Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

55. To ask the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment to clarify his policy position ahead of a planning application decision by An Bord Pleanála, given his recent comments about the fact that a liquified natural gas, LNG, storage facility may no longer be needed as back-up in a natural energy crisis, and given that An Bord Pleanála's decision on a current planning application for an LNG terminal must have regard to current Government policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41333/24]

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am taking this question on behalf of Deputy Harkin. This question relates to the two previous priority questions on LNG facilities and the recent planning Act that just went through. What are the implications of the amendments made in the planning Act for the upcoming An Bord Pleanála decision on the LNG facility?

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will not read the prepared written response because it is similar to the answer I gave to the first question. All these questions relate to a similar issue.

I do not see any implications other than for a potential project. In Ireland's case a non-commercial temporary strategic storage facility would go through the strategic infrastructure process rather than to the local authority. That is a fairly standard process and procedure. The only reason for the amendment is to make sure that it is legally sound in any such development. There is nothing more to it than that. Particularly with a facility that is both offshore and onshore, we needed to regulate the broad planning Act system we have to reflect that and make sure there were no inconsistencies that would cause confusion or legal doubt.

I do not see any implications. I know that may have been read differently by others, but that is the absolute reality. It is reality because our strategy, as set out in the energy security paper, was published in November of last year. It was agreed, debated, discussed and I think voted on by the House. It sets out in real detail exactly what we are doing and nothing has changed in that. The amendment does not in any way change the strategic direction. The only thing that may change is, as I said, even in the past year the advance of this renewable, interconnection and battery-storage revolution has happened faster than people might have thought. The whole thing with a terminal is to cover gas insecurity for a short number of years before the arrival of renewables and other efficiency technologies, which really kill our use of gas. Gas use will dramatically fall; it has to dramatically fall. The only question is whether in the intervening period we need a gas storage facility or if, through the use of new interconnectors, better battery storage and anaerobic digestion giving us some gas supply as well as Corrib and power generation stations using backup strategic distillate facilities, which they can use, we could cover the gas. That is the question we need to answer.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I take what the Minister has said that that is the question that needs to be answered. In reality these amendments came forward on Report Stage in the Seanad and came back to the Dáil. We did not even get to debate them because the time ran out. If that clarity needed to be given in respect of planning applications or the planning Act, surely it was known about a year ago or six months ago. It could have been in the Bill that was put before the House here rather than being lumped in as a Government amendment in the Seanad, meaning that no debate took place on it in here.

That is the first question.

The Minister said in response to a previous question that he did not want to import fracked gas but he will now allow for an application to go through the process. That is what this is about. It is about making that process work but surely it is disingenuous to allow an application to go through the process, and to give somebody the indication that this is going to happen and is going to go ahead. They have to go through the whole planning process and through An Bord Pleanála when the Minister has no intention of allowing this happening at any stage. That seems to me to be a wee bit disingenuous and goes against the intention of what the Minister is saying.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the amendments, this is a very extensive Bill. It was 900 pages in the end and there were 150-odd amendments on the last Stage in the Seanad. My sense from officials is that issue was about making sure the law was not contradictory in some sense. There were changes because we only established MARA last year and made the switch from the foreshore licensing system to this new marine planning system. That accounts for why an amendment may have come in late but I do not think we should read any more into it.

We have to be careful here. We have an independent legal system and people have a right to put in planning applications. It is important that An Bord Pleanála is independent, and any judicial decisions regarding that. We do not get into the legal arguments.

An Bord Pleanála also has to consider Government policy. We have to remember that the previous application, which was subject to that recent judgment, would have been made in September 2023 before the security paper, which is the key document in my mind setting out Government policy, was published. Obviously, An Bord Pleanála could not take it into account in any previous decision but in any revised one - and it has to be very careful as we have to be very careful not to interfere in the legal system in that way - it would obviously take into account what Government is saying. We maintain an independence but Government is clear in its position.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Just to get clarity from the Minister on it, these amendments he put forward make it easier for a developer to know and have clarity with regard to putting in an application to An Bord Pleanála, while knowing that it will not be passed at all. They would go to the expense of preparing the application, go through the whole process and go to An Bord Pleanála, knowing that it would not be passed. That is what the Minister is saying the purpose of these amendments is.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No. The amendment, from my perspective, is around us requiring a gas storage facility, which has both onshore and offshore components. With regard to those two systems, offshore planning is different from onshore planning, and by the very nature of such a storage facility, it might be both so we have to make sure that if there was a future application for such a facility, there would not be an incongruity. It was not in any way drafted with a view for any other planning application in mind. We are not going to draft legislation for the specifics of any other application. That is a matter for An Bord Pleanála and the courts to decide, not Government. The amendment was not related to that at all.