Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Jul 1987

Vol. 116 No. 18

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

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Labour (Mr. B. Ahern)

The purpose of the proposed legislation is to provide statutory arrangements for the safety, health and welfare of persons working on offshore installations engaged in the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons off our coast.

While general responsibility for ensuring the safety, health and welfare of workers employed on such installations rests with my Department, none of the safety protection statutes administered by the Department applies to those workers. The Safety in Industry Acts, 1955 to 1980, which apply to factories etc. do not apply to offshore 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 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 system has worked reasonably well until now, it is time it was placed on a statutory footing.

In passing, I might mention that the general question of licensing terms is at present under review by my colleague, the Minister for Energy and Communications. There has been criticism from within the industry of these terms — and, in particular, those affecting marginal oilfields and it is the intention that the new regime should be seen as clearly competing favourably with arrangements elsewhere. An announcement in the matter will be made shortly.

Exploration off our coasts began in 1971 and the total number of wells drilled to date is approaching 100. The work involved is by its very nature hazardous and I would expect that the contents of the Bill aimed at ensuring adequate safety arrangements for the workers concerned will meet with broad support across the House. While this year over 100 Irish personnel have been employed in offshore work I am sure that, with the encouragement of Government, there will be increased opportunities in the future for the many experienced Irish offshore workers.

Exploitation, as distinct from exploratory work, 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 near future.

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 there have been three fatalities to date. The legal position at present is that if directions about the safety of workers employed on or about these installations are not observed, the only penalty available is the 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. Hence the need for the alternative arrangements proposed in this Bill.

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 ensures that all offshore personnel have basic training for what is a very dangerous job.

There must be no complacency about the concern for safety in the hazardous environment of an offshore platform. Safety will not be assured simply by the making of laws and regulations.

Safety essentially depends on the commitment of owners, employers and workers who must all accept a share of the responsibility for providing and carrying out the operation of safe structures, safe systems and safe procedures. The Bill sets a high standard of safety as an objective and it will be my responsibility as Minister to work for its achievement through monitoring and enforcement.

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.

The provisions of the Bill 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 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 representation, accidents, offences and penalties and the powers and functions of inspectors, together with subsidiary provisions. Part I is concerned with preliminary and general matters and contains sections dealing with commencement, definitions, application, exemptions, regulations, informational needs, service of notices and administration expenses.

In relation to the definitions and to the application of the Bill as originally circulated, I felt that it would be preferable to have in section 2 (1) a definition of "offshore installation" that would specifically include any installation providing accommodation offshore for workers. Accordingly, I moved an appropriate amendment which was accepted by the Dáil on Committee Stage. This, in effect made redundant some words qualifying the description "offshore installation" in section 3 (1) dealing with the Bill's application and that section was also amended accordingly.

Section 4 provides that the Minister has power to exempt an installation from the application of the Act or regulations. Before issuing such 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 full compliance would not be reasonable. The guiding norms for determining what is or is not reasonable will be: (i) the amount of work involved; (ii) the number of employees — actual or prospective; (iii) the duration of the work; or (iv) any other special circumstances.

This power of exemption will enable a commonsense flexibility to be exercised. It is important to ensure that operations are not hindered by unnecessary restrictions. The Minister will have the advice of the industrial inspectorate when considering any exemption.

In the Dáil, it was suggested that this section should contain a requirement about having mandatory consultation with trade unions prior to confirming any application for exemption. Another suggestion was put forward about providing statutory exemption in the Bill for installations in particular circumstances.

I have carefully considered both of these suggestions. I would not be in favour of a situation where unnecessary delays could occur while mandatory statutory consultations were running their course. Neither would I support having automatic and blanket exemptions built into the legislation. I have been advised that it would be almost impossible anyway to attempt to cover all likely exemptions by way of legislation. I feel that each case should be considered on its merits. I am in favour of informal consultations taking place on exemption applications and I would expect the interests concerned to put forward their case.

The industrial inspectorate will be charged with the duty of administering this measure to ensure the safety, health and welfare of offshore workers. In advising me about exemption applications, the inspectorate will only recommend exemption where they are satisfied that the safety of the workers concerned is not under threat.

While the Bill itself contains substantive provisions for safety matters, I have decided for practical reasons that the legislation will be backed up by detailed regulations.

Section 5 of the Bill allows specific aspects of offshore operations to be made the subject of such 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.

Section 5 (7) provides that, with some exceptions, the Minister for Labour shall, before making regulations, publish in Iris Oifigiúil and in such other manner as he thinks desirable, notice of my proposal to make regulations and of the place where copies may be obtained. Interested parties then have 21 days in which to make representations about the content of the regulations.

In the Dáil, I was pressed to amend this subsection by the insertion of a requirement that the Minister should consult employer and trade union organisations prior to the drafting of regulations. As I have indicated, the Bill provides for publication of notice of proposals to make regulations and provides for the making of representations. This provision compares with similar provisions in the safety legislation which applies to industrial workers and to mining and quarrying workers. As we are concerned here with safety conditions in operations of a very hazardous nature, I am satisfied that it is essential to put a reasonable time limit on the process of consultation so as to avoid undue delay and to ensure that the necessary regulations are brought into operation as soon as possible. However, I can give an assurance that there will be informal consultation with employer and worker representative bodies on the regulations to be made under this Bill in advance of publication.

Subsection 5 (7) was, however, amended in one respect on Committee Stage in the Dáil. I decided to bring regulations relating to the qualifications of installation managers and their deputies, logbook entries and prescribed diseases in under the list of matters which will be the subject of the consultative process. These are matters on which I think interested parties should have an opportunity to put forward their views and the amended subsection 5 (7) (b) provides accordingly.

Part II of the Bill provides for the establishment of the position of installation manager. Every offshore installation is required under section 11 to be under the charge of a competent installation manager appointed by the installation owner. Under section 13, the manager is vested with responsibility for safety, health and welfare and also for order and discipline. I have taken power as Minister for Labour 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 ensure 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, must be properly maintained and comply with regulations which will provide for a certification procedure in relation to these requirements. Section 10 also puts 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. Section 16 places a duty 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 obliges employees on 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. Sections 19, 20 and 21 oblige him to ensure that effective systems are in operation for dealing with the hazards of naked lights and smoking, for the detection of gas and for the safe storage and identification of dangerous substances and preparations.

Part III 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.

Other sections of Part III 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 compliance 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. The main criticism which this type of safety representation has attracted is that it has often remained unused or fallen dormant. In this context, it may be necessary to review at a later stage how we provide for safety representation and worker involvement in safety matters generally.

Part IV 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 30 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 V and VI 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. In relation to penalties there is provision for daily fines for continuing offences and a court may impose a prison sentence for an offence likely to cause death or serious injury, a dangerous accident or endanger safety.

In section 42 there is also provision for the ultimate sanction against a persistent offender which empowers an inspector to impose such prohibitions, restrictions or requirements as he considers necessary to safeguard safety or health and in case of any danger or risk of danger to request measures to be taken to deal with it. An inspector may also apply to the High Court for an order prohibiting continuance of activities carried on in contravention of such an imposition of requirement. The inspectors are also given the right of access to offshore installations and the right to make any examinations, inquiries and tests necessary to ascertain whether the Bill and the regulations are being complied with.

