Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)

The main concern with this Bill is that the objective of streamlining the planning process will mean that controversial projects may be enabled to circumvent the current possibility that ordinary members of the public and communities can mount effective objections. The example that immediately springs to mind is the proposed Corrib gas pipeline. We are all aware of the difficulties which have arisen from this and that it has now been confirmed that not only did the local community at Rossport and other objectors have legitimate concerns that were not properly addressed, but also the project managers were less than honest in their presentations and later flouted the conditions that were imposed, most notably their proceeding with works without having the proper ministerial consents.

The shortcomings of the original process and the appeal by the consortium against the original refusal by An Bord Pleanála have also been highlighted by the fact that further reports had to be conducted into the safety aspects of the project. These are far from satisfactory and amount to no more than an attempt to put a public relations gloss on the determination of a multinational consortium, with the full support of the State, to proceed with a project that faces massive local opposition, but which as the opinion poll in The Irish Times showed, only has the support of 20% of the electorate.

The suspicion that this legislation is designed to facilitate controversial projects such as this is proven by the fact that a strategic infrastructure Bill was discussed by the Taoiseach with the president of Shell following the initial refusal of planning for the pipeline. When my colleague, Deputy Ó Caoláin, raised this with the Taoiseach during Leaders' Questions on 13 October 2003, the Taoiseach confirmed that Shell had specifically asked whether legislation to bring into effect what this Bill proposes would be in place before Shell resubmitted its planning application to An Bord Pleanála. The Taoiseach stated he had informed Shell that it was unlikely that the Bill would be passed prior to the application being heard. However, it is significant that Shell believed this legislation was of such importance to it. The only logical explanation for this belief is that the Corrib consortium was frustrated by the fact its project was subject to at least some open, transparent and democratic adjudication and its wish to bring about a situation whereby projects such as its own project could be fast tracked without the inconvenience of having to undergo public scrutiny.

As Deputy Ó Caoláin noted at the time, "while we all wish to see faster processing of planning applications, we cannot do so by sacrificing the importance of the system in ensuring that the highest standards of safety and health considerations, irrespective of the scale of the proposal". How prescient these words were in light of what we have subsequently witnessed in respect of Shell's open flouting of the existing process and its claims to have conducted independent assessments of risks. How much less transparent and, therefore, potentially more dangerous will be a process in which such decisions are taken with the minimum of democratic and open accountability? It is all very well to claim that objectors to pipelines, incinerators or prisons are selfish people who do not want such projects in their own backyard. They may be guilty of such selfishness in certain cases but we all know from the planning process in our own counties that objections must have substance if they are to succeed. If objections are not legitimate, well and good, but it is surely better that they be permitted to be made and publicly scrutinised than that potentially dangerous projects are fast tracked.

The value of this process can been seen in the Corrib pipeline affair. Had this legislation been in place, it is unlikely there would have been anything like the level of scrutiny witnessed and that the project would now be proceeding. Had it done so without first being rejected and having a spotlight shone on it by the community in Rossport, we may already have witnessed negative consequences. We should imagine what might have happened if Shell had been allowed to place the pipeline along the originally proposed route at Pollathomas where a landslide occurred, which according to experts would have severed the pipeline. As this controversy has gone on, more has emerged as Shell makes minor concessions in order to be allowed to proceed. Hopefully, public pressure will force Shell to also concede in respect of the placing of the pipeline at sea, as proposed by the local community and supported by the majority of respondents to a poll published by The Irish Times.

See this speech in context