Ciarán Ahern
Dublin South-West · Labour Party · Ireland
“What we are asking for today is simply that the Government lives up to the commitment made in the programme for Government to carry out a new, independent feasibility study for an extension of the MetroLink from where it is currently due to end in Charlemont, out to Dublin south west.”
“It examined quite a nonsensical route that finished abruptly in Knocklyon, and therefore it significantly underestimated the cost benefit of the project.”
“This all comes back to funding our schools. All too often, despite the much publicised overspend in the education budget, schools still have to fight tooth and nail to get the resources they need. I never predicted that so much of my time as a TD would be spent working with local schools on funding and resourcing issues.”
“As the capitation grant is not covering basic operating costs, many school boards feel that to avoid running deficits, which they will get into trouble for from their governing bodies, they have to find funds elsewhere.”
“As the Minister knows, parents are paying hand over fist for ancillary school costs, be it for school uniforms, laptops, school transport or the so-called voluntary contributions. We cannot say we have free education in this country if the whole architecture that enables proper participation is hugely expensive for parents.”
“Some parents are now having to pay hundreds of euro for devices if their children are to just fully participate in school. As this motion states, we are at risk of creating a digital divide and new inequalities in our education system unless we put further supports in place for low-income families. Kevin Shortall, principal of St.”
The complete record
Every one of 909 lines we hold for Ciarán Ahern, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 19.
“It examined quite a nonsensical route that finished abruptly in Knocklyon, and therefore it significantly underestimated the cost benefit of the project. From a common sense perspective, it would seem to us to make most sense for the route to carry on all the way to Tallaght to connect with the Luas line, Technological University Dublin, TUD, the Square and the hospital. We ask that the commitment in the programme for Government is delivered.”
“What we are asking for today is simply that the Government lives up to the commitment made in the programme for Government to carry out a new, independent feasibility study for an extension of the MetroLink from where it is currently due to end in Charlemont, out to Dublin south west. I raised this with the Minister for Transport a few weeks ago, and he advised that the study would be carried out but would be done as part of a review of the greater Dublin area transport strategy. While it is welcome to know the study will take place, what we need to know is that it will be an independent study. The National Transport Authority, NTA, carried out a feasibility study a number of years ago but it was deeply flawed.”
“This all comes back to funding our schools. All too often, despite the much publicised overspend in the education budget, schools still have to fight tooth and nail to get the resources they need. I never predicted that so much of my time as a TD would be spent working with local schools on funding and resourcing issues. In the past few months alone, I have worked with ten different schools. Scoil Maelruain Junior National School, for example, will lose a teacher next school year and will have to merge classes, as will St. Mary's BNS. St. Dominic's National School is looking for DEIS plus status. Sancta Maria College wants the Department of education to finish building its PE hall. Ballyroan BNS is looking for a new school building. Abacas Special School needs a new school building. Saplings Special School needs an emergency works grant.”
“As the capitation grant is not covering basic operating costs, many school boards feel that to avoid running deficits, which they will get into trouble for from their governing bodies, they have to find funds elsewhere. Some schools will fundraise via parents' associations or by increasing the voluntary contribution, but that will not always be possible or enough. The ever-growing need for increased revenues coming into schools means that things like school halls or classrooms, which are community assets that are routinely used by community groups or after-school services, are now being rented out at higher and higher rates, forcing community groups to fundraise themselves in order to keep going, or to opt out. Much of that fundraising comes from the same source, which is the parents of the kids using those after-school services.”
“Voluntary contributions would not be necessary if capitation grants were where they need to be. I welcome the fact capitation grants have increased in recent years but the costs in schools associated with that are also rising at a faster rate and the capitation grants still are not enough. Just last year, the Sacred Heart Junior School in Killinarden almost had to shut its doors because it simply could not keep up with utility bills. Thankfully, that school secured an early payment of its capitation grant, but only after months of anxiety and stress, and, even still, that does not address the underlying financial issue. It is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. The school will need to get this year's capitation grant earlier again and the cycle just seems to continue.”
