Roderic O'Gorman
Dublin West · Green Party · Ireland
“These are men and women who served their working lives within the British civil service system but who, following unification, would be drawing their pensions in a united Ireland. The question of the funding of that will be extremely significant in any talks following a "Yes" vote on both parts of the island.”
“Some 100 extra staff have been hired to the public domain team to tackle waste and dumping and our councillors will continue to fight for a cleaner and greener Dublin.”
“These challenges are magnified by the continued failure of the current political institutions in Northern Ireland to operate for the best interests of the people rather than achieving best political advantage for the parties.”
“In the Dublin Central area, an average of 50 tonnes per month of illegally dumped waste is being removed by the council. It is a huge amount of waste, and this is more than is collected in an entire year from whole counties elsewhere in the country. Our current model of waste management is a direct contributor to this.”
“This means that in many areas, bags are the notional solution but these cause issues with seagulls or foxes or are intermingled with illegally dumped bags. The net result is our footpaths are strewn with waste. Dublin City Council recently rolled out a system of waste compactors in the core areas of the city centre.”
“The solution is to rationalise the current system, put local authorities back at the centre of waste management processes and use this to get a better handle on pricing and illegal dumping through contracts that are right for each specific area, instead of the one-size-fits-all model we have at the moment that is not actually working anyw…”
The complete record
Every one of 975 lines we hold for Roderic O'Gorman, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 20.
“When we were looking at this Bill during pre-legislative scrutiny at the foreign affairs committee a number of months ago, officials from the Department of foreign affairs confirmed this to me and others when we put the questions to them. Indeed, the Minister, Deputy McEntee, accepted this point during the Committee Stage two weeks ago when she conceded that the Bill being advanced is only in partial compliance with our obligations.”
“I join colleagues in proposing amendments that would include services in the occupied territories Bill or, as an alternative, at least restrict the advertising of services available within the occupied territories. Today the Government is going to use its majority to force the adoption of a piece of legislation - its version of the occupied territories Bill - which is knowingly and intentionally inconsistent with our international law obligations. Throughout the entire process of debating the occupied territories Bill the Government has conceded that for full compliance with the July 2024 legal opinion of the International Court of Justice, a Bill that bans all trade with the occupied territories - trade in goods but also trade in services - is required.”
“In terms of their opposition, the Irish people's views on hare coursing have changed, evolved and have become more trenchant. The vote on this matter will demonstrate a House that is out of step with where the Irish people stand. Unfortunately, Deputy Murphy's Bill will not pass Second Stage, but I do think this matter will come before the House again. We have not seen the end of it.”
“It is my view that funding should not be provided any more. I know in the previous Dáil, my colleague, former Deputy Neasa Hourigan, brought forward Private Members' legislation to decouple the funding of greyhound racing from the funding of the wider equine industry. Ultimately, the point we will be voting on is the specific issue of hare coursing. I and my party do not believe the trauma caused by this practice, even in the muzzled context, is justified. I think Ireland should adopt the change, the evolution in thinking on this matter, that has been seen in many other countries. The introduction of the muzzle in 1993 was a reflection of the fact that the Irish people no longer believed it was morally justifiable for a live hare to be torn apart at the end of a coursing.”
“I have a real concern, from responses to multiple sets of parliamentary questions I have submitted to the Department and the greyhound racing board, about what the traceability system that has been put in place is actually showing us. It is worthwhile to talk about one year, 2021, when 11,600 greyhounds were born. Of those, only 450 are still actively racing, five years later. Of the rest, 1,500 have been rehomed, something I welcome, but 3,300 of those dogs born in 2021 are dead. These are dogs that did not get past their fifth birthdays. A further 5,300 have been exported to countries where we have no control over the animal welfare standards they face. Those dogs may have been re-exported subsequently as well. The State provides significant funding to this industry - €20 million of taxpayer's money every year.”
“Apologies. I know the point has been made about the risk of hare coursing being driven underground. First, it is important to recognise that illegal hare coursing already takes place underground. It is probably the biggest cause of mortality among hares right now. I do not believe the existence, and continued existence, of an illegal practice justifies the continued State support for a practice that is currently legal. While it is important the State takes those steps to deal with illegal coursing as it happens at the moment, I do not believe that should be linked to the continuance of hare coursing in legal meets. I see hare coursing as an issue that is interconnected with the wider issue of the greyhound industry in this country.”
“The Minister of State made a point about the risk, if Deputy Murphy's Bill is passed, that hare coursing will be driven underground.”
