Bill's impact on domestic energy bills. She criticised the decision to rule these amendments out of order as inconsistent and damaging to scrutiny.
Whitmore argued the security reviews relied on by the Minister did not assess alternatives holistically, and that options like enforcing on-site fuel storage, batteries or interconnectors were not adequately considered. She warned the lack of evidence weakens the Bill's case.
A central demand in the speech was for an explicit, statutory definition of 'emergency' to limit when the facility can be used, to prevent it becoming a de facto commercial gas intake and to ensure it cannot increase overall gas usage. Whitmore asked the Minister to consider amendments to make those limits clear.
State ownership and safeguards
Jennifer Whitmore says the Bill does not explicitly enshrine the repeated claim that the facility will be state-owned, state-led and non-commercial. She told the chamber this omission creates a gap that undermines public trust and requires urgent clarification.
Amendments and parliamentary procedure
Whitmore set out several amendments she had submitted, including restoring the Birds and Habitats Directive operation, requiring a review of alternatives such as battery storage and interconnectors, and analysing the Bill's impact on domestic energy bills. She criticised the decision to rule these amendments out of order as inconsistent and damaging to scrutiny.
Concerns about alternatives and evidence
Whitmore argued the security reviews relied on by the Minister did not assess alternatives holistically, and that options like enforcing on-site fuel storage, batteries or interconnectors were not adequately considered. She warned the lack of evidence weakens the Bill's case.
Call for a statutory emergency definition
A central demand in the speech was for an explicit, statutory definition of 'emergency' to limit when the facility can be used, to prevent it becoming a de facto commercial gas intake and to ensure it cannot increase overall gas usage. Whitmore asked the Minister to consider amendments to make those limits clear.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Other speeches
Tego samego dnia All speeches from this day →
Matt Carthy
Matt Carthy: Childcare crisis is a government failure
Martin Daly
Martin Daly praises Taoiseach's US visit and urges EU tech push
Paul Murphy
Paul Murphy on AI Bill: Who Picks the CEO?
Micheál Martin
Micheál Martin: Extends Fuel Tax Relief, Targets Child Poverty
Conor D McGuinness
Conor D McGuinness: Industrial Runoff, Nature-Based Fixes
Danny Healy-Rae
Danny Healy-Rae: Welcomes Shannon LNG and slams energy policy
Transcript
Minister, I think what we need to try to do, what you certainly need to try to do, is bring a level of transparency into this debate and try to engender a level of trust, because actually trust has been broken between the public and the government in this regard. And I think when you talk about all the different elements of this particular facility, the key thing that you mentioned and spoke about was that it was to be a strategic, state-led, state-owned, state-run, non-commercial facility that would be used in very limited circumstances. So I think these amendments speak to that limited circumstances. I think it's really important that the Bill is very explicit regarding what circumstances this facility can be utilised in and that's why I put in amendments and obviously others have as well. But I do also want to talk about the whole fact of it being state-owned and state-led, because again that's also another really important safeguard. And I was really surprised to see that it wasn't actually discussed or mentioned in the Bill that you brought forward, despite the fact that every single discussion we have had in this chamber, in any committee, in any debate anytime you're on the radio talking about it, Minister, the key thing you say is this is a state-owned, state-led, non-commercial facility. That is the key thing, the key message you're trying to get across and yet this piece of legislation doesn't even mention that. So I think there's obviously a major gap here and that brings about a question of trust and transparency and whether or not people and the public can really believe the intentions behind this facility. I must say I was also very surprised because I put in a number of amendments on this Bill. I put in an amendment to deal with the fact that the Birds and Habitats Directive had essentially been removed, the operation of it, from the Bill. I put in an amendment that called for a review of alternatives, a review of how we could meet the energy security needs through a means of batteries or interconnectors or enforcing companies to have alternative fuels on site and I've also had to put an amendment in relation to an analysis of the impact that this is going to have on domestic bills and for some reason all these amendments were ruled out of order and they were ruled out of order on the basis that they were in conflict with the principle of the Bill, which to me is incredible. I mean it is at this opportunity now that we have, well I mean I do question whether, like why they were ruled. I have never ever seen, I have never seen an instance where amendments have been ruled out of order because there's no money message issue here. They were ruled out of order because they were in conflict with the principle of the Bill as read a second time. I mean I would imagine an awful lot of the amendments that go through this House are trying to improve bills and indeed through that may be in conflict with the fundamental principles but I've never seen any amendments being ruled out of order on that basis and I would actually ask, pardon? You can take that up with the council. Well I'm taking it up here in the chamber as well because I think it is, I mean it's clearly wrong, it's clearly wrong to actually to rule amendments that have no money message, rule them out of order on this basis and I think it completely undermines the opposition's ability to actually improve or put safeguards into this legislation because as I said it is really important that we have safeguards in and it is really important that when deputies in here are making decisions or when the public is making up their mind in relation to this LNG facility that they're doing it on the basis of full and transparent information and I think you know I recognise and I know that you have said that it's because there are energy security risks associated with you know any potential impact on the interconnectors from Scotland and the gas input intakes from Scotland but the reality is that the security reviews that were conducted they did not look holistically at alternatives, they did not look and see whether or not they could pull together a plan that would deal with battery storage, that would deal with alternative fuels and that would deal with actual enforcing companies to ensure that they have sufficient storage of fuels on site and I think that is a real flaw and that undermines I think the whole premise of this discussion and this debate because I just don't think that the information and the evidence is there to support what the minister and what the government is trying to do in regards to this bill. I'll get back to the amendment I think it is really important as part of that it is really important that there is a definition of emergency that is on a statutory basis and that outlines exactly when this facility can be used because I said you know there is a fear that this facility will essentially become a de facto gas intake facility and that it will end up being run on a commercial basis or indeed even if it's done on a non-commercial basis that it will actually increase somehow our gas usage so I would ask that this amendment be considered. Thank you.