Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 12 May 1987

Vol. 372 No. 7

Safety, Health and Welfare (Offshore Installations), Bill, 1986: Second Stage.

Minister for Labour (Mr. B. Ahern)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

The Bill has been in the course of preparation for a number of years and its sole objective is to ensure that adequate safety arrangements exist in respect of installations involved in the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons. The work involved is by its very nature hazardous and I would expect that the contents of this Bill will meet with broad support across the House. There may be differences on points of detail but I am satisfied that the overall thrust of the Bill is correct. I have examined the provisions in the Bill in detail and while I will have a few amendments to suggest at Committee Stage I think there should be no further delay in moving this Bill forward.

Two main factors have influenced the evolution of this Bill. One is the necessity for strong and detailed provisions relating to the safety, health and welfare of persons engaged in offshore operations. The other factor is the need for adequate advance planning to deal with the situation which may be created should substantial petroleum finds be made.

Exploration off our coasts began in 1971. Up to the end of 1986, the total number of wells drilled was 95. This year it is expected that at least four wells will be drilled. Last year over 250 Irish personnel were engaged for offshore work. So far this year just over 100 personnel have been recruited. As this Government intends to actively encourage offshore development I am hopeful that there will be increased opportunities for the many experienced Irish offshore workers.

Exploitation is confined at present to natural gas off Kinsale which came on stream in 1978 and is carried out by two production platforms. We would all hope that the exploitation of natural gas will be matched by development of native oil resources off our shores in the not too distant future.

The Bill provides a comprehensive framework within which the efforts of all concerned with the safety, health and welfare of persons employed on offshore operations must henceforth be directed. To set these new provisions in perspective, it is necessary to deal briefly with the legal basis for existing arrangements.

While general responsibility for ensuring the safety, health and welfare of workers employed on offshore installations rests with my Department, none of the safety protection statutes administered by the Department applies to such installations. As the law stands, the rules and procedures for offshore petroleum development and production operations are based on the Petroleum and Other Minerals Development Act, 1960, and on offshore licensing terms administered by the Minister for Energy.

Section 6 of the Petroleum and Other Minerals Development Act prohibits searching for or recovering any petroleum found, save under the licence from the Minister for Energy. The safety of workers employed on an offshore installation is at present controlled by a condition in this licence. This condition requires the licensee to comply with all regulations and directions of my Department for securing the safety, health and welfare of persons employed in or about the licensed area. The current requirements are those set out in the Safety Instructions for Offshore Petroleum Operations issued in February 1983 in place of previous instructions issued in 1975. While this arrangement has worked reasonably well until now, I think the House will agree that it is far from being an ideal one.

The incidence of fatal accidents on offshore installations in the North Sea has been alarmingly high. For instance, over 110 deaths from accidents in or near offshore installations were officially recorded in the first 17 years of drilling for oil in the North Sea. Nearly 650 accidents involving serious injury were recorded in the same period. In the case of operations in Irish waters, however, the only penalty available at present for not observing directions about the safety of workers employed on or about these installatins is withdrawal of the licence. A penalty which would involve ending all exploration or production under a particular licence is obviously not a satisfactory means of guaranteeing the effectiveness of day-to-day safety management on production installations.

There is no place for any complacency about safety concerns in the hazardous environment of an offshore platform. I do not set any great store on bureaucratic means of ensuring that safety standards are met. No system introduced by Government or overseen by my Department's inspectors will ever achieve safety offshore. Put simply, all offshore employers and each and every individual employee must understand that responsibility for an effective safety system lies in their own hands.

I welcome the positive approach which trade union and employer interests in the petroleum industry have shown in promoting a safety conscious working environment. Both sides have recognised the importance of training in the drive towards safer operations. Under a recruitment agreement made in 1985 all employees recruited for offshore work are required to register with the National Manpower Service and to have completed a fire-fighting and survival course. This will ensure that all offshore personnel have basic training for what is a very dangerous job.

I believe that it is important that workers should be involved in decisions about their working environment. Having regard to the nature and intensity of the hazards encountered, I am convinced of the need for a mechanism to enable workers on offshore installations to become involved in decisions on safety and health matters.

I am satisfied that the provisions of the Bill are broadly in keeping with the recommendations of the Barrington Commission. They should serve to press home to offshore employers and to their workers the need for effective safety policies, the importance of safety training and the value of having carefully drafted and well-observed procedures. No amount of attention devoted to recording accidents is going to be of any use after all if the main emphasis is not on avoiding the possibility of accident or damage in the first place.

The Bill is divided into six parts under which are grouped sections dealing with preliminary and general matters, offshore installations, safety regulations and representations, accidents, offences and penalties and the powers and functions of inspectors, with subsidiary provisions.

Part I is concerned with preliminary and general matters and contains a number of standard sections dealing with commencement, definitions, application, and regulations. An enabling section for the provision of regulations will allow specific aspects of offshore operations to be subjected to detailed regulations. While the Bill contains substantive provisions for safety matters, I have decided for practical reasons that the legislation will be backed up by detailed regulations. Section 5 (1) makes consultation with the Minister for Energy obligatory before any regulations are made. I have also included a provision for consultation as necessary with other Ministers.

The main feature of Part 2 of the Bill is the establishment of the position of installation manager. Section 11 requires that every offshore installation shall be under the charge of a competent installation manager appointed by the installation owner. The manager will, under section 13, have responsibility for safety, health and welfare and also for order and discipline. As Minister for Labour, I have taken power to specify by regulation the installation manager's duties in relation to the safety, health and welfare of installation workers. Section 10 places an obligation on the manager to see that the installation is not used unless the rig and its fittings and equipment are suitable.

All equipment must be of sound construction and adequate strength and it must be properly maintained and comply with regulations which will provide for a certification procedure in relation to these requirements. Section 10 also casts a qualified duty on the installation manager to ensure that all working places on or about the installation are safe. There is a duty on different employers operating at the same installation to co-operate in protecting their workers from danger. Section 12 provides that no offshore installation may in future function except under the daily personal supervision of the installation manager, or of a qualified substitute during his absence or incapacity. In section 16 a duty is placed on the installation manager to keep a logbook and a record of all persons on board the installation. Section 14 prohibits the employment on offshore installations of persons under 18 years of age, unless exempted by regulation.

Section 15 places an obligation on employees of the installation to look to the safety of themselves and their co-workers and to co-operate with employers in complying with the Bill or regulations. In section 18 the installation owner is obliged to see that suitable clothing, equipment and facilities are provided for the protection of workers. Other sections in Part 2 oblige him to ensure that a sufficient system is provided for the detection of gas, for the safe storage and identification of dangerous substances and preparations and for dealing with the hazards of naked lights and smoking.

