JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES debate -
Tuesday, 27 Sep 2005

Corrib Gas Field Development Project: Ministerial Presentation.

Chairman

I welcome the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, back to the joint committee. The joint committee agreed on 26 July last to invite the Minister to attend to review the Corrib gas field development. Members will appreciate that this is the first opportunity we have had to hold this discussion as the Houses were closed in August and officials were unavailable to staff meetings. The committee was engaged on other work during the first week of September. Today was the date we were able to agree with the Minister.

I would like the Minister to make a presentation to the committee after which I will call on permanent and visiting members to ask questions. A number of matters have been outlined which we are prohibited from discussing and we must be conscious of Standing Order 56 of the Houses of the Oireachtas which relates to a number of issues which may not be concluded before the courts. I ask members to avoid saying anything which would hold the committee in any form of contempt.

Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. N. Dempsey)

Thank you, Chairman, for the opportunity to speak to the joint committee. As I am not aware of the committee's legal advice, the Chairman should feel free to interrupt to indicate if I exceed it or cause a problem.

It is important to state at the outset that the development of the Corrib gas field as proposed has received all the necessary consents, approvals and permissions required by the Department in law. Approvals, consents and permissions were given after careful scrutiny by my predecessors and officials in the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. It was only after my predecessor was fully satisfied on technical, safety and environmental issues that he issued the consents involved. As not all of the expertise to make the decisions in question was available in the Department, consultants of international repute were engaged where necessary. This was particularly the practice regarding the gas pipeline.

The Department is responsible for the regulatory aspects of petroleum exploration and development and authorisations were granted for the Corrib gas field under a number of different provisions in law. Under the Continental Shelf Act 1968, authorisation was provided for the construction of the offshore installation within the continental shelf designated area. My predecessor also gave consent to the plan of development of the field under the Petroleum and Other Minerals Development Act 1960. Consent was provided under the Gas Act for the construction of a gas pipeline from the gas field through the offshore area to the terminal building. Permission and a licence was also required under the foreshore Acts. In addition, an environmental impact assessment was required to be submitted under EU regulations and directives with each application for consent and approval. It is important that we view the project in the above context.

Despite the above procedures, we are faced with the current scenario. I deeply regret that anyone should be committed to prison as a result of his or her opposition to the development of the Corrib gas field. I have no doubt it is very traumatic for those concerned and their families. Members of this committee and of the Houses will appreciate the fact that as a member of Government I cannot interfere with a High Court decision. I have made every effort to create conditions under which the men would feel free to purge their contempt of court and thereby secure their release.

I initially made contact with the men through an intermediary when they were imprisoned to discuss their concerns. As everybody is aware, the men were very concerned about safety. In response to these concerns, and following the conversations the intermediary had with me and them, I proposed a safety review by an independent body. We discussed various aspects of the review, including the terms of reference and the type of companies that might be engaged. However, despite the progress I thought was being made and despite the fact that I indicated my willingness to meet the men once they had purged their contempt, they did not agree with my proposal and they decided not to purge their contempt.

In spite of that, I went ahead with a safety review. I ordered a comprehensive review of the onshore, upstream gas pipeline to be carried out by independent and internationally-recognised experts. The company identified to do this, Advantica, was appointed on 25 August. It is a world leader in the development and application of advanced hazard and risk assessment technologies for gas pipelines. The company is well recognised as an expert in this field.

The terms of reference of the safety review are well known and are available on the Department's website. The company has been asked to critically examine all the relevant documentation relating to the design, construction and operation of the pipeline and all of the associated facilities. I note that a particular issue of concern for local people and residents has been the proximity of the pipeline to inhabited dwellings. Despite reports and statements to the contrary this will be addressed by the safety review. I have asked Advantica to identify deficiencies in regard to the safety of the pipeline and to make recommendations to me as to how any deficiency identified can be rectified.

I am conscious that people have views relating to the safety of the pipeline and I am anxious that they would have an opportunity to express those views to Advantica. To that end, Advantica has visited the Corrib site and I have organised a two-day public hearing to be held in Mayo next month to be chaired by the eminent senior counsel, John Gallagher. Those hearings will take place around the middle of next month.

The safety issue is one aspect of the matter. A second area of concern that was expressed to me related to the level of monitoring and supervision. This project had been operating on the basis of self reporting but because of the difficulties that arose and due to the fact that Shell exceeded its consent by welding some pipelines, I put new monitoring and verification procedures in place to try to ensure compliance by the developer with all the legal consents issued. We have assigned extra people to the petroleum affairs division in the Department. We set up a technical advisory group independent of the petroleum affairs division of the Department. It was established to advise on, monitor and verify the works being carried out on the project. In addition, authorised officers are now empowered to inspect the work on a regular and on-the-spot basis. All of this is included in the recent terms of consent issued to the developers.

A third area on which I want to touch briefly is that there has been quite an amount of ill-informed comment that there is no State agency with specific responsibility for on-shore upstream pipeline safety. That is simply untrue. As Minister, I have specific powers regarding the safety of the gas pipelines. I indicated before the House some time ago that I will use all of the legislative mechanisms available to me to ensure safety issues concerning the installation and operation of such pipelines are addressed and that the projects are properly policed.

There has been much debate on whether the site should be on-shore or off-shore. I have to deal with the reality that exists, that is, that the permission is for an on-shore terminal. I will not rehash and re-argue the discussion on this. It is on the basis of this decision that I must make any other decisions.

My final point, which is of more general interest to the committee and the Members of the House, concerns the wider issue of the State's policies on the exploitation of natural resources. There has been much comment on this, mainly by the media. It has been suggested that the terms we offer to the private sector are overly generous. I have a very simple and straightforward view on this. We have three choices in the matter. The first is to leave the resources untouched, in which case they will be of no benefit to anybody. The second is to choose to spend taxpayers' money on offshore exploitation and exploration and the third is to license the private sector to do so.

At present we are 80% dependent on imported gas. If we choose the first option we must remember that this figure will increase over the coming four or five years as our own supply of natural gas runs out. Much of our natural gas is imported through Britain and, increasingly, it will come from some of the most unstable regions in the world. Over the next few years, the British gas system will face severe constraints, as highlighted by the Commission for Energy Regulation. This will have an impact on Ireland. It is vital, therefore, that we have our own supplies to mitigate the impact of any such constraints.

As I stated, the second choice is to spend taxpayers' money on offshore exploration. I do not know how many people at this meeting would suggest and agree that we should spend €20 million, at a minimum, of taxpayers' money per well in the hope of hitting gas or oil, at odds of 30:1. At another committee meeting today, I am sure there will be much comment on the expenditure of taxpayers' money and how it could be better spent. I am not sure how many members believe that spending €20 million or €25 million per well, amounting to perhaps €80 million to €100 million per year, at odds of 30:1, represents a good use of taxpayers' money. I certainly would not be prepared to pursue that approach.

The remaining option, as far as the Government and every party in the House that has been in Government was concerned, was to license the private sector to undertake the risk and accrue the associated reward after the State took its tax take of 25%. Although not overly so, the terms we have are generous because they must be. They are designed to encourage exploration in Irish waters. If they were overly generous, I expect more than two companies would seek to avail of exploration licences, as happened in each of the last number of rounds. I have no difficulty in saying to members that if the position changes and Ireland emerges as a potentially productive area, the Government would introduce terms to secure a higher tax take for the Irish people. However, making such an argument currently is a pointless exercise.

I have tried as best I can to deal briefly with the specific issues relating to safety, monitoring, consents and the legal position concerning the Corrib gas field and have dealt with the wider issue of State resources. I am extremely conscious that residents in the vicinity of the Corrib onshore gas pipeline have concerns, which I share, relating to health and safety. I am committed to setting up the necessary mechanisms, which I have already done, including the carrying out of a comprehensive safety review and a public hearing process, to deal with those issues.

Chairman

To be clear on this matter, the Minister indicated that no work will proceed unless he is certain, on the advice of his officials and the independent body of consultants, that they are clear about the health and safety issues.

Deputy N. Dempsey

The purpose of the safety review is to ensure the highest standards of safety apply to the onshore pipeline.

Chairman

The Minister will make the results of the safety review available by way of a public consultation forum.

Deputy N. Dempsey

In mid-October we will give people the opportunity to make known their concerns about safety issues to the consultants, Advantica, who are conducting this review. People will have the opportunity to state, and provide evidence to support, their concerns. The safety consultants are instructed to take on board those concerns in conjunction with the issues emerging from all the papers and documentation they have studied and to produce for me a report with recommendations.

Chairman

What is the role of Mr. Gallagher, senior counsel?

Deputy N. Dempsey

His role is to chair the proceedings. The consultants having studied all the documentation and papers and relying on their experience will hear at first hand residents' concerns, including those relating to safety. Mr. Gallagher will be present merely to ensure that will be done in an orderly manner, which I am sure it will be.

Chairman

In a public forum?

Deputy N. Dempsey

Yes.

Deputy Durkan

I thank the Minister for appearing before the committee and indicating the current state of affairs. It is imperative we recognise the position that has developed is, to say the least, undesirable and is obviously traumatic for the people who have been in prison for a long time. I agree with the Minister that we as a committee should do everything we can, in a constructive way, to influence a positive and amicable outcome. I realise the position that has developed is probably not conducive to that conclusion, but any contribution we make should be calculated towards using whatever opportunities arise with a view to achieving an amicable resolution at the earliest possible date. Too much water has passed under the bridge — no pun intended — without there being a meeting of minds.

I wish to question the Minister further on a number of issues. I am not sure what status this proposed two-day discussion will have. Will the Minister clarify this? I presume there was an environmental impact study before the local authority in the early stages relating to the planning permission and that it was submitted to An Bord Pleanála in due course. What status will this two-day hearing have, given that these other discussions have taken place and are statutorily provided for? In the airing of concerns at that stage, for example, can the discussions or information arising in the course of the two-day discussion be taken into account by the Minister in his determination of any further consents? In the event of there being a conflict with the environmental impact study, will it be possible for him to set aside the study in favour of the two-day review?

Is the Minister satisfied that in the course of his and his officials' examination of this matter all possible efforts have been made to examine the concerns expressed by the people who live in the area? If so, to what extent? Will the Minister elucidate further on this? Work obviously commenced on the pipeline prior to the issue of the relevant consent from the Department. Why did that happen? What were the circumstances? Was this in breach of planning permission conditions, be they from the county council or An Bord Pleanála, the final arbiter in this matter?

With regard to the further consents outstanding, can the Minister say whether it will be possible to withhold consent until such time as compliance has been achieved in respect of health and safety? As I presume that is his intention, I presume his answer will be yes. If so and if there has not been compliance with national and international health and safety standards, why has this been the case and why has it been allowed to continue to this stage?

My final questions relate to gas pipelines in general. As we have seen with the Kinsale gas pipeline, there are international procedures and best practice. There must also be compliance with health and safety standards by the various companies doing the excavation work. In fact, a gas pipeline traverses my constituency. Will the Minister indicate what testing has taken place on the gas pipelines through my and other constituencies? Are there other pipelines that are comparable in terms of construction, technique and ability to withstand explosions and so forth? Does this particular pipeline conform? A simple, straightforward answer can be given; it is either yes or no.

It would be helpful to get answers to these questions. We must do what we can to achieve a solution that is satisfactory from everybody's point of view, including that of the country. The local economy, the people in prison and their families are suffering. Everybody is suffering. This cannot go on. It should be possible to achieve a resolution.

Deputy N. Dempsey

I thank Deputy Durkan for his opening remarks about the committee's desire to be constructive in this matter. I welcome and acknowledge this while hoping something may be done to help the situation. On the status of the two-day oral hearing and whether it will satisfy the environmental impact studies and so on, it is a non-statutory initiative in that it is outside the safety review. It is outside all the consent procedures that were in place up to this and there is no statutory basis for it, as such. However, it is an effort to afford an opportunity for people with genuine concerns and fears about safety to put forward their case. I was concerned that if we forged ahead without people being afforded that opportunity they might believe we were not willing to listen at first hand to their concerns. Its status must form part of the consideration that Advantica will give to its final report on the safety review.

The two-day hearing would not be empowered to set aside the environmental impact studies. However, if Advantica makes recommendations that have implications for the EIS, then I have to consider them, particularly from a safety viewpoint. At the end of the hearing and the safety review I want a clear statement to the effect that the pipeline is safe or unsafe, that it could be made safer or whatever and how that might be done. It could find that some safety aspects were not given the consideration they deserved and make recommendations to rectify the situation. Those are the types of options I envisage for the end of the safety review.

