JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, NATURAL RESOURCES AND AGRICULTURE díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 29 Nov 2011

Offshore Exploration: Discussion

Chairman

I welcome our witnesses, Mr. Ciarán Ó Murchú and Mr. Anthony Irwin from Pobal le Chéile and Mr. Vincent McGrath, chairman, Fr. Michael Nallen, Ms Mary Corduff and Mr. John Monaghan from Pobal Chill Chomáin.

We will begin with the presentation from Pobal le Chéile followed by the presentation from Pobal Chill Chomáin. Offshore oil and gas reserves are a priority for this committee and the subject has been part of our work programme since the formation of this Government. We have been trying to get a better insight into the oil and gas exploration and we look forward to the contribution from witnesses.

Before proceeding, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give this committee. If you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and you continue to so do, you are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of your evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and you are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, you should not criticise or make charges against any person(s) or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I ask everyone present, including those in the Gallery, to switch off their mobile phones as they interfere with the broadcasting and transmission service in the Oireachtas. I ask everyone to co-operate in that regard. Two more groups will come in after this. We have asked each group to limit its presentation to ten minutes, if possible. I will not stop speakers after ten minutes exactly, but if they can adhere to the time limit as best they can, it would be appreciated. I ask Mr. McGrath to make an opening statement on behalf of Pobal Chill Chomáin.

Mr. Vincent McGrath

My colleague, Mr. John Monaghan, will make our opening statement.

Chairman

Certainly.

Mr. John Monaghan

I have timed my speech and it will take 15 or 16 minutes. I would like a little latitude in order to cover all the issues, if that is possible. I will move as fast as I can.

Chairman

That is okay. If four people take five minutes at the end, that will take 20 minutes. The committee might have to suspend briefly if a vote is called in the Dáil. We do not know what will happen. We can follow proceedings on the monitor.

Mr. John Monaghan

Okay. Does the committee require copies of our presentation? They can be circulated.

Chairman

We have them.

Mr. John Monaghan

I will begin our presentation with a quote from a letter that the three priests of Cill Chomáin parish in north-west Mayo wrote to then Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Eamon Ryan, in October 2007. The letter referred to ongoing difficulties with the proposed Corrib gas development.

The project as planned for Bellinaboy does not have consent from the community. Indications are that the majority of people in the parish are opposed to it. They are the receiving community whose lives and future are at the centre of the negative impact and potential risks.

This is the central issue in our area. There is no community consent for an experimental development with potentially catastrophic consequences for our health, safety and environment. A proposal was put to the Minister the following month in a second letter from the parish:

In an attempt to find some resolution to the current impasse we suggest that an alternative site for the refinery should be explored ... We believe such a solution is technically and economically feasible ... It would be our fervent hope that this solution would ... bring the sorry history of this project to a peaceful and just conclusion.

Our group - Pobal Chill Chomáin - was established in response to this proposal to explore the possibility of resolving the Corrib conflict by mutual agreement. We felt that Shell and Statoil could bring their product to the market while the local community preserved the integrity of the area. While the issues of State participation in and ownership of Irish resources relate to the Corrib development - and any other development - under the existing licensing system, to us they are secondary to health and safety issues. As citizens of this Republic, we take an interest in these matters of national importance. We will briefly offer some observations as a result of our experience over the last 12 years.

Having dealt with every level of local and national government on the Corrib issue, we have developed deep reservations about the ability of the various agencies to administer their stated duties impartially. A reference to difficulties in another jurisdiction may help to illustrate this point. I refer to a report submitted to the US President in January 2011, Deep Water - The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling. The report, which refers to the Minerals Management Service, MMS, says that on 11 May 2010, which was 19 days after the rig sank, the "Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced his intention to strip MMS's safety and environmental enforcement responsibilities away from its leasing, revenue collection, and permitting functions, and to place the former within a "separate and independent" entity". According to the report, "MMS had ceased to exist" by June 19, which was two months after the accident. The report argued that "the rig's demise signals the conflicted evolution - and severe shortcomings - of federal regulation of offshore oil drilling in the United States, and particularly of MMS oversight of deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico".

Chapter 3 of the Deep Water report, which has been supplied, describes the Minerals Management Service, which was the US equivalent of the petroleum affairs division of the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, as a "Cross-Purposes Regulator". The MMS was both a regulator and promoter of the exploration industry. The pressure of pushing the exploration frontier into the wider waters of the continental shelf led to a continued erosion of effective oversight. The website of the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources states "the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources ... regulates, protects and develops the Natural Resources of Ireland." It says that the key task of the petroleum exploration and extraction division is "policy development, promotion, licensing and regulation of exploration and production of petroleum in the Irish offshore and onshore". The same conflicting interests are at play in our own system. We contend that this dual role of regulator and promoter has led directly to the difficulties with Corrib, and will continue to do so into the future if left unquestioned and unchanged.

The unsuitability of the Corrib proposal was never more clearly put than in an assessment that was included in a 2005 report of the Centre for Public Inquiry. The report mentions that in his report on the 2002 gas refinery planning hearings, a senior planning inspector, Mr. Kevin Moore, was adamant that the development was taking place on the wrong site "from a strategic planning perspective", "from the perspective of Government policy which seeks to foster balanced regional development", "from the perspective of minimising environmental impact", and "consequently, from the perspective of sustainable development". Mr. Moore's submission was that "the proposed development of a large gas processing terminal at this rural, scenic, and unserviced area on a bog land hill some 8 kilometres inland from the Mayo coastland landfall location, with all its site development works difficulties, public safety concerns, adverse visual, ecological, and traffic impacts, and a range of other significant environmental impacts, defies any rational understanding of the term "sustainability". It was an emphatic condemnation of a planned refinery for Bellinaboy.

The minutes of a meeting of Royal Dutch Shell Group managing directors in July 2003 show how the industry responded at the time:

It was noted that development of the Corrib field may be delayed until 2004 as planning consent had been refused for the terminal. The Committee queried whether the Group had sufficiently well placed contacts with the Irish government and regulators. [A named individual] undertook to explore this issue further in consultation with the Country Chairman in Ireland.

The 2005 report of the Centre for Public Inquiry says that following this discussion, in September 2003:

Senior executives of Shell E&P were granted a meeting with the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, the former Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Dermot Ahern, and former Minister for the Environment, Martin Cullen and senior government officials to express their concerns over planning delays. Within a week representatives of the consortium seeking to develop the Corrib gas field were granted a meeting with the chairman of An Bord Pleanála, John O'Connor, and members of the planning appeals board to discuss their concerns.

The following year, planning for the Bellinaboy refinery was secured at the third attempt. The sequence of events I have outlined clearly shows the influence of the oil and gas industry in this jurisdiction. By contrast, the community affected by these decisions has had almost zero success in raising concerns with those in authority, never mind getting those concerns addressed. A current example of this is our group's efforts to meet the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, which we requested in June of this year. Five months later, we are still waiting for a response.

All of this can be compared with the Norwegian approach, as set out in a document, Facts 2005 - The Norwegian Petroleum Sector. The document describes the approach that was taken to the fledgeling exploration industry there in the 1960s as:

We understand that you are interested in exploring for oil in the North Sea. We hold the rights to this and we do not intend to grant any licences before we know what we are doing. We are quite simply giving you a challenge: Educate us.

It is to our shame that the cry from this side of the British mainland seems to be "subjugate us". As a result of a series of backroom handshakes, which culminated in the jailing and eventual release of the Rossport Five, and 15 months of unbroken peaceful protest against the refinery project, we eventually got a measured response from the State in the form of an invading police force that was bent on breaking protest and protestors. In November 2006, several weeks into the assault on our community led by a new Garda superintendent, the Garda Review magazine reported:

There were no arrests. That was part of our strategy; we did not want to facilitate anyone down there with a route to martyrdom. That has been the policy ever since.

This was an appalling period of brutality that included constant harassment, violence, the use of Garda batons and verbal and physical abuse. It was summed up in the following key points detailed in the human rights and policing report which was published by the San Francisco based Global Community Monitor in 2007: "Lack of appropriate management of protest situations"; "Refusal by Gardaí to arrest peaceful protestors prepared to be arrested to make a political statement"; "Loss of public support for and faith in Gardaí and Government"; "Harassment of Shell project opponents in public places and homes by Gardaí not during protests"; "Excessive force by Gardaí resulting in serious injury"; "Verbal threats by Gardaí inciting violence"; "Large Gardaí presence in small rural community creating sensitive atmosphere and threatening local culture and values"; "Failure of complaint system against Gardaí removes remedies"; "Elderly, women and children physically abused by Gardaí without provocation"; and "Emergency response and treatment denied or delayed to injured protestors".

In September 2007, the Minister for Foreign Affairs expressed his concern for protesters thus:

The use of physical force ... against... unarmed civilians, who have committed their lives to the path of non-violence, and who are simply exercising the basic right of freedom of expression in a peaceful manner, is unacceptable and deeply shocking. All people of conscience throughout the world... must condemn the use of force against unarmed civilians, demonstrating peacefully..."

Unfortunately for us, the Minister was commenting on the situation in Burma and his comments completely ignored what was taking place at the same time in County Mayo.

Since late 2006, the parish of Kilcommon has too often resembled an open prison, with seasonal surges of development works and accompanying periods of lock-down involving large numbers of gardaí, including armed units, Naval Service gunships, helicopters, prison vans and communications units and, increasingly and most worrying, private security operatives hired by the oil companies. We now have circumstances in which the Corrib workers who are almost entirely imported are regularly chaperoned by security and gardaí, while local residents and visitors are hampered, harassed and intimidated, and prevented from going about their lawful business by Shell security and gardaí acting outside the law and in concert. A stark example of this can be seen in the multi-award winning documentary "The Pipe", of which copies are available to members, where the often cited right to go to work does not apply, for example, to the fishermen of Erris.

Many of these issues are outlined in the 2010 Front Line report "Breakdown in Trust". The following points from the report highlight rights issues and the overall circumstances surrounding the protest:

It is clear that the Corrib gas dispute raises human rights issues... In view of the real questions raised as to the safety of the pipeline, and in view of the ... findings of An Bord Pleanála that its safety had not been demonstrated, those concerns cannot be disregarded... Protesters do not appear to be motivated merely by protection of their own economic interests... The situation can be characterised as one where some groups are clearly seeking to defend human rights and where the rights set out in the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders are applicable.... There have been acts of criminal damage against Shell property ... There have been other allegations of intimidation also. This however does not characterise the overall situation... Some but not all of what people call intimidation simply involves people no longer talking to each other... Allegations of republican direction of protests in Mayo appear unfounded and inaccurate.

This report, possibly more than any other assessment outside of Lorna Siggins's book Once Upon A Time In The West, captures many of the realities of living with the oil and gas industry in our area and serves to bust many of the myths about Corrib and its opponents. Two recent sources can also be used to briefly demonstrate the ongoing situation in Kilcommon. The first is an outsider’s view of community issues which was published as an extensive article in the The Observer magazine in May of this year. The contents page sums up the article and the dispute in a short and not so sweet manner under the heading: “How an Irish community is being torn apart by Shell”. The second can be found at the end of a YouTube clip featuring a video taken at the roadside near the current pipeline works site in Aughoose last August. It shows people trying, as concerned citizens, to report to gardaí an alleged assault on them by one of the Shell-Statoil security enforcers. Instead of investigating the complaint or even humouring the complainants, the Garda members present threaten them with arrest for unspecified reasons. In one unguarded moment a shard of truth is spoken by an aggressive policeman when he states: “You are entitled to be a citizen but not here.”

This is the reality we face every day and one that we, as active citizens, will never accept. If these issues are deemed by members to be of no importance, then by all means the joint committee should do nothing and thereby allow the oil industry to call all the shots, repeatedly break the law and abuse human rights under the guise of progress and sanctioned at every turn by the State through inaction. If that is not the case and the ongoing and unresolved problems of Corrib can be used to improve the regime in this jurisdiction, then the committee must act. For our part, we call for a complete and retrospective review of the consenting process and all licensing terms to properly protect communities from the abuses to which we are subjected and, especially in these harsh economic times, truly serve the common good.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Monaghan.

Mr. Ciaran Ó Murchú

A Chathaoirligh, a Theachtaí Dála agus a lucht éisteachta, tá mé anseo le mo chomhleacaí Anthony Irwin. We are here in our capacities as officers of Pobal le Chéile. I am also managing director of a local business, Coláiste Uisce, and Mr. Irwin is managing director of his own company, Dúlra Nature Tours. Pobal le Chéile is a voluntary community group representing businesses and residents of the Belmullet and greater Erris area who have genuine concerns about the Corrib gas development. When we were established in spring of 2008 our group had more business members than the local Belmullet chamber of commerce. Our members are particularly concerned about the long-term negative impact the Corrib gas development in its current configuration will have on our community and other citizens of the State.

