Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Jun 1987

Vol. 373 No. 5

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

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Minister for Labour (Mr. B. Ahern)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, subsection (1), lines 36 to 38, to delete the definition of "offshore installation" and substitute the following:

" `offshore installation' means any installation which is or has been maintained, or is intended to be established, for the exploration for or exploitation of minerals and includes any installation providing accommodation for persons who work on or from any such offshore installation so engaged in exploration or exploitation of minerals;".

I have been examining the definition of offshore installation in the Bill, which is intended to apply to installations used for the accommodation of offshore workers normally referred to as flotels. I would prefer a definition which would refer specifically to such installations. The amendment I am now proposing provides accordingly.

Mr. Birmingham

The amendment is a help and it goes some distance towards responding to concerns that have been expressed. There would be some concern among the operators that there had been a certain imprecision of definition and that left them in some doubt. Indeed, they felt that the various definitions in relation to exploitation and exploration left open the possibility of some confusion. The amendment put forward by the Minister goes some distance to meet this, but I am not sure that it meets the situation fully. Perhaps the Minister would put my mind at rest on this.

A number of questions have been asked about the collective scope of these definitions. For example, does the Bill cover installations that have been put in mothballs? For some that are either in that situation or something very close to it the later provisions could prove very onerous. To what extent has that been taken care of?

Mr. B. Ahern

The Deputy makes the point about some confusion. The purpose of this amendment is to remove such doubts. It is felt that the differences between the present description of the offshore installations in the section and in section 3(1) could give rise to some uncertainty. Section 2 (1) defines an offshore installation as "any installation which is used, or is intended to be used, for, or in relation to or in connection with exploration or exploitation". Section 3(1), the later section which the Deputy refers to, provides that "This Act applies to any offshore installation which is in waters to which this Act applies and which is used, or is intended to be used, in the exploration for or exploitation of minerals". Therefore, there is no distinction between these two formulae. This could give rise to confusion. I think this amendment clarifies the point. Those installations "laid up or in mothballs" are covered but an exemption may be given.

Mr. Birmingham

Under section 4?

Mr. B. Ahern

Yes.

Mr. Birmingham

Are we dealing only with the amendment?

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Birmingham

Let me draw the Minister's attention to section 2(2). That seems to make it clear that the definition of an offshore installation includes any part of one that is capable of being manned by one or more persons. There is some anxiety that it does not exclude installations that are either unmanned or would be very rarely manned. Is the Minister satisfied with that or does he feel any need to deal with it, as he has dealt with the earlier problem, by way of amendment?

Mr. B. Ahern

Section 2(2) extends the definition of "offshore installation" to cover any part of the installation capable of being manned by one or more persons. This refers to such units as flare stacks which may or may not be attached to the main installation structure. The subsection also extends the protection of the Bill to "any associated pipeline which, or any part of which, is in the waters to which the Act applies". This covers the point that the subsection extends the definition of "offshore installation" to cover any part of the installation capable of being manned by one or more persons.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Mr. B. Ahern

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, subsection (1), lines 44 and 45, to delete "and which is used, or is intended to be used, in the exploration for or exploitation of minerals".

Section 3(1) provides that: "This Act applies to any offshore installation which is in waters to which this Act applies and which is used, or is intended to be used, in the exploration for or exploitaon of minerals". The clarification by amendment No. 1 of the definition of "offshore installation" in section 2(1) of the Bill means in effect that the words in section 3 (1) following "to which this Act applies" are redundant and the amendment provides for their removal.

Mr. Birmingham

I am not sure that that is a very good idea. We have seen some indication recently that the Government are anxious to see greater activity offshore, and we all would endorse that aspiration though there might be differences about how we should get to that. The concern of the industry in this area is that there should not be undue regulation. Of course, in an area as hazardous as this there is a need for legislation, but we should be clear about the limits of what we have in mind. I see no harm whatsoever in making clear that it is only installations intended for a particular purpose that are the concern of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will give us some examples of installations which would have been covered if section 3 stood in its existing form and those that will now be dealt with only on the basis of the amendment. In other words will any installations anywhere find themselves within the Bill as it stands and without the Bill if the amendment is made, or is it purely a drafting amendment?

Mr. B. Ahern

The amendment is a drafting amendment. The earlier amendment means in effect that the words in section 3(1) are redundant. It is a drafting amendment just to be consistent with the earlier amendment. The clarification that I set out in section 2(1) of the Bill would just be meaningless if we leave this section unamended. Therefore, I ask the Deputy to accept the point that it is a drafting amendment in line with the earlier amendment.

Mr. Birmingham

I am thinking out loud, but I suppose the argument is that if an offshore installation is defined now in section 1 as only an installation concerned with these matters there is no need to repeat that in this section.