“Some parents are now having to pay hundreds of euro for devices if their children are to just fully participate in school. As this motion states, we are at risk of creating a digital divide and new inequalities in our education system unless we put further supports in place for low-income families. Kevin Shortall, principal of St. Aidan's Community School in Tallaght, in my constituency, said on RTÉ last week that the choice to use digital services is not available to some schools because of the associated costs for parents. There are larger issues of funding for schools that I would like to touch on now. The Labour Party has been calling for a long time for an end to voluntary contributions. Schools should not have to go cap in hand to parents just to keep the lights on.”
“As the Minister knows, parents are paying hand over fist for ancillary school costs, be it for school uniforms, laptops, school transport or the so-called voluntary contributions. We cannot say we have free education in this country if the whole architecture that enables proper participation is hugely expensive for parents. What is so regrettable is that some of the good work that is being done, like the school books scheme - something that has been long-championed by Aodhán Ó Ríordáin and others in the Labour Party - is being eroded by these additional costs now being faced by parents. The benefits of technology in education have to be available to everyone on an equal footing. Gone are the days when you would just have a hand-me-down textbook and a few Aisling copybooks that would only cost a few quid.”
“Leadership means ensuring Irish artists are partners in technological progress, and not casualties of it. If Government is serious about supporting our creative industries then now is the moment to act. Once artists lose control of their work, it becomes exponentially harder to restore those rights and there is obviously no art without artists. As I said, it is a fundamentally human endeavour. We should reaffirm our commitment to Ireland's creative future, and to our actors, musicians, screenwriters, designers, animators, comedians, cinematographers and all those whose artistry enriches our lives. Above all, we must insist that our creative industries remain industries built on imagination, emotion, experience and collaboration, and not plagiarised AI-generated slop.”
“I would have no issue if we were to introduce new legislation in this space, particularly with regard to AI, but we cannot allow the same situation to arise as is currently the case, where it is just flaunted with no repercussions. Overall, this is an excellent motion. I again commend Sinn Féin and Deputy Ó Snodaigh in particular for all the work he has done with respect to the arts. The Government often tells us it wants Ireland to become a leader in AI, but leadership in this area is not just about attracting technology companies to come here. It is about recognising and protecting people from the negative impacts and ensuring the benefits are enjoyed by everyone. We can and we must protect our creative sector while embracing the potential for innovation.”
“Instead of simply administering meetings, Ireland should be shaping policy to protect Irish artists. This motion offers practical and balanced proposals. I will make a couple of points with a view to strengthening what is already in the motion. It calls for support for the creation of collective licensing models. There is a bit of nuance here, in that a one-size-fits-all approach might not be best suited across different categories of artists. Different rights-holder sectors will have different licensing requirements. For example, a collective model might work well for book publishing, but not necessarily for music publishing. The second point is on existing copyright law. The motion states that it is insufficient and, while I do not disagree, a large part of the issue is that it is not enforced as well as it could be.”
“If we allow a future where AI systems endlessly reproduce derivative content trained on those creators without permission or payment, we risk hollowing out the very creative ecosystem that made Ireland culturally rich in the first place. There is an argument that AI can support creativity as an assistive technology, but it can never replace it or exploit it. I think that is the balance this motion seeks to achieve. I welcome that the Government has withdrawn its countermotion because, to date, it has yet to demonstrate the level of leadership required to tackle this issue. Ireland currently holds the Presidency of the Council of the EU. That presents a unique opportunity to lead the European conversation on AI, copyright and creators' rights.”
“Musicians can find AI systems generating songs that imitate their unique artistic identity. That is not just a copyright issue. It is an issue of consent and personal dignity. It is also an issue of protecting people's livelihoods. No artist should wake up to discover that their voice has been copied, their image replicated or their artistic identity commercialised without permission. That is why stronger personality rights must become part of our legal framework. I also address a wider cultural issue. Ireland's greatest strength has always been its storytellers, be they writers, musicians, actors or composers. They have shaped how Ireland is understood and viewed across the world.”