We travelled to this meeting today because we strongly believe the issues that have caused the Corrib controversy are unjust and relevant for any future development resulting from oil and gas exploration in the State. As Irish citizens we do not want to find ourselves in a lose-lose scenario. Having lost our stake in natural resources worth billions of euro, we should not lose again in respect of our health, safety and pristine environment, particularly as tourism, agriculture and fishing are the main indigenous industries of our area. All these industries are threatened by the Corrib gas development.

Pobal le Chéile has always stated that we are not anti-development or against Corrib gas being processed ashore. We are very much in favour of a solution which acknowledges the needs of the receiving community as well as those of the State and developer. We firmly believe a solution exists for the Corrib gas development. Our group has publicly supported a number of alternative solutions which represent a fair compromise between all the key stakeholders, are in keeping with best available technology and practice and are consistent with the precautionary principle which prioritises health and safety over development. The written submission circulated outlines the much more long-term sustainable benefits of proper offshore, upstream development.

We have travelled here today in good faith to make ourselves available to the joint committee to assist members in understanding some of the many issues which have led to the Corrib gas controversy. In doing so we hope lessons will be learned by the Government and it will put in place measures to ensure no Irish citizen is ever subjected to the suffering that some members of the Kilcommon and Erris community have been subjected to as a result of the manner in which the Corrib gas project was progressed.

The table summarises the main problems associated with the project. In keeping with the aims of our organisation since its establishment we have endeavoured to remain solution focused. For this reason, we have outlined our suggested solutions beside each of the problems cited. A more detailed description of the problems is available in the written submission and we will be pleased to answer questions if further clarification is required.

Problem No. 1 - a failure to recognise the status of the receiving community, the people of the parish of Kilcommon, as key stakeholders in this project. Our suggested solution in the case of Corrib and future projects is that the receiving community needs to be clearly defined and given recognition as key stakeholders and included in any consultation process prior to a final solution, similar to the best practice model employed in Norway.

Problem No. 2 - a gross lack of pre-project meaningful consultation with the receiving community in regard to the overall plan of development. This project has always been presented as fait accomplit to the local community. Our suggested solution is that the developer and the State need to engage in a bona fides consultation process prior to any final plan of development or location being decided on, similar to the best practice model in Norway.

Problem No. 3 - failure of Government and State Departments and authorities to act as independent interlocutories in respect of this project and political interference in the statutory process which has caused a suboptimal configuration of the project. Our suggested solution is that politicians and Government must remain independent of commercial influence and allow the State regulatory bodies to do their job without exerting influence or interference.

Problem No. 4 - no independent review has ever been conducted into the overall plan of development to establish the optimum solution and location. This has resulted in a flawed and unsustainable plan of development with no consideration being given to the existence of more sustainable alternatives. Our suggested solution is to engage in an open and bona fides consultation process and to seek an independent report to establish the optimum solution for all key stakeholders prior to any future developments.

Problem No. 5 - lack of trust and faith in the Government, State Departments and State authorities in regard to this project as a direct result of points Nos. 1 to 4; accusations of corruption in high level government and lack of political courage and failure to admit mistakes. Our suggested solution, albeit aspirational, is honesty, ethics and accountability in Government; strong and confident political leadership is required.

Problem No. 6 - the developer has been permitted and encouraged by Government to project split and pursue a fragmented approach to this development and consent processes. The developer has been also permitted to adopt a minimalist approach taking only commercial considerations into account while continuing to pursue a one-sided plan of development in spite of significant opposition. A huge time and financial burden has been placed on us and members of the receiving community who had genuine concerns in respect of this project as a result of the long drawn-out fragmented consent process. Our suggested solution is not to allow project splitting or a fragmented consent process in the future.

Problem No. 7 - a lack of trust in the developer due to past and present record. Our suggested solution - the problem has been expanded and justified in the written statement but for time reasons I have not expanded on it here - is not to trust oil and gas companies and not to allow them to self-regulate. The Government must independently and confidently assert itself establishing a distinct position, and objectively consider the needs of all the key stakeholders, not simply the developers.

Problem No. 8 - the developer has not only been allowed but actively encouraged by Government to pursue a programme of premature investment and thus a policy of divide and conquer, prior to all statutory consents being in place. As stated in our written submission, this is similar to one party paying another party money, while both parties are still key stakeholders in an ongoing statutory consent process. So far as we are concerned, this can only be described as Government approved bribery.

Problem No. 9 - short term thinking in regard to fixed sum investments. Our suggested solution is that any investment fund for the affected community should be directly related to production volumes and should continue for the entire lifespan of the project as per the Shetland islands model.

Problem No. 10 - as we have heard from Mr. John Monaghan - a lack of trust in the Garda to treat members of the community in a fair and impartial manner. Our suggested solution is independent observation of the supervision and management of protests and guarantees and monitoring in regard to impartiality of the Garda.

Problem No. 11 - lack of clarity in respect of future expansion. Our suggested solution is independent Government verification of oil companies' plans.

Mr. Ronald Reagan ascertains that the ten most terrifying words in the English language are: "I am from the oil company and I am here to help". Unfortunately, so far as we are concerned, parallels with the current banking and economic crisis now facing our people and our country and the Corrib gas controversy are all too obvious. In the recent freefall documentary on the current economic and banking crisis a combination of factors was cited as the main reasons for our current precarious economic position. These included weak political leadership, the strong lobby influence of commercial developers and politicians and a failure of regulatory authorities to act in the best interests of the State and the common people. We contend that these are the same factors that have led to the controversy surrounding the Corrib gas development. We are in no doubt that the Corrib gas project will be subject to a similar freefall style documentary in the future and similar conclusions will probably be reached.

It is our hope, by appearing before the committee, that we can assist the Government and our politicians in seeing the pattern set out above. I hope that once these issues are recognised, measures will be put in place to protect our citizens against these weaknesses in our governing system.

We have travelled here in good faith, at our own expense, and against a huge degree of cynicism in our community and in our own group. This cynicism is wholly justified given the sorry history of the Corrib gas project, some of which we have outlined today. The questions we have been asked by our members to report back on are the following. What, if anything, does the committee intend to do in rectifying the injustice which the receiving community has been subjected to during the past ten years as a result of the Corrib gas controversy? What, if anything, does the committee intend to do to prevent another Corrib debacle occurring in our or in another rural Irish community in the future? Our members respectfully request a written response to these questions if that is not out of order.

Chairman

Has Mr. Ó Murchú concluded? I propose to take five questions and comments, one from each of the groups, followed by a response. It is the intention of the committee to try to engage with all interested parties - that has been the intent of the exercise all the time. Many of the members are new and very few have had any dealings with what has happened in the past. It is our intention to try to address the issue. In good faith, this committee has tried to get to the bottom of all the problems and we want to assist in making sure they do not happen again. I call Deputies Ó Cuív, Martin Ferris, Pringle, O'Mahony and Nulty in that order.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh na finnéithe anseo tráthnona. Tá áthas orm go bhfuil siad anseo and go bhfuil deis againn an ábhar seo a phlé. Ba mhaith liom mo leithscéal a dhéanamh os rud é go raibh mé déaneach. Bhí mé sa Dáil le haghaidh ceisteanna chuig an Aire Cumarsáide, Fuinnimh agus Acmhainní Nádúrtha. I would like to welcome the witnesses and to apologise for being a little bit late for this session, but I was in the Dáil Chamber during questions to the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, as spokesperson for Fianna Fáil.

Until now the deliberations of the committee have mainly focused on exploration terms, licences given out, the terms of those licences, tax and other financial issues. The focus of the two presentations today are slightly different. They focus on the process that happens from the time that an exploration is confirmed as commercial to the time that the cycle of the resource expires. What the witnesses had to say today is important in its historical context, but it is equally important in respect of the flaws in the system as operated, presumably by Marathon Oil - that never came to light because it was processed at sea - and particularly during the exploration of the Corrib gas field.

If it was to be done all over again, how would the regulatory system be changed? I know there are specific proposals here, but let us say we get to the point where the resource is found. Who decides how they are going to exploit the resource and where they will land it, subject to all the required regulatory permission? Who lays out the basic plan? Whether it is the proposal for the LPG in Tarbert or for Corrib, the system until now has been that the company involved proposes and the State disposes of the plan. Whether it is a timber mill, oil refinery or gas refinery, the developer would go and do the selection.

It seems to me that the witnesses are pointing to a different solution. One of the issues that seems to have arisen from the beginning is that Shell picked a site and the witnesses believe that the State should have taken a wider look at all possible options. The answer that would be given to this was that it was up to the proposers to make their proposal, which could be accepted or rejected. If it was rejected, they had to go somewhere else. What process do the witnesses think should be followed to draw up the initial comprehensive plan?

The second thing that they rightly identified is the issue of community consent. Having been involved in industrial development myself in a rural area, I would consider community consent to be vital. It has traditionally been done in an informal setting, but the witnesses are suggesting a proposition for formal community consent. Is this limited just to gas and oil exploration? Should there be a defined legal community consent process in other areas?

I remember we were talking one day with officials from the old Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources about the exploitation of seaweed. I told them they were schizophrenic in that they acted as both the regulator in control and promoter of the sustainable exploitation of seaweed, and as a result, there was a conflict on the issue even within the Department. The witnesses highlighted that here. When the Corrib saga started, there was an intrinsic contradiction in terms of where the Minister had to ensure that State resources were exploited for the benefit of the people, but he was a promoter as well as he issued the licence and so on. The Minister and the Department were also the safety regulators as they provided the safety permissions. I know we have moved on and I was party to the decision to transfer these powers to the CER. However, the witnesses seem to hint here that other functions of the Department would be carried out by other independent regulators.

I agree with the proposition that where independent bodies make decisions, they should be independent, and that the Government of the day should have no input into an independent decision. I think I am speaking for all public representatives when I say that I would not go near An Bord Pleanála. I certainly would not contact the board unless I wrote a formal letter on the record in a normal submission about somebody's planning application. If I did that, it would be in a letter that any member of the public can write and have on the public record. An example of not interfering was the case where An Bord Pleanála turned down the proposition to build a Government Department in Knock. I am sorry now that it was not built, because we might not get the recentralisation of decentralisation, but that is another day's work.

We need to get from this committee a series of proposals on fiscal terms, how much of the seabed can be let out at any one time, taxation terms and so on. When a resource is found, we need to agree how this is developed in such a way that it maximises the take for the State and for the people of Ireland, and is sensitive to local needs in the host community. No matter what way a development like this proceeds, there will always be a host community. It is fair to say that any power line or gas line that is developed will discommode communities in the area. There is a question of community consultation and consent, as well as the question of community compensation. The witnesses are hinting about a community fund that would be statutory as opposed to one provided by the developers just because they decide to provide it, which is something I do not favour. Where we have critical infrastructure, I am in favour of a guaranteed community compensation in return for the disruption caused. We have to have major infrastructure. In other words, I want to figure out the whole process - planning permission and so on - and how it should be handled if the witnesses were to redesign the system that we all think could be much better than its current format.

Deputy Martin Ferris

I thank the witnesses for their presentations here today. From the outset, this is all part of a process that we are currently going through in respect of the exploitation of our natural resources and whether it is for the benefit of our people or otherwise. The witnesses have been part of that going back to 2002 and before. A whole community has borne the brunt of this and has been rode roughshod over by big business, by oil companies, by the Government and by the organs of the State. I recall quite clearly that five people went to prison because they believed in standing up for their communities. That is something that is dear to my heart personally.

A letter received from three priests in the area states:

The project as planned for Bellanaboy does not have the consent of the community. Indications are that the majority of people in the parish are opposed to it. They are the receiving community whose lives and future are at the centre of the negative impact and potential risks.

I am impressed with that because to me, that is the kernel of it. It is a local issue as seen from the community's point of view. Mr. Ó Murchú said that his group had publicly supported a number of alternative solutions, but these were disregarded. It appears to me that Mr. Ó Murchú's group was trying to find a solution or resolution to what was happening, but others were not. That poses serious questions, as does the presentation by Mr. Monaghan, in which he mentioned the CPI report.

In September 2003, senior executives of Shell EP met with the then Taoiseach and the Ministers for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Within a week, representatives of that consortium met with An Bord Pleanála, John O'Connor and members of the planning appeal board to discuss their concerns. I have serious concerns about that. I can never get an answer as to how people in trusted positions - elected positions - used their influence to set up a meeting between stakeholders in this. It could be interpreted as having facilitated what was to come. I have serious reservations about that. It is an abuse - I do not use that word lightly - of the trusted position of elected representatives. It is an interference. I have always understood that An Bord Pleanála was a last resort for people to get justice if they had concerns about their rights being violated.

I said earlier that this was a human rights issue. I believe it is because of what has happened and the continued presence of people in the area to force a community to comply with the wishes of others. It is something that does not sit lightly on my shoulders; nor should it sit lightly on the shoulders of anybody who has concerns for justice. The optics - what we saw on television - and the use of an organ of the State to force a community to comply with the demands of others were absolutely wrong.