Deputy Durkan asked whether the Department had made every effort to hear all the concerns. I could go through a list of the various items that were dealt with. Every effort was made by the Department to hear all the concerns. In the initial stages, when the gas find was officially confirmed, an information meeting was held in the locality. Planning procedures were carried out as well as oral hearings. Efforts were made by the developers to have local liaison people in place and so on. Every effort was made and opportunities for dialogue were afforded. All the people on whom compulsory acquisitions orders were served were given the opportunity to make their views known to the Department. I do not recollect any of them making any contrary views known to the Department at that point. I believe efforts were made. Whether they were successful or whether people were satisfied with them is an entirely different matter. Some people have been writing to me since I became Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources who believe they were not listened to at any stage. That is their view and they are entitled to their beliefs.

I do not know why there was a breach of consent regarding the works, in particular the welding of the pipeline. However, it was brought to our attention and we took action. We ordered Shell to dismantle the pipeline, to which it agreed. Access to the site to do this has been a difficulty, among other things, for a number of months but those difficulties are being resolved. If I have a reason, I will withhold consent to any of the phases. I cannot unreasonably withhold consent to a phase but if the company or developers were in breach of a consent or if there was a major problem with aspects of a consent, I could withhold it. However, I have had no reason to do so thus far.

I refer to the question about comparable pipelines. There are comparable pipelines but no two situations are exactly the same. A pipeline and terminal in Lincolnshire, England similar to this is located in the middle of a built up residential area. A number of terminals in Norway are onshore or on uninhabited islands, which is not quite the same. The Alliance pipeline, which operates at 120 bar pressure, runs between Alberta, Canada and Chicago in the US. It runs near a number of houses and towns and so on. The normal operating pressure in pipelines at Karmoy and Karsto in Norway is between 120 and 130 bar. The pipelines are laid within 100 metres of houses. None of these pipelines is exactly the same but the pressure at which they operate, their proximity to houses and wall thicknesses are similar.

The Deputy asked finally whether the proposed pipeline conforms to international standards. It conforms to best international standards and before signing off, we would have to-——

Deputy Broughan

The British standard for the thickness of a pipe is BS8010. Is this out of date?

Deputy N. Dempsey

That is the standard.

Deputy Broughan

Is that not considered to be an unsafe standard?

Deputy N. Dempsey

No, but standards change and they are reviewed and revised. This standard is one of a number under review and that will be dealt with fully in the safety review.

Deputy Durkan

I would like clarification on the procedures followed by An Bord Pleanála. When considering the consents, will the Department have regard to the observance of procedures, including the environmental impact study, and the way the process was handled by the local authority and An Bord Pleanála?

Mr. N. Dempsey

We must accept the decisions made. We cannot second guess the procedures and so on. There is an existing planning permission and existing consents in this regard which were finally granted by An Bord Pleanála. It was refused by An Bord Pleanála in the first attempt. All of these are consents or permission in their own right. The Department and I, as Minister, must be concerned about the seven phases for the implementation of the development plan. We must ensure that we cover all the health, safety and environmental issues during the course of these phases, which we will do.

Deputy Durkan

Is any gas field construction taking place now in this country or in Europe where higher or lower gauge walls are being incorporated?

Mr. N. Dempsey

I am not aware of any which are designed to withstand 345 bar pressure and to operate, as this will, between 120 and 135. There is an automatic shut-off on this if it were to exceed 150 bar pressure. The normal measurement in these things is that the design pressure should exceed the operating pressure by approximately 20%. If one is operating at 130, the pipe should be designed to 160 or 156. In this case the design pressure is approximately 200% above the actual operating pressure.

Deputy Broughan

It is difficult to understand how Shell has calculated the maximum allowable pipeline operation pressure. The Minister told us that the British standard to which the pipeline has been built is out-of-date. If one were to take a safer American or Canadian standard, is it not a fact that the minimum distance a householder would have to be from such a pipeline, at whatever pressure, is at least 300 metres? On each occasion I visited the five Rossport citizens languishing in Cloverhill, the last thing they always said to me is that this is a fundamental safety issue. The Minister has demonstrated that he is not sure whether it is safe.

I have here a paper prepared by Dr. Werner J. Blau of Trinity College. When all of this began, he calculated that the gas energy content in the event of a leak or explosion would be something like 3,500 times a major bomb, or 35% of a nuclear weapon, if one were to take the Hiroshima bomb, and that the gas energy content would be approximately 13% of the Hiroshima bomb. This senior teaching engineer believes it is a dangerous structure and that the fundamental reason these citizens went to jail, and have bravely carried on the struggle, is based on very serious engineering problems.

It is extraordinary that the Minister has spoken about these matters today while it appears that when he took up office the petroleum affairs division was for most of the time one man and a dog or one woman and a dog. There were a couple of people somewhere in the vaults of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the Minister said that he has just begun monitoring what they are doing. Is it not extraordinary that The Irish Times was able to inform us of a large portion of pipeline built illegally by Shell, while nobody in the Department had a clue about it? Nobody in the Department was able to provide necessary information on the wells being used. Is it not true, therefore, that the Government has been extremely remiss in managing this project on behalf of the nation and the citizens of Rossport in particular?

This is, primarily, a safety issue. The Minister sought a qualitative safety assessment from a company which was a sub-division of Shell and then came into the Dáil and began to backtrack. There was a second safety review and now we have a review by Advantica. Does the Minister not agree that it is critical to get the people of Rossport, led by the five citizens concerned, involved in shaping the terms of the safety review, or is it too late — because they are almost 100 days in jail — to involve them in such a review of a pipeline that will pass the lower field from their houses? Is it not extraordinary that he has not come around to this? It is my information that the companies involved were prepared to have the people of Rossport involved in shaping the review. Should the Minister not take urgent action to ensure this takes place by asking Shell to lift the injunction in order that the five men concerned would be able to go home this evening? It is a safety issue, in respect of which the State has not discharged its obligations.

What resources were available to the petroleum affairs division in April 2002 when the former Minister, Deputy Fahey, gave consent? What resources are available now? A few days before the dissolution of the 28th Dáil on 15 April 2002 Deputy Fahey gave consent in respect of a plan of development as provided for in the petroleum lease granted under the Petroleum and Other Minerals Development Act 1960; to construct a pipeline under the Gas Act 1976, as amended, and to construct sub-sea structures under the Continental Shelf Act 1968. The information released which the Minister transmitted to my office indicated the petroleum affairs division of the Department was involved in discussions with Enterprise Energy Ireland regarding conditions. Given that that is the case, are we not in a ludicrous situation with regard to consent? Is it not time for the Minister to stand back and say the project must be fundamentally changed? As the Minister responsible, Deputy Dempsey has that power.

With regard to the compulsory purchase orders, does the Minister agree that it was extraordinary that wayleave CPOs were made — I will not deal with the legal aspects because this subject may be ventilated in court next week — without consultation with the landowners concerned? Given that there has not been a second oral hearing at An Bord Pleanála and that it turned down the project, is it not extraordinary that there was no consultation on the CPOs?

At the beginning of this Dáil the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources was responsible for forestry. There appears to be a veil of secrecy over the sale of 400 acres of land by Coillte at Bellanaboy to permit the scheme to proceed. Is this not an issue the Minister and the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, should address?

I have referred to some of the governing Acts from which the Environmental Protection Agency is missing. I have trawled through the 1960 and 1976 Acts and as the agency did not exist at the time, there is no reference to it. This dangerous project has gone ahead without the slightest acknowledgement of the Environmental Protection Agency. It went ahead because the then Minister, Deputy Fahey, was able to do what he liked under the law, like any Minister with responsibility for our natural resources. The licensing terms for offshore oil and gas exploration are 13 years old. It is, therefore, critical that the legislation is reviewed as a consequence of the current impasse.

I have spoken to people from County Mayo, to the people of Rossport and, in particular, to the men in prison. Is it a question of providing an offshore platform and refinery, or near-offshore, as it is technically termed? Is it not the case that Shell and its partners as well as Statoil and Marathon were not prepared to invest that little extra and go the extra eight kilometres to achieve a safe solution? This is a question about money, not about people's lives and safety.

Will the Minister state the position on Kinsale? I recently received an e-mail from Norway about a similar project involving an offshore refinery.

The Minister has stated the reasons neither he nor his predecessors have taken a proactive role. Mr. Ray Burke took a proactive approach in the late 1980s by changing the terms and conditions. One of my predecessors, the great Justin Keating, introduced a decent tax and royalties regime to ensure Ireland's gas and oil resources would be the patrimony of the people, not some foreign multinational combine.

Chairman

I remind the Deputy that there are seven other members waiting to ask questions.

Deputy Broughan

Justin Keating gave three options but there is a fourth. We could do as the Norwegians did in 1969 and say to the Shells, BPs and Marathons of this world, "You tell us what you know about oil and gas exploration and when we know what you know, you can proceed to bring home our gas." The Minister could take action similar to that taken by the Faroe Islands, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Denmark and, above all, by Norway by fundamentally changing Government policy.

What proposals has the Minister put to the chief executive of Shell since the men concerned went to prison? Has he been in contact with Statoil or met any of its senior executives? Is it his intention to meet the incoming Prime Minister of Norway who, I am glad to say, belongs to the Labour Party?

Chairman

On a point of information, I presume the Minister will not obtain a compulsory acquisition of rights order unless he has the powers to do so. I ask him to explain because I do not wish the committee or the general public to be under the impression that anything untoward was done. It is my understanding an integrated pollution control plan was drawn up. It is not unusual for planning permission to have a number of conditions attached.

Deputy Broughan

The Chairman should ask the Taoiseach to appoint him as Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. The Minister is here to answer questions.

Chairman

I am seeking clarification on a number of statements made by the Deputy. Is it not unusual for planning permission to be given with a number of conditions attached stating the detail should be agreed with the relevant planning authority? Is that not unusual in law?

Deputy N. Dempsey

A number of questions were asked and a large number of statements made. I would prefer if Deputy Broughan made his own statements rather than accuse me of making statements I have not made. What I said stands on the record, not the Deputy's version of what I said. In the interest of being as brief as possible, I would not like some of the statements which the Deputy maintained I made stand on the record. I will speak for myself and do not want the Deputy to do so.

Planning approval was a condition attached to the plan of development, the overall plan for the project. Specific elements require consent. For example, part of the terminal requires planning permission. The pipeline also requires permission as I outlined. The EPA has a role regarding licensing. For instance, the IPC licence the Chairman mentioned is also a condition of the planning and development process.

I have formally met the chief executive of Shell on a couple of occasions. On one occasion I put a point that Deputies Broughan, Rabbitte, Kenny and Eamon Ryan made to me about Shell lifting the injunction. We know the answer Shell gave and the company has been consistent in its view of its legal position. It can speak for itself on the matter. The other matters I discussed with the chief executive related directly to the project, the breach of the consents and what I expected of Shell. The chief executive made his views known to me regarding the company's ongoing difficulties.

Deputy Broughan asked about a fourth option. I do not see it as such. His esteemed colleague, Mr. Justin Keating, started to amend the 1975 terms as there had been a noticeable decline in exploration off the coast of Ireland, a matter about which he was concerned. As I recall, his former leader, Mr. Dick Spring, was also concerned about it and initiated a review of the terms. Mr. Ray Burke succeeded him as Minister and accepted a recommendation from the officials of the Department on foot of a consultant's report that the royalty regime should be discontinued as it had been in the United Kingdom and Norway at the time. That was the change made in 1987. In 1992 the conditions were further changed when we reduced our corporation tax rate from 50% to 25%. I understand the United Kingdom and Norway no longer charge royalties and now operate a different system.

Deputy Finucane

On a point of clarification, is it not true that, despite the 25% corporation profit tax rate to which the Minister referred on "Today with Pat Kenny" and this afternoon, Shell will pay nothing as it can offset production costs against it?

Deputy N. Dempsey

While costs can be offset, they will not exceed the profits realised.

Deputy Ring

Companies are good at that as they have good accountants.

Chairman

The Minister will continue to answer questions, but I will not allow members to engage in a debate in the manner they are attempting. Our turn will come.

