Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)

This Bill aims to put in place a statutory overview of health and safety on oil and gas exploration projects, including the Corrib pipeline in Mayo. It would be naive to divorce the legislation from its overall context - the broader issues surrounding the bringing on shore of gas from the Corrib field. During this long running controversy, serious questions have been asked about the manner in which the project has been managed by the main company involved, Shell, and by the State. We recall the imprisonment of five men from Rossport in 2005, as a consequence of their courageous opposition to the manner in which the concerns of the local community were ignored and the pipeline forced on the locality. They have been vindicated on the specific issue of the safety of the pipeline in proximity to their homes. Last year, An Bord Pleanála ordered the company to reroute the pipeline away from houses because it posed an unacceptable risk. It is unfortunate that it took so long to come to such a logical conclusion. Those who rightly protested against the route that was originally proposed were treated badly by the company. The State deployed massive resources to try to break the protest and encouraged a malicious propaganda campaign against the local protestors and their supporters in Mayo and throughout the country. We need to know whether, and how soon, Shell will be able to comply with the conditions that have been set out. It will have to ensure the pipeline runs entirely under Sruwaddacon Bay, something it previously claimed would be impractical and too expensive. Thankfully, An Bord Pleanála saw fit to place the interests of the local community in this instance, backed by international best practice on the routing of potentially dangerous pipelines, above the interests of a powerful multinational. Until then, Shell appeared to be able to ensure it got its way on all matters related to the project. It must submit its new plan this month which will become the subject of a publicly-held inquiry.

That does not mean the issue has been resolved. There continues to be opposition to the project on several grounds. Two weeks ago, we saw the imprisonment of local fisherman Pat O'Donnell for seven months for his involvement in protests against the threat which the project presents to his livelihood and that of other local fishermen. I personally know Pat O'Donnell, a lobster fisherman, who fought to protect his livelihood for which he is now paying a huge price. He would not allow himself to compromised by the multinationals.

That the Rossport protestors have been vindicated calls into question the manner in which they were vilified by the political establishment and the media. They were called either Provos, anarchists, communists, Greens - before the Green Party changed its mind on this, along with so many other matters of principle — or some strange Mayo mixture of the above. That campaign continued with the recent TV3 documentary by Paul Williams which raked over many of the old smears. Of course, Mr. Williams's being the guest of Shell at the Ireland-England rugby match in Croke Park in 2007 was merely a happy coincidence. Likewise, the regular attacks on campaigners by people writing for the Independent News and Media newspaper group has nothing to do with the fact the outcome of the Corrib issue will have a direct impact on the fortunes of Providence Resources involved in the Dunquin gas field off Kerry, a company owned by Tony O'Reilly.

The project also continues to be subject to the easy terms under which the licence was granted. As it stands under existing taxation and royalties terms, the State will gain little in revenue once the gas comes on-stream in comparison to the revenue earned in other countries where multinational companies have been licensed to develop offshore energy resources. The reason behind this is down to two key decisions: one made by a former energy Minister, Ray Burke, in 1987 to abolish royalties and the State's 50% share in any natural resources; the other made by Deputy Bertie Ahern when Minister for Finance in 1992 to reduce the tax rate on oil and gas profits from 50% to 25%. Even the latter is illusory, however, as companies can write off costs before having to declare, meaning no tax will be paid for many years after the gas comes ashore.

As for the claim the Corrib project should be allowed to proceed on the current revenue terms given the importance of securing our energy supply in a volatile world market, the licence terms actually allow the company to export it rather than supply the domestic market. Nor is there any mechanism whereby the State can ensure gas supply costs to domestic and commercial users would be controlled.

The potential value of our offshore oil and gas resources is enormous. The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources recently estimated it at €450 billion. This is a huge figure given the current economic climate in which massive cuts in public provision have been made. It should also be considered in the longer term as a potential engine for sustained indigenous economic development and growth.

The key word, however, is "potential", given that most of what lies off our shores has not yet been developed to the stage of it being available to be brought onshore and to supply the type of injection needed. The argument on the part of the companies and the State is that the costs involved and the difficulties of exploration and extraction are so enormous the figures mean little. However, international experience suggests that once deposits have been identified and licences granted, that they will be extracted. It is, therefore, important to decide how best they ought to be exploited and developed. From the State's perspective, it must centre on what share of the dividend accrues to it and to the population through revenue, royalties and its potential direct share in the oil and gas itself.

It will be argued the State is in no position to impose better terms on the exploration companies, particularly in the current economic climate as it relates to energy supply. Again, international experience suggests a radical approach is possible. While the companies may complain, they would be happy to go along with changed terms, given that even a reduced share on their part still ensures huge profits.

Over the past several years countries like Russia, Bolivia and Venezuela have imposed new terms on the multinationals. They have even taken full or part State control of their natural energy resources without provoking the kind of crisis predicted and threatened by the exploration companies. The oil companies have long been content to pay high rates of tax in Norway where one of the Corrib partners, Statoil, is majority owned by the Norwegian State. In fact, Norway stands to benefit more than Ireland from the Corrib gas being brought on-line. It is proof too that proper state involvement in oil and gas does not require full nationalisation but is compatible with private companies being involved on improved terms.

That the oil and gas are natural resources lying off our coast puts them in a different category from companies coming here to become involved in manufacturing. No Government would allow a multinational agribusiness corporation to buy up hundreds of thousands of acres of land to export live cattle but not pay tax on their profits. That would rightly be seen as a reversion to the old landlord system.

The Irish revolution, as set down in the 1916 Proclamation and the Democratic Programme, recognised limits to the right to private property where the resources, sovereignty and welfare of the people could be at stake. It is on that basis the State should approach the question of our oil and gas reserves.

Any moves towards strengthening the safety aspects of exploration works must be welcomed. However, we must look at the broader context that it is not enough to ensure communities and workers are protected from possible harm but that the exploration sector is brought under proper public supervision so that any gas and oil that comes on-stream benefits the people and economy.

See this speech in context