Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will call on the Deputies who tabled questions to the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources in the order in which they submitted their questions to my office.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question : To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources in view of the jailing of five citizens by the High Court yesterday, if he will intervene to seek a resolution of the dispute between Shell and local residents in north Mayo, possibly through the urgent appointment of an independent arbitrator; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I hope the Minister will intervene immediately with an urgent inquiry to find out what caused the jailing of five people from Rossport, County Mayo.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy can only pose the question as submitted.

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They have been in mortal fear of their lives due to the imposition of the potentially lethal gas pipeline.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is out of order.

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question : To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources in view of the jailing of five innocent people from Rossport, County Mayo, what action he will take in the dispute with Shell.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am at a disadvantage as I do not have the exact text. Will the Minister publish the original QRA for the project and provide complete public access to all the information regarding the health and safety aspects of this scheme?

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is again completely out of order. Deputies must quote the question that is tabled to the office.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I apologise.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would like to raise a matter of urgent national importance, namely, the jailing of five innocent land owners from Rossport and the surrounding areas who were objecting to the proposed gas pipeline on health and safety grounds. They are trying to protect their land, families and livelihood.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is departing from the text submitted to the office.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is what my text contains. There were two alternative ways to bring in the gas pipeline. One was stopped to save Shell money and the other was stopped for environmental reasons.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is out of order.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Why is it that a British company gets an injunction to jail five innocent men? This project has been supported by the county council, the Government and all the resources of the State were put behind this project.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not in order to vary the questions.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question : To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources in view of the imprisonment of five persons from County Mayo for contempt of court, to appoint an intermediary to discuss the outstanding issues that require clarification in regard to the laying of a pipeline from the Corrib gasfield to a Shell terminal at Ballinaboy, Rossport, County Mayo; that such clarification require that the documentation regarding the risk assessment of the pipeline in question be published, due to legitimate health and safety questions about the level of gas pressure in the pipe; that clarification also be provided by Mayo County Council regarding planning permission for storage compounds and traffic management in the area; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Beverley Flynn (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to intervene personally in the current crisis that has arisen in north Mayo, where five residents of Erris have been jailed because of their opposition to the routing of the Shell pipeline in north Mayo for safety reasons. This represents an unacceptable situation.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is again departing from the text. I call on Deputy Joe Higgins.

Beverley Flynn (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As the Dáil will rise tomorrow for the summer recess, there is an obligation on all public representatives to work together to secure the release of the five men.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is out of order in departing from the question.

Beverley Flynn (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not departing from the question. My question was submitted in hand writing. I add that you did not call Deputies in the order in which they submitted their questions.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is a limited time for these matters. I call Deputy Joe Higgins.

Beverley Flynn (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am making the point that you did not call us in the order in which we submitted our questions.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of order, the staff of the House changed the content of what was submitted. How can we be expected to know what they have put down? What I submitted was what I read out, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, but you did not give me an opportunity to finish it. You had better check that with the staff of the House.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

You are wasting time.

Beverley Flynn (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of order, I support Deputy Ring. The text of my question, which I submitted in my own handwriting, was also altered.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The office reserves that right.

Beverley Flynn (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

You did not call people in the order in which they submitted their questions. While I appreciate that you are not responsible, you should bring it to the attention of the Ceann Comhairle.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is not in order.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question : To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if he will make a statement on the imprisonment of five Mayo residents at the behest of the Shell corporation.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question : To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to carry out an immediate review of the circumstances surrounding the laying of a gas pipe in County Mayo which has led to the imprisonment of a number of local residents; if, having regard to the decision of the High Court, he will initiate discussions between the oil company concerned and local residents with a view to achieving an amicable resolution to the issues which have led to the current unacceptable circumstances which have ended with the incarceration of local residents; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question : To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources what steps he is taking to find a resolution to the impasse involving the intolerable and unacceptable circumstances whereby five County Mayo residents are in prison arising from their genuine health and safety concerns about the laying of a pipeline by Shell at Bellanaboy, County Mayo.