Mr. B. Ahern

That is correct.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Mr. Birmingham

I move amendment No. 2a.

In page 7, line 29, after "opinion" to insert, "having consulted with those trade unions representative of the persons employed,".

In section 4 the power of the Minister to grant exemptions is provided. Given the nature of the Bill it is clear that the Minister should have power of that nature. This Committee Stage debate has only begun but already we have been talking about an installation that is mothballed, rarely manned or whatever, so there should be scope for exemptions, and it is clear that the person to grant them is the Minister. What causes anxiety is the fact that at the moment the power to grant exemptions appears to be somewhat unfettered. The principles on which the Minister will act to determine whether to grant or refuse an application for an exemption are not clear. The purpose of our amendment is to provide that before the Minister would grant an exemption he should hear the views of the trade unions who are representative of the persons employed there. That seems to be eminently reasonable. Those who are employed in an installation who would find themselves outside the scope of the Bill and the regulations that I presume would be made under it may find their position prejudiced. Maybe their position would be looked after — one expects and assumes that in the great majority of cases it will be looked after — but clearly they have an interest in whether they are to remain within or without the scope of the Bill. In those circumstances their voice should be heard and their representatives' voice should be heard. It seems to be an unanswerable argument. I understand that the ICTU, who are broadly very supportive of the approach taken in the Bill, would accept the case for a ministerial power to grant exemptions — I do not want to put words into their mouth — and would be anxious that there would be provision in it for institutionalised consultation. My amendment is quite limited. It does not purport in any sense to give a veto to the trade unions or anyone else. It says simply that before the Minister takes what is the fairly radical step of putting particular installations beyond the scope of the Bill and, in the process, putting some people beyond the protection provided by the Bill he should consult with the trade unions. I should like to hear the Minister's views on that.

Mr. B. Ahern

As the Deputy said, section 4 provides the Minister with power to exempt an installation from the provisions of the Bill or from regulations made thereunder. Before issuing an exemption, which must be in writing and must refer to a particular time span, the Minister must be of the opinion that to insist on compliance with the provisions of the Bill would not be reasonable. The Deputy asked about the norms used in determining grounds for exemption. I might say that there are four main ones — the amount of work involved, the number of employees, whether that be an actual or futuristic number, the duration of the work or any other special circumstances. The whole purpose of the section is to give the Minister flexibility in the exercise of his powers. It is important to ensure that the operations are not hindered by unnecessary restrictions. Deputy Birmingham made that point a few moments ago.

The other important point is that the Minister would have the advice of the industrial inspectorate available to him in considering any such exemption applications, so that any views that should be borne in mind, whether advanced by the trade unions involved, through their representatives on the safety committees or those of any of the employees, will be considered. An essential aspect of the provisions of the section is that the Minister should be able to respond quickly to a request for an exemption, ensuring that there will not be any unnecessary restrictions. The proposal contained in the amendment could lead to delays in granting exemptions. For that reason I am opposed to the amendment on the grounds that any such exemption must be given in writing, that the inspectorate will be involved and that any decisions to be taken will have to be discussed beforehand. Therefore I do not consider the amendment necessary.

Mr. Birmingham

Before I determine whether to press this amendment the Minister might give us some more details on the procedure he foresees being followed in the case of an application for an exemption. If the Minister would elaborate that might guide us in what action we should take.

Mr. B. Ahern

The provisions of this Bill for the granting of exemptions are precisely those contained in the Application of Safety in Industry Act, 1980. The Deputy will note that, throughout the provisions of this Bill, great care has been taken to ensure that there is prior consultation in order to reach agreement, to ensure that there is no case of railroading, that any application is fully discussed, that there is sufficient time allowed for such consultation, that there is a structure of committees, that the inspectorate ensure that everything is done properly, at the same time — to take the Deputy's own point on board — without placing undue restrictions on the owner of an installation. While the Deputy's point that there should be consultation is well made the provisions of the section will not prohibit such consultation.

Mr. Birmingham

Might I push the Minister a little on this. Presumably what will happen is that the owner of an installation which will be less actively used over a period, or whatever, will establish contact with the Department of Labour saying: "We want an exemption." I should like to know from the Minister how that will be handled. For example, will there be an inspector sent out, will there be a report? As a matter of practice will there be consultation with the unions even if we were not to include it in the section? If the Minister could indicate what he foresees will be the chain of events that will follow an application for an exemption that would be helpful.