Part 3 of the Bill deals with safety on the installation itself. Section 22 specifies matters which may be the subject of safety regulations. These include the operation of support vessels, aircraft, work processes, pipeline works and matters listed in the Schedule to the Bill, for example, medical and training requirements and emergency procedures. Before regulations are made, notice of intention to make them will, in most instances, have to be published at least 21 days in advance. This procedure will give interested parties an opportunity to make representations about their content.

Other sections of Part 3 deal with safety representation and may be brought into force by regulation. Section 23 allows for selection by the workers of a safety representative and deputy safety representative to represent them at consultations with the installation manager on safety, health and welfare. Section 24 outlines a procedure for the selection by the workers, if they so wish, of a safety committee to assist the owner and the installation manager in securing comliance with all safety provisions and regulations. The committee may appoint a safety delegate and deputy safety delegate. There is provision in section 25 for appointment by the installation manager of a safety representative or safety committee in default of any initiative in that regard by the workers.

Under section 26 the owner of an installation will be required to draw up a statement of policy specifying the manner in which the safety, health and welfare of the employees will be secured. The installation manager must make a copy of the statement available to any safety representatives or safety committee or, if neither exists, to any employee on the installation who requests a copy.

As I stated earlier, these provisions on safety representation reflect my concern to highlight the importance of worker involvement in safety matters. I recognise that ultimately a framework for involvement can only succeed in its purpose if it is suited to its environment. Following the publication of the Barrington Report on Safety at Work, my Department have been working in liaison with the Interim Board for Occupational Safety and Health on the drafting of legislation to give effect to its recommendations. In this context, it may be necessary to review the present provisions in this Bill in due course.

Part 4 of the Bill lays down the procedures to be followed in case of accident, injury or death and in the event of the occurrence of disease on an installation. In sections 27 and 28 I am proposing the establishment of procedures to be followed where death occurs as a result of accidents on or around an installation. Written notice must be given immediately to both myself and the Minister for Energy.

There is also a prohibition on interference with the scene of an accident for a specified period unless an industrial inspector of my Department has visited the installation and agreed to any proposed changes. Section 29 lays down procedures to be followed where a person on an installation is found to be suffering from a prescribed disease. I have taken power to order, where I consider it appropriate, a formal investigation into any accident, disease or other occurrence notified to me under the legislation. In the discharge of my functions under the Bill I will have the benefit of professional advice from an industrial medical adviser, who may be vested with the powers of an industrial inspector.

Parts 5 and 6 which conclude the Bill deal with offences and set out the penalties for breach of provisions of the Bill, and with the powers of the industrial inspectors of my Department. The inspectors are given the right of access to offshore installations and to make examinations, inquiries and tests necessary to ascertain whether the Bill and the regulations are being complied with. They are also empowered to serve notice imposing prohibitions, restrictions or other requirements in cases of immediate or apprehended danger. Provision has been included for an appeal against any such notice.

The Bill will undoubtedly benefit from the detailed scrutiny of this House. I will, of course, be prepared to consider any constructive suggestions to improve the Bill's provisions. I am satisfied, however, that in its general principles it will provide an effective framework to harness the efforts of all concerned with the safety, health and welfare of persons employed on offshore installations. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Birmingham

There are many areas which one would not expect to be the subject of party political controversy and certainly the area of health and safety at work is one of those. It is an area which should be addressed in a non-partisan fashion and taken seriously on all sides. The benefits from addressing that area in an effective manner will be felt throughout the community. There is the immediate benefit in terms of the pain and suffering of individuals which could be avoided and the wider economic benefit to the community if accidents can be avoided.

Traditionally when the question of health and safety has come before the House there has been a willingness to approach it in an open-minded and non-partisan manner. I recall that when the Safety in Industry Bill was before the House there were no less than 150 amendments tabled on Committee Stage, many of them from the Government side of the House. I am pleased to hear the Minister for Labour say he will be open-minded in regard to amendments and that he himself will put forward some amendments for our consideration. Despite our open-mindedness our collective record in the area of health and safety is less than entirely satisfactory. Our safety code, taken all together, is quite inadequate. It is in no sense comprehensive. At least as many workers find themselves outside its provisions as within it and some of those are engaged in activities which one immediately would think of as being hazardous in nature. There are people employed in the agricultural area, laboratory work and so on who find themselves outside the scope of that legislation.

There is also the fact that our legislation has traditionally placed an emphasis on legal injunctions —"Thou shalt not", we tell the employer, by and large. To a somewhat lesser extent we tell employees "Thou shalt not". That emphasis on legal injunctions has been largely at the expense of a programme of education bringing home to all involved — the suppliers of plant, employers, employees and trade unions — their particular responsibilities at the workplace.

While we have been very well served over the years by a dedicated inspectorate, there has been a difficulty in targeting the work of the inspectorate sufficiently at those areas which are most hazardous. Given the number of enterprises which are already the subject of legislation, we have to recognise that it probably will not be possible to have all of them inspected on a regular basis. If we accept it as common cause around the House that there is a need to move to a much more comprehensive situation where the number of enterprises affected will be vastly increased, clearly it will not be possible to have a universal inspection. There is a need for more effective targeting of those areas that are particularly likely to give rise to difficulties.

We have had in the past a patchwork approach to health and safety. That is reflected in the whole range of Acts which impinge on this. If one wants to find out what is regarded as acceptable practice one is likely to find oneself hiding behind a wall of statutes. One will be taking down the Factories Act, the Office Premises Act, the Boilers (Explosion) Act, the Mines and Quarries Act, the Shops Act, to say nothing of various Acts dealing with dangerous substances and particular areas such as the nuclear area. It is unsatisfactory that we should have that patchwork because inevitably it gives rise to loopholes and areas being excluded.

One area which up to now has been excluded is offshore installations. That is a cause of concern since it is one which all of us would immediately regard as being inherently dangerous. To date it has operated on the basis of little more than a gentleman's agreement. People coming in looking for a licence are told they will have to comply with recognised standards. It has long been recognised that this is not a very satisfactory approach and that it is proper that the matter should be put on a statutory basis. I have been racking my brains to remember just how long this has been recognised because very few measures have come before this House after such a lengthy gestation period as this Bill. I was going to refer to it as "elephantine" but I think the poor elephant would have been producing families of offspring while successive Attorneys General and their advisers have laboured over this measure. My recollection of the file is that people who laboured on the complexities of this matter have gone on to well-merited retirement after long service in this State and in Europe. With some sense of relief I saw the measure published during the lifetime of the previous Government and I welcome the Minister for Labour's decision to bring it back into the House and advance it. If there are to be differences of emphasis on Committee Stage, we can deal with that.

Perhaps understandably, given the general legislative background against which this will have to stand, the recipe it contains is very much the same old recipe. There is again an emphasis on legal injunctions. There is a whole series of offences prescribing what employers can do and what employees cannot do. As a sign of the times, there is a nod in the direction of education and information, the role of the installation manager, the provision for safety committees and so on. I wonder to what extent there has been an attempt to influence this measure with the spirit of Barrington. I wonder, for example, whether the interim board operating as a response to the Barrington Commission have been invited to give their views on the details of this matter and, if so, to what extent their views have been brought within the scope of the Bill or will come before us in the form of amendments on Committee Stage.