John Carty (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question : To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the steps he will take to achieve a settlement relating to the Shell proposed gas line at Rossport, County Mayo, which will lead to the release of five persons from prison.

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputies for tabling their questions and providing me with the opportunity to address the matter in the House. I am deeply concerned by the recent turn of events. It is a matter of great regret to me as well as to the Deputies that five persons have been committed to prison by the High Court. I share the Deputies' wish to see the matter resolved as quickly as possible. Deputies will not, however, expect me to intervene in a decision of the High Court, which must be allowed to act independently. The last person who did so was a Minister of State who found himself out of a job very quickly.

The best way to achieve a quick resolution of the matter in question is through constructive dialogue between the company and the representatives of the people concerned. Both parties must be willing to approach the difficulties with an open mind. I am aware that efforts are being made by the company, the Council of the West and Deputies who are present in the House to resolve the issues which have arisen. I share the hope that the process will result in a settlement that is acceptable to both sides. The fact that 11 Private Notice Questions have been submitted on the issue reflects the genuine concern of Members on all sides of the House to ensure the matter is resolved.

It might be helpful to outline for the House the circumstances of the Corrib gas field development in so far as my Department is concerned. The Department is responsible for the regulatory aspects of petroleum exploration and development. In the case of the Corrib gas field, authorisations were granted by the Department under a number of provisions. Under the Continental Shelf Act 1968, authorisation was given for the construction of the offshore installation within the continental shelf designated areas on 15 April 2002 by my predecessor. My predecessor also gave consent on 15 April 2002 for the plan for the development of the field under the Petroleum and Other Minerals Development Act 1960. Under the Gas Act 1976, as amended, consent was given on 15 April 2002 for the construction of a gas pipeline from the gas field through the offshore up to the terminal building. Under the Foreshore Act 1933, as amended, a foreshore licence was granted on 17 May 2002.

In accordance with EU directives, an environmental impact assessment statement was submitted with each application for consent or approval. In addition, my predecessor made 35 compulsory acquisition orders of rights over land — I stress that they were rights over land — and one compulsory purchase order of land under section 32 of the Gas Act, as amended. The purpose of the orders was to allow the developers to use certain privately-owned lands for the construction of a pipeline from the gas field up to the proposed terminal building in Bellanaboy, which is 7 km inshore. The consents and approvals granted by my predecessors are extant and the compulsory acquisition orders remain valid.

The consent to construct a pipeline of 15 April 2002 under the Gas Act 1976 was subject to a number of conditions, among which was the requirement to seek approval to install and commission the Corrib gas pipeline. The developer's application for consent to install and commission the pipeline is being carried out in seven phases from the subsea to the terminal. The process commenced in 2002. Consents to install and commission have been issued for phases 1 and 2, the preparatory work of phase 3 and for phase 6. The Department is finalising its decision on the onshore pipeline, which is the remaining element of phase 3, and evaluating the company's application to install and commission the offshore pipeline, which is phase 4. The remaining phases 5 and 7 will be dealt with in 2006 and 2007.

The current dispute between the objectors and the developers relates to the onshore pipeline, which is the remainder of phase 3. There are some objections to the granting of acquisition orders for way leaves by the then Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources over certain lands to permit the installation of the pipeline. As part of its submission for consent to install and commission the onshore pipeline, the developers were required to submit a quantified risk assessment which addressed, among other things, potential risks to the public along the pipeline route. Since the onshore pipeline application was submitted to the Department in 2002, two independent assessments have been carried out on the quantified risk assessment. The pipeline design code was also assessed.

