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 3 of 19.
“However, it is fine according to the Government because international aviation emissions are not counted towards our national emission figures. Our emissions obviously impact globally, and in a world where only 5% of our global population has ever taken a flight, to suggest that because we do not count international aviation emissions means it is okay to expand exponentially betrays a total disregard for any semblance of global climate justice. This Government is rapidly losing any credibility internationally and here at home when it comes to the climate crisis. That has consequences. It cannot, on the one hand, tell our workers, farmers, hauliers and households that they must bear the cost of our decarbonisation efforts and, on the other, wave through unlimited aviation growth with a legislative shield against its own climate Act.”
“If this expansion is sustainable, as the Minister says, why is the Government running scared of the climate action Act under environmental legislation? The Minister and this Government are intent on compounding our already abysmal record on climate and are abandoning any pretence of caring or wanting to at least try to catch up on what we have legally committed to. Against the backdrop of our failure in achieving our climate and emission reductions targets, the Government is now proposing a policy change that independent analysis suggests will see flight emissions increase by 24% if passenger numbers rise to 40 million. That is almost 581,000 tonnes of additional CO2 by 2034, and 40 million passengers is a conservative scenario. As I said, the Minister suggested 60 million passengers, in time.”
“Any hypothetical economic gains from removing the cap, and those are debatable, could be wiped out by the €26 billion in fines we might be facing from failing to meet our climate targets. This Bill does not just raise the current cap of 32 million passengers, which, for the record, Dublin Airport has consistently broken in recent years, to some higher figure. It allows the Minister to scrap the cap altogether. There is no alternative ceiling proposed. The Minister has floated a figure of 60 million passengers a year, almost doubling the current limit. As per anything one might expect on climate from this Government, there is a clause exempting the Minister from having regard to section 15 of the climate Act when making this decision.”
“It is becoming increasingly clear that there has been a significant amount of corporate capture of this Government, whether it is this Bill, which could have been written by Michael O'Leary himself, the data centre drive or the LNG Bill, which is being brought through to ensure continuity of its ever-increasing gas demands. We will keep hearing an economic argument from the Government on removing the passenger cap, and I will come back to that, but we need to be honest about what this Bill will do. Scrapping the passenger cap at Dublin Airport means more flights, more pollution and higher emissions at a time when Ireland is already dangerously off track on climate action.”
“He might opt to consult the housing Minister, An Coimisiún Pleanála, the DAA and other Ministers, but only where the Minister is already of the opinion that the public interest provision already exists. There is no obligation to consult any dedicated climate and environmental bodies, such as the Climate Change Advisory Council, the EPA or, indeed, the climate Minister at any stage in this process. For the record, not once is the climate and environment Minister mentioned in this Bill. References to the housing Minister appear repeatedly. Given that section 39 explicitly disapplies section 15 of the climate Act for both the Minister and An Coimisiún Pleanála, the absence of any consultation with the climate Minister is beyond concerning.”
“The Minister will point to section 15 and assure us all that environmental impact assessments will be carried out and so on, but those provisions are rendered essentially meaningless by section 25, which states that, in effect, the Minister can just ignore or override an environmental condition from An Coimisiún Pleanála following an EIA. Basically, the whole environmental assessment process in the Bill is advisory, at best. Moreover, in cases where the commission determines there are likely to be adverse affects on habitats from a proposal to increase the cap, the Minister can unilaterally decide there are "imperative reasons of overriding public interest" in the proposal going ahead. There is no requirement on the Minister to engage in any sort of consultation in coming to that decision.”
“We have seen it with the infrastructure Bill, we are seeing it with this Bill and we will see it later again this week with the liquified natural gas, or LNG, reserve Bill. Section 39 provides that section 15 of the climate Act will not apply, having regard to the likely consequences for the economy of the State and international connectivity if an order is not made. This effectively amounts to a legislative predetermination that economic interests and connectivity, whatever the hell that means, completely override climate considerations. Even our birds and natural habitats regulations are in the crossfire.”