“While the coursing itself may no longer result in a live hare being torn apart, we still have to consider the trauma a hare experiences in terms of its capture, a wild animal being held in captivity for a period of time, the trauma of release from captivity if it survives the coursing meet, but most significantly the trauma that comes from violent exposure to two far larger animals, even if they are muzzled, and all of the risks that creates. We know the Irish hare faces a variety of threats. It faces threats from hunting, probably most significantly from the destruction of a large amount of its habitat, from infectious diseases such as rabbit haemorrhagic disease and European brown hare syndrome, and it faces competition from other species as well.”
“I welcome the recent decision of the membership of Sinn Féin to change party policy in respect of fox hunting. Muzzling of coursing greyhounds was introduced in 1993. It was brought in for the coursing meets themselves. It is not done for training, of course - there is no law around that - but I do not believe the introduction of muzzling justifies this blood sport. I do not believe you can muzzle cruelty.”
“I remember being in the room when we debated issues of animal welfare and our party was not able to change the minds of the two other coalition parties at that time. We know from the speeches given today already, that when a vote is taken on Deputy Murphy's Bill, there is not a majority right now for this change and there is not a majority for some of the other changes that have been debated. It will be interesting when the Government's Bill on puppy farms comes forward. I welcome the fact the Government is advancing legislation on that but it is not strong enough and I hope we will be able to see the Government listen and be willing to make amendments to improve that legislation. The challenge here is that the larger parties in this House are not where the people are at.”
“I am happy and pleased to support Deputy Murphy's Bill today on behalf of the Green Party. This is probably the fourth substantive debate we have had on animal welfare related issues during the term of this Dáil. We are discussing hare coursing today. We discussed fox hunting, puppy farms and greyhound racing. I recognise the work of those Deputies who have brought these issues forward as Private Members' Bills or motions. I welcome the focus during the term of the Dáil on these issues. It is indicative of the fact that people have moved past where the bigger parties are on issues of animal welfare. Unfortunately, for progress to be made and for laws to be changed, we need a majority across this House. In 2020, I was part of programme for Government negotiations on a wide range of issues.”
“In many ways, the Government is fighting yesterday's war, and it is going to allow a weaker piece of legislation through this House on foot of that.”
“In her first set of remarks, the Minister said that there was a clear indication from the US in terms of its opposition to what we are doing, even the more minor approach that the Government is taking in the Bill. It is important to remember that, as well as changing in Europe, opinion is changing in the United States. This matter is not a fixed matter any more. You cannot win a primary in the Democratic Party now if you get funding from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC, and if you take a pro-Israel line. We saw a long-standing congresswoman lose in Colorado earlier this week because she was seen as too closely aligned. Even in the Republican Party, things are changing as well. My concern is that this Government is allowing fear of Trump's position on Israel to dictate our approach to the OTB.”
“The Minster spoke about the House being united by a desire to act, and that is true, but it is united by a desire to act effectively. The deep concern is that what is being proposed and what we will be voting on next week is not effective. When the Attorney General's original advice came in July 2024 on foot of the ICJ opinion on Frances Black's Bill, no distinction was made between goods and services in that detailed piece of legal advice. That distinction only arose in the programme for Government that was signed in January 2025. The argument that there is a public policy justification to limit goods but not services does not stand up. There is a clear provision within EU law where member states can make decisions in relation to third states on foot of public policy. That distinction does not stand up and is not based within case law.”
“As this House prepares to consider Report Stage amendments to the Government's version of the occupied territories Bill, with the Green Party and other Opposition parties seeking to include services within the Bill's ambit, is it not time for the Government to be frank and admit that the barrier to the inclusion of services is not a legal one but, rather, is based on a political decision taken by the Government?”
“We should be aligning with allies in Spain and Slovakia to put Palestine firmly on the European Union’s agenda. This involves not only highlighting the issue of the EU-Israel Trade Association Agreement and humanitarian aid for Palestine but also calling on the European Union itself to finally recognise the State of Palestine and all the rights that come from that. The Green Party was proud to be part of the Government when Ireland first recognised the State of Palestine in 2024. Since then, and because of the leadership shown by Ireland, many other member states have followed suit: France, Luxembourg and Malta. We not only have an opportunity but also a responsibility to use the Presidency to promote the dignity and the rights of this oppressed nation over the next six months.”
