Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)

I have always favoured the bringing ashore of the Corrib gas field product, but on the basis that it should be done in accordance with the highest possible standards and without infringing people's rights. Five constituents of mine, and of other Deputies, from Rossport are in jail today because of contempt of court. This House cannot do anything about it unless they purge their contempt by indicating to the court that they will not obstruct the oil company. They are not prepared to do so because they have legitimate fears concerning health and safety. Is the Minister prepared to intervene to appoint an intermediary to discuss this matter with the persons involved, or their representatives, and Shell, Mayo County Council and relevant State agencies? The matter will not be sorted out if it is left as it is. The depth of conviction of the five constituents is such that they are quite prepared to stay in jail, and be joined by others if necessary.

Is there a difference of opinion between the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the High Court? I understand the judge indicated that Shell, while it does not have consent to lay the pipe, is entitled to do so, but that if it is not laid in accordance with the proper conditions it might have to be dug up. Is there a difference of opinion in law and in fact regarding the company's right to do what it is doing, given that it has not received signed consent from the Minister? Was it a case of marking the wayleave for the pipe? Had the company authorisation, without the Minister's consent, to do what it has done?

Most important, is the pipeline safe? The Minister stated in a recent reply to Deputies that he would see to it that all public safety issues related to the operation of the pipeline would be addressed prior to its commissioning. Either the pipeline is safe or it is not. Is there evidence from other places in the world where a similar incident has occurred to suggest that such a pipeline is safe? Can the Minister give a categoric assurance to the House that the pipeline in Rossport, which is to carry untreated gas at such pressure, is safe?

Will the Minister undertake to release the two assessments that were carried out, one of which is already available and the other of which is to be published in a few days? If the imprisoned Rossport residents decide to purge their contempt and be released, is the Minister prepared to ensure, from direct discussions with the company, that it will not take any further action regarding the pipeline from the seapoint to the terminal until such time as all the issues regarding health and safety risks are clarified?

There is some concern about the compounds that were provided close to the terminal, as raised by Deputy Ring. Did they require planning permission? This is a straight question and deserves a clear answer.

The five men who have been imprisoned will not come out of jail unless their legitimate fears about health and safety are addressed. It requires political intervention on the part of the Minister to appoint an intermediary or mediator who can discuss all the relevant matters rationally with all the agencies and interests involved and arrive at a solution.

I was struck by the Minister's indication that it is possible the prisoners could be released very shortly. The judge said yesterday they cannot be released unless they purge their contempt. They are not prepared to do so unless these matters are addressed thoroughly. Herein lies the Minister's constitutional and political responsibility. Will he address the points I have raised in his reply?

See this speech in context