The consultant who evaluated the onshore pipeline design code indicated that it had been selected in accordance with best public safety considerations. He indicated that, subject to compliance with conditions laid down by the Minister in his approval, the design was generally in accordance with best national and international industry practice. The quantified risk assessment has been put into the public domain. One of the assessments of it is already in the public domain while the second will be published in the next few days. The overall finding of the quantified risk assessment that the prediction of risk to the public from the operation of the onshore section of the Corrib gas pipeline conforms to international criteria is supported by the latest report I have received. The plan of development approval, including the consent to construct a pipeline, took account of safety matters. It also incorporates the permits-licences to be issued by other regulatory authorities. To this end, I draw Deputies attention to the following.

The plan of development approval was given subject to a number of conditions. Condition No. 3 stipulates:

Approval by me for First Gas (commencement of Commercial production operations will be subject to amongst other things the receipt of a Letter(s) of Acceptance for all Corrib installations, pipelines and associated engineering infrastructure from an auditor to be appointed by my Department indicating that 3rd Party Independent Verification has been carried out and completed satisfactorily in relation to the development.

In addition, the planning process takes due account of all safety aspects, including public safety, in its determination. In this regard I draw Deputies' attention to condition No. 15 of An Bord Pleanála's planning decision, which stipulates that:

Before the commissioning of the gas terminal, the developer shall submit to the planning authority a certified Safety Audit in relation to the installation of the combined upstream pipeline and terminal elements of the development within the planning application site, and the agreement of the planning authority shall be received.

The Safety Audit shall be prepared and certified by an independent qualified and competent person or body. Such body or person, and the precise form of the Safety Audit, which shall include Qualitative and Quantitative Risk Analysis of the specified combined components, shall be agreed with the planning authority.

The Safety Audit shall also be submitted to the Health and Safety Authority and the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources at the same time as it is submitted to the planning authority.

Thus the House will appreciate the concern of local residents in regard to the operation of the pipeline following commissioning and first gas. The comprehensive approval regime put in place by my predecessor envisages conditions in regard to the ongoing operation of the pipeline over the period of its life. I will ensure that an appropriate independent auditing and monitoring regime will be installed prior to any gas passing through the pipeline. This will ensure that best safety practices for the operation of the pipeline will be in place to my satisfaction. I intend to approach the design of such an independent regime on an open and consultative basis. I will ensure the concerns of local residents are taken fully into account in the design of such an independent auditing and monitoring regime and I will make a statement to the House in this regard when appropriate.

Two assessments have been carried out on the QRA, one of which is already in the public domain and the second will be published in the next few days. The overall finding of the QRA is that the prediction of risk to the public from the operation of the onshore section of the Corrib gas pipeline conforms to international criteria. The latest report on the QRA supports this conclusion.

I hope the current efforts being made by Members in the House and by others outside will resolve the issues amicably and that the people who are in jail will be released very shortly.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I remind the House that this matter concludes at 5 p.m. Eleven Deputies have submitted questions and I hope to accommodate them all but I can only do so if Members are extremely brief in their supplementaries, no more than two minutes, to give the Minister ample time to reply.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Minister agree that it is extremely regrettable and disgraceful that James Brendan Philbin, Willie Corduff, Micheál Ó Seighin and Philip and Vincent McGrath are in Cloverhill Prison tonight over this matter? The legal advice the Labour Party has obtained is that the contempt of court relates to a civil rather than a criminal matter. Would the Minister be prepared to ask the Shell oil company to waive its rights in this regard to ensure that these five people are released while the work of our colleagues in the Council for the West and other bodies continues? Would the Minister prefer to take a proactive role in getting these citizens out of jail and preventing other citizens going to jail?

I am sure colleagues will have questions on the quantified risk assessment. Is it not outrageous that the review was carried out by a company owned by Shell and BP? In other words, there was a clear conflict of interest. The Minister told me on 15 June that he was carrying out a review of the safety aspects of the pipeline. This has not yet been completed and the Minister cannot tell us anything this evening. Undoubtedly, the safety aspect of the pipeline is far outside the technical design scale. The Minister has a responsibility to bring forward this review and make it public as soon as possible.