“As new weather records are set across Europe, the Government has an opportunity to act on both climate and household costs but they must not be found wanting. We need to use the time this evening and the time of our Presidency to speak out against the Israeli establishment’s destruction of Gaza and continued oppression of the Palestinian people. The Government has outlined that it wants to take further measures in regard to sanctioning Israel to be taken at EU rather than national level for greater impact. The Taoiseach is on record as saying he intends to push for concrete EU action and urgent discussion on this but the time has come for the Government to step up and put meaning behind these words. We now have six months before us when Ireland will have the potential to have huge impact on this issue.”
“With the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council warning that a failure to take climate action could cost the State €13 billion, it is crucial that the Government prioritises climate in its EU Presidency plans. The Irish Government needs to get its house in order and it needs to get our housing stock in order at the same time. We need to ramp up renovations, particularly for those living in food poverty. Energy costs for householders have spiked and the crisis in the Middle East, coming on the tail of the Ukraine war, shows that sadly this will not be the last time an energy crisis of this nature takes place. Well-insulated homes save householders money, are more comfortable and help us meet our climate goals as well. Without a plan, too many households will face a choice of food or heat this winter.”
“These values demand a commitment from our politicians at both a national and a European level not to allow populism to strip away our empathy or to keep us from making our societies more climate resilient. I worry that as part of a broader headlong rush into that deregulation agenda, the Government will favour profit ahead of people and ahead of planet in our Presidency’s plans. While the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade was talking up competitiveness earlier this week, she failed to mention that the European Commission has opened infringement proceedings against Ireland for not meeting our climate deadlines. The Irish Government has missed its 31 December 2025 deadline to submit its draft building renovation plan to the European Commission, which is a core requirement under the energy performance of buildings directive.”
“Competitiveness, security and values are the key themes of Ireland’s Presidency. Each of these themes should be intertwined with our goals for a decarbonised, energy abundant, peaceful EU and peaceful world but, as we have seen from some Government pronouncements, these values are open to interpretation. I think we should be competing to have the most energy-efficient buildings, to have the fastest public transport; that real security means energy security through actioning renewables and that our values should be to protect those suffering from the depredations of war in Gaza. I hope the Government will agree with those points but some of the announcements that has come from the Government in recent days lead me to question that.”
“A provider who is good to their staff may often have a lot of these long-term staff who have not gone beyond a level 5. They are amazing but the way in which the formula is worked out means that the provider in such cases gets less in the core funding allocation than a provider with many more staff who may be younger and will not have as much experience but have a level 6 or a level 7 qualification. This is a dilemma I was not able to solve in my time but I would have loved to have been able to. I believe in degree-led teaching but we also have to recognise the amazing staff who have huge experience and the providers who want to keep them. More could be done there.”
“It is a significant extra burden, and while it is probably an important set of checks, if we can alleviate some of that burden for childcare providers, we ought to do so. When I was Minister for children I was very proud to oversee the first two pay agreements for childcare professionals, guaranteeing them rates of pay backed by dedicated State funding. I very much support the vision of degree-led teaching in our childcare system and the premium paid to staff who have a level 7 or level 8 degree to encourage and support this. However, we have to recognise that many staff have not moved past a level 5 qualification but have years or decades of experience, which makes them the very best of people to care for and educate young children.”
“If they go below ratio, they may well have to shut a room, which creates great disruption for parents. If they are not able to get new childcare staff into the setting quickly, this is a consequence. Groups such as Early Childhood Ireland and the county and city childcare committees are supplying childcare providers with as much information as they can but this is a big change. I ask the Minister of State and the Minister to examine if additional support can be given by the State. I ask the Minister of State to sit down with the Minister for justice to see if there are any extra resources that could be given to the Garda vetting bureau to see if more can be done here. It is a big issue, and I am sure it is coming up in what the Minister of State is hearing as well.”
“I thank Deputy Kerrane for bringing forward this motion. I will raise two discrete issues that have been raised by childcare providers with me in my constituency of Dublin West. The first is the concern about the time it is taking for Garda vetting of applications from childcare professionals. This vetting procedure has had a new element added to it in recent months, namely, the European criminal records information system, ECRIS. This requires a new set of checks to take place, which is increasing by up to 20% the time taken for a standard application. If the applicant has an EU address, it adds ten days to the application. If it is a UK address, it is an extra 20 days for an application. This is really problematic because, as the Minister of State knows, many childcare providers are operating close to ratio.”
“We just do not have the time to tease them out and, perhaps, bring forward other amendments. That is the process. We are helpless in terms of that now. There are good amendments here, and some of them should be accepted.”
