Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Mar 2010

Vol. 705 No. 2

Petroleum (Exploration and Extraction) Safety Bill 2010 [Seanad]: Report Stage.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 7, line 48, after "system" to insert "for both employees and the general public".

I acknowledge that the Minister of State has accepted a significant number of the amendments Deputies proposed on Committee Stage. The purpose of this amendment is to improve the definition of the term "safety case" and ensure it achieves more than currently proposed. Under the current wording, the term "safety case" means "a document describing the components of the safety management system relating to the designated petroleum activity concerned". The amendment proposes to add, after the words "safety management system", the words "for both employees and the general public". As I noted on Committee Stage, the definition of the term "safety case" must be watertight to ensure a petroleum activity or project that involves the laying of pipelines or bringing ashore of gas or oil is safe for the employees working on the infrastructure and members of the public.

On Committee Stage, some confusion arose as to whether my reference to a safety case related to workplace safety, which is the responsibility of the Health and Safety Authority. This is not the purpose of the amendment, which is to ensure that if, for example, a gas pipeline is being constructed, all the safety measures should be outlined in the safety case being made when the relevant company applies for a permit to proceed with the project. This would ensure those working on the pipeline or members of the public living nearby would be catered for as regards the safety case. While I do not intend to cause a fundamental division on this issue, I believe the proposed wording improves the definition.

I thank Deputies Coveney and McManus for their wise contributions on Committee Stage. I indicated on Committee Stage that the Health and Safety Authority has responsibility for occupational safety and requires in-depth reporting in the context of demonstrating inter alia that a major accident prevention policy and safety management system for implementing it have been put into effect and that major accident hazards have been identified and the necessary measures taken to prevent such accidents and limit their consequences for people and the environment.

The health and safety interests of employees are regulated by the Health and Safety Authority. Any reference in this Bill to a requirement that a petroleum safety case should address the interests of employees would cause regulatory ambiguity and lead to confusion between the Health and Safety Authority and the Commission for Energy Regulation in trying to discharge their respective statutory obligations. For this reason, I do not propose to accept the amendment. Having pursued this matter in a non-partisan manner, I am certain the Deputy will understand my position. I genuinely believe the suggestions made by Opposition Members on Committee Stage were very helpful in improving the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Recommittal is necessary in respect of amendments No. 2 and 3 as they do not arise out of committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 24 are related to amendment No. 2 while amendment No. 18 is consequential on amendment No. 16. Amendments Nos. 2, 16, 17, 18 and 24 may be discussed together.

Bill recommitted in respect of amendments No. 2 and 3.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 8, to delete lines 1 to 3 and substitute the following:

"‘safety framework' means the risk-based petroleum safety framework established under section 13I;".

As amendments Nos. 2, 16, 18 and 24 were not referred to on Committee Stage, they will be recommitted. I propose to discuss the amendments together with amendment No. 17. The core objective of these amendments and a number of further amendments which I also propose to recommit is to provide the maximum level of clarity to everyone with an interest in the development of the new safety regulatory framework.

The primary purpose of the Bill is to establish a national risk assessment safety framework based on international best practice, as recommended by Advantica following its safety review of the Corrib gas pipeline. A risk assessment framework is a regulatory mechanism that will require petroleum undertakings to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commission for Energy Regulation that they have reduced and are managing safety risk to a level that is as low as is reasonably practicable. Having reflected on this core purpose, together with the consultation methodology underpinning the establishment of the new safety system, and having reflected on the contributions of Deputies during the Committee Stage debate, I am proposing a number of amendments that will further clarify the language used in the legislation to ensure clarity for all parties interested in the formulation of a new safety framework.

I consider it necessary in amendments Nos. 2 and 16 to reference explicitly risk assessment both in the definition of a petroleum safety framework and in reference to that framework in the body of the Bill in section 131. Amendment No. 18 is also being proposed in the interest of clarity in that it sets out in a more comprehensible manner the specific bodies to be consulted by the commission in establishing the petroleum safety framework.

With regard to the timeframe for the implementation of the safety framework, Deputy McManus proposes that this new system should be both established and implemented within six months. While it is my intention that the new system is implemented at the earliest possible opportunity, given the range and depth of consultation necessary to ensure we introduce the most robust and effective system, I do not believe this is achievable in the timeframe suggested by the Deputy. For this reason, I do not propose to accept the amendment.