The Minister said this pipeline is unique in the world because it is going through a populated area. For that reason, he has a clear responsibility to ensure the safety of these people in prison, their families and the people they represent in north Mayo. Is it not a fact that the rights of way legislation which only applied to public sector companies was changed by a predecessor of the Minister? The former Minister, Deputy Fahey, said that in the national interest he was allowing the construction of this pipeline by a private multinational company. Was that not an outrageous decision to make in regard to a private enterprise operation which gravely affects many families?

Will the Minister take a proactive role and appoint an arbitrator to liaise with local people, interested local representatives and other bodies to try to resolve this matter and to get these people home as soon as possible?

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister referred to talks, but talk is cheap. I would not hold out much hope for these talks. The fundamental issue is that these people are in jail because of the situation that has developed. Their lives are in peril. How will talks sort this out? The Minister is the one with ultimate responsibility for this situation. Shell obtained planning permission without going through the same regime as I or anybody else would have to go through. It got carte blanche.

The Minister is the only one who can sort this out. He must intervene and stop Shell from obtaining any more consents and make sure a safe system is in place. A pipeline attached to an offshore terminal would be much safer. This is the responsibility of the Minister. The QRA is based on the work of JP Kenny, which is the company that did the original work on the pipeline which was initiated by Enterprise Energy, formerly Enterprise Oil, that was taken over by Shell. How can the QRA be independent when the company that carried it out was 50% owned by Shell? The information was flawed from the beginning, so how can it be independent? Those people are in jail because they do not feel safe. What the Minister has said will not make any difference.

An investigation must be carried out into how companies can collude with Shell and the Government to get around the planning laws. The deals done in 1987 and 1992 were sweetheart deals that gave the oil companies a 25% tax rate which they can write off against all their operations in Ireland. There is a need for an independent oil inspectorate. We need answers but we are not getting them. Those people are languishing in jail purely because of fear. Talk will not solve the problem. The Minister is the only one who can solve it. He can do so by refusing any more consents and by insisting the gas is brought onshore in a safe way.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The issue here is whether it is safe to have a pipe with highly pressurised untreated gas up to 340 bar with a heavy moisture content going across land that in some cases has up to 10 m of bog. Effectively, a bog of that depth is a watery body which would mean the pipe would be a floating one in a watery body. It is not just an ordinary 80 bar gas pipeline that Bord Gáis might run, but one with a very high pressure at certain locations with impurities and other materials in it that would be potentially hazardous to people or houses in the vicinity if they were to escape. That is the issue of concern.

We have been concerned about this for a significant period. In two years of examining this matter, I have yet to get a straight answer that it will be safe and that a bog movement of some kind would not endanger such a pipeline and put people in the vicinity at risk. The former Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources stated that the pipeline met international codes, yet in his reply to a question on 8 July 2004 stated that there were no international design codes dealing with gas pipelines in peat bogs. Is that not one of the problems? In response to a question asked by me on 7 July 2004, he stated: "When the final application to install the onshore pipeline for phase 3 is received, the issue of deep peat soil will be examined along with all other matters such as design, trench depth and compliance with conditions attaching to pipeline consent of 15 April 2002". I have yet to see this analysis or to have any credible analysis presented to me.

The Minister stated today that the original quantified risk assessment has been published. Is he referring to the Andrew Johnson report of 28 March last? It presented some very serious caveats and concerns about the project and described the pipeline as very unusual. The former Minister issued consent therefore barely a couple of weeks after the issuing of the report during one of his last days in office.

The Minister specified that all the relevant public documents have been presented. If so, and if I have them in my possession, I am still uncertain about the safety of the pipeline. This is what concerns the residents and what has them in their current difficulties. The Minister, therefore, should be absolutely open and take the side of the people in ensuring the pipeline is safe rather than that of the developers in ensuring it proceeds as quickly as possible.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to make a number of points to the Minister. There are 500 people in Rossport. A number of people who were working for Shell and associated companies have walked away from the pipeline project today in support of the people who have been jailed. My first priority concerns the influence of the Department, including the Minister, on Shell. By God, it has a great influence on Shell because the door was always open for the company whenever it wanted to walk in, particularly under the previous Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern. Can the whole project be reassessed by way of an independent inquiry into the behaviour of the Department regarding the planning process, the way in which the door was opened for Shell and the way the residents of Rossport and the surrounding areas have been treated?

