Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES debate -
Wednesday, 10 Mar 2010

Petroleum (Exploration and Extraction) Safety Bill 2010: Committee Stage.

I welcome the Minister of State and his officials. The meeting has been convened for the purpose of considering Committee Stage of the Petroleum (Exploration and Extraction) Safety Bill 2010. This was referred to the select committee by order of the Dáil on 23 February 2010.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.

Amendments Nos. 1, 3, 10, 11, 24 and 31 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, after line 31, to insert the following:

"(b) in section 6 by inserting the following after subsection (2):

"(3) Proceedings for an offence under Part IIA of this Act committed in any part of—

(a) the licensed area (within the meaning of section 13A) to which subparagraph (i) or (ii), or both, of paragraph (a) of the definition of ‘licensed area’ relates, or

(b) a designated area,

may be taken, and the offence may for all incidental purposes be treated, as having been committed in any place in the State.",".

I propose to take amendments Nos. 1, 3, 10, 11, 24 and 31 together.

The Bill proposes to amend the Electricity Regulation Act 1999 by the insertion of a new part which will provide for the regulation by the CER of upstream safety matters. These are technical drafting amendments which were prepared on foot of consultations with the Parliamentary Counsel's office. They do not represent a policy change in regard to the provisions of this Bill, but are proposed to ensure compatibility with the existing provisions of the Electricity Regulation Act 1999, as amended.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, to delete lines 26 to 29 and substitute the following:

" ‘decommissioning', in relation to petroleum infrastructure, means taking the facility, structure or installation or any part of such facility, structure or installation permanently out of use with a view to its abandonment in situ or removal;”.

This is a technical drafting amendment which was prepared on foot of consultations with the Parliamentary Counsel's office. It does not represent a policy change in regard to the provisions of this section, but is proposed to ensure consistency of language with the definition of "petroleum activity" set out in this Bill.

I do not understand how the system works. The Parliamentary Counsel is responsible for the drafting of the Bill. How is it that on Committee Stage it is as if there was a fresh consultation and that changes have to be brought forward at this stage? Why is this not done originally? The Minister of State does not have his own parliamentary draftsman.

I agree. To be frank, it puzzles me why they cannot tidy up these matters before the Bill reaches Committee Stage. I note the Deputy's concerns in this regard. I find it bizarre. I have dealt with much legislation in recent months and this appears to be a feature. It is an issue on which we should get a note from the Attorney General. It does not seem to be acceptable ministerial or parliamentary practice that we would continually come forward with material that should be tidied up at the earlier stage.

I agree with the Deputy and do not understand why it happens. Perhaps, as is the case in the public services generally in Ireland, there are not enough resources or officials do not have enough time, which is generally the kind of excuse one is presented with by the public service in regard to these matters. I will certainly inquire on the Deputy's behalf.

I appreciate that. However, from the point of view of the Department and the Minister of State, a Bill is prepared by the Parliamentary Counsel and is debated on Second Stage. Does it then go back to the Parliamentary Counsel, who decides a change is necessary?

My officials inform me it is not a staged process but an ongoing process of consultation back and forth between the relevant section in the Department, what is called the Parliamentary Counsel to laymen and laywomen, and the Attorney General's office.

While the Minister of State is seeking that note, I suggest it might be better practice if we wait until the Parliamentary Counsel has refined the Bill before it is published.

I fully agree with the Deputy. This has happened with innumerable Bills and I do not understand why. That is the public service.

Maybe it is simply the case that, following the erudite contributions on Second Stage from Dáil Deputies——

No, it is not that at all. They ignore those.

To be fair to Deputy McManus, it is not that. These are issues of definition. If members study the Bill, this relates to the definition of "petroleum activity". Not to cut across Deputy Devins, I would have thought the Parliamentary Counsel would have resolved that at an earlier stage.

It could make the Dáil more relevant to people's lives.

The Deputy is on a crusade.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 5, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:

" ‘internal waters of the State' and ‘territorial seas of the State' have the meanings assigned to them by Part 3 of the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006;

‘licensed area' means the whole or any part of—

(a) the State, including—

(i) the internal waters of the State, and

(ii) the territorial seas of the State, and

(b) a designated area,

in respect of which a petroleum authorisation is in force;".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 7, line 15, after "system" to insert "for both employees and the general public".

I suggest that in the definition of a safety case we should include the safety of the general public. The current definition of a safety case means a document describing the components of the safety management system relating to the designated petroleum activity concerned. I propose that we would insert "for both employees and the general public" because, in its strictest sense, the existing wording is really about the safety management system. This could be interpreted in various ways and I want there to be an unambiguous interpretation of this definition, which would be that this is about the safety of employees and the general public. It is possible, though unlikely, that one could read this slightly differently given the existing definition.