“I will share my time with Deputy Smith. This is an aggressively anti-climate Bill. This Government is making it clear to us that climate, environment or biodiversity considerations have absolutely no place when it comes to our aviation policy. It is ironic that we are debating this proposal to add potentially limitless additional carbon into our atmosphere on the same day that we are suffering with record temperatures, with hot weather warnings across Europe. We have heard that 40 people have drowned in France over the past few days due to the heat. Children are dying in cars, Europe is heating at twice the rate of the rest of the world and this is where our Government's priorities lie. This is the third Bill produced this term that seeks to disapply the climate Act.”
“It would make more sense for the line to go all the way to Tallaght whether has been a huge increase in population and new housing is being built all the time.”
“That is great. I thank the Minister for giving clear timelines. That will be much appreciated in the area. Dublin South-West has historically been underserved by public transport. We have a Luas line that starts in Tallaght but conspicuously avoids the rest of the constituency. We support the roll-out of BusConnects and would like to see that done as quickly as possible. There are some issues with routes, but broadly speaking we support that. As the Minister knows, no growing modern city can survive on bus routes alone. It requires light rail or a metro. Given the road space constraints in this particular area of the city, extending the metro through the city centre to Dublin South-West would make sense. As I said, a previous feasibility study ended the line in Knocklyon.”
“It is something Deputy Bacik has been requesting for a long time, as has the Metro South West Group. I understand that it needs to be done in a planned, integrated and sustainable manner. It makes sense to us that a line would not stop in the middle of the city but would continue out, and that this should be done in as efficient a manner as possible.”
“I thank the Minister. Getting MetroLink built and even getting it started in earnest will be a fantastic legacy for him as a Minister for Transport. He will have the full support of the Labour Party and, I think, others in opposition in getting that done in as speedy a manner as possible. We know how vital it is for our city. I am asking that he does not just stop when he gets to Charlemont. We know these tunnel-boring machines are going to be in the ground. I ask that the line be continued on to Dublin South-West through Rathmines, Terenure, Rathfarnham, Knocklyon, Firhouse and Tallaght. There is a group in the Public Gallery from St. Colmcille's in Knocklyon. Maybe by the time they are my age, the line might actually be built. This is not a new proposal.”
“How much are they going to be allowed to add to households' bills. We are calling for a pause. We are calling for fairness for households and families. We are calling for the Minister to show us his homework on this issue. The Government says it can do it all, so I ask it to show us the climate action plan. In the remarks prepared earlier, we were told that a public consultation on this year's climate action plan was only being opened this week. It is going to be open for another two months. At the time we are debating the budget for 2027, we are only going to be seeing for the first time the climate action plan for this year. That shows us what the Government's priorities are. I ask the Minister to stop undermining the climate Act, bring us the Government's climate action plan and support the Labour Party's motion.”
“How is the Government going to continue to grow the economy, which we all want to see, while meeting our legally binding climate, biodiversity and decarbonisation targets? We are not alone in questioning the continued roll-out of data centres. Just last week, the EU Commissioner for the environment was before the climate committee. She expressed her reservations about the massive amount of water that was going through data centres. She is trying to avoid a water crisis. Communities in the US, including in Pennsylvania and other places, are rising up against huge data centres being built there. Paschal Donohoe, our former finance Minister, in his new role has expressed concerns about the proliferation of data centres across the Continent. How many data centres are enough for this Government?”
“We have today been accused of being anti-growth, anti-jobs and even populist in what we are talking about, but Deputies are missing the point. We are legitimately questioning the Government's industrial strategy. Even Deputy Michael Collins accepted that we were relying too much on imported oil and gas. The Government policies, promoted by the Minister, are leading to more oil and gas dependence and undermining any chance we have of energy security, which the Government seems to say is so important. Data centres, car dependence, lifting the Dublin Airport cap and all those measures that the Government is taking are going to lead to increased use of fossil fuels. How is the Government going to square that circle?”
“"The Minister has his head in the cloud computing" is what my colleague might have wanted to say. I thank him for gracing us with his presence for the second half of this debate. It was disappointing that neither he nor the two Ministers of State from the Department were able to turn up for the first half. If nothing else, I am pleased that we have helped to reunite the Healy-Rae brothers over their joint passion for climate denial. It was lovely to see that collectivity back in the House. Do not say the Labour Party never did anything for you, lads.”
