Before we agree, and I am not going to block it, I wish to highlight that I am concerned about this practice. I am disappointed to see it come from this Department but it has come systematically from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and others where there have been very large-scale changes and additions to Bills, additional provisions and amendments and whole new areas of work tagged on to legislation at a very late stage, in this case midway through Report Stage in the Seanad. This does not allow for proper scrutiny, which means things are not being captured in pre-legislative scrutiny. It is poor practice and it needs to be noted and commented that it will be a very poor legacy from this Government if a new way of curtailing proper parliamentary process becomes codified and regular. I will not object in this instance but I do want to note it.
Gas (Amendment) Bill 2023: Report and Final Stages
I do note it insofar as I can.
For the information of members, please note that the House by agreeing to the motion to recommit allows a Committee Stage-style discussion on amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, 8, 15 and 20 to 37, inclusive, only. Members may speak more than once on each of those amendments. In respect of the other amendments, I remind Members that a Member may speak only once on Report Stage except for the proposer of a amendment, who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. On Report Stage, each non-Government amendment must be seconded.
Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, 8, 15 and 20 to 37, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
These are minor amendments. The Long Title has changed to reflect the inclusion of the transfer of maritime area planning functions from the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications and certain arrangements relating to the making of the marine planning policy statement on designated maritime area plans, DMAPs, under that Act, while changes are made to the Short Title, collective citation and construction to account for these amendments. Many amendments cover many sections where the Title is referenced.
The practice of tagging unrelated amendments to Bills is something that needs to end. I have some concerns and questions regarding the transfer of maritime area planning functions from the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, namely, the fact that while we need offshore renewables and progress relating to them, there is a concern that there seems to have been a very strongly developer-led approach rather than an environmentally led approach. When we started in the then new Oireachtas in 2020, we were talking about the designation of marine protected areas. In the period since then, there has been a slew of new provisions about maritime planning and now we have the quite ambitious task of transferring all these new provisions relating to maritime area planning functions between Departments. We know moving an area of functionality from one Department to another is another significant piece of logistics. Even as all of these things are happening, the thing that is not happening is progress on designation of marine protected areas despite the fact that Ireland is way behind and we have the EU target. We should be at a point in terms of the EU biodiversity strategy of 30% of waters being protected by 2030. Again, that is the overall EU target, but given that many EU countries do not even have a coast or any water, of course the expectation is that Ireland should be meeting or exceeding the 30% target in terms of doing its share in terms of the EU's overall strategy for proper marine protected areas.
The FairSeas campaign has highlighted how our network of marine protected areas consists mostly of fragmented special areas of conservation and special protected areas covering just 8.3% of our waters. We are way behind where we need to be in terms of the target.
We know the current MPA network not only lacks in spatial coverage but is also failing in respect of the implementation of adequate and effective management. I know this from looking at these issues within the climate committee. What we hear from those who wish to develop renewable energy is that they want certainty and clarity. The idea of the DMAPs initiative is that we are moving towards designated areas for certain activities. However, the problem is that these designated areas are moving ahead of the marine protected areas. We are designating areas for maritime planning and for development ahead of designating protected areas - ahead of substantial progress on that. There is a risk of factors changing on the ground and damage being done that may be irreversible. The cart is before the horse, and I think I described it as such three years ago. Now we have carts tagged onto those carts and other carts tagged on, and we still have not made any progress on that fundamental starting point, which is knowing which areas need which kinds of protection so that we can then plan, in the most effective way, which areas can be developed and how they can be developed in ways that are appropriately complementary to protected areas and intersect well with them. I have not heard what the timeline is. When anything comes about related maritime planning, we are told we are in a massive hurry, even though we know this will not deliver anything that will affect the 2030 targets. I do not see that there will be things that will affect our climate targets for 2030. If we just look ahead to 2050, which is, of course, too late for where want to be, I am asking whether we will have taken good measures by then. We are up against the wire in needing progress on offshore renewables and we are also up against the wire on needing progress on protection.
How does the Minister of State envisage this transfer of functions and titles will assist in getting those ducks in a row at last? Presumably it is now going to a Department that has some environmental expertise. How is this transfer of functions going to assist in ensuring that the MPA designation accelerates and is happening ideally before, and at the minimum simultaneous with, large-scale offshore development? Where do these pieces fit? What is the sequence of events when these powers are transferred to this new Department? Will there be some kind of change in practice?
The Senator spoke about developer-led versus plan-led and she is right to mention that distinction. Up to now, we have had a developer-led approach for wind farms. It has not led to the creation of any wind farms but just a view that you can apply anywhere and the interest and planning would come from the market. The whole thrust of the legislation this Government has developed has been about moving towards a plan-led approach, in other words, developing these designated marine areas for area plans where a number of wind farms will be developed and connections will go to the mainland and so on. This is based on looking at what works and what has not worked across the rest of Europe. It is with that in mind that progress has been made on the first DMAP in the south east of Ireland by the Minister, Deputy Ryan.
It makes sense, as the Senator said, to have a transfer of functions from housing to the Department that is expert in environment. It makes sense those functions are moved across because it is specifically an environmental area.
The legislation for marine protected areas is in development and will be published soon.
As the Senator knows, we need to do this quickly. She said that we keep saying we need to move quickly on this. We are in situation of war in Europe and war in the Middle East. We have huge pressure on our energy supplies coming into Europe. We need to develop for the sake of our energy independence in Europe and also for the sake of our security. For the sake of the climate, we need to develop our renewable energy resources and do so quickly. We were one of the first countries in Europe to have offshore wind. With our huge resources, it is a pity that no progress was made to develop offshore wind throughout the past decade while it was going on in countries such as Germany, the Netherlands and the UK. It absolutely makes sense that we move ahead on this, learn from the experience of those countries and put in place the best regulation possible to tackle climate change and develop our own energy resources.
We are now heading towards a position where, later this decade, we will be a country that produces more electricity than we consume for the first time. That electricity will be produced in a clean way and we will be exporting. While all this work is going on on the offshore wind side of things, we are developing the interconnector cables that will allow us to sell our electricity abroad when we are in surplus.
All of the DMAPs are subject to environmental assessment, just like all applications to An Bord Pleanála. The teams that are working on offshore renewable energy are collaborating closely with the marine environment team in the Department of housing. Significant resources are being put in place to support environmental assessments and the emphasis for DMAPs is to avoid areas of sensitivity.