“At the moment, there is no accountability or meaningful copyright protection. The current opt-out system under European copyright law has proven inadequate. It effectively places the burden on individual artists to discover whether their work has been used in the first place. This is a virtually impossible task when the training datasets are hidden behind commercial secrecy. That is backwards. The burden should rest with those building commercial AI systems, not with individual artists trying to defend rights that already belong to them. This motion also recognises another growing threat, which is the cloning of voices, likenesses and artistic styles. Technology now allows performers' voices to be replicated almost perfectly. Actors, and even TDs, can have their likenesses copied.”
“Deezer, for example, has reported that approximately 75,000 fully AI-generated tracks are now uploaded every single day. Even more alarming is the finding that the overwhelming majority of streams involving fully AI-generated music were linked to fraudulent activity, diverting royalties away from genuine creators. The exploitation and dehumanisation of creativity by big tech is not some conspiracy. It is already happening. Every day we delay action to address this, the gap between technological capability and legal protection grows wider. If an AI model has been trained using copyrighted music, books, scripts or artwork, artists deserve to know this. Transparency is not anti-innovation; it is the foundation on which trust, licensing and legitimate commercial relationships can be built.”
“While all companies rapidly commercialise products built on copyrighted works, Irish artists are left wondering whether their own music, writing or performances have already been used without their knowledge. There is no transparency, and it is pretty obvious that big tech is increasingly retreating from the very idea of that. We have to be more proactive in this space. Research commissioned by CISAC estimates that one quarter of music creators' revenues could be at risk by 2028, representing cumulative losses of approximately 10 billion over five years. Media composers working in television, advertising and film are expected to be among the hardest hit. Streaming platforms are already reporting enormous growth in AI-generated content.”
“For years, artists have warned that they already operate in an industry characterised by low incomes, precarious employment and insecure working conditions. Research commissioned by the Arts Council has repeatedly demonstrated this reality. The basic income for the arts scheme, while very much welcomed by those who can access it, has only reinforced what artists have been saying for decades: that creative workers are expected to survive on unstable and often inadequate incomes. Instead of strengthening the rights of artists and their ability to support themselves in a moment of enormous technological change, Government has been slow to respond. While other countries are actively examining how copyright law must evolve, this Government has remained largely reactive, unfortunately.”
“Today, that all faces an unprecedented threat. Generative AI is developing at extraordinary speed. Most of us here recognise the opportunities of AI. It has the potential to at least improve productivity or accelerate research, submit parliamentary questions and so on. Like Sinn Féin, the Labour Party is not opposed to innovation. We support responsible AI development, but innovation cannot become a licence for exploitation. There is a simple question. If an AI company builds a billion dollar product using the life's work of Irish artists, musicians, writers and performers, should those creators have any say in how their work is used? Should they be told it has happened? Should they be paid? The answer to all of this is obviously "Yes". Unfortunately, this Government has failed to show any urgency on this issue.”
“We have to ensure we retain artistic spaces in our towns and cities around this country. Art is a fundamentally human endeavour. It resonates with people because it reflects our experiences, emotions, imagination and hopes. It should always remain that way, a human endeavour. Every song written, every screenplay composed, every poem published, every performance delivered and every piece of art created is the result of human labour. It represents, as Deputy Gibney has said, years of practice, dedication, talent, sacrifice and lived experience. These works are not data to be harvested; they are the property of the people who created them. For many artists, the royalties earned from those works are not a luxury; they are the income that allows them to pay their bills, support their families and continue creating.”
“The famous painter Seán Keating lived in Rathfarnham and painted two beautiful murals in the Church of the Holy Spirit in Ballyroan. WB Yeats was also a constituent, though just slightly before my time. We in the Labour Party are deeply proud of our record in this space. It was Michael D Higgins as the first Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht who helped reshape the vision for arts in this country. We have become a powerhouse across books, poetry, television, documentary, comedy, animation and gaming. Irish directors, writers, actors and craftspeople consistently punch far above their weight and long may that continue. I also highlight the vibrant ecosystem that surrounds creative arts like the festivals, community cinemas and local arts organisations that create space for Irish talent to be celebrated.”