The Bill will no doubt benefit from the detailed scrutiny of this House. I will, of course, be prepared to consider any constructive suggestions which Senators may wish to put forward. I am satisfied that the Bill will provide an effective framework for the achievement of the objectives of all those concerned with the safety, health and welfare of persons employed on offshore installations.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Kennedy

The United Kingdom Committee on Offshore Safety, chaired by Dr. J.H. Burgoyne, presented their report in 1980 and stated:

We cannot emphasise too much that safety will not be assured by regulations and controls alone. Safety of operations depends on the wholehearted commitment of owners, employers and employed who must fully accept individual responsibility for the provision and operation of safe structures, plant systems and procedures. The role of Government is to set objectives designed to achieve a uniformily high standard of safety throughout the industry, and to ensure their achievement through monitoring and enforcement procedures.

Our own Commission of Inquiry on Safety, Health and Welfare at Work, chaired by Mr. Justice Barrington, reported in 1983 and said:

It is not merely that prevention is better than cure. Once an accident has happened there is often no cure. If the system is to be preventive, safety must be a feature in the planning of factories and installations and systems of work. This idea governs all our recommendations.

In that context, therefore, and with that philosophy, I welcome the timely introduction of this Bill, the Safety, Health and Welfare (Offshore Installations) Bill, 1986, which has been in preparation for a considerable number of years, has engaged the attention of several Attorneys General in several different administrations, was initiated by the previous Government in 1986 and is now adopted by the present Government. Its Long Title states that its objectives are to provide for the safety, health and welfare of persons on installations concerned with the exploration for or exploitation of petroleum or other minerals in the waters in or surrounding the State and to provide for the safety of such installations and the prevention of accidents on or near them.

The extremely hazardous nature of the operations of those involved in drilling for and producing oil and gas in coastal waters and the unfortunate accident record makes it essential that we are ahead with our safety legislation and regulations, not in any sense to cramp enterprise and initiative but in order to ensure that those who take those initiatives are adequately protected in so far as Parliament can protect them by safety legislation.

The importance of the Bill can be seen from the fact that if one of the enormous oil rigs such as those used in the North Sea was superimposed on Croke Park there would not be much room for spectators. This can also be seen from the incidence of fatal accidents on or near offshore installations in the North Sea, an alarmingly high incidence, as the Minister has indicated. For example, over 110 fatal accidents were recorded in the first 17 years of drilling for oil in the North Sea and almost 650 accidents involving serious injury were recorded in the same period. It is true, and it is important to emphasise as the Barrington commission have done, that employers have common law duties towards employees in respect of occupational safety and health. The duty of care of an employer towards his employees involves the provision of a safe place at work, competent staff, proper equipment and a safe system of work.

However, as the Minister has indicated, while the general statutory responsibility for ensuring the safety, health and welfare of workers rests with the Minister for Labour, none of the various Statutes administered by the Department of Labour applies at the moment to offshore installations. For a number of years we have had a patchwork approach to safety, health and welfare, and this is reflected in the wide range of Acts which relate to this area such as the Factories Acts, the Office Premises Act, the Boilers Explosion Act, the Mines and Quarries Act and the various Acts dealing with dangerous substances and particular areas such as the nuclear area. It is most unsatisfactory that we should have a patchwork approach to such a vital area as safety, health and welfare because it must inevitably give rise to loopholes and to important areas being excluded.

One such area, as the Minister has indicated, is offshore 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 1960 Act prohibits searching for or recovery of any petroleum found save under a licence issued by the Minister for Energy. The position of the safety of workers on offshore installations is at present controlled by a condition contained in this licence which requires the licensee "to comply with any instructions from time to time given by the appropriate Minister in writing for securing the health and safety of persons employed in or about the licensed area", the appropriate Minister being the Minister for Labour.

The only penalty available under the present law, as again the Minister has indicated, for not observing these directions about the safety of workers employed in or about these hazardous operations is a withdrawal of the licence. It is quite clear that such a crude sanction, which would involve the termination of all exploration or production under a particular licence, is an unsatisfactory way of guaranteeing and effectiveness and safety of offshore installations. Therefore, this Bill provides for the introduction of a statutory and comprehensive code with clear requirements for those engaged in offshore developments. The Bill enables the Minister for Labour to provide for the safety, health and welfare of offshore installation workers by means of legislation which is enforceable by its own direct sanctions. It provides penalties graded according to the seriousness of the offence, so that an appropriate sanction may be held out for those who needlessly or, indeed, heedlessly take risks or disobey normal safety requirements.

As the Minister has indicated, the Bill is divided into six parts. In Part I, under section 3 (1), the legislation will apply to any offshore installation situated in waters listed in section 3 (2) of the Bill, namely, (a) waters in the portion of the sea which comprises the territorial seas of the State, (b) waters in all the areas of the sea to which the internal or inland waters of the State are extended by section 5 of the Maritime Jurisdiction Act, 1959 and (c) waters in any area which is for the time being a designated area within the meaning of section 1 of the Continental Shelf Act, 1968.

The phrase "territorial seas" is part of international usage and in default of domestic legislation would have to be interpreted according to "the generally recognised principles of international law" which Ireland is declared to accept under Article 29.3 of our Constitution which states: "Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States." However, section 2 of the Maritime Jurisdiction Act, 1959 provides that: "... the territorial seas of the State shall be that portion of the sea which lies between the baseline and the outer limit of the territorial seas." Section 3 of the 1959 Act provides that: "... the outer limit of the territorial seas is the line every point of which is at a distance of three nautical miles from the nearest point of the baseline."

Section 4 of the 1959 Act provides that the baseline is the low water mark except that by section 4 the Government may by order prescribe straight baselines in relation to any part of the national territory and the closing line of any bay or mouth of a river, and any line so prescribed shall be taken as the baseline.

Section 5 of the 1959 Act provides that sea areas to the landward side of a base line are internal or inland waters. These provisions are in accord, then, with the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone.

However, since 1958 international practice has been drastically modified by many unilateral extensions of territorial sea to much greater limits than were previously recognised. Ian Brownlee, in his book Principles of Public International Law states: “The majority of States now favour 6 or 12 mile limits or take intermediate positions”. Article 2 of the negotiating text produced by the Second Committee of the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference, held in Geneva in 1975, proposed that “every State should have the right to establish the breadth of territorial seas up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles.” So far Ireland, as I understand it, has not extended its territorial seas beyond the three mile limit provided for in the 1959 Act although ample precedent now seems to exist for doing so.

Section 2 of the Continental Shelf Act, 1968, empowers the Government to designate by order areas outside our territorial waters and to vest in the Minister for Energy rights of exploration and exploitation in relation to natural resources in these areas. The concept that a State might have exclusive rights to explore and exploit the natural resources of the seabed and subsoil outside the territorial waters has assumed growing importance since the last war. Technological advances have made it possible to explore and exploit such natural resources but considerable uncertainty existed in international law as to the precise rights of individual States to the part of the continental shelf adjoining their shores. Therefore, at the request of the United Nations, the International Law Commission carried out a study of the problem with a view to bringing the definition and control of these rights within the ambit of international law. The report of the commission was considered by the United Nations at the International Conference on the Law of the Sea, which was held in Geneva in 1958, and that resulted in the drafting of the Convention on the Continental Shelf. The Continental Shelf is defined as the seabed and subsoil of the submarine area adjacent to the coast but outside the territorial waters to a depth of 200 metres, or beyond that limit where the depth of the waters permits exploitation.

Article 5, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Geneva Convention, 1958, also provides the authority for the creation of safety zones around offshore installations. A State may construct and maintain installations for the purposes of exploration and exploitation of natural resources and an installation may have a 500 metres safety zone around it. Section 6 of the Continental Shelf Act, 1968, which incidentally does not mention the size of the zone, provides the authority in Irish law for the creation of safety zones.