Deputy N. Dempsey

Terms and conditions and changes to them were set out on the advice of officials to ensure exploration off our coasts. Attractive as they are, there has been no great rush of companies to explore. Only two have indicated an interest recently. It is nonsense to compare the North Sea and the seas around Norway where there are 7,000 wells gushing oil, although not as much as they used to perhaps, with the seas around the Irish coast. Whereas the success rate from drilling is approximately one in eight attempts in the former areas, the success rate off the Irish coast has been one in 30 attempts. In making comparisons we should compare like with like.

Deputy Broughan said he had information that the company carrying out the safety review wanted local people to be involved in shaping the terms of reference. That is a fairy tale. I had contacts with the men in prison through an intermediary in which the terms of reference were discussed. The terms of reference for the safety review are those I indicated clearly at the time would prevail and the men did not object to them. I said all documentation would be studied, as would all safety aspects of the project. While I always understood this was a fundamental safety issue, Deputy Broughan will be aware that there are quite a few who are on a crusade on our national resources and the Shell to Sea campaign, etc. which has little to do with safety issues.

If we are to deal with the issue of safety, those who address it should be experts in pipeline security and safety. With all due respect to anyone who is a professor of physics or anything else, I am not aware that Professor Blau who has a house near Rossport has any great qualifications——

Chairman

The Minister has not seen Deputy Broughan's document.

Deputy N. Dempsey

I am not aware that he has. I studied the professor's curriculum vitae which was sent to me with some of his comments. I did not notice any great expertise in pipeline safety. If we are to carry out studies and attempt to ensure the pipeline is as safe as it can be, we should ask our questions of those who are experts in pipeline safety.

Chairman

I remind the Minister of the long-standing parliamentary practice that we do not mention anybody outside the Houses unless he or she is directly involved in the debate. In this case, it is inappropriate to talk about people who claim to be experts or are not experts. Does the Minister have any more of Deputy Broughan's questions to answer before we move on to Deputy Eamon Ryan?

Deputy N. Dempsey

I have indicated that we agreed a particular monitoring regime for the project as a whole and that when that was breached, we changed the system. It had nothing to do with personnel.

Regarding the resources available to the petroleum affairs division in 2002 when the decisions were made on this issue, they were supplemented as necessary by outside expertise and consultants. I am satisfied——

Deputy Broughan

Who was in the division at the time?

Deputy N. Dempsey

I do not know off the top of my head.

Deputy Broughan

How many were there?

Deputy N. Dempsey

I would say about four were involved in it.

Deputy Broughan

Did any of them have expertise in pipeline technology?

Deputy N. Dempsey

Expertise in pipeline safety and technology was sought from outside such as in the Johnston report and so on.

On the question of compulsory acquisitions, that power operates under the Second Schedule to the 1976 Gas Act, as amended in 2000. When notices were formally served, there were six objections. One person objected on the basis that he would be unable to sell his house due to the CAO. Other objections were made on the grounds of future development being inhibited, loss of REPS money, inadequate compensation, temporary disruption to farming activities and the legality of compulsory acquisition.

Chairman

For the purposes of the committee, were all of the proper procedures adhered to in regard to the 1976 gas legislation?

Deputy N. Dempsey

The legislation was quite explicit. There could have been an oral hearing if the Minister had deemed it necessary but somebody complaining about the levels of compensation and so on was not——

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Does the Minister really believe that is the case? The legislation states one can only refuse an oral hearing if the complaints are vexatious, frivolous or of a compensatory nature. Does the Minister believe that was justified in this case?

Deputy N. Dempsey

I am just stating the grounds. Section 6 of the Act refers to a dispute or difference as to the amount of compensation payable under the Act and states this shall not be a ground for objection to the making of an acquisition order. That was the basis on which the decision was made.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Does the Minister think it was a good decision?

Deputy N. Dempsey

That was the decision made. It was legal and stands.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Does the Minister think it was a good decision?

Deputy N. Dempsey

The decision was made.

Chairman

Has the Minister finished answering all of Deputy Broughan's questions?

Deputy N. Dempsey

The only one left to deal with relates to Coillte. As an independent semi-State body, Coillte made its own decisions in this matter. As far as I am aware — I can be corrected if I am wrong — the Department was not aware of the sale of the land at the time. Certainly, it was not consulted.

Deputy Ring

I wish to ask the Minister a direct question about Coillte. The two directors of Coillte are the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. Was the Coillte land the subject of a public tender?

Chairman

I will handle the procedures from here.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

The reason we have reached an impasse is the secretive and one-sided way in which the Government has handled this development. It is about time that approach stopped. The Minister was not in the Department when some of these decisions were made and to a certain extent can only be held accountable for the decisions for which he was responsible. He should start by following a different approach.

We should recognise that setting aside two hours for this meeting was not sufficient. More time had been sought as far back as the July meeting. The Minister should contact his officials who I am sure are watching on the monitor. They should let whoever he is scheduled to meet at 5 p.m. know that, unfortunately, he is running slightly late. Some Deputies from County Mayo have questions to ask and it would be more appropriate for the Minister to remain until 6 p.m.

Chairman

Will the Deputy ask questions?

Deputy Eamon Ryan

It is a valid point. This issue has set the agenda——

Chairman

Why not just ask questions which we will try to pursue?

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I will start by asking the Minister to extend the time allowed. To facilitate access to all information pertinent to this case in addressing the balance, will he provide the Oireachtas Library tomorrow morning with the actual consent documents that relate to the letter sent by the then Minister, Deputy Fahey? As the Minister said, this letter which is known widely as the "Dear Brian" letter and dated 15 April 2002 set out in a friendly manner the view that circumstances were looking good in terms of obtaining consent, subject to the meeting of certain conditions which, according to Deputy Broughan, had to be negotiated with the developer. I presume this is not the actual letter of consent and that there is a formal legal document which I ask the Minister to present to the Oireachtas Library tomorrow morning in order that we can see what legal procedures were followed.

Why has the Minister's Department failed to provide all the environmental information on this case, as required under European legislation? Has the European Commission entered into discussions with it regarding the failure to provide full environmental information on what is fundamentally an environmental safety issue? Will the Minister guarantee that any parties seeking to take part in the two-day public hearing he is holding will have access to whatever information they require to assist them in making a presentation before the senior counsel he has appointed and the consultants who will be in attendance?

It is illegal in Britain to have a pipeline built without holding a full oral hearing. The Irish statute sets out that an oral hearing will be held unless a claim is frivolous, vexatious or purely to do with compensatory matters. Does the Minister believe this is the nature of the objections of the locals from Rossport? How can he explain why the former Minister, Deputy Fahey, took that view when it was clear there was massive opposition and that extensive presentations were being made through the planning process? The then Minister was running ahead of An Bord Pleanála and the proper process in terms of issuing consent and refusing local people the oral hearing they deserved. On that basis, rather than holding a two-day hearing which will not be sufficiently broad in scope, will the Minister provide for a lengthier public hearing that will allow for a full discussion of all aspects of the project? Such a hearing should have been held in the first instance but the Minister's colleague, Deputy Fahey, refused to do so.

Will the Minister be more precise regarding his responsibilities? His predecessor, Deputy Dermot Ahern, seemed to believe the pipeline was the responsibility of Bord Gáis.

There is controversy regarding planning permission. Does the Minister believe planning permission is required for the works compound in Rossport? Is there planning permission or is planning permission required for the waste pipeline which forms part of the development? Is planning permission required for the beach station which also forms an integral part of the project? What is the role of the Department in deciding who applies or who should be involved in making assessments in that regard?

My colleague, Deputy Broughan, mentioned the BS 8010 standard. Using the associated equations and applying the measures, it is quite clear that, with a pressure of 150 bars, the minimum distance between a pipeline and a domestic dwelling should be at least 176 metres. Why, therefore, is there a pipeline within 70 metres of certain dwellings in the case in question? Did the Minister, his Department or his predecessors establish the code of practice the developer was to follow as indicated in consent letters? If so, why do we have a project that is in clear breach of standards that set much further distances for a 150 bar pipeline?

Chairman

I am allowing the Minister to answer now because of the number of questions asked. I do not want to bring him back next week. I am anxious that all members ask their questions in order that we can finish this discussion today, even if we run over time.

Deputy N. Dempsey

On Deputy Ryan's assertion that there has been a secretive approach by the Department, all I can say is that everything of any relevance is on the Department's website. That is hardly a secretive approach. Most of the documents necessary for anyone to make judgments are available publicly.

The consent document and the letter referred to by the Deputy did not begin with "Dear Brian"; it began with "Dear Mr. O'Cathain". That is available, it is the letter that was issued on the matter; no other letter was issued.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Is the letter dated 15 April the legal consent letter for such a foreshore licence and planning development licence?

Deputy N. Dempsey

It is confirmation that consent has been granted, yes.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

If it is subject to so many conditions, how can it be seen as a legal document?

Deputy N. Dempsey

I am not a legal person.

Chairman

It explains the schedule of the consent.

Deputy N. Dempsey

I have gone through several box files of other legal documents but the document to which the Deputy refers is the approval letter. It is not unusual that the letter would be straightforward, stating there was consent subject to conditions. A planning permission may contain ten or 15 conditions but the first paragraph usually states planning permission is granted to the development in accordance with all of the submissions, documents, plans, diagrams, etc. submitted. That covers everything. The letter is simple and straightforward, as backed up by documents in the Department and the company itself.

On environmental information, the marine licence vetting committee went through the environmental impact statement and all of the relevant information available for the project. The MLVC carried out the assessments for the Department, all of which concluded that the development would not have a significant effect on the environment. This was done in accordance with EU law; the committee must be satisfied before any approval for consent is given.

The hearings on 12 and 13 October are on the safety aspects of the pipeline. All of the documents necessary for anybody who wants to make a submission on the subject are available. I understand those who are concerned about safety have their own documents to submit and I wish to give them the opportunity to do so. This is a chance for them to make their own submissions and I hope they will avail of the opportunity.

The Department does not deal directly with the subject of planning permission. Mayo County Council is dealing with the works compound. The valve at the beach does not require planning permission. The Environmental Protection Agency is dealing with the waste pipeline.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

If the Minister is responsible for the pipeline, does he have control of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA; the Health and Safety Authority, HSA, and other bodies covering the development from the terminal building to the beach? Is he the central government authority directing this operation or do the EPA and the HSA work alone in that regard?

Deputy N. Dempsey

The HSA has nothing to do with the onshore, upstream pipeline. I am responsible for it. We are consulting the Commission on Energy Regulation which is responsible for pipelines and pipeline safety. The issue of safety which is of such concern to so many will be dealt with on the basis of consent already granted but, in particular, in the light of the recommendations, if any, made in the safety review.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

This project is going ahead with full consent, yet the Minister tells us the issue of planning permission for the waste pipeline running the other way has not been decided. As he says, only one well in 30 strikes gold and he has a responsibility to manage it properly. In every instance An Bord Pleanála states the marine licence vetting committee's analysis was premature and unsuitable. I will find the correct quote from the report. That was an incredible indictment of the State procedures in this regard. Now some years into the project the Minister is not certain whether the waste pipeline has received planning permission. This involves safety issues because it runs next to the pipeline.

Deputy N. Dempsey

The EPA is responsible for the waste pipeline.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Does it have planning permission?

Deputy N. Dempsey

It has received the necessary consent.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

From the Minister.

Deputy N. Dempsey

Yes.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Does it need planning permission, too?

Deputy N. Dempsey

No planning permission is required.

Chairman

The Deputy should conclude because other members of the committee are anxious to question the Minister.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

A distance of 176 metres is recommended in Britain for a 150 bar pipeline. According to British Standard 8010, such a pipeline should be 176 metres from a house, or should that be 70 metres?

Deputy N. Dempsey

All of the safety aspects have been reviewed but the Johnston report made it quite clear that the route of the pipeline should be fixed near inhabited buildings to ensure a minimum distance of 70 metres. That was the recommendation and it has been complied with. As Deputy Broughan noted, the standard we were initially operating to was the BS 8010. I did not say at any stage that this was outdated or inadequate, but all such standards are regularly changed. I understand that today's equivalent of the BS 8010 is a PD 8010. The safety review will have to look at the design and if it considers that the design as previously outlined is inadequate, I am sure it will recommend to me that it be made more adequate.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Did the Minister's predecessor set a code of practice? Mr. Johnston's report recognised that no standards existed for this sort of project, one above 100 bar pressure, and in a bog, which is liable to move. Did the Department set a code of practice for the developer, following the letter to Mr. O'Cathain on 15 April?

