Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)

I am glad this debate is taking place. This has proven to be a most controversial proposal. It has generated a great deal of debate, information and knowledge and, in some cases, has tended to split communities. The debate has centred on a number of areas, from the issue of natural resources in general to the process by which planning permission was approved for the pipeline from the well head to the landfall and from the landfall to the terminal and the examination process that was undertaken in respect of the terminal itself. The debate has also focused on issues of design and safety with particular reference to the section of pipe from the landfall to the terminal. Environmental issues and planning and safety in respect of the terminal have also been discussed. There is also the question of where we go from here.

I very much regret the manner in which this flagship project has been handled. The local authority, the Government and the Shell company were negligent in their duty. That forced local residents, because of their concerns about design and safety, to protest legitimately. Some of these people eventually found themselves in contempt of court and they served 94 days in prison. I am glad these men have been released back into their communities and families.

I was pleased to an extent that the Government took on board advice about being prepared to fund an international audit of safety in respect of the pipeline, that the company agreed not to do any work until next year on that section of the line and that following advice given by both the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party in terms of the distinction between criminal contempt and civil contempt, the temporary injunction was lifted last week and the five men were allowed to go home.

The Licensing Terms for Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration and Development, delivered by the then Department of Energy in 1992, contain a foreword by the Minister of the day, Robert Molloy. The fundamental point in respect of the Government's policy base decision is that "Since the Government do not consider that direct State involvement in this area of activity is appropriate, the pursuit of their policy objectives requires that competent private sector companies be encouraged to invest in the search for and production of oil and gas in Irish waters."

A number of environmental issues need to be dealt with immediately and they have been referred to by the engineering staff of Shell. They need to be dealt with particularly in regard to work undertaken on the terminal site at Bellanaboy. The Minister should ask Dúchas, or whatever is the appropriate body, for a list of what is required to be dealt with immediately. This list should be furnished to him tomorrow. I am quite sure everybody concerned will be happy to allow the rectification works to be carried out forthwith. The Shell personnel carrying out the works should be supervised to ensure they are carried out strictly in accordance with all the proper environmental guidelines, as laid down and required by law.

Let us consider what natural resources mean and could mean to the country. Bearing in mind that Ireland is in a very different position from Australia, New Zealand or Norway, it is appropriate that Bord Gáis, which I have not heard comment on this issue, should set out its views on the economic advantage to the Irish State, economy, people and industry of the supply from the Corrib field. What is the projected saving arising from our being able to use gas from the Corrib rather than importing it during the next 20 to 25 years, which is the projected lifetime of the field? What is the requirement for gas on a daily, monthly and annual basis, as projected by Bord Gáis? We should hear this because many say the gas affords no advantage at all to the State or its economy.

I have been contacted by at least a dozen major Irish industries that would like to install combined heat and power processors to drive their own generating plants and sell the remaining power into the grid. Bearing in mind the cost bases arising, Ireland has become uncompetitive. We have slipped from fourth to 26th on the competitiveness scale. There are jobs at stake by the thousand in many areas.

It is only appropriate that Bord Gáis should state what it proposes to do about the spur lines, six of which it mentioned when it made a presentation to Mayo County Council a couple of years ago. None of these spur lines has seen the light of day. The Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, who is absent, made commitments in his capacity as Minister at a public meeting in Belmullet to the effect that he would provide moneys from his Department to extend a spur line from Bellanaboy to Belmullet such that the people of Belmullet, the first town, should have the opportunity to avail of the benefits of gas. None of this has happened. We have had no response from the Government or Government agencies on the value of what is supposed to be done.

The ESB has restrictions on production capacity but it is very obvious that in the north west, particularly County Mayo, there is a scarcity of capacity. Why is the Government not now pursuing Rolls-Royce Power Ventures and the other companies that showed an interest in the beginning in providing gas-fired electricity generating stations, one of which was to be sited at Bellacorick, where the peat power plant closed resulting in the loss of over 200 jobs? The serious statement by Rolls-Royce Power Ventures seems to have been put on the long finger. I do not hear any response from the Government about the possibility of providing a gas-fired plant.

I am satisfied that the circumstances surrounding this debate can be focused and concentrated through the work of whatever mediator of sufficient stature is willing to take up this quite complex position. I hope the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, has a measure of success in this regard. I was heartened by a number of interviews given by some of the men from Rossport. They indicated that they want to involve themselves in this debate. The fundamental question that must be asked and answered concerns whether the pipeline is safe. The Minister cannot sign the consent unless he is satisfied that the pipe to go underground is safe and will not compromise, in any way, any person's safety or health. No project, big or small, national or multinational, is worth the loss of one life.