“We cannot do that tonight because we have not even had the opportunity to go through good amendments or to address some of the points in detail. After Committee Stage, most fair-minded Ministers would at least look at what the Opposition has said and make some changes or improvements. We do not have that opportunity here. I have a good amendment for the Minister. It is amendment No. 14. He recognised the work ANCA has done and the fact that it recently published a decision. Let us give that decision some teeth. Let us recognise the noise abatement objective for Dublin Airport in this legislation. Let us recognise that it is one of the considerations that An Coimisiún Pleanála should use in the context of the recommendation it will make and in respect of which the Minister will ultimately make a decision. There are good amendments here.”
“In some places, what is happening is actually going to make pro-climate critical infrastructure harder to defend in court. I raised that point already. Let us be very clear: the Bill is literally disapplying our climate obligations. That is the purpose of section 39. I wish to comment on the point about the engagement with the process. The Minister mentioned the pre-legislative scrutiny process, which was lengthy. We got to hear in detail the impact of noise on residents and the attempt by certain US CEOs to bully us into making this particular change. We are looking at the detailed legislation at this point. When the ANCA legislation was going through, the Minister made the point that, following engagement with one of his ministerial colleagues, he was able to secure some amendments and improvements.”
“Section 39 literally states that, so can we just move away from this idea that the Minister is not doing so. He is, because it says he is in section 39. It is everything from the annual - or what used to be the annual - climate action plans all the way up to the important national climate objective that the State has and that is the centrepiece of the climate action Act, as amended. These are being disapplied when it comes to the crucial decision on lifting the airport cap. They has been disapplied in other areas as well, including in the legislation on the decision relating to LNG that we dealt with earlier. They will possibly be disapplied in relation to many decisions coming through in respect of the critical infrastructure Bill.”
“The Minister and the commission are not subject to the requirements under section 15(1) of the climate Act. What are those requirements? There are five requirements set out in law. They are that a relevant body shall, insofar as it is practicable, perform its functions in a manner consistent with the most recently approved climate action plan, the most recently approved long-term climate action strategy, the most recently approved national adaptation framework and approved sectoral adaptation plan, the furtherance of the national climate objective and the objective of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the effects of climate change in the State. The word "literally" is overused, but the Minister is literally disapplying climate obligations by means of this particular Bill.”
“I thank the Minister for his response. I want to come back briefly on two elements. The Minister has said that in advancing this legislation he is not setting aside our climate obligations. Just so it is on the record of the House, section 39 of the Bill is a modification of the application of section 15 of Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015. It is worth looking at what that actually does. Section 39 states: The Minister and [An Coimisiún Pleanála], in performing their functions under this Act, shall not be subject to the requirements referred to in section 15(1) of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, having regard to the likely consequences for the economy of the State and for international connectivity if an order is not made by the Minister under section 25(1) .”
“What is proposed is going to have a major impact, and it is not acceptable for the owners and beneficiaries of these large airlines to just dismiss people’s very real concerns. This impacts my constituency. I have canvassed in the areas to which I refer and have heard the impact of noise on these households. That impact is only going to grow as a result of this Bill.”
“People buy houses where they can afford to buy them. That is the nature of house purchasing in Ireland right now, and some people, if they could afford Kilmartin Grove or Hollywoodrath, chose to live there, whether that is in private purchase, affordable, social, cost-rental or build-to-rent homes. People do not have huge choice in where they have a home here right now because of the wider issues in our property market and sometimes people have to buy where the price matches their budget. That is an area which is already affected by a high number of flights and which is going to be further affected, especially if the exponential growth permitted under this legislation takes place.”
“It is not a planned or graduated increase; it is the removal of a cap to allow any number of flights to take place. Not even the DAA went that far in the planning application it submitted. That will have climate consequences, which will, no doubt, be addressed in later amendments, but it will also cause significant issues with increased noise in the area of the airport. Later, I will be talking about making reference to the noise abatement objective for Dublin Airport and including that in the Bill as one of the measures to try to provide some degree of reassurance to residents in the area. The committee heard from the likes of Ryanair. In many situations, Michael O’Leary has said that people knew what they were getting into when they bought houses in Swords, Malahide, Hollywoodrath and Dublin 15. That is an outrageous statement.”
“The question of how we deal with the 32 million passenger cap, which was put in as a planning condition initially, is of course central to what we are looking at here. Everybody recognises that flying is essential for an island nation, but how we deal with the situation caused by the 2007 planning application is what is at issue. Last year, just over 36 million passengers went through the airport in breach of the cap. The DAA has brought a planning application using the existing mechanisms in order to bring that up to 40 million. The Minister and his team floated the idea of 60 million passengers going through Dublin Airport in future, which would be equivalent to the numbers JFK Airport saw in 2024 and 2025. That is a huge scale. In this Bill, we are opening the door to any scale of development.”