Deputy N. Dempsey

That aspect of the pipeline will be dealt with under phase 7, if I recall correctly. Phases 6 and 7 are the final phases of the gas pipeline. The safety review will look at the standards which we will now apply to the pipeline.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

We are currently at the third phase. Is the Minister saying that when the final seventh phase begins — the very last consent phase — the code of practice will then be set?

Deputy N. Dempsey

I am not saying that. Before the final phase of consent is granted, codes of practice and structures for health and safety monitoring will be in place.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Should they have been in place from the outset?

Deputy N. Dempsey

It would have been very difficult to ensure that from the outset when one would not have known what the shape of the project would be.

Deputy Ferris

I will try to be brief because I understand that Deputies from the constituencies involved wish to contribute. To speak as the Minister did of a one in 30 strike rate is misleading. I worked on the oil rigs for a number of years. Where there were discoveries, because of the water being about 1600 feet deep and perhaps more in places, the possibilities for bringing the oil or other resources ashore were limited until such time as the appropriate technology was developed. The strike rate was nevertheless much greater than one in 30.

From a political and policy point of view, I am totally opposed to the arrangements negotiated by the former Minister, Ray Burke, and followed up afterwards. They represent a sell-off of our natural resources. The private agreement by means of which oil companies can write off all their exploration expenses, which can amount to an unknown amount, is a disgrace, and an indictment on whatever government negotiated such policies.

I have no fear in expressing my full solidarity with and support for the five men currently in prison. Any citizens of this State prepared to stand up and take the consequences for their families and communities provide a good example of determination and commitment.

The former Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Fahey, gave a presentation at the Humbert summer school in August, 2001. He effectively demonised those men and their families because they chose to object on safety and other grounds. That was followed up when local representatives from the area were similarly demonised.

Chairman

Deputy Ferris——

Deputy Ferris

I make no apologies for what I am saying. What happened was a disgrace.

Chairman

Did we not have a discussion here in private session before the meeting regarding how far we could go on this matter?

Deputy Ferris

Yes, and I have not strayed from that. I am staying within the parameters.

Chairman

I refer the Deputy to Standing Order 56, which we circulated to him.

Deputy Ferris

Yes.

Chairman

I ask him to observe the rules in that regard, since we are coming very close to conflict. Under paragraph 5 of Standing Order 56, when permission to raise a matter has been granted, there continues to be an onus on members to avoid, if at all possible, comment that might prejudice the outcome of proceedings. Having made his statement, I ask the Deputy to continue with questions, or I will, with regret, have to move on to Deputy Ring.

Deputy Ferris

I want to state on the record that I do not believe that I strayed outside Standing Orders.

Chairman

When the Deputy is in Government, he may change the Standing Orders.

Deputy Ferris

I did not stray outside them.

Chairman

These Standing Orders have been in force for many decades — since long before the Deputy or I entered the House.

Deputy Ferris

I did not stray outside Standing Orders. The Chairman can seek legal advice if he so wishes.

Perhaps I might return to my questions for the Minister. Was a safety report completed before the compulsory acquisition order was sought and granted? If not, was any consideration given to completing one? If there was no safety report before the compulsory acquisition order — currently there is an independent safety review — is it not incumbent on the Minister to withdraw that order and allow the men to go free? Regarding safety, was there any provision for emergency planning if a disaster happened in the event of an explosion? Was any cognisance taken of the effect on houses and those living nearby if that should happen? Has the Minister asked Shell to withdraw its injunction?

Deputy Ring

The common word used at this meeting and over the summer is "dialogue", and I make a request in which I hope that the Minister, committee and Chairman will support me, namely, that Shell collapse the injunction immediately. That way we could have real dialogue. It would be a gesture of goodwill to those in prison. I make that proposal and hope that I secure a seconder. The only dialogue to take place regarding this project in recent years was between the former Minister, Deputy Fahey, the current Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, and the Taoiseach. Every office in this State was open for them. Mr. Pyle was able to see the Taoiseach, who is one of the best when it comes to meeting people. He attends sporting events, visits pubs and opens chemists; he is available for anything that needs to be opened. However, on the day when he was in north Mayo, he had to be brought via a different route to avoid meeting the protestors, who wanted only to put their side of the story to him.

Chairman

He is popular.

Deputy Ring

If he is so popular, why did he not stop there that day? He did not do so, although he was in the area.

The point I am trying to make is that the door was not open for the people. I do not know whether Deputy Noel Dempsey was there — I am sure that he will answer for himself — but Deputy Fahey entertained Enterprise Energy at the Galway races in 1998 and 1999.

Chairman

Does the Deputy have a question?

Deputy Ring

I have waited for several months and hours, and I have very few questions.

Chairman

There are three other members offering. If the Deputy wishes to refer to the Galway races, he should do so in the Dáil tomorrow. We have approximately 25 minutes for very important questions to be asked.

Deputy Ring

The Chairman should have some manners and let me speak.

Chairman

No. Standing Orders——

Deputy Ring

We do not want to take the Fianna Fáil line on this one. All we want is fair play.

Chairman

Deputy Ring——

Deputy Ring

In fairness, the Minister will answer the questions as he has answered them in the Dáil. I hold no malice against him as he was put into an impossible position by his predecessor. If the Chairman had done his job over the summer, we would have both the current Minister and his predecessor before us and this would all be sorted out by now.

Does the Department still continue the practice of writing to local authorities on wind energy or any other energy, in regard to any planning application going before them? Has the Minister instructed his officials to write to the county managers to be notified before a decision is made? This occurred with the project before us, where the then Minister of State at the Department, Deputy Fahey, got an official to ask the county manager to notify him whether planning was to be granted before the decision was made. I found this out under the Freedom of Information Act. Has that practice continued?

I heard the Minister speaking this morning on oil exploration in this country. In the afternoon, I heard him say that the taxpayers would be very annoyed if he spent €20 million to €25 million exploring for oil and gas. The taxpayer had no say when the Minister was part of a Government that spent €60 million on electronic voting that nobody wanted.

Chairman

Has the Deputy questions to ask about the Corrib gas field?

Deputy Ring

Will the Chairman give me the opportunity to say a few words?

Chairman

I will not let the Deputy make a political statement. He can make it in the House tomorrow.

Deputy Ring

I will do that too.

Chairman

He can do it there, but he should not waste this committee's time. The Deputy is not a member of the committee and is only a guest.

Deputy Ring

The Chairman is interrupting me again. Will he show some manners? I am elected to this House to speak on behalf of the people that the Chairman and his party in Government put into prison.

Chairman

I will call on Deputy Cowley if Deputy Ring has no questions to ask the Minister about the Corrib gas field.

Deputy Ring

Was the Department consulted on the sale of the land by Coillte? Was a public tender put in place? If there was, how many people tendered for that land? How much did the State get for it?

The Minister said earlier that there were similar pipelines in other parts of the world. However, the inspector from An Bord Pleanála, Mr. Moore, refused this at the first hearing and was against it at the second hearing even though the board overruled him. He said that there was no other pipeline like this in the world. If there was an accident tomorrow on that pipeline, who would be responsible? Would it be Shell, Bord Gáis, or the Minister and the Department?

Will those appointed to the oral hearing by the Minister make recommendations to him following the hearing? Will he heed these recommendations if they are negative? On the day of the oral hearing in Ballina, the pipes were being brought into Erris by Shell. Was Shell and the other interested parties told by the Minister, the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, the Taoiseach, or by the county manager that this project was going to go ahead regardless of what happened at the hearing? Does the Minister have any records in his Department on this? The feeling in north Mayo is that the Government wanted it, the county council wanted it and Deputy Fahey wanted it. He was the most loyal supporter of this project and he went above and beyond the call of duty to support it. Are there any records in the Department to show that he was in support of the project before the planning process went through?

I have more questions, but the Chairman put me off my stride as he kept interrupting me. I will come back with more later.

Chairman

I am in the Chair and I am entitled to guide the Deputy as I wish.

Deputy Ring

I am able to guide myself.

Chairman

The Deputy can filibuster as much as he likes in the Chamber, but I am in charge of this committee. The Minister will have regard to the pertinent questions asked by the Deputy and any other questions incidental to the issue can be dealt with by parliamentary questions.

Deputy Ring

I will get no answers.

Chairman

The same applies to the questions asked by Deputy Ferris.

Deputy N. Dempsey

With regard to the project generally, I do not know if any departmental records indicate my predecessor was in favour of it. However, most people in this country are in favour of exploiting natural resources, of trying to create employment in parts of the country that have not been favoured with huge employment during the years, and of trying to enhance Ireland's exploration and prospecting potential. I hope Deputies from County Mayo and elsewhere are in favour of development and moving ahead by exploiting our natural resources. I am sure Deputies and Ministers have expressed such views. At the same time, this does not necessarily mean that all aspects of every project would meet with the approval and favour of each Minister or every State body or organisation. For example, the Government has often been in favour of integrated waste management policies but An Bord Pleanála has often refused planning permission for landfill sites for particular environmental reasons.

I am not sure of the relevance of the question but will try to answer it as best I can. I hope the safety review will not come up with negative recommendations, although I am not sure what is a negative recommendation. I hope it will come up with whatever positive recommendations it can and that it will highlight any deficiencies, if any, in the current safety regime to allow us to ensure an even safer project. If it does this, all of the recommendations will be carefully considered by me in making decisions on the final consents for phases 6 and 7 which are still outstanding.

Mr. Moore, the An Bord Pleanála inspector who has been widely quoted at various times, reported that there was no other pipeline in the world like this one. While that was also the initial information I received, as this situation develops, more and more people have told me of other examples of similar pipelines. For the sake of brevity, my earlier answer refers, namely, while no two pipelines are exactly the same, there are pipelines which are similar with regard to the design elements concerned with safety such as pressure levels or whether the project is close to built-up areas.

The sale of Coillte land was not subject to tender because Coillte is one of the State agencies which can sell land or property without engaging in any tendering procedure, provided the board decides an evaluation is available. I presume these procedures were followed but the Deputy would have to ask——

Deputy Ring

Would the Minister know if they were followed? How much was paid for the site?

Deputy N. Dempsey

I am not sure whether I can let the Deputy have commercial information.

Deputy Ring

As the site has been sold, it does not matter. The Minister should tell us how much was paid for it.

Deputy N. Dempsey

The point some were making was that there had been consultation with the Department in advance of the sale. My information is that it was a commercial decision made by the company.

Deputy Ring

I have asked whether the Minister still writes to the local authorities with regard to energy projects.

Chairman

The Minister should not answer that question as it has nothing to do with the Corrib gas field.

Deputy Ring

It has a lot to do with it. The Minister's Department wrote to the county manager requesting that it be notified. Does that process continue?

Chairman

The Deputy is totally out of order. Does his question relate to the Corrib gas field?

Deputy Ring

Yes.

Chairman

Does he agree he made a general statement about wind and other energy projects?

Deputy Ring

No. I have asked whether this process is still in place and whether it was followed before the decision on this matter was taken.

Chairman

The Deputy made a general statement. I am goggle-eyed at his questions.

Deputy Ring

Does the Minister still write to local authorities? That is my question.

Deputy N. Dempsey

I will try to answer the Deputy's question without being out of order. I understand the Deputy has asked whether a letter was written——

Deputy Ring

I have a copy of the letter.

Deputy N. Dempsey

Why does the Deputy pose this question if he is aware of the existence of the letter in question?

Deputy Ring

I have asked whether the Minister continues this practice.

Deputy N. Dempsey

Of what relevance is that to the issue of the Corrib gas field?

Deputy Ring

That is my point. Why was this the only project about which the Minister was sufficiently concerned to write to the county manager, but without indicating that he wanted and granted——

Deputy N. Dempsey

I presume the Minister simply wished to be informed of the decisions taken by Mayo County Council because he had an interest in the project.

Deputy Ring

Does that not indicate he was concerned about it? Why did he want to know——

Deputy N. Dempsey

I do not believe my predecessor has ever denied his concerns in regard to the project. As the Deputy is aware, most people in County Mayo, prior to recent events, shared that concern. I recall — although there is nothing on file in this regard — there was major concern in the county at one point that the project would go to Killybegs and people were rallying——

Deputy Ring

There was never any fear in that regard.

Chairman

Deputy Cowley wishes to——

Deputy Ring

I wish to put my question to the Minister once more. His Department wrote to the county council——

Chairman

The Deputy should allow Deputy Cowley to address the Minister.

Deputy Ring

I ask the Chairman to mind his manners and not shout at me.

Chairman

Deputy Cowley should be allowed to speak.

