Beverley Flynn (Mayo, Independent)

I also welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. First and foremost, I welcome the release of the five men from Rossport who spent 94 days in jail. It was a terrible tragedy that their families and communities were deprived of their company for that period. We in this House must ensure that is never repeated.

Throughout the course of the 94 days, Shell stated that it was impossible legally for it to lift the injunction and yet eventually that is exactly what it did. I suppose the question arising is why it took so long.

While I welcome the Minister's announcement to introduce a mediator, and also the fact that he received a positive response from both sides, it was not exactly a new suggestion because when we debated this matter in the House at the end of June he suggested that he would be prepared to appoint a mediator. It is a shame that, unfortunately, 94 days passed before we could get some agreement on that particular matter and before the men could be released from jail.

I welcome the Minister's announcement regarding the safety review on the pipeline, which is obviously central to this matter, and the decision on mediation. There are many questions about this project which must be answered. The issues fall into three categories. First, there is the local issue of the safety of the pipeline, which is of concern to the immediate community of Rossport, to the people of north Mayo and, indeed, to the wider community of Mayo, and which was central in terms of the jailing of the five men. The issue of gas supply to the region, which is a regional issue, is the second matter which really needs to be examined. The third issue, which is of national import, is the return to the Exchequer which has been mentioned here by all of my colleagues today. Each of these issues must be dealt with individually.

Starting with the local issue of the safety of the pipeline first, last week at the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources I put a number of questions to the Minister about the pipeline and the purchase of the site from Coillte for this terminal. I note in his response today he stated that he can only deal with the proposal that was put to him by the developer but, in fact, he was obliged to consider the suitability of that site because it was nine kilometres inland and, as he correctly stated earlier and at the committee last week, he has the ministerial power to examine the ongoing safety of the pipeline. Central to that was the location for the terminal building. Any lay person would imagine that such a facility would be close to the shoreline, would be a shallow water platform or might be on an offshore island. This was one of the points put forward by the Shell to Sea campaign in one of its comments in the national newspapers. It is a question that has not been addressed properly, whether or not alternative sites were considered because of the safety aspect of bringing a pipeline nine kilometres inland. It is a question that must be dealt with under the Advantica assessment, which will take place in the near future.

At last week's committee meeting I asked the Minister a question and I thought he might have addressed it today. On the sale of the site, he mentioned that Coillte has a responsibility to bring any decision to sell a site before its board and that a proper evaluation of the site would be carried out. However, at the committee I asked the Minister whether Coillte had breached its own guidelines in the sale of that site by not going to public tender. While we in this House all know that guidelines are not necessarily legally binding, they do set out what is the most desirable procedure for the sale of the site in the first instance and this matter must still be addressed at this stage.

Many local safety issues, particularly the proximity of the pipeline to the houses of the individuals concerned, arose at the committee meeting. We all noted from the Minister's reply at the committee last week that the Johnston report states that the minimum distance from any house would be 70 metres. I asked him from where that standard came, a question which remains unanswered. It does not comply with BS 8010 or the new equivalent, PD 8010. From where did that standard come? I welcome the fact that the Minister stated clearly this evening that this issue will be dealt with seriously under the safety review. It does not seem to fall under any particular standard and most people would be anxious to know from where that particular standard came in the first instance.

The second matter I mentioned is the regional issue, the question of what exactly are the benefits to the people of Mayo. This is an important question for them. Deputy Carty and the other Members present stated that, at the outset, everyone from County Mayo welcomed the development of the Corrib gas field. We welcomed it for one reason only, which was that we perceived that there would be benefits to the people of our county arising from this find off our shoreline. We did not welcome it because County Mayo would be used as some vehicle to transport the gas off our shoreline, through our county, to the benefit of other people, either in Ireland or in other countries, wherever this gas will ultimately be used. I suppose in one sense it was perhaps selfish but we in County Mayo believe we have a right to derive some benefit from a find arising off our shoreline. At the committee I asked the Minister what will be the benefit for us. I did so with serious intent because it has been asked, I can assure him, by all of the people of County Mayo. I was disappointed with the glibness of the Minister's response. I say this, with respect, because I want him to realise that this is important. I asked him would he direct Bord Gáis, or provide a PSO, so that spur lines might come off the infrastructure, which is currently being laid the length and breadth of the county. While there is the situation in Rossport, literally every village in County Mayo has a pipeline going through it that is being laid by Bord Gáis. Is the Government prepared to issue a PSO to ensure that the people of County Mayo derive benefit through gas connections for our major towns? That is a serious question. When I asked about the matter at the committee, the Minister stated that whatever the chance we have if the Corrib field is developed, we have no chance whatsoever if it is not. That does not address the question or give it the seriousness I believe it deserves. It is an important issue. It was much touted at the outset of this project that there would be a benefit to the people of Mayo. Last week at the committee the Minister articulated the benefits in terms of jobs and perceived industrial development that might follow but that will only happen if the towns in County Mayo are connected to this supply.

The third issue, which has been articulated by most Members, is the national issue. The latter is the benefit that the State derives from our natural resources, particularly from the licensing of this gas field. While the Minister explained the three various options in this article of 8 September 2005 in The Irish Times, at the committee last week and here again today, the reality is that the people of Ireland find it difficult to understand why we are not getting any benefit from this natural resource which is off our shoreline. He mentioned that we cannot invest €20 million to develop a single well. He mentioned at the committee that there were 121 wells drilled off our shores but only four commercial developments of those have been successful. The Corrib field, in itself, consists of five wells, all of which are commercially viable. He mentioned earlier — he also stated this in his article in The Irish Times— that if conditions in the country improve, he will not hesitate to renegotiate the terms for the benefit of the Irish people. However, I am alarmed to hear him state that this would be where a situation similar to the North Sea, where there are 7,000 productive wells, might arise. Surely he is not suggesting that there must be several thousand productive wells off our shores before the State can renegotiate a more beneficial deal for the people of Ireland. It is clear to everybody that we will have to purchase the gas at the going commercial rate and I am sure the 25% increase in the price of gas in the past week has not gone unnoticed.

All of these matters contribute to the fact that the people of Ireland, and particularly those in Mayo, want to know what benefit is in this project for us. We are not anti-development in any way. In fact, we are pro-development. We are pro-development provided that the safety of our people is guaranteed and also provided that there is something beneficial in it to the county and the country at the end of the day.

I urge the Minister to take these issues on board. Every citizen in County Mayo and throughout the country has asked for this during the past 94 days. If there is one thing the jailing of these men has achieved, it is that it has crystallised many of the issues for the people. It is no harm that they have been brought into the public domain. The people are much more knowledgeable today than they were three months ago with regard to concerns about our natural resources. I ask the Minister to address these concerns.

See this speech in context