The Bill we are considering today is deliberately flexible in the sense that while it contains, as the Minister has indicated, substantive provisions for safety matters, the legislation will be backed up by regulations which will subject specific aspects of worker safety to detailed regulations. The Houses of the Oireachtas sometimes like to feel they have specified exactly what the regulations should be at the time of the legislation and indeed fight shy of making regulations by ministerial order. However, in connection with this Bill it is right that the regulations should be made by ministerial order because, with a rapidly changing industry and its advancing techniques and technology, it will be necessary to bring in new regulations and to change them frequently in response to new developments.

Section 5 of the Bill empowers the Minister for Labour to make regulations to give effect to the Bill. The Minister for Labour, however, must consult with the Minister for Energy before making any regulations and additionally, he must consult with the Minister for Health if a health matter is in question, as stated in section 5 (1) (a), or with the Minister for the Environment if the regulations refer to a fire safety measure, as stated in section 5 (1) (c). If the proposed regulations refer to hovercraft, helicopters, other aircraft or vessels, radio facilities or rescue facilities, the concurrence of the Minister for Communications, the Minister for the Marine and the Minister for Tourism and Transport must be obtained.

The main feature of Part II of the Bill is the establishment of the position of an installation manager. Under section 11 the owner of an offshore installation must appoint, as its manager, a person who, to the best of his knowledge and ability, has the skills and competence suitable for the appointment, as stated in section 11 (1) (c). Under section 11 (2) (a) the Minister for Labour, after consultation with the Minister for Energy, may make regulations relating to the duties of the installation manager concerning the safety, health and welfare of persons employed on, in or in the neighbourhood of an offshore installation. Any manager who proves that he does not have the requisite skills and competence for the post must be removed from office by the owner of the installation. The owner must ensure that there is a manager of every installation which is manned, and a manager, once appointed, must remain on duty until relieved.

Section 10 places an obligation on the installation manager to ensure that the installation is not used for exploration and exploitation purposes unless the installation, its fittings or other equipment are suitable for the purpose and comply with whatever regulations are made by the Minister for Labour under section 10. The regulations may provide for a prescribed certification procedure in respect of the installation and its fittings.

Section 13 outlines the duties of the installation manager in relation to the maintenance of safety and discipline. In addition to the general responsibility for safety, health and welfare of persons employed on an installation the installation manager is also responsible for order and discipline connected with safety, health and welfare. The installation manager is vested with authority over all persons on, in or about the installation. He is given specific powers to enable him to discharge these responsibilities. Thus, in short, the installation manager or master will be a person on board who is fully responsible for all safety arrangements and he will be, in many ways, in a similar position to that of a captain of a ship, with complete responsibility for complying with safety regulations. It is possible, as is the practice on some rigs, that one man is master when the rig is drilling or producing and another man is master when the rig is being towed or moved from place to place — production master on the one hand and navigation master on the other hand. It must be stressed that at all times the installation manager is in charge of the operation. The analogy with safety in mines and safety in ships at sea makes it clear it is absolutely right that there should be one person solely responsible and with the duty of ensuring safety throughout the operation.

One of the matters which was raised in the House of Commons in their discussion of similar legislation in the United Kingdom, namely the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Bill, 1971, was the question to the qualifications of the installation manager and whether he should indeed be a certified master and have special responsibilities. The aim is to make sure that whoever is in charge of the installation has the necessary prestige and authority. If he is to be responsible for the safety of everyone on the rig his word of command has to be accepted in difficult and emergency situations. The tribunal of inquiry into The Sea Gem disaster, which led to the passing of the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act, 1971, in England recommended:

It would not be necessary for the master to be an expert in the engineering and mechanical aspects of his charge. It would only be necessary for him to be a mature and responsible person trained to have a wholesome respect for the sea and knowing what to look for in carrying out his task of keeping everybody up to scratch.

That, of course, would be a most difficult appointment for anybody both in terms of the number of men involved and the capital value of an installation.

Part III of the Bill deals with safety on the installation itself. Section 22 deals with matters which may be the subject of regulations, for example, the safety, health and welfare of workers on, in or about installations, the safety of installations themselves and the prevention of accidents on, in, or near them. Section 22 also deals with regulations on specific matters, including matters listed in the Schedule to the Bill. Thus the Bill enables all aspects of offshore work to be subjected to detailed regulations. I believe the Minister for Labour is fortunate in having a series of reports which were produced in the United Kingdon and, indeed, in other countries and as a result of which detailed regulations were made governing all aspects of offshore safety to guide him in the preparation and making the new regulations which are envisaged under this Bill.

I have no doubt that the making and enforcement of detailed regulations are absolutely crucial and essential if the important objectives contained in this Bill in respect of safety on offshore installations are to be realised. For example, drilling is an area that has the bleakest record for the total of fatal and serious accidents. Diving is a most important and difficult area and special regulations must be and are required for divers who operate and dive from oil rigs. For an accident to a diver is, as the figures show, particularly likely to be fatal. In general, the reason for this is the difficulty in giving aid to a diver in trouble at his operating depth. This emphasises the need for the diving industry to work at all times to the highest standards of safety. I believe the regulations should provide a mandatory requirement that all offshore installations should have radio communications and radar. Radar, is important not only for the identification of other vessels, but so that a rig may give a special signal identifying itself as a stationary structure which may be picked up, for example, in the case of fog.

Life boat facilities are essential and crucial. When the Sea Gem went down, for example, many men died from exposure in the water. Even if the normal number of lifeboats is provided on rigs, and if there is a collision, or the rig collapses, as did the Sea Gem, one side may be at an angle making the use of gravity launched lifeboats extremely difficult, and almost impossible. From very early on, therefore, life saving devices on the lines of the Brucker system had been introduced. The Brucker capsule is in the form of the metal dome which can hold a great number of men, more than the crew of a rig. It is powered by a motor and because of various scientific devices and equipment on it, it can exist in a blazing sea of oil and take the crew to safety. With elaborate provision for a cooling capsule on the outside, it can save people from hot death as well as from what might have been a cold death in the water. I know, of course, that there have been considerable improvements and refinements in respect of lifesaving rescue facilities and it is essential that the provision of modern lifesaving survival crafts is a mandatory requirement for all installations over which we have jurisdiction.

Section 23 of Part III allows for the selection and appointment by the workers of safety representatives and deputy safety representatives to represent them in consultation with installation managers for the purpose of ensuring co-operation between management and workers in achieving compliance with the safety provisions of the Bill and, indeed, with the regulations.

Section 24 allows for the selection and appointment by the workers of safety committees to assist the owner or the installation manager in securing compliance with the safety provisions of the Bill and the regulations. Section 26 of the Bill requires the installation owner to prepare a written statement specifying the manner in which the safety and health of persons employed on, in, or in the neighbourhood of an installation will be secured. Part IV of the Bill lays down the procedures to be followed in the case of accident, injury, or death on, in, or in the neighbourhood of an offshore installation.

Part V of the Bill deals with offences and sets out the penalties for an infringement of the Bill and its regulations. Part VI sets out in detail the powers of the industrial inspectors of the Department of Labour who are doing such an excellent job, including their right of access to installations, examination and inquiry, to check that the Bill and its regulations are complied with.

Finally, it was the Barrington Commission which said, and I quote:

Safety functions should permeate the whole work place as thoroughly as production functions.