Deputy Ring

The Chairman should not shout at me. That is not how I operate. I asked a question but received no answer.

Deputy N. Dempsey

The Deputy received an answer but did not listen to it.

Deputy Ring

Will the Minister give me the answer? Does he still write to——

Deputy N. Dempsey

I said that was not relevant.

Chairman

I will be obliged to ask Deputy Ring to leave if he persists in being disorderly.

Deputy Ring

I will not leave.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Deputy Ring's question is relevant because the issue of planning permission for the compound, waste pipeline and beachhead station has not been resolved. In those instances, has the Minister written to the local authority?

Deputy N. Dempsey

I have not.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Unlike his predecessor.

Deputy Cowley

I am glad of the opportunity to put questions to the Minister. The five men protesting against the Corrib pipeline have been in jail for 91 days. Can the Minister believe this is anything other than a safety issue? How does he expect the men concerned to have any confidence in the project when so many questions arise as to whether it attained adequate planning permission? Has it been properly assessed by the local authority and An Bord Pleanála? Will the Health and Safety Authority and the Environmental Protection Agency have any involvement in the matter? We do not know the answers to these questions.

After all this time and all the studies that have been done, will the Minister say whether the people concerned live too close to the pipeline? If he does not know the answer, why is this so? Numerous studies have been undertaken and he is advocating the latest. How can residents feel confident when all previous studies and quantified risk assessments, QRAs, were undertaken and reviewed by Shell-associated companies? Similar issues surround the review undertaken by Mr. Andrew Johnson to which the Minister referred. Advantica's sister company has been fined millions of euro for health and safety breaches. How can the Minister expect the imprisoned men and other residents to have any confidence in what he is doing when the terms of reference for the new safety review are not broad enough?

What is the safe distance from the pipeline beyond which people should live? Are the imprisoned men too close to it? Will there be a danger to their lives in the event of something going wrong with the pipeline? I agree pipelines are not built to explode but some have done so. How can the Minister say the people concerned will be safe when they are living within the kill zone? If one applies British or American standards, or even Shell's own design standards, a safety zone of 171 metres should apply. How can the Minister pursue this project when people are living within the kill zone? He has not answered this question either today or on previous occasions. I hope he will answer it now. How can he allow the project to proceed when local people have no confidence in it? How can he allow it to proceed when it has not been subject to any kind of planning process?

Last week, I returned from Norway. I ask the Minister to note that the Norwegian Parliament, Statoil, the people on the street and everyone else there would say this could not happen in Norway without the people's consent. How have we come to a situation in which, by international standards, people are living within what is termed the "kill zone"? Why has such a project been allowed to proceed so far? Was there a deliberate attempt by the Government, in collusion with Shell, to allow it to happen?

The Minister has mentioned the national interest. How is this in the national interest or in Mayo's interest? Today, the Minister made a statement to the effect that after careful scrutiny by his predecessor, everyone is satisfied as far as the safety issue is concerned. The Minister has already referred to Mr. Kevin Moore. How can this be in the national interest when Mr. Moore's report referred to the decision of the marine licence vetting commission, MLVC, in the following terms: "How the MLVC came to its conclusions would appear to be beyond the realms of a rational approach to the planning of this major infrastructural development and exhibits nothing short of prematurity, in my view". Mr. Moore's report also states: "there is no evidence in the totality of the documentation now before the Board that specific alternative terminal sites were seriously investigated". This report is total rubbish as only four sentences refer to the pipeline. How can the Minister consider it to be adequate? Nevertheless, the Minister is proceeding with further reviews.

The Minister has referred to a strike rate of one in 30 as far as oil company explorations are concerned. I suggest it is much better than that. The Minister has referred to misinformation, but it is misinformation to assert that there is a hit rate of one in 30. There is a much better chance of finding resources than that figure if one adds up the number of hits — as he called them — in the history of exploration.

I have returned from Norway and have seen what the Norwegians do. They own 25% of what is off our coast. I congratulate them as at least they did something. Did the Norwegian Government approach the Irish Government in 1978 and ask it to get involved in exploration in the same manner as itself? Can the Minister tell me if that is correct? Is there information in the Department? If he cannot tell me immediately, perhaps he can do so later.

Does the Minister consider that there is a pressing need for an investigation into a situation whereby we labour under a regime established in 1987 by a former Minister, Mr. Ray Burke, who is now known to be corrupt, in which he gave away everything we had? In 1992, the Taoiseach, who was then Minister for Finance, reinforced that by reducing the tax rate to 25% which can be completely written off over 25 years. In the Minister's view, is there is a pressing need for an investigation into those two actions as well as into the last five years of the Corrib gas project? Will the Minister consider not issuing any further licences until such time as this situation is resolved?

The Minister states that in his plan of development, he cannot reasonably withhold consent. What if there are serious safety issues? Surely he cannot allow it to proceed on that basis? How can he reasonably expect this review to solve the issues when previously, such reviews have not done so?

The Minister has inferred that he is finding examples every day in which pipelines are constructed in the same fashion elsewhere. There is no place in which a 9 km pipeline goes inland over unstable bog. I challenge the Minister to state where this happens elsewhere. It does not happen in Ireland. Where in the world would it be allowed to happen, except in Ireland? The Minister should investigate this.

How can the Minister find fault with people who have an issue with the manner in which our natural resources have been given away for nothing? I have been concerned since before I entered the Dáil. Subsequently, I have raised the matter on a number of occasions. It has brought nothing but pain and suffering to our citizens, five of whom have been in prison for the last 91 days, simply because they wish to be safe in their homes.

How can the Minister condemn the Shell to Sea campaign, the distinguished gentleman, Professor Werner Blau, or anyone else who simply tries to point out that people have rights to be safe at home or that those five brave men are upholding that right for all of us? Why will the Minister not put pressure on Shell to collapse this injunction? As the Minister knows well, there is no way those men can negotiate until such time as they are free and have an opportunity to speak. Shell is the only group that has refused to speak. It has been intransigent, spiteful and vindictive in this affair. I ask the Minister to talk with Shell and insist that it collapse the injunction.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn

I appreciate the Chairman taking my questions as I am not a member of this committee. I will address the issue of the sale of the site by Coillte, which has been alluded to by other members. I note fully that the Minister has stated his Department was not aware of the sale and was not consulted and that he presumes procedures were followed when going before the board and during the evaluation. Is it true that Coillte is in breach of its own guidelines? As we all know, guidelines are not always legally binding. The legal requirement is that this and the evaluation go before the board. Guidelines, however, set out the most desirable procedure. Could the Minister assure the committee that Coillte has not breached its own guidelines in the manner in which it sold this site?

Regarding the suitability of the site and the question of onshore and offshore, which has been a significant issue in this debate, when one speaks about an onshore terminal, an ordinary person's logic would suggest that if the terminal were to be located onshore, the obvious location would be either close to the shoreline, on a shallow water platform or perhaps on an island were one available. This is relevant for the Department because the Minister bears the full responsibility for the safety of the pipeline. In this case, the site is clearly relevant, as the pipeline is a 9 km onshore structure that crosses in front of a populated area. Did the Minister consider the suitability of the site in light of the safety aspects he needed to take into account? While I understand that Advantica must produce its report after the two day hearing, if it decides that the pipeline is not safe or should be moved, is it too late to consider an alternative location for the terminal? This is important. What is the point of a two day hearing if it is ultimately not possible to consider an alternative location?

I wish to dwell on an issue that is of great concern to the people of Rossport in north County Mayo and the people of the country generally regarding offshore exploration and the lack of royalties or any benefit. For the people of County Mayo, a significant issue of contention in this debate relates to the question around the development's benefit for them. Are there any benefits for the people of County Mayo or for the State? I heard what the Minister said and I read his article in The Irish Times on 8 September 2005, which spells out the three different options. I also note that, in his article, he stated that if the situation changes and if the Irish offshore emerges as a potentially productive area, the Government will not hesitate to introduce terms that secure a higher take for the Irish people. How will he do this and how will it apply? If, for example, Shell drills another field close to the Corrib field, is it possible that he can renegotiate the deal?

This issue has touched a sensitive vein with the whole country, as we are not getting anything out of it. I take the point that it is a valuable energy source for the country. We all acknowledge that. It is true to say that the people of County Mayo are very supportive of trying to bring gas in through their county. The Minister was correct in his earlier statement that there are many people throughout the county who see a potential benefit. The Minister has the power to influence the benefit in this case. In the event that this matter is resolved and the gas eventually comes to shore, what will the Minister do for the people of County Mayo in terms of the Bord Gáis pipeline, which is being built around the county as we speak and goes past many doorways in the various towns? At some stage will the Minister issue a PSO to direct Bord Gáis to connect the major towns in County Mayo in order that there will be some economic benefit to the people of the county because that is a matter about which they are concerned?

Arising from this discussion today, people, not only public representatives but ordinary citizens, are entitled to expect to have confidence in the actions of the Minister and Departments, particularly on a project of this size. Many of the problems that have occurred in this process are due to a breakdown of trust, in particular between the people and the actions of the Department. This has happened for a number of reasons, the first of which relates to the monitoring process. Let us face it, we do not build terminals to bring gas ashore every day of the week.

The Minister mentioned the lack of interest in offshore exploration. It is entirely unacceptable that a project of this size and complexity would be allowed to be self-monitored or self-reported. The Minister stated in the course of today's discussion that he had changed the monitoring procedure when it was breached but the sad reality is that we would never have known that there was a breach in the first place but for the fact that there was such considerable media intervention. The change would not have been brought about as a result of the self-reporting mechanism in place in the first place. As a result of that, the pipe-welding incident, which the Minister decided at a later stage was outside of the consent, had to be rectified. All of these issues have undermined public confidence in the Department at a time when we are looking for an intermediary, who, by right, should be the Minister and the Department, if there were the right trust and confidence.

The Minister then decided to authorise the dismantling of the pipe because it was outside of the consent. It seems to defy ordinary person's logic that a day or so later he would then issue a further consent to the company.

I raise these matters only because the issue of public confidence in the Department is central to this entire debate and it would have given the impression that perhaps at all times the Department was not on top of this brief on behalf of the people, in particular the people of Mayo. I acknowledge that in recent months and weeks the Minister has tried to do something to rectify the situation and restore public confidence and he has announced a number of positive developments, but he must understand how this lack of trust has arisen in the first place. I ask him what steps he will be taking to rectify that in the future.

My last point, which arises out of today's discussion, relates to the standard. I hope I have not misinterpreted it, but it seems that the standard is that set down in the Johnston report, which states that the minimum distance would be 70 metres from any house. That does not appear in compliance with BS 8010 or the equivalent PD 8010. I would like to know what standard is quoted in the Johnston report. Where is that standard taken from? Given that it is still the case that the Department has not set a standard for Shell with which to comply, what exactly is it working to when the Minister states that Shell is in compliance with the Johnston report?

Chairman

There are two sets of questions from the two Mayo Deputies. If there are any other unanswered questions by any of the other Deputies, the Minister might deal with those also. Then I will take Deputy McGrath's questions.

Deputy Cowley

May I make one correction? The Minister just stated that Shell could not break up this 3 kilometres of pipeline. There is no reason the company could not do so. It is Shell's same arrogance and unwillingness to co-operate that has the pipeline, which it put together illegally, still left there welded together. Nobody is stopping Shell from taking that pipeline apart, as the Minister ordered it to do. Weeks later, it still has not done it. That is what we are dealing with in the case of Shell. I ask the Minister to lean on Shell and ensure that it performs as one would expect anyone to perform in a democracy. It is not in Nigeria now.

Deputy N. Dempsey

On the latter point, I will not speak for Shell but I disagree with what Deputy Cowley stated. People were refused access to the site on a number of occasions. There are now in place arrangements, which I hope will hold up, by which I will be able to indicate to Shell that it can go on site. Those arrangements worked well last week for the safety review. Advantica went down to do it and there was no disruption. Shell will need to move back on to the site, not just to——

Deputy Cowley

It was never stopped.

Chairman

The Minister, without interruption.

Deputy N. Dempsey

I am glad to hear that. If that is what Deputy Cowley is saying, I will accept his word, but that is not the information I received. It was reported in the newspapers that some people from the company who managed to get on to the site were not allowed out for a considerable time afterwards. I am prepared to accept the word of a local whom I respect that some people who are not local are over-exuberant. I hope that is behind us at this stage. It is essential that Shell move on site and carry out the necessary environmental works that have been highlighted by the project monitoring committee. This work is a priority and I hope it will be done in the next week or so. I also want Shell to carry out my orders on cutting the pipeline.

