Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)

The Deputy, as a sensible man, knows it is not feasible.

With regard to sitting down face to face, Shell gave its word it would not go onto the site for 18 months and it left the site for 18 months to try to facilitate the safety review, which was carried out by an independent organisation recognised by everybody except the Shell to Sea campaign as being independent and one of the top organisations for pipeline safety and gas safety. That organisation produced its report, gave its clearance and made its recommendations, all of which were accepted by the company, the Government, the Department and the technical advisory group in the Department, but not by Shell to Sea.

As Deputy Durkan noted, we then appointed a very decent man, well recognised for his conciliation and mediation capabilities and with no agendas. He is not even of the same political party as myself, and while I admit he is from the same county, that would not bias him one way or the other. He spent the best part of six or seven months speaking to people in the area and listening carefully to their views. Although he had no problem from a safety perspective he suggested, in order to meet the concerns of local people, that the pipeline should be moved. He made a number of other suggestions, all of which were accepted by the Government, Shell and all reasonable people, including people in the local community. Again, we got a "no" from Shell to Sea.

Deputy Cowley referred to a brilliant new initiative which Deputy Broughan stated he had put forward 12 months ago, and to which I responded by requesting and getting the approval of the Shell to Sea campaign with regard to the list of mediators. It approved that list and stated it had no difficulty with any of the mediators before I appointed Peter Cassells. He went to Mayo and agreed the terms of reference with Shell to Sea, the only thing Shell to Sea has agreed to in all of this. The terms of reference outlined by Peter Cassells were that the parties would sit down in face-to-face talks. Each party could begin with its position and nobody needed to compromise that position. Mr. Cassells would chair the talks to try to reach some kind of agreement. However, the Shell to Sea campaign refused to meet face to face with Shell.

Let us call a spade a spade. If people were interested in resolving this issue, it could have been resolved a long time ago but some people are not interested in reaching any kind of a resolution, despite having numerous opportunities to do so.

Local people have genuine concerns and fears which one can never fully overcome. I would not want to diminish those fears or suggest they are not real in some cases. However, I am satisfied that all of the safety issues have been addressed and that there is no need for concerns, although I fully accept they would continue to have such concerns. It is similar to a case where people are worried about living beside telephone masts, landfills or otherwise. People even have safety concerns about living close to gas pipelines that run under streets throughout the country.

In regard to the amendments they covered a large number of the issues we dealt with. Deputy Durkan made the point that part of the difficulty in this case was that set plans and procedures did not appear to be in place and that in future set plans and a clear sequencing of procedures should be in place to ensure people know exactly what is happening. There was a sequencing of procedures in this case, but I must accept the Deputy's point. As some six Acts had to be complied with, I accept that the sequencing was disparate in that sense. The Foreshore Acts, the Continental Shelf Act, the Gas Acts and so on had to be complied with and I accept the Deputy's point in that respect.

A point was raised by Deputies Durkan, Seán Ryan and Broughan regarding a change to the pipeline. If there was a new application elsewhere in regard to a pipeline, it would be dealt with under section 182(c) of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act. It places obligations on An Bord Pleanála which are quite explicit and clear. They would also be clear to members of the public or a prospective developer. In response to a question raised by Deputy Seán Ryan, there are extensive rights to public participation in that process, which is outlined in section 182(c) of that Act. It allows for public and democratic participation.

With reference to points made by a number of Deputies, what we are proposing is not to retrospectively give approval or anything else that has happened in Bellanaboy in regard to the pipeline. It is merely to ensure that because of a technicality or a flaw in the critical infrastructure Act that when it is commenced people who already have permissions and consents will not have to go through the same procedure. It applies to transmission lines and it could apply to some of the other developments that might require an EIA. Therefore, what we are proposing is not to retrospectively approve anything that has happened. In the case where permission was granted to, say, the ESB for a transmission line on which work has not commenced, there is a possibility, I do not want to put it any stronger than that. Given the way the Act is worded, when it is commenced a case could be made that would mean all the consents granted previously for such a transmission line might have to be obtained again, and that is what we are trying to avoid in this legislation. It is not providing for retrospective sanction.

In regard to the technical query raised by Deputy Seán Ryan, the amendment is not being inserted into the planning Acts. His interpretation was correct in that respect. The amendment is part of this Bill. The 1976 Gas Act is defined under section 2 of this Bill. That covers the technical point raised by the Deputy.

I hope I have clarified other queries raised by Deputies Seán Ryan and Broughan regarding consents and what we are doing in this legislation as opposed to what they thought we might be doing.

See this speech in context