Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Jul 1987

Vol. 116 No. 18

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

Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

I would be very grateful if the Minister could give me a specific example of why he envisages such an exemption clause being necessary. I know this was discussed in great detail in the other House and I do not want to go into it in detail. Why was it found necessary to put it in? Normally hypothetical situations do not form the basis for legislation, so there must be some practical basis for it.

The Minister has outlined the four criteria or norms or principles for the granting of those exemptions but the paramount interest is obviously the safety, health and welfare of the personnel on the offshore installation. Where there would be a conflict surely the four criteria he has outlined would not supesede the safety of the personnel on the installation. I am just wondering if by providing for the flexibility it is almost inconceivable that it would ever be used.

We discussed this in the Dáil. It could be used in many locations. I am advised by the inspector that if the employer wished when testing to move the installation for testing — they may be testing in different locations or in one location for a short period — having to go through the process would not be realistic because by the time they go through it their certificate could be out of date. In a case like that, provided the inspector is satisfied that all the other regulations are complied with, I do not think it is likely. The inspector advised me that it could happen if there was a testing procedure in operation. If we did not have the flexibility it would have to be refused and that would not be to the advantage of the country generally.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."

I would like to refer again to the Burgoyne Commission report, paragraph 5.13 of which states:

The Committee have received representations from the Offshore operators that there are a number of issues relating to Safety Zones requiring a change of policy.

They identify four issues as follows:

The 500m Safety Zone is of itself not large enough, particularly for anchored installations;

Safety Zones should be accorded to mobile drilling units while on a drilling location;

Safety Zones should be created around underwater installations (particularly subsea well completions or wellheads); and

Fields with more than one installation should be accorded IMCO recognised "areas to be avoided".

Paragraph 5.17 states:

The use of 2 or more installations in the exploitation of a field creates a "corridor" or "corridors" between the installations and their respective Safety Zones. The offshore industry would like the Government....

They are talking about the United Kingdom Government....

... to promulgate "areas to be avoided" which are internationally recognised through IMCO (the UN Inter-governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation).

They go on to make specific recommendations which are briefly summarised in paragraph 6.20 as follows:

The Government should consider the case for the enlargement of the safety zone, currently set at 500m radius. The Department of Energy should, as a matter of urgency:

Allow the establishment of a safety zone for a mobile drilling unit;

Establish the principle of according a safety zone to a subsea wellhead;

The concept of IMCO "areas to be avoided" should be introduced as a matter of urgency. The Government should keep means of enforcement of respect for safety zones constantly under review.

There is no problem there.

The Department of Energy should promote research into alternative means of marking the presence and extent of a safety zone.

There seems to be definite recommendations there for the enlargement of safety zones and also on the whole question of consideration of corridors and so on. We are a small country and as of now this type of legislation is unnecessary but on the other hand this is a very comprehensive Bill and we are looking to the future. Has the Minister or his officials any views in regard to these recommendations?

Senator Kennedy, what are your quoting from?

The Report of the Committee on Offshore Safety under the chairmanship of Dr. J. H. Burgoyne.

I referred to this matter earlier. That report was based on the North Sea operations and the great proliferation of workings there. Listening to Senator Kennedy it would be nice perhaps if we had the problem they had as detailed in that report. I am advised that we do not have that difficulty. Statutory Instrument No. 285 of 1977 established a 500 metre safety zone around the installations attached to Kinsale. In the case of this legislation "the neighbourhood of" is considered adequate and that allows for flexibility. The safety zone is generally an area of 500 metres and that is the definition of "the neighbourhood of." I am advised there is no difficulty. The problem has been considered and the report has been examined.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 7 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."

We all agree that the offshore installation manager would have very specific and very fundamental responsibilities and duties. Perhaps the Minister will give his views on the type of qualifications that would be required by such personnel and tell us if we are providing a procedure for such qualifications.