We need to make progress as quickly as possible and we need to do it as well as possible. We need to also remember that we are trying to tackle a climate crisis and we need to move with speed.
Citing war is never a great reason for doing things. It is not a good rationale, certainly in terms of the environment. One of the things the war is currently being used to justify on the part of Ireland’s energy strategy is buying coal from Colombia with massive environmental and human rights breaches. We have somehow justified that and used the war to justify it, and that is inexcusable from any environmental or human rights perspective. It is not a matter of “It is war - anything goes.” The standards need to be higher, clearer and more consistent, if anything.
I am very open on the DMAP approach but the problem is the sequencing. We look at the legislative schedule every year. This Oireachtas has been here since 2020 and we are in 2024. Marine protected areas has been sitting on the schedule and we have not published the legislation. That is why I recognise there may be overlaps. Certain parts of DMAP may be moving in parallel with the processes of designation. However, we have not published the legislation on marine protected areas. That is ludicrous. We have done 50 million new manoeuvres in respect of maritime planning, including, as I said, this whole new transfer between Departments yet somehow marine protected areas legislation is sitting there on the schedule as something that will be published.
I have two or three further questions. First, will the marine protected area legislation also now be moving over to the Department of the environment or will that still sit within the Department of housing? Is that function moving across? Are they linked? If it is moving across, what is the timeline? If it is not moving across, what is the timeline and what are the plans for engagement so that we do not have two bits of the maritime planning process and marine protected area moving separately in parallel in separate Departments when we know there is some plan of how they would work together? I would really like to know what the timeline is for marine protected area legislation to be published. Who will lead that? Will it be the Minister of State’s Department? Will it be the Department of housing? How is the connection between those two Departments planned?
This relates to another area which relates to the transfer of functions. One area that is in much of our other planning legislation, not the DMAP legislation, is particular functions for the Minister for heritage.
I originally had a lot of concern about heritage being put with housing because it created a tension between a Minister who is never meant to interfere in planning and the Minister for heritage, who has very particular functions in relation to planning. How is that engagement with the Minister for heritage envisaged following this transfer? Will it default to how it operated previously? Is there any sense of how that engagement is likely to take place? What are the current threads?
I have seen this in other Departments, as has the Minister of State. I formerly sat on the disability committee, when responsibility for disability was to move across Departments. We were hearing about that move for two years but nothing was happening. I am sorry to dive in on what may seem technical. It is not technical, however. This is about the nuts and bolts of how things will actually work. I would like to know how this will work, specifically as regards the relationship with the Minister for heritage and his functions in respect of heritage, which is not just about environmental heritage but includes many marine heritage issues too. I also ask for clarification regarding the question I asked on where the marine protected areas will be led from.
Specifically, the marine protected areas legislation will remain with the Department of housing. There will be no change to that. I will ask the Minister for housing when he plans to publish that legislation. Of course, he works closely with the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, to whom he has delegated some of his functions. As I said, there is continued co-operation between the offshore renewable energy section in the Department of the environment and the Department of housing. They closely co-operate on environmental issues. I hope that clarifies matters for the Senator.
I will finish at this point except to note that if there is close co-operation, the Minister of State should already know when that legislation will be published. We should not be in the position where we are being asked to move ahead in one aspect of what happens in our waters, in the seas of Ireland, without knowing the other piece. It is not a general query. I am sure we can get somebody to ask a parliamentary question, but it is does not give me confidence that there is an actual plan that includes environmental care and the sustaining of our marine biodiversity, or even a sustainable and well-planned transition as regards offshore renewables and offshore energy in places that will work. It does not give me huge confidence that two Departments will tell us each of them is in charge of a different thing; neither does the fact that we do not have a timeline. There is one year left. If anything needs to be done, any Department that is serious about getting something done will want to have a timeline.
I am disappointed. I hoped to get more substance on what the timelines are. I will wait. Maybe there is a possibility of follow-up even in writing, as this is the last Stage. I would like to know what the timeline is. If that could be clarified, it would be useful.
The marine protected areas legislation is expected to be published by the end of June.
Okay. Thank you. I look forward to it.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 38 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I would like to move amendment No. 4.
I need a seconder.
I do not have my seconder with me, unfortunately. I will not be able to discuss this, unless one of my colleagues from the Government side wants to second the amendment, which concerns a report.
The amendment may not be moved in the absence of a seconder.
A similar situation will arise with amendment No. 5.
A similar situation has arisen. There is a tiny chance that somebody will arrive on time. Is it possible for me to move the amendment and then have it seconded subsequently? Do I need to move it, have it seconded and then speak?
I am being advised it needs to be seconded now.
Is it possible to ask for a suspension for two minutes?
No, unless the Senator asks for a quorum.
Okay. I will ask for a quorum.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 8, line 6, after “order” to insert “, with such an order requiring approval by resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas,”.
I second the amendment.
The amendment relates to the order that appoints a Minister as the majority shareholding Minister. As I said, at present, the Bill provides that a Minister could become the majority shareholder. This relates to the functioning of Gas Networks Ireland, GNI. I was not able to move amendment No. 4 in respect of amending the functions and mandate of GNI. We have previously discussed how we ensure that bodies such as GNI, Bord na Móna, Coillte and so forth are operating in a way that is consistent with Ireland's goals, ambitions and obligations under the Paris Agreement and the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act. During such discussions, members of the Government have consistently spoken about one point. I believe some in the Government are open to the idea of shifting, amending, improving and strengthening the mandates so that they are consistent, but they have referenced again and again the Government's role as shareholders. If we are doing things through legislation properly, as public representatives, I always prefer to ensure things are transparently there in the mandates of organisations.
Legislation is the better and more transparent way to do that, but what we have heard from the Government is that it uses its shareholding status as one of the ways it seeks to influence these bodies. This amendment recognises that whatever Minister takes on the role of being the majority shareholder will potentially have a substantial input in terms of the shareholders' letters of expectation and so forth, and so it matters who that is and what mandate the Department holds.