“My thanks to Sinn Féin for tabling this motion tonight. This is about far more than artificial intelligence. It is about the value of human creativity, hard work and intellectual property and whether they will continue to be recognised and protected or we allow them to be exploited without consent, without transparency and without fair payment. The success of the arts and the culture sector over recent decades is something that we in Ireland can be and are immensely proud of. From The Cranberries to Fontaines D.C., Dermot Morgan to my good friends Foil, Arms and Hog, Maeve Binchy to Sally Rooney, we have produced a wealth of talent in this country. In Dublin South-West, we are proud to count three-time Oscar winner for visual effects Richard Baneham as someone who is from Tallaght, as a constituent, as one of our own.”
“Solicitors are resigning en masse across the country from legal aid panels. It is awful to see. Will the Tánaiste intervene? Is Fine Gael happy to see criminal prosecutions being put at risk? Will he ensure there is a pause to allow for engagement and consultation? Will he ensure the underlying data informing the Department’s report is published?”
“The Minister for justice, as part of his long-running campaign for the Fianna Fáil leadership, is in the process of critically undermining our system of criminal justice. He has introduced a new fee structure for District Court criminal legal aid without proper engagement or consultation with the practitioners involved. The Minister is asking criminal law solicitors to run entire cases for the same amount that he would have charged for one hour of his own time as a commercial law senior counsel. The Minister now refuses to publish the underlying data being used to justify the move to a flat fee. If the evidence is as the Minister says, why will he not publish it? I would have thought he would be familiar with the concept of discovery, whereby the other side in a case can test the evidence being relied on.”
“We in the Labour Party have an ambitious, costed and revolutionary plan for State-provided, universal childcare in Ireland, where we treat it just like primary education, spaces are guaranteed for children, parents have certainty over costs and accessibility, and early years educators have decent terms of employment. Let us be clear: there is no issue with quality in the current system, but we have early years educators who go over and above every day only to be forced to sign on during the summer and we need to properly value these essential workers.”
“Parents have had to take up to 20 annual leave days across May and June to cover room closures. They are scrambling to get family or friends to help to find and pay childminders, and it is all unbelievably stressful. The next big fear, of course, is that the childcare provider will pull out of core funding and hike its prices, leaving these parents unprotected by the very welcome fee freeze announced earlier this month. Parents have no option to move elsewhere as childcare places in Dublin South-West are so scarce. Parents are excluded from Government childcare supports and have to somehow suck up the additional fees which can double overnight, as the Minister knows, or otherwise parents, and it is mainly mums, just stop working. This is all due to the for-profit, commercialised model that this Government has promoted.”
“I thank Sinn Féin and Deputy Kerrane for bringing this important motion forward. For my generation and for young parents like me, or youngish parents anyway, childcare and housing are the crucial issues. Childcare and housing are both issues of accessibility and affordability. Both are also issues that have been left to the private sector for far too long and, in both cases, there is an urgent need for strong, direct State intervention. In this House last week, I raised issues with the Tánaiste regarding a local childcare provider in Knocklyon. Recently there has been a large number of last-minute room closures. Previous flexibility under a different ownership with summer hours or part-time after-school has disappeared, and parents have been left stranded with no childcare and no notice.”
“That report interestingly said that Irish people hate posters and want to do away with them. If we did do away with election posters, it would simply have the same environmental impact as two full transatlantic flights. We are seriously increasing our carbon emissions here. There is a world in which I can support something like this, but we would need to see where the limits and the guardrails are, and where in the transport sector or elsewhere those savings will come from so we can comply with our legally binding carbon budgets and our international obligations.”