Mr. Ó Murchú said that the proposed alternative solutions represented a fair compromise between all the key stakeholders. I would like them to elaborate on that. Did it come to anything? Did anybody show an interest in sitting down with them to find a compromise? If so, what was the ultimate outcome? They also said the alternative solutions were in keeping with the best available technology and practice - could they elaborate on that? - and that they were consistent with the precautionary principle, which prioritises people's health and safety over development. Many of us here have been acquainted with what is known as "fracking", a methodology which is used to exploit underground resources. There are major concerns about this - so much so that the French Government has actually banned it. Yet it is being used unrestricted in parts of America, and has, as far as we can find out, severe repercussions for the people who are forced to live in these areas. That is the point I am making about people's health and safety.

I had occasion to be in Bellinaboy some time in 2002, when the proposed pipeline was being laid within metres of people's homes. The danger from a health and safety point of view was obvious to me as a lay person. People were being compelled to reside in proximity to potentially dangerous pipelines that could result in the loss of their lives and those of their families, or worse.

The witnesses also referred to the failure of the complaints system against the Garda. Regarding what went on there, was there an opportunity to make official complaints? What kind of response did people get to complaints they made? It is essential that we know that here. If complaints made have not been acted upon or have been disregarded, that is a violation of people's rights. I would like to know about that.

There is an awful lot of detail in the witnesses' presentations, and I have only a short few minutes to try to get through it. Regarding fishing rights - which is an issue close to my own heart because I come from such a background - I saw the film "The Pipe" and I could not but be impressed by the determination of a few fishermen. The film is about one man in particular, Pat O'Donnell, and I was impressed by his determination and commitment to maintain his traditional livelihood. The outcome of that for him was seven months in prison as a consequence of his effort to protect his rights. Is that avenue of fishing closed to the community now after the laying of the pipe? Is anybody being allowed into that restricted area now? Is it completely restricted, and is it being restricted indefinitely?

That is all I have for now. I thank the witnesses again for their presentations.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I thank Pobal le Chéile and Pobal Chill Chomáin for their presentations today. The presentations are a sad indictment of our democracy, or lack of it, in this State, and document a litany of failures across the board. However, the main failure was that of political society to deal with the issues and provide safe systems in which our communities can have faith. Our communities should at the very least be able to rely on the independence of bodies such as An Bord Pleanála, and even the licensing arms of Departments should be accountable to the people and to the individual wishes of people.

The problems outlined here are huge, and we need a wider debate in society on how to get around them and to come to a solution that would be acceptable and provide for development. I do not think either community has said it would not want to see the gas being brought ashore and used; however, the problem is with the way the development has progressed.

I was reminded, as the witnesses were talking about public consultation, about something that happened a few years ago in Donegal. The council wanted to carry out consultations about a new road, and its method of doing this was to ask people to fill out a questionnaire. However, the questionnaire was worded in such a way that any reasonable person could only answer "Yes" to all the questions. One could not oppose the road or say it was not necessary for the community - in fact, one could not have any problem with it. Yet the results were taken as representing wide public consent. These are the issues we need to tease out. How do we achieve independent consultation? How do we ensure community and stakeholder involvement? How do we do it in such a way that all sides can be satisfied that they have received a hearing and that they have been listened to?

Ultimately, at the end of the process there must be a measure of compromise but it should be a measure the communities buy into and they must be satisfied that they have had their issues raised and addressed. I realise there is insufficient time to do it today but perhaps the communities could provide a written response at a later date and outline how they envisage an independent system working and how it could be established.

One thing that stands out and which has been mentioned previously is the need to separate the licensing and development role from the safety and public protection roles within the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. It has been highlighted starkly in these two documents and the committee should address the matter as well. That might go some way to addressing the matter.

There is a lack of political integrity and weak political influence in this country and I am unsure if we will ever get around that. Unfortunately, our political classes have been too close to big business and to development. When politicians see development as a reason for being, difficulties relating to undue influence on projects will always arise.

I have two questions regarding Deputy Ferris's comments on the failure of the complaints system against the Garda and the remedies. Has the community received a better response with the advent of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission? Has it improved the situation with regard to dealing with complaints?

An environmental impact study, EIS, was carried out on Sruwaddacon Bay on the grounding of the pipeline. Is the delegation aware of who carried out the appropriate assessment under the application process? Who set the conservation objectives that the EIS was obliged to address? The delegation may not have the answer to these questions but if it has any information on the matter I would be interested to hear it.

Deputy John O’Mahony

I thank Mr. Ó Murchú and Mr. Monaghan for their presentations and I thank the two groups for attending. It is important that their voices are heard here. There are so many subjects we could discuss but the emphasis should be on the community. The delegations have made the point today that there has been little consultation. The developer and others have acknowledged that mistakes were made at an early stage. Can anything be done now in 2011 to make this project acceptable to the delegations? Mr Ó Murchú commented on the receiving community and issues relating to consultation. This is a reasonable point and one with which I agree. The discovery was made in 1996 and I understand the projected date for gas to flow is 2014. Clearly something has been greatly wrong in the meantime.

Mr. Monaghan has called for a complete and retrospective review of the consent process and all licensing terms to properly protect communities from the abuses to which they were subjected, especially in these harsh economic times. Is he referring to future projects or for what might take place in future rather than what has happened in this case? The kernel of the issue and the tragedy of it is that people on all sides hold opposing views and believe passionately in their views but trust was broken down at an early stage. The question is whether anything can be done to restore that now. I have asked this of the developer and I have asked it of the delegations. Is there anything that the groups in the community might have done differently since 1996 in their approach?

The delegations remarked that the project does not have community consent. How have they arrived at that? Are they referring to 100% community consent? What area of Erris or Mayo does this include? Are they referring to a majority of 100% of people?

Does the delegation believe there has been any positive outcomes from the project? Can there be any positive outcomes such as the gas grid being extended to towns in the county or with regard to jobs provided in the area? Will the delegation comment on this? I am confused on the position of the two groups. They made excellent presentations but how do the groups differ? Both delegations are critical of the project and they have articulated this well but what is the different emphasis of each of the groups?

Chairman

I will now call Deputy Nulty. Before I invite him to speak I welcome Deputy Nulty to the committee. This is his first meeting. There has been a change and he has replaced Deputy Robert Dowds. We wish him well.

Deputy Patrick Nulty

I thank the Chairman. I commend Mr. Ó Murchú and Mr. Monaghan on two excellent presentations on the part of their respective organisations. I have had occasion to visit Ballinaboy and it is a beautiful part of our island. The community there has shown remarkable courage and dignity throughout what have been difficult years. Those involved are a credit to the people who live in their area. Some questions occurred to me on foot of the presentations and I wish to put them to the delegations to advance the discussion and the debate within the committee. In terms of the overall project are the delegations satisfied with what the State will gain from the project in terms of the total return for the State? My understanding is that it will be only 7% of the total revenue available from the field.

The delegations mentioned the developer in this case and its track record. Can the delegations enlighten or give examples to the committee of the track record of the developer and how those involved have conducted themselves locally and internationally? What is the track record of this developer, Shell, over several years? Are there other examples of best practice on which we could draw as a country? Are there cases in which things have been done differently?

It is important for us to learn from this as a country and to learn for the future we must examine our previous conduct and the previous steps by which we have arrived at this situation. Will the delegations talk us through the circumstances in which the original licence was granted to the developer? What was the lead-up to that development?

The delegations referred to difficulties with complaints to An Garda Síochána. Following on from previous questions, what is the relationship between An Garda Síochána and the private security firm which Shell uses? Do they interact and, if so, what is the nature of that interaction? I would be grateful if the witnesses could respond to those points and thank them for their excellent presentation.

Mr. Vincent McGrath

I will ask Ms Corduff to answer the question on the response of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission to complaints made.

Ms Mary Corduff

I do not have the letters with me on any complaints we made to the ombudsman. My husband received a beating in Glengad. Complaints ran into a dead-end and he was asked what he was doing there. We were told we did not have a right to protest and the answer to his protest was a beating. I can forward all the correspondence if anyone wants to see it. I have no faith or trust in the ombudsman. In the final letter we were told it would be doing nothing.

The two people who had taken on the job of the ombudsman in 2007 removed themselves and returned to their countries. I understood when they joined the ombudsman they had a contract for at least five years. They were not able to fulfil what they were ordered to do and removed themselves from the group. The group was put together under false pretences as a cover-up to lead people to believe that it would do something about the brutality in Mayo.

As citizens of the community we are treated differently to any other part of the country. My family and I were not aware that people got beaten rather than arrested. I have been put on the spot in answering this question. The correspondence went on for months on end. To be honest, in years to come the truth will come out but it will be too late for us. We do not have faith or trust in the system, unfortunately.

The current position in Mayo is that we have been beaten into believing this is good for our community. People have been beaten, pushed and dragged. It has not happened to our family but I can speak for a lot of people in Mayo. As late as this morning people were pushed into the drains on the side of the road at Bellinaboy. It is ongoing and there is no change even though the front line report made recommendations that gardaí would be moved to different positions or at least trained in how to deal with civil disobedience.

I want to confirm that both groups and anybody else who comes from our area are not against the gas. People are sitting around tables promoting the project and will also say they are in favour of gas. They were in favour of it when the pipeline was being built beside my door and An Bord Pleanála said it was too dangerous and that we had 30 seconds to escape. The same people will say they are in favour of the gas. They have always been in favour of it, even the awful first proposal. That is not to say the situation is any better now.

Mr. Vincent McGrath

I have some information which might help. I will elaborate on what Ms Corduff said. To be fair to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, it asked the late Minister to carry out a policies and practices investigation into the policing of the Corrib but he refused to do so. I am sure he was acting on the advice of his officials. The request was reiterated in Brian Barrington's report, Breakdown in Trust, which said the issue should be re-examined and there should be an investigation.

In his presentation Mr. Monaghan referred to the no arrest policy which operated. If we heard over the airwaves that Libya, Ethiopia or authorities in Bahrain had a no arrest policy the message would be very clear and we would know what it meant. The law was implemented selectively in Rossport and Bellinaboy. People were arrested whether it was appropriate to do so.

Pobal Chill Chomáin is not and has never been opposed to gas, rather we have an issue with the way it has been done. We have offered to meet gardaí to defuse any situation and were established to find a solution. We can send our correspondence with the gardaí to the committee. It was reported in The Mayo News that they would meet us. The superintendent, who we will not name, went back on his word. They did not want to engage with us. We tried to engage, just like we made the very difficult decision to engage with Shell because we were trying to find a solution.

The solution is obvious and is the same as it has been since the very start. The site is wrong, as An Bord Pleanála stated in 2003, and did not suddenly become the right one over time. Deputy Ó Cuív asked who decides where a project should go, which is a very valid point. It is not our function as a community to say where developers should locate projects. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. All we can do is deal with our community and its difficulties.

It appears from the Centre for Public Inquiry report that when An Bord Pleanála refused permission in 2003 it was considering the possibility of an alternative site which would have solved the problem. However, it reapplied for the site in Bellinaboy and received permission.

I came across a document about the earliest communication Enterprise Energy Ireland had with the community in 2000. It sent out a questionnaire which consisted of four questions requiring "Yes" or "No" answers. They asked whether people would be directly affected by the development and owned or rented property adjacent to the pipeline and had boxes to tick "Yes" or "No". The first question asked for people's names and addresses. It was a fait accompli. Not alone had the location been decided but also the plan of development, and it was set in stone. Any consultation after that was a charade.

As Mr. Ó Murchú said, there should be preplanning community consultation. The community should be the main stakeholder. In 2005 five men went to jail. The pipeline was 70 m in front of my house. I have correspondence from the then Minister Noel Dempsey. As I said in the case of the late Brian Lenihan, I am not blaming the Ministers. They get advice from their officials. It was said that in the case of a pipeline rupture at 150 bar pressure the occupants of a house 70 m away would be perfectly safe. I knew that was a lie. I knew it was incorrect, at the time. So it was on that basis that we proceeded to engage in the only way we had which was to defy the court injunction. It is not something we wanted to do because we have a high respect for the law, but we were put in a position where it was the only avenue open to us then.

The Ministers were receiving wrong information. If this was looked at in 2005 - the relationship between Department officials in that area and the relevant Ministers - perhaps it could be extrapolated to another area or other Departments, such as the Department of Finance, and the advice it was getting at the time. Perhaps we are all paying a heavy price for not listening to the community.

Chairman

There are a couple of other questions, one of which was about examples of best practice. The other was from Deputy Pringle about the initial environmental impact statement. Who or what body carried it out? The question about the Garda Ombudsman and the licensing procedure also arose, although we possibly have had an answer to that.

Mr. John Monaghan

I have a few points on the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission before we leave it. We initially held back as a community and had experience of heavy policing that had come in. It was very unusual to the area. A lot of people had made complaints to the Garda complaints process that existed at that time. Many people held off on their complaints in the knowledge that the ombudsman commission was imminent. I was one of those people and many others did so. Early on, there were great hopes for the ombudsman commission to help address the issues we had on the ground but that has mostly been a dead end. The community's experience is of a complete failure in any faith in the commission, which is unfortunate. I share that view also. Most complaints have come to a dead end. Those that were moved on through the process ended up being left at the Garda Commissioner's desk. That was it and it never moved forward.