Mr. B. Ahern

I think there would be consultation. As I understand the provisions of the other legislation, there would be such consultation. My understanding is that the provisions of this Bill would follow exactly the same lines — that the inspectorate would have to satisfy themselves that an exemption was reasonable, that the granting of such exemption did not in any way diminish the rights or safeguards of employees, ensuring that the granting of such exemption was not done by any way of a quick trick being played on the employees.

I might point out that in general exemptions are not readily granted, they are always carefully considered. The inspectorate are conversant with their powers or what they should do under the provisions of other legislation to deal with an application in order to ensure that everybody's interests are safeguarded. I can give the Deputy an assurance that the interests of employees would be taken fully into account.

Mr. Birmingham

My difficulty is that the section as drafted says: "Where the Minister is of opinion... that it would be unreasonable to require compliance with the provisions of this Act"— and the factors which might influence him in that direction are indicated, such as the number of people who might be working, the shortness of the period during which the installation might be used and so on — he can exempt. We have had a fair turnover of Ministers for Labour in recent times. We just do not know how future Ministers for Labour would exercise that power. I have to say I would be perfectly relaxed to leave it to the good judgment of the present occupant but, as at present drafted, the section contains the bald statement: "Where the Minister is of opinon..." he can exempt.

I do not want to be too far-fetched but it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that at some stage we might have a Minister for Labour who believed in total deregulation, who would take the view that our entire offshore exploration is on such a relatively small scale by international standards that it would be unreasonable to require anybody operating within the Irish province to comply with the provisions of the Act. Such views have been uttered in comparable areas in the House. In those circumstances it is proper that there be some procedure to be followed which would give a third party an opportunity, where possible, to be heard in advance. That is why it is appropriate that the representatives of the workers be given an opportunity of being heard.

The amendment I have drafted provides that the Minister can do this having consulted with the trade unions representative of the persons employed. The Minister says there may be cases in which an application for exemption is made as a matter of urgency. I can understand that that might be the case. I have no desire to add to the layers of bureaucracy. I would be quite prepared to amend my amendment, or to come back to this on Report Stage, to provide, for example, that the Minister would, wherever practicable enter into these consultations. That concept of a requirement to do something where practicable finds expression elsewhere in the Bill — wherever practicable or wherever possible. But the principle of consultation which the Minister correctly says permeates much of the legislation, should be built into this centrally important section. There is no doubt that a Minister who has a mind to do so could set at nought the intentions of the Oireachtas by issuing exemptions with gay abandon. Against even that remote danger it is appropriate that we build in procedures for consultation. That is why I would ask the Minister to think about this a little more.

Mr. B. Ahern

I take the Deputy's points. The purpose of the Bill is the protection of offshore workers, the whole principle being that they be protected. Therefore we should not be thinking that there is something in-built endeavouring to diminish or take away that protection.

I might point out also that exemptions may not be total, they can be granted subject to conditions where such is thought necessary, so that the wording would not be absolute but conditional. Bearing in mind that the principle enshrined is for consultation, that the industrial inspectorate under the provisions of various Acts endeavour to protect the safety, health and welfare of employees, particularly of offshore workers, and the fact that they work through the Department of Labour means that they are conscious of that protection. Regardless of what Minister is in office the inspectorate would be very quick to stop any deregulation which is against the interest of employees. There is adequate protection for people under this section and throughout the legislation.

If I was to accept the amendments, I think the Deputy will agree with this, and if in all cases one was to have consultations directly with the trade union representatives involved and the trade unionists have been very helpful in the drafting of this legislation — it could become almost impossible to give an exemption. Far from having any deregulation it would make it very difficult to operate the Act. The Act has to work on the basis of a certain amount of trust and that trust is vested in the industrial inspectorate who have the interests of the protection of the employees at heart. That is precisely what the legislation is about. I will consider this matter further if the Deputy wishes but I feel protection is adequately covered and the understanding is that the inspectorate would not make decisions lightly and would examine the question of whether an exemption should be granted. In that examination it would be of paramount importance that there be nothing in the exemption that would be against the safety, health and welfare of the employees.

Mr. O'Sullivan

While I do not doubt the Minister's sincerity in ensuring the safety of people employed on offshore installations I think the wording in this section is very loose in many ways and, consequently, I express reservations in this regard. The reason for this is because of the amount of work involved. That could leave the whole thing open to exploitation. On Second Stage I mentioned that what I am concerned about is that if it were seen that in the marginal fields the amount of work involved would not be great it might not be profitable that people would try to get in and out quickly and standards would slip somewhat. I do not doubt the Minister's sincerity in regard to the inspectorate but by its very nature it will be very difficult to ensure that proper standards are maintained on offshore installations. Because the installations will be many miles offshore there will be difficulties. It is not like a land-based industry. It will have its own unique problems and for that reason we will have to make sure that there will be not alone consultation but that there be not ongoing inspection and there is no provision for this in the Bill. That is where I see the great difficulty arising.

