Paul Murphy Slams LNG Amendment as 'Gaslighting' by Government

Thanks, Cian Corle, it's on the same topic. Minister, I don't know if you just take everybody for a fool. You really think, expect people to believe, that you bring in amendments to designate LNG terminals, a strategic infrastructure which then get to bypass the normal planning process, and you expect people to believe that that's a technical thing. In the context when your coalition partners, many of them, are on the record repeatedly and forcefully advocating for LNG terminals. I mean, get real here, either you are incredibly naive, which I don't believe you are that naive, or you are playing a game here. There is a massive push to get fossil fuel infrastructure, LNG terminals developed, you amending the legislation to make it easier for that to happen. Minister Ryan, please. There is no game here. There is no taking anyone for a fool. And not only am I not naive, I think I have a long record going back 30 years of absolute commitment for climate action in our country, particularly actually in the area of keeping fossil fuels in the ground, going right back. But for decades, we have campaigned and worked in that area. And nothing has changed in that regard, and government position hasn't changed. You have heard no one from the government side say that we are going back on that energy security strategy statement, which said we would not have a commercial facility. It is very clear. Probably what has clouded this in some ways, not only the amendment, which was purely technical in nature, but also we had a court decision. We have to be careful we do not comment on court decisions. But some may have drawn an inference from that. Oh, there is a change in government policies now undermined. I do not believe the court decision had anything really in relation to government policy. It was addressing more technical issues in terms of how Borupinola go about their processes. But the actual government position has stayed the exact same. And that is why we are not doing commercial facilities. And that is rock solid, 100% certainly clear today, as well three weeks ago, four weeks ago, six months ago, a year ago. So there is no one, that certainty, I hope puts you at rest, gets over the concern you have. And we do have security issues we have to look at, and we have always up front and said that, and printed the policy and published it, and agreed it in this house and discussed it in some detail, that there is an issue if Russia or other actor was able to take out a gas pipeline, which has happened to other European countries, how do we manage that? And what I have done is gone about in a proper scientific engineering analysis way, look to see how we do manage that. One option would be to go with the facility, the likes of the FRSU, temporary, state led, as Deputy Rook just set out all the conditions, not breaching our climate laws. And I have just asked, because there is further analysis, and it would be frustrating if this can take time, but I think further analysis is warranted to say, could we do it in a different, another way? And that is what I am working on. Thank you. Deputy Murphy. I am sorry Minister, that does not assuage any of my concerns. I would quote Oisin Cocklin from Friends of the Earth, who would not be the wing of the environmental movement which is the most critical of the Green party, sometimes they have spoke positively about your records in government. I quote Oisín Coughlin, you don't legally designate something you oppose or aren't sure we need as strategic. The contradiction is so absurd, it feels like the government is gaslighting us. And he goes on to say that if this is the last thing or the government does facilitating NNG, import terminal, getting approval, then the legacy of the Greens and the government will be in tatters. That's the truth. That's the reality. And the arguments you make around it do not give me any confidence. Because, for example, you said in response to the earlier question that yes, you could find a way of importing non-fract gas, ensuring we don't have fracked gas. But you keep citing the policy statement of the government and the policy statement of the government is very, very clear and there's no legal way of doing that within the current EU laws. It sets that out. So you might outline how this is going to be done without the EU laws being changed. Minister, please. A key document here in November last year, which is our energy security paper, looking at a whole range of different risks in energy security. And that's the place where we say that the only facility we could or would introduce would be one which would be purely temporary, purely strategic, purely security orientated. And in those circumstances where it's state-led, I believe you could set conditions in terms of the amount of security you provided, not having fracked gas and so on. And I'm absolutely confident that is deliverable and doable. With regards to Friends of the Earth, and they're, in my mind, misreading what that amendment was about, because it is complex and technical and goes back many, many months in a very complicated bill, you had a potential risk with onshore facilities and offshore facilities being under different planning regimes and having to make sure that it was a standardised approach. Strategic infrastructure provision is a very common provision. There are a number of wind farms have to go through that. It's not just fossil and other infrastructure. It doesn't mean you avoid planning. You still have to go through on board Panola. It was just a core to make sure that there wasn't inconsistencies in our planning system that that amendment was made. But the fundamental question is, do we want such a commercial facility? And clearly the government is saying no. Deputy Murphy. The Minister said here that you could ensure that frack gas is not used in this so-called state-led LNG terminal. But the policy statement of the government in May 2021 is clear. It is not possible for Ireland, under the European Treaties or EU Directive concerning common rules for the internal market and natural gas, to legislate for a ban on the import of frack gas, to ban the import into Ireland of frack gas, to prevent the processing of frack gas in the state. So you might enlighten us as to how this is going to happen. The truth is that importing LNG is worse for the environment than burning coal. O'Shean Coughlin made the point we may as well leave Money Point open burning coal as to build a new LNG terminal. You might also shed light, you rely a lot on this term state-led. What does it mean? Again, under EU laws, it's not possible for a state to exclusively own or operate a fossil fuel terminal. So what does the term state-led actually mean? It's designed to give the impression that in some ways this is publicly owned and controlled, but that isn't the reality if it happens. Mr Ryan, please. I think the point about LNG having potentially the same emissions as coal. We will not be increasing our importation of extra LNG gas. That's agreed. We're not going to breach our climate change targets in any of this. That's an absolute certain given. And I believe in any court or in any debate or in any government, future government or this government, that will hold firm. And in terms of state-commissioned facility, I believe we would be within our legal rights to say we have to have certain... We would like a facility which gives this amount of security, operates within certain conditions, and, yes, we would like it not to use frat gas. I think that could be in the commissioning of a project. I see no reason why it's very unlikely. I don't see the prospect that that would be legally challenged because we would be commissioning, looking for a facility to have certain characteristics. And it's just commissioning by the state. And so, yes, I believe it can be done without any frat gas. But I think the key question here is, first of all, what type of facility? And can we, in the further analysis that I've asked the department to do, look to see where we may not need a facility? Now, that would require jumping... There are loads of different elements. Further interconnection, better storage, using the new anaerobic digestion gas source, using backup between power stations and our strategic oil reserves. There are a number of ways in which we can provide security. That's the key thing we need to look at. Question 50, Deputy Darren Norwood.