“That is the reason we are seeing decisions taking years and years, delaying delivery. That is not the fault of environmental law. It is a fault of Fine Gael's and Fianna Fáil's lack of strategic planning. None of the 20 delays to the completion of the National Children's Hospital is due to the environment. Section 15 of the climate Act exists for a reason. It ensures that our public bodies act consistently with our climate objectives. Removing it suggests that those objectives apply only when it is convenient and can be set aside when it is politically inconvenient. I will continue on this later.”
“An additional concern addressed in our motion is the Government's Critical Infrastructure Bill and the disapplication of section 15 of the climate Act. Of course we want to see Ireland's infrastructure deficit filled. We have had a decade of wasted prosperity under Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil Governments and it is typical that they would now seek to point the finger for their failures to build our necessary infrastructure at anyone but themselves. They are punching down on the environment. However, we need to be clear that seeking to uphold our environmental and biodiversity laws is not the cause of the delays in getting vital infrastructure built in a timely fashion in this country. It is resourcing issues. For years, our planning authorities, courts and public bodies have been under-resourced.”
“That is not to be sniffed at, but is it worth building an entire energy system around and dumping our climate targets for? I would say the jury is out on that one. The Government will say it is encouraging more renewables because 80% of the energy for our new data centres must come from renewables, but even with that, the remaining 20% will lead to a potential doubling of our peak gas demand. This means more imported fossil fuels, more emissions, more exposure to international energy price shocks and, ultimately, higher bills for hard-pressed Irish households. That is why we are calling for a moratorium on further data centre expansion. We want a pause until we have sufficient renewable capacity so we can ensure they are not impacting on our decarbonisation efforts or pushing up prices for ordinary households.”
“It is simply about making sure that ordinary households are not left footing the bill, which is currently the case. What is particularly alarming is that the Climate Change Advisory Council has warned that all new renewable energy is being cannibalised by the growth in demand from data centres rather than decarbonising out transport sector, agriculture, industry or home heating. The Government's response to all of this has basically been, "Yeah, but jobs". However, the recent KPMG report commissioned by the Government makes the absolutely laughable claim that 900,000 jobs are attributable to data centres. The actual number of jobs directly created by data centres is around 19,500, the vast majority of which are in construction and are temporary in nature. The actual figure is about 3,000 ongoing jobs.”
“This is insane. That is more than every household, school, hospital, small business, farm and factory combined. An entire energy system is increasingly organised around the demands of a small number of large corporate users and their interests. That is why we are calling for the introduction of a levy on data centre energy usage. It is about fairness. Not alone are data centres pushing up prices for everyone else but we have a ludicrous situation where they are actually paying less than your average punter in network tariffs. If data centres are contributing to higher costs across the electricity network, then it is reasonable that they should contribute more towards those costs. It is not about punishing data centre operators or deterring investment.”
“A further €1.5 billion could be the price households pay for data centres over the next decade. This is at a time when, according to the latest figures from the CRU, more than 500,000 households are in arrears and cannot afford to keep up with their energy bills. We already have the highest electricity prices in the EU and this is, in part, directly attributable to data centres. As our motion says, the massive energy demand from data centres means that gas is setting the wholesale price rather than renewables, making everyone's electricity more expensive. This is only going to get worse if we continue to build more and more of them. Data centres currently consume 22% of the electricity in this State. This is projected to grow to 30% by 2030 and they could ultimately consume as much as 55% of all the electricity demand in Ireland.”
“I refer to the private wires Bill, the strategic liquefied natural gas, LNG, emergency reserve, which will import highly polluting fracked gas, and the Commission for Regulation of Utilities, CRU's, new large energy user policy. Who knows what kinds of fossil fuel-guzzling projects a future Minister might deem to be critical infrastructure if that particular Bill passes? The UN has described Ireland as a cautionary tale regarding the environmental impact of data centres. I would hope that would be a wake-up call for the Government but I will not hold my breath. Perhaps the Friends of the Earth report published a couple of weeks ago will be more impactful. It concluded that €715 million had been added to household bills between 2015 and 2023 as a direct result of data centre energy demands pushing up prices.”