The Senator will see from a number of sections that the appointment of the installation manager is of considerable importance. Regarding the installation he is the governing person and will hold the last word. The details and the type of person to be involved will be set out in regulations. His powers are set out in the Act. The Senator can take it that we are talking about people who are highly competent in that area. They will be responsible for anything that happens on the rigs. I am not sure if they will be engineers or whatever but obviously they will be highly qualified. That will be set out in the regulations.

Is it the intention of the Minister to specify the qualifications by way of regulations?

The person appointed in writing by the owner of the installation shall be the person deemed by the owner to have the requisite skills, confidence and experience for the efficient and effective discharge of the installation manager's duties. It will be laid down in regulations that the person will have to be qualified adequately to carry out the powers given to him in the legislation. The inspectors would be anxious that we have some say. There is not much point in giving all the powers to the manager in legislation and the employer then employing a person who would not be adequate to carry out those fairly stringent powers.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."

I mentioned on Second Stage, and perhaps the Minister might explain to me now, the question of a person being kept under restraint. I said at that time that I understand why the section is necessary but it appears to be a bit open-ended as to when the restraint should end. The person shall not be kept under restraint by virtue of subsection (4) of this section for longer than 36 hours unless (a) "the intention is that he shall be put ashore...". I am concerned about paragraph (b) which states that unless "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 purposes of this subsection". That does not seem to suggest that there is any urgency about dealing with a person like that. The requirement is to notify that he is under restraint and after that matters can proceed at a certain pace. Perhaps the Minister can explain what the intention is?

This is a technicality which will be dealt with in the regulations. If the Senator wishes I can give him the briefing note I have on section 13 (4) but I am not sure if it will assist him.

If the installation manager believes that a person under 18 years of age is employed on or is in the neighbourhood of the installation, he is empowered to put that person ashore in the State. The installation manager can also put a person ashore in the State if such a step is necessary to ensure the safety of the installation or persons on it, or is necessary for the maintenance of order and discipline. If any person on or about the installation is in danger, or is likely to endanger the. safety of the installation or persons on it, or discipline among such persons, or if there is reasonable suspicion that he has indulged or will indulge in such conduct, the manager may take necessary measures against him, including putting him under restraint, as he sees fit. I am advised that there will be some further details in the regulations. The Senator asked how long a person can be restrained, how long can a person be held before he is sent ashore.

Is do not think there is anything sinister in this. At the very worst, it is something which should have been thought out further. But the gardaí cannot keep somebody under arrest without a whole series of procedures. The word "restrained" is being used here, presumably to avoid references that would give people any kind of quasi-judicial function. Effectively, the installation manager — and quite rightly in my view — is being given the authority to put somebody under lock and key if the person is a threat to the safety of the installation. But what worries me is that that ought to be an emergency procedure. Somewhere in the law preferably, but certainly in the regulations there should be an equally firm requirement of the installation manager to ensure that that sort of unofficial restraint is only an emergency operation and is not something which can be carried on until it suits the installation manager to put the person ashore.

This procedure should be temporary until the person can be transferred either to the gardaí, if there is a criminal offence, or to the other area, which is a legitimate concern if the person becomes disturbed, and into medical care. These procedures should be carried out quickly. From the manner in which it is written in the Bill you get the impression that as long as the restraint is notified, the installation manager could send him home the next time there was a supplies helicopter coming out, perhaps in a week's time. That is not acceptable. I would have my doubts about the constitutional implications of that section, as it stands _ whether anybody can be authorised to keep somebody under restraint without due process of law and a court being involved.

However, I am expressing my doubts and I am not going to challenge the constitutionality of this section, but somebody might.

This is enabling legislation, but if it is not specified in the Bill it would have to be set down in regulations. I am told this is a technicality, which is sensible enough when you take into consideration that we are dealing with offshore regulations. If we write into this legislation three hours, six hours, or a day, the difficulty is that it may not be possible for the installation manager to get an individual off the installation because of weather conditions. Therefore we cannot specify the time but exactly what happens will have to be spelled out in the regulations. Presumably someone would have to be informed — the gardaí would be the correct people — as soon as an installation manager is restraining somebody.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."