Ms Mary Corduff said, and I was not aware of this, that the Garda ombudsman commission had summarised Mr. Willie Corduff's alleged assault, which was reported to them, as "Well, what was he doing there?" I am frightened that was basically their assessment. It reminds me of a similar comment that was made at the first meeting we had with Shell and two Ministers - Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív and Eamonn Ryan - in March 2009. It was put to the MD of Shell Ireland that if they continued on the path of pushing a project on the community it was likely that, from our experience, people could be seriously hurt or, worse, killed. The response from the MD of Shell Ireland was to suggest they would be breaking the law. There was no concern whatsoever but it was not for him to say if the protest was unlawful. There was a total and utter disregard for human life. That frightened me and I am hearing it again from Garda ombudsman commission, which is very worrying.

It is already on the public record and I am sure it can be obtained, if required, in the recent rape tape, which was played out at quite a high profile in the media. To summarise, and I know a couple of the individuals involved, they were bullied by the Garda ombudsman commission. They were treated as if they had done something wrong and were under investigation. That does not appear to be the role of the Garda ombudsman commission at all. There are many other examples of dissatisfaction with them, and that has been a great disappointment to us.

Chairman

I now call on the representatives of Pobal le Chéile.

Mr. Anthony Irwin

Shell did all the EIS work and the appropriate assessment. We would have expected the National Parks and Wildlife Service to police protected areas. This pipeline goes through virtually every protected area one can get, as in SACs, HAs and SPAs. One example was that the State used three naval ships, the entire Garda water unit and hundreds of gardaí, as well as hundreds of private security guards who were used to force through an unauthorised development. We highlighted that this was a pipeline in an SAC that did not have planning permission, but nothing was said about it. No EIS was done for it. If one carries out a development in an SAC, one must have an EIS to see if it will have any negative effects on the SAC. The SAC was torn apart with diggers and fencing. The entire might of the State went behind it and forced through an illegal development. After highlighting that, we later had to sit through oral planning hearings and listen to Shell apply for planning for a pipe that was already in place. The system is simply not working.

As regards best available technology, suggestions were made at a very early stage concerning Twister, which Shell itself is developing. This is a clean way of refining gas which uses centrifugal force. It can be sub-sea mounted so it does not need offshore platforms. It would be suitable for the hostile environment they would be working in off the west coast of Ireland. We also went to Norway and visited Statoil where inside the door there is a notice saying "Welcome to the home of carbon neutral refineries". This is not being done in Mayo, however. There are up to 64,000 tonnes of emissions per annum in the normal running which is being put into a pristine, rural environment. The company seemed to choose itself what it was going to do and the Government did not seem to have any input into the design or how to protect the environment.

Mr. Ciarán Ó Murchú

Deputy Ó Cuív agus Deputy O'Mahony addressed a few questions to me. First of all, the question of consultation was raised a couple of times. In our presentation - the written one is much more detailed - the first step is defining the receiving community. I feel that was intentionally avoided. If I may, I will create a parallel. Erris is the size of County Louth, although people do not realise that. If somebody in Erris comes out in support of the gas, those whose perspective it suits say they must be in favour of the gas in Erris. The receiving community was not defined, however. It is a simple process. It is being introduced in the parish of Kilcummin. Everyone in Ireland is familiar with the concept of parishes. If somebody in Ballina supports gas - which is possibly going to happen later today because they are getting an offshoot of the natural gas therm - it is taken that the receiving community is in favour of gas, and that only a small minority of extremists are against it. The first step, therefore, has to be to define who will genuinely be affected on a day-to-day basis. Unless that is done, people's rights will be trampled on. To put it into context, would Deputy O'Mahony be happy if the people of Castlebar were consulted for a development in Ballaghaderreen? That is what the people of Kilcummin have been subjected to.

That brings me to a second point - what is the difference between Pobal le Chéile and Pobal Chill Chomain? It is a very good question. Under no circumstances would Pobal le Chéile try to take the forefront, like a lot of pro-gas organisations have done. We are not in the parish of Kilcummin, we live in the parish of Belmullet. We are all used to parochial politics. We have always stood behind Pobal Chill Chomáin because in our view that parish was demonised, alienated and painted as extremists, unfortunately, by the media and by the developers. I had to satisfy myself of the reality because if I had taken what I read and listened to in the media, for the sake of my reputation, I would not have gone anywhere near Bellinaboy. However, when I went there every day and met retired teachers and fishermen and housewives, standing out there, I realised there was something wrong. We are not getting the clear picture in the media. That is my answer to the difference of Pobal le Chéile and Pobal Chill Chomáin and it connects into step 1 which is defining the receiving community. That logically makes the issue of consultation simple. The question was how to get our heads around the notion of consultation. I agree there will never be complete agreement on any development but it will certainly not be achieved unless the people most closely affected are identified and defined and they are given some form of precedence as regards a development 70 m from their houses.

The interesting point made about consulation that emerged in the oral hearings is that in the ten years of the project, the developer has not held one public meeting in the parish of Kilcummin. How can this be called satisfactory consultation? When asked, the developer said it would not serve any purpose. Nevertheless, two excellent oral hearings were held at which a chairperson maturely and respectfully took extremely opposing and passionate views and the process was successful. The pipeline was dramatically changed as a result of that first oral hearing. Consultation does work and anyone involved in the North of Ireland - as was Deputy Ó Cuív - knows that consultation can take place in very passionate and volatile situations. There is no excuse for having no public meeting in the parish of Kilcummin.

On another point about consultation, as a result of drownings in the adventure sport industry, I was part of a nationwide consultation process to establish a White Paper on the creation of guidelines for the responsible regulation of adventure sports in Ireland. It was a very successful process handled by an independent company which went around the country and took submissions from all stakeholders. There was no great mystery surrounding the process. The State, when it suits it, can be very good at consultation.

On the other interesting point about measuring support, both organisations saw merit in the proposal from the Kilcummin priests and we came in behind it. We may have been too aspirational but we thought this was a compromise. Not one objection to the Kilcummin priests' proposal, for or against gas, was raised since this was put in front of the people in 2007. We are focused on a solution. Much can be done now. As Anthony Irwin pointed out, Shell owns the technology called Twister BV. It is described on the website as being technology suitable for remote hostile conditions for gasfields. A platform exists and a receiving unit has been built and designated as commercial. Why is that best practice technology? The State will pay carbon tax fines for what is being constructed because it is old technology and it does not represent best practice technology and once again the taxpayer will end up footing the bill for carbon tax fines. However, Twister technology does not require the use of these massive generators to refine the gas but instead it uses the pressure from the field itself to accelerate the gas to supersonic speeds and it cleans the gas to 95% before it comes near the country. We will be living beside this terminal which will be emitting gas and whatever it is being cleaned out of the gas, for the lifetime of the project. Considering all the finds off the coast, this will continue for 20, 30 or 40 years. The technology exists, and Shell owns it, to do this at sea, away from people's houses. It came to light in the oral hearing that the managing director of Twister wrote to Shell and admonished one of Shell's Irish managers for falsely reducing the potential relevance of Twister in Ireland. I have a copy of this e-mail if the committee requires it. I suggest the committee should consider Twister as a long-term sustainable, cost-effective solution giving value for money to the citizens of the State.

Chairman

We have spent almost one and a half hours on this part of the meeting. I ask the witnesses to be brief in their comments.

Mr. Vincent McGrath

As to the definition of the receiving community, An Bord Pleanála has gone some way in defining it in its latest decision on the pipeline in which it gave approval to the tunnel which is about three to four miles long and another unprecedented construction in this country. It has recommended four representatives from the parish of Kilcummin so An Bord Pleanála has recognised the parish of Kilcummin as the relevant community. This is my interpretation and it might be of some assistance to the committee.

There is a great fear in the community that the expansion of the Bellinaboy terminal would not be the end but rather the refinery would expand further. The area extends over 400 acres and we believe the site was chosen for that reason. In 2005, the then Minister, Noel Dempsey, in a written response to a Dáil question, said that the Corrib infrastructure could be used for future gas finds. Shell may be able to explain this better. I believe the new managing director, Mr. Carruthers, has had previous experience in the area of expansion and it is worrying that he has been appoionted at this time. Visitors from South Africa told us that the first refinery was built in Durban in 1953 and there are now about 300 facilities between refineries and other chemical plants. This is another grave concern for us. On that basis we supported the priests' proposals that the gas be refined in a remote area, an uninhabited area being the key consideration. If we say an uninhabited area, by definition we are not NIMBY people. We do not want this transported into any other community.

Mr. John Monaghan

I will develop the points made by Mr. Ó Murchú. Twister is an entirely sub-sea solution to the processing of gas. The current proposal is sub-sea tie back which is sub-sea installation to a land-based processing terminal and the issue is that the terminal is in the wrong place, on the wrong side of the shoreline. That has been their concept so it is entirely sub-sea based and there is the tension leg platform. They can put a rig at the source or they can put a rig closer to shore, a tension leg shallow water platform is another option. A remote coastal location rather than buried in the middle of the parish is another possibility. The floating LNG is a new technology and is being used in Australia. There are several completely different development concepts that have never been considered. It was space shuttle syndrome, as Dr. Kuprewicz described it in his report to the Centre for Public Inquiry. A decision was made that this is how it would be done, without ever considering the alternatives. The problem is that the State went along with that; the regulatory system allowed it to happen. One solution was decided upon, with no obligation to consider any others and no cost-benefit analysis undertaken on behalf of the State.

In regard to Sruwaddacon Bay, Shell carried out an environmental impact assessment on the bay which was, in turn, assessed by the Department. The latter did not disagree with the assessment, which was based entirely on Shell's information. The bay is outside the jurisdiction of An Bord Pleanála. In 2009, the latter told the developers the pipe could not go through Rossport and suggested that they instead consider the bay. What An Bord Pleanála was effectively doing was asking that the decision on the connecting pipeline be taken out of its hands. There was no adjudication on the tunnel, certainly from a community perspective, because that was outside the remit of An Bord Pleanála and outside the remit of the 2010 hearing.

However, it was within the remit of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. Members of the community made several hundred submissions to the Department on the foreshore aspect, which related to the tunnel. Almost all of these submissions included a request for an oral hearing, but that was not granted. The only environmental impact statement produced was that produced by Shell. There has been no independent survey on the bay.

Chairman

I am anxious that the other groups have an opportunity to contribute. I ask Deputy Ó Cuív to be brief.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

This is very important. I can understand the concentration on what happened, but there is a broader issue to consider. The delegates say that the community, namely, the parish of Kilcummin, should have had a say, but if a similar project were proposed in some other place, how would we define "the community"? One of the issues we must consider, if anything constructive is to come from the committee's examination of this matter, is how we might devise a general process that is robust. The delegates' argument is that the process which was there from the beginning was not robust and produced incorrect outcomes. Any such process must have universal application. In other words, it should be applicable regardless of the community or geography involved. We must define in the abstract and then apply the law. One of the problems in drawing up any law is that the concept may be easily defined but the devil is in the detail. One cannot devise laws that are applicable to this community or that community; they must be applicable anywhere in the State.

My understanding of the current process is that it begins with a consent process which gives a schematic approval to the whole project. That is where the fundamental shape of the project begins to emerge. In this case, Shell said that it would be done on land, indicated the general location of the pipe, while noting that it could move one way or the other, and the position of the terminal and the well. It seems that at this point in the whole process, there was not - nor was there a legal obligation so to do - sufficient public consultation. Once that die was cast, everybody was chasing the game, not only the community but also Shell. Let us be honest about that. From Shell's point of view, it has been a very bad process because it led to so many delays. If the company were starting all over again, I am sure it would find a much better system which would ensure a much greater buy in from the local community. Shell would admit itself that it has been a very expensive way of doing business. All of the subsequent problems arose because the basic schematic was in contention from the beginning.

The delegates have a great deal of experience and I am interested in their view. If they were designing a general process, as opposed to a specific case for north Mayo, which included all of the elements included in their proposal, what would that look like? They placed a great deal of emphasis on local consultation. We have a principle in this country whereby anybody can make an observation, which is sometimes welcomed and sometimes not. In the generality of it, anybody can submit an objection to An Bord Pleanála in respect of a specific project, no matter where they live. I can object to a person's planning application even if I live 200 miles away from where that person proposes to build. What the delegates seem to be suggesting is that there be some process of weighting in this regard. I assume they are not saying that nobody outside the locality should have the right to make an observation or put in their penny's worth. However, they are arguing that an extra weighting should be given to the local community, however that is defined. How do the delegates propose to devise a system that would ensure this part of the process is done right? If it goes wrong, everything after that is wrong, regardless of the consent process. If the basic plan is a matter of contention into the future and people feel they have not had an input, every subsequent element of the project becomes a problem.