Why has the Minister not released the first risk assessment report? Before further consent is issued to Shell, that report and all other relevant reports should be released and the people should be allowed sufficient time to examine and discuss them.

On phase 3 of the pipeline project, will the Minister confirm whether Shell has his consent to continue with its work or is it breaking the law? Under what planning legislation did he give the company permission to build sheds, huts and other developments at Rossport without going through the planning process? How is the company allowed to do this?

Will the Minister consider seriously an independent evaluation of the project and consider other ways of bringing in the gas rather than by upsetting, disturbing and destroying the lives of people who did not ask for the pipeline to come by their doors and who did not want it to do so? There are now five innocent people in jail — five citizens of this State — who have been let down by the Minister, his predecessor and the rest of the Government because the door was open for a multinational company. By God, I am sure the tent will be also open at the Galway races in two weeks.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have always favoured the bringing ashore of the Corrib gas field product, but on the basis that it should be done in accordance with the highest possible standards and without infringing people's rights. Five constituents of mine, and of other Deputies, from Rossport are in jail today because of contempt of court. This House cannot do anything about it unless they purge their contempt by indicating to the court that they will not obstruct the oil company. They are not prepared to do so because they have legitimate fears concerning health and safety. Is the Minister prepared to intervene to appoint an intermediary to discuss this matter with the persons involved, or their representatives, and Shell, Mayo County Council and relevant State agencies? The matter will not be sorted out if it is left as it is. The depth of conviction of the five constituents is such that they are quite prepared to stay in jail, and be joined by others if necessary.

Is there a difference of opinion between the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the High Court? I understand the judge indicated that Shell, while it does not have consent to lay the pipe, is entitled to do so, but that if it is not laid in accordance with the proper conditions it might have to be dug up. Is there a difference of opinion in law and in fact regarding the company's right to do what it is doing, given that it has not received signed consent from the Minister? Was it a case of marking the wayleave for the pipe? Had the company authorisation, without the Minister's consent, to do what it has done?

Most important, is the pipeline safe? The Minister stated in a recent reply to Deputies that he would see to it that all public safety issues related to the operation of the pipeline would be addressed prior to its commissioning. Either the pipeline is safe or it is not. Is there evidence from other places in the world where a similar incident has occurred to suggest that such a pipeline is safe? Can the Minister give a categoric assurance to the House that the pipeline in Rossport, which is to carry untreated gas at such pressure, is safe?

Will the Minister undertake to release the two assessments that were carried out, one of which is already available and the other of which is to be published in a few days? If the imprisoned Rossport residents decide to purge their contempt and be released, is the Minister prepared to ensure, from direct discussions with the company, that it will not take any further action regarding the pipeline from the seapoint to the terminal until such time as all the issues regarding health and safety risks are clarified?

There is some concern about the compounds that were provided close to the terminal, as raised by Deputy Ring. Did they require planning permission? This is a straight question and deserves a clear answer.

The five men who have been imprisoned will not come out of jail unless their legitimate fears about health and safety are addressed. It requires political intervention on the part of the Minister to appoint an intermediary or mediator who can discuss all the relevant matters rationally with all the agencies and interests involved and arrive at a solution.

I was struck by the Minister's indication that it is possible the prisoners could be released very shortly. The judge said yesterday they cannot be released unless they purge their contempt. They are not prepared to do so unless these matters are addressed thoroughly. Herein lies the Minister's constitutional and political responsibility. Will he address the points I have raised in his reply?