To ensure the petroleum safety framework is introduced without undue delay, however, I am proposing to reduce the timeframe by which the Minister may give a direction to the commission with respect to the publication of the safety framework. Amendment No. 24 now proposes that where the safety framework has not been published within six months of the commencement of the safety framework provision, the Minister may direct the commission in writing to publish it not later than the date specified in the ministerial direction. I am, therefore, leaning towards Deputy McManus's proposal for a six month timeframe rather than the original eight month timeframe. I have moved halfway towards the Deputy's position, while reserving the right to give a direction as opposed to imposing an absolute time limit of six months.

I welcome the Minister's amendments and I am willing to withdraw my amendment No. 17. It is noteworthy that the Minister is introducing, in amendment No. 19, a provision which allows for public consultation on a draft of the proposed safety framework where an invitation is made by the commission "by means of a notice to that effect published in a newspaper circulating within the State and published in the prescribed manner". This is a welcome change.

Following our discussion of this issue on Committee Stage, I commend the Minister on taking an open approach to the legislative process. I also welcome his decision to incorporate the timeframe, at least in part. On reflection, I accept that issues arise which require time to address. It is not my intention to set unreasonable time limits. The approach taken by the Minister is fine and I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 10, to delete lines 1 to 8 and substitute the following:

"13C.—This Part applies to any petroleum undertaking that—

(a) proposes to carry on a designated petroleum activity, or

(b) is carrying on an established petroleum activity.”.

This amendment was not mentioned on Committee Stage and, therefore, it is being recommitted. On Committee Stage I introduced amendments aimed at removing any ambiguity from the transitional nature of what is termed an "established petroleum activity". An established petroleum activity is one that is being carried on by an undertaking at the time this Bill becomes law. The purpose of this amendment is to introduce further clarity to the scope and intentions of the Bill. I imagine it does not pose any major issue for the Opposition but that is a matter for the Deputies concerned.

I have no issue with it.

Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.

Amendment No. 4 arises out of committee proceedings. Amendment No. 19 is related and amendments Nos. 20 to 23, inclusive, are consequential on amendment No. 19. Therefore, amendments No. 4 and 19 to 23, inclusive, may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 10, line 49, after "designation" to insert the following:

"through a formal public consultation process with a fixed timeframe".

This is the nub of the issue for me. If we are serious about learning from mistakes made during the fiasco of trying to bring ashore gas from a very significant gas find in County Mayo, a situation where almost everybody to date has been a loser, we must ensure, from the very outset of a process, that there is public consultation. We must ensure we do not merely say, as the wording of the legislation stands at present, that we will give interested persons, organisations and other bodies an opportunity to make representations but also that we will be proactive in informing and consulting people and listening to what they have to say. That is the basis of my amendment.

I recognise the Minister of State has introduced his own amendment to a later section of the Bill, on page 14. I shall wait to hear what he has to say before withdrawing my amendment. However, I am very serious when I say to him that we must ensure we push information at people. Otherwise, conspiracy theories develop which lead to all sorts of problems. Communities dig in their heels and find very imaginative ways of preventing legitimate projects from moving ahead. We must ensure that the mistakes which were made by many people in the Corrib situation, including the company and policy makers, do not happen again. This is for the benefit of communities as well as for the country and will bring energy security benefits to consumers by bringing oil and gas ashore.

I propose to consider amendments Nos. 4 and 19 to 23, inclusive, together. Their common feature is a desire to achieve an appropriate level of public consultation. Deputy Coveney's amendment seeks to add a formal public consultation process to the designation of petroleum activities. Having listened to the views expressed by Deputies Coveney and McManus on Committee Stage, I now propose to amend the Bill explicitly to require a formal public consultation process to be carried out by the commission in establishing the safety framework. As this framework will set out the designated activities, it will afford the public an opportunity to comment on such activities prior to the implementation of the framework.

I do not propose to accept Deputy Coveney's amendment in respect of a formal public consultation process specific to the designation of petroleum activities. However, I point out that under section 13(D)(3)(a)(ii) of the Bill the commission is required to “give interested persons, organisations and bodies an opportunity to make representations to it” in respect of the proposed designation of petroleum activities.

Amendments Nos. 20 to 23, inclusive, are technical drafting amendments requiring the renumbering of ensuing provisions consequential on the insertion of the new public consultation provision. I hope the level of formal consultation on the framework will assuage the Deputy's concerns regarding the information issue.