“The Bill currently allows the Minister to intervene where the passenger cap is judged to cause serious economic or connectivity harm, but there is no equivalent situation should this Minister or a future Minister believe the number of passengers is causing significant environmental or climate harm. The purpose of my amendment is to recognise that there is a power, but it is a power that can be used in different ways. It recognises that there is a climate issue here. The Bill as drafted recognises one set of risks but not the other. It would be a reasonable compromise for the Minister to accept this amendment. In that case, the Bill would not be pro- or anti-cap; it would simply be future-proofed to allow a Minister to consider climate or environmental considerations in the same way as economic interests.”
“Again, this is the only example in this Dáil of a Bill being rammed through on Committee and Remaining Stages. That is not acceptable, and it does not treat appropriately the issues so many TDs from all parties spoke about during pre-legislative scrutiny. Everyone was saying that it is terrible for the residents, that we are listening to them and that we want to help them. When a Bill is banged through the Dáil in two hours, that is neither listening nor a genuine effort to help. My amendment is intended to allow a future Minister to amend the passenger cap for pro-climate reasons.”
“My amendment No. 13 has been grouped with Deputy Ahern's amendment. I will not dwell on it, but the same point I made about the previous Bill also applies in respect of this one, namely the fact that only two hours have been provided for the Committee and Remaining Stages. Detailed issues have to be addressed, including climate, balanced regional development and the significant impact of noise pollution on people who reside in the vicinity of the airport. These are real issues in respect of which there is disagreement. Maybe if we had time to do this at the select committee, we could have found resolutions in respect of a small number of these issues. However, we have been denied the opportunity to do so on foot of the way this Bill is being rushed through the House.”
“That norm will be seen in the legislation we will be debating in a couple of minutes, which also has the exemption. That norm was seen in the Critical Infrastructure Bill that this House passed a number of weeks ago. Time and again, this Government is exempting some of the biggest fossil fuel-polluting proposals from an analysis under the climate Act. It is killing the climate Act with 100 or 1,000 small exemptions. It is a very deliberate process, a process we have seen repeated many times. For this reason, my party and I cannot support the legislation before us. It does not give us the energy security we deserve. It does not give us the energy affordability that families need, and it dramatically undermines the decarbonisation agenda that the Government should be following.”
“LNG is one of the most carbon-intensive versions of gas that exist in the world right now. We are achieving this in the exact same legislation where we are disapplying the analysis of the climate Act to LNG infrastructure. Section 33, which I and others are opposing, will disapply the tests and analysis under section 15 of the climate Act. To think that the newest piece of fossil fuel infrastructure built in this country will not have basic climate analysis applied to it – climate analysis that almost all parties in this House agreed on only a couple of years ago – shows how far the Government has retreated on the issue of climate. A fundamental gap in this legislation is that a new piece of fossil fuel infrastructure will not have this analysis applied to it. By creating this exemption, we are actually building a norm.”
“That ban was removed on fracked gas being used by either State infrastructure or private infrastructure. We heard Deputy Danny Healy-Rae celebrating the consequences of the removal of that ban on fracked gas. Not all LNG used in the world is fracked but the vast majority of the LNG that comes from the US, which the Government has indicated it would regard as its primary supplier for the facility in Clare, comes from the fracking process, which makes the carbon emissions from LNG even worse. We are tying a new source of energy, LNG, into our energy system. This is a system that was shown not to give security of supply, as demonstrated by the closure of the Ras Laffan gas terminal at the start of the Iran war, and shown not to result in affordability. A 46% increase in the cost of LNG in one day was prompted by that war.”
“I wish to speak in favour of Deputy Ahern’s amendment. It is important that we focus on the issue of the use of LNG through this facility and, as such, into Ireland’s energy network. Liquefied natural gas is about two thirds more carbon-emitting than traditional natural gas. We are introducing it into our system now, as a number of speakers have already pointed out, in a context where liquefied natural gas was banned through the ban on fracked gas brought in by the previous Government in 2021. This ban applied to the use of fracked gas in all circumstances, whether by State infrastructure or by private infrastructure. That ban was important. One of the first things this Government did was to remove that ban, which my colleague, Eamon Ryan, introduced.”
