Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)

Clearly, this is a complex issue. In amendment No. 78 on Committee Stage I sought to bring within the safety remit of SER all aspects of pipelines and refinery installations, given that safety has been the major background issue to the long saga of the Corrib gas field which is entering its eleventh year. On the one hand, the Minister's amendment on the Title and the substantive amendment clearly imply that when the 2006 Planning and Development (Strategy Infrastructure) Act comes into effect there is a possibility that the pipeline changes and even any refinery changes will have to be revisited in terms of planning consents where there has been an EIS. It may happen, but the mere fact that we are discussing this and that the Minister had it as one of his four key points surely implies that the planning process will have to be revisited.

The Corrib gas field story is remarkable, certainly in the history of major planning applications I tried to invigilate for my constituents and the nearby constituencies. In this case a decision by An Bord Pleanála against the gas transport and refinery system made three years ago was effectively revisited resulting in a totally different decision on which the company is finally trying to act, as we see virtually daily on the television news. That, in itself, is a remarkable state of affairs.

We, on the northside of Dublin, have infrastructural developments pending which far dwarf anything that is happening in the Corrib gas field. There is a high-rise city literally rising on the shore of the Irish Sea. At the north of my constituency, there is the vast redevelopment of Dublin Airport, on which An Bord Pleanála recently held hearings. These developments will impact significantly on the daily lives of my constituents in the future. When An Bord Pleanála makes a decision, except on a point of law, we must live with that, but the history of the Corrib gas field has been remarkable in that the issue was revisited and the concerns remain.

Is it possible that there is a plan B in the case of the refinery? Like many other Deputies who represent our parties on energy, I met Shell in recent weeks. The company spoke about its determination to plough ahead over the next three years to bring the gas ashore. This is what we all want. We desperately need it, as the Taoiseach stated this morning. However, in riposte I asked Shell whether, if we were going to go though more disturbances, upset and proceeding without the consent of a significant group of the population, it would be better to fundamentally re-evaluate the current transport and refinery decision. Would it be better to try to come up with a solution with which everybody would be happy so that at long last we could get our gas ashore. It seems a solution might be possible involving an onshore or foreshore solution. Could the 2006 Act, which the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, is developing, and the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey's, attempt to protect existing infrastructural decisions that have been made provide the basis for fast-tracking an agreed decision on the refinery which would enable the project to go forward?

The Minister, Deputy Dempsey, spoke recently on a news programme about Deputy Ring's suggestion, which I made about a year ago, that the Taoiseach, with his famous mediation skills, might employ himself in trying to resolve this problem in north-west Mayo once and for all. The implication of what the Minister stated was that it would be more difficult than the St. Andrews talks and the final settlement in Northern Ireland. Although a remarkable statement, it points out that this problem is intractable, it needs face-to-face talks, and in the interests of the country it needs to be resolved as soon as possible.

Could this legislation, as amended, provide an opportunity? On the other hand, is the Minister stating it is critical to pass this because the current decisions on the pipeline and the refinery must be revisited under the 2006 Act? If that is the case, perhaps we should do so in the context of an agreed solution, which would resolve the dispute and ensure an interim gas supply that would meet 60% of the State's gas requirement for ten years.

Deputy Eamon Ryan may be wrong regarding the State being at the end of a pipeline from Russia one day. As the Taoiseach stated earlier, we may have our own gas supply for many decades, which will provide insurance while renewable energy sources are developed. We are at a critical juncture and the Minister is the man on the bridge. Perhaps he will advise us of the full implications of his amendments and whether they can be used positively to resolve the Corrib impasse.

See this speech in context