“This is not a question about whether data centres should or should not exist, and I hope the Government does not try to reduce the debate to those binary terms again. The debate has moved on. The question is whether we are content to continue to allow unlimited expansion of these data centres without regard for the very real consequences on people and our environment. This is a question of the Government's industrial and economic strategy as much as it is a question of our climate obligations and the cost-of-living implications of this strategy. The Government must be honest about the consequences and costs of allowing more and more of our energy to be used by data centres. It must be honest that much of the legislation it is pushing through is designed to facilitate and placate large energy users.”
“This Minister will be long gone from the climate brief by the time any of this matters. Not only is this Government failing to act with any real urgency to decarbonise; it is also actively pursuing policies that are moving us in the opposite direction. This motion seeks to address some of this Government's failings when it comes to climate, starting with the most obvious example - the rapid expansion of data centres and the consequences their growth is having on our climate obligations and on household energy bills. None of us here are Luddites. We accept and understand that data centres are part of a modern economy and industrial strategy. We all have a mobile phone; we all use cloud services. Many of us even use artificial intelligence, AI, though certainly not for parliamentary questions.”
“We have moved beyond the point of warning about the potential consequences of climate change. It is here. These consequences are already being felt. Urgency is required to prevent the most catastrophic outcomes - urgency in bringing down our emissions, in our energy transition and in addressing the costs of this perpetual fossil fuel crisis. However, this Government is failing to acknowledge that there is any urgency. It still has not yet published a climate action plan for this year. It is June. It has failed to publish the land use review, which has been sitting on the Minister's desk for over a year now. The Minister, who is not here, is trying to make a virtue of admitting that we are going to fail miserably in reaching our 2030 carbon reduction targets. What is another few years?”
“We are bringing forward this motion today out of a genuinely held concern that this Government is giving up even the pretence of caring about our climate ambitions. Earlier this year, we had what felt like three months of non-stop rain, leading to severe flooding in parts of the country, including my constituency of Dublin South-West. Just a few weeks ago, Ireland recorded record temperatures above 30°C in May for the first time in almost three decades, shattering a record that had stood for 29 years by more than 2°C. Speaking of breaking records, I increasingly feel like a broken record when I bring up our climate crisis in this House. In Ireland and globally, we are seeing much more frequent and severe weather events, from droughts to floods to extreme heat.”
“I move: That Dáil Éireann: notes that: — climate change resulted in Irish temperatures in excess of 30°C in May, breaking a 29-year-old record by more than two degrees; — a United Nations report has described Ireland as a cautionary tale on the environmental impact of data centres; — the Government is implementing policies that will increase fossil fuel use, by facilitating further new data centres through the Commission for Regulation of Utilities (CRU) Large Energy User (LEU) connection policy, the introduction of private wires legislation, and the construction of a floating terminal for the importation and storage of liquid natural gas, including fracked gas; — over 22 per cent of our electricity is already used by data centres, this will rise to over 30 per cent by 2030, and to 55 per cent if growth continues as projected, using more power than every other electricity user in the country combined; — in May, the Climate Change Advisory Council noted that all new renewable energy being developed in the State is being cannibalised by new demand created by data centres, rather than going towards decarbonising homes, transport or industry; — research projects that the 5.8 gigawatt (GW) of additional data centre capacity under the LEU may result in a doubling of the State's peak demand for electricity generation, and lead to an increase in gas consumption by 2030 against the current projected decline, should capacity be constructed ahead of new renewables capacity; and — no offshore wind power generation capacity will be available before 2030 despite a 5 GW target; further notes that: — Ireland has the highest electricity prices in the European Union, and over 500,000 households are in arrears on their energy bills; — the increased and inflexible energy demands of data centres means that more and more often gas generation sets the wholesale price of electricity, rather than renewables, resulting in higher prices for households, while Eurostat shows that large energy users pay lower network charges; — research by Friends of the Earth Ireland, shows that Irish households paid an estimated €715 million more in electricity bills from 2015 to 2023 due to data centres, equivalent to €360 per household, and face an additional €1.43 billion in costs up to 2034, costing each household up to €644 more; and — the Economic and Social