Amendment No. 5 would require that when a Minister is being appointed as a majority shareholder, that appointment would have to be approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas. It would ensure accountability and transparency in the process. Currently, section 9 provides that the majority shareholding Minister may not be the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications or the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. On Committee Stage, I tried to ensure it would not be the Minister for Finance either, because if there are conflicts of interest designated within each of those Departments, that is also the case with the Minister for Finance. We have seen shareholding Ministers issuing letters, for example, in relation to Coillte and Bord na Móna. The shareholder letter of expectation stated it wanted cash returns. The priority was not any of the environmental targets or any of the other issues we might expect from Coillte but to get cash returns. Again, the priority was not even long-term value for money from the State but the delivery of cash in the short term. Given that is the kind of thing that has gone into ministerial letters of expectation as shareholders in the past, the Minister issuing the letters of shareholding matters.
I again suggest that it would be appropriate that when that Minister is being giving this significant power as the majority shareholder, the decision would be approved by the Oireachtas. Perhaps we would then have a little bit of transparency around what that specific Minister would bring or what kinds of communications or expectations he or she would bring as the public representative with a shareholding in that company. That is a reasonable attempt to bring transparency, accountability, and effective public policy delivery to an area which has been a little without scrutiny in the past.
I thank Senator Higgins for bringing forward this amendment. In order to carry out this change of shareholding from one Ministry to another, the details of it have to be laid before the Houses and a resolution can then be brought by either House to annul it. It is not the case that it automatically goes through. It is the case that either the Seanad or the Dáil can stop such as a transfer. If a situation arose where either the Seanad or the Dáil felt that the transfer was inappropriate and that the wrong priorities were attached to the relevant Minister, it could prevent the transfer from going ahead. That power is already there and for that reason I do not see the usefulness of the amendment.
Could I just check on the grouping? Are amendments Nos. 6 and 7 taken separately?
Yes, this is a separate amendment.
Then I will not go into some of the additional subject matter on amendments Nos. 6 and 7. Rather than just simply being able stop the inappropriate transfer of power, we hope the Minister would have an ambition whereby we could actually seek out and promote what is appropriate. Again, we are not necessarily going to know what the intentions, priorities or vision of a Minister are going to be unless a standardised engagement takes place. Having a situation where we think a Minister is thinking terrible things secretly will not necessarily work, we should have a transparent process. I say this in the context that I would prefer the Oireachtas to engage concretely in respect of the mandates and functions of these bodies that are established by legislation. We have the scope to do more through legislation, but given the huge weight this Government and others seem to have placed on the State's role as shareholder versus the State's role almost as a regulator and agenda-setter then the notion of the State as the shareholder needs more scrutiny. I will press the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 8, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:
“(4)The majority-shareholding Minister shall, prior to issuing a shareholder letter of expectation to Gas Networks Ireland, lay such a letter before both Houses of the Oireachtas.”.
I second the amendment.
Amendment No. 6 would require that prior to any shareholder letter of expectation being issued that it would be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. This is important from the point of view of public transparency and accountability and given the context that shareholder letters to other semi-State bodies such as Coillte and Bord na Móna, have shown very little regard for climate and biodiversity and have opted for the prioritisation of profit. The Minister of State is aware that value for money is quite a wide piece. It is often about the longer term and the medium term and not just the short term. Value for money is relevant in terms of the implications if we fail to meet our climate targets or social targets. These are all issues that can impact on what is actually value for money for the State. Again, rather than simply focusing on value for money or indeed the many other targets which we claim to have in, for example, our climate legislation and in regard to some of the other social targets affected, the shareholder letters sent by Government Ministers have prioritised not just profit but cash generation.
A letter of expectation issued to Coillte in 2022 stated that the very first expectation is that the company should be profitable and cash generative, maintaining financial policies and capital structures, and taking account of future obligations, including pensions, that facilitate the payment of dividends to shareholders, and maintain a level of headroom to have sufficient liquidity and financial flexibility to protect loan covenant requirements. Again, the reference is to cash in the short term and delivering money. This is an example. Coillte does not deliver very much cash. It does not deliver an awful lot of money for the State, but the short-term delivery of money is taking priority over the long-term transformation that we need in an area like forestry and over something, for example, that would deliver far more value for money if we looked to shifting what the European Union in the past has called some of our new approaches to forestry - business as usual. If we look to what is happening in terms of forestry and our rivers in Ireland or where the same mistakes are getting made again and again, the rationale always goes back to the mandate that the organisation has. Accompanying that, the shareholders, including the State itself, are driving against long-term thinking and investment in a sustainable future. What the State is saying to these bodies is that it wants short-term thinking and dividends. We must bear in mind that these bodies do not come under the climate Act. Purely public bodies have obligations in terms of delivering under the climate Act but these organisations are often in this in-between space where they are not covered by the same sections in the climate Act but, overall, the State is. We are almost having a parallel conversation, which is usually not even in the public realm. This is information we have had to access through freedom of information requests.
These amendments suggest that the letter of expectation the Government sends to these bodies, which play a significant role, should be a matter of public notice. It should be published and we should be aware of it. Significant matters of prioritisation of policy, value and goals take place in the conversation that a Minister, as a shareholder, has with these semi-State bodies. That should be a matter of public record and the subject of proper discussion within the Oireachtas. Amendment No. 6 would require that the shareholder letter of expectation be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and, if something is being done on behalf of the public, public representatives would have the opportunity to engage with and discuss that matter.
Amendment No. 7 provides that the majority-shareholding Minister would, prior to issuing the shareholder letter of expectation to Gas Networks Ireland, lay the letter before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach, and the Committee of Public Accounts. This is around strengthening accountability and transparency at the finance committee, of which I am a member. We place great emphasis on the importance of transparency in respect of stocks, shares, ethical practices, investments and divestments and so forth, so it is reasonable that the State as shareholder would agree to transparency and scrutiny of its actions by the finance committee. I would be open to an alternative committee being suggested to carry out scrutiny but, as this is Report Stage, there may not be an opportunity to make such a provision.
The key point in both these amendments, however, is that the Government is elected by the public. It produces the programme for Government and has its agendas and there is much discussion on matters such as the environment and biodiversity. It is appropriate, therefore, that every action the Government takes by virtue of the people of Ireland having given its members a role as their representatives would be subject to proper scrutiny and transparency in order that we can see whether it is consistent with the principles and messages being espoused in public.
The code of practice for the governance of State bodies provides, in the case of commercial State bodies, for a shareholder letter of expectation which outlines the terms of the relationship with the parent Department. The shareholder letter of expectation contains commercially sensitive information and, as such, it would not be appropriate for it to be publicly available. I am not aware of a similar precedent for any other Irish commercial State body. On this basis, I propose to reject these amendments as it would not be appropriate for the shareholder letter of expectation to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.