I do not propose to accept this amendment. The regulatory scope of this Bill is intended to incorporate the safety of upstream petroleum activities which are not related to occupational safety. Occupational safety will remain the function of the Health and Safety Authority.

In performing its functions under the Petroleum (Exploration and Extraction) Safety Bill, the CER will be required to have regard to the functions performed by other bodies that are similar or ancillary to the functions of the commission with respect to the safety of petroleum activities and to co-operate with such bodies. The purpose of these provisions is primarily to ensure, in so far as possible, that there is a minimum of overlap with the HSA, the functions of which with regard to occupational safety will be unaffected by the provisions of this Bill and will continue to be discharged by the HSA pursuant to the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, in parallel with the provisions of this Bill.

Currently, a safety report must be prepared by undertakings and submitted to the HSA in the context of occupational safety. The safety report has the purpose of demonstrating, inter alia, that a major accident prevention policy and a safety management system for implementing it have been put into effect, and demonstrating that major accident hazards have been identified and that the necessary measures have been taken to prevent such accidents and to limit their consequences for man and the environment. Accordingly, I am of the view that the amendment proposed by Deputy Coveney is not required.

The key point here——

The Minister of State has just outlined that this is about the safety of man and the environment——

Humans and the environment. I completely understand the distinction the Minister of State needs to make between the responsibility of the HSA, which is responsible for health and safety at work, and working conditions. That is not at issue. The issue here is that if gas pipelines are being laid at sea or on land, or there are pressurised gas pipelines going into terminals and so on, it will now be the responsibility of the regulator to ensure a proper safety case is made before that infrastructure is built and this safety case ensures the safety of the public and employees, that is, the people who will be examining this infrastructure and working on it.

This is not about wearing gloves when dealing with hot pipes or wearing masks when welding, which is the remit of the HSA. The safety case for putting the infrastructure in place must be based on the safety of employees who will be working in and around that infrastructure and, obviously, the general public. I thought it was a sensible amendment that would improve the clarity of the definition. Perhaps if we included the term "general public" only, rather than including "employees", this would get rid of the ambiguity around this area. Nonetheless, the current terminology is so tight that it does not even mention the safety of the general public. The safety case only concerns the safety management system and is more about the system than the safety of the wider public. I will be raising issues around the safety of the public through all my amendments.

It is perhaps a linguistic issue because public safety is being dealt with in the context of the Bill. The issue between us in this regard is that I do not believe the Deputy's amendment is necessary because it is already covered within the Bill. There is a system in place whereby the Commission for Energy Regulation will look at overarching safety statements but when it comes to occupational matters, that will be dealt with by the Health and Safety Authority.

The most important issue in this legislation is the requirement on a company to put together a safety case before building any infrastructure. That is the nub of the matter. A safety case is put forward and the regulator either approves or does not approve the granting of a permit. The definition of what a safety case involves is important, which is why I want it to be absolutely unambiguous. Essentially, it is about protecting the public, but that is not stated in the legislation. The Bill merely provides that the safety case is a document describing the components of the safety management system relating to the designated petroleum activity.

One presumes one would not put a public safety document together for the benefit of animals, for example. Clearly it is for the benefit of the public.

Yes, I am saying that it is a public safety document. That is the whole point.

Why would one produce a safety case if there is no safety issue? What the Deputy is suggesting is almost a logical contradiction. The whole purpose of the Bill is to provide for safety cases. One would not produce a safety case if there is no risk.

No, I am referring to the definition of a safety case. If the Minister of State does not want to accept the amendment, that is fine.

We will look at it but I do not think it is necessary because what the Deputy is trying to achieve is already covered in the Bill. I will get a more detailed note on this issue for the Deputy for Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 7, line 23, to delete "sub sea" and substitute "subsea".

The Minister accepted amendments on Report Stage in the Seanad which changed references to "sub sea" in the Bill to "subsea". In the interests of maintaining consistency of language in the Bill, this amendment proposes that the remaining reference, which seems to have been overlooked, be similarly amended.

What is the difference between "sub sea" and "subsea"?

We all seem to be at sea this morning.

There are so many linguists here, I thought one of them might be able to explain it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 6 to 9, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 7, line 25, to delete "gas" and substitute "petroleum".

Amendments Nos. 6 and 8 propose to change references in the definition of upstream pipeline to "natural gas" or "gas" to "petroleum". The Bill provides that petroleum includes "any mineral oil or relative hydrocarbon and natural gas and other liquid or gaseous hydrocarbons and their derivatives or constituent substances". The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the definition of upstream pipeline for the purpose of the Bill includes pipelines for the transportation of both oil and gas. While Deputy Coveney's amendments Nos. 7 and 9 have the same intent, I propose that the use of the word "petroleum" which is defined in the Bill, is preferable.