In section 4 the Minister states that exemptions will be granted provided they are of a short duration. That is a potential recipe for poor standards to prevail. If it is to be a short exemption job standards could be allowed to slip. In section 4 also the Minister referred to "any other special circumstance". That type of wording is very loose and there is a need to be more specific in that regard. What are the special circumstances under which an exemption would be granted? The whole matter could be left open to abuse.

I have figures for the numbers of injuries and deaths in the industry. In 1982, 3,748 people were injured and there were five fatalities; in 1983, 3,294 people were injured and there were seven deaths and in 1984, 3,219 people were injured and again there were seven deaths. This is a high risk industry where people work under the worst possible conditions. For that reason every effort must be made to ensure that not alone is there consultation with the workers' representatives but also that there are the means by which proper supervision by the inspectorate can be carried out on a regular basis. Spot checks should be made but this will be difficult on occasion because if a person is out at sea and sees a boat or a helicopter approaching it would be possible for him to tidy up any mess on these rigs. There are certain parts of section 4 about which I am concerned.

Mr. Birmingham

The basic rationale behind this is that in some circumstances, in the case of a small scale short duration activity, it might be oppressive to expect people to abide by the full rigours of this Act but there is no definition of what is small scale or of what is short duration. Any number of people might have any number of opinions on those definitions. Let me put forward this possibility. Suppose there was some form of international convention, say, a UN convention, dealing with safety on offshore installations and suppose this identical section was included — that the Secretary General of the UN or whoever it may be, wherever he was of opinion with respect to offshore installations, that by reason of the amount of work involved, the numbers employed or the shortness of the period, it would be unreasonable to expect compliance — it would be by no means a fanciful interpretation to suggest that he might well take the view that anything happening in Irish waters was marginal and transient and that such a provision would only apply to the giants of the North Sea or whatever. No one could say that that is not the interpretation that would be arrived at. By extension, it is not inconceivable that at some stage there might be an administration so anxious to offer encouragement to offshore activity that corners would be cut in this area.

I want to repeat that — this is not in any sense the usual token gesture — I have absolutely no fears whatsoever about the way in which the present Minister will exercise his power or about the advice that would be tendered to him by the inspectorate at present but when this Bill becomes law it will be there for time immemorial. It is appropriate that we build into it some safeguards. I have already accepted the Minister's point when he said this is something that could be asked of us as a matter of urgency and that if we had to consult anyone it might make it difficult for us to respond, that if people thought they could not have a genuine application dealt with as a matter of urgency it might discourage them from investing and locating in our waters. I accept that is a valid point and I am quite prepared to reconsider my own amendment so that it might not be as categoric as it now is. I would settle for a situation where the Minister would indicate a little more than aspiration, where he would indicate that the norm would involve consultations but that he would give himself power in appropriate emergency cases to absolve himself from the need to consult in a particular case. I wonder whether the Minister will think about that overnight as I understand we will be resuming this debate tomorrow. If he can see whether he can come any way towards accommodating my points, I, in turn, will think overnight on how I can introduce greater flexibility into my amendment and suggest some approaches that might achieve what is intended.

Mr. B. Ahern

I understand the points made by Deputy O'Sullivan and Deputy Birmingham. The basis of the legislation is the protection of offshore workers. Both Deputies made the point that when provision is made to grant exemptions some Minister at some time could start giving exemptions at will to anybody, regardless of the standards that are in place. Deputy Birmingham is fairly making the point that the way to do that is not to take only the Minister's word but to have it cleared by the trade unions concerned. I am sure between the two parties they would do an excellent job but a decision would not be made until about six months later when we would be into the winter season. Any exploration for that year would be gone, and I do not believe that is what we are trying to achieve. Under existing legislation the exemptions are there to allow some kind of flexibility where it is necessary. We do not want the law to be so rigid that there will be no movement. It is written into the legislation that exemptions will only be given when there are extremely good reasons for doing so, and not when a request is made by a particular firm. The inspectorate would have to thoroughly examine the circumstances if they are envisaging granting an exemption.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Would these exemptions apply to the permanent offshore gas platforms? These are permanent fixtures.

Mr. B. Ahern

I cannot say to what the exemptions would apply because it is only when a request is made in writing that it would be forwarded to the Minister. The inspectorate would have to evaluate the circumstances and decide, in conjunction with the Minister, whether to give that exemption. I believe exemptions should not be given unless there are extremely good reasons and they should never be given if there is a danger to employees.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Apparently we are not going to reach finality on this amendment and as we have gone beyond the time I must ask the Minister to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.