This is obviously an area of immense importance to both the trade unions involved and to the employers. My recollection of life as Minister of State at the Department of Labour was of having a series of meetings with the employers, and I think also with the trade unions, as we teased out their particular concerns. Perhaps the Minister when replying will indicate the present thinking of the employer and employee organisations in relation to this measure. To what extent have their concerns been met at this stage and to what extent are there issues outstanding?

I mentioned that this legislation has occupied the attention — or perhaps occasionally not occupied the attention — of a whole series of Attorneys General in a whole series of administrations. Their particular concern has focused on the question of jurisdiction, to what areas the legislation applies and how it can be made operative where drilling is actually taking place. Reading the Bill and the explanatory memorandum one cannot be altogether clear about the conclusion. I am not certain that anybody wondering into the Government Publications Office and buying a copy of the Bill and memorandum would be in a position to say what is or is not covered.

We know, for example that this legislation will apply within our territorial waters and I think most of us could make a stab at where they are. We know it covers waters to the landward side of our territorial waters, and if we have sailors in the House they can have a go at indicating where they are. We know it applies to part of the Continental Shelf but when it comes to that a number of us would find ourselves in difficulty. My understanding of it is that the extent of our entitlement under the Continental Shelf legislation will remain a matter of dispute with the British Government, that the limitations of those rights are to be submitted to arbitration, and that until that arbitration is finalised those doubts will continue. I wonder if the Minister could ascertain from his colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, just where that stands at this moment and when we can expect finality to a dispute which is now almost as long lasting as the gestation period for this Bill itself.

Given the fact that this measure in the course of its preparation caused such concern to such a series of legal experts, there has to be some constitutional doubt hanging over it. What is proposed is to legislate in great detail not only for what happens within our national territory but for what happens outside it. We recall that our national territory is defined by the Constitution in Article 3 as consisting of the island of Ireland and its territorial seas and waters but it is clear that this measure proposes to legislate in scope away beyond our territorial seas and waters. There must be some constitutional question mark about that. I wonder what the Minister for Labour thinks of it. If there is a question mark about it a proper way to respond would be to invite the President to refer this Bill to the Supreme Court under Article 26 of the Constitution and have the Supreme Court rule at that stage on its validity in a way that would put the matter beyond doubt once and for all. There have been occasions when Acts of this House have had effect beyond the national territory. At common law there were always a number of offences that were part of our criminal law wherever committed. In recent times in the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976 this House acted to make criminal under the laws of this State a good deal of what I might refer to loosely as subversive activity in Northern Ireland.

This goes a great deal further than that and we are proposing to prescribe in quite extraordinary detail what people, many of whom will not be citizens, are to do when they find themselves on installations outside our territorial seas and waters. I am not sure that it is within the competence of this House to do so. At the very least there is a doubt, and if there is a doubt it is desirable that it be cleared up now. We could envisage, although we hope that this will never happen, in the event of a major disaster and of an inquiry such as those that followed disasters such as the Stardust tragedy, that at that stage it might become very much in the interest of one or other of the parties involved to seek to challenge the constitutionality of this legislation. It is better to face it now and to put the matter beyond doubt. I suggest that we do that by inviting the President to use his powers under Article 26 of the Constitution. I do not even say that the doubt I am raising is a probability. I do not think that it is but it exists and given the difficulties that the House has found itself in in recent times with other decisions of the Supreme Court and given that the doubt is there it is best to dispel it as quickly as possible.

The other thing I ask the Minister in terms of fleshing out what is involved is whether he can place in the Library of the Oireachtas a map showing exactly where he believes this Bill applies, which would show us where our territorial seas and waters are. Most of us know that, but it would show us where those seas landward of our territorial seas are to be found and what claims as to jurisdiction are being made to the Continental Shelf. On that map could he show also where there are existing installations to which the legislation will apply?

Another item of information he could provide for us during the break between now and Committee Stage would be whatever statistics are available to him on the incidence of accidents, fatal and non-fatal, on offshore installations. During his Second Stage speech the Minister gave figures for activities in the North Sea to justify fully his statement about the dangerous nature of the activity that is taking place. I do not know whether statistics are available to him, but surely they must be, relating to the installations to which this measure will apply. It would be helpful to all of us if we had them.

When this measure is passed its effectiveness will in part depend on the way in which it is capable of being enforced by the inspectorate attached to the Department of Labour. They are a very skilled inspectorate, but to what extent does their professional expertise equip them for what is a very specialised area of work? Does the Minister anticipate that extra resources will be required? Will extra inspectors need to be employed on a fulltime basis or does he see himself resorting to the use of experts on a contract basis? In either event has he the funds for that within his budget? Again when there has been a great deal of talk about the need to curtail travel budgets, to what extent will it be open to the inspectorate of the Department of Labour to inspect rigorously and enforce the standards prescribed by this Bill?

Without at this stage going section by section through the Bill — we can do that on Committee Stage — I want to say that I am glad the Minister has decided to bring the measure back in. That is a gesture of good faith with all those who for so many years have laboured on the area. He should see it as very much a first step towards the comprehensive framework for health and safety to which we all aspire. I ask him to see to it that in the rest of this measure's legislative life it will be influenced by the spirit of Barrington. I ask him, too, to ensure that when the measure passes, its enforcement and operation will similarly be imbused with the spirit of the Barrington Commission.

Mr. P. O'Malley

I welcome the Bill and recognise that it is important in that there should be a coherent set of safety regulations for offshore installations. As Deputy Birmingham said, this legislation is long overdue.

Exploration has been going on in Irish waters for about 14 years and it has taken a considerably longer time to deal with the safety aspects of those operations. I am glad that this Bill has been introduced. Up to now legislation for the health and safety of people on board rigs has been dealt with on an ad hoc basis through various regulations introduced by successive Ministers for Energy. This whole are needs to be tidied up and this is the objective of the Bill. Offshore installations are a unique workplace and specific legislation dealing with the safety, health and welfare of the operatives on board the installations is long overdue.

The exploration and exploitation activity in Irish territorial waters has never reached the levels we had hoped. Over the last year, whatever activity there was, decreased further. Last year only seven wells were drilled and only four wells are scheduled for drilling this year. This lack of activity in Irish territorial waters is due in part to a fall in world prices for oil and also to the fact that the terms on offer by the State to those in the oil exploration business have been unattractive. It is essential that these terms be made more attractive to those operators. Our oil industry is vital to our economy and it is very important that this aspect is seriously dealt with by the Government. There must be incentives to ensure that commercially viable discoveries are fully exploited so that oil will be brought ashore in the immediate future.