The problem here is that when there is a consultation process during the construction of the framework — in other words, when we make general rules concerning safety issues, the putting together of safety cases and getting safety permits from the CER — the chances of communities participating in that process are nil, unless they know the project will affect their area. If we had decided ten years ago to have a public consultation process regarding safety framework issues for national policy on petroleum activity, nobody from County Mayo would have made any contribution. They would have been getting on with their normal lives, whether farming or whatever. It is only when a project threatens a community locally, where a pipeline is to go through its land or its neighbours' land, or when a terminal is being built in an area about which the community has concerns, that people engage.

That is the difference between what I propose and what the Minister proposes. He proposes that we have a public consultation process which will be high level and will not involve local people. People will not focus on it unless their local environment or community is threatened. We are talking about specific projects which are not very common; they are not a-dime-a-dozen. There are very few specific projects of this kind likely to occur in Ireland. One could count them on one hand. Regarding the specifics of a project, the proposal is that it is up to people or organisations to make representations to the CER as opposed to there being a formal information and consultation process.

I believe we are making a mistake here. I recognise the Minister has come some of the way and that he said it is normal practice in most parts of the world not to have consultation processes. However, Ireland is not the same as other parts of the world. We have specific problems in this country in terms of acceptance of the kind of project we are trying to build in County Mayo. I realise the Minister's concern is that if we open up a public consultation process for every individual project, we will go on for ever. I agree with that concern. That is why we should put a timeframe in place. The problem is that we are going on for ever in any event because local communities, not having been involved at an early stage, develop a resistance to projects. This resistance is sometimes valid, sometimes not, but in my view it could be dealt with by having an earlier public consultation process. Otherwise what will happen is what is happening now. We are still putting public consultation processes in place in County Mayo. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Ryan, still goes down to set up forums and discussions and all the other things that had to be done to try to address people's concerns. That is why I believe the Minister of State is making a mistake on this.

I recognise I come from the minority side of the House so it will be hard to get this changed.

The Deputy's contribution extended to three minutes and 20 seconds when it is usually for two minutes, as he will know. He got great latitude.

I thank the Acting Chairman for his latitude.

I know the Minister of State will be brief.

I will. I welcome the Deputy's support and that he may not press this issue. It is not common in other jurisdictions to have consultation on the safety case. I am extremely worried about this point, as I believe are all other Members given that worry was certainly reflected during the Committee Stage discussions — I was very happy about that. The unconscionable delays associated with the Corrib project are not something we should be proud of, either as a Government or as a country, in terms of how we handle very large investments that are very valuable to this country in energy security and revenues to the State.

I hope the Deputy will bear with me and perhaps consider withdrawing his amendment because we must try this process and make it slimmer and faster while having a requisite level of public consultation. It would be dangerous to open the safety case to a public consultation procedure because there is no end to that. I need not remind the Deputy that some of the people who have opposed this project will never be happy unless Shell move away from this country. They impose a comparison to the Niger Delta which I do not share or see as being relevant. That is the kind of mindset one is dealing with regarding some of the people involved. I am somewhat sceptical of consultation measures and fora of one kind or another that facilitate serial objectors, who are wired up on some kind of ideological or subversive viewpoint, to continually ambush something that is clearly in the national interest.

I have made my case, which is that I think we are settling for a lesser solution.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Recommittal is necessary in respect of amendment No. 5 as it does not arise out of Committee Stage proceedings. As amendments Nos. 14 and 26 are related to amendment No. 5, they may be discussed together.

Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 5.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 11, to delete lines 10 to 12 and substitute the following:

"(v) the Irish Aviation Authority, and

(vi) such other persons as may be prescribed by order by the Minister.".

There was some debate on Committee Stage about the bodies that should be specified for the purposes of the various safety framework consultation processes that are required under this Bill. In order to ensure it will always be possible to consult the appropriate bodies, I am proposing to provide by means of these amendments that the Minister may, by order, add an additional body he considers appropriate to the list of specified bodies to be consulted for the purposes of the designation of petroleum activities, the safety framework itself and the safety case guidelines. This amendment has been proposed in deference to the discussions that occurred on Committee Stage.

I do not understand why my amendments Nos. 6 and 15 have not been grouped with the amendments before the House, as they deal with more or less the same thing.

They are next.

The amendments are linked.

I did not make that decision — it was made by the Bills Office.

The Minister of State's amendments are welcome.

I am not blaming the Bills Office.

I will deal with this question, if the Minister of State does not mind. As Deputies are aware, amendments Nos. 5, 14 and 26 have been grouped together. The Minister of State has explained that it has nothing to do with him. Does Deputy Coveney have anything further to say on the amendments before the House?

No, I am happy.

Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.