I believe, with the Minister, that the provisions of this 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.

Exploration off our coasts began in 1971 but, as the Minister has indicated, 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 all hope that exploitation of natural gas will be matched by the development of native and indigenous oil resources very shortly. It is interesting to note that in the period 1979-86,48 oil and gas explorations have been drilled offshore and two have been drilled onshore at a cost of approximately £340 million. It is also interesting to note that on 4 June 1987 Deputy Ray Burke, Minister for Energy, promised that new licensing terms for marginal oil fields and for the exploitation of onshore minerals would be published by the Government within four or six weeks. I hope the Government will take to heart the simple but profitable message contained at the end of that poem by Ogden Nash, and I quote:

So the sad fate of Columbus ought to be,

Pointed out to every child and every voter,

Because it has a very important moral which is

Don't be a discoverer, be a promoter.

Finally, a number of Attorneys General have wrestled with and worked hard on the jurisdictional point raised by this Bill. We all agree that this Bill and its passing is appropriate and timely but certain matters have been raised in the other House which indicate that the time taken for the introduction of the Bill raises serious constitutional doubts about our capacity to legislate in areas outside our jurisdiction. It would seem, therefore, much better than the matter be put beyond doubt now than at some time in the future. Perhaps, therefore, the Minister for Labour and the Government should invite the President, after the passage of this Bill, to consult with the Council of State about referring the Bill to the Supreme Court under Article 26 of the Constitution to test its constitutionality.

In conclusion, I welcome this timely and important Bill and I congratulate the Minister for Labour on introducing it in the Seanad.

Professor Hillery

It is obvious there is widespread support for this Bill which is concerned with providing adequate safety arrangements for people involved in offshore operations. It is true that a safety régime has already been in place for some time but today's Bill is an advance in that it underpins in a statutory and more elaborate way the safety régime for the future.

At the best of times, offshore operation work is hazardous and the death toll of 110 mentioned by the Minister in the North Sea activities has been a source of great concern. Regrettably, there have been three fatalities in the Irish context also. It makes particular sense, therefore, to study the British experience, as I am sure has been done in formulating this legislation, and to learn from it. Legislation has its place but it can only make a limited contribution to the area of safety. I share the Minister's view that an effective safety system primarily lies in the hands of both employers and every individual employee. For employees, participation in safety committees provided for in the Bill allow an opportunity for a say in the working environment and a type of worker participation in practice at the workplace.

The Minister in his opening statement rightly stressed the importance of training. The true answer it seems to me for safety of work is a better trained management and workforce. It is encouraging, therefore, that employees, employers and trade union representatives in the petroleum industry recognise the importance of training in achieving the objective of safer operations. This is an intricate Bill from the legislative viewpoint and considerable work has obviously gone into its formulation. It is necessary to have sound and detailed safety provisions for people engaged in offshore activity. We all share the hope that oil will be brought ashore and now is the time to put suitable safety legislation in place in advance of viable petroleum finds.

I particularly welcome 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. This person will have responsibility for safety, health and welfare and also for order and discipline. Furthermore, it will be necessary under the Bill that the person making the appointment of installation manager shall appoint a person who, to the best of his knowledge and belief, has the skills and competence suitable for the appointment. This is obviously crucial. The most careful worker will inevitably have an accident if he is required to work in an unsafe workplace or with unsafe equipment and materials.

For example, the achievement of maintenance of safety standards and recommendations from safety officers can lead to costs. It has been mentioned in various places that against the background of recession, investment in training in the safety area and investment in safety per se has taken a lower priority. This does not make great financial sense from the employer's viewpoint. The great escalation in employers' liability insurance in recent years had added an important additional industrial cost for employers. There is, however, evidence that precisely because of the increase in the number of claims and awards the appointment of an officer responsible for safety is seen by employers and indeed by insurance companies as being in their own best interests. Even if it is only the financial motive it seems to be leading in certain instances to more investment by employers in the safety area.

The safety officer in industry generally and the installation manager in the case of offshore installations provided for in the Bill have an important role to play in ensuring safety at work but on their own they can only achieve so much. It is clearly in everybody's interests that the level of accidents at the workplace be reduced. The only way to be 100 per cent sure that no accidents will take place at work is not to go to work at all. This, of course, is not a practical proposition. The role of the safety officer or installation manager needs to be integrated into the management system. There is the obvious temptation that the person responsible for safety will be made a scapegoat in certain circumstances. What I am arguing for, therefore, is that every manager in an organisation should regard safety as part of the managerial job. In other words, safety must be seen as an integral part of the manager's job.

I mentioned training for employers and employees; training for safety officers is also a specifically important area. It is only in the past 12 months that we have seen the establishment of an occupational safety and health course in Ireland. True, there were seminars and so on before that but there is now a professional course available in this area which is welcome, albeit a little on the late side.

Turning to offshore activities specifically — the Minister mentioned this area in his opening speech — an attractive environment for investment is necessary to attract oil companies to engage in exploration. The view has been expressed that more rigorous and, therefore, more costly safety requirements might act as a disincentive to exploration companies. This disincentive argument does not hold up, not least because, as I touched on already, on financial grounds alone it is in the employers' own interest to have safe working conditions, especially against the background of escalating claims, awards, tendency to engage in more litigation and, consequentially, higher insurance premiums.

Offshore exploration is a risky, expensive business. Very large sums have already been spent by companies on exploration in Irish waters with no real return. A total of 95 exploration wells were drilled offshore Ireland up to the end of 1986. The number of offshore wells varies from a low of two in 1971 to a high of 15 in 1978, down to six in 1986 and perhaps three in 1987. When the Minister for Energy took office just a few short months ago he pointed out that there was only one firm commitment to drill an offshore well in 1988. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Government are currently addressing new licensing terms for marginal oil fields. There is intense competition among countries to attract oil companies to explore. Ireland must produce competitive terms to keep the oil companies interested. If we attract more drilling activity and the results prove satisfactory to the companies and the country, then we will have the opportunity to apply more rigorous terms to the companies when the next licensing round takes place.

If it is worthwhile for the oil companies to stay drilling here, stay they will but in the first instance we must have an attractive carrot to get them and to keep them here. It is worth recalling that our balance of payments could be significantly improved through the operation of a medium-sized oil development which, in turn, would make this country self-sufficient in oil. Oil companies will be interested in marginal oil fields if they have the appropriate technology and our financial incentives. In the area of technology, obviously they are developing more advanced equipment themselves but it is in the area of financial options that the Government can act and, like others, I look forward to the proposals of the Minister for Energy in this regard in the near future. As I said at the outset, this is not a contentious Bill so I will conclude this brief contribution by wishing the measure a speedy passage through the House.

Mr. Harte

Like everybody else I welcome the Bill which is necessary and detailed legislation. It is good to see it come on stream. It is most timely. Most people, here or in the other House, have expressed the view that there are no grounds for complacency with regard to safety and health, not only offshore but in industry as a general principle. In this area, because it is somewhat new to us, more vigilance is required of us. For example, according to the report to the Minister for Labour there were 3,595 reported accidents in 1985. Knowing the position and many of the people who would be engaged in tasks where accidents might occur I calculate that those figures could be much higher. It is not always evident particularly if somebody files an application for disability benefit and does not indicate the information that their injury was sustained in the course of their work. That incident would not be reported as an accident at work, as such. There are other ways of establishing such facts and statistics but that is one example of how figures may not accurately represent accidents in this area. In the same year, 1985, 18 persons died as a result of accidents in their workplace — one of those was under 18 years of age — and that was on a construction site. In 1986, 3,570 accidents were reported and 14 people died. There were 358 accidents on building sites and six deaths.