Research Institute has shown that recent energy price increases hit low-income households harder, and that more targeted support measures are needed; regrets that: — the Climate Action Plan 2026 still has not been published; — the final, phase 2 oversight group report of the Land Use Review, was submitted over a year ago and has still not been published; and — planned legislation to prioritise critical infrastructure will bypass statutory climate obligations; recognises that: — data centres are essential infrastructure for the modern digital economy and the development of artificial intelligence technology but are overly concentrated in Ireland, are using an ever-increasing amount of energy, resulting in higher costs for households and businesses, and increased development is now at odds with our climate targets; — discussion by Government of nuclear power is a nonsense and a form of climate obstructionism which distracts and blocks real climate action; and — the Government will further increase carbon emissions by lifting the Dublin Airport cap, promoting unsustainable housing and economic development, and by no longer prioritising public transport and active travel investment over roads construction; condemns the decision of the Government to use the Critical Infrastructure Bill 2026, to disapply Section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Acts 2015 to 2021 from designated projects; and calls on the Government to: — publish the Climate Action Plan 2026, and the final phase 2 oversight group report of the Land Use Review without any further delay; — delete Section 7 of the Critical Infrastructure Bill 2026, and publish the legal advice confirming the constitutionality of the provision to disapply Section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Acts 2015 to 2021; — suspend the CRU LEU connection policy, and commission an independent study of the impact of data centres on electricity prices, carbon emissions, water usage and grid stability; — introduce a moratorium on the further construction of data centres until renewable energy from offshore wind comes online, and households and businesses can benefit from lower energy costs; — introduce a levy on the energy usage of data centres, to recover the higher electricity costs now being imposed on Irish households and businesses; — confirm by how much Ireland will miss our binding 2030 emission targets, what the cost of securing additional carbon credits will be, and how the next Government will pay for those; and — immediately reintroduce targeted energy credits and more targeted Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland supports for households in advance of Budget 2027.”
“Even if only 20% of the energy going into data centres is associated with gas and not renewables, it will double the peak demand for gas in this country. Again, it is undermining the Government's other strategies.”
“We welcome regulation and planning in this area. Currently, 22% of our energy is going to data centres. That is going to be 30% by 2030. Even under the Government's current plans, it looks like 55% of our energy will be going towards data centres, if all the data centres that are in planning are built. What does the Minister of State believe is an acceptable proportion of our energy going to data centres? Is it 22%? Is it 30%? Is it 55%? Even 22% means we have five times more energy going to data centres than in the USA. It is 20 times more than in China. The Minister answered a question earlier on energy security, but data centre strategy is undermining our energy security by increasing the gas demand in this country.”
“There were 876,000 jobs linked to data centres. Was the Minister of State not at all embarrassed about that kind of figure coming out? The real figure – the Minister of State mentioned 180,000 jobs – is more like 19,500, half of which are in construction. I would like the Minister of State's response to that.”
“I thank the Minister of State. Of course, data centres have a role in modern society. No one would dispute that, but there is an important conversation starting about the costs and benefits. The benefits must be in proportion to the costs. Many of us in this House fear that the balance is being lost here. The Friends of the Earth report spoke to the costs that data centres are adding to our energy bills. We know of the strain that they are putting on our electricity grid, and that they are undermining our decarbonisation goals. What we are trying to do here is scrutinise the Government's industrial policy as much as its climate and decarbonisation strategy. The Minister of State mentioned that data centres are important in retaining jobs and industry here, but the job figures quoted in that report were frankly embarrassing.”
“I ask the Minister for his response to findings in a recent report by Friends of the Earth that data centre energy demand added a cumulative €715 million to household electricity bills between 2015 and 2023 and could add a further €1.6 billion over the next decade; his response to a recent report from KPMG on data centres commissioned by the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment; and whether he accepts the claims in that report regarding employment numbers and economic value.”
“One thought I will leave the Minister of State with is that when Deputy Murphy and I visited the school a couple of days ago, there were food and snack baskets at the door and they are not just used by the students but by the parents.”