Last September the then Minister, Deputy Spring, amended the licensing terms when credits were granted to exploration companies for expenditure incurred in the cost of drilling exploratory and appraisal wells. These credits can be set off against royalty liabilities. Also a system of profit-based participation was proposed and the Government no longer reserved the right to take a 50 per cent stake but instead were prepared to operate a two tiered profit system. These changes were welcomed by the industry as a step in the right direction but they have also been criticised as being too little, too late. I would urge the Government and the Minister to ensure that the terms of licence agreements are flexible and are designed to maximise participation of oil companies both in the area of exploration and of developing any oil finds. Indeed the present Minister in an address last October to the Irish Offshore Services Association stated that the first priority of Fianna Fáil on return to office would be to establish Ireland as an oil producing province. I trust the Government will follow through.

I appreciate that this subject is a matter for debate on another day but all parties are agreed that the discovery and the development of commercially viable oil finds would have a major beneficial effect on our economy and must be considered a top priority by the Government. The Progressive Democrats will give their full support to any measures designed to expedite delivery of oil on shore.

In relation to the safety aspects of oil exploration and exploitation, while oil prices are low in international markets exploration costs have not decreased. Consequently some unscrupulous operators might be tempted to operate on the cheap and some installations might be operating under conditions which do not comply with the provisions of this Bill. Therefore, it is important that this legislation should be enacted at an early date.

Section 4 of the Bill deals with exemptions from compliance with the provisions of the Bill. This section is too vague and flexible. The section suggests that just because the installation has, for instance, a small number of employees or because it will only be working for a short period, it would be unreasonable to ask the owners to take adequate safety precautions. I am sure that is not the intention of that section. What operational circumstances would arise to justify exemption on the grounds either that there were not enough workers on a rig or that it would be only working for a couple of days at a time rather than for a protracted period?

The Bill deals primarily with the safety, health and welfare of the operatives. We need to look more closely at the health of the structures. This area has not been adequately covered. If a rig is inherently unsafe, the people working on it are at risk. This aspect of safety is dealt with in sections 10 and 32. Section 10 places an obligation on the installation manager to ensure that the installation is not used unless it, its fittings and equipment are sound and properly maintained and comply with regulations under the section. These regulations may provide for certification of the installation and its fittings. This aspect of safety of operatives is very important and the regulations must ensure that there is adequate and satisfactory certification of all plant and equipment. Such certificates should be renewed on a regular basis and after at least annual surveys.

Section 32 provides for rigorous testing of the structures after an accident. Apparently the Minister under that section can order these checks to be carried out where he considers they have been a contributory factor in an accident. Surely it would be more appropriate to have a preventative maintenance approach to safety measures through a certification system which would highlight in advance any structural defects or weaknesses that might exist on the platform or installation and consequently eliminate potential accidents and avoid serious injury or loss of life.

The most important appointment provided for in the Bill is that of the installation manager. This is a highly responsible position and a very high degree of responsibility and authority is vested in the installation manager. The authority vested in him is equivalent to that of a captain of a ship at sea. This is as it should be because offshore installations and subsidiary installations in the immediate vicinity are complex and potentially hazardous installations. It is very important that, apart from having responsibility for their safe operation, the installation manager should have adequate powers to deal with any problems that arise in the course of the day-to-day operations of the platform and installations.

Sections 11 and 12 set out the main functions and duties of the installation manager and the authority he has in certain circumstances. All of these provisions are necessary. I would submit that the authority of the installation manager be extended in some areas. For instance, section 13 seems to exclude the installation manager from exercising authority in certain cases. Section 13 (1) (a) states that the installation manager is vested with authority over all persons on, in or in the neighbourhood of the installation. He is given specific powers to enable him discharge that responsibility. Subsection (1) (b) states:

This subsection shall not be construed as extending to any matters for which another person is responsible as master, captain or person in charge of any vessel, helicopter or other aircraft, hovercraft or lighthouse.

There could be some confusion in the interpretation of that subsection. I would suggest that the Minister examine this section more closely. It is possible for a conflict to arise if, say, a ship is berthed or tied up to one of these offshore installations, if a helicopter has landed or is on an approach to landing. If the installation manager considers that to be a potential hazard should he not be the supreme authority in such circumstances? But the question may well arise as to who has authority in such circumstances. That matter should be clarified. Otherwise, a conflict or confusion could arise.

It is said in section 5 that with regard to regulations generally the Minister may — after consultation with various other Ministers, including the Minister for Energy, Minister for Health, Minister for Communications, Minister for the Environment — make regulations for giving effect to this Act. I might suggest that the Minister consider consulting the industry before making regulations so that he would know their point of view on matters relating to the health, safety and welfare of operatives involved. It should be remembered that the people operating within the industry are in the front line and that their input would be of practical benefit on a whole range of issues.

Deputies will be afforded an opportunity of examining the various sections in more detail on Committee Stage. Some sections deal with specific procedures, for instance, such matters as naked lights, gas detection, worker safety committees and so on while other sections are of a more general nature. One such generality that strikes me is the definition of an offshore installation. That definition needs to be more precise. Offshore installations can vary enormously and cover a whole range of different types of installations, from conventional ships involved in exploration, to floatels — floating hotels to accommodate workers — to permanent and temporary rigs, indeed to unmanned rigs. The regulations to be made under the provisions of this Bill may very well be appropriate to some such installations but entirely inappropriate to others. That distinction needs to be drawn and the relevant regulations tailored to each type of installation.

I should like to deal also with the question of penalties and fines to be imposed for breaches of regulations dealt with in section 39. Given that a breach of regulations, in certain circumstances, could lead to serious injury or loss of life it is important to ensure that such penalties act as a serious deterrent to unscrupulous operators who might put people's safety at risk. In money terms the fines appear to be quite small, the maximum being, I think, £2,000. Though there are provisions for continuing daily fines of lesser amounts on a persistent offender but possibly even a jail sentence in some cases, we should ensure that they act as a sufficient deterrent to sharp and unsafe practices. Bearing in mind the hazardous conditions likely to prevail in a working environment such as that obtaining on an oil production platform every effort should be made to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the people on board and that fines and penalties are sufficient to ensure that people are not put at risk.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I might compliment the Minister on having introduced this Bill so early in the life of this Government. Its provisions are of tremendous importance. We have been involved in oil exploration since 1971. Like Deputy Birmingham I would have to comment on the fact that its introduction took so long, that it took four years, but I realise that there were real difficulties which had to be overcome.

Mr. Birmingham

It is about 12 or 14 years.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The gestation period since pen was put to paper has been four years; that is if my information is correct.

Mr. Birmingham

It goes back a lot further than that.