I accept the Minister of State's resolution to this issue is better than mine. Nevertheless, I find it extraordinary that there was no anticipation in the original drafting of the Bill that we might be dealing with oil pipelines at some stage in the future rather than just gas pipelines. However, the issue is now resolved and I am satisfied with the Minister of State's solution.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 7, line 28, to delete "natural gas" and substitute "petroleum".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 7, paragraph (c), to delete lines 45 to 47 and substitute the following:

"(iii) is carried on in a licensed area.".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 9, to delete lines 13 to 24.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 12 and 19 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 10, line 29, after "designation" to insert the following:

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

These amendments are reflective of my main difficulty with the Bill. I am not necessarily asking the Minister of State to accept the wording I propose, but I ask him to consider the spirit of what I am trying to achieve, which is to allow for the public to make a formal contribution to the decision-making process in terms of whether a safety case results in the granting of a safety permit. If we have learned any lesson from the Corrib situation it is a realisation that there must be openness and transparency from the beginning of the process and that the public must have its say. I accept that this must be managed in a timely manner and that we cannot have projects that go on forever. Whether it is electricity infrastructure, oil and gas pipeline infrastructure or whatever, there must be a consultation process within a specified timeframe.

There is no provision in the Bill for that type of formal public consultation process. My understanding is that a safety case is put forward and it is only after a decision has been made on the case that the public is informed. Amendment No. 12 proposes that in respect of the provision whereby interested persons, organisations and other bodies are to be given an opportunity to make representations to the Commission for Energy Regulation concerning a proposed designation, those representations should be facilitated "through a formal consultation process with a fixed timeframe". This would reassure the public that a proper formalised public consultation process will take place as opposed to interested parties writing randomly to the commission to express their concerns.

My amendment No. 19, which relates to the safety case itself, refers to a different section of the Bill but is grouped with amendment No. 12. The Bill provides that a safety case "shall contain such particulars as are specified in the safety case guidelines that relate to the designated petroleum activity or activities in respect of which the safety case has been prepared" and must include sufficient particulars to demonstrate to the commission that certain criteria have been met. Amendment No. 19 proposes to include as a new criterion that "a comprehensive public information and consultation process has been undertaken to inform and reassure locally effected populations of the safety considerations relating to the project." In other words, when a company is putting together a safety case, that company must undertake to inform and reassure local populations which will be affected by the activity as part of that safety case. If that had happened in the Corrib case, it might have defused problems that become huge issues at a later stage because people felt they were being hoodwinked.

I am trying to be constructive in proposing that local populations be included in the putting together of a safety case. I have carefully worded the amendment such that the requirement is to "inform and reassure". I am not proposing that local populations should determine whether or not a safety case is successful but rather that they be informed as to the process and have the capacity to make submissions to the Commission for Energy Regulation in respect of the determination of whether or not a safety permit is given.

I do not propose to accept these amendments. The Bill currently provides that the commission shall give interested persons, organisations and other bodies an opportunity to make representations to it concerning the proposed designation of a petroleum activity. The commission has adopted best regulatory practice in public consultation since its inception in 1999. As part of its continuous improvement process in undertaking public consultations, in 2008 it constituted a formal review of its public consultation processes. The commission published the final outcome of the review in May of that year. Among the guidelines set out in that review is a minimum 28-day consultation period for all consultation that the commission holds. In addition, it is the commission's practice to allow for extended periods of consultation for more complex issues or when a number of related consultations are published in tandem.

On certain more complex issues, the commission also utilises a draft decision mechanism whereby after a public consultation and before the final decision, the commission gives a final opportunity to the public and interested parties to comment on the draft decision. This level of flexibility is important to ensure that all parties and the public can contribute meaningfully to the consultation process. I do not consider, therefore, that it is necessary to make specific statutory provision with respect to the exact details as to how such public access should be granted.

As for amendment No. 19, the purpose of a safety case is for a petroleum undertaking to describe its safety management system and how it proposes to implement it. A safety case is not the vehicle for demonstration of public consultation. It should be noted that the provisions of this Bill do not restrict any other statutory duty, requirement or obligation. All strategic infrastructure projects, including upstream pipelines, are subject to an environmental impact assessment, EIA, process. An integral part of the environmental impact statement required to be prepared by all developers for strategic infrastructure projects sets out the engineering design of the project. The engineering design comprises documentation sufficient to show compliance with the relevant specified design code. The design code is the vehicle for determining the safe distance for infrastructure from habitation and industrial development. All environmental impact statements are subject to a public consultation process in which submissions are invited from the public. All submissions received are considered in the context of the overall assessment of the application. In the case of upstream pipelines for example, this process is for a statutory period of a month with a further month allowed should significant additional information be requested.