“I think it was in April that 18% of the renewable energy in this country was wasted because we did not have the battery storage there. We may be third in Europe but we are still wasting large amounts of renewable energy that can help us make this energy transition and help cut bills for households across this country. That is where the Minister's Department and political focus should be, rather than locking us further into LNG.”
“I have no doubt that when the Minister was meeting with the energy storage groups today, they also brought forward the blockages they see, namely, no clear total amount of electricity storage requirement for the country, one of the key things set out in the task force report published in July 2024; and no clear renewable energy support system for battery storage, putting it at a disadvantage when compared with other forms of renewable energy. This also puts Ireland at a disadvantage compared with other member states, where they are putting in place those supports. The people who have planning permission for battery storage here in Ireland but have not built out yet will move. The money will move if other member states are putting in that financial support.”
“I do not understand this absolute fixation the Ministers, Deputies O'Brien and Chambers, have about not putting the resources into the one intersecting point of so much of our transport, electricity and infrastructure decisions. Trotting out this line about the Government having doubled it over a certain period is not good enough. The bodies in industry representing wind, solar and battery storage all say it to us, and I have no doubt they are saying it to the Minister in his electricity task force.”
“Both he and the Minister, Deputy Chambers, come in here and say the barriers are the planning process, the climate Act and this and that, but when we meet the renewable energy organisations, the first thing they all say is there are not enough staff in An Coimisiún Pleanála and that its decision-making time has increased over the past six months. That is what they tell us; maybe they are wrong, but I do not think they are, to be honest. An Coimisiún Pleanála's size has grown, but it is still not enough. It is still not enough for the level of work it has to do, which is everything from offshore wind to a planning appeal about an extension beside my house. It all ends up in An Coimisiún Pleanála and there is not the capacity or bandwidth to get those decisions done.”
“On the wider question of the strategic decision that I and others believe the Minister is taking, this will result in us being locked into LNG well into the next decade. It means focus, resources and money. Let us not forget this is costing us €900 million now and no doubt will be more when the time comes. This strategic decision to spend money here means money will be taken away from the energy transition. The Minister regularly speaks about his accelerating renewable electricity task force and all the great things it has been able to do, but I wonder what that task force says the barriers are when he meets with it.”
“This is a bespoke piece of legislation and a bespoke consenting process for this particular facility. It is a complete exception to our planning process, so it is not good enough for the Minister to say the Government will deal with the issue of public ownership in the second, subsequent piece of legislation. There is absolutely no reason the public element that has been articulated by the Minister throughout could not be reiterated in this legislation. We are doing something entirely new and novel here, and clarity on the public ownership and operation could absolutely be built into this legislation. This would at least alleviate that concern in advance of the second piece of legislation. I do not think the Minister's point on why he is rejecting amendment No. 18 and other amendments holds water.”
“By accepting this amendment, my amendment or some of the similar amendments proposed by other Deputies, the Minister could go at least some of the way to addressing the concerns raised by Opposition Deputies and NGOs that have raised these issues about the operation of the facility. He will actually be guaranteeing the political points he has made throughout this argument, which is that it is going to be publicly controlled. If it is, he should say it. It should be stated in the legislation. If it is not going to add to the overall supply of gas, he should state it, and put it into the legislation. We will listen to the Minister's response to this group of amendments but I cannot see why these basic levels of protection would not be codified within the Bill.”
“This supply of gas should be solely for emergency purposes and it should only be an extreme emergency. It should be for that doomsday scenario that is spoken about time and again, that is, an attack on the undersea gas pipeline between Scotland and Northern Ireland. We must also ensure that in a case like that, in such a large energy emergency, it is not the large energy users, which seem to get so much precedence in the Department these days, which are going to benefit. They should be asked to cut their consumption in the case of an emergency like that. In order to achieve these objectives, the legislation needs to be changed to clearly articulate that it is State-owned and State-run and that there are clear controls put in for the Commission for Regulation of Utilities.”
“My amendment is trying to copper-fasten into the Bill the things the Minister has been saying throughout the debate on this legislation, namely, that it will be a publicly owned entity and will only be used for emergency purposes and have no commercial element to it. That has been said throughout this process but it is not in the Bill anywhere and we are trying to put it in. We are trying to bring in a reasoned amendment on this particular point. It is essential that the facility, if it goes ahead, does not contribute to additional net use of gas in the system. In order to secure that, the facility needs to be highly controlled. How do we do that? We ensure that, in the legislation, the gas that would be stored in this reserve would not be traded or sent out to any other body.”