Deputy Patrick Nulty

From our perspective, the major learning from this experience is not only that we must develop new processes but that we also need to establish a mechanism whereby existing processes are honoured. In this case we had a situation where a pipeline was being constructed prior to the conclusion of the planning process. That was the major flaw in this project from day one.

Mr. Vincent McGrath

On Deputy Ó Cuív's point, the communities directly affected - how that is defined will depend on the nature of the project - must be the main stakeholders and must be consulted, particularly where there are implications for health and safety. Their voice should be heard loudly. Members may be surprised that they did not get a rant or diatribe from us against Shell or other oil companies. That is because we lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of the legislators who changed the law several times in order to facilitate this pipeline. I will not go into the different Acts, but we can pass that information on to the Chairman.

Chairman

I am obliged to suspend the meeting for 15 minutes in order to accommodate a division in the Dáil. I thank the groups who have made their contributions. We will hear from the remaining delegations after the break.

To clarify, delegates may have misinterpreted my reference to best practice. The information on technology was interesting, but it is also about ensuring we have a constructive framework, be it in regard to onshore, offshore or any type of resource, which ensures a positive outcome for everybody and the minimal amount of impact. At last week's meeting the delegates from the Irish Offshore Operators Association were asked whether the Corrib experience has been damaging to Ireland's reputation, to which they replied in the affirmative. Nobody has won out of this. When one considers that in the case of Marathon it took nine years, from 1979 to 1988, from the day a licence was issued to the day the company began to develop a commercial field. That was a different time and there were different challenges involved, but if one wants to argue that there is a right way and a wrong way to go about these matters, Marathon and Shell offer as good examples as any.

Sitting suspended at 5 p.m. and resumed at 5.20 p.m.

Chairman

I apologise for the fact that we were obliged to suspend proceedings in order to deal with some business in the Dáil. If members are of the view that the previous delegation left some questions unanswered, perhaps they might submit them to the clerk and we will obtain replies in writing.

We are joined by Mr. Seán Hannick, chairman of the Council for the West, and Mr. Brendan Cafferty, from Pro Gas Mayo, both of whom I welcome. I wish to inform them that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give to the committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in respect of a particular matter and continue to so do, they will be entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against a person or persons or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members have already been reminded of the rules which apply to them in respect of parliamentary practice.

I call Mr. Cafferty to make his presentation.

Mr. Brendan Cafferty

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leat, a Chathaoirligh, as ucht cuireadh a thabhairt dúinn bheith anseo inniu.

I thank the committee for inviting us to attend it to make a presentation on behalf of Pro Gas Mayo. I am secretary of the Pro Gas Mayo, which is a voluntary, non-remunerated, non-political group which came together a number of years ago. We support, in principle, this project as being beneficial for the area and the country in general, subject, of course, to the usual health and safety and environmental standards. Our group comprises people from all walks of life. I must emphasise that the reason we decided to form was that we were of the view that the adverse publicity surrounding this project was having a negative impact on the area. Some people in small and big businesses informed us that they had heard on various occasions that the people of Mayo are rejectionist types and we sought to redress the balance in this regard.

The area of Mayo about which we are concerned was long ravaged by emigration. It was, therefore, with a sense of anticipation that the Corrib project was initially greeted as being of benefit to the region. It was also felt that it would be a catalyst for greater things. People of the area, with few exceptions, welcomed the project. I recall a meeting held at an early stage in Bangor Erris that was attended by 800 or 900 people from the area, all of whom supported the project.

The advent of the project also coincided with the closure of the peat-burning ESB power station at Bellacorick and the closure of a Bord Na Móna facility in the area, both of which employed several hundred people. Perhaps it is possible to state that, in hindsight, Shell could have communicated better with some of the local people involved. Shell was not initially awarded the licence relating to the Corrib, rather it was Enterprise Oil. Shell only took up the licence at a later date. When Shell sought injunctions against some landowners in 2005 - leading to their imprisonment - matters seemed to enter a new phase and this took quite some time to turn around. It must be noted that 27 out of the 32 farmers in the Rossport area were not opposed to the pipeline going through their lands.

The then Minister, former Deputy Noel Dempsey, established an independent review involving Advantica Consulting, which eventually indicated that the pipeline would, with a few modifications, be safe. The former Minister also appointed Peter Cassells to try to negotiate but his efforts were not successful. Shell then planned a new pipeline that would be located twice the distance from local houses. The matter went before An Bord Pleanála and in November 2009, in a decision that was rather baffling, the latter found that the pipeline would not be safe and recommended that a tunnel - possibly approximately 5.7 km in length - be bored under Sruwaddacon Bay. An Bord Pleanála advised the company to proceed on the basis of this recommendation.

On 20 January 2010, Mr. Bob Hanna, chief technical adviser to the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources wrote to An Pleanála and took issue with its risk assessment methodology. Mr. Hanna pointed out that the latter was based on the consequence and that no attention had been given to likelihood of occurrence or mitigation measures proposed. He also highlighted the fact that the methodology used was different from best international practice and stated, "There are very significant potential consequential implications arising from this approach ... it would have the effect of prohibiting all significant infrastructure developments". Mr. Hanna illustrated his point by stating that a consequence-only approach meant one would have to design and build an aircraft that would protect its passengers from harm when it crashed. Mr. Hanna's letter was not very favourably welcomed in some quarters.

The proposal relating to the tunnel under Sruwaddacon Bay also had to be laid before An Bord Pleanála. Given that the latter had suggested the boring of such a tunnel in the first instance, permission was granted. However, stringent conditions were attached to the project. It will take approximately two years to complete the tunnel at a cost of a few hundred million euro. We are of the view that the bar has been set very high for Shell which, it must be remembered, purchased the licence relating to the project from Enterprise Oil. An Bord Pleanála laid down very stringent conditions in respect of noise control, lighting effects, protection of wildlife and other matters of an environmental nature. During the course of construction of the terminal at Ballinaboy, not a single accident occurred on the site. That is a wonderful record, particularly in view of the fact that up to 1,400 people were working on the site at one point. Some 400,000 tonnes of peat were removed from the site at Ballinaboy - which is located in the middle of a forest and which is not visible from the public road - and taken to a cut-away Bord Na Móna bog at Srahmore, some 8 km distant. Again, there were no difficulties in this regard despite predictions by some protesters with regard to the occurrence of an environmental catastrophe.

Gas from the Corrib field was supposed to have begun flowing in 2002, at a cost of €700 million. By the time the gas eventually flows, the project will be approximately 12 years behind schedule. In excess of €2.5 billion will have been spent on the project by that time. The State will be the big loser in this regard because the company will be in a position to write off costs before it pays corporation tax. It is our firm belief that enormous damage has been done to the reputation of this country by the Shell experience in terms of planning, protest and delay. I have no doubt but that other multinationals have taken note, and this will reflect adversely on the country. No major companies applied for the recent licensing terms, which is significant.

The committee members will be aware that gas from the terminal at Bellinaboy will flow from a pipeline that connects to the national grid at Craughwell in Galway. It runs through central Mayo into County Galway. Several towns along the way in the Mayo-Galway region – 12 in all – have been connected. These include Crossmolina, Castlebar and Westport, and more are asking to be included. Most, although not all, of those towns now have gas. It is not from the Corrib but coming the other way; it is imported from the United Kingdom and possibly eastern Europe. The gas has proved beneficial to major companies such as Baxter in Castlebar, which estimates it saves up to €3 million in energy costs per annum since switching. The Western Development Commission is seeking to have gas extended to 11 further towns in the north west. It estimates that €20.6 million could be saved annually if commercial and domestic users were available as an option in these towns. Ballaghaderreen, one of the towns mentioned, estimates that a large agribusiness in the town could achieve a saving of €1.3 million annually if the gas were available.

We are often told that the licensing terms are favourable. If so, why has offshore exploration not soared? The recent licensing round is approximately 6% of the area on offer. Only 3% of the Irish offshore area is under licence. If the terms are so favourable, why are there not flotillas off our coast banging on our door looking for licences? Instead of a Normandy-style invasion, we have more of a Dunkirk-style evacuation.

The example of Norway is often quoted in certain circles and The Irish Times. The strike rate in Norway is one in four; in Ireland it is close to one in 50, not one in 100, as stated mistakenly. Ireland has had three strikes in 40 years and one more is anticipated. The Government of Norway refunds 78% of the cost of an unsuccessful well. I do not believe the Irish taxpayer would be partial to such an arrangement. If Ireland had to cough up €50 million for drilling each dry hole, the taxpayer would have spent several hundred million euro on rebates to exploration companies for all the dry wells drilled, with no tax revenue to counter this.

We are sometimes told of the great gas giveaway. In this regard, it may be salutary to remember a few points. The stringent terms introduced by Mr. Justin Keating in 1975 were relaxed considerably. There has been much speculation about it. Despite this, when the licence for Corrib was being sought, there were only two applicants therefor. This reminds me of the Dunkirk analogy. All of the eight exploration licences issued in 1995 have been handed back to the Department. Of the 11 issued in 1997, ten have been surrendered. The Irish licensing round in 2009 attracted only two applications, with one licence being issued. A similar round in the United Kingdom attracted 350 applications, with some 145 licences being issued. Ireland attracted 15. Some 156 exploration and appraisal wells were drilled in Ireland compared with 1,200 in Norway and 4,000 in the United Kingdom.

The former Minister, Mr. Eamon Ryan, increased the tax rate applying to future projects. Therefore, the rate is to be between 25% and 40%. This compares favourably with the rates in similar countries, except Norway, which is a very special case. Ireland's fiscal tax rate is comparable to that in regimes in other Atlantic margin countries with low success rates, including France, Spain and Portugal.

Let me outline some positive effects of this project. Up to 1,400 people were employed in this project at the point of peak construction in 2009. A large number of these employees were from the region in question. Up to 800 people were staying in local accommodation. There will be 200 people in accommodation until the end of construction. There will be 130 long-term jobs on the project once it is in operation, which will be for approximately 20 years. Some €18 million has been spent on road upgrades, through Mayo County Council, throughout construction. Over €5 million has been spent on community investment initiatives in Erris over the past five years. More than a dozen local contractors and suppliers have been employed on the project over the past five years, employing mostly locals, where possible. Many of these have proceeded to win contracts locally and further afield on the back of the experience gained on the Corrib project. Many service industries in the area have prospered very well. Anyone casually visiting Belmullet town and the surrounding areas will be taken by the apparent absence of signs of recession.

Approximately 60% of Ireland's electricity is generated from gas. We currently import between 80% and 85% of our gas, mostly from the United Kingdom, which is itself a net importer of gas. The Corrib project will enable the country to replace gas imports from the United Kingdom with indigenous supplies. At peak production, the Corrib project will provide some 60% of the natural gas demand. It is vital for our future security of energy supply and, therefore, for the economy.

The position on proper, realistic legislation is obvious as we do not really have an oil and gas industry. We do not have the capacity, financially or otherwise, to achieve this ourselves. The recent licensing round attracted approximately 15 applications – 13 were granted – compared with 350 in the recent round in the United Kingdom. We must be fair to all parties, Shell included.

Issues have been raised about the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission. I understand from reading The Irish Times that over 100 complaints were made to it. They have been rejected but one was referred back to the Garda Commissioner. Following reports on “The Frontline”, etc., an observer was put in place to monitor policing and human rights in the area. I read last week that this person has been withdrawn. I do not know why. It would have nothing to do with the State but I would just like to know whether the individual found anything wrong. It is only fair that this be put on record.

Mr. Sean Hannick

I will refer to the background. I have a business in Killala. I have been involved in community development for over 50 years. The Council for the West is a voluntary, independent, non-political group promoting the development of the west. Over the past several years the council has taken an active interest in the Corrib gas project and has visited the Bellinaboy Bridge gas terminal on several occasions. Some council members are due to visit it again shortly.

While the council members are keenly aware of the protests arising from the project and the divisions created, the council believes the development of the Corrib gas project will be of significant benefit to the Erris area, Mayo and the country. Some of these benefits are already to be seen.

As the gas is to come ashore in County Mayo, it became necessary for the Corrib gas developers and Bord Gáis Éireann, BGE, to construct a pipeline from the Bellinaboy Bridge terminal to connect with the national grid at Craughwell in County Galway. As a result of the availability of that transmission pipeline, 13 towns, four in Galway and nine in Mayo, have been connected to the national gas network. The availability of a connection to a clean source of energy like gas levels the playing field for industrialists who might like to locate in areas such as Galway and Mayo. Galway and Mayo are now able to compete for foreign direct investment on an equal footing with those other parts of the country connected to the gas network. Hopefully, other towns in both counties will be connected later.

One major Mayo-based company recently converted to gas from electricity which cost approximately €4 million. The company concerned, however, estimates it will recover the investment in two years because of the savings from the switch-over to gas. Not alone is gas cleaner and more cost effective, it also allows companies to plan better and control their costs by entering into long-term contracts with BGE. This option was not open to them before and now allows them a better competitive advantage.