I mention those figures to indicate that such things happen while the provisions of existing safety legislation await implementation or perhaps are being implemented to some degree. I give the figures merely as an indication of the number of accidents that occurred in the years 1985 and 1986. If we go back through the years we find even more convincing argument to suggest that people are not as diligent as they should be. There appears to be a certain laxity in implementing the provisions of existing legislation to provide for their safety, health and welfare.

This Bill, in the way it is drafted, gives the impression that it is the intention that the inspectorate would be extremely diligent and that they would have maximum accessibility. When one bears in mind other existing legislation and having regard to the higher risk element involved in these offshore activities one becomes more concerned about complacency. The tone of the whole debate is right but there is need for the fullest possible scope to be given to safety representatives and inspectorates. There is also an encouragement of workers to establish safety committees: not only that, but resort to the other safety provisions and regulations — not necessarily in this Bill — but already existent.

I would argue against the provisions of section 24 for the selection and appointment by the workers, if they so wish, of a safety committee to assist the owner or the installation manager in securing compliance with the safety provisions and regulations laid down in the Bill. I do not believe that is the correct way to go about it. Rather we should deal with it on the basis that the degree and element of risk can vary very much from factory floor to factory floor. In the case of industry where membership of a safety committee is under 20 it is voluntary and, if over 20, compulsory. I wonder if the Minister has given any thought to this aspect. The offshore hazards will be different, possibly their degree higher than those experienced at ordinary industrial level. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider that provision. I would not like to insert the phrase: "shall form a safety committee". Some other wording could be inserted to act as a greater encouragement to workers to get involved in the area of dealing with safety, where they would have a direct, regular input rather than merely some sort of infrequent consultation procedure when somebody may complain that this or that procedure is not right. The fact that the incidence of accidents may increase warrants a more direct input on a regular basis in this area.

When dealing with the people responsible to have regard to the extent of the reportage of other Ministers to him. This is particularly important having regard to the fact that I do not believe that the figures reported are accurate. I believe that the numbers of people injured at work are much greater. I would urge the Minister to place great emphasis on the extent of overseeing installation conditions when he is dealing with the people responsible for them. I know that is the intention but one cannot drive it home sufficiently hard. If one does not oversee conditions initially and ensure they are properly met it is very difficult to blame anybody else thereafter. If you like, it is a three-way responsibility shared by the people responsible for overseeing the conditions, the installation manager and the company. It can raise all sorts of problems. If a company happen to be a foreign one, trying to assess where responsibility lies, against whom a claim should be lodged, in the case of accident can be the cause of much confusion.

I believe the way to deal with the whole question of safety is to urge the workers to become more involved and not merely put a point of view now and again on safety or on whether one aspect of a procedure is right or wrong. Rather they should ensure that the provisions of the Bill are being applied and that there is the three-way responsibility/consultation to which I referred with regard to the overseeing of conditions involving the inspectors, the company, the installation manager or whoever is their representative.

Drilling offshore constitutes a new concept in safety at work. I know there are some regulations in existence. Such activities began to increase in 1983. As more drilling is in prospect it might be appropriate to say I do not agree totally with Senator Hillery when he speaks of good conditions and inducements, about the act that people may not return if conditions are not favourable and so on. That aspect of his contribution had nothing to do with safety. I mention it by way of its being a relevant observation. I would disagree with his comments, in the sense that some companies already drilling off our shores, who have plugged holes are part of economies that are much larger and stronger than ours. They can afford to plug the hole and leave it there until the terms are right. They have plenty of time and they can wait. I could not resist the temptation to make that observation, even though it is not totally relevant. That is something we should bear in mind.

Our intention in this legislation is to guard against health hazards for the people who are involved in the industry. Because of the fact that they are going to be drilling in greater numbers and at higher speeds, we must make sure that the risks that might not ordinarily be taken are not taken. In a situation where good results may come about and somebody decides to speed things up such as drilling, diving and all other aspects of the work, if the overseeing lapses or the accessibility of an inspectorate is diminished and something like the ventilation or lighting becomes faulty, the risks are higher still. If you couple the question of speed with bad lighting, bad ventilation and so on it is obvious that you will raise the level of danger. Again I appeal for accessibility for the inspectorate. We should emphasise that we are not talking about people cutting their fingers and going for treatment to a first aid station; we are talking about danger to life and limb.

The other matter one worries about is a recession — and this is not a cut at anybody, or a pun — even though the intentions in the legislation are good there is a danger that the staffing of the inspectorate could be cut back and therefore the overseeing suffers and the hazards can get out of hand. I appeal to the Minister to think about that area.

When we are talking about the people to be employed, in this case there is the question of being engaged on installations. As I understand it if AnCO or Manpower are going to place people they will have them trained in fire-fighting and survival courses and these are necessary. I know politicians are accused of using pull and getting jobs for people, but I have not had much success with it in my time.

An Cathaoirleach

You have plenty of friends, Senator.

Mr. Harte

I have plenty of friends, but no jobs. We will be accused of using political pull but having regard to what is needed and the calibre of the people who have to go through these courses, that charge cannot be levelled at us. Shame on the person who would try to put somebody on a rig or an installation like that who was not up to it, and shame on the man who listens to the man who wants him to get on it, but that is not likely.

One of the last points I want to make is in relation to redress and responsibility. I was not able to go into the Bill as deeply as Senator Kennedy, who seems to have a comprehensive grasp of it and who gave a very detailed explanation of its function and what can be cannot be done. I am not sure whether the company take all the responsibilities when something needs redressing, whether the installation manager or the owner will be the person, or what the situation will be.

I get confused at times and I am confused on the question of the three or four Departments with which the Minister will liaise. I have not made up my mind whether that is a good or a bad thing. On balance, one could say that possibly it is a good thing that somebody is looking over your shoulder and that you have somebody to be answerable to. We are in the process of bringing agencies together and it is a pity that we cannot bring more operations under the same umbrella so that we could have a finger on the pulse with regard to which ministry is involved, rather than having it varying to such an extent. However, the draftsman found it necessary and wise to act in the way he did in this respect.

In such a dangerous situation, I do not know whether the fines imposed are high enough. On the other hand, I would not want to go to the point of introducing draconian measures by raising the fines extensively. However, they could be a little higher, because no matter how responsible we are, how good or concerned we are about the laws on health, safety and welfare, there is the danger of complacency. We have to be rapped quite hard over the knuckles when we stray off the beaten track.

I am very pleased with the Bill. I am satisfied that it will do the job. As I said, there are small areas of concern. Finally, please make the installations accessible to the inspectorate and please see that the staff are adequate to facilitate that.

Mr. Cullimore

I am very happy to add my support to this Bill. Offshore exploration is a vital weapon in the battle to secure Ireland's economic future. Any measure which will enhance the operation and effectiveness of offshore installations is strategically very important. Death and destruction can be the consequences when safety regulations are inadequate, or are ignored. Tragically we do not have to go far to be reminded of this. In Cork, early in 1979 we had a disaster at Whiddy Island oil terminal in which 50 people lost their lives. The Betelgeuse was wrecked, extensive damage was caused to the offshore jetty and installation, not to mention the loss of many peoples' livelihoods. More recently, off the coast of Belgium we had the Zeebrugge disaster. Regulations were ignored and many people lost their lives.

