Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The challenge for Ireland's energy security is in the present, not the future. That is where we find ourselves this evening. I agree with what was said at the beginning of this debate. We need short-term, immediate measures to help guarantee energy security. The Minister is proposing one of those measures here this evening. That is to exempt the provision of emergency generation of 450 MW of electricity from the provisions of the Planning and Development Act 2000 for designated developments and to exempt it from the environmental impact assessment, EIA, directive which covers assessments of the effects of these developments on the environment and on the development of habitats. In place of these provisions we are being asked to substitute ministerial approval.

The habitats and EIA directives were the source of much of my work in the European Parliament and I never expected to be voting for legislation that would disapply the requirements of these directives. In politics, I suppose, nothing should surprise us. In that context, has the Minister already communicated his intentions to the Commission and has there been any response? I am pleased the Minister is dealing with this matter with the necessary haste. Of course it can legitimately be said that such emergency legislation would not be needed if Government policy over the past decade had ensured sufficient energy supply be generated for our own needs, particularly in the context of the number of data centres that were given planning without ensuring they could supply their own energy needs. That is a most legitimate criticism. Equally, nobody could have predicted Putin's invasion of Ukraine and the cutting off of Russian gas supply to Europe. Russia supplies 40% of the gas to Europe. What we are seeing is Ireland's inadequate future planning for energy security and supply since 2000 being compounded by a poor EU decision some time back to rely on Russian gas. Another factor is the illegal invasion of Ukraine and the destruction of its energy infrastructure.

In any emergency legislation it is important that certain checks and balances are introduced. While I have tabled no amendments myself, I believe the Labour Party amendment would go a long way towards achieving them and I ask the Minister to consider accepting it. The Bill designates two locations, Shannonbridge and Tarbert. Given that the Minister has the power to designate other locations, has he any earmarked or does he consider that this will not be necessary?

I support this legislation because it is essential. None of us here wants to do anything that might contribute to blackouts. However, I also want to say that because we are in the middle of this energy supply emergency, now is the time not just to put this emergency legislation in place but also to take emergency steps to help provide a more secure supply of energy in the short, medium and long term. We have heard of the potential for offshore floating LNG terminals but the problem is there are only 37 of these floating terminals in the world. How feasible and doable is it that we could manage one of those in the short term? One Deputy after another has listed all the different actions we can take, but in the few seconds I have left I want to impress on the Minister the potential for anaerobic digestion and the production of biogas to help supply some of our energy needs. I am asking the Minister why we are not pursuing the generation of electricity using anaerobic digesters. It is small scale but would be ideally suited to generation at a co-operative level. It is a win-win for the farmer and the environment. I support the legislation but it is not sufficient to deal with our energy security needs. I want to see the same commitment, speed and level of determination to ensure alternative supplies of energy.

See this speech in context