The construction of the Bellinaboy Bridge terminal has also brought huge benefits to Mayo and Erris. At the peak of construction in 2009, over 1,100 workers were employed on the project. Up to 50% of those workers were living in Erris, resulting in a boom for the accommodation and hospitality sector in the area. Local suppliers and contractors have been part of that boom. Most people in Erris would agree the downturn in the economy and the construction sector, in particular, that has affected the rest of the country since 2008 was not evident in Erris until recently. The downturn has had some impact in the past year, in particular, as the numbers employed on the Corrib project have reduced.

Other benefits arising directly from the project include up to €18 million invested by Shell in the strengthening of roads in the vicinity of the terminal. Significant local grants schemes have been operated to the benefit of over 100 local organisations. Significant capital investment has been made in projects in Erris out of the Erris development fund. A very successful scholarship scheme was introduced which, to date, has helped over 50 local students through third level education. Shell has agreed to invest €750,000 to upgrade the Rossport group water scheme. Arising from the An Bord Pleanála decision to grant permission for the onshore pipeline, a community gain investment fund of €8.5 million will be managed by Mayo County Council to the benefit of the area and community close to the terminal. Arrangements have been made with local fishermen to compensate for lost earnings caused by Shell's offshore activities.

All of these are significant benefits that would not have arisen were it not for the discovery of the Corrib field. It is fair to suggest the Corrib field would not have been discovered if the exploration licensing regime was such that it did not attract major oil and gas exploration companies into the area.

There has been much controversy attaching to the Corrib gas project. Some of the controversy has been justified. However, there has also been considerable misinformation around the project, particularly around the licensing terms. Oil and gas is a high-risk business involving huge capital investment. Each well drilled in the offshore can cost up to €70 million with no guarantee of success. Critics of the Corrib gas project, and indeed critics of the political establishment, talk about the great gas giveaway, the rape of the country's natural resources and political corruption. None of these people, however, can answer why, if there is so much oil and gas in the Irish offshore, is there so much inactivity and so little interest in exploration.

The answer, of course, is there is no great gas giveaway, no great plunder of the country's natural resources. The reality is we need to continue to encourage the exploration companies and ensure the licensing terms are such that they can confidently make the investment in exploration that is needed.

The Corrib gas field is a mid-size one, approximately two thirds the size of the Kinsale Head field. While it is by no means a major discovery, it is important to Ireland as it will meet 60% of the country's gas need for the next 15 to 20 years. Imagine what it could do for the country if another Corrib field were discovered in the current round of licensing. We would then be in a position where our energy future was secured for the foreseeable future. Two more Corrib fields would mean Ireland could be an energy exporter like Norway. Like Norway, we could use the tax generated to underpin further developments.

Why is there no great rush to explore in the Irish offshore? The recent round of licensing was the most successful ever in that there were 15 applicants and 13 licences were granted. While that is a welcome development, it is disturbing, in my view, that none of the major global oil and gas companies applied for licences. Why? The clear and logical answer is that the major companies are committed to making their investment in exploration areas that offer a better prospect of success, even in areas which do not offer licensing terms as attractive as Ireland.

We do not have the financial resources to invest or the technical expertise required to develop a programme of exploration. We have little or no option but to seek to attract those companies with the expertise and financial muscle to discover and then to produce whatever resources exist in the Irish offshore.

Critics of the Corrib gas project and some media commentators make comparisons with Norway. Comparisons are odious, especially when not comparing like with like. Norway has a well-developed oil and gas industry, at least 35 years ahead of Ireland. Those who cite Norway as a country that Ireland should imitate conveniently forget to mention that Norway abolished royalties in the mid-1970s as they sought to attract the major companies to explore in Norway. Ireland now is doing nothing more or less than Norway did 35 years ago.

An exploration company drilling a dry well in Norway recovers 78% of the cost of the well from the Norwegian taxpayer. In Ireland, a company drilling a dry well gets no return. It must live with the loss of €70 million down the drain. The geology in Norway is much more favourable to the discovery of oil and gas reserves than in the Irish offshore. In Norway, exploration companies can expect a success rate of one in four; in Ireland the rate is one in 100. It is easy to see why the major exploration companies are not climbing over one another to secure licences to explore in Ireland. In Norway, more than 1,200 wells have been drilled. In the UK, the number of wells is over 4,000. In Ireland, 156 exploration and appraisal well have been drilled and, since 1975, the only successful discovery has been the Corrib field.

The Corrib field has an estimated 0.9 trillion cu. ft. of gas. Kinsale was 1.5 trillion cu. ft. of gas. The Troll field in Norway is an estimated fifty times greater than Corrib. The Corrib field was discovered by Enterprise Oil in 1996 and has still to come ashore. The Ormen Lange field off Norway was discovered in 1998. The developers of both discoveries included Shell and Statoil. The field was in far deeper water than Corrib and was technically more challenging yet it was brought ashore five years ago. Consumers in the UK are connected to the Ormen Lange field, while Irish consumers are relying so far on Russian gas supplies. The terms on offer in Ireland - a tax on profits between 25% and 40% - compare favourably with most countries other than Norway which is in an unique position because of its geology which offers a high probability of success.

In Ireland, we have missed the point because of the concentration of the media and the political establishment on the licensing terms. Instead of looking at the tax returns, or lack of them, we should be looking at the jobs or, in our case, the lack of them. The oil and gas industry are highly labour intensive. In Norway up to 250,000 are employed either directly or indirectly in the oil and gas industry and it is that employment and the taxes generated on the back of those jobs that is the mainstay of the Norwegian economy. The tax take from oil and gas is the icing on the cake.

Let us imagine the transformation that could take place in this country if we could develop the oil and gas industry to create even 100,000 jobs. That is the challenge facing this country; instead of debating the merits or otherwise of the oil and gas licensing regime, we should be debating how we can harness our offshore resources to create those 100,000 jobs. One of the leading media commentators in this country recently suggested that we should invite Norway to develop our natural resources and that we should give the Norwegians 50% of the profits accruing from that development. I regard that as a most damaging and defeatist attitude. We have Irish oil and gas companies exploring, producing and succeeding in countries around the world where their activities are welcome. Instead of dismissing those companies we should encourage them to come to the Irish offshore and put the expertise and experience to work to develop an Irish oil and gas industry that would create Irish jobs and generate a tax return this country so badly needs. Whingeing and moaning about our licensing terms will not create a single job. As a country we need to develop a get-up-and-go attitude. We need to encourage investment and to harness every resource at our disposal, and that includes the safe and proper development of our oil and gas industry.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I will not go into the terms of exploration as we have had much debate on the matter in previous meetings. SIPTU was in recently. It is a matter that must be examined further. One of the big issues before us is to try to get the maximum return for the Irish people. For that, one needs exploration to take place on the one hand and on the other one needs to ensure that the tax regime, or any other financial regime, gives one a good return.

It is fair to say that the Government as it progressed changed many things and recognised that there were serious flaws in the process. For example, we changed the safety regime from being the responsibility of the Department to the Commission for Energy Regulation, CER. The pipeline permission has changed to An Bord Pleanála because it was rightly recognised that it was the same Department that gave the permission. It was different in the old Bord Gáis days when the Department in charge gave the permission. It is also important to note that we did increase the tax take and change the tax regime. In many ways the Government has recognised that the system that was in place was less than optimal. Do the witnesses agree that the processes of permission and appraisals and safety and environmental approvals were very fragmented and complicated? If the processes are in need of further reform then what reform do the witnesses believe should take place?

Do the witnesses agree that the local community often felt powerless to influence the project and that from the start any new project should have clear legal requirements, consultation and the involvement of communities? Reference was made to damage to this country's reputation. I have often heard that mentioned. Do the witnesses agree that in a democracy the answer to situations such as that is to devise a system that gets the maximum buy-in and not one that does not allow dissent? In other words, my experience as a community activist is that most communities will accept any reasonable development and if one gets a significant group within a community opposed to something, first, it is their democratic right - as long as they stay within the law, and second, normally a serious issue arises. I am interested in the views of witnesses as to how in a democracy, which is very important, one devises a system that avoids what happened in Mayo.

When protests were ongoing I argued for a long time in favour of having observers of calibre. I acted as an observer on the Garvaghy Road, the Ormeau Road and in Derry. I found that as soon as one brought observers into a protest situation, as long as they were people of calibre who would call it as it happened, the amount of violence diminished virtually to nothing. I am interested in the views of witnesses on the importance of observers of calibre. I refer to people such as human rights academics, clerics, public representatives and diplomats. That was the kind of mix that was involved in the North of Ireland. I only regret that we did not get involved earlier as many unsavoury incidents would have been avoided. We always did it on the basis that whoever was out of place, irrespective of which side - the security forces or protesters - we were going to call it as we saw it, and we were invited in by the communities on that basis.

Do the witnesses accept that Shell was left a bad legacy by Enterprise Oil, that where the situation went wrong was at the very beginning and that everyone has been chasing the game since then? I was in Erris as Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs but I was not involved in any way with the gas project until much later. Is it the perception of the witnesses that the way Enterprise Oil handled the matter in the early days was non-inclusive and was inducive to what happened subsequently?

I would like the view of witnesses on LNG processing offshore. My only concern about the proposal is that the LNG could be put into a boat and taken somewhere else. Whatever we do we must ensure that the gas comes to this country. It is Irish gas and it should be available to the people of Ireland. I understand that Bord Gáis has an arrangement to get Corrib gas whenever it lands. I am interested in hearing the views of witnesses on the matter.

When the project began, it aimed to bring gas to where the pipes were already in place, which is on the east coast. It was a major flaw that there was no plan to provide gas to the people of Erris and no guarantee of gas at the beginning for the people of Mayo. We must ensure from now on that in such projects that the State, which was wrong, but eventually we persuaded ourselves to come around to the right decision to give gas to Mayo - although we do not have it yet for the Erris region - must introduce clear guidelines on the receiving community in such a situation getting the benefit of the resource and not being given the argument that it is fine for the resource to flow through it but it is not economic to give the resource to the local community. Do the witnesses agree that the community gains system the company is operating is an unsatisfactory arrangement because the gains seem to be provided on its say so? I am not casting aspersions on the company but some people interpret it as a sweetener. Community gain should be something people get as of right. It should be a legal condition rather than a discretionary payment.

Serious questions have arisen at today's discussion regarding the Garda Ombudsman and An Bord Pleanála's planning process. Speakers on all sides referred to the Norwegians. I suggest we invite the Norwegians over to ask them their opinion of our situation, taking our seas into account. An Bord Pleanála may not be able to discuss the individual issues but it could answer our questions about the process it follows and what it regards as acceptable or unacceptable. The same concerns arise about the Garda Ombudsman. People feel disempowered in regard to these institutions.

What is the attitude of those who participated in the north-west forum to its demise? I understand that the forum has not met since I ceased to be Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. Should it have continued and was it doing any work? Should a forum of this type play a role in these projects or were the witnesses happy to see it die?

Deputy Michael Colreavy

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. I listened carefully to the earlier presentations from those who are concerned about what happens to Corrib gas, as well as the presentations from those who represent groups with differing views.

Perhaps I am being naive but I presume that nobody objects to the extraction of our own natural resources as long as a number of criteria are met. First, there must be a payback to the people of this State for the use of our resources. Second, the extraction and distribution of resources must be independently verified as environmentally sustainable and safe for human and animal life. Third, the people who are most immediately impacted by the extraction and distribution of natural resources must be fully engaged in project planning from the outset.

With respect to the final witnesses, they set out a robust of Shell and the Irish political system, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and the planning process. However, they signally lacked an appreciation of why people have concerns about the way this project was handled. This lack of appreciation of or care for the people who are most immediately impacted by Corrib gas brought us the events that surround the project. Despite what they have claimed, a considerable number of reasonable people in politics, the public service and the media have grounds for concern, particularly in other areas where prospecting licences are being considered. All they have to do is look at the worldwide track record of some of the companies under discussion today, including Shell.

At last week's meeting, my party colleague told the oil company's representatives that he does not trust them. We do not trust Shell. Its objective is to make as many profits as it can achieve. There is nothing wrong with that objective but it is wrong that they are facilitated by an acquiescent Government and system of regulation in extracting maximum profit at minimum cost, whether in respect of safety or otherwise.

I do not know what can be done about the Corrib gas project but I live in north County Leitrim in the middle of the Lough Allen basin. Trials are ongoing in my area on hydraulic fracturing or fracking, a phrase with which I was completely unfamiliar 12 months ago. This is a method of extracting gas from underground sources by pouring huge amounts of water and chemicals into the ground, thereby causing minor explosions which release gas. It has proven very damaging in the United States and has been temporarily banned in France. There is speculation that minor earthquakes in Blackpool, England, were caused by fracking in the vicinity. It will impact on the north of counties Leitrim and Sligo, County Cavan, south County Donegal and west County Fermanagh.