The Senator stated that she does not believe GNI is a relevant body and suggested that, as a semi-State public body, it is not subject to the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act. In fact, it is specifically listed as a relevant body and is subject to the requirements of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, as amended. The term "relevant body" includes a public body which is defined by reference to the Freedom of Information Act 2014, to which Gas Networks Ireland is subject and will continue to be subject with the passage of this Bill. Although the shareholder letter of expectation contains expectations around money and its commercial activity as a commercial State body, that does not mean those are the priority or the only objectives of the organisation. It is legally required to meet the objectives under the climate Act. In addition, it has its own strategic plan which it has to follow, but it also has commercial objectives. As it operates in a commercial competitive environment, it would be damaging to its commercial interests to publish exactly the details of the expected return on investment or the expected dividend from the company back to the State. When one sees redacted documents, one always expects there to be something amazing under the black lines. It is always disappointing when one sees what it actually is.
I wish to pick up on what the Minister of State said about Gas Networks Ireland being a relevant body. It beggars belief that GNI is aware that is bound by the climate Act, given that all its actions at the moment are contrary to what the Minister, Deputy Ryan, is saying and the climate action plan. It continues to connect data centres to the gas grid despite the Minister, Deputy Ryan, telling it that it should not do so as that runs contrary to the climate action plan. Last week it announced its ten-year network development plan or its demand. The trajectory is deeply concerning in terms of where GNI believes gas demand is going. It flags again that the large energy users are going to feed this demand. These are islanded data centres with no ability to shift to renewable energy. In addition, GNI will connect thousands of new residential connections to the gas grid every year for the next decade. More than 5,000 residential connections will be made this year. That figure far outstrips the number of disconnections. Gas Networks Ireland might technically be under the Act but somebody should inform it that it is obliged to comply with the climate Act. As I said, it has already blatantly ignored what the Minister has asked it to do, which is to cease connecting data centres to the gas grid.
There are concerns regarding the actions. There is potential for tension, with the Minister, Deputy Ryan, calling for a shift in policy and Gas Networks Ireland apparently being able to ignore that call. Some unknown Minister, however, will be able to send a non-public letter.
When I brought forward my Climate Action and Biodiversity (Mandates of Certain Organisations) Bill 2023, which proposes changing the mandate of Coillte and Bord na Móna, the discussion in the Chamber gave the impression that the shareholder letter was going to be used to deliver all kinds of positive things for the environment. However, when we actually looked at the letter, we saw that it does not do so. Rather, it works against it. It works for the short term, not the long term. We have a concern, therefore, that we may have a Minister making a call in public but, in effect, being ignored by Gas Networks Ireland, and then some other Minister writing something else. It is quite interesting. I thought the cash piece was shocking, frankly. It is beyond anything that we have. The Minister of State knows, because I have engaged constructively with him, that the thinking on what is value for money and what delivers for the public has moved far beyond that which delivers the shortest-term cash. That is not necessarily the best way of looking for the best value for money for the State. It is still there, however, in the recent letter sent to these commercial bodies. A tension is emerging.
As regards the suggestion that there is commercially sensitive information, there is publicly sensitive information. It is a matter of interest to the public. There is an abiding public interest in the content of communications between Ministers and commercial State bodies. That is a matter of incredible public sensitivity. It is as though the State is a firm such as Ernst and Young, but that is not the case. The State is a shareholder because it is recognised that this is something of immense public interest. The State has retained a shareholding in these bodies in order that a public representative, namely, a Minister, can transfer some kind of public duty and public good and carry that out. Otherwise, we could just slot in any old shareholder. Why is the State a shareholder? It is because the State is meant to balance its duties, functions, responsibilities and representations of the public in how it does all its work, including its work as shareholder.
Leaving that aside, if there is an unwillingness to have transparency and accountability in how the State uses its power as shareholder, let that never be used as an argument as to why we should not have legislative change. I expect progress to be made on legislation that seeks to make clear the mandates and functions of State bodies. If we will not have an accountability structure built around the shareholding, then shareholding cannot be suggested as an alternative to proper legislative regulation.
I will be coming back and looking for shifts in the mandates. I just do not to hear a speech from some other Department saying that as shareholders they will do their best and put their tuppence in but they cannot tell anyone what they say. That is not good enough for the public. The responsibility now moves to the Minister of State's Department in terms of the question of the mandates and functions of Gas Networks Ireland, GNI. This is in the context, as Senator Boylan has outlined, of an extraordinarily problematic ten-year-vision from GNI. The Department now needs to decide how it is going to engage, especially since the Department is prohibited by this legislation from being a shareholder. Since we collectively will not have an input on who is the shareholder I urge that the mandate of GNI in respect of environment and biodiversity be revisited and strengthened.
I thank the Senator. A commercial semi-State body is charged with two things. The first is performing its functions that deliver on its strategic mandate, whatever that is. The second is trying to make a certain amount of money which is then used by the State to provide services to its citizens. In advance of the year, expectations are set by the shareholder - the State - saying how much money is expected to be made during the year and how much will be returned as dividend. That is not known beforehand because if it were known it could be of advantage to somebody who is competing with that commercial semi-State organisation. In other words, it could reduce the commercial success of the company. At the end of the year it becomes known because the accounts of the company are published. In this way, we discover what dividend was paid out. Every year we can be read in the newspapers how much money ESB Networks paid in dividends to the State and what the return on investment is. It is not like it is some kind of secret that is preserved forever. Again, its commercial mandate is only a small portion of its mandate. It already has its strategic mandate and it has its legal mandate under the climate legislation.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 8, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:
“(4) The majority-shareholding Minister shall, prior to issuing a shareholder letter of expectation to Gas Networks Ireland, lay such a letter before the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform and Taoiseach and the Committee of Public Accounts.”.
I second the amendment.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 12, to delete lines 33 to 35 and substitute the following:
“(i) by the substitution of the following for subsections (1) and (2):
“(1) (a) The Board shall own, operate, develop and maintain a system for the transmission and distribution of natural gas being a system that is carbon budget-aligned, economical and efficient and appears to the Minister to be requisite for the time being.
(b) Nothing in paragraph (a) shall be construed as imposing on the Board, either directly or indirectly, any form of duty or liability enforceable by proceedings before any court to which it would not otherwise be subject.
(c) Nothing in paragraph (a) shall be construed as imposing on the Board, either directly or indirectly, any form of duty or function to promote, advertise or incentivise new connections to transmission or distribution gas systems.