Deputy Cowley

The place where somebody managed to get on site but was not allowed out is different from the location of the pipeline. If a reasonable request had been made it would have been acceded to. There has never been a problem about allowing on site personnel or machinery for work deemed necessary, such as cutting up a pipeline that was illegally welded together or other conservation or remedial works. Shell and Statoil were trying to rectify the pollution they caused on site and there has never been a problem.

Deputy N. Dempsey

We will have to agree to disagree on certain aspects. I do not think we should disagree vehemently. I take Deputy Cowley's word on this. Shell personnel, authorised officers from the Department and contractors will go on site to carry out works, about which Deputy Cowley has expressed concern, as well as my orders on the pipeline. I hope it will proceed with the minimum of fuss. I accept his assurance that this will happen.

I will comment briefly on Deputy Cowley's statement that there was no planning permission, his reference to the Health and Safety Authority of Ireland and the Environmental Protection Authority and so on. As I stated, different permission and consent must be obtained for pipelines onshore and offshore and not all are covered by the planing process, as we know it. Some procedures are covered by the gas Acts, by miscellaneous energy Acts, foreshore Acts and so on. The HSA has no function in the onshore upstream pipeline. The Department has that function which it will designate to the Commission for Energy Regulation, CER, before the pipeline is operational. It is incorrect to say that this project did not go through planning processes — it did. To a certain extent the problem is that it had to go through too many different processes and consents. We must learn from this.

Deputy Cowley

Not the pipeline.

Deputy N. Dempsey

The Deputy asked whether those living 70 metres from the pipeline are too close to it, but the reports and safety advice indicate that it is not too close. It is a function of the safety review we have commissioned to give me an answer to that question. All of the expert advice I have received so far indicates that this facility will operate to the highest possible standards. Allowing for the BS 8010 in the class 1 location category to which the experts refer, with a maximum population of 0.65 persons, the risk in that category is one in 10 million. The information supplied to me is that the current situation is safe because operating at the 120 bar level, the individual risk is one in 10 million. That is the safety advice I have at present. If that changes and Advantica indicates there is something wrong with the operation, then I will take its advice into account.

Chairman

That will all come out at in the safety review ——

Deputy N. Dempsey

All relevant information will be in the report at the end of the review process.

Chairman

Different experts will be able to make comments on the review in written and oral form.

Deputy N. Dempsey

That is correct. On the issue of the QRAs that were previously done, which Mr. Johnson reviewed, it was brought to my attention that one of the companies involved was partly owned, to the tune of 50%, by Shell. Although there was no negative reflection on the company itself or its competence, I felt it was not right to accept the assessment of a business with that kind of association with Shell and I ordered that a fresh QRA be undertaken. However, it is very difficult to find a reasonably competent company working in this field that has not had some dealings with Shell or the other major oil and gas companies at some point.

The practice of spreading muck about sister companies of Advantica does not help matters. Advantica had no hand, act or part in the monitoring or control of the pipeline involved in an incident in Scotland several years ago. Its parent company, which was involved, was fined heavily for that incident. The interesting point about that situation was that Advantica's expertise was called on in the drawing up of reports on the incident and the company was highly regarded by both sides.

I will not speak for Statoil or its attitude to the Corrib gas field project. However, it is participating in a joint operation.

Deputy Broughan

Has the Minister spoken to Statoil?

Deputy N. Dempsey

I have not spoken to Statoil. I am sure its partners are keeping it fully informed as to what is happening at present. I presume the partners discuss matters at meetings and that the board of Statoil makes informed investment decisions. I do not accept the suggestion that Statoil knows nothing about what is taking place at the moment and that someone should keep it informed.

Mr. Moore has been quoted here and I am conscious of the Chairman's caution regarding referring to people who are not present at this meeting. Mr. Moore is an inspector of An Bord Pleanála and there is no doubt he did his job as diligently and expertly as he could. The important phrase used by Mr. Moore in his report, quoted here, was "in my view". His view was partly accepted by An Bord Pleanála as it related to certain matters and the first request for planning permission was refused. However, with regard to the onshore versus offshore question, Mr. Moore's view was not accepted. In the second planning application process, An Bord Pleanála accepted the onshore option. We can all quote parts of scripture to suit our own arguments but these are the full facts relating to Mr. Moore. I am sure he is a very fine official and nothing in this process reflects badly on him. He made his views known but in terms of the onshore or offshore question, those views were not accepted by An Bord Pleanála.

The sum of 121 divided by four comes out at one in 30. I will accept it if someone tells me there is something wrong with my maths, but I do not think there is. We have had 121 of these wells and we have had four successful operations. I am being conservative because the figure is three as Ballycotton was——

Deputy Broughan

There were four people or perhaps fewer to invigilate it. How do we know?

Deputy N. Dempsey

The Deputy only has to look. There are only four fields operating around our shores at this stage. We are as well informed——

Deputy Cowley

There are multiple wells.

Deputy N. Dempsey

I know that, but it does not matter how many wells there are.

Deputy Cowley

Other places apply such standards. If the formula is reapplied, we have had greater success than the Minister is suggesting.

Deputy N. Dempsey

One can try to reapply the formula. We have five wells in the one spot in the Corrib gas field with the same gas. It is fine to go that way, but it is only one commercial development. We have had three and a bit. We must all face reality.

Chairman

We must move on to the other questions. I ask the Minister to answer the next question.

Deputy N. Dempsey

Reference was made on several occasions when it suited a particular line of argument to the big bad wolf, former Minister Ray Burke, and the fact he changed these terms and conditions. I have on file in the Department a statement from the officials who dealt with this issue long before that. No Minister of any party has had any direct influence on changing the terms and conditions other than on the basis of recommendations from officials in the Department.

Deputy Broughan

Is it true that the Dáil did not have any input into it, even when the Minister issued the recent licences?

Deputy N. Dempsey

That is correct.

Deputy Broughan

That is incredible. It is a mind-boggling state of affairs.

Deputy N. Dempsey

It is not mind-boggling. Many things happen in which the Dáil or Ministers do not have any direct role.

Deputy Broughan

That is one of the problems in the Minister's Department. It is all about regulations, but this is more important.

Deputy N. Dempsey

If the Deputy thinks that allowing Members of the Dáil, including Ministers, to operate on a daily basis in Departments is an effective way to do it——

Deputy Broughan

Every few years.

Deputy N. Dempsey

——then he should talk to some of his colleagues.

Chairman

Perhaps we could move on to the next question.

Deputy N. Dempsey

That relates to the 1987 terms. I am sorry to disappoint some people.

As regards Deputy Cooper-Flynn's points about Coillte being in breach of its own guidelines, I am not aware of that or of such a complaint being lodged with the Department. My understanding is that it was entitled to do what it did, provided it was brought to its board and a decision was made.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn

It is in the public domain because it was in the newspapers.

Chairman

Has the Minister any direct responsibility for Coillte?

Deputy N. Dempsey

No, it is the Department of Agriculture and Food.

Deputy Broughan

As regards Dublin Port——

Chairman

The Deputy should wait.

Deputy Broughan

It is about the same thing, namely, the sale of land.

Chairman

Is Coillte the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture and Food?

Deputy N. Dempsey

It is now the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture and Food.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn

Since when?

Deputy N. Dempsey

For the past two or three years.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn

At the time of the sale of the site, it was the responsibility of the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources.

Chairman

Perhaps that question could be raised at the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn

It is not relevant because, as the Minister stated, responsibility only changed in the past two or three years. At the time of the sale of the site, it was the responsibility of this Department. That is the time to which my question referred.

Deputy Broughan

On the sale of land by another semi-State body under the remit of the Department, it seems the Minister is in a position to refer something to the Attorney General.

Chairman

I am advised that Coillte was under the aegis of the agriculture Department up to the end of the 28th Dáil, that it then came under the responsibility of the Department in the 29th Dáil for the first half of this term and that it has gone back into the Department of Agriculture and Food. All I am saying is that I do not want to go through these questions regarding agriculture from 1999.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn

I do not mean to labour the point. My point was interrelated with the Minister's responsibility to deal with the pipeline and it was linked.

Chairman

Minister, there are some questions you cannot answer here on this matter. Would you send a note by e-mail to the committee and to the members who have attended the committee, addressing those matters or advising where they could have those matters addressed? Will you continue with the next question?

Deputy N. Dempsey

I will do that.

Deputy Ring

I ask that the note be sent to Members who are not members of the committee but who have attended the meeting.

Chairman

We will give the Minister the list.

Deputy Cowley

There was another question. I asked whether the Norwegian Government had approached the Irish Government in 1978.

Chairman

To be clear on those issues, and in case somebody goes out of here saying we are not giving information, I ask the Minister to respond to the clerk to the committee on some of the Coillte questions and we will circulate it to everyone who attended here today. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Cowley

There was the point I raised about the Norwegian Government making approaches to the Irish Government in 1978. Is that true? Does the Minister know?

Deputy N. Dempsey

I do not know whether it is true or not. If the Deputy really wants us to go through files dating back to 1978, we can do so but I do not think it is productive, one way or the other. It is quite possible.

Chairman

It is a matter for a parliamentary question. Has the Minister finished with Deputy Cooper-Flynn's questions? Is Deputy Cooper-Flynn happy with the answers?

Deputy Cooper-Flynn

The Minister answered the first question. There were a number of others.

Deputy N. Dempsey

Yes. The question of the shallow water platform was dealt with by An Bord Pleanála. I referred to Mr. Moore's findings and the response to them. I will not get involved in hypotheses about what the safety review might or might not recommend, other than to say that I have indicated that anything it recommends will be fully taken into account in any future consents in this matter. If there are any requirements for changes or alterations, the safety review will have to be taken fully into account.

The question of a Bord Gáis connection to the towns in Mayo is a matter for the company. Bord Gáis, which is a commercial semi-State body, makes its decisions on a commercial basis. I repeat the comment I have made previously, however, that whatever chance there is of having Mayo towns connected to the Bord Gáis grid with gas coming from the Corrib gas field, there is zero chance if the gas does not come in from theCorrib field.

Deputy Ring

There is zero chance, as the Minister and the Department know.

Deputy N. Dempsey

As people know, quite an amount of work is being done in Mayo by Bord Gáis at present.

Deputy Ring

The gas would be found but not brought in. That is the problem.

Deputy N. Dempsey

On the point Deputy Cooper-Flynn raised about self-monitoring, it was self-reporting rather than self-monitoring. That was the way it was decided to do it originally. As soon as it broke down and there was a breach, I changed that immediately. There was no problem up to that particular point in time and it was a reasonable approach up to that time. I altered it when a difficulty arose.

I was asked about the economic benefits the development will bring. It will bring significant economic benefits to Mayo and to the north-west region generally. It will make a real contribution to sustainable development, not only in that area but generally in the country. It will have an effect on the Bord Gáis distribution system in that area. It will facilitate, as it has already, the improvement of infrastructure, in particular the potential to the electricity supply and distribution network in the region. The energy supply can be a major barrier to inward investment. It will increase local employment, directly during the construction phase and, to a lesser extent, when it is up and operational. It will have a spin-off effect, in that the 60 people who will be employed on each of the three shifts during the lifetime of the project will stay in the area and rent or buy houses, which in turn will bring development. On a national front, it will increase Ireland's security of supply by providing an indigenous gas supply. Oil and gas are internationally traded commodities for which we have all seen the price trends. While the cost per therm will not be less, the transportation costs will be lower, which should be of advantage to Ireland.

Some people would prefer if the State were to receive higher revenue from the exploration companies but the tax yield will help to improve our industrial competitiveness as well as having an indigenous source of gas. The number of construction jobs is expected to peak at 1,000, but will generally be around 500 and then fall to 200 in the final stages. There are economic advantages in the immediate, medium and longer-term future.

Chairman

Deputy Finian McGrath was not present for the legal briefing, but I have given him a copy of it.

Deputy F. McGrath

I listened to the debate on Standing Order 56.

Chairman

Has the Deputy read the legal briefing I sent him?

Deputy F. McGrath

Yes.

Chairman

Is the Deputy conscious of the legal advice?