“I thank the Minister of State for his engagement. The appeals process itself is basically based on the Primary Online Database, which is very rigid and does not really allow for any subtlety or colour to be given. Part of what we are doing today is giving the Minister of State an insight into how the school works and into the background of the students there. The school desperately needs the resources that DEIS would bring to allow it to have a well-being and a trauma teacher and an administrative deputy principal because like staff in so many schools around the country, the staff in the school are working to the pin of their collar and the students would hugely benefit from the additional resources that DEIS plus would bring, so we are asking the Minister of State to do it.”
“Those students are in deprived situations and that data and that sort of subtlety are not captured by the Department's model. We are supporting the school's appeal for DEIS plus status and we would ask that the Minister of State would also give that significant consideration.”
“It has numerous reasons for doing that. Primarily, it seems that the methodology applied by the Department is very data-driven and is supposed to be objective, but possibly in sticking to so much data, some of the subtlety and the local knowledge are lost that would be involved in these kind of applications. What the school is saying is that the school itself and maybe the addresses of the students in the schools are not necessarily in the most deprived areas, strictly speaking, from a geographical point of view, including the conditions and situations in which the students are living and coming into the school. The school takes from a very wide catchment, including from as far away as Citywest and the Citywest Hotel.”
“To echo those comments, this is something that has joint political support across our constituency. We have worked constructively with the Minister of State before and we welcomed his engagement on the issues related to schools in Dublin South-West. DEIS plus is clearly very welcome and many schools in Dublin South-West have already benefited from it in the first round of applications. We are asking for this for St. Dominic's school which, as Deputy Murphy said, is a fabulous school in the heart of Tallaght serving 50 different nationalities. It already caters for two special classes and is opening an additional two in the coming year. It is a DEIS urban band 1 school, arguably one of the largest in the country, and is appealing the Department's decision not to include it in the DEIS plus first-round allocations.”
“If it is Government policy to allow unfettered growth in data centres, what is it going to do to ensure that it does not impose additional costs on households already struggling to pay their bills?”
“A report published today by Friends of the Earth has found that energy demand from data centres has added three quarters of a billion euro to household bills in Ireland since 2015 and could add a further €1.5 billion over the next decade. This is the equivalent of adding a week's wages to bills for the poorest households. All of us here acknowledge that data centres are part of modern life but the circle the Tánaiste and his Government need to square is that if it is their industrial policy to continue to roll out energy-intensive data centres around the country, it is becoming a cost-of-living issue. We have been going on for years about the climate impacts. The Tánaiste's former colleague, Paschal Donohoe, talked about the water demands of data centres but this is now becoming a serious cost-of-living issue.”
“I am sure he will say we need to consider our industrial strategy and so on, but the wind only seems to be blowing one direction, pardon the pun. Virtually everything we have seen from this Government so far with regard to renewable energy and energy more broadly seems to be to the overwhelming benefit of corporate interests. The private wires legislation, of which data centres will be the primary beneficiary, is another example. I echo the calls of other Members of the Opposition that the Minister, Deputy Burke, his officials and representatives from Bord na Móna and Amazon come before the climate committee to discuss these proposals. We need to get our priorities straight. We should not be building massive privately owned and operated data centres on what is, in effect, State land.”
“We have to ask ourselves if plonking a 500 MW data centre on former bog land owned by a semi-State company is really the best use of our resources. That is as much electricity as is consumed by 325,000 homes. Where do we want our renewable energy to go? Do we want it to go to help households up and down the country which are still dependent on fossil fuels and currently being pilloried by their bills? Do we want to help them transition to cleaner renewable energy or do we want to help the tech giants? We have serious questions about the environmental biodiversity impacts these projects will have on lands that we need to re-wild or bogs that we may need to re-wet. The Labour Party has a view on that. The Department of enterprise seems to have taken its view. I would like to hear the views of the Minister of State's Department.”
“I am deeply uncomfortable with a semi-State body tasked with renewable infrastructure development having a strategic partnership with a tech giant like Amazon in the first place. As a matter of principle, I do not like that we are depending on it for funding. The energy transition must, first and foremost, be about people, just transition and nature restoration, and not satisfying the needs and wants of the world tech oligarchs. We already have a situation whereby data centres are sucking up virtually all of the renewable energy we are generating in this country, meaning that it is not going towards helping households move to cleaner sources or decarbonising our energy sector. These energy park proposals betray the Government's thinking. I generally fear that we are witnessing a corporate capture of clean energy in Ireland.”