As amendments Nos. 6 and 15, which arise from Committee Stage proceedings, are related, they may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 11, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:

"(vi) the relevant local authority.".

These amendments relate to the matter the Minister of State has tried to deal with in amendment No. 5, which we have just accepted. It is regrettable that his amendments do not make a specific reference to local authorities. Individual projects may affect local authorities from the perspectives of planning and access, for example. Local authorities are in the middle of this stuff, for all sorts of reasons. I cannot understand why the Minister of State wants to deal with the issue I am raising by including a reference to "such other persons as may be prescribed by order by the Minister", rather than by simply referring to "the relevant local authority", as I suggest. I would have thought that in this context, local authorities are as important as, if not more important than, the Department of Health and Children, the National Standards Authority of Ireland or the Department of Transport. If the Minister of State plans to make that a reality by order, I will accept what he is trying to do. I do not see why we are not referring specifically to local authorities. Surely there should be consultation between the Commission for Energy Regulation and local authorities on this issue and similar issues.

I support Deputy Coveney's amendment. It is an indication of a certain mindset that a reference to "the relevant local authority" was not included in this legislation as a matter of course. If we are to take local government seriously, we need to incorporate this kind of provision into law. Like many of us, the Minister of State is probably aware that there is a great disconnect between the public and the State at present. There has been a certain loss of confidence. Local government will be a very important part of the restoration of trust. I regret the failure to include a reference to "the relevant local authority" as a matter of course. It should be seen as an essential part of the provision of a safety framework that reflects the needs and concerns of people at national and local levels.

The bodies to be consulted during the designation of petroleum activities and the establishment of the safety framework and guidelines are specified for two reasons. First, such specification will ensure that any potential for regulatory overlap is kept to a minimum. Second, it is important to draw on any specific experience or expertise an individual body might have. A local authority would not generally be in a position to bring petroleum safety expertise to the table. There is no potential for regulatory overlap between a local authority and the CER.

The Bill already provides a basis for the CER to seek input from interested individuals and organisations, including local authorities, when designating petroleum activities and developing safety case guidelines. The critical point is that local authorities can be consulted even though they have no particular or specific expertise in the area of safety statements or frameworks. I assure Deputies that local authorities can be included in the CER's consultation. However, I suggest that to give them some kind of safety or expertise remit would, in effect, be to give them a power that would not be well judged. Such expertise does not reside within such organisations.

I have outlined that, as a result of amendment No. 19, the Bill will provide for a formal public consultation on the development of a safety framework. We have also discussed amendments Nos. 5, 14 and 26, which provide that the Minister may prescribe other bodies that must be consulted. Taking all these factors into account, I am satisfied that the Bill provides that the CER can consult a local authority if it considers it appropriate to do so. Local authorities will also have a good opportunity to independently provide input, if they consider it appropriate to do so. Accordingly, I do not propose to accept these amendments.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Recommittal is necessary in respect of amendments Nos. 7 to 9, inclusive, as they do not arise out of Committee Stage proceedings. As amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are related, they may be discussed together.

Bill recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 7 to 9, inclusive.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 11, to delete lines 39 to 43 and substitute the following:

"13G.—The principal objective of the Commission in exercising its functions under this Part is to protect the public by fostering and encouraging safety as respects the carrying on of designated petroleum activities.".

Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 have been tabled for reasons of clarity. I am anxious that the intention of this Bill will be clearly understood when the Commission for Energy Regulation undertakes the various public consultation processes that are required. The CER is being conferred with a number of functions under this Bill. The intention of this amendment is to identify that the key goal among these sanctions "is to protect the public by fostering and encouraging safety as respects the carrying on of designated petroleum activities". It is really an issue of clarity.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 11, line 46, to delete "object" and substitute "objectives".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 12, line 7, after "safety," to insert the following:

"which may include specifying standards and codes of practice referred to in section 13L(3),".

This amendment has also been tabled for reasons of clarity in the context of the expanded public consultation process for establishing the safety framework. It provides that the codes of practice and technical standards used in setting the minimum safety benchmark to be achieved by developers will be specified in the safety framework. The individual details will be set out in the safety case guidelines that are specific to each designated petroleum activity. By specifying codes and standards within the framework, the CER can recognise the best practice which a petroleum undertaking must, at a minimum, apply. This does not obviate the responsibility placed on petroleum undertakings to reduce their safety-related risk to a level that is as low as is reasonably practicable. An additional benefit of setting out the relevant codes and standards in this manner is that it will remove any ambiguity as to what the appropriate code or standard for each designated activity will be.

Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Top
Share