Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

First, we need security for people. I hope the Deputy would agree that what has happened in recent years, including the Nord Stream gas pipelines being blown up and the Baltic gas interconnector into Finland being broken by an anchor being deliberately dragged across it, presents a risk, low risk as it may be. If it were to arise, the risk to our people is immense because while we would have backup power for a while in the distillate we store close to our power generation stations, in a number of days that would come to an end and we would not be able to turn on the lights in our hospitals, homes and businesses. Our people's lives would be at risk. Sometimes we cannot ignore such security risks and we have to respond to that. That is our duty as a Government.

There are various options to provide for that security issue. We could have a fixed terminal onshore. However, that would potentially be building natural gas assets - fossil fuel assets - that would leave us stranded. We will not need them in the fossil fuel-free future we have. Therefore, it is appropriate for us to look at other measures.

The Deputy asked what the difference is here. The difference is this would not be commercial. This would not be to sell gas. This would not be pumping gas into our system to make a commercial return. It would be purely security strategic. Do other parties and others in this House believe we should ignore that security issue or should we try to protect our people for that eventuality, even though it is a cost and it is a short-term issue because we will have alternatives? An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach more than anyone else knows that a country ignores its own security interests at its own cost potentially, and we cannot do that.

See this speech in context