Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)

I seek clarification from the Minister on a proposed new section of the Bill. The civil servants from the Department provided Deputies with very helpful notes on these amendments because they were introduced so late in the process. One of the notes on the proposed new section 7 states that:

these sections also provide a common sense safeguard against unnecessary delays or duplication of effort by developers which could potentially have an economic cost for the country as a whole. Specifically, these sections provide that where approval of the strategic gas infrastructure is already in place, it will definitely not be necessary for a developer to revisit the entire planning process for a gas processing terminal, should an alteration or modification of a pipeline, which forms a part of the overall infrastructure, become necessary.

Does this hold out the possibility that re-routing the pipeline or relocation of the terminal could be fast tracked in a way which would provide a solution to some of the difficulties to which Deputy Cowley referred? Would it enable us to finally find a way out of this impasse?

I recently received a detailed letter from Mr. Andy Pyle of Shell, as I am sure did other party spokespersons. In that letter he quotes from an opinion poll carried out in Mayo concerning the current development. On the issue of recommencing work on the project, 18% were "not in favour" and 12% were "not in favour at all". Thus, a total of 30% of those polled were unhappy about the recommencement in the context of the lack of an overall settlement. This information is coming from the managing director of Shell in Ireland, although he does not tell us which company conducted the poll. Nevertheless, he provides figures in his letter, in black and white, which indicate that a considerable number of people still have grave reservations about the pipeline route and the refinery. Mr. Pyle also stresses the potential for business development in the area and refers to the 700 jobs which would come on stream from early 2007. He refers to the 90 people currently working on the terminal site, 65 of whom are from Erris. Obviously jobs in the north-west of Mayo are very important and Mr. Pyle puts the case very strongly for going ahead, over the next 12 to 18 months, with a new pipeline route and building the terminal. However, he admits that a considerable number of people in County Mayo still have grave reservations about the project.

In that context, I seek clarification on the proposed new section 7. While my party is generally opposed to rushing through infrastructural developments against the democratic wishes of the people, in this instance, is there any way it could play a helpful role in resolving the matter? If, for example, there was a significant change to the current plan, could that be accommodated quickly within the planning process and the guidelines of the 2006 Act, as amended by this Act?

See this speech in context