People are being told not to worry because the licences were only issued for explorations. They are also being promised that environmental impact studies will be conducted and they will be fully consulted, but the company in possession of the exploratory licence has apparently already bought the land concerned. I am not too cynical to ask why it would purchase this land unless it had received a commitment that it would get a return on its investment. It is not unusual for a company to kick-start the process before handing it over to a major operator. That is par for the course where major operators want to get a foothold in projects. I am surprised the witnesses are surprised by that fact.

I will stand behind those who have concerns and will insist that the people who are impacted by these developments are properly consulted and engaged from the outset. The Government's primary responsibility is protecting the people rather than the oil and gas industry.

Can the witnesses recommend any way of avoiding the unsavoury sights we witnessed in regard to the Corrib gas projects in areas like the Lough Allen basin? Can they recommend some way to ensure this message does not go out? We had one line of criticism of Shell in the submissions, which is the company could perhaps have approached it slightly differently.

I would like to be a little parochial. Why is gas not being piped through counties Sligo, Leitrim and Donegal into County Fermanagh? Why is it being diverted around County Sligo? Is there something wrong with the good people of Sligo and north Leitrim?

Chairman

The Deputy is straying off the point.

Deputy Michael Colreavy

I may well be but I said I would get a little parochial. It is a valid question.

Chairman

It has to do with where the pipeline connects to the network. The gentlemen cannot answer that question.

Deputy Michael Colreavy

I understand that.

Mr. Brendan Cafferty

We are waiting for the Lough Allen basin to come on stream.

Deputy Michael Colreavy

The Lough Allen basin is relevant because I want to make sure the same mistakes are not made again. I do not want the community in the basin to be split in two. If gas is extractable safely and this will result in a payback to the local community as well as to the nation's coffers, the locals must be engaged at every stage by the company involved. I do not want a community rent in two because of that development. Those are the types of lessons we must try to learn from the Corrib project.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I thank the delegations for their presentations. Four groups have addressed us and I was only aware of three of them. Perhaps it is my own ignorance but I had not heard of Pro Gas Mayo previously. How did the group come about? Is it a public body? Does it hold public meetings? Do the members of the group have contracts with Shell for the construction of the terminal? Are they business people who may benefit from the contracts relating to the construction project?

The two presentations gave a good overview of the benefits natural gas can bring to an area and the savings companies are making on their energy costs. We all accept natural gas can bring such benefits but it is equally valid to argue that if the gas was processed offshore using the Twister technology mentioned earlier, which would have been 100% acceptable to the communities in Rossport and Bellinaboy, those benefits would still have been experienced. The gas pipeline had to be laid and, therefore, the gas would still have been piped to the towns in Mayo and they would have benefited from it. Many of the benefits to Mayo from the gas pipeline resulted from the protests and not the goodwill of the developers or the State. Large sections of the community have been appeased or bought off by pumping money into so-called development projects. The Council for the West outlined five major benefits of the pipeline and four are directly attributable to the protests and the effort by Shell to be accepted in the area.

Mr. Cafferty's submission contains only one statement that Shell could have done things differently with the benefit of hindsight. Will he elaborate on that and on how community consultation could be improved to ensure projects such as this are made more acceptable to communities in the future? He also mentioned that 27 of the 32 farmers in the Rossport area did not oppose the pipeline. Is this because only five went to jail? Is that how he measured the level of support or opposition to the pipeline? He also said that while 100 complaints were made to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, only one was referred to the Commissioner. It is worrying that the commission felt it could only take action on 1% of the complaints it received. If the Garda only brought 1% of people it arrested to trial, we would be up in arms and we would think something was seriously wrong with policing in the State.

Sadly, the logical conclusion of the submissions is that people should accept that fracking will happen in the Lough Allen basin, they should be glad of the jobs that will be generated during the construction phase and they should hope for the benefits natural gas will bring to the various towns, if any of them are left given the potential for pollution. They should accept that and move on. That is a worrying proposition. The purpose of the committee's work and investigation is to find a way to ensure proper community consultation and buy in and ensure other communities are not put through the torture the people of Erris have had to put up with over the past ten years.

Deputy John O’Mahony

I thank Mr. Hannick and Mr. Cafferty for their presentations. It is important to get other views and I welcome the articulation of the benefits to the region. I was particularly interested in the savings can be made by companies that switch to gas. I welcome the supply of gas to towns in Mayo and I agree with Deputy Ó Cuív that gas should also be made available to Belmullet and the Erris region. My own town of Ballaghderreen was mentioned in one of the presentations. Agribusiness is significant in the town and it would also benefit. Stimulus is needed for industry and this could be an element of it.

Community consultation has been to the fore at this meeting. It is clear that the view of the community in Kilcommin is that everybody was against the way this was implemented and the views of people outside the area who did not have to live through this should have been given the same weighting as those of people in the area. Will both groups comment on that?

Deputy Patrick Nulty

I thank Mr. Hannick and Mr. Cafferty for coming here today to make their presentations. In order to give us some sense of their position in the local community, will they give us the background to how they came to be involved in this issue, explain their professional background and indicate how they developed their interest in the issue? Have either Council for the West or Pro Gas Mayo ever held a public meeting in the local area? If not, why not? How are their organisations structured and how do they make their decisions? Are their meetings open to everybody and how does one become a member and get involved? It would be interesting to know how these organisations operate. Pro Gas Mayo is an organisation that is new to me and as I am new to this committee I am very interested to hear how the organisation started, its funding mechanism and the role it sees itself playing in the future. The response to these questions will enlighten our discussion this evening.

Deputy Martin Ferris

The name Pro Gas Mayo implies that there is an anti-gas feeling in Mayo. I am pro gas Ireland, pro gas Mayo and pro whatever is discovered, but I am anti any violation of community rights and anti any exploitation of our resources for selfish benefits. I have huge reservations around many oil companies and what they have done worldwide, not least Shell - or Enterprise Oil before it - which has an abominable record when it comes to human rights. We just need to look back to the hanging of eight people because they opposed Shell exploiting oil in their tribal homelands.

I refer to the eight people put to death by the Nigerian Government on behalf of Shell. I do not believe Shell when it tells me it has the interests of the community at heart nor when it tells me all the good things it is trying to do for the people of Mayo. What Shell is trying to do, like most other oil companies, is exploit resources for its own selfish ends. That is the reason I do not believe Shell. Nor do I believe Pro Gas Mayo is an appropriate name because it implies that people who have a different view are anti gas Mayo.

I heard presentations here today from two groups who live in and are representative of the area to a large degree. They have been at the receiving end of an abuse of the legal system and abuse by forces of the State in order to submit them to the will of a certain elite of this country and the oil companies. These honourable people have displayed tremendous courage in defence of and in standing by their communities. They have not been compromised by vested or individual interests, but have been prepared to - and did - go to prison in order to protect their people and their communities from what was a very dangerous pipeline. It was so dangerous that it has since been shifted.

What we need to ask both of these men here is whether they were as supportive of the oil companies initially, prior to the decision of An Bord Pleanála. I would also like them to answer a number of other questions. Do their organisations have structures in place? Do they hold public meetings and are the leaders of the organisations elected at public meetings? What representation do they have in the Bellinaboy area and have they had public meetings there? What membership structure and what decision making processes have these organisations got? Above all, do they hold open meetings? What is the relationship between these organisations and Shell EP Ireland? Do these organisations receive funding from any source? Have they had any meetings in the parish of Cill Chomain or in the local town, Belmullet, to provide updates on their activities to the local communities?

The Pro Gas Mayo presentation states that this area of Ireland and Mayo was long ravaged by emigration - we can all empathise with that - and so there was a sense of anticipation for this project and it was initially greeted as being something of benefit to the region that would be a catalyst for greater things. People of the area welcomed it, with few exceptions. I would imagine that 99% of the people of the area welcomed it. However, we are concerned about what followed afterwards.

The presentation went on to say that perhaps in hindsight the company Shell should have communicated more with the local people involved. What happened is typical of Shell and of oil companies. There is no policy of communication with local people. They are seen as little people who do not matter to these big oil companies, as we have seen worldwide. What matters to them is what they can extract from the ground for their selfish interest and how, in the meantime, they can compromise people to agree with them.

Unfortunately, I do not know anything about the Council for the West as I only heard of this organisation for the first time today. It claims to have representatives in Donegal, Leitrim, Sligo, Roscommon, Mayo, Galway and Clare. Mr. Hannick says that the Council for the West is independent and non profit making and comprises voluntary persons and representatives from the main churches and business and community activists. What does he mean by the main churches? Does he mean it is interdenominational? I saw a priest here today speaking in favour of the communities that are at the receiving end of what is happening. When Mr. Hannick mentions the main churches, is he talking about the church hierarchy, the members of the church, the clergy within that church or is he talking about other denominations?

Mr. Hannick may think I have a jaundiced view of oil companies. I have a human rights view of oil companies and of how they have managed to make vast amounts of money, control governments and been to the forefront of a significant number of oil wars for which we are currently paying a big price, due to the selfishness and greed of oil companies. Today is about the people of the area and about how those affected have been effectively imprisoned in their area by Shell security people and, unfortunately, the Garda.

They have been imprisoned because they stood up for what they believed in. Effectively, they have been portrayed as anti-gas due to the fact there is a pro-gas Mayo movement. I spoke to those people. They have been very reasonable and they are prepared to find a resolution to this if there is a willingness on the part of Shell, the authorities and others.

Mr. Brendan Cafferty

There were quite a few questions. In response to Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív, the tax take is 26%. I do not think that will change for Shell. It is binding. What the Deputy mentioned there - I am not saying erroneously or anything like that - would be in the future and that is welcome, of course.

In regard to fragmentation of the planning process, there is possibly an argument for a one-stop-shop, so that everything could be sorted out together. I would have no problem with that. Community consent is certainly an issue. When I travel around Ireland, I see signs on polls stating: "No dump here" or "No mobile telephone mast here", although everybody wants a mobile telephone. How much community consent would one ever get for anything? Everybody wants to dump his or her rubbish not in his or her local area. Mobile telephone masts are supposed to be lethal to the health of people when it suits but it is all right to have them somewhere else. I would submit that community consent is a pretty nebulous thing.

I refer to gas for the east coast and the main pipeline down through central Mayo to link up to Craughwell. I am not sure if Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív's colleague, former Deputy Frank Fahey, had an input into that but it certainly proceeded at speed. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív was right that some of the towns in Mayo were left out at the start but they got it. I refer to towns such as Castlebar and Westport. I submit that one of the reasons they got it was that they were in close proximity to the connecting pipeline to the national grid in Galway.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

They got it not because Bord Gáis could prove that it was viable. My contention is that the wider issue is whether they should have got it anyway. I am not just talking about Castlebar and the big towns. I am talking about the county and all over the west of Ireland. Should they have got it anyway? It should have been said so much would be tax. I am being critical of decisions we made. I am being open as the whole idea of life is to learn from the past. Should it have been a policy from day 1 that Connaught would get the gas, starting with Erris and working outward from there and not something that Bord Gáis would have taken on a case-by-case basis on whether it was viable? That is the way it has done it.

Mr. Brendan Cafferty

One is talking about financial considerations and Bord Gáis is a commercial organisation. If the gas was landed in Donegal I am sure Deputy Pringle would be the first to say that every town in Donegal should get it.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Should that be a policy? I would ask Council for the West should that be a clear policy. I tried to put in CLÁR money but time caught up with me to try to get it to towns that were not getting it because I believed it should be a policy and not something that might happen because it might pay Bord Gáis. There is a difference. One is a proactive Government policy, the other is a Bord Gáis commercial decision.

Mr. Brendan Cafferty

One of our aims as a group was to get it for all the towns in Mayo. Sadly, Bellmullet which is only approximately 12 km away from the refinery has not got it. Rural areas are a different kettle of fish but Bellmullet town has not got it and we were very disappointed about that. We pressed that it would get it. There are several other towns in Mayo, such as Swinford, Foxford, Kiltimagh and Charlestown that have not got it. They have been told they will not get it. I suspect that it will be quite a few years before they get it. Given the experience of Baxter, those towns do not have a lot going for them currently. We have pressed and done surveys and studies in the hope that they would get it. However, we have failed. That is the sad position.

In regard to the north west Mayo community forum, which Deputy Ó Cuív attended with the former Minister, Eamon Ryan, we all took part in that. There are certainly some benefits that will flow. I did not realise but I take the Deputy's word that it is dormant-----

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Mr. Cafferty can take the Minister's word. He responded to a parliamentary question from me.

Mr. Brendan Cafferty

In regard to Deputy Colreavy's point, I agree Shell is not a philantropic organisation. I refer to fracking in his area, an area with which I am familiar. I saw a recent "Prime Time" programme where some expert from the United States or Canada said they would not use chemicals. That is either right or wrong. The Deputy can pursue that further.

Deputy Michael Colreavy

I wish to clarify that. It was clarified for the spokesperson who made that claim. He was quite precise in his language. He said they would not be using any chemicals in the extraction process. The chemicals, in effect, were going down.