I am a little unhappy about section 14 (2) (a) (ii). The intention is that everybody working on a high risk activity, such as an offshore installation, ought to be trained, but we then say that a person, while doing work under the instruction and supervision of a person described in subparagraph (i) need not be trained. I am not happy with that. I do not believe anybody should be let into any area of safety on the presumption that he or she can be adequately supervised. I do not care whether that person is coming on to do a once-off specialist maintenance job on an installation. For instance, those who come to work on the shutdown of a chemical plant have to operate under the same detailed safety requirements as everybody else, and presumably they have to know what they are doing and understand the risks they are taking.

There is no substitute for people knowing what they are doing and the risks they are taking. Unless you are talking about — and it is not specified there — one to one supervision, you are talking about leaving somebody under the supervision of a person who may not be present. If you have a specialist person working with somebody beside him saying: "Do precisely this or that", that is fine, but even walking around an offshore installation could be a risky business, if somebody does not know what he is doing.

Walking around a chemical plant, a subject I know a bit about, is a risky business. No untrained person should be allowed to walk from one end to the other, even if they were left there by one trained person and told to meet another trained person somewhere else, because there is a risk. Anybody who has a job to do on an offshore rig ought to be trained and understand what they are doing.

The person going out would have to do the preliminary NMS course I was talking about earlier, but if this provision was put in an apprentice could not work on an oil rig without supervision. This section would allow an apprentice to do his basic course, to which we referred earlier, and he could continue his apprenticeship under supervision on the oil rig. That is put in to cover apprentices.

I do not want to delay the House unnecessarily, but let us consider an apprentice who had served part of his time in the food industry, and then moved to the chemical industry where there would perhaps be toxic substances. My understanding is that before he would be let onto the plant, he would have to be informed of the risks and the differences between the risks of working in a food industry, where there were relatively few toxic substances, and working in another area where there were relatively substantial quantities of toxic substances and potentially explosive materials. The fact that he was an apprentice working under supervision would not exempt him from the requirement to have some basic training about what he was doing. I cannot see why the Minister cannot specify that anybody who works on these installations has to have at least preliminary training or else must work on a strictly one to one supervision basis. Supervision by one person of another person is fine, but I do not think that necessarily means one to one supervision.

That is the point I am making. An apprentice must have completed the initial training course. This section allows an apprentice who has done his initial training course to come onto the rig, and work under the supervision of an instructor.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 15 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 22.
Question proposed: "That section 22 stand part of the Bill."

From the Minister's original reply I got the impression that it would be a mandatory requirement that all installations over which we had jurisdiction would have lifesaving survival crafts of the most modern types. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 23 to 37, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 38.
Question proposed: "That section 38 stand part of the Bill."

I reiterate the question regarding our capacity to legislate outside the jurisdiction. I am hoping the advice the Minister got is correct but perhaps I will still have to raise the point about the constitutionality of what we are trying to do. However timely and desirable it is, it might be tested now rather than later but I am certainly not challenging it.

The advice we received in this matter is that it is in order. Earlier on I gave the definitions and the provisions of the Bill which applied to an installation in waters within which this Bill applies. The territorial seas of the State and the sea areas of inland or internal waters come under section 5 of the Maritime Jurisdiction Act and the waters in the area designated under the Continental Shelf Act, 1968.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 39 to 48, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

I would like on my own behalf and on behalf of other Senators to thank the Minister for Labour for his exceptionally good co-operation and help in the passage of this Bill through the Seanad. I would like also to avail of the opportunity to thank the technical and administrative personnel in his Department for the great work which they have done in preparing this Bill. I congratulate the Minister for presenting it to the House.

I thank the Senators and the Whips for their assistance in getting this Bill through. As Senator Kennedy said, it is a long Bill. It has been examined by a number of Attorneys General and Ministers and a great amount of work has been done within the inspectorate on this complex Bill. I should like to thank Senators for their co-operation in the timely passing of the Bill through both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 5 p.m. and resumed at 6.30 p.m.
Top
Share