Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity to address the House on this matter, which has seen significant developments in recent days. I am delighted with these developments and they offer an opportunity for both sides to move forward.

Over the past three months, I have been endeavouring to create the conditions that would allow this matter to be resolved. During that time, following contact through an intermediary with the five men, I ordered a full safety review of the Corrib onshore upstream pipeline. Subsequent to this, I increased the monitoring and supervision of the project. On 25 August 2005 I appointed Advantica consultants to conduct this safety review and recently I announced a public consultation process, including a two day public hearing in the locality to take place on 12 and 13 October.

Deputies will recall that the Corrib issue was discussed in the House on a number of occasions last week. The Taoiseach commented on the matter during Leaders' Questions and the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher also addressed the House on the issue. I dealt with this matter in some detail at the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. All participants in these debates sought movement on the issue. Following the debates, I contacted both sides in an effort to break the impasse and indicated to them that the Government would appoint a mediator if both sides were willing to participate in a mediation process. I then called on both parties to create the conditions which would allow such a process to commence immediately. I am glad to report to the House that both sides responded positively to my initiative. It is my hope that the progress made to date, along with the appointment of a mediator, will allow all those concerned to participate fully in the public consultation process of the safety review and to work together to resolve the difficulties that have arisen.

The safety review of the onshore upstream gas pipeline will be thorough and comprehensive and will be carried out by independent internationally recognised experts. Advantica, the successful bidder, is a world leader in the development and application of advanced hazard and risk assessment technologies for gas pipelines. This safety review will examine critically all relevant documentation relating to the design, construction and operation of the pipeline and associated facilities. Advantica has been asked to identify deficiencies, if any, with respect to safety and to make recommendations as to how these can be remedied.

People who have views relating to the safety of the pipeline should have the opportunity to have those views considered by Advantica. Views are now being invited from local residents, communities and any interested party. Advantica staff have visited the Corrib site as part of their work and a two-day public hearing will be held in Mayo next week. The hearing will be chaired by John Gallagher S.C. This hearing is an opportunity for everyone who has concerns to clearly express those concerns and to ensure that all safety issues are brought to the attention of Advantica for full consideration.

Some comments have been made that the safety review will not deal with the issue of proximity. This is untrue. No safety review could take place without full consideration of the issue of proximity. It is the issue which has been at the centre of genuine local concerns about the project. Advantica knows it is an issue which has to be dealt with fully and explicitly in its work. Another area of concern for local people is the ongoing safety of the pipeline if it was in place. It has been commented incorrectly that there is no State agency with specific responsibility for onshore upstream pipeline safety. This is quite simply untrue. I have specific powers with respect to the safety of the gas pipelines and I will use all legislative mechanisms available to me to ensure that safety in the installation and operation of such pipelines is being addressed and policed properly.

In order to allay fears, there is a necessity to spell out more clearly the safety regime which will be in place before the first gas flows through the pipelines from the Corrib field. It is my intention, as outlined in the House last July, that a clear regime for the operation and maintenance of the pipeline will be in place. This will be an open and transparent system and will ensure the highest standards of safety will apply. Obviously, if Advantica puts forward any recommendations on these issues in its final report, I will take them fully into account in the preparation of the final consents.

As the House is aware, both sides responded positively to my indication on Thursday last that the Government would appoint a mediator provided both sides were willing to respond positively. The response was positive, the injunction was lifted and the men were released. In consultation with both sides, I am now moving to identify a person or body who might be willing to undertake that work. It is my intention that by this weekend a list of possible mediators will be provided to both sides to establish their acceptability and to see if we can come up with an agreed name. As soon as that process is complete, the mediator will commence the work.

Despite comments reported in the media from sources in the local community, I am satisfied that both sides are now adopting a very positive approach to resolving issues between them. For example, both sides co-operated fully in a visit to the site this morning. At the request of local people, two local people were given access to see the work being carried out by the developers. This is a very helpful development and I thank both sides for their co-operation. I hope we can continue in this constructive manner.

I wish to take this opportunity to deal with the issue of the Corrib gas field in a more general manner. It is important to state clearly the factual and legal basis regarding the gas field. My Department is responsible for the regulatory aspects of petroleum exploration and development. Authorisations were granted for the Corrib gas field under a number of provisions. Under the Continental Shelf Act 1968, authorisation was given for the construction of the sub-sea facilities within the continental shelf designated areas. My predecessor also gave consent for the plan for the development of the field under the Petroleum and Other Minerals Development Act 1960. Under the Gas Act 1976, as amended, consent was given for the construction of a gas pipeline from the gas field through the offshore up to the terminal building. A foreshore licence was also granted under the Foreshore Acts.

In accordance with EU directives, an environmental impact assessment was carried out and an environmental impact statement was submitted with each application for consent or approval. It has been suggested that the terminal be sited offshore. I can only deal with the reality, which is that the proposal made by the developer to my Department was for an on-shore terminal only. This on-shore terminal was considered by the developer to be the most appropriate. I understand that it is now becoming common practice to place terminals on-shore rather than at sea. After consideration of a number of sites of entry for the pipeline, the developers proposed to bring it ashore at Dooncarton in Broadhaven Bay. Their proposal, which has since been approved, was to run the pipeline for 9 km to the terminal site.

That is the factual and legal position. Members of the House and some outside it have sought to broaden the debate to discuss our natural resources policy. I would be delighted to have a debate with the Opposition on this issue. I have previously outlined the three different options available to us to exploit our natural resources. First, we can leave the resources untouched; second, we can choose to spend taxpayer's money on offshore exploration; or, third, we can license the private sector to do so. Is anyone seriously suggesting that we would leave our natural resources in the ground and untouched?

See this speech in context