Beverley Flynn (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The first point the Minister made is correct, that is, a resolution to this dispute can only be achieved through negotiation. However, as long as the five men are in jail, there will be no negotiation. The local people of Rossport are not prepared to negotiate without them. An opportunity must be created by the Minister to facilitate talks. The jailings have created tension throughout County Mayo and are regarded as very unfair. The heavy hand of the law has been wielded against ordinary, decent family men. This does not help to advance the project for Shell and it is keeping men from their families. The Department cannot remain remote because, as the Minister correctly stated, he most definitely does have a role to play, particularly with regard to giving consent. Perhaps the Minister would provide clarity because there seems to be some confusion among local people. Does the consent allow for Shell to go in and peg out the way leave for the laying of the pipe? Is it correct to state that consent for the laying of the pipe has not yet been granted? The Minister must consider the matter very carefully before he advances any further on the issue of consent, particularly in light of the present situation.

The Minister mentioned that the QRA is in the public domain, but that is not correct. It is not in the public domain because the Minister's Department will not allow it. It has asked for the QRA not to be published at the present time until all consents are available. However, as the Minister told the House, all consents have not been granted at this time.

It is proposed not to odorise the gas in the pipeline from the well-head to the terminal. When it passes by these people's houses, it will do so without any odour. Bord Gáis usually odorises gas so that leaks can be detected. Can this concern be simply rectified? Will the Minister consider the matter?

The position will escalate and more people will be available to go to jail. There will be no movement whatsoever on the project unless the Minister takes matters into his own hands. We do not want him to interfere with the High Court decision, but he can create an environment in negotiation with Shell and the local community for this matter to be resolved. The men should be able to purge their contempt without any loss of face. Why should they lose face? They have done nothing wrong except try to defend their own interests and resolve safety fears. There is no need for anybody to lose face if the Minister creates the environment to make negotiations possible.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Minister confirm that there is no barrier to him asking Shell to pull back from confrontation and lay off until the issues are fully discussed and resolved? Does he not find it extraordinary that the High Court is giving every benefit to a major corporation over the small people of Mayo? Is it not incredible that a full hearing of the issues of concern to the people of Mayo will be heard in the autumn, probably in October? In the meantime, the company is allowed to proceed and put everything in place with the like-minded reminder from the High Court that the pipes will have to be taken out again if the decision goes against Shell. Is it not incredible that the courts take this view before the Minister has given his consent and before the most recent risk assessment report is put into the public domain? The High Court has given every benefit to Shell at the expense of the small people, which is what happened when the Minister's colleague wanted to publish a report into exploitation at Gama. In that instance, the courts would not allow it to be published until the substantial hearing was held thus once more facilitating a powerful company.

Why is Shell so bullish and confident that it will get its pipelines come what may? Has it been secretly assured by the Minister, his predecessor, the Government or Fianna Fáil that it will get its gas in the way it wants regardless of the genuine fears and concerns of decent local people? Has the Government not fallen over itself on every occasion to facilitate the company? It is a terrible scandal for a Government to give an entire gas field to multi-national corporations without a penny in royalties for the Irish people.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Like other speakers, I would like the Minister to take a personal interest in the situation. Regardless of what has happened in the past, he must now confirm that all health and safety regulations are being complied with in full and that state of the art technology is being used to ensure that safety measurements are taken in accordance with the law and well above the required tolerance.

Is the Minister prepared to intercede with a view to Shell suspending operations for a short period to facilitate negotiations in which the Minister and others can play a part with a view to identifying some kind of common ground? Purging of contempt is the only way to comply with the court order. However, as Deputy Kenny pointed out, that cannot happen in this case because the people now in prison strongly believe they are correct in their views. The object of the exercise now is to ascertain the extent to which the Minister can ensure that reason will prevail. A short time must be given in which to enter into negotiations that might result in an accommodation to enable the men in prison purge their contempt.

I have experience of this type of situation and am conscious of the points raised by several other Deputies. The current situation is intolerable. Regard must always be given to the rights of the individuals who live and work in any area when a development is taking place. It is possible to grant permission to allow developments to take place but it must be done against the backdrop of the rights and entitlements of people who live and work in the area.

Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister said he would like to facilitate constructive dialogue. What is he specifically doing about the matter? We need dialogue and negotiation because the situation is escalating. The Minister is the one with direct responsibility so what is he doing to facilitate dialogue?

Is the second QRA based on the work done by JP Kenny? If so, will the Minister insist that a totally independent QRA is commissioned before he gives his full and final consent?

Does the Minister accept that people have genuine concerns which have not been fully and properly addressed? He spoke of the prediction of risk to the public and that it conforms to international criteria. What does that mean exactly? If the pipeline is unique, to use the Minister's words, and if the location of bogland adds to that uniqueness, what international criteria are we speaking of?

What is Shell mandated to do at this time? What is it not allowed to do? I understand that it can mark way leaves and routes but not any excavation. Why is Shell pursuing the matter at this time if it does not have full consent? When does the Minister propose to make a final decision regarding the onshore pipeline? The Minister mentioned the work of the Council for the West. I reject the criticism of the council, which, on a voluntary basis, is making a quiet, sincere and genuine effort to try to resolve this very difficult situation.

Will the Minister ask Shell to temporarily waive its rights in this situation, allow the men out of jail and ask the company not to proceed until a full and completely independent assessment is carried out?

John Carty (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will be brief because of time constraints. I appeal to the Minister to use whatever means he has at his disposal to get the men out of jail and begin negotiations with Shell. This action is vital. I support gas being brought ashore but not at any cost to the people of the area. The Minister should seek a worthy solution to the problem in the next day or so.

Like Deputy Harkin, I compliment the Council for the West for doing a good and quiet job in getting negotiations under way.

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputies for their contributions. I realise they would have prepared questions prior to hearing the speech.

A lot of the matters raised by Deputies were dealt with in my speech but I will try, in the limited time available, to touch on some of the points of particular concern.

I reject the suggestion from one or two Deputies that Shell has any more access to me, the Department or to ——

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What about Ray Burke?

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The processes ——

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Let us not forget Des O'Malley and Tara Mines.

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If Deputies want me to answer the questions they have raised, I will, but if they want to heckle me, I will not. It is as simple as that. I am over time as it is, so the Deputies either want to hear answers or they do not.

Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no Standing Order limit on the time for reply, especially for such an important issue.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That has been agreed.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This business would normally conclude on Thursday at 4.45 p.m. but it was agreed to give an extra 15 minutes.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is an exceptional matter and I am quite sure the House would agree to allow the Minister to have ten or 15 minutes to reply.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Chair has sole discretion in these matters.

Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no time limit under Standing Orders.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Would the Minister agree to stay on in the circumstances?

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I suggest we amend the orders of the House or if the Minister is agreeable, he should be given the time to reply.

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If the Deputies stayed quiet and let me give the answers, I would be able to do so quite quickly. However, if they want to heckle and throw insults across the House, I do not think——

Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If the Minister tells the truth, there will be no heckling.

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not going to be of help to anybody and it is certainly not in the interests of the five men in jail that Deputies want to try to get cheap political shots in instead of trying to resolve the issue. If we could work on trying to resolve the issue, it would be very helpful for everybody.

Deputies raised the issue of the QRA and why it is not available. The QRA, version F, which is the one we are operating on, is in the public domain on the Department's website. There were quite a number of questions on whether the pipeline is safe and rightly so, given the safety concerns raised by the families directly involved. I can only judge this issue by the reports and the expert advice that I receive. I am not an engineer, no more than most of the Deputies who spoke. All the advice I have is that the pipeline conforms to international standards and criteria and that the risks are within the normal international criteria. That is the information I have and that is the basis on which I must act. I cannot act in an arbitrary manner in relation to the matter.