(2) The Board shall carry out its obligations under this Act in accordance with the Natural Gas Market Directive and carbon budgets and sectoral emissions ceilings under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021 and having regard to the need to ensure the safety and security of the transmission, distribution and supply of natural gas and having regard to the decarbonisation of the energy system.”,
and”.
I second the amendment.
This is in a similar vein to Senator Higgins's amendment. It is about changing the mandate for GNI's board to bring it in line with the climate legislation and the carbon budget. As I have already said, just recently GNI released its ten-year network development plan for public consultation. In a staggering display of a lack of concern about the climate crisis, the organisation has outlined its plans for growth over the next few years. There is an incredible growth evident in the data centre consumer sector which we will discuss later. There are also thousands of new residential connections, as I have already said. More than 5,000 are set to be connected this year, outstripping disconnections. While the Minister of State has said that GNI is a relevant body under the climate legislation, I think we need to update the mandate so it can be left in no doubt as to its emissions reduction obligations and the phasing out of fossil fuels into the future. Rather than locking data centres and households into a fossil fuel future, the company should be figuring out what it is going to do with its asset when it will be no longer using natural gas as opposed to trying to make sure that we can never actually wean ourselves off gas.
As the Senators are already aware, GNI is a semi-State public body and its shares are 100% controlled by Government Ministers. Because of this, it is subject to the same criteria as other State bodies regarding its climate obligations. In particular, GNI is listed as a relevant body under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, as amended by the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021. The term "relevant body" includes a public body which is defined by reference to the Freedom of Information Act 2014, which GNI is subject to and will continue to be subject to with the passage of this Bill. Because it is a relevant body, GNI performs its function in a manner consistent with the most recent approved climate action plan; consistent with the most recent approved long-term national climate action strategy; consistent with most recent approved national adaptation framework and approval sectoral adaptation plans and consistent with 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. I thank the Senators for their suggested additions and I appreciate the intention of these amendments. However, it is proposed to reject them as the Gas (Amendment) Bill 2023 is a technical Bill that solely provides for the integration of Ervia into GNI and is not the appropriate mechanism to review the functions of GNI in relation to national climate policy.
Amendments Nos. 10 to 14, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 13, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
“(c) in section 10A(3), by the substitution of the following for paragraphs (b) and (c):
“(b) the Commission shall have the power to examine the reasons for making an offer under paragraph (a) and to give appropriate directions with regard to the volume and rate to be offered and with regard to future disconnection decommissioning or repurposing in accordance with carbon budgets, without prejudice to any direction given under subsection (4);
(c) where connection to the facility of the operator is required by the applicant or enhancement of that facility would be necessary to grant the application, an offer made under that subsection—
(i) shall include the terms for such a connection or enhancement including any charges for connection or enhancement, an assessment of greenhouse gas emissions, and details of all
technical aspects relating to the connection or enhancement that might be reasonably required by that person, and
(ii) at the request of the applicant, may be on the basis that the applicant constructs, or that either or both the applicant and the operator make arrangements to have constructed, the connection to the facility, and the ownership of any such connection constructed or arranged to be constructed by the applicant shall, subject to subsection (10), be a matter for agreement between the parties.”,”
I second the amendment.
Amendment No. 10 relates to when new users are offered connection or enhanced connection to the network. The regulator may review offers made in terms of their alignment with the carbon budget and make appropriate directions. Applicants should conduct assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions impact of their connection. The amendment concerns the role of the commission in regulating the granting of access to the gas network. The amendment proposes that the CRU may conduct reviews of reasons for making an offer and make appropriate recommendations realigning with the carbon budgets. The amendment also proposes that when making an application, the terms for connection or enhancement should include an assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions.
Amendment No. 14 proposes where connection or enhancement of the upstream pipeline of the operator is required, an offer made will include the details of the associated greenhouse gas emissions. This grouping is seeking to overcome any potential barriers that would prevent the regulator and the system operator from rejecting an application for connection. On Committee Stage, I outlined the history of the issue, how GNI was receiving applications for islanded data centres because of the electricity grid constraints and the position taken by the Government against this islanded approach in its statement on data centres. We then had the intervention of the Climate Change Advisory Council, which recommended against these islanded data centres and that immediate steps be taken to remove any legislative barriers that may be in place. Initially 11 data centres were seeking connection to the gas grid. Since all of this has happened we have recently heard that there are now a further 25 data centres seeking connection. All of this comes after the Minister wrote to GNI instructing it to not connect any more data centres to the gas grid. I had asked the Minister if legislation was required would we see it forthcoming. We have not, and now we are looking at a situation where we could potentially have upwards of 36 islanded data centres connected to the gas grid.
The writing has been on the wall for four years since October 2022. We called for emergency legislation to prevent this happening. It did not materialise and we are now working on it. This may be a technical Bill, but it gives the Government another opportunity to end the madness of having data centres connecting to the gas grid with no future in terms of getting off the grid and moving on to renewable energy. GNI's justification that biogas should somehow fill the gap does not hold water, as I am sure the Minister of State knows as he is right across this issue. It is only possible to have a mix of gas up to a certain percentage before the infrastructure has to be replaced. The evidence does not backup what GNI is saying about there being some future renewable gas that will connect to these data centres and everything will be okay in the future.
That is just not the case. The science is not there. I ask why the Minister of State is rejecting these amendments unless he will bring forward that emergency legislation to bring this practice to an end.
The implementation of the European directive on common rules for the internal markets in renewable and natural gases and hydrogen is the appropriate legislative vehicle for consideration of the decarbonisation of the gas grid and GNI's role and functions as provided for in the Gas Act 1976, as amended. In particular, the final version of the European gas directive provides for member states to implement measures to phase out natural gas in order to reach the climate neutrality objective set out by the EU, or for other technical reasons. It provides for the development of a clear regulatory framework allowing for the refusal of access and possible disconnection of network users to obtain these policy objectives. Network users can be refused access or be disconnected if this concerns infrastructure that will be decommissioned in line with the network development plans at transition level or if decommissioning is envisaged in line with the provisions of the directive. It also notes that at the same time adequate measures should be undertaken to protect network users in such circumstances. It is important that the refusal of access and disconnection decisions are subject to objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria developed by regulatory authorities.