It is, of course impossible to legislate for all accidents and events which might occur. We must, however, learn from past mistakes. Human and technical errors will always be possible but we must strive to minimise the probability of their occurrence. Part II, section 11 of the Bill establishes the position of an installation manager. The manager is appointed by the owners, subject to regulations. Much of the onus for day to day implementation of safety regulations resides with the manager. With the best will in the world, a conflict of interests may arise. Commercial pressure can lead to the cutting of corners with respect to safety. In view of these considerations, perhaps the Minister would consider making provision for a resident safety officer on offshore installations. In an ideal world, such an officer would be permanently resident, but perhaps a compromise could be reached. Such an officer could be resident for an agreed minimum period.

Part II, section 18 deals with the provision and maintenance of equipment, clothing facilities and material for the protection of workers. Section 19 deals with naked lights and smoking. This section includes the provision that "appropriate notices prohibiting or restricting smoking and the use of naked lights are displayed in sufficient numbers". I suggest that a similar provision be included in section 18. These notices should indicate clearly the areas and circumstances where specific protective clothing or equipment should be used. This would not only assist the management and workers, but it would also be of great assistance to safety inspectors. It would be a clear indication of management's attitude to safety.

In general, indeed, greater consideration could be given to the provision of safety signs and notices. A minimum number of safety signs for a given number of workers should be displayed on an installation. Safety signs are a common practice on good construction sites. We only have to consider the anti-drink driving or seat belt campaigns to appreciate the importance of reminders regarding good safety practice.

Section 26 in Part III of the Bill deals with safety statements. It requires an installation owner to provide a written statement. This statement is required to specify how the health and safety of employees will be secured. I welcome this provision but perhaps more could be done in this area. I urge the Minister to consider the provision of an emergency action plan. This plan could be developed in consultation and co-operation with the appropriate agencies both nationally and locally. In essence, the plan should provide (1) instructions to all personnel and particularly key personnel about the actions they are to take during a project emergency; and (2) detailed plans for notifying potentially' affected persons, including safety, law enforcement and medical authorities, as quickly as possible.

Training and practice is a most important element of emergency procedures. I urge that detailed proposals regarding training and emergency procedures be included in any emergency action plan. There could be included as an appendix to the plan. Any plan should be considered incomplete if these are not included.

In the Whiddy Island disaster report the tribunal's conclusion regarding training in emergency procedures included the following points:

The failure to hold refresher training courses in fire fighting techniques... demonstrated a decline in safety standards;

The failure to provide adequate formal training in fire fighting techniques for employees who are designated "temporary employees" was clearly undesirable; and

Had the crew been properly trained in evacuation techniques... then it is possible that they would have run to Dolphin I and their lives would have been saved.

I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to the points I have made. Let us do our utmost to ensure that a Betelgeuse type disaster goes not mar the progress of our offshore oil and mineral exploration.

Mr. B. Ryan

It is nice to see the Minister and I am sorry I missed him last week. This is impressive legislation. Having a passing interest in the area of safety, I cannot but compliment the Minister and his officials on thorough attempts to address the area of safety in offshore installations. The Minister referred to the forthcoming comprehensive legislation in the area of health and safety at work.

It is one of the peculiarities of many societies that there is a certain macho kind of resistance to the idea of proper safety practice. This is not something that is exclusively characteristic of industrial workers or management in industry. If people realised the risks involved in smoking cigarettes near petrol pumps and if their perception of the hazards associated with petrol were as great as their perception of the hazards associated with somewhat familiar substances, they would have a very different attitude to it. There is a feeling that real men do not worry about safety and this is part of the problem. It is one of the reasons why one has to welcome the very vigorous and active role that trade unions take in advocating a very healthy and positive attitude to safety. There is a long way to go yet.

Many years ago I worked in an installation where face masks were an absolute prerequisite for safety but most of the employees did not feel comfortable wearing them and dismissed ideas of worrying about the risks to their health. It is true, too, that there are perceptions of the relative safety of different forms of work and different areas of activity which are totally at variance with the facts. For instance, the chemical industry of which I have some knowledge could be a far safer industry to work in than, say, the building industry. The incidence of fatal accidents in the construction industry, according to British figures, would be of an order of magnitude greater than the incidence of fatalities in the chemical industry.

At the core of the question of safety is the perception and assessment of risk. There is no such thing as absolute safety. There is always an assessment of the acceptability of risk. It has been fashionable to talk about the idea of acceptable risk as a nasty kind of capitalist idea which makes human life dispensable. In truth we all operate on the basis of acceptable risks. Most of us would probably take great exception if regulations were introduced which made news, like "Superser heaters illegal", although most fire officers around the country would stand up and cheer if such were done because of the risks involved. However, public opinion has deemed that risk to be acceptable. The use of petrol and the use of motor cars as a means of transportation is an acceptable risk. If people who work in the chemical industry were told that the biggest risk they face is driving from home to work rather than at work and they are far safer once they get inside the gates of the factory than they were when they were driving to work most would not accept that. A person takes a far greater risk in driving a car in a country like Ireland than he or she takes in working in a well-regulated industry like the chemical industry or any similar industry.

Underlying the safety aspect of the Bill is the fact that no amount of regulations and the Minister and Senators Hillery, Harte and Kennedy said this also, can create safety. They can only create a framework for safe operation. One could go on forever about what is needed for safe operation. A number of things are required. The first requirement is training. I agree fully with Senator Hillery that it is not only regrettable but it is bad economics to cut back on the area of proper training for safety. The idea that short cuts in training in safety or in safe practice can somehow make an industry more profitable may be true for a specific industry at a specific moment in time but there is no global evidence to sustain it.

The companies in the area I am familiar with that have the best record in terms of profitability, innovation and in terms of their response to new markets are the same companies who have been extremely innovative and very progressive in the area of loss prevention and the development of loss prevention techniques. The idea that somehow one can succeed in any area where there might be an excessive risk by shortcutting on safety or loss prevention is both humanly destructive and in terms of profitability it is a blind alley out of which a company will emerge in serious disarray.

I am very glad there is considerable emphasis on the requirement that people should be trained in the area of safety. It is an interesting area which ought to be extended into many other areas of work. A requirement to be trained in proper and safe practices ought to be a condition of employment in many areas of activity.

The second requirement is that people who are trained should be properly supervised. While the installation manager, the concept and the proposal is most welcome, it is not just the responsibility of the installation manager but everybody who is responsible for supervisory activity in any process, whether it be an offshore installation or a shore based industry has a responsibility to supervise and to ensure that safe practices are maintained and that the occasional cumbersome ones are insisted upon even if a somewhat reluctant workforce does not accept it.

The other requirement is motivation. Again you cannot externally enforce safety. You can do it, but it is not going to be an adequate or complete form of safe practice if it is simply based on externally imposed regulations. The most acceptable way to run a safe industry is, of course, to motivate the workforce into accepting that safe practice is correct practice. That needs a considerable degree of involvement. That is why it is most welcome that there should be a reference to safety representation on offshore installations. I agree with Senator Harte that perhaps we could have a stronger word than "may" and that "must" or "shall" should be substituted. I would be interested in the Minister's reasoning as to why he left it as an option rather than as a requirement. There is an obligation on many onshore industries, above a certain number of employees, that there must be a safety committee. I am not sure why it should be different in the case of a high risk area with the possibility that we have relatively new employees without much experience. Inevitably in a country like ours, in the early days of offshore installations, there must be a high level of employee inexperience, however well they are trained before they come onboard an offshore installation. Therefore, the requirement to motivate people to think in terms of safety involvement is a prerequisite and I would have thought that the safety representation should be a compulsory rather than an optional extra.