Deputy F. McGrath

Yes, I am conscious of it. I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to attend this meeting. This is a matter of national interest, and is of significant interest to people outside County Mayo. May I ask the Minister if he or his officials met the Norwegian Government to discuss the Corrib gas field recently? Second, has he and-or his officials conducted an audit on the value and potential value of national resources? Third, will he clarify whether he agreed with the decision in 2000 to 2002 to give away the 500 acres of State-owned land, the Coillte land at Bellanaboy to Shell? Fourth, does he believe the Corrib gas field represents a good deal for the Irish taxpayers? The Minister had a dig at the Shell to Sea Campaign, but does he have a problem with those who are demanding a good return on our natural resources? Irish people are amazed that the release of the five innocent men in jail cannot be negotiated in some way. The Government negotiated a very complex package for Northern Ireland; however people ask me why it cannot come up with a proposal to seek the release of these people?

In the course of his remarks, the Minister commented on outsiders in County Mayo. I want to put on record that many people, not just the people of Mayo, care passionately about the Corrib gas field. This will become evident next Saturday when thousands will go out on the streets. In my constituency, Dublin North-Central, there is major support for people involved in this campaign. The Minister asserted that no Minister was directly involved or gained from negotiations on natural resources, but I have information that the then Minister, Deputy Lowry, granted the licence for the Corrib gas field to the consortium of Enterprise Oil, Statoil and Marathon in 1996. In 2000 the issue of Coillte land being given to Shell at Bellanaboy arose and it is one about which people have genuine concerns. Finally, I wish to commend my colleague, Deputy Cowley, on his guts and determination in dealing with this issue.

Senator Finucane

We should not forget Deputy Ring, who has been campaigning on this issue from the beginning. I attended a meeting in Newcastle West last weekend and while Rossport is a long way from there, representatives of the affected families were in attendance. Mr. Garvin also gave a very good presentation at that meeting. The meeting was held in Newcastle West because the sister of one of the affected families lives in County Limerick. The meeting was extremely well attended despite the fact that Newcastle West is a significant distance from Rossport and unanimous support was expressed for the men who are still in prison. This is an issue that appears to resonate with people in most parts of the country because it involves a giant multinational against the so-called small man.

The men are in jail because they were concerned about the security aspect of the project. I have listened closely to today's debate. The Minister appointed Advantica on 25 August to undertake a complete security audit and he has organised a two-day session in Mayo in October to enable people to outline their safety concerns. Surely, by his actions, the Minister is conceding that the safety concerns raised by the jailed men are legitimate. If the Rossport protest had not taken place, to what degree, if any, would the security concerns of the people of Mayo have been allayed?

My main concern at present is that the men from Rossport are still in jail. If we must wait until the middle of October for the proposed two-day investigation to take place or for Advantica to declare that it has concerns regarding the safety of the project, more time will pass and they will remain in jail. While we have had a very good discussion here, we have not done anything to change that aspect of the situation. Ultimately, it is up to Shell, the multinational corporation, to act on this matter. The Minister is doing a certain amount to allay the concerns of people and, parallel to his efforts, Shell should be acting to demonstrate goodwill. Regrettably, we could discuss this matter for a further ten hours and not achieve very much. Ultimately, the responsibility lies with Shell to remove the legal barrier and to allow discussions with the Rossport men to take place. I know that solving the legal question is not in the Minister's power but the imprisonment issue is causing concern for many people.

Chairman

I ask the Minister to reply to Deputy Finian McGrath's questions and then we will have a final question from the three spokespersons present.

Deputy N. Dempsey

I wish to make a general comment to address the thrust of many of the contributions, but particularly those of Deputy Finian McGrath and Senator Finucane. I readily accept that 99% of Irish people do not want to see five people in prison because of the Corrib gas project and I understand them turning up in Newcastle West and many other locations to express their concern. I do not want that situation to prevail, nor does any member of this committee; I am sure that Shell does not want it either. I understand the level of concern at the men's imprisonment, even if I cannot do very much about it. I have endeavoured to create conditions which will allow those men to leave jail, to recognise the authority of the courts, purge their contempt and return to their families. I will not speak for Shell, but while there is the major issue of the injunction it has refused to lift, in fairness to the company, when we suggested that stopping or suspending work in the area might be helpful in terms of creating positive conditions, it did so.

Deputy Broughan

Did the Minister ask it to lift the injunction?

Deputy N. Dempsey

It is not up to me to ask it to lift it. The company has its own advice. I expressed the views both Deputies Broughan and Eamon Ryan expressed to me.

Deputy Broughan

We are grateful the Minister met company representatives. Everyone is aghast that decent citizens have been in prison for so long. Why does the Minister not ask Shell to lift the injunction in order that proper dialogue about which Deputy Ring and others have spoken can take place?

Deputy N. Dempsey

I said that I would not interfere in any matter on which a court had made a decision. The company can make its own decision. I do not want to be seen to be interfering in one way or another either with the company or with the courts. That is not my role.

Deputy Broughan

The Minister represents the people in this matter. He is the people's guardian.

Chairman

The committee is anxious to invite all parties to attend so that we can hear all sides of the argument. We are only hearing one side today. When the court matter is dealt with, those invitations will be sent to all the different parties so that we can get a complete picture of what happened as regards this project. I ask the Minister to answer the other questions.

Deputy N. Dempsey

As regards that matter, the courts are there to protect the people as well. Questions were asked about whether I met the Norwegian Government. The Department provided a briefing to the chargé d’affaires of the Royal Norwegian Embassy, but I have not met representatives of the Norwegian Government.

As regards the question about an audit of natural resources, we are probably better equipped than most countries in terms of maritime surveys. A geo-technical review is under way for the Porcupine, Rockall and Slyne-Erris-Donegal basins. The review for the Slyne-Erris-Donegal basin has been completed and other phases of it will be completed in 2006. It is part of the licensing conditions that we are made fully aware of any information the companies have, but we also do our own checking and auditing.

The Coillte decision was made by the board of Coillte, as I explained on a number of occasions. It did not need approval or agreement from me or from my predecessors. As regards the question about whether the licensing terms are a good deal for the taxpayers, I dealt with that fairly extensively. I do not want to be abrupt with the Deputy who raised it, but I dealt with it in my opening remarks and on a number of occasions. On negotiating the release of the men, I do not have any power to negotiate their release. That is a matter between the courts and the company.

I am not sure what the question was about the Corrib lease and the former Minister, Deputy Lowry. As I said earlier, my information from officials in the Department is that no Minister of any political party has interfered in that area over the years. That applies directly to former Minister, Deputy Lowry, as much as to anyone else.

While I dealt with the points made by Senator Finucane, I must deal with his statement that because I am carrying out the safety review I have conceded it is not safe. That is not true. I ordered the safety review in an effort to create the conditions in which the men could purge their contempt and come out of jail and, more broadly, to allay the fears which have been stirred up in the area over a period of time. I have an open mind. From the information in my possession, this is safe, according to the highest international standards. The fact that I ordered the safety review is no reflection on this, a view I will maintain until some expert tells me I am wrong.

Deputy Ring

As the Minister cannot do so, I call on Shell to lift the injunction and allow negotiations to take place immediately. Every member of this committee and everybody in the country wants Shell to do so. Let it show goodwill and let us sit down, negotiate and get the project up and running. I know the Minister cannot interfere but I hope the Chairman, with the committee, will make that call on Shell this evening.

Deputy Durkan

I recognise those directly involved in the county and constituency involved have a particular and special interest in the matter. I agree with the general thrust of Deputy Ring's comments. Incidentally, I acknowledge his contribution and that of Deputy Kenny and the other Deputies from the area in getting involved because they are the ones in the best position to know the issues involved and who will ultimately have to come to grips with the matter.

The issue raised has been on the back burner for the past three months. There has been an impasse, a Mexican stand-off, and nothing has happened on either side. If this continues, the position will get worse. We have argued the case, the whys and wherefores, and not produced anything that would in any way alleviate the issues repugnant to both sides. Until such time as that is done, there will be no progress, either in this room or anywhere else.

I suggest that the Minister use his influence to reassure the men in prison that in the event of their following a particular procedure, he will ensure advantage is not taken by the company or companies involved. I say this for the following reason. As someone who was involved in negotiations of this nature during the years, some simplistic suggestions have been made today that in the circumstances would not work. We need to be careful not to mislead the men in prison. I do not want to see them as victims. They should not be seen as such. We should do what we can to mend fences and recover as much ground as possible for both sides in order that they can enter discussions. If that does not happen, a serious issue will arise that will affect not just the constituency of Mayo — incidentally, as I was born there, I know a little about it — and the region but the entire country.

The Minister needs to use his influence, without being partisan in any way, to engage with both sides with a view to identifying what are the minimum requirements. For instance, it is of no great benefit to the Rossport Five if somebody states there was an agreement between two governments in 1974 or 1975. That is not the issue. Will the Minister use his influence to concentrate on the issues of most importance to Shell, on the one hand, and the Rossport Five, on the other, with a view to identifying the catalyst to advance matters? I make a special appeal in this regard because I also have experience of being in prison. Therefore, I know a little about that matter also. It is as simple as this. It is all very fine and sounds great to say the person in prison is doing a great job, but it does not achieve anything. If the Minister cannot find a way to resolve the issue of their imprisonment, will he appoint a skilled negotiator to identify the issues where common ground can be achieved and find a way forward? If we cannot resolve the issues involved, we will be arguing this case in six months to a year's time.

Deputy Broughan

I agree with Deputy Durkan that the fundamental point is that the men concerned are incarcerated, causing suffering to themselves, their families, friends and supporters. I deplore the fact — I made this point in private session — that the joint committee did not meet the day after the men were imprisoned. I think the Chairman did his best to ensure the committee would not meet during this period.

Chairman

I made it quite clear in private session that in my absence on 26 July the joint committee under the chairmanship of the Vice-Chairman, Deputy Perry, decided to write to the Minister, inviting him to appear before it at the first available opportunity. I made it quite clear today that there was no opportunity in August to have such a meeting because the Houses of the Oireachtas——

Deputy Broughan

Other committees were meeting. As I said, Deputy Cassidy chaired a meeting of his committee to discuss the issues raised by Mr. Eddie Hobbs in "Rip Off Republic". Deputy Ellis held a similar meeting in early August to discuss the intimidation of Aer Lingus workers. Every other Fianna Fáil Chairman held a meeting of a relevant committee, except the Chairman of this joint committee, when five Irish citizens went to prison because of what was happening in their community. Is it incumbent on the committee to play its role in ensuring the men concerned are freed as soon as possible.

To use a sporting metaphor, if the Minister had been playing on Sunday, he would have been sent off by the referee for the simple reason he played the man, not the ball, when responding to me. The man in question is the distinguished scientist Professor Werner Blau, a director of the Polymer Research Centre in the Physics Department of Trinity College. I was quoting figures to which he had referred in some publication when referring to the American scientist Dr. Charles Ferguson of the Monterrey Institute of International Studies, the University of North Carolina. Instead of querying the figures, where Professor Blau states, for example, that the power generation capacity of the gas due to be transported equates to 4.4 gigawatts, very close to the full power production figures of the ESB at full flow, he queried the man. The Minister should withdraw his comments because it was deplorable to make such comments about a very distinguished Irish scientist.

Chairman

The joint committee does not have the benefit of the document the Deputy has available to him.

Deputy Broughan

The Minister queried the credentials and academic ability.

Deputy N. Dempsey

I merely said I would prefer to get the opinion of somebody who was qualified in pipeline safety, rather than a person who was a professor of physics who may have no expertise.

Deputy Broughan

I am happy to go with a professor of physics.

Deputy N. Dempsey

I had a look at the professor's CV and did not notice he had expertise in pipeline safety. I am prepared to stand corrected.

Deputy Broughan

The Minister could have dealt with some of the issues I raised.

Deputy N. Dempsey

The Deputy has now mentioned Dr. Charles Ferguson, but he did not mention him earlier. I would defer to his knowledge, if he is a pipeline expert.

Chairman

I will have to stop this. Under Standing Orders we are not allowed to discuss any matter relating to a person who is not here to defend himself or herself.

Deputy N. Dempsey

I beg your pardon, Chairman, but I am not discussing him. I made a statement——

Chairman

I am not allowing a discussion——

Deputy N. Dempsey

The Deputy did not mention figures——

Deputy Broughan

The danger is——

Deputy N. Dempsey

The Deputy did not mention figures just now, but he did so earlier and I simply said that I would prefer to get my information from a pipeline expert and not from somebody——

Deputy Broughan

The Minister played the man, not the ball. I wish to wrap up, Chairman——

Chairman

One moment please, is Deputy Broughan about to go off on some other tangent? I wish to give Deputy Eamon Ryan an opportunity to speak.

