Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2006 - Second Stage Debate - Tuesday 28th November 2006

Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2006 – Second Stage Debate - Tuesday 28th November 2006

Mr. Norris: I was not really offering but the Cathaoirleach's benign paternal eye spotted me. This is a matter on which I had thought I might have an opportunity to speak but there have been many other engagements this evening, such as the launch of Deputy Michael D. Higgins' book and the launch of a programme for the restoration of St. Patrick's Cathedral by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche. I gather some funds will be made available to ensure this valuable project proceeds.
I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill because I have several general points to make. The Minister of State has referred to franchising out maintenance and repairs on gas lines. This is deplorable. It is part of the move away from our creditable State agencies. Gas and water supply, allied with companies such as Bord na Móna, were State enterprises. Although some had problems, at least one knew with whom one was dealing. Now one does not. Every time one calls about a missing part, one speaks to a different person. There should be some standardisation. It is a pity we have chosen to franchise everything out and dismantle State enterprises. This runs through the entire system. It applies to telephone services too. The company says it will record one's conversation for the purpose of teaching its apprentices rather than asking permission to do so.
There is a section in this Bill dealing with safety of liquefied gas in pipelines. This strikes directly at the Shell to Sea issue. I am dismayed at the Government's attitude to this matter. It is quite extraordinary that our Constitution, which guarantees property rights, appears only to guarantee the rights of property developers and speculators. Small people who feel it is their right to protect their homes do not seem to matter nowadays. This Government has not supported these people. Instead it has enlisted the forces of the Garda Síochána into the battle on behalf of a notorious multinational, Shell Oil.

An Cathaoirleach: I am afraid the Senator may be diverting slightly from the real purpose of this debate.

Mr. Norris: I want to divert here. We are after all a nation of digressors.

An Cathaoirleach: Is it in order to digress?

Mr. Norris: Of course it is. If it was not in order the Cathaoirleach would have stopped me long ago. Laurence Sterne not only wrote digressions in Tristram Shandy but also wrote a whole chapter entitled "A Digression upon Digressions". I assure the Cathaoirleach that I will be modest and control myself.
This is germane to the question of the safety of gas pipelines as contemplated by the Bill. People have the right to protest when they feel their safety is threatened. The Government obviously feels the need to be a monitoring power and purports to look after the welfare of citizens in this Bill. It is appropriate to raise this issue, especially to sound a warning about how this powerful company is investing heavily in media spin. We must be careful not to assist in this.
I am only repeating what I said on the Order of Business a few days ago. It was astonishing that the good and decent Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, allowed himself to say in the Dáil that an unnamed acquaintance of his had overheard a telephone conversation on a mobile telephone in Grafton Street in which the words "Rossport", "riot" and others were mentioned. That is smear and it is not good enough. I had complimented this Minister a few weeks previously on his courage in tackling other issues. Given that the former Minister, Ray Burke, handled licences in an unusual way that caused considerable comment, this should be opened up. It is inappropriate for the Taoiseach to say the correspondence is closed and so cut off the debate.
I hope we will have an opportunity under the Cathaoirleach's wise chairmanship to open up the question of the Shell to Sea campaign, the rights of the people in that area and the fact that they were attacked. I have seen the videos and spoken to people who were involved. One man, a professional photographer, was beaten with a baton and pushed onto the barbed wire. That is not appropriate. I am looking to the Cathaoirleach to guide us and ensure we have a full and proper debate on this topic.

An Cathaoirleach: As such, does the Senator recognise that this is not entirely relevant at the moment?

Mr. Norris: Everything is relevant. It is all a matter of degree. That is why the Cathaoirleach is so wisely tolerant of me. There are now two Ministers of State present in the House and we hope that some of these protests will make their way back to Government, even if it requires a certain elegance of construction to make them appear relevant.
I would like to take up the question of fuel allowances, which may not be directly contemplated in the Bill. Somebody mentioned the fact of people needing to keep warm, particularly elderly people. Although this may not be directly contemplated by the Bill, it is appropriate at this time of the year that the Government bear it in mind. I heard a case on the radio of a person who had gone marginally over the income limit, perhaps as the result of having a special savings incentive account, SSIA, and was cut off from the free fuel supply. This man and his wife have cancer and the form of her cancer leads to a coldness of the extremities bordering on hypothermia. They are vulnerable people. This comes under the heading of energy in a broad sense. In a country which has sufficient funds, cases such as this should be dealt with in the most flexible possible way. I thank the Cathaoirleach for his lenience and tolerance.