The other important area in order to sustain safe practice is continuous review. An industry which presumes that, because safe practices were instituted two years ago, it is still safe is a potentially hazardous place. Safety can only be sustained by a continuous critical review of the operations, practices, and so on, and of the plant itself. The Flixborough disaster indicated the extreme importance of a review in detail of any modifications to previous processes. It is very easy, particularly in a moment of pressure, to modify a process without sitting down and dispassionately analysing the possible consequences in other areas of the process of what happened. Unfortunately in Flixborough there was not such a detailed review of the possible implications of a modification. So you are talking about training, supervision, motivation and continuous review. That is obviously, a presumption of a sense of partnership in any high risk operations like offshore installations.

Consequently, while the Bill is worthwhile and important, we will have to address the question of employee training and of providing funds to organisations like NISO to extend and improve employee training. It was one of the perpetually infuriating things for me when I was involved in the executive of the Cork council of trade unions that, however worthy the functions organised by the National Industrial Safety Organisation, they were so far beyond the budget of individual trade unionists, as distinct from their trade unions that most of the people on the council, while recognising the value of these things, could do absolutely nothing about going because they were too expensive. I am not saying this in any penny pinching way but it is a pity that the recognition of the need for safe practices cannot be extended further into the recognition of the need to train and motivate people to continue.

While I welcome the Bill, I am concerned about section 4. I hope the Minister will elaborate further on it. It seems to be a large freedom to give the Minister the power to make exemptions without the necessity to hear the views of the employees or, indeed, of the industry generally. Possibly somebody has persuaded the Minister about possibilities of an extreme kind that are not going to arise too often. Perhaps the Minister will elaborate on it. I am not happy that sections of well drafted legislation can be set aside because a Minister is persuaded that it would be unreasonable to expect people to meet the regulations at a particular installation at a particular moment in time. I accept that there are aspects of these regulations that perhaps cannot be met. But I am not convinced that a blanket capacity to give a large scale exemption is necessary or, indeed, is even good legislation. It undermines the very positive philosophy of the Bill in general. I would be interested if the Minister could give specific examples in the area of offshore installations. Is it, for instance, something he sees as being exclusively required in the area of offshore installation, or would it apply to the general area of health and safety legislation?

There are two other points in this area which relate to the powers of the installation manager. I was looking at section 13 (5). I do not want to get into a Committee Stage discussion on this, but it might be something which the Minister could explain. It concerns this power to restrain a person where the installation manager has done or is about to do any act endangering or likely to endanger the safety of the installation or persons on, in or about the installation or the maintenance of order and discipline among those persons or the installation manager with reasonable cause suspects him of having done or being about to do any such act. I am not objecting to the principle of "suspects with reasonable cause". The person can then be restrained. Subsection (5) states that:

The person shall not be kept under restraint by virtue of subsection (4) for longer than thirty-six hours unless—

(a) the intention is that he shall be put ashore in the State in accordance with that subsection at the earliest opportunity, and

(b) within those thirty-six hours notice of his being kept under restraint and of the reason for it is sent to the authority in the State prescribed for the purpose of this subsection.

It appears to me that, once the notice is sent to the authority prescribed, there is no longer any time limit on the period for which a person can be kept under restraint. I find that rather peculiar. I accept the principle that offshore installations like aircraft are areas where the person in charge has to have somewhat extraordinary powers. I would have thought that, where a person has to be restrained, and that was obviously where somebody had either criminal intent or was somewhat disturbed, something should be done about that person and that an open ended capacity to restrain was not really part of our practice. I may have misread the Bill or perhaps it is something that should be looked at in greater detail.

Regarding section 14 I am unhappy — given what I said about training and what other Members and the Minister said about training — that the requirement that a person should receive adequate, instruction or training and instruction concerning the work as may be appropriate, can be omitted where a person is doing work under the instruction and supervision of a person who is adequately trained. I find that extraordinary because it is the essence of good safety practice that everybody should be trained. Perhaps the degree of training may relate to the degree of involvement. The idea that an untrained person can be let onto a potentially high risk area, like an offshore installation, and presume that that person can be relied upon to operate safely simply on the presumption of supervision by somebody who is trained, not necessarily the installation manager, seems to be at variance with the obvious positive philosophy behind the Bill. Perhaps the Minister could explain what is involved.

The Bill is most welcome. I look forward to the comprehensive health and safety at work Act. I ask the Minister, since we are talking about health and safety, to investigate the rather peculiar position of those of us who work in laboratories and in places of education where it is a matter of considerable dispute, whether we are covered by the Factories Act. Perhaps he could have a word with his colleague, the Minister for Education, and get this matter straightened out.

It is a rather peculiar position that those of us who are involved in training people in the proper use of laboratories, facilities, and often dangerous equipment, are not sure whether the regulations we are explaining and training these people to comply with actually apply in the areas in which we work ourselves. If the Minister is told it is true, then he might inquire from various VECs around the country whether they accept they are covered by the Factories Act? I can assure him that at least in one case where I have a certain involvement, they do not. I welcome the Bill and compliment the Minister on it.

Minister for Labour (Mr. B. Ahern)

I thank Senators for their contributions. I will deal with some of the questions raised. I say to Senator Ryan that I will certainly check that but I think that probably the laboratory people will be covered under the new legislation. I will check to see whether they are covered under the Factories Act, and I will let the Senator know when I have checked it.

I welcome the positive response of all the Senators to this legislation. The Bill as has been rightly said, was in circulation for some years. In Opposition I asked why the Bill did not come forward and why we did not deal with this legislation? I do not believe the constitutional question delayed it. I think perhaps there were many other reasons, as it is very complex and detailed legislation. The legislation is complex enough but the regulations that go with it — some of them already issued — are even more detailed and complex. A great amount of work has been done by the officials in the inspectorate.

I am anxious that we get this legislation passed and up and running for two reasons. First, oil exploration and exploitation is so important to the economy, and to the efforts of successive Governments, who try to encourage exploration in our offshore oil fields and gas fields. Secondly, as I said on Second Stage, there were clear anomalies for the safety and protection of workers in the legislation which at present governs them, that is if the legislation governs them at all.

Senator Kennedy raised the question of the patchwork approach to safety legislation. The Barrington report addressed itself to the problem which will be examined in the context of the new proposals which I hope to introduce, as a number of Senators asked, probably late this year but more likely early in 1988. Senator Kennedy also stressed the importance of the philosophy with regard to safety underlying the report of the Burgoyne Commission in the UK and the Barrington Commission in Ireland. This is the philosophy behind this Bill also. As I said in my Second Stage speech:

Safety essentially depends on the commitment of owners, employers and workers who must all accept a share of the responsibility for providing and carrying out the operation of safe structures, safe systems and safe procedures. The Bill sets a high standard of safety as an objective and it will be my responsibility as Minister to work for its achievement through monitoring and enforcement.

The Senator also referred to the issue of the safety zones. Statutory Instrument No. 285 of 1977 established a 500-metre safety zone around the installations attached to the Kinsale Head gas field and prohibited ships from entering the zone without the consent of the Minister. However, it is not considered practical to establish such zones around mobile installations, the ones we refer to here, thus the expression "in the neighbourhood of" is used in the Bill. This should be taken to mean normally a distance of some 500 metres. However, it is considered desirable for flexibility purposes not to specify 500 metres in the legislation but to use the term "neighbourhood of".