Another significant development, of which the Senator will be aware, is the publication of the Energy Security in Ireland to 2030 report which outlines a new strategy to ensure energy security in Ireland for this decade while also ensuring a sustainable transition to a carbon-neutral energy system by 2050. Within this package there is a specific action approved by the Government to review gas connection policy and introduce gas demand flexibility measures. Under the Climate Action Plan 2023, the CRU has been assigned as the lead organisation to complete and publish the electricity and demand-side strategy and implementation plan. As part of this the CRU will undertake a review of the processing of new, large energy demand connections to the electricity and gas systems. The aim of this review is to provide a pathway for new large energy user connections to the electricity and gas systems which minimises the impact on national carbon emissions while taking into account the capacity of the system with regard to supply of energy and grid infrastructure.
Given that the proposed amendments are outside of the scope of the Bill, as agreed by the Government, I propose to reject them while acknowledging GNI's current obligations under current and pending legislation.
I feel like a broken record when it comes to islanded data centres because it seems as if we are ignoring the elephant in the room. The recent figures from GNI's ten-year network development plan show an astounding level of data centre connections in the industrial consumer segment of the market while at the same time demand for electricity in the household sector is projected to decline. It once again highlights the imbalance at the heart of current climate action efforts. Households and small businesses are disproportionately burdened by higher prices and are actively reducing their gas consumption while industrial users continue to expand their demand with impunity. The fact that Gas Networks Ireland sees no problem with this is deeply problematic.
We tried to work with the Minister of State in terms of changing the mandate of GNI because while it is a relevant body - the caveat would be insofar as is practical - it seems to think it is not practical to refuse connections to the grid. The Minister has the opportunity to change the legislation to make sure that loophole is closed but is refusing to do so. If we look at what GNI is saying in its forecasting plan, it is the same climate denial technique we see across the board when it comes to the heavy polluting sectors and to expanding the most harmful industries. They are portrayed as beneficial to the plants. We heard from Mark Foley, CEO of EirGrid, that Ireland needs data centres in order to encourage the offshore wind industry to come to Ireland. We hear from GNI that these data centres are in the grid and we will somehow decarbonise the grid later and it will set a market for biomethane and biogases as it will create the demand needed for these industries to flourish. These are the tactics of the climate denial playbook and we hear it from the organisations that are supposed to be responsible for decarbonising our economy.
It is disappointing but we will continue to bang the drum until at some point the Government gets its act together and realises how damaging it is for data centres to be connecting to the gas grid.
These amendments are not outside the scope of the Bill as they are all in order. These are attempts to offer assistance in terms of progressing this and taking action. Rather than looking for reasons these amendments might be dismissed, what we should be hearing from the Minister of State is what urgent actions are being taken.
The CRU did a review four years ago. I know this because I put in a submission. The CRU was given three options then. One of those was to stop escalating the connection of data centres and it chose not to do so. The CRU made a very conscious choice with all of the information and the public consultation. What has since happened is exactly what it was warned about. The CRU and the Government chose not to take substantive measures.
We heard there were initially 11 data centres seeking connection to the gas grid nut now there will be 25. Every time a connection such as that is made there is a potentially huge energy user embedding fossil fuels. It is literally the "stop digging" principle. I will be very clear that we will potentially end this Government's term having dug deeper into fossil fuels and having large energy users connected to fossil fuels, which is what gas is. That is what it will be. That is escalating and there does not seem to be any sense of urgency. There is a kind of laconic, "We will see if the CRU...". The CRU will not do it. It did not do anything when it had the opportunity. The CRU is doing a new review. It told us about it last year.
In the meantime, the same bad decisions are being made again and again and the Minister of State comes into the House and says the Department does not think this is the chance to address it. What we should hear is a Minister and Department angry, or if not angry at least passionate, about the fact that when they signal something is a massive danger to the climate and that action needs to be taken, they are ignored and that they use the tools available to them, including the legislative tools, accept amendments from others or bringing their own, to take serious and speedy action. We should be hearing about what will happen before the summer to ensure we do not have Gas Networks Ireland continuing on the same trajectory it is going on and that we do not find ourselves dug in with more connections, and more fossil fuel, long-term large-scale energy users, and that we do not embed ourselves further into fossil fuels, especially gas which is extraordinarily volatile in terms of price, its impact on the environment and of human rights.
Briefly, our electricity emissions fell by 24% last year in Ireland. This is a significant improvement. We are absolutely committed to reducing emissions from gas and by moving towards 80% of our electricity coming from non-fossil fuel sources by 2030. That is an absolute commitment. There is a legal requirement to cut our emissions by 50% by 2030. There is actual progress being made all of the time.
With regard to deciding who gets a gas connection and who does not in the future, that has to be done within a regulatory framework. That is why the gas directive, which has passed nearly all stages in the EU and is awaiting its final stamp of approval from the Council of Ministers, sets a framework at EU level for how we can decide who gets a gas connection and who does not. Within that framework we will then be able to legislate on who we are connecting to the gas grid and who we are not.
Information about data centres that are connected to the gas grid was the subject of a parliamentary question tabled in the Dáil. It received a detailed answer which I will not read out again which went through how many data centres actually have gas connections and how many do not. Up to now, GNI has not been dividing out those that are so-called "islanded" from those that are using gas by having a gas connection as a backup, which is obviously a natural thing to want to do. Data centres and extra large energy users are not excluded from their obligations.
The extra large energy users consultation that is being done by the CRU is specifically to work out a regulatory framework around which we can decide how large energy users, including data centres, are connected to both the gas grid and the electricity grid.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 13, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
“(c) in section 10A, by the substitution of the following for subsection (4):
“(4) The Commission may, by direction, provide for—
(a) the matters to be specified in an agreement for third party access, including terms and conditions relating to price, greenhouse gas emissions, disconnection, decommissioning or repurposing in accordance with carbon budgets;
(b) the matters to be specified in an agreement for connection to or enhancement of the facility of the operator;
(c) the terms and conditions, including terms and conditions relating to price of the connection or enhancement, upon which an offer for connection to or enhancement of the facility of the operator is made;
(d) the methods for determining the proportion of the costs to be borne by the person making the application for connection to or enhancement of the facility of the operator and to be borne by the operator being costs which are directly or indirectly incurred in carrying out works under an agreement or making an enhancement or connection or modifying an existing connection;
(e) the terms and conditions upon which applications for an agreement are to be made and the period of time within which an offer or refusal pursuant to an application is to be made by the operator;
(f) publication by a storage operator of information on the specific storage facility, or the parts of the storage facility, or the ancillary services to which access is offered;
(g) publication by an operator of information on the access procedure proposed;
(h) any other matters which the Commission considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of making an offer for third party access, or connection to a facility; and
(i) terms and conditions in order to ensure consistency with the State’s carbon budget programme.”,”.