A number of other questions need to be asked. Is treated gas safer than untreated gas? Is untreated gas in a pipe designed to cater for a pressure of 345 bars as safe, less safe or safer than treated gas in Bord Gáis pipes such as those that have been in operation in the country for the past 30 years and those which are currently being laid at great speed from Loughrea through every village and parish on their way to the terminal at Bellanaboy? Will the discussion to take place at the two-day hearing and Advantica's dealing with the issues of safety and design take into account the consequences of a full-bore rupture?

Will the Minister explain the minimum pressure required to bring the product from the reservoir to the terminal? The pipe is designed for a pressure of 345 bars, to operate, it is said, at a maximum of 150 bars, with a normal operating pressure of 120 bars. Can it operate at a pressure of 100 bars or 80 bars? Can it operate with untreated gas at the same pressure or at a lower pressure than that which now obtains in the Bord Gáis pipe? Is it possible to put reducers on the reservoir wellhead and give responsibility to the Environmental Protection Agency or some such body to ensure that the pressure is kept at the minimum operating pressure until the reservoir starts to empty after a number of years? The Minister has responsibility for the pipe. What agency will determine that it is safe at all times, day and night?

Although the Minister amended the Gas Act 1976, the pipeline from the landfall to the terminal should have been part of the transparent, accountable planning process in the first instance. This would have dealt with issues of design, safety and health and would not have resulted in ordinary people being put in fear of their lives because of legitimate fears over these issues. The aforementioned questions need to be asked and answered. Given that the Minister made an authorisation for the pipeline from landfall to terminal not to require a compulsory purchase order or planning permission, is it possible to vary the line of the pipe without its requiring, or its being seen to require, a new application for planning permission?

There are polarised views. People from certain organisations want the platform built at sea on a shallow-water terminal and the gas processed at sea. Many say they have no objection whatsoever to treated gas coming ashore. Others have different points of view. As a representative from County Mayo, I note that the issue has always caused some difficulty in that we did not submit the application for the onshore terminal, nor did we specify its design and features. However, the Government has issued authorisation for a pipeline to be laid from the wellhead to the landfall and the planning and judicial process has led to the granting of permission for a terminal. In the section in between there are 29 land-holders, five of whom have lodged serious objections regarding health and safety.

The mediator will be required to help focus on the next move. I defend the stance taken by my colleague, Deputy Ring, who was a strong advocate of the rights of the people of Rossport long before many others became involved. He has stood up for their rights and asked for the truth to be told. It was not Deputy Ring, the Fine Gael Party nor the Labour Party which applied for the terminal in the first place but we must deal with what we find.

Two elements of the project have been approved by the Government. One was approved by the Minister's predecessor. The middle section is the source of the legitimate concerns about safety expressed by the local people. A two-day hearing, to be chaired by Mr. John Gallagher, will not be sufficient as it will not be possible to answer a range of questions in the short term. The Minister may be required to give considerably more time to allow for answers to be given to these questions.

I am somewhat concerned that while the Shell Corporation in Ireland is comprised of two units, Irish Shell and Shell E&P, when Shell Corporation decided to sell its Irish entity to an equity group, the regulations governing the rights and benefits of 150 employees working in Dublin in the areas of finance, administration, sales and product development seemed to be changed. Some have been employed by Shell for a considerable period. As this will be a share option and a share sale rather than a transfer of undertaking, the rights and benefits of these employees seem to have suddenly changed. A full Labour Court hearing will deal with this matter which should be taken into account by the Minister.

A major proposal such as this should have been dealt with differently by the Government. The entire community in the western region would have welcomed a major project if it had been handled with sensitivity, greater consideration and courtesy and greater awareness of the potential impact for good on the county, the region and the country as a whole. It has been a long road which has caused great stress and pressure for local families and communities have been divided. I hope that in this period of relative calm, under whomever is appointed as mediator, everybody concerned will enter into direct discussions about their legitimate fears for health and safety. When the safety audit is concluded, the Minister will be faced with the ultimate question. Taking into account his own words about the safety and concerns of local people, will he be sufficiently happy with the design and scale of the pipeline to sign the consent on behalf of the Government? If he is not satisfied, he cannot sign. I assume he will be required to make a statement on his intentions should that arise.

See this speech in context