Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)

Táimse féin agus tá an Comhaontas Glas síor-bhuíoch de mhuintir Ros Dubhach agus den chúigear fear mar gheall ar an bhfód a sheasamh in aghaidh mí-iompair an Rialtais agus Shell, den chuid is mó, ins an scéal ar fad. Ní raibh suim ag a lán daoine. Ní raibh suim ag na meáin chumarsáide, den chuid is mó, sular cuireadh na fir seo i bpríosún. Ní nach ionadh, bhí ceisteanna a n-ardú ag mo chomhghleacaí, Deputy Eamon Ryan, anseo, agus agamsa agus ag daoine eile le blianta. Dob é an Comhaontas Glas an chéad pháirtí ag an am céanna a chuir an cheist in iúl do na húdaráis pleanála i gceannas ar an píblíne ó Chraughwell go Bellanaboy chomh maith.

This situation, although the Minister incorrectly tries to make it otherwise, is not normal. He talks about the onshore option being increasingly common, as if this was comparable to what happens in other countries. I have been to Rossport and seen that the pipeline route will, in the case of one house, run across the driveway. As Deputy Cowley mentioned, 70 metres is most certainly within a kill zone. It is amazing how this situation has arisen. I am sure we are not going to obtain all the answers today. It is clear, however, that many questions need to be answered. Reference was made to 1992 when the deal was struck behind closed doors, without civil servants being present, between the Minister at the time, Ray Burke, and the exploration companies. An explanation as to how that was allowed to happen without civil servants being present definitely needs to be investigated. It is also important to get answers as to who approached whom. I do not believe that the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, was able to say whether Coillte or the then Minister, Deputy Fahey, approached Enterprise Oil, or whether the exploration company approached Coillte. Apparently there are no records in the Department on that matter. That is the core reason that the House is debating this matter.

Why would a company want to venture nine kilometres into a bogland of its own accord? I believe many questions still need to be resolved before this matter is resolved. When the Minister talks about "both sides", I believe we also need to get clarity on that matter. This is not a so-called game of two halves or two points of view. This is where the Minister, the Department and the State have become players in a three-way debate between the company, the Government and the community. Any mediator must mediate between the three main players involved in this issue. I ask the Minister to recognise that he, on behalf of the Government, is one of these players. He is not a neutral bystander who can sit on the fence and expect the matter to be resolved by putting the local community and the company into the ring.

In so far as we have access to the relevant documentation — discovery is still pending on a significant number of documents — this is another example of legal questions arising with regard to the veracity of documents. The "Dear Brian" letters written by the then Minister of State at the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Fahey, are spoken of as if they are legal documents and, therefore, constitute consent. I have no doubt that a considerable amount of the documentation could be challenged on the basis that it is not based on best legal precedent and is not legally trustworthy or possible to uphold.

The Corrib pipeline is unprecedented. Other onshore terminals are located either on islands or on the coast and certainly do not run nine kilometres across bogland, as is proposed in the case of Bellanaboy. The pipeline was exempted from an oral hearing in questionable circumstances and a compulsory acquisition order was issued by a private company. Giving a private company power to issue such orders has opened up a dangerous precedent for the future.

The Government must recognise that it has got itself into a mess. A safety review and public hearing are under way and a legal process is ongoing before the courts. Whether either process will amount to a final decision is open to question. Alternatively, will the mediation process to which the Minister referred result in a final decision, even if is three-way? The Minister must provide clarity to allow us to see some light at the end of this very murky pipeline.

See this speech in context