Mr. O'Sullivan

My information is that——

Mr. B. Ahern

I do not think it serves any of us to ponder how long it took. Rather we should concentrate on the fact that it is with us now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

And act in the present.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The Minister is correct in saying that there is no great difference of opinion on the main thrust of the Bill but some specific points will need to be examined further and teased out on Committee Stage. It is fair to say that the Minister has the support of all parties. However, there are some aspects on which I would have to comment and on which I should like some information from the Minister. For instance, I would have some reservations about the provisions of section 4 giving the Minister power to grant exemptions. My fear would be that the granting of such exemptions could undermine the whole rationable of the Bill, cancelling out any good work done by the Minister on this occasion. I would fear a drop in safety and other standards if exemptions were granted. There is a need to be more specific on this point. For example, we are told at present that some fields are not profitable. When there is a sufficient supply of oil available the day may come when it may be profitable to exploit these fields and that could well lead to a drop in standards.

With regard to compliance with certain requirements it is said that the Minister may consult with the Ministers for Health, Energy, Communications and the Environment. Does the Minister see a role for the Department of the Marine in this respect? The involvement of four or five different Ministeries could lead to confusion and may not be conductive to the efficient operation of the provisions of this Bill.

There is reference to safety talks between employees and employers. I was a member of a consultative council in Cork for many years, similar to that envisaged in the provisions of this Bill. Even though we sat down and discussed in detail the problems which confronted us, the one drawback we had was that we had no muscle. In this instance we could be faced with a similar situation. We can discuss the matter but we cannot compel the employer to implement some of the measures necessary to ensure the safety of the people working on board these rigs.

In this field of activity targets have to be met. It is a very expensive operation. People are expected to drill at high speed; at times they meet rock which means they may drill only one, two or three metres a day. They may also go through a period of good luck when they go through sand and as a result there is an increase in productivity. When there is a choice between safety and productivity somebody should be charged with responsibility. It has been suggested that the installation manager should be the one to supervise safety measures but can we expect the manager of the installation who is responsible for productivity to also be responsible for safety? It is a classic case of serving God and mammon. That is what concerns me. The installation manager may in haste, if he sees fit, ignore some of the safety measures that are desirable.

Deputy Birmingham mentioned something which struck me rather forcefully — as a lawyer he is better equipped than I am to deal with this matter — that is drilling on the continental shelf. While it is possible within our jurisdiction to implement these regulations, it may not be possible once we go beyond Irish territorial waters. I would like to know the effect on non-nationals who are employed on rigs and who have responsibility for these matters. Irish workers on board these rigs are usually employed only up to a certain grade and the supervisory positions are usually held by non-nationals. There is a reluctance on the part of some of the oil companies to involve the native workforce and to give them responsibility. We may be introducing a measure which it may not be possible to implement simply because the people who will be responsible for implementing them are not answerable to the State.

Deputy Birmingham also said we got some statistics regarding the safety record in the North Sea. While I accept there are only 100 people employed on offshore rigs in Irish territorial waters, it is obvious there is a high incidence of accidents on board these rigs. It will not be possible for us to legislate properly until we can quantify the extent of the problem. If the Minister could provide this information it would help in no small way.

I compliment the Minister for saying in his speech that he is open to suggestions. He referred to the Barrington report and said he will be prepared to listen to any proposals which we have in this regard. It will be necessary to make some proposals on Committee Stage and I hope he will be receptive. In his speech the Minister also stated:

Both sides have recognised the importance of training in the drive towards safer operations. Under a recruitment agreement made in 1985 all employees recruited for offshore work are required to register with the National Manpower Service and to have completed a fire-fighting and survival course.

I would like to ask the Minister — in fairness to him I must say, I got a very encouraging response from him — about those who were employed pre-1985 and who do not come under this heading. There are approximately 27 people who do not hold certificates. For a nominal fee they could be trained in safety and survival procedures which are absolutely essential. Other countries have introduced their own system: Norway and Britain have set a certain standard. AnCO have done good work in training the bulk of the personnel but some of our more experienced people do not have certification. They did not avail of the opportunity to get certificates when it was presented to them, on the basis that some of them felt they were experienced as they had survived for 14 years on the rigs without a certificate. They now find they could very easily be discriminated against and may not be offered employment on the rigs.

It should be possible to have a rig certified as being seaworthy, similar to a sea-going vessel which must have a certain rating from Lloyds. This area should be examined. It serves no purpose to certify a rig after an accident happens. This could lead to abuse because in an area which is difficult to supervise there is no guarantee that repairs could not be carried out in the interim. I am not suggesting that this has happened but it is a possibility and is something we should try to guard against. There are also other considerations. On some of these rigs conditions leave quite a lot to be desired. The standards in regard to ventilation, lighting and matters of that nature are the same as those applied to factories.

The conditions of work on the rigs should be explored.

In recent times a major problem has been created by abandoned rigs in the North Sea and this has created a hazard for shipping. Now that we have the opportunity, we should guard against this eventuality. The lives of seamen who service rigs in our territorial waters will be endangered if we do not take positive steps in the matter. We must ensure there is not a fatal accident as a result of negligence on the part of an operator who might abandon a rig simply because it is cheaper to do so.

I am more than happy to welcome this Bill. I hope that on Committee Stage we can go into the detail that will be necessary to strengthen the position of employees of the oil companies and to ensure a safer working environment.

Mr. Swift

Like other speakers I compliment the Minister and welcome the introduction of the Safety, Health and Welfare (Offshore Installations) Bill, 1986. I welcome in particular the Minister's opening statement that there are two main factors involved in the introduction of the Bill. The first factor relates to the welfare of persons working on offshore installations — to put it quite simply, the workers involved. Any Bill that caters for the safety and welfare of workers in any industry is to be welcomed by all the Members of this House. The other factor is the planning for substantial oil and other finds off our coasts. There is not a Deputy from any coastal county in Ireland — I represent the coastal county of Waterford — who will not welcome the provisions of a Bill which will cater for workers and their safety. In Waterford — I know other Deputies feel the same about their areas — we hope there will be oil and gas finds off our coast.

It was said earlier today that the Bill is overdue in the sense that there are offshore installations operating in the Irish Sea for some years past. Against that, it is nice to be able to stand up here and welcome a Bill which, in broad measure, is anticipatory in its effects. I hope the forward-looking Minister and Government who introduced such a Bill, catering for what is about to happen rather than what has happened, will receive the plaudits of the general public for their farsightedness.

Mr. Birmingham

The Deputy realises who introduced that Bill? We did not get many plaudits for it.

Mr. Swift

The Bill will be passed under a Fianna Fáil Administration. Having said I welcome the Bill in a broad way, like other speakers I have reservations about some of its provisions. I would have welcomed a statement in the Bill that, subject to specific provisions, the ordinary rule of common law regarding negligence and so on would apply to offshore installations. I share Deputy O'Malley's concern about section 4. I do not fully understand what it means. No one could accuse this section of being specific. That would have been all right if the Explanatory Memorandum had given us any clues as to the precise situations the section was intended to cover, but it does not. This section merits some attention by the Minister before the Bill becomes law.

