Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies. I appreciate their constructive commentary on the importance of getting this Bill signed into law before 19 July. I also appreciate the fact that it is important to discuss the legislation and go through it with a fine-tooth comb. The first question raised by Deputy John Browne was why this is taking so long. Discussions have been ongoing at Commission level in respect of guidance on financial arrangements. That is an important subject in terms of responsibility. Deputy Pringle asked who takes the responsibility and whether it falls on the operators. It has been difficult and it has taken time to tease that out. Obviously, that gives less time for a national parliament. However, I appreciate the points raised.

The three Deputies raised the question of the €3 million imposition. It is a fine. It is important to have a distinction between a fine if proper regulatory management systems are not adhered to or if they are not in accordance with the permit provided on the one hand and other costs on the other. There is a maximum fine of €3 million. Deputy Browne raised the question of environmental damage or repercussions as a result of an accident. The point is addressed in this legislation as well. There is no limit to the costs involved in that case. It is important to make that distinction.

The Commission for Energy Regulation is the national competent authority. In the case of this legislation the framework or infrastructure is based on the 2010 legislation. It is more a question of language change and fitting into the framework that was built in 2010.

The question of first response if an accident happens was raised. That is not a place where we want to be. Let us consider what happened in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. The first responder is actually the Coast Guard. Deputy Browne asked who leads on a mitigation or intervention plan relating to an accident. It is the Coast Guard, which comes under a different Department. Obviously, there is cross-collaborative interaction between local authorities, the Coast Guard and my Department.

I welcome Deputy Colreavy's constructive intervention and the fact that he will not be obstructing the passage of the Bill. I welcome his constructive acknowledgement of what the Government is trying to do in respect of broadband and the associated announcement this morning. I wish to acknowledge his comments in that regard.

Deputy Colreavy remarked that it is not ideal. He raised a broad range of issues, including Corrib. He raised issues on behalf of people who had difficulties during that process. It is important to note that as a result of that process we have learned lessons. We have contingency plans and legislation in place now as a result of the many lessons learned in respect of Corrib. I take Deputy Colreavy's point, but like any good debate or strong and divisive debate, there is passion on both sides. In certain parts of Mayo people say there are parts of the county that never were hit by the recession because of what went on there. It is a divisive argument but numerous important lessons have been learned in terms of framing legislation in recent years.

Deputy Colreavy also mentioned potential. There is potential off the west coast. In geographical terms I always say that we are the fourth largest country in Europe in terms of landmass after Spain, Portugal and France. This gives us an idea of the magnitude of the land territory available to us. The Deputy mentioned a figure of 10 billion barrels of oil out there. However, to date we only have four finds so we have to consider the context of what has been found to date. There is momentum and, prior to the licensing round expiring in mid-September, there has been increased momentum in terms of companies looking for prospecting licences for gas and oil.

I will cover some of the other ground if I get a chance to do so on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context