Mr. Brendan Cafferty

I defer to Deputy Michael Colreavy's greater knowledge on that.

Deputy Michael Colreavy

Is it any wonder we have some suspicions about the veracity and integrity of people who would use that type of language in order to mislead people?

Mr. Brendan Cafferty

That is what Deputy is saying. I would certainly like to look into it further.

Deputy Thomas Pringle mentioned our members, as did others. We are a voluntary group which has come together. I am retired and our chairman is a retired teacher who lives a few kilometres from this terminal. Many of our members are just ordinary people, including farmers and some small businesses. I am not sure if any of them have supplied anything to Shell. We have got no funding from Shell and in fairness to it, it has never offered us one penny. We would not take it because that is what our integrity depends on. That is a fact that will stand the test of time. I have no problem with that at all. We hold meetings at various times, although not on a structured basis. We have held meetings in Belmullet, Bangor Erris, Ballina and Castlebar. They are not just open to the public, to everybody. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív might recall a megaphone interruption of a meeting of the north west Mayo community forum. We take steps to guard against that.

I was asked if we accepted the decisions of An Bord Pleanála. Of course, we do. We supported the pipeline in its original format. The former Minister, Noel Dempsey, commissioned an Advantica report which said this pipeline was safe and that it was quite a distance from houses. The records of pipeline failures in Europe show that no pipeline with walled thickness greater than 15 mm has ruptured. The Corrib pipeline wall thickness at 27.1 mm is almost twice as thick and thus even less likely to fail in rupture mode.

We believed it was safe, but An Bord Pleanála found otherwise. I have cited Mr. Bob Hanna, who took serious issue with the finding and the precedent that it set. As a result, the tunnel under the bay will take at least another two years to-----

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

The tragedy is that could have been done at the start. I am referring to the pipeline, not the terminal.

Mr. Brendan Cafferty

The pipeline on land is safe. We accept every decision that An Bord Pleanála makes. We do not accept one only to reject another.

Deputy Martin Ferris

On that point, the community raised all of these concerns at the time and was proven right despite the fact that Mr. Cafferty's group kept supporting-----

Mr. Brendan Cafferty

Not only us, but Advantica took the view that the re-arranged land pipeline was safe. In an unprecedented move, Mr. Hanna, a person of repute and integrity, wrote to An Bord Pleanála because he took issue with the finding. An Bord Pleanála broke new ground, but we accept its decision.

Deputy Ferris also referred to an abuse of the legal system. Does he accept that Ireland has an independent Judiciary? Is he happy with-----

Chairman

I am sorry, but comments must be made though the Chair.

Mr. Brendan Cafferty

Does Deputy Ferris accept that we have an independent Judiciary?

Chairman

We will park that discussion. I will invite Deputy Ferris to ask further questions in a moment.

Mr. Brendan Cafferty

Mr. Hannick can speak for the Council for the West. Where Shell is concerned, I must be fair and point out that it never attempted to influence us in any way.

Mr. Sean Hannick

The Council for the West was initiated approximately 20 years ago, primarily by the western bishops who were approached by locals to do something about the west's unemployment situation. The council comprises appointed representatives of the different dioceses and people who have been co-opted for their skills and so on. I have a business background. Indeed, I have been in business for too long, since 1959 or 1960. I am unsure about which year I started. I started a small industry that is 30 years old this year. I have been involved in other businesses as well.

The council is 90% funded by the dioceses of the western bishops and 10% funded by companies that we have approached while lobbying to improve infrastructure in the west. Deputy Colreavy mentioned the gas pipeline to Sligo. We lobbied for it for years until the recession took hold. The pipeline should have continued to Leitrim and Donegal. I hope that, when finances improve, it will be extended.

Deputy Ó Cuív asked about the planning process. I agree with Pobal Chill Chomáin, Pobal le Chéile and any other group supporting the protests that the planning system is far from perfect. It is pretty bad and anti-development. Every project should be evaluated and decided upon within six to eight months. Instead, companies seeking to start doing business in Ireland need to wait one or two years and may be rejected. The overall process can take as long as three or four years. This is a matter that the members could take up to determine how to improve the process. Where the State does not have the necessary skills for an evaluation, it can buy them.

Several projects that would have created employment in the west have been rejected. For example, members are aware of the case at Knock Airport. A tourism project in Boyle and another project in a village in County Leitrim were turned down, but they would have created a few hundred jobs each. In my body's opinion, these were not the right decisions. The planning process needs to be improved.

Deputy Ó Cuiv asked how it could be improved so as to take everyone's opinion on board. Communities must be included. I have been involved in attracting a number of industries to the area. One tries to get in with them early. A major industry was coming to our area some time ago. We got independent technical advice from a number of sources, visited similar industries elsewhere in the country, etc. Communities must take an active part if they want to be involved and know what is occurring.

Job creation is one of the Council for the West's main objectives. This is the most important element when creating sustainability and keeping young people at home, but we would not advocate jobs at the expense of the environment or health and safety.

Local communities must be involved. Both groups referred to community consent, but what is that? Is an objection from one person enough or must there be ten, 20 or 30 objectors? Community consent is difficult to define, but perhaps it should mean the majority of people in the affected area. What is meant by the affected area? Not only does a project as large as the Corrib gas project affect the immediate community, it can also affect the county and the whole of the west.

Extending the gas supply to other towns was mentioned. The protests played a part in the Government changing its policy and supplying gas to some smaller towns. It is a pity that the financial situation fell through, as the gas supply could have been extended to the rest of Mayo and the other counties, in particular Leitrim and Roscommon. Two major industries in Ballaghaderreen could have done with that supply to make them competitive, but extending the supply has not been possible so far. Perhaps all of us could get together to twist the Government's arm to ensure the supply is extended.

I do not know whether I have answered every question. Is any question outstanding?

Chairman

The majority of the questions have been answered.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I have one question. Does Mr. Hannick accept it is impossible to run any industry if the host community or a significant part thereof does not want it? I accept that 100% community consent might not be forthcoming but, as someone who has been involved in an industry, I cannot imagine how one could run an industry if a significant number of members of the host community opposed it.

If a process is first agreed and gets 98% buy-in, and as long as it operates as it says it will and has integrity, is independent and objective, then I would expect people to accept what ensues. I would also expect the developers to say that if the process turns up something against their interests, they must accept it. The flaw was that the process for the basic schematic plan did not get buy-in. It all hung on that point. Is it tenable to have major projects going ahead in communities with a significant community opposition not only to the project but also to the process that determined the project?

Mr. Sean Hannick

This is related to the earlier question on what represents a significant section of the community. Do ten people, 20 people or 50 people represent it? Should it be 50% of the community, more than 50% or less?

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I do not think it can be counted in that way.

Mr. Sean Hannick

We must find a way to define that.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Sometimes there are things you cannot define but that does not mean they are not real. There was significant disquiet about this and people do not get involved in long-term protest unless they feel passionately about the issue. My view is that the process was deeply flawed. If I am dwelling on this it will be my last comment. Perhaps we could agree that the process was deeply flawed. There have been changes and some of the flaws have been dealt with but not in total.

This is related to the fracking problem in Leitrim. We need to develop a whole-of-project approach that engages the public, particularly local communities, early in the process. We need to have a whole-of-project process to decide whether some things are in or out. In the case of County Leitrim, it is a black-and-white case and we must make a fundamental policy decision on whether fracking is included. My gut feeling is that people will take a lot of persuading to accept that it is. The logic of it does not bear thought in lovely Leitrim. We need to have everyone join together and make suggestions on what the process could be. If people think the process is right, then it is irrelevant.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

My first point relates to community gain, grants for local organisations, the upgrade to the Rossport group water schemes, the €8.5 million community gain investment fund and the compensation for onshore fishermen with regard to Shell's activities. Do the two representatives believe these would have taken place if the community had told Shell to carry on and that they had no problem with anything the company was doing?

Mr. Cafferty mentioned the Advantica report and I want to correct the point made. The report recommended that the gas pressure in the pipeline be reduced by over 50%. It did not say the pipeline was safe but recommended significant reductions in gas pressure.

Mr. Brendan Cafferty

Shell had already accepted this point. The pressure was never going to be at the outrageous pressure levels some people were talking about. Regarding community consent and protest, some people, who are not represented here, do not want this under any circumstances. A proposal was made to relocate the terminal or refinery to an area further north, at Glinsk, which is an unsuitable area with cliffs. The proposal was made when the terminal was two thirds built. Some people, possibly from Shell to Sea, said that they did not want it under any circumstances and probably felt disappointed that some of the protest groups had come up with a new proposal to shift it elsewhere, even though it already had been practically built.

An Bord Pleanála found that the pipe was unsafe and recommended a tunnel. We have a different view. Is this the endgame and do people accept it? I got the impression that it should be examined again. Despite its faults, the endgame is in sight. An Bord Pleanála has granted permission and the consents are in train. Will people accept this? We accept it, even though we had some difficulty with earlier decisions by An Bord Pleanála.

I agree with Mr. Bob Hanna that new ground was broken with An Bord Pleanála. Do we want to consider this indefinitely and end up with a never-ending story? Do we start all over again in Leitrim, the county in which I was born? It could do with some development and I hope it is done safely and in accordance with regulations.

Deputy Martin Ferris

Mr. Cafferty posed the question of whether we are prepared to accept the decision of An Bord Pleanála. By his admission, Mr. Cafferty was prepared to accept the initial proposal. People have a right to appeal to An Bord Pleanála if they have concerns. It is incumbent on everyone to listen to what people have to say. The presentation by Ciarán Ó Murchú outlined three points that suggest a solution to the problem. Are other people listening?

Mr. Ó Murchú also referred to a fair compromise between the stakeholders. Is that possible? I believe it is. He also suggested methods in keeping with the best available technology and practices. This seems reasonable to me. He referred to practices being consistent with the precautionary principle that prioritises people's health and safety over development, which is also reasonable. One can approach this with an intransigent mindset, thinking that these people are a bunch of loonies who should not be minded and cannot be talked to, but if the organisation I am part of had done similarly, there would be no peace process.

Chairman

No one has suggested that approach.

Deputy Martin Ferris

One must listen to people, sit down and talk to them.

Chairman

That was not suggested by the witnesses today on either side.

Deputy Martin Ferris

People must be listened to and have a right to put their points of view.

Mr. Sean Hannick

Regarding Deputy Ó Cuív's point about community consent, I have been involved in community development for over 50 years. It is not humanly possible to get 100% support for any project. Does one accept 90% or 80%? If we adopt this approach, we will never have a project started. It is up to the authorities to get the input from everyone and then make a decision.

Chairman

I will bring this meeting to a close. I have let this meeting develop by turning a blind eye to some protocols so that everyone can have their say and engage usefully. This was an exercise for members to learn more about what has happened with regard to the Corrib. If this committee is to have any relevance with regard to oil and gas exploration, it must have two roles, one of which is to consider the fiscal terms. Although I do not agree with everything in it, the SIPTU report is entitled Optimising Ireland's Oil and Gas Resources. Nobody would disagree with that. Our challenge is to look at the tax incentive measures, and consider why we have not found oil and what happens when we find it. It is important we do all we can to get exploration in place to try to find the resources. When considering how to attract people, we need to avoid a replication of what happened in Mayo. People are aware of that when deciding whether to go and explore. If they find something they wonder what the timeline and future difficulties will be.

Deputy Ó Cuív and others have said we need to devise a framework to allow for engagement at an early stage. I agree that it is very unlikely to get unanimity on any decision. I got one in Wicklow when I proposed a mediation and retreat centre in Glendalough, where I am from, and I got 24 out of 24 councillors to support it, which was unprecedented. I do not believe anything else would have got through. We must accept democracy and have faith. Even though the Deputy disagreed with the decision of An Bord Pleanála he accepted it. Others have mentioned that there seemed to be a chain of events leading to An Bord Pleanála changing an original opinion. Regardless of whether that is right, that perception persists.

There needs to be distance from the political system and that must be seen. However, the political system must establish the framework. It is our job to recommend to Government and come up with something having learned the lessons. I hope the groups that appear before the committee do not feel this is just an exercise in PR for anybody. It is ongoing work and is a genuine effort by all members. We have had all-party agreement on the process in which we have engaged. While we need to decide, we probably are finished hearing from witnesses. From here we need to decide how best to use the information we have got from all sides, including the Department, SIPTU, the two groups before the committee today and people from the oil exploration business. We have gathered considerable information. Deputy Ó Cuív might have rather flippantly suggested bringing the Norwegians over.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

No, I was serious about that.

Chairman

The way he said-----

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I was 100% serious.

Chairman

I agree with him. It is a very worthy proposal. Norway offered free to developing world countries the sort of advice we could possibly do with. If we have to pay for it, so be it. We should pay for it up front rather than pay for it in other ways suggested by one journalist, which would not be a wise way to go about it.

I thank all the witnesses. It is now just after 7 o'clock and we started in public session at 3 o'clock, which comes to four hours.

The joint committee adjourned at 7 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 7 December 2011.