Some Deputies raised a specific question, the answer to which might be helpful in providing the breathing space that is required in this situation. The basic question was whether Shell has permission to lay the pipeline at this time. It has not got the consent to do that. It has the consent, as Deputies have indicated, to mark out proposed routes and so forth, but it does not have the consent to lay the pipeline immediately. It cannot enter the lands to lay the pipeline at present.

Regarding the allegation that Shell has been allowed to ignore planning rules and procedures, I outlined earlier the various consents that the company had to get before proceeding. It had to get the plan of development approval, the pipeline consent to construct, the foreshore licence and consents under the Continental Shelf Act 1968. Those consents date back some time, in one case to 1968, and the company had to comply with each one. That is the procedure we agreed in this House for the construction of pipelines. To my knowledge, Shell has complied with all of those consents so far.

Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What about the sheds?

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is a question around planning permission. It is a matter for the local authority to decide. If any of the Deputies feel that Shell is in breach of any planning rules or regulations, that it is a matter to be taken up with the local authority.

On the allegation that the company is colluding with the Government, that is just cheap political point scoring that will not get any of us anywhere.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It proved to be true in the past and we might say the same again in the future.

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Ring is very good at playing to the Gallery and ——

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am concerned because I saw what went on in the past and I saw the pressure I came under——

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Everything is very simple for Deputy Ring — whatever way the wind is blowing, follow it and do not attempt to have any type of rational approach.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister will not have to worry about the wind. He will not be smelling gas in County Meath because he will be in his State car.

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have answered the points raised by Deputy Ring regarding planning and consents. The Department was not any more open to Shell than any other company.

Deputy Kenny asked whether the Department is in dispute with the High Court. To my knowledge, it is not and I am not going to get into a position where I am in dispute with the High Court. Deputy Kenny's question is probably answered by my response regarding whether the company has consent to lay the pipeline. I believe that was Deputy Kenny's point and the company has not got consent to do that yet.

I have dealt with the question of planning.

Beverley Flynn (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What about gas odorization?

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The issue of odorizing the gas is one I will raise with Shell. I know from the point of view——

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What about the first QRA? Has that been published?

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Minister answer that question?

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am attempting to answer the questions as best I can, in the order in which they were posed. Regarding the suggestion made by Deputy Flynn, I will raise that with Shell and officials. I am not sure if something can be done about that during the process of giving future consents. I am not sure if it is covered in that.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What is the situation with the first QRA?

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask Deputy Ryan to remain silent and allow the Minister to reply.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister has not answered my question.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Ryan got his opportunity to speak and I ask him to resume his seat and allow the Minister——

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy's question has not been answered.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I urge the Minister not to be deflected by interruptions.

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is very difficult. In relation to the review of QRA, version F——

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I asked about the original one.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If Deputy Ryan is not satisfied to listen to the Minister, we will move on to the next business because we are already over time. If he wants to continue interrupting, we will move on.

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The second assessment of QRA, version F, is in the Department and in response to Deputy Broughan, I will publish it within the next few days. The concern of all Deputies in raising this matter is to try to resolve the current difficulties. I have a particular role regarding the consents and in essence, I am a regulator in this area, so I am precluded in terms of how I might intervene in the dispute. Efforts being made by the Deputies themselves and by the Council for the West should be given every opportunity to succeed. I understand dialogue is taking place. I am prepared, if it is of any benefit and if nothing comes of that dialogue, to nominate an intermediary. However, there is not much point in appointing an intermediary if either side is going to adopt an attitude that nothing is going to change or if the parties decide not to listen to one another. That would be a futile exercise. I hope and urge those involved, including the Council for the West, to try to reach some compromise. If all fails on that front——

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister should call in Shell and tell it to back off.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Allow the Minister to continue without interruption.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government will not offend Shell.

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——I will suggest an independent person of good standing who might be willing to undertake the job.

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will there be an investigation?

Beverley Flynn (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

How long will it be before the intermediary is appointed? How long will the Minister take to consider it?

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am giving the Council for the West the opportunity of trying to resolve it.

Beverley Flynn (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister is a member of the Government.