I second the amendment.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 13, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
“(c) in section 10A, by the substitution of the following for subsection (7):
“(7) Subject to subsection (7A), an operator may refuse to enter into an agreement under subsection (2)—
(a) on the basis of a lack of capacity in its facility save where it is economical for the operator to make the necessary enhancements to the capacity of the facility in accordance with such conditions as may be specified by the Commission in a direction made under subsection (4);
(b) on the basis of a lack of connection to that facility save where the person making the request is willing to pay for such a connection in accordance with such conditions as may be specified by the Commission in a direction made under subsection (4);
(c) where, to enter into an agreement under this section would be likely to involve the operator in a contravention or a breach of—
(i) this Act, the Electricity Regulation Act 1999, the Gas (Amendment) Act 2000, or the Gas (Interim) (Regulation) Act 2002,
(ii) regulations made under any of the aforesaid Acts,
(iii) the conditions of any licence granted or consent given to the pipeline operator under this Act or the Gas (Interim) (Regulation) Act 2002,
(iv) the code of operations (within the meaning of section 13 of the Gas (Interim) (Regulation) Act 2002) of the operator, or
(v) a public service obligation imposed on the operator by an order made under section 21(1) of the Gas (Interim) (Regulation) Act 2002;
(d) where the person making the application does not undertake to be bound by the terms of the code of operations of the operator referred to in paragraph (c)(iv) in so far as those terms are applicable to that person; or
(e) where, to enter into an agreement under this section would be likely to involve the breach of the carbon budget programme or sectoral emissions ceilings as made under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021.”,”.
I second the amendment.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 13, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
“(c) in section 10A, by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (7A):
“(7B) The transmission system operator and distribution system operator shall be entitled to refuse connection on the grounds of long-term greenhouse gas emissions or inconsistency with the carbon budget programme or sectoral emissions ceilings as made under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021.”,”.
I second the amendment.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 13, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
“(c) in section 10B(2), by the substitution of the following for paragraph (c):
“(c) where connection to or enhancement of the upstream pipeline of the operator is required by the applicant, an offer made under that subsection—
(i) shall include the terms for such a connection or enhancement, including any charges for connection or enhancement, and details of all technical aspects relating to the connection or enhancement that might be reasonably required by that person,
(ii) shall include details of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the development and operation of that connection or enhancement,
(iii) on request of the applicant, may be on the basis that the applicant constructs, or that either or both the applicant and the upstream pipeline operator make arrangements to have constructed, the connection to the pipeline, and the ownership of any such connection constructed or arranged to be constructed by the applicant shall, subject to subsection (8), be a matter for agreement between the parties,
(iv) the conditions of any licence granted or consent given to the upstream pipeline operator under this Act or under the Gas (Interim) (Regulation) Act 2002,
(v) the conditions of any licence, lease or permit granted to the upstream pipeline operator under the Petroleum and Other Minerals Development Act 1960, or
(vi) the upstream pipeline operator’s code of operations, being a code, approved by the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, in respect of all technical design, operational and other requirements relating to operation of the upstream pipeline in respect of which the holder has been granted a consent by that Minister under section 40(1),”,”.
Is the amendment being seconded?
I second the amendment.
It has been seconded by Senator Higgins. The Senators are all on their data centre phones.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 15, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
“(g) by the insertion of the following section after section 17:
“Reporting
17A. (1) A pipeline operator shall on an annual basis prepare a statement for the approval of the Minister setting out—
(a) areas of the gas network for disconnection, decommissioning or repurposing in accordance with carbon budgets as set out in the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021,
(b) gas supply and demand reduction plans, scenarios and targets in accordance with carbon budgets as set out in the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021, and
(c) conditions on large energy users to facilitate accurate hourly emissions reporting and grid carbon-intensity transparency so as to maximise use of renewables and minimise greenhouse gas emissions.
(2) The Minister may give directions to an upstream pipeline operator from time to time in respect of operations in accordance with carbon budgets as set out in the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021.”.”.
I second the amendment.
This amendment is around the decommissioning of gas pipelines. It proposes that as well as during construction, health and safety measures should be accounted for during disconnection, decommissioning or repurposing. In other words, this amendment emphasises the point that in construction and in use are not the only two states in which a pipe can exist. They can also be disconnected, decommissioned and repurposed. It is important that safety is accounted for as disconnection, decommissioning and repurposing is likely to become more common in line with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and carbon budgets if we are to meet our 2030 targets. Sin é. It is straightforward enough.
This amendment makes proposals on reporting requirements for pipeline operators with regard to decarbonisation and requirements under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021. As previously mentioned, the implementation of the European directive on common rules for the internal markets in renewable and natural gases and hydrogen is a more appropriate legislative vehicle for consideration of the decarbonisation of the gas grid and GNI's role and functions as provided for in the Gas Act 1976, as amended.
Another significant development of which I am sure the Senator is aware is the publication of a report, Energy Security in Ireland to 2030, which outlines a new strategy to outline energy security in Ireland for this decade while ensuring a sustainable transition to a carbon-neutral energy system by 2050. Within this package, there is a specific action approved by the Government to review gas connections policy and introduce gas demand flexibility measures.
Under the Climate Action Plan 2023, the CRU has been assigned as the lead organisation to complete and publish an electricity demand strategy and implementation plan. As part of this, the CRU is undertaking a review of the processing of new large energy connections to the electricity and gas systems. The aim of this review is to provide a pathway for new large energy users, LEUs, for their connections to electricity and gas systems, which minimises the impact on national carbon emissions while taking into account the capacity of the system with regard to the supply of energy on the grid infrastructure. Given that the proposed amendments are outside the scope of the Bill as agreed by the Government, I propose to reject these amendments, while acknowledging GNI's current obligations under current and pending legislation.
What would Senator Boylan like to do with amendment No. 16?
I think I actually spoke to amendment No. 17.
The Senator can reply to what the Minister of State just said on amendment No. 16 if she likes.