“We do not have any answers from the Minister on where the savings will come from to counteract the additional emissions coming from Dublin Airport when this airport cap is lifted. We are lifting the Dublin Airport cap, and we still have no other cap. We still have no climate action plan, and we desperately want to see that from the Minister as soon as possible. Emissions from air travel are massive. I do not know if we all consider just how polluting our flights are. To put this in context, the Minister and certainly the electoral nerds among us will have seen last week that the Electoral Commission produced a report about the Irish obsession with posters during election campaigns. It estimated that the carbon emissions for all the posters used in the general election in 2024 had the equivalent of just two return transatlantic flights.”
“Under section 25(3), he can decide to include that condition in an order he makes. He can unilaterally decide to vary that condition or he can refuse to include that condition in an order that he makes. That is a massive power for him to simply take as advisory anything that An Coimisiún Pleanála says. I do not accept that he is not setting aside climate considerations here. It is up to him or a future Minister for Transport to say sod whatever An Coimisiún Pleanála said and sod the climate because they will have an explicit power to ignore all of that, and to decide that is what they are going to do. That is a massive flaw in this Bill. If it is the Minister's position that he wants to take climate considerations seriously into account when it comes to our aviation policy, this section 25(3)(c) is a massive problem.”
“Unfortunately, he is determined to dismantle some of the climate guardrails the previous Government put in place through the disapplication of section 15 of the climate Act. The Minister also mentioned that he is not setting aside climate considerations. There are other amendments that relate to this and some of his powers under the Bill. Those powers are contained in section 25 of the Bill, and they are his powers to make an order. I bring this up because the Minister raised it and said he has to consider any conditions that An Coimisiún Pleanála sends to him. That is all true. A process is set out here whereby An Coimisiún Pleanála does an environmental impact assessment, and it can make recommendations and put conditions down that they send to him as a Minister.”
“Is international connectivity just a byword for a policy from large international airlines that want to use Dublin Airport as a hub and create an even bigger hub out of Dublin that will not necessarily serve Irish people or passengers but is going to serve these international airlines and passengers who are connecting here to move abroad? I have serious questions about that as well. As a lawyer, I like definitions. Again, as Deputy Whitmore alluded to, we need some metrics to hold the Minister to account. There are emissions connected to every new additional flight that is going to come from Dublin Airport, and we want to have some accountability here. Huge power is being put in the Minister's hands in this Bill, and we want to put some guardrails and parameters around that.”
“At least when it came to the expansion of data centres in this country and the Government's policy on that, it commissioned a report we could scrutinise. The Government acknowledged the need to back up the claims about jobs related to data centres with some hard data. Now, the data is questionable but at least it was put out there by the Government. We have not seen any of that for the claims being made about jobs and the international connectivity of Dublin Airport. Do not get me wrong, we value Dublin Airport. We completely understand that it is a strategic national asset. Part of our concern here relates to balanced regional development. It relates back to what Deputy Crowe was speaking about where flights from Shannon are being run from Dublin rather than Shannon. Will this policy now give rise to Dublin swallowing up everything else?”
“The Minister's assumption is that will be the first application. There is no guarantee anywhere here, however, that it is going to be a 40 million cap. There is presumably nothing preventing the DAA from applying for a higher figure. However, that is the Minister's understanding and that is fair enough. Our issue is that there are no limits anywhere in this Bill. There are no parameters for the number of passengers who will be coming through the airport. No real economic assessment has been done here. The Minister stated that there are 1,000 jobs attached to every 1 million passengers, and I ask where he got that figure from and whether it is a figure given to him by the airline industry.”
“I thank the Minister for his comments and for listening so attentively to what people were saying. On my amendment, the issue I have is how much connectivity is ever going to be enough. We still do not have an answer on that. He mentioned a figure of 40 million passengers being the first application.”
“Even though we do not count international aviation emissions, they do go somewhere and these actions have consequences whether the Government likes it or not.”