Deputy Broughan

I just want to finish with a number of points.

Chairman

On what?

Deputy Broughan

You said we could make a few concluding remarks, Chairman. One point that was never addressed, to my knowledge, is the cost factor and the issues that may arise for Shell. For example, what if the safety audit reports that the pipeline is dangerous and there should be an offshore terminal? The Minister did not address that point at all. Does the Department have any information on that issue?

The other point not addressed by the Minister relates to the decisions by his predecessor, Deputy Fahey, in 2002, given the fact that he had almost no resources. How could he have made critical decisions relating to consents when he did not have the required resources? Was that not a ridiculous situation? Furthermore, the Minister did not reveal the identity of his current consultants. He is reviewing a decision made two or three years ago on a project that was then declared to be safe.

I express my strong support for Deputy Ring and I second the motion that this committee should call on the Minister to ask Shell to waive the injunction in order that we can get on with real dialogue.

Chairman

Does Deputy Eamon Ryan have a final question? He had a question earlier which I could not allow because it was inappropriate.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Thank you, Chairman. I wish to make a brief statement and then pose a question. I believe there is a cultural problem with the current Government. We have a Taoiseach who ridicules people who object to certain large projects. He does so repeatedly in the Dáil, referring to snails and swans and joking about people objecting to particular projects.

After An Bord Pleanála made its initial decision, there was no difficulty for Shell in getting a meeting with the Taoiseach. I do not think that the people of Mayo or the community in a small village got the same listening ear from the Irish Government. There is a cultural problem from the top down, which actually does not suit developers in the long run. If developers have projects they want to pursue, it is right for them, for the State and local communities that those projects are properly planned, the best standards are applied and no short cuts are taken. The most rigorous environmental and safety analyses must be carried out. The culture emanating from the top that is pro-developer, that laughs or sneers at anyone who dares to object has resulted in huge additional costs for the developer and may leave the Minister and his Department exposed if court proceedings are required to determine if the correct procedure was followed. I do not believe the prevailing culture benefits anyone and that is the real problem.

The Minister made the point that the courts have a duty of care and he is correct in that regard. However, I put it to him that sometimes it is also appropriate for the Executive to do its utmost to avoid situations like this one ending up in the courts. We know the current scenario will lead to a court case in early November, which could last several weeks. We also know that the case will probably move on to the Supreme Court. Rather than depending solely on the tortuous and undemocratic procedures of the court system to resolve some of the issues, the Minister should go beyond his current plans for a two-day hearing and have a proper, open discussion to undo some of the damage done by the Government. The Minister said the proposal that the local community be involved in deciding how the hearing procedure will work was a "fairy tale". I could not believe that the Minister would say such a thing at this point. I would have thought that he would jump at the opportunity to engage with the local community and have a proper oral hearing which, it is agreed, should have happened in the first place. We should have a proper debate, not just in the High Court, but also in the local community and see what happens. The Minister should reconsider the comment that it was a fairy tale. He should approach the local community and ask for the oral hearing to be extended further and if it has any suggestions as to how we could get together with the other parties involved to make this work better. If that was done, it might break the impasse and change this culture, which is a problem.

Deputy Cowley

The Minister said the people of Norway did not need to know what was happening. They did need to know. Statoil and the parliamentarians were amazed at how this could have gone ahead without consultation with the people and that planning permission would not be required for such a pipeline. The Minister has said there will be an economic benefit because 27 permanent jobs will be created. A good social service would provide more jobs than that in a village. The people of County Mayo will not even get gas.

The Minister referred to a risk of one in a couple of million. That is a calculated risk; one not based on any precedent. It is purely a mathematical conjecture. One cannot properly assess such a risk because this is a unique pipeline. The Minister has also referred to the value we will get from the gas. Legislation provides that we must pay the full market price for it.

It is important the injunction is lifted to allow the men concerned to enter negotiations. The reason Shell and Statoil did not continue with their work was the blockade. It was a commercial decision. When we spoke to representatives of Statoil in Norway, they said that if Shell removed the injunction, there might be legal implications. We told them that our independent legal advice was that there would not be any. We also said that if the company was worried about legal problems with the project in the future, it did not need to be because the project would not go ahead in its current state because it was not safe and as long as the men remained in jail. The way to resolve this dispute is to lift the injunction. I ask the Minister to put pressure on Shell to allow that to happen.

Chairman

I have tried to be as fair as I can to every member and visiting member. I ask the Minister to respond to the specific questions raised.

Deputy N. Dempsey

Deputy Durkan did not ask any questions but made some observations about the impasse. I do not disagree with his assertion that we need to move this issue forward. I have done everything I can think of doing without interfering with the court decision——

Deputy Durkan

What about a mediator?

Chairman

The Minister to continue without interruption.

Deputy N. Dempsey

——to try to create the conditions, which is an important contribution to this issue. On appointing a mediator, as I said, I am willing to try to do so, but the two sides must be willing to move. However, I have not seen any indication of this.

In suspending work Shell has moved a little. However, there has not been movement on the other side. I have been told in no uncertain terms by those who have been appointed to speak for the five men in jail that as long as they are in jail, they will not talk to anyone. Therefore, what is the point in appointing a mediator? That is the difficulty.

Deputy Durkan

It needs to be done, though.

Deputy N. Dempsey

I thank the Deputy for his comment and suggestion and if it can be done at a later stage, I will be willing to do so.

Deputy Broughan asserted that I had not answered a number of questions but he was obviously out of the room when I answered them, specifically those relating to the decisions made in 2002. In deference to the other members of the committee, I will not repeat my answers. I will not act as spokesperson for Shell with regard to its preference for an onshore rather than an offshore terminal, other than to say the company has stated cost was one of the deciding factors, while another was the safety of workers on the rig. Essentially, it is up to Shell to answer for its preference.

I reiterate that I did not comment negatively on Professor Blau or his abilities. I simply made the comment that I would prefer to consult an expert in pipeline safety because that would be in the best interests of the local community.

Deputy Ryan made comments to the effect that there was a cultural problem within the Government regarding development. Such problems can be discussed. While we can fling insults across the room at one another, as the Deputy is a nice man, I would not like to engage in such activity. However, there are some he would support on a consistent basis who are not prepared to accept the structures democratically put in place in the State, namely, the independent bodies which make recommendations. Even with regard to public projects, it seems they are not prepared to accept the procedures once they have been gone through. We have appeal boards, planning boards and the Environmental Protection Agency to deal with licensing, all of which are highly independent. Having gone through this entire independent process, matters are then dragged through the courts as far as the Supreme Court and often onwards to the European courts. Perhaps the Government has a cultural problem but so too have the people who are determined to ignore the common good and the national interest by delaying projects for as long as they can. I am speaking in general terms, not specifically about the Corrib gas project.

I am not sure if I interpreted Deputy Broughan's comment correctly. If not, I apologise. Deputy Ryan definitely misunderstood my later comment. I interpreted Deputy Broughan as saying the company appointed to carry out the safety review had indicated to the Department that it would be willing to allow dialogue with the local community in shaping the terms of reference of the review and that it had been refused permission to engage in such dialogue. I said that scenario was a fairy tale, but if I misunderstood the Deputy, I apologise.

Deputy Broughan

What is the Minister saying?

Deputy N. Dempsey

I am saying that what the Deputy said is untrue; that it is a fairy tale, that the company——

Deputy Broughan

What is the Minister actually saying?

Deputy N. Dempsey

That is what I am saying. I have said——

Deputy Broughan

Is the Minister saying the local community will have an input into the review process?

Deputy N. Dempsey

I will start again. I understood the Deputy had said the company, namely, Advantica, had made a proposal to the Department that the local community should help shape the terms of reference of the safety audit and that this proposal had been rejected by the Department. I said that was a fairytale; that it was untrue. It is a lie or whatever else one wants to call it——

Deputy Broughan

What is the Minister saying? I do not understand what he is saying.

Deputy N. Dempsey

If the Deputy gets the transcript, he will be able to see it more clearly.

Deputy Broughan

The transcripts will show that I did not say anything about Advantica.

Deputy N. Dempsey

That is the only company conducting the safety review. Is there a safety review about which I do not know anything?

Deputy Broughan

There are many things about which the Department does not know anything.

Chairman

I am trying to conclude the meeting. Please allow the Minister to finish what he was saying.

Deputy N. Dempsey

I have dealt with the points made by Deputy Cowley about planning permission and the fact that only 27 permanent jobs will be created. He also mentioned the price of gas. I dealt with that issue when I said we were international price-takers in that regard. The advantage in having an indigenous source of gas does not lie in the area of price but in the fact that we will not have to pay transportation costs in bringing it through the United Kingdom and we will not be in danger because of capacity constraints there in not being able to get gas or having to pay a higher price for it. The Deputy mentioned the people of Norway and the fact that it was necessary to tell them what was going on. That is fine as long as he gave a clear and balanced view of the procedures we have in place.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I accept the Minister's explanation that his fairy tale comment was made in response to what Deputy Broughan had said. Will he approach the local community to see if it can become involved in how the public hearing might be held, including the possibility that it may take slightly longer and have a slightly wider brief than the narrow safety issue which Advantica has been asked to consider?

Deputy N. Dempsey

The stated reason five men are in jail, that injunctions have been issued and that there is opposition to this project, is safety. I will address this issue through the review which I will not broaden. We have gone through all of the other procedures and I will not go back over them.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

There will not be any communication with the local community.

Chairman

The Minister has made it clear that people will have an opportunity to express their concerns about safety issues and that they will be considered. There will be a two-day hearing to allow them to make oral contributions. At the end of that consultation process, the Minister will make a decision.

I thank the Minister for coming. If any matters have not been properly addressed or expressed here today, he might clarify this when he reads the transcripts by sending an e-mail to the clerk to the committee. I also ask him to forward whatever information he has on Coillte. We are all anxious to resolve this problem. I thank members for not straying too far from the legal——

Deputy Broughan

I thought there was a proposal to be put to the committee.

Chairman

I am not accepting any proposal today. The committee will consider any proposal made at its next meeting. Members have expressed concern about the current position but we must accept that the Minister is doing everything in his power to resolve the issues within his remit.

I thank the Minister for resolving the Silvermines problem. I also thank his officials, Mr. Michael Guilfoyle and Mr. Michael Daly, for the work they did. This has been an issue for a long time and it has taken the Minister to resolve it. We had a number of public hearings on it. It would be wrong of us not to thank the Minister for resolving it.

Deputy Ring

In what constituency is that?

Chairman

Not mine.

Deputy Broughan

Before we adjourn, I want to raise another critical matter. Does the Chairman intend to hold any hearings on the issues affecting the Irish Ferries workforce? The fact is a very profitable Irish company is preparing to offload its workers and force them out of their trade and it appears we are going to stand by and allow this to happen. Will the Chairman give some consideration to holding an emergency meeting on Irish Ferries? I am aware that on his recent tour of the west and south west, in which I could not participate, the Chairman visited the National Maritime College which was set up to educate people to enable them to secure maritime jobs in this country. The Marine Institute has also been put in place. We have invested heavily in marine infrastructure, much more than natural resources. In the midst of such investments we have a company which is behaving in a reckless and disgraceful manner. It is treating senior and dedicated workers in an appalling fashion. It made certain commitments following the Normandy debacle which it has now broken. I am aware that the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment is examining the issue but it is one this committee should also address. We should formulate a view on this appalling state of affairs at the earliest possible date because we may find ourselves in a situation where there may be no Irish maritime workers in the near future.

There is an onus on the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to act in this matter. A proposed EU directive on ferries was progressed to a certain point by one of the Minister's predecessors, Deputy Fahey, among others, but now appears to be in limbo. Nobody knows what is happening with regard to its making further progress. It would allow ferry companies operating between two European countries to choose the pay and conditions on offer in either jurisdiction. However, it would not allow companies to operate with outrageous, near slavery pay and conditions, which is what Mr. Rothwell and his colleagues at Irish Ferries are attempting to do. They are effectively subjecting the workforce to compulsory redundancy. This is a very serious matter for the committee and the Department.

Chairman

We will discuss the matter at the next meeting of the committee next week in the context of its work programme. The committee will then decide how to proceed.

Deputy Broughan

Will the Chairman ensure the issue of Irish Ferries is placed on the agenda for our next meeting?

Chairman

Certainly, Deputy.

The joint committee adjourned at 6.15 p.m. sine die.