Senator Kennedy again asked for the qualifications of the offshore installation manager. The details of these will be set down in the regulations to be made following consultation with the interested parties when the Bill is passed. These will be specified in considerable detail. There was also a question about life support systems. There are four principal types, Watercraft, Harding, Viking and Whittaker. The first three assume the shape and configuration of a typical lifeboat and the fourth, the Whittaker, is essentially capsule because of its relatively spherical shape which makes for better manoeuvrability. Of the four, only the capsule is lowered on the single fall while all the other three operate in two falls. There is criticism that the single fall capsule has a tendency to spin while it is being lowered. Nowadays this tendency is minimised, if not totally eliminated, by the use of anti-twist cable. In the Kinsale field operations each of the fixed installation has two Whittaker capsules; one holds 50 persons and the other holds 28 persons. The capsules are inspected in the course of a usual visit by the inspectorate of the Department and their engine, air supply, drinkable water, first aid equipment, and torches are checked for reliability and up-to-dateness. I think they are fairly detailed checks.

Senator Kennedy mentioned the regulations being made under the Bill. There are five sets of implementing regulations in the course of preparation: (1) operation, safety, health and welfare; (2) managers; (3) diving; (4) emergency procedures; (5) life-saving appliances. These regulations will be made as soon as possible. I think all of the work has been completed on the regulations.

The question of jurisdiction, as the Senator rightly said, came up on Second Stage. It had been considered and the advice we received is that the definitions in section 2 (1) of the territorial seas of the State and the designated area together with section 3 (2) covering the application of the measure describes the activities which will come within the jurisdiction of the legislation. The provisions will apply to installation in waters to which this Bill applies, section 3 (1), namely, (1) the territorial seas of the State, which is broadly the sea within a three-mile limit as set down in section 3 of the Maritime Jurisdiction Act, 1959; (2) the sea areas in inland or internal waters coming under section 5 of the Maritime Jurisdiction Act, 1959, and (3) the waters in an area designated under the Continental Shelf Act, 1968. The UN Convention of the Law of the Sea describes a 12-mile limit instead of a three-mile limit. Ireland, however, has not yet ratified the convention. Senator Kennedy referred to the possible reference of the Bill to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality. I am advised that such a reference is not necessary. The Bill simply applies the safety and welfare arrangements and installations, operating in areas already designated under the Maritime Jurisdiction Act, 1959. I am advised there is no difficulty in that.

Senator Hillery stressed the importance of the role of safety officers and safety training. He also mentioned the desirability of offering a range of attractive licensing arrangements. I welcome his contribution and I agree with him in these matters.

Senator Harte referred to the accident statistics generally. The position offshore has been that there have been three fatalities and some 40 non-fatal accidents. The House will agree that there is no grounds for complacency. This Bill should considerably help matters. The details are laid down and if they are followed with the stringency the legislation intends they should undoubtedly assist matters. Senator Harte referred to the need for safety committees. As I stated earlier, the provisions on safety committees in the Bill 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. Senator Ryan made the same point, that there is little good having legislation, rules and regulations if people are not prepared to adhere to them and follow them. Following the publication of the Barrington report on safety at work my Department have been working in liaison with the interim board for occupation, safety and health and the drafting of legislation will give effect to their recommendations. The main criticism which this type of safety representation has attracted is that it has often remained unused or fallen dormant. In this context it may be necessary to review at a later stage how we can provide for safety representation and worker involvement in safety matters generally. A number of questions were raised on that in the Barrington discussions, the ongoing discussions and the detailed preparation of that legislation. These matters will be considered in detail to try to correct areas where up to now the legislation has not been effective.

Senator Harte made a point about consultation with our Ministers. His point was that perhaps we were consulting with too many. The purpose in this respect is to ensure that there will be no overlap between responsibilities of the different Departments but that there is consultation to ensure that matters are dealt with efficiently and effectively.

Senator Cullimore suggested the appointment of resident safety officers on offshore installations. Sections 23, 24 and 25 of the Bill refer to safety representation provisions and the arrangements envisaged in these sections are probably unworkable. The emergency procedures will be the subject of special regulations. He has made a good point on this matter and I am glad to assure him that the emergency procedures will be taken up in special regulations.

Senator Ryan referred to the problem of introducing safety consciousness in Irish industry, which has been the difficulty for a long time. I agree with him. We will have to try to work to it. I agree with his comments generally. We 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 in 1985 all employees recruited for offshore work were required to register with the National Manpower Service and to have completed a firefighting and survival course. This ensures that all offshore personnel have basic training for a very dangerous job. I take the points that the Senator made in connection with that. There must be no complacency about concern for safety in the hazardous environment of an offshore platform. Safety will not be assured simply by the making of laws and regulations. As far as we can go in the regulations is to ensure that anybody working on the rigs has registered to undertake the manpower course. We had some questions on Second Stage and Committee Stage in the Dáil about some people who have experience not undertaking the course. We have ruled that people just have to undertake the course. Some people who had considerable experience did not undertake the course to obtain what is considered to be a reasonable qualification.

Senator Ryan asked why a safety representative "may" and not "must" be appointed. Section 23 provides that the employees may appoint a safety representative. This is a voluntary process to try to encourage the process of safety committees. If employees do not appoint, section 25 provides that the manager must make such an appointment. It is preferable to try to get the employees to make that appointment to keep the voluntary nature of the debate and to keep trade union and FUE involvement in the matter.

On section 4, Senator Ryan asked about the provision regarding the exemptions. We had a very detailed discussion on that on Committee Stage in the Dáil as we had on the whole Committee Stage. Section 4 provides that the Minister has power to exempt an installation from the application of the Act or the regulations. Before issuing such an exemption, which would be an unlikely event, it must be in writing and must refer to a particular time span. The Minister must be of the opinion that to insist on full compliance would not be reasonable. There will have to be stated grounds and the guiding norms for determining what is or is not reasonable will be the amount of work involved, the number of employees, actual or respective, the duration of the work or any other special circumstances. The power of exemption will enable commonsense flexibility to be exercised. It is important to ensure that operations are not hindered by unnecessary restrictions. The employer will have to apply for the exemptions, setting out his reasons, the Minister will have to consider whether that fits in with the categories as set down, and it will then go to the inspectorate for their professional advice on the matter. Only at that stage would it be considered whether to grant the exemption. The industrial inspectorate would be charged with the duty of administering the measure to ensure the safety, health and welfare of offshore workers and advising the Minister about exemption applications. The inspectorate will recommend exemption only when they are satisfied that the safety of the workers concerned is not under threat. That would be the guiding principle. They would have to be absolutely satisfied of that, and only where a delay would be unreasonable would the process be pursued. It is unlikely that it would happen often but if there was some short term reason where an exemption was required granting it would still have to be based on, not just the Minister making his decision, but on the professional competency of the industrial inspectorate in taking the primary reason, the safety of the workers, into account.

Again I thank Senators Kennedy, Hillery, Harte, Cullimore and Ryan for their excellent contributions and for the work they have put into debating this Bill. We are anxious, after all the years it has been around, and we have tried in the last three months since I have been made Minister to get this Bill up and through. We wish to take Committee Stage today. We have had a good Second Stage debate and Committee Stage had a fairly long haul in the Dáil, with the agreement of the Seanad and mainly the Senators involved I would like Second Stage to conclude.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.