I welcome section 5, and some other sections, where other Departments and Ministers must be consulted about certain matters. I recall an occasion, totally unrelated to this, in Waterford some years ago when I was trying to make progress on a certain issue. I was shunted from the Department of Justice to the Department of Health, to the Department of Education and back again. Any time an official was queried he said it was the responsibility of one of the other two Departments. Eventually we had a meeting with the officials from the three Departments and at that meeting each told the other it was their responsibility. So far as it relates to offshore installations this Bill gets over all those difficulties. The Minister for Labour has the power and the duties in this area but in certain instances he is obliged to consult with the Minister for Communications, the Minister for Health or the Minister for Education. This measure is to be welcomed.

As regards section 5, there is one point I do not understand, that is, where it says that in regard to regulations concerning the health of people, the Minister must consult with the Minister for Health and then make regulations; in regard to fire safety measures, he must consult with the Minister for the Environment and then make regulations; but in regard to provisions dealing with aircraft, vessels, radio facilities and so on, he must consult with the Minister for Communications, and regulations can only be made with the concurrence of the Minister for Communications. I do not know about other Deputies, but I do not understand the necessity for this distinction. I presume matters relating to aircraft and so on are governed by statute, and maybe that has something to do with it, but, if that is the case as regards fire safety measures, there is the Fire Safety Act. If there is an explanation for this distinction, I would welcome hearing it in due course, but if there is an unnecessary distinction it should be abolished.

Sections 31 and 32 relate to investigative powers. This measure is to be welcomed. I hope these investigative powers will have teeth and that the powers will be widely used by the Minister. I do not say that in a draconian sense in relation to the managers or owners of offshore installations, but there is no point in having investigative powers unless they are used. Here again we come up against a situation similar to that which arose under the clinical trials legislation. We are in an era of cutbacks — and everybody acknowledges the need for such cutbacks — but if this Bill provides investigative powers, we will need investigators and proper staffing so that those powers can be used as they were intended. That covers the official side.

In the case of an accident, a worker may find it necessary to consult his legal adviser, engineers or other professional staff to assist him in processing a claim or investigating the accident, but these people would not have ready access to such offshore installations. If a worker has an accident his advisers find it very difficult to get into a factory or shop premises without a lot of to-ing and froing, and very often by the time the arrangements for access are made, the scene of the accident has changed to such an extent that the investigators cannot make a proper investigation. In other words, the locus in quo is not as it was at the time of the accident. The Minister should bear that in mind when he considers making amendments to the Bill.

I welcome his statement that he is open to suggestions but the broad emphasis of the Bill is to protect and guard against danger and accidents to workers. While the provisions in the Bill giving powers to the departmental officials are to be welcomed, the Minister will concede that in many instances what we are regulating here is the right of the worker to have an injury processed legally and a claim made in court. If that process is to be facilitated, the worker's private advisers, be they legal, engineering or medical, should have right of access to offshore installations which in many cases are extremely difficult to get at.

Section 36 deals with defences if there are proceedings under the Act. I agree with the content of subsections (1) and (2) but I am a little worried about subsection (3) which states that it shall be a defence to prove that the doing of the act was necessary for securing the safety of the offshore installation concerned or persons thereon. That could pose a conundrum if a worker is injured and the Minister through his Department wishes to deal with an overall problem or the worker wishes to deal with a specific problem in that the management of the offshore installation can simply say in his defence that he was dealing with the safety of the installation. I do not think that position is satisfactory and the subsection needs to be amended, if not removed, because there will be difficulty in interpretation.

The Bill refers in many instances to management although owners are also referred to. However, in many instances where there is a positive duty on someone to perform an act it is almost always referred to as "the offshore installation manager." In view of the kind of industry with which we are dealing, the companies should be directly responsible in such instances and, if there is any wrongdoing, the Minister or a private individual might, in certain instances, have power to seek redress from the directors, expecially in view of the fact that many of these companies are situated outside the State.

In many cases of offshore installations large multinational companies with a high degree of finance available to them are involved. The fines of £2,000, £1,000, £600 and £200 in section 39 are ridiculously low bearing in mind the Minister's statement that the Bill is intended to cover incidents in the future. Some of these penalties are not as great as those provided for under the Road Traffic Act where a private individual driving without tax or insurance is liable for a much more severe penalty. These reservations are on the periphery of the Bill but it might be necessary to consider them and, therefore, there should be provision in the Bill to look at the question of the licence as there may be instances in which it may have to be revoked. However, I broadly welcome the Bill and the Minister has done a great service in introducing it after such a short time in office. I compliment him on doing so and if any of my suggestions can be met by way of explanation or as amendments on Committee Stage I would welcome them.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

Deputy O'Malley said that four wells were being drilled this year. The quality of the result of drilling is important, not the number of wells involved. The Minister, Deputy Burke, seems quite confident that the prospects are good. The question of more rapid exploration was also mentioned and on 8 April he stated that there was a need to push the pace of exploration along more rapidly than heretofore. He said that a special study had taken place on five unallocated blocks and that they were available as part of a package for purchase. He said that the closing date for licence applications would be 1 July 1987. It appears that the pace of exploration has been accelerated.

The fact that 95 exploration wells were drilled offshore up to the end of 1986 is testimony to the need to provide for the safety, health and welfare of persons employed on offshore installations. The Bill is timely and deals with the protection of such workers. It is an excellent effort at laying down standards for offshore installations. The need for adequate safety and training procedures cannot be overstressed and I am delighted that the Minister is willing to consider any constructive suggestions on Committee Stage.

I propose to deal with the specifics within the Bill. The term "owner" needs to be properly defined. The meaning of that term should include the charterer or the disponant owner because, very often, the rigs are owned by conglomerates and they are leased or chartered. Therefore, it is essential that the term "owner" should be as all-embracing as possible to avoid the pitfalls in the marine sector.

Section 9 (c) of the Bill deals with the removal of offshore installations. When granting permission to remove an installation, it should be incumbent that the granting of such permission would entail pollution control and the dumping of materials over the side. I am referring to the dumping of oil and the protection applying to ships should be mandatory in this case. A proper log of such dumping should be kept. The Bill should also specify in detail the appropriate statutory instruments to ensure that there is adequate provision of safety equipment, fire fighting and lifesaving appliances on the installation.

The question of the person in charge for the purpose of abandonment of the installation is critical because such a person should be truly competent and he should have overall control and responsibility during abandonment. That means we must ensure that lines of demarcation are clearly drawn. I refer in particular to the experience of the sea gem. That rig capsized, following the loss of a leg in the North Sea, with a consequent loss of life.

On that occasion there was no person on the rig with the expertise to evacuate such a structure safely. Therefore, the Bill must in this instance clearly distinguish between an operation explorations manager vis-à-vis a fully qualified master mariner as we have on a vessel. I suggest to the Minister that he should give careful consideration to this distinction in competence to abandon.

