Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

No. The officials who are with the Minister would have been fairly well aware of my views of his Department when I served as Minister in another Department. I had many a heated meeting with them during my time as Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs in respect of the community process we put in place in north Mayo. I suggested at the time that if we were really serious about the gas project, it should be discussed at the relevant committee - with all the parties involved - in order that we might develop a comprehensive and agreed approach. It is fair to say that the parties invested a great deal of effort in dealing with this matter.

I compliment the Chairman, Deputy Doyle, the rapporteur and the parties on their significant efforts in preparing this good and comprehensive report. More fundamentally in political terms, all of the parties involved - Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour, Sinn Féin and the representative of the Independents - signed off on it. This was the first instance of coherence in the political spectrum on the issue.

The report is balanced. A great deal of research was conducted. We invited the Norwegian authorities to Ireland. They gave us good advice, much of which we took. The 11 recommendations are simple and should be fully implemented.

Over many years, the Department has created suspicion about what it has been doing. Instead of engaging in long-term, detailed debate like the committee did, the Department has dismissed anyone with a different opinion. I found it difficult just to find out how much of the sedimentary basins that possibly held oil had been licensed. That information is key to any rational debate on oil. I thank the Minister, who provided the answer in Parliamentary Question No. 28 on 18 January 2012. He stated that the total amount of licensed area represented 4.4% of the seabed, or 9.3% of the sedimentary basin, that is, the geologically significant areas for hydrocarbons. This debunks the myth that all of the basin has been sold. Were we to find an Ekofisk tomorrow, 91% would remain for licensing on whatever terms. It is important that I put this point on the record. It was difficult to drag this justification for the loss leader approach out of the Department - one sells at a certain level until one finds oil, then one bumps up the price for the other 90%. It is like a supermarket selling at below cost to get people inside its doors and then making money off of them.

In terms of public confidence, the committee's approach was more rational. We took the Norwegians' advice, in that what is done is done and no retrospective changes should be made to existing terms. As the Minister pointed out, it would be legally possible to change tax terms, but doing so would not be a good idea, as it would undermine confidence. All committee members accepted that stance and it now forms part of the report.

The committee recommended three levels of tax. If a company found a large well or field in its licensed area and hit the jackpot, we would hit the jackpot, too. We would get 80% and the company would get 20%. This is what is done in Norway.

See this speech in context