“The provision could be invoked on the basis of adverse commentary by Michael O'Leary, for example. We are essentially enshrining corporate bullying of the State in this law. That is why I want to delete that line. It gives carte blanche to airlines to talk down the country and say they are not happy that it is sufficiently internationally connected, so they will pull all their flights and that Ireland has a terrible reputation for international connectivity or whatever the buzzword is. It will essentially allow airlines to bully the State and Ministers to use that bullying as an excuse to raise the cap again and again, without heed to any of our climate obligations, either our domestic climate targets or international ones. These emissions do count.”
“It is not as though the Minister is replacing the current cap with another level of cap. This will just be an absolute free for all. My other amendment in the grouping, amendment No. 12, is to address a provision that essentially gives an open invitation to airlines to bully the Government and talk down Ireland if they perceive there to be some inhibitor of their commercial interests in Dublin. It gives licence to a Minister for Transport to change planning conditions where they are perceived to be potentially damaging to " the international reputation of the State in respect of air transport". It is extremely open-ended, entirely unfalsifiable and there is no objective standard for reputational damage. There is no evidence threshold or definition.”
“Therefore, throwing around a phrase like "international connectivity" gives the Minister carte blanche to continually increase the number of people going through the airport and the number of flights being taken and that is not necessarily a good thing. We need to talk about demand management in international aviation. There is no such thing as sustainable aviation fuel. It is never going to happen and the airline industry acknowledges that, so we have to try to have some metrics for and control over the number of flights in the country. Furthermore, this is specifically for Dublin. There is no talk here about balanced regional development. This is all about Dublin Airport. The Minister talks about sustainable development but there is nothing sustainable about not having any cap.”
“If we are going to increase flights on this basis, it is important we have metrics by which we can measure international connectivity and it is important to define it because the level of emissions associated with higher or lower levels of international connectivity should be determined by the metrics used. This falls under the transport brief but it has a massive climate consequence. It is worth noting that only 5% of the population of the entire world has ever taken a flight. We are in an incredibly privileged position here. This relates to climate justice and our obligations to others in a world where 95% of people on the globe have never been on a plane and the Minister is now proposing potentially to double the number of flights from Dublin Airport.”
“The Government says the Bill is to increase our international connectivity. With 32 million or more flights already leaving the country to international destinations, the question is what is enough international connectivity. With amendment No. 1, I propose to insert a definition in the Bill. We are told all the time that connectivity is key to our success as a nation and that, as an island nation, we cannot leave ourselves stranded and we need international connectivity. However, it strikes me we already have quite a lot of international connectivity with 30-odd million flights going through Dublin Airport already.”
“I move amendment No. 1: In page 6, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following: “ “international connectivity” means the range and frequency of scheduled passenger and cargo air services operating to and from Dublin Airport, having regard to— (a) the number of direct routes available from Dublin Airport to destinations outside the State, (b) the number of carriers operating such routes, and (c) the frequency of services on those routes;”. There are a number of references to international connectivity in this Bill. I raised this on Second Stage last week and the Minister thought it was amusing that I did not understand the definition of "international connectivity". I understand a plain English reading of it but the phrase permeates the Bill and it is used by the Government as a justification for the lifting of this cap.”
“All this goes back to this being a regressive move by the State to be facilitating the import of this highly damaging fracked gas, which releases so much methane. At the same time, we are disapplying section 15 of the climate Act from all of this. This means there is even less transparency and less counting of the emissions that this facility will generate. We know that the CEOs of LNG companies would not live beside the facilities their companies build. We can talk about jobs and the economic benefits of all these facilities but they do, worldwide, have serious human health and human rights consequences that I do not think this Government is taking seriously enough. This is why I am proposing this amendment.”
“Just today, the UN Secretary General, António Guterres, released a call to action on methane. This all relates back to the imported fracked gas. I am referring to the methane being released. The Secretary General said that methane has been responsible for nearly one third of global warming to date and that it remains significantly underprioritised in climate action and political decision-making. He also said that, "Cutting methane emissions is one of the fastest, cheapest and most effective opportunities to slow global warming in the near term while delivering cleaner air, stronger crop yields, improved health and major economic benefits." The UN wants countries worldwide to make methane more measurable, reportable and verifiable. It is looking for transparency and empirical data in relation to reporting methane emissions and so on.”