I also suggest to the Minister that he should satisfy himself that the arrangements on the Alpha or the Bravo off Kinsale at present are adequate for abandonment. I also question the provision of adequately sized support vessels which should be able to go to the assistance of installations and their personnel in all weather conditions. There is a natural tendency to have a small vessel on standby and, generally speaking, this would meet the requirements of the Bill but we must inquire if such a vessel would be sufficient in all types of weather. Could it, for instance, go to the assistance of the installation in the severest storm conditions? Why is there nothing in the Bill to specify the distance a standby vessel can be from the installation itself? Again, I point to the experience of the Betelgeuse. At the time of the disaster the tugs were around the back of the island almost half a mile away. I suggest that it is absolutely essential that we specify exactly what we mean by having a vessel on station.

Section 2 deals with training. I contend that training creates a meritocracy in itself and that surely this must be the key to an orderly development of the industry when we are fortunate enough to have further finds of oil and gas off our coasts. I see training as being partly funded by private industry which has a vested interest in its proper development and partly by the State by using marginal costs of the existing resources which are available to us such as those at the Regional Technical College in Cork where to date 500 offshore workmen have been given essential safety training.

Finally, mention has been made of jurisdiction in section 4. This is an area which needs clarification. I ask the Minister to consider his authority on an offshore floating exploration vessel in international waters, especially where it is proposed for a garda to visit the installation. I find no mention of such an eventuality in the proposed Bill and I am not certain if, in fact, the right exists. I suggest therefore that such a provision in the Bill should be a condition for the issuing of a licence.

Mr. Flood

First of all, I would like to compliment the Minister on bringing forward this Bill again. It would be fair to say that there was no onus on the Minister to bring the Bill before the House. He could have attempted to have his own Bill passed. This Bill, which I am sure is supported by all sides of the House, seeks to increase considerably offshore exploration in the interests of developing the economy. It is right, therefore, that we should have adequate safety measures and procedures installed to protect the workers on these installations. This Bill goes a long way towards addressing the need to introduce a wide range of safety measures to protect the workers and perhaps it is surprising that this Bill has been so long in coming to the House. There has been considerable activity off our coasts for many years and yet we have not had the benefit of such a Bill to protect those involved in offshore exploration. It is not that this activity is new to us. We have the example off the UK mainland around the coast of Scotland where this activity has been going on for up to 20 years. As far as safety is concerned they have had their own experiences.

It is right that this Bill has been brought before this House and, regardless of what amendments are put down by the Minister or Deputies, I hope the Bill will have a speedy passage through the House. It is in the interests of all those involved in offshore exploration that the position in terms of safety and where responsibility lies for the various aspects of safety and welfare and so on on installations should be clearly spelled out. I am very pleased to see the reference to the installation manager in section 10. That is one of the crucial areas in the legislation we are now considering. It is all very well to have various measures relating to safety passed in this House but if there is no person or persons clearly designated with responsibility to ensure that the legislation is implemented on the ground, there is a specific weakness in the legislation. It is for that reason that the work of the installation manager is of crucial importance. It is important that his role should be clearly spelled out so that there is no doubt as to where the onus of responsibility lies in deciding on whether an installation is to be used and put into operation, in deciding on how a rig is to be properly disposed of when its useful life has passed and ensuring during the life of the installation that all fittings, equipment and fixtures are in good working order.

On the passing of this legislation the Minister is to acquire substantial new powers and I welcome this. He will have to consult with some of his colleagues particularly in relation to fire safety. That is important because that aspect has not always been properly addressed. I will be looking at the Bill very critically to see the specific references to fire safety. If a fire occurs we could have several hundred people working on an installation far removed from the fire services and they would have to depend largely on their own facilities. Therefore, it is very important that adequate fire safety facilities are provided on an installation and fire boats should be available should a fire occur. When fire disasters have occurred in other parts of the world the need for adequate fire fighting equipment and fire evacuation procedures was apparent. I hope the Minister will be very conscious of this aspect when he discusses the Bill with the Minister for the Environment. As exploration increases off our coasts this Bill will play an important role in ensuring the safety of those involved in exploration and it is only right that the other areas of responsibility should be highlighted, as they are, in the Bill.

As I said, the duties of the installation manager in relation to safety equipment and other safety procedures cannot be overstated. If his responsibilities are not clearly outlined there is a weakness in the Bill. The other aspects relating to welfare of workers on the installation are also very important. It has often been the case in the past that new industries have not been adequately prepared to protect their workers and to ensure their welfare. Particularly in the chemical industry, it was only after the establishment of new industries that it was realised that specific safety procedures were required. The same applies to offshore installations where workers have to wear a certain type of clothing and have to carry safety equipment. All these issues have to be addressed and are being addressed in the Bill and it may be that the Minister and other Deputies may wish to add further to the provisions covering these issues. It would be a pity if shortcomings were still evident in the Bill following its passage through this House. Our purpose is to try to ensure that that situation does not arise.

I would like to compliment the Minister for bringing forward the Bill and I hope following its passage it will take immediate effect for the benefit of workers on the installations. I hope it will clarify this country's position on exploration by foreign companies in our international waters and on the protection of workers. I understand that in the region of 100 workers have already been recruited. I hope the legislation will protect our people and those who work in our waters. I should like to compliment the Minister on bringing forward this legislation.

Minister for Labour (Mr. B. Ahern)

I should like to thank those who contributed to the debate, Deputies Birmingham, O'Malley, O'Sullivan and Swift and tell them that any amendments put forward for Committee Stage will be examined by those involved in this work. The reason we were keen to bring forward the legislation was that it has been a long time in preparation. Officials in the Department worked on it for a considerable length of time and it is our duty to ensure that the Bill, when passed, will last for a long time. Deputy Birmingham asked about the FUE and the ICTU and I should like to tell him that they have been kept fully informed. They do not have any objections to the Bill.

I understand that the FUE have certain reservations and are discussing them with my officials. Those reservations may be reflected in amendments on Committee Stage, if we accept the wisdom of the points they make. What Deputy O'Malley said about those in the front line is correct. I should like to tell the House that the interim board will be engaged full time in the new framework under the Bill I hope to introduce in the new year. The Barrington Commission and the industrial inspectorate who are advising me on this legislation are working with the interim board. There is liaison between them. The provisions of the Bill before us are broadly in line with the spirit of Barrington.

Deputy Birmingham asked about the qualifications of the inspectorate and I should like to tell him that over the years those officials inspected most of the exploration rigs. They are concerned with marine work and other disciplines and I do not think there is any need for concern about their qualifications. The inspectorate have also attended many courses at home and abroad. Offshore installation managers tend to have qualifications in offshore work and the Department do not have any problem in regard to having experts in this area. We have well qualified people.

