Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)

Sinn Féin supports the motion and its intent. While most people are aware of the concerns of the Rossport community in regard to the health and safety aspects of the Corrib project, few are aware of the wider issues surrounding mineral exploration. This motion addresses those issues and suggests solutions. They are broadly the same as those proposed by my party in the past and remain the core of our policy on this country's natural mineral resources. The main issue for the people of Rossport is the safety of the pipeline, but those involved in the campaign have also voiced their views on how the Corrib field might be developed to the benefit of both the local community and the Irish people as a whole, rather than in the interests of the companies that currently hold the licences.

It was interesting that while the men were held in prison last summer, not only were people angry over the reasons they were being held, but they were genuinely astounded by the terms and conditions governing the exploitation of our oil and gas reserves. They could not believe that the State offers the lowest tax rate on oil and gas profits in the world or that the tax can be written off. Nor could they believe that the State does not take royalties. The frontier licence scheme effectively hands over control to whatever company is issued with the licence for a particular exploration block.

When people were told this they were understandably annoyed. When they were further informed of whom some of the key characters involved in framing the terms were, they were even more upset. That is the reason I have on several occasions called for a full investigation of the issuing of licences and changes made to tax and royalties regulations for the benefit of the exploration companies. One of the ways this might have been done was to expand the remit of the Flood tribunal to examine the role of the discredited former energy Minister, Ray Burke, in this sorry affair.

Whenever I or others have raised the terms and conditions that govern the exploration sector, we have been told that the giveaway terms are necessary to entice the multinationals to drill oil wells to take control of the "potential" vast reserves that lie off our coast. I use the word "potential" because the truth is that no-one, except, perhaps the companies that have conducted exploratory drills, knows what is out there. I can speak from personal experience as I worked on oil rigs for a while and know of the secrecy surrounding tests where a find or traces of a find are made.

It is of vital importance that there is a State body to oversee the sector and to ensure that we are not completely dependent on the multinationals. It is not the case that as a result of the State taking a proactive role or of increasing the tax take and imposing royalties none of the exploration companies would be interested in becoming involved. It is clear from the experience of other countries that increasing the role of the state does not have a detrimental effect.

Norway is a good example of a state that has followed a very different route to that of this state. So successful has Norway's approach been that it has enabled that country to enjoy an unprecedented period of economic growth and prosperity, one that has funded substantial social spending. It has also enabled Norway to resist the temptation to join the EU. Thus, it has managed to retain considerable national sovereignty over its economy, not least its natural resources. The experience of the Norwegian fisheries in contrast to the decimation of the Irish sector under the Common Fisheries Policy is another case in point. We are all acutely aware of the detrimental effect of that policy on our coastal communities.

A few facts will illustrate the potential benefits of implementing proper public supervision of the exploration sector. Since the discovery of the first oil find at Ekofisk in 1969, the industry has brought hundreds of billions of euro into the Norwegian economy. Currently, the industry brings in approximately €30 billion per year, and in 2004 accounted for 21% of GDP.

Due to the role of the state, through the state company Statoil, and through direct and indirect taxes a high proportion of the value created from the sector goes into the public purse. In 2004, the state's net cash flow from the petroleum sector amounted to 28% of its total revenue. Since 1969, net revenues to the state have amounted to approximately €700 billion in current terms.

When we consider that the Corrib field has been estimated to be worth up to €21 billion, we can see the potential benefits if a similar regime was applied in this State. We would be talking of more than €10 billion from Corrib alone, not to mention the Kinsale field or the possibility that oil and gas will also be brought ashore at other locations. Imagine how far that would go in solving some of the problems this Government claims it does not have the money to solve. If we utilised properly the resources we have available through exploration and developed a proper tax and royalty system, many of the social problems of the State could be alleviated by the moneys generated.

It is also significant that it was a Norwegian company Hydro that made the first oil find at Ekofisk in 1969. Although there are non-Norwegian companies involved no Norwegian Government of any political colour has ever believed that such an important natural and national resource ought to be handed over in the shameful manner that has been done here. Nor have there been any serious ideological objections to the central role of Statoil nor any campaigns by other than the lunatic right wing fringe — the Nordic equivalent of the Progressive Democrats one might say — to sell off this valuable asset to friends as, no doubt, the Progressive Democrats would do. At least in Norway, the friends in question would probably be Norwegians rather than from Texas or Royal Dutch Shell.

I will briefly refer to the reports released this afternoon by the Minister on the safety aspects of the Corrib pipeline. As Dr. Mark Garavan has already stated, the reports do not address the central concerns of those who object to the pipeline and who demand that the process takes place off shore. No doubt the Shell consortium will attempt to use the reports to justify recommencing work on the pipeline. As long as this does not have the support of the people of north Mayo whose concerns have not yet been addressed, this will be a grave error on its part.

The people of north Mayo are not satisfied that their safety concerns have been met. They will resist any attempt to impose on them a pipeline that puts their lives and those of future generations in jeopardy. I commend them on the courage they have shown and the role they have taken in standing up to multinationals. They are ordinary people from rural Ireland who were shamefully abandoned by the system and the State. They had to go to prison to show the country and the world that they would not be walked over by Shell oil or anybody else. I commend them for that. I have no doubt they will continue to stand up against any impositions on them as a result of this report.

I urge the Minister to take into consideration what I have said, particularly with regard to our natural resources and their shameful sell-off to multinationals by a person in Government of very questionable character. That person should be investigated as to why he allowed our natural resources to be sold off — given away for nothing — without benefit to the people.

See this speech in context