Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 86: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if an inquiry into the proposed Corrib gas pipeline development will examine every aspect of the project and if all departmental minutes regarding the project will be made available. [28332/05]

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

I may have been guilty of unparliamentary language towards Deputy Broughan earlier when I suggested he might shut up and let me answer the question. If so, I apologise to the Deputy.

I presume the review to which the Deputy refers is the health and safety review of the Corrib onshore upstream gas pipeline. On 25 August I appointed Advantica consultants to conduct that review, which will critically examine all relevant documentation relating to the design, construction and operation of the onshore upstream section of the Corrib gas pipeline and associated facilities. It will also identify any deficiencies of whatever kind relating to these matters and make recommendations regarding them. This review is currently under way. It includes a public consultation process and a two-day public hearing in the locality, which commenced this morning. It is my intention to continue the current practice of making all appropriate material relating to the Corrib project available on my Department's website.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for his reply. Does the Minister agree it is vital that the entire project be placed under review and that all relevant minutes of meetings which took place between the Department officials and Shell should be released into the public domain? This should include details of a meeting which took place between the Taoiseach and Tom Botts of Shell on 19 September 2003.

Will there be full disclosure of the procedures under which Bellanaboy Wood was transferred to Shell for use for the proposed refinery? Is the Minister aware of a reply to a question asked by Bairbre de Brúin at the European Commission? The European Commission has stated:

Projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment and that would require an environment impact assessment under EU directives should not be split into sub-projects so that each of them taken individually is determined not to have significant environmental effects and thus escape the obligation set out in the directive.

Does the Minister agree that the Corrib project is an amalgamation of sub-projects, thus avoiding an environmental impact assessment? Would the Minister agree to a full and transparent inquiry being held on all aspects, including health and safety matters as well as the licensing terms, so that they too should be subject to the review?

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

No, I would not. This project went through a series of consents, licences and so on — planning foreshore Acts, continental shelf Acts and a variety of others. It was judged under all those headings and got the necessary consents and licences in accordance with law. Accordingly I do not agree that the entire project should be reviewed and revised and that we should go back to square one.

I have strong views reflected in the Planning and Development Act 2000 that there should be maximum participation and consultation in matters such as these as they go through the planning process. I do not agree with the view which some people appear to hold, that having held such consultations one should then try to put the matter through other types of inquires, then bring it to court, then to the European Commission, and in general try to stop development. What we need, and have in place, are strong, robust mechanisms for judging projects like this by independent bodies. Once such procedures are concluded, projects should be allowed to move ahead. Otherwise we will get nothing done.

Regarding environmental impact statements and assessments, Deputy Ferris may be under a misapprehension. I do not disagree with what the European Commission has said, but the project through its various stages of development underwent EISs or EIAs as appropriate. In terms of delivery the project is broken into seven phases but the EISs and EIAs were in place before the phased development began. That development was undertaken to manage the project and it gives the Department some control over it in that each phase must have separate consent in order to move forward.

Any minutes of meetings relevant to this matter are, to my knowledge, on the Department website. If there are relevant minutes kept in another Department, I suggest the Deputy direct his question to that Department. The instruction in my Department is that everything over which we have control is made available on the website.

Regarding the terminal site, I understand from the time I was involved in the relevant committee — though I am not sure I am fully correct — that parliamentary questions were tabled a week or two weeks ago for the Minister for Agriculture and Food with regard to the responsibility held by Coillte in terms of land sales. That is my information but I am not entirely sure this is the case.

I responded earlier to a question regarding the terms and conditions of the leases. There is currently no proposal to change them. If we discover four or five energy fields similar to Corrib off the west coast of Ireland, and people begin to get interested in exploration and in drilling wells there, that would be the time to review the conditions.