Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I will go back to what Deputy Howlin was talking about, that is, the genuine fear of regulatory chill. The Tánaiste gave the example of Egypt and stated the case was won in the end. The problem was that the workers did not get a pay rise for several years while the court case was ongoing. The same applies to New Zealand. As a former doctor, the Tánaiste will appreciate that New Zealand and Australia withheld the introduction of plain packaging while the court case went ahead.

Let me give an example of regulatory chill at home. Maybe the Tánaiste can rule this out for us. The programme for Government contained a commitment to ban the importation of liquified natural gas, LNG, at Shannon. It was previously on a list of projects of common interest, PCIs, of the European Commission. The Government removed its support for the initiative from the PCI list but it remains on the PCI list until September. The Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications released a policy statement on a ban on the importation of fracked gas last week. He said the Attorney General said it would not be compatible with EU law for the State to ban LNG importation. The Irish Centre for Human Rights at NUI Galway has a legal opinion that clearly contradicts that. Information I have from the European Parliament's research service states Article 194 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union indicates that member states choose the conditions for exploiting their energy resources and which energy sources they use so they can, therefore, ban particular fossil fuels and structures if they so decide to. Can the Tánaiste confirm categorically that the Energy Charter Treaty was not part of the Attorney General’s opinion concerning why we are now going ahead with what was in the programme for Government, which was a ban on LNG importation?

Under the Energy Charter Treaty, in respect of which the Tánaiste keeps referring to fair and equitable treatment, 62% of the investor cases have been taken based on fair and equitable treatment. Is it not true that the chance of winning a case is far greater if the case is taken through the investor court system as opposed to the national courts system and that this is why investors choose it? We are going to set ourselves up for greater losses because the odds are against us. One of the international legal experts said it is the equivalent of playing at home rather than away. When one signs up to an investor court system, one is signing up to playing away constantly because investors will choose that system. I would particularly like the Tánaiste to confirm categorically that the Energy Charter Treaty was not part of the thinking in the advice that the Attorney General gave the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications on why we could not ban LNG importation.

Is it the case that we cannot ban it, which contradicts the advice I have from the EU, or is it that we stand at risk of being sued for compensation?