“There has been substantial change in what Bord na Móna actually does, but it has made this change without any structural overhaul of the legislation underpinning it. The primary objectives of the company, as set out in the Turf Development Act, no longer apply. It has instead relied on ancillary objectives and powers throughout its so-called brown to green transition. I suggest that now that the transition period is more or less complete, it would be appropriate to bring forward new legislation to underpin the company's new role and clarify its mandate. The second point I would like to raise is the proposal to co-locate renewable infrastructure with massive data centres on Bord na Móna land, so-called energy parks.”
“Clearly, it has ended all peat harvesting on its lands. The commercial sale of peat in Ireland was banned in 2022, or at least it was supposed to have been. Any turf left in Ireland is not for exploitation for commercial purposes. In fact, Bord na Móna is now involved in pretty much the exact opposite activity, in that it is remediating and re-wetting bogs. It is in the climate solutions business now and has taken on an important role as a renewable energy provider, which is great to see, with equally important responsibilities as a major landowner and environmental custodian. We know the difficulties the Government is having regarding land use, land use change, emissions coming from that sector and how much work needs to be done in that area. Bord na Móna will play a critical role in some of that.”
“We will support the Bill on Committee Stage. I echo a lot of the comments made by Deputy Daly. The Bill is not perfect, but it is an important step in strengthening the regulatory landscape here. The motion to instruct the committee relates to the amendment to increase Bord na Móna's borrowing limit, and I have no principled objection to that. I understand that borrowing limits require updating due to inflation or increases in corporate activity, etc., and from the perspective of the Department it might not be worth creating a whole new Act in that regard. I want to take this opportunity to make some broader points about Bord na Móna. Most pertinently, I want to make the point that it is probably time it received a statutory overhaul of its mandate. It is no longer a turf development company.”
“It is important that we build on that and I reiterate my support for that. We want public transport to be people's preferred mode to the greatest extent possible but one of the biggest barriers to that in Dublin is a perception that our bus services are becoming increasingly unreliable, and we have to nip that in the bud. People need confidence in our public transport to bring about the modal shift that we need to see from an emissions reduction perspective and from a quality of life perspective and we have still plenty of work to do in that regard.”
“People tell me they are frequently left stranded by buses driving past them and ignoring them at bus stops as they wait. Public transport is a public service first and foremost. Of course, bus services need to be commercially viable to some degree but the operator's primary consideration must be serving the people and not just watching its own wallet. We have a situation now where the penalties that the NTA performance metrics - it is important that performance metrics are put in place but it is also important that they do not have adverse impacts - are applying to operators are having the opposite effect. They are supposed to improve reliability but they are making the situation worse. We want to see people using public transport. It is encouraging that we are seeing a greater level of provision outside of Dublin.”
“I want to raise an issue that is seemingly becoming more and more common, which is a bit of a scandal - buses skipping stops along particular routes and the reasons this is happening. A number of people have gotten in touch with me about this over the past few months, including someone who used to work for Dublin Bus and has asked drivers about this. It would seem that when buses run behind schedule, central command instructs drivers to skip stops to get back on time and avoid paying penalties, regardless of whether anyone is waiting at the stop or not. That is egregious. I would appreciate if the Minister would respond specifically in relation to this. We all want buses to turn up on time but I think we would also agree that a bus that shows up slightly late is better than one that does not show up at all.”
“The fact that it is a cross-city route is causing issues too with the bus frequently packed and standing room only within a couple of stops in the city centre. Deputy Sherlock tells me her constituents in Dublin Central are suffering from similar issues with this new route. I cannot understate the strength of feeling towards the changes in this new route in much of my area. I hosted a packed and impassioned public meeting on this back in March. We have a petition to reinstate the old 49 route to run alongside the F1 to restore these vital community links and improve journey times to the city centre. We have seen really good support for that. I would appreciate if the Minister and the NTA could engage with us further on this. The demand is there.”