“It releases toxic air pollution, contaminates water and results in earthquakes, as well as significant other public health impacts. It is an environmental injustice, with injuries not borne equally by all. There is a reason we banned it here. It is more than a little hypocritical that we would ban it in our own country and for our people but then allow its importation from other countries from where maybe the effects will not be felt so keenly as they are here. We also know that the liquefaction and transportation of natural gas as liquefied natural gas, LNG, raises its greenhouse gas emissions even further, by another 30%. This is because of the need for evaporative cooling and venting and because flaring is used to control pressure during regasification.”
“While burning it produces less carbon dioxide than coal, the extraction processes release enormous amounts of methane, a greenhouse gas that is up to 86 times more potent than carbon dioxide over 20 years. Deputy Danny Healy-Rae said earlier to stop talking about climate targets when we are talking about these types of facilities. Okay, but then let us talk about something else. Let us talk about human health and human rights when it comes to fracked gas. We know that North American fracking operations for oil and gas are driving the current surge in global levels of methane. We know that methane has contributed approximately 40% of all global warming to date. We know that fracking is so damaging to the environment.”
“At the time, the Minister of State spoke of Fianna Fáil's well-known opposition to fracking and acknowledged the detrimental environmental impacts. Unfortunately, a subsequent Government policy statement introducing a de facto ban on the importation of fracked gas was overturned for the purposes of developing this LNG facility. The Government is willingly enabling an incredibly destructive environmental practice so long as others have to deal with the cost. One of the issues we had with the overturning of the ban on the importation of fracked gas was that it was not restricted solely to this facility, which we understand to be a State-led and operated facility. It has essentially created a free-for-all for other commercial operators to import fracked gas as well. We know just how destructive fracked gas is.”
“If this facility is going to exist, we want the gas being used in it to be the least destructive gas possible. We know that LNG, particularly when sourced from the US as we suspect the LNG for this facility is going to be, is usually derived from fracking but this practice is not defined in the Bill before us. This is why I 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, as we know, an amendment to that Act in 2017 banned the practice of fracking in Ireland, although not the importation of fracked gas.”
“I move amendment No. 4: 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;" This amendment is about fracked gas, which is not something we have spoken about yet in the debate. The amendment has been tabled with a view to trying to be constructive and to building more safeguards into the use of this facility. It relates to consenting, in that this is the type of product that will be going through a licensed or designated facility and the Government should be cognisant of what is going through, and the State needs to be cognisant of what is being used, in these facilities.”
“At this point, we have to take all this on trust, with nothing else to refer to, including the decommissioning at the end of this process, when the time comes for the State to decide we do not need this any more. We are taking a lot of things on faith here. As I said, we gave many recommendations to the Minister by the climate committee in its pre-legislative scrutiny that we do not see here or anywhere else. That is why we are taking some of these positions today.”
“Something else the Minister mentioned is that the Bill before us today is about the consenting process and that we will see another Bill in due course in relation to the operations of the reserve, but it seems that is an arbitrary distinction and that there is a lot of overlap, and you would imagine there would be a lot of reference points in this Bill that would relate to the operational aspect of a reserve. The Minister has used a lot of strong language, which I welcome, in his commitments regarding how this reserve is going to operate. He said it is not going to increase our State's gas use whatsoever and that it is not going to be commercially run but State owned and temporary. Again, however, we have not seen the heads of the Bill yet.”
“It looked at this sort of reserve versus an interconnector or the reserve versus a battery, whereas it does not seem to have looked at this strategic LNG reserve versus batteries, interconnectors and wind, or whatever, in a mix like that. We had asked at pre-legislative scrutiny for that to be reviewed prior to this Bill being put forward here, and that just has not been done. Therefore, I do not necessarily accept the Minister's arguments that this is the only way. We all understand that energy security is necessary, just not that this is the only way to achieve that, and that seems to be what the Minister comes back to repeatedly.”