Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)

This is a complex issue. Am I correct that the Minister is not amending the Planning and Development Act 2006 by inserting these provisions and that he is setting out conditions in this legislation? If I am incorrect, does the Gas Act 1976 need to be cited if he is amending separate legislation? I am concerned that if a separate body of legislation is being amended and the 1976 Act is not cited in it, it would be inappropriate.

The amendment proves the people of Rossport and elsewhere in Belmullet correct in that during the planning and development of the Corrib gas pipeline, the terminal building and the pipeline should not have been separated because they are inextricably connected as part of a single development. The manner in which they were separated added to the opposition that developed to everyone's dismay. What has happened in Rossport had done no one any good. It must be incredibly difficult for the local community to cope with what they are going through. The dispute has been a disaster for Shell and it has been bad for the economy and our image abroad. No one has won. The way in which the issue has been handled has also been bad for the Government.

One of the reasons it has gone awry is that the consultation and approval process for the pipeline was rushed in a manner that was not considerate of the local community and that bent over backwards to amend CPO legislation to allow Shell to get what it wanted immediately. That mistake has led to the situation today where 100 people are still protesting outside the site of the terminal building, which the Minister is desperately trying to separate from the pipeline, the original cause of understandable concern for Rossport residents because it will run close to their houses. This epitomises the problem. It was a mistake to separate the terminal and the pipeline and not to consider it as a single, integrated project. Anyone could understand that the pipeline's operation will be controlled by the terminal. If there is an accident on the pipeline, a physical response by management at the terminal will be required.

The legislation attempts to put a distance between the pipeline and the terminal and proposes a new consent process for the pipeline. Like Deputy Durkan, I welcome the work of Peter Cassells and I also welcome Shell's comments that it will examine a new pipeline route. The Minister must devise a consent process for a new route but the amendment proves that damage was done and the pipeline and the terminal building should have been integrated. The remit of the marine licence vetting body, which examined the original pipeline application, was to consider both the pipeline and the terminal. It had to take a holistic approach to the overall project and that is what we are untangling in this legislation, if my assessment is correct.

What will the new consent process involve? Will the Minister outline the timetable, conditions and appeals process and whether consultation will be undertaken with the local community regarding a revised pipeline route? What will be his Department's role? Will oral hearings be held? Will the EPA, An Bord Pleanála, the national infrastructure body or other bodies be involved? Will he outline how the consent process for this specific project, for which are we effectively legislating, will operate?

See this speech in context