David Norris (Independent)

I welcome the Minister. I will follow Senator Ó Brolcháin - it is what I had intended to say, but I will say it again, perhaps more vigorously - in that the Bill is a form of reaction. We should be grateful to Shell to Sea, without which we would not have this Bill. Shell Oil did not appear to take locals' concerns on board and was either blissfully unaware or uncaring of the safety issues. Shell Oil has a disastrous record worldwide. One need only instance Nigeria and the murky background of the environmental disaster caused by Shell Oil among others, the political involvement with unsavoury regimes and its clear implication in the death of Ken Saro-Wiwa. It has been forced to pay millions of dollars in reparations by a court in the US on foot of those matters. As such, I will first say that we should be careful in dealing with Shell Oil, given its nasty record and the history mentioned by Senator O'Toole. I applaud him and Senator O'Malley for going to see the situation on the ground, which makes their contributions all the more interesting.

The Bill has only been introduced because of the activities of the Shell to Sea campaign. I deprecate the fact that when the matter was raised in the House, a number of speakers used the opportunity to issue calumnies against Shell to Sea and those involved in it. We were told they were paramilitaries and smeared them with an IRA bully boy image. Doing so was grossly unfair. When I protested and investigated the comments made in the House, I found there was not a tissue of truth in them. One is not responsible if people with certain backgrounds join public protests. I do not doubt that those centrally involved were properly motivated and concerned about health and safety issues. Regrettably, they came under sustained attack by the agents of Shell Oil in a brutal fashion, supported by the agencies of the State. I have watched videos of worrying Garda behaviour. It is appalling that the agencies of the State, especially the police force, should be used as instruments in support of a multinational corporation with an unsavoury record. I am not alone in this belief; I am not just a crank.

The Minister will remember the incident involving Willie Corduff, whose peaceful work has been recognised internationally. He has been awarded a number of prizes. At the time, a figure we all respect, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, issued a statement on the high-pressure pipeline and Mr. Corduff's response. I will put a part of it on the record. He stated:

This is opposed by local people, particularly in the parish of Kilcommon where the project is based, because of fears for their health and safety (including possible contamination of their drinking water). A compromise proposed by three members of the Catholic clergy and supported by a majority of people in the locality, would have seen an onshore processing plant located in an unpopulated area away from the community's water supply, eliminating the need for high pressure pipelines.

The pipe's pressure is beyond anything that has ever been passed close to domestic habitation anywhere in the world. There are on record a number of disastrous explosions at significantly lesser pressures. These are matters of fact, so people have a right to be concerned. Archbishop Tutu also stated:

This proposed compromise has, unfortunately, been rejected by Shell and the Irish government. The strength of feeling in the community regarding this issue is illustrated by the fact that five people, who became known as the Rossport 5, spent 94 days in prison for their non-violent opposition to the project going ahead in its current form. Mr. Corduff, one of the Rossport 5, went on to win the prestigious Goldman international environmental award, known as the Green Nobel Prize, in 2005.

We need to take this type of issue seriously. The media have not distinguished themselves in this regard. The Minister may have watched a documentary within the last year, broadcast on RTE television, which was violently biased and clearly skewed with any kind of impartiality totally abandoned in the editorial process. I read the reviews in the newspapers, one in particular in the Irish Independent, with great interest. The television reviewer said that this was one of the most biased programmes he had ever seen in his life and he thanked God for it because he indicated the Shell to Sea group was asking for a belt on the nose. That was the attitude of a television critic who acknowledged bias and said that the lack of impartial information in the debate was a good thing. That is a corruption of public discourse which we really should deprecate. We should not co-operate with it in this House.

The Minister is in a difficult position because he has come in towards the end of the process. The matter was muddied long before he started to deal with it as Ireland's position was substantially weakened historically by a Fianna Fáil Government in which Mr. Raphael Burke played a significant role in negotiating deals. Currently, a generous tax rate of 25% - low by international standards - kicks in when the company's exploration and development costs and estimated costs of closing down its operation are paid off.

That raises questions about the argument that we cannot afford to do this ourselves. We are doing it ourselves; we are paying for the process because we do not get a red cent in tax until every item of expenditure is paid off to Shell. We are paying that company for the privilege of developing this, although I acknowledge there are difficulties in selling licences in this market. It will get easier as resources diminish and technology improves.

In any case, there are no obligations regarding the provision of gas to Ireland. There is nothing in this agreement that obliges Shell and the other companies to sell the gas to us. If they do, it will be sold at the current rate. In that case, we could buy it from anywhere. What exactly are we getting out of this except some small degree of ease of access? That worries me. We may get some tax after the first half-life of the field is exhausted. That is about all the benefit we get.

This represents a change from the Irish Government's strategy for energy extraction in 1975. It held that the State would have a 50% shareholding in any oil or gas discovery and an extracting company would have to pay royalties of at least 8%, as well as tax at a rate of 50%. The shift was made under the ministerial responsibility of Mr. Burke and the people are entitled to an examination of that deal, how it was done and why the people were so significantly disadvantaged. I know I may be seen as an old-fashioned socialist and I am one. The resources of this country belong to the people. In the current financial crisis, we can see how much of the necessary infrastructure, developments and support of education and health could be met from these resources, if only we had made a better deal. We have made a very bad deal and are just giving our gas away.

We can consider other countries. Bolivia nationalised its structures, although perhaps nationalisation might be medicine that is too strong. I am not an unequivocal admirer of Mr. Vladimir Putin but on foot of a series of infringements - in planning, environmental and civil rights laws - Mr. Putin renegotiated with the companies and got a much more favourable deal. Shell were glad to get that deal. We could renegotiate our deal.

I mentioned infringements. These include spying on and filming people as well as breaking civil rights. The Minister is a member of the Green Party. What about the way the company has used nets to stop the nesting of birds in an area that was under environmental protection by EU law? The list of categories of Shell's sins is on the public record and they give us the reasons to renegotiate the deal. I would like to see that done.

We should be thankful for the protests by the Rossport five and Shell to Sea, whom I honour. A judge tried to have one woman psychiatrically examined because she was upset. It is because of these people that we are here today.