A question was raised about the constitutionality of the jurisdiction. I am sure Deputy Birmingham, a former Minister of State at the Department of Labour, is aware that that was the reason for considerable delay in the preparation of the legislation. The definitions in section 2 (1) which deals with "the territorial seas of the State" and the designated areas, together with section 3 (2) covering the applications, describe the activities which will come within the jurisdiction of the Act. The provisions of the Act will apply to installations and waters including the territorial seas of the State, broadly the sea between the three mile limit set down by section 3 of the Maritime Jurisdiction Act, 1959, and the sea areas to which the internal or inland waters are extended under section 5 of the Maritime Jurisdiction Act, 1959. They also include the waters in the area designated under the Continental Shelf Act, 1968. The UN Convention of the Law of the Sea prescribes a 12 mile limit instead of three miles but Ireland has not yet ratified that convention.

The question of arbitration with Britain is a matter for the Department of Foreign Affairs and I understand that it is under review by them. I should like to tell Deputy O'Malley that section 5 (7) provides that notice of proposed regulations must be published and that interested parties have 21 days within which to make any representations in regard to them. Interested parties will have that length of time to consider any change in the regulations before the Minister will put them into force.

Deputy O'Malley raised a question about exemptions and wondered about the vagueness of them. Before issuing an exemption which must be in writing and which must refer to a particular time span the Minister must be of the opinion that to insist on compliance would not be reasonable. The guiding norm to determine what is or is not reasonable are (1) the amount of work involved; (2) the number of employees actual or expected; (3) the duration of the work or any other circumstances. This power of exemption will enable common sense flexibility to be exercised. It is important to ensure that operations are not hindered and I am sure the Deputy will agree with that. The Minister would be able to avail of the advice of the industrial inspectors when considering any exemption.

On the point made by the Deputy regarding attractive licensing, we agree that there might have been a difficulty in the past which we hope to avoid in future; that is a matter for the Minister for Energy. He answered questions recently in the House, but also said that with regard to our licensing terms in general they are competitive with those prevailing in western Europe. The Minister said that the review is being carried out in the Department of Energy and when that has been completed he would take whatever additional steps were necessary to accelerate exploration activity in our designated offshore areas. He said he hoped to carry out that review in the short term rather than in a drawn-out period. The Bill provides for the certification of rigs. Most of these entering Irish waters would carry the certificate of one of the internationally recognised authorities such as Lloyds, which worked through the agency of the IIRS.

Deputy O'Malley raised the question of the responsibility of the instruction managers vis-à-vis captains of the supply boats. Instruction managers will have overall responsibility for safety and can direct captains on what to do in relation to safety, while the captain is responsible for the management of the ship. The OIM has general responsibility for matters of health, safety or welfare on the installation. He has also general responsibility for maintenance of order and discipline connected with safety, health or welfare. For the purpose of discharging these general responsibilities the manager is invested with authority over all persons on or about the installation. The authority of the manager, however, does not extend to matters which are the responsibility of other persons, such as the master, captain or person in charge of the vessel, helicopter or other aircraft, hovercraft or lighthouse. It is on safety matters that the manager holds responsibility.

A point was raised about the non-use of the Irish workforce at senior level. AnCO has been mentioned by Deputy O'Sullivan as having done a good job in being actively involved in recent years in training for offshore workers. Much of this training is done in Cork Regional Technical College. The benefits of this training would show in the future. The question of training as a pre-condition of employment was also raised by Deputy O'Sullivan with regard to 27 workers.

The existence of agreements since 1985 between the FUE and the ITGWU require all offshore employees to have completed fire fighting and survival courses. That is a positive development in terms of safety awareness. Over 570 persons have completed the AnCO courses held at Cork RTC. There were some recent incidents of workers falsifying documentation to show that they had completed such courses. That matter is under review. I have given an undertaking to Deputy O'Sullivan to see, as far as I can, what I can do. I have already given that assurance on Question Time but will follow it through to see what can be done about 27 workers mentioned who did not take up the option and avail of these courses. The Deputy will appreciate the difficulties. A point was raised about existing protection for offshore workings at present in operation. These are to comply with safety instructions for offshore petroleum operations issued in February 1983. The standards, if complied with, are high.

Deputy Swift welcomed the Bill and spoke about exemptions. The main thing about the exemptions is to allow flexibility between different installations, as between exploration and exploitation. This matter will be discussed on Committee Stage. Deputy O'Sullivan asked about fire-fighting techniques. A programme for these has been prepared by the Health Safety Commission in Britain. That is being examined here. This programme is available to inspectors here and I gather that it is recommended to industry in matters of offshore exploration.

Deputy Batt O'Keeffe spoke about pollution. That, again, is a matter for the Minister for the Environment. The Deputy also asked about life safety appliances to be employed. He asked of the Alpha and the Brava as to whether they had suitable and adequate life saving facilities. This depends on conditions, visability and traffic in the area of the rigs. Deputy O'Keeffe also mentioned the term “owner”. The Bill defines the owner as being the person having the management of the installation. The Bill sets that out very clearly and there should be no grounds for misunderstanding.

Deputy Swift made a point about regulations, particularly about concurrence rather than merely consultation with the Minister for Energy. Section 5 (1) (b) provides for regulations relating to hovercraft, helicopters, other aircraft vessels, radio facilities or services or rescue facilities being made only after consultation with the Minister and with the concurrence of the Minister for Communications. It is not just a question of notifying people; it is a matter of going into agreements.

This Bill is technical enough. I was anxious to bring it forward because of the general responsibility which rests with the Department of ensuring the safety, health and welfare of the workers involved in offshore installations. This is an area which is being promoted and is growing and I am glad of the words of support from the Deputies. The Government will be able now to make progress. None of the safety protection statutes applies to such installations. It is the old limboland. As the law stands, the rules of the sea for offshore petroleum development production operations are based on the Petroleum and other Minerals Act. The only power in that Act is the revoking of a licence, but that is not desirable.

I am trying to get proper procedures as regards the safety of workers. We have not all that we want, but after Barrington we will have all that we want onshore. At least there is substantial legislation now in that regard from the old Factories Act, the Office Premises Acts and others which Deputy Birmingham in particular mentioned. In the most dangerous and hazardous area where members of the community work at great risk offshore they are not protected by that legislation which covers people in far safer employment. The figures I read out earlier about the experience of offshore employment in the North Sea shows exactly how hazardous and difficult this job is.

I welcome the support from all parties in the House for the speedy passage of this Bill. With the agreement of the Whips, I hope Committee Stage can be taken at a very early date. We are now into the season for this employment. There are over 100 people employed at present and I hope more will be taken on in the coming weeks. It is an obligation on us that after a long number of years this legislation be passed by the House. I thank the Members who spoke for their positive contributions and I look forward to their co-operation in bringing this Bill through Committee Stage at an early date.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Can I get some indication from the House as to a date for Committee Stage?

Mr. B. Ahern

Next Tuesday, subject to agreement by the Whips.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 19 May 1987.