Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

The amendment is interesting because it addresses a matter that has provided much material for debate during the past year and a half. Our country needs to present itself as a modern, energetic and progressive country capable of developing its resources. Every other country has done so and we do not want to portray ourselves as backwards or ineffective.

As I have often stated outside the House, an appropriate procedure should be available to those with concerns about any project, be it a gas pipeline, pylons or whatever. We have brought other gas pipelines through the country, but there were differences in the means of transport and the condition and quality of the gas transmitted.

The sequence of events is important. If we want to generate public confidence, the sequence of events in terms of planning, consents and environmental impact statements should be the same for every project. There is no sense in saying that we made a slight mistake and will change the project so that it will be where it should have been initially. This would undermine public confidence in the system. In the case of the Corrib gas field, the sequence did not follow the right order. Can we be certain that planning, environmental impact statements and consents will be dealt with in the proper order and processed identically throughout the country in respect of future projects of a similar nature? Will the procedure be laid down to avoid deviation?

I want an assurance that the most rigorous health and safety standards will be applied. There is no sense in re-examining the project after it has started and changing the route. Obviously, nothing is wrong with the project if a change is unnecessary. We do not want to be hostages to fortune. I am not impressed by the way the matter was handled by the Minister, the local authority, An Bord Pleanála and everyone else. We all have the benefit of hindsight, but appropriate and timely action should have been taken in light of the volatile nature of the product and the concerns expressed.

Will the Minister explain which came first, the chicken or the egg? Is the planning application made first and accompanied by an EIS? Do consents arise before planning permission, are they enclosed with the planning application and the EIS or do they arise later? Any application that does not conform to the conditions laid down is invalid. We all have experience in dealing with such matters. If the consents were absent, what would be the application's status?

This section relates to changing part of a proposal, such as the laying of a pipe, a matter that was recently brought to our attention. The section will retrospectively authorise what is happening. While I am not one of the people who will question this measure, I want an assurance about whether this legislation will stand up in terms of its compliance with the planning Acts. Polarised debates have already taken place in this respect. The Minister is making a provision to ensure that there is legislation to support what is happening.

I pay tribute to arbitrators such as Mr. Peter Cassells, who spent a long time doing a difficult job. He is of the highest integrity and we have all held him in high regard for many years. He managed, after a long time, to come up with a compromise solution which was not necessarily received with loud applause and acclamation on all sides. He spent quite an amount of time, energy and effort over at least a year for which we should be grateful because to get somebody of that calibre to do such a job under that kind of pressure is not the easiest thing in the world to do. I compliment him.

I was born in that part of the country and I know the territory well. No doubt we should not pass up the opportunity of a worthwhile investment in the west in an area that has suffered from many years of deprivation in terms of population decline and emigration, particularly where it concerns bringing ashore a natural resource. There are more resources of a similar nature, both onshore and offshore, that we need to develop for security of supply. There is no sense in having a resource and shivering in the cold while we look at it underground or underwater. That would not be of much benefit to the economy and it would make us the laughing stock of the rest of the world.

I appeal to all sides, in the interests of moving the country forward, utilising the natural resource, modernising our economy and recognising that there will be investment in jobs, both in the short term and in the long term although the large investment in jobs might not be long term. If we do not adopt a positive attitude and encourage investment nobody will have any sympathy for us when we are in difficulty.

I hope that all involved will do their utmost to meet the requirements laid down by statute to comply with all health and safety requirements, to ensure that all planning requirements are complied with, and to ensure that this proposal is not unique in the world and the Minister, his Department and the local authority can stand over compliance to the highest possible standard in respect of health and safety requirements. Otherwise, something could and — if Murphy's law prevails — will happen which will leave us seriously in jeopardy and embarrassment at a later stage.

See this speech in context