Amendment No. 16 is around giving the power to the Minister to issue a direction to upstream pipeline operators as their activities may relate to the climate action plan. It would also force large energy users to report on carbon intensity. My understanding from a reply to a parliamentary question is that LEUs, particularly data centres, are lumped together with oil refineries, which seems a bit bizarre. I wonder whether that is about covering up the fact that we do not have that many oil refineries but we have many data centres and, therefore, they are reporting. Would the Minister of State give a commitment that now that we have so many data centres, maybe we should separate them out so we can see exactly the carbon intensity of the LEUs?
I am happy to provide the Senator with any information I legally can. If she wants to go to my office, I will try to break out any data that I can disaggregate within the law.
Amendment No. 17 in the names of Senators Boylan, Gavan and Warfield arises out of committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 17 to 19, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 15, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
“(g) in section 39A, by the substitution of the following for subsection (5):
“(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4), the Commission may—
(a) attach to a consent given under subsection (1) for the construction by a person of a pipeline, a condition requiring to be observed, as regards the pipeline, specific codes and standards of safety and efficiency regarding the construction of pipelines, disconnections, decommissioning or repurposing, and
(b) by regulations, set out the procedures in relation to the giving of a consent under subsection (1).”.”.
I second the amendment.
As I said, I have spoken to amendment No. 17, which provides that health and safety measures should be accounted for during disconnection, decommissioning or repurposing of pipelines given that in construction and in use are not the only states in which a pipe can exist. Health and safety, therefore, needs to be taken into account.
Amendment No. 19 gives the CRU the power that it "may" rather than "must" refuse consent for the construction of any new distribution or transmission pipeline in a particular geographic area, again, to be consistent with the carbon budget programme and sectoral emissions ceilings. It is worth highlighting the need for both gas demand reduction and emissions reduction. There is a risk that a reference only to decarbonisation or emissions reductions would open up only using green hydrogen and allowing the network to expand. We are all in agreement that green hydrogen is showing great promise in terms of decarbonisation, but we should be using green hydrogen for those difficult-to-decarbonise industries, not ones that could of course be fuelled by renewable energy. As I said, this gives the power to the CRU to refuse consent for the construction of distribution or transmission pipelines.
As already stated, the implementation of the European directive on common rules for the internal markets in renewable and natural gases and hydrogen is a more appropriate legislative vehicle for consideration of the decarbonisation of the gas grid and GNI's role and functions as provided for in the Gas Act 1976, as amended. In particular, the final version of the European gas directive provides for member states to implement measures to phase out natural gas in order to reach the climate-neutrality objectives set out by the EU or for other technical reasons. In other words, over the last couple of years, European countries have together negotiated this gas package and directive, which specifies how we can phase fossil fuel gas out of the gas network, how we can integrate biomethane, hydrogen and other gases into the gas network, how we can decide who should get a connection and who should not, how we can reach our European Fit for 55 objectives in reducing emissions and how we can decommission our gas. As the Senator said, that is also going to be a requirement. Therefore, given that the proposed amendment is outside of the scope of the Bill as agreed by the Government and given that legislation to cover exactly these areas is coming, I propose to reject these amendments, while acknowledging GNI's current obligations under current and pending legislation.
I am not surprised that the amendments will not be accepted. It is a rare occasion that Opposition amendments are accepted in this House. However, I would like the Minister of State to confirm what he said about electricity and the reduction in the emissions. Will he accept that was down to offshoring, as reported by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland? It said that because our emissions were offshored to Britain due to the gas use, we did not actually reduce them on our territory. It was offshoring. That is in the official report.
I will not confirm that because part of the reduction was due to increased imports of electricity from abroad through our interconnectors. It was also due to increased generation of wind power, increased generation of solar power and a reduction in the use of coal.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 15, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
“(g) in section 39A, by the substitution of the following for subsection (6):
“(6) In case the holder of a consent, given under subsection (1), constructs a pipeline, the holder shall take all reasonable measures to reduce gas demand and greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021, to protect the natural environment and to avoid injuring the amenities of the area and, in particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the holder shall while constructing the pipeline take all reasonable steps to prevent injury to any building, site, flora, fauna, feature or other thing which is of particular architectural, historic, archaeological, geological or natural interest, and when selecting the route for the pipeline the holder shall have regard to any representations made to the holder as regards the route of such pipeline by any local authority within whose functional area a proposed route, or any part of such a route would, if the pipeline were constructed, be situate, or any of the following on, in or over whose land such route or part would in such circumstances be situate, namely—
(a) a harbour authority (within the meaning of the Harbours Act 1946),
(b) a company (within the meaning of the Harbours Act 1996),
(c) the Electricity Supply Board or any other electricity undertaker,
(d) Córas Iompair Éireann or any other railway undertaker, or (e) a natural gas undertaking (other than the holder).”.”.
I second the amendment.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 15, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
“(g) in section 39A, by the substitution of the following subsections for subsection (4):
“(4) Where, from the appointed day, the Commission determines that the capacity of existing or proposed distribution or transmission pipelines in a particular geographical area, as specified by the Commission, represents adequate provision for reasonable expectation of demand, or risks inconsistency with the carbon budget programme or sectoral emissions ceiling, it may refuse to give its consent under section 39A(1) of the Gas Act 1976, to the construction of any new distribution or transmission pipeline in that particular area.
(4A) Where the Commission determines that connection to the distribution 7 network risks inconsistency with the carbon budget programme or the revised EU Energy Performance in Buildings Directive or where the Commission determines that zero-carbon energy sources are available in that area, it may refuse to consent to the connection of existing dwelling or dwellings to the distribution system or distribution pipeline.
(4B) The operator shall not propose transmission or distribution pipelines in geographical areas eligible for the development of district heating as specified by the Commission.”.”.
I second the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 24 to 32, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed. Does the Minister of State wish to speak to the amendments?
I am happy not to.
Amendments Nos. 33 to 37, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 19, after line 6, to insert the following:
“Report
22. The Minister shall, not later than 6 months after the passing of this Act, lay a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas that—
(a) outlines the reasons for the failure to publish a full Network Development Plan in 2021 and the dates on which future reports will be published, and
(b) reviews the consistency of the most recent Network Development Plan with the obligations on relevant bodies in the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021.
I second the amendment.
Pursuant to Standing Order 154, it is reported to the Seanad that the committee has amended the Title to the Bill.
When is it proposed to take Fifth Stage?
Now.
Is that agreed? Agreed.