The purpose of this Bill is to build on the existing regulatory framework and not to replace it. The environmental impact assessment process already provides an opportunity for meaningful engagement by any party with a specific interest in an individual development. I also should point out that the Department was unable to discover a single authority or administration across the globe in which the sort of requirement Deputy Coveney's amendment proposes is a factor in the determination of these safety statements. It is not the practice internationally to do what the Deputy has proposed.

The Deputy mentioned the Corrib issue and one of our major challenges is to assure inward investors who wish to explore in our waters that we do not have a reputational issue. At present, to be frank, Ireland has a huge reputational issue because of the complicated architecture and the different forms of permissions and licences which are required. The Department has been told that people are not applying for licences to explore in Irish waters precisely because of the image that has been generated by the Corrib controversy. This reluctance is not simply because of the controversy as it more particularly is due to the complicated structures the State has put in place to evaluate and further——

I believe the latter is a much bigger problem.

I agree with the Deputy that——

While I genuinely do not intend to score points, the Minister of State is correct in this regard. In the course of lobbying I have received over the years from developers, Corrib has not been the major issue at all. The bureaucracy in respect of the method of licensing and so on has been a much bigger issue.

If one is to be fair, it is a mixture of both.

It is pretty toxic.

One does not help the other and I welcome the spirit of one of Deputy McManus's amendments, which is to shorten, rather than to lengthen, time periods.

Nevertheless, the Minister of State does not intend to accept it, does he?

I agree with the Minister of State's last statement. Ireland has a huge reputational issue at present. It is perceived to be a problem country in respect of getting things done because of what has happened at Corrib. No one has a greater desire to see gas coming ashore from Corrib than I do, for all sorts of reasons. However, one cannot try to fast-track and improve the process in an attempt to improve our reputation unless one also puts in place a facility to ensure that the public's concerns are being heard. I have proposed that this should be made part of the process and that a reasonable timeframe should be put in place to deal with such concerns. The amendment proposes a formal consultation process with a fixed timeframe. In other words, it essentially adds to what the Minister of State is attempting to do in the proposed section 13D(3)(b)(ii). While I seek timeframes, I also seek formal recognition that public consultation is part of the process.

I wish to reassure the Deputy that it is part of the process. As I stated earlier to Deputy McManus, the extent of public consultation and involvement in Ireland, as well as the extent of the licences required, act as a disincentive for people to invest here. The Deputy has proposed the addition of a further requirement that does not exist internationally. This clearly would put Ireland at a disadvantage relative to other jurisdictions because were we to make individual safety statements per se the subject of public consultation, it would be quite different and distinct from practice in the United Kingdom and other competitor countries with regard to mobile investment in the area of mineral resources and exploration generally.

Moreover, through the planning process, the Gas Acts and the Environmental Protection Agency, we have a process whereby——

They are separate processes.

No, they are not. They are closely related to developments of this kind. It is open to the public to raise safety issues at each stage of that process. Consequently, the intellectual argument for having yet another safety discussion on an individual case basis——

The safety case is at the heart of the safety discussion. The key discussion is when a company is obliged to put together a safety case to get a permit to proceed.

Not really. It is the overall framework, that is, the guidelines that form the overarching regulation that counts, not the individual. Clearly, any safety statement would be obliged to fit into such overarching regulation. It is not unlike the banking system in that if the overarching regulation and framework for regulation are robust, case-by-case issues may be handled within such a robust framework and there is not as pressing an issue. It is somewhat like the manner in which the Central Bank evaluates whether a person is competent to be a director. Obviously, in the absence of a robust process of inquiry within the Central Bank with regard to the individuals who operate in the banking system, clearly on a case-by-case basis, providing consents for people to become directors becomes a meaningless process because the overarching process itself is not robust.

Does that also apply to the system of appointments to the Commission for Energy Regulation?

No, I was drawing an analogy with the banking system.

Does the overarching framework to which the Minister of State referred apply to the system of appointments to the CER?

I am sure that whomsoever the Minister appointed to that role was so appointed on the basis of a proper assessment of the person's qualities.

Does the Minister of State not think it should go to open competition?

This is a matter the Minister has determined.

While I do not wish to delay the meeting on this issue, I feel strongly about it. I will reconsider the wording I tabled and will bring something back on Report Stage. Consequently, I will withdraw the amendment for the present.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 13 and 16 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 10, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following:

"(vi) the relevant local authority.".

Under this section, for the purpose of making a designation, that is, to allow a project to proceed, the commission shall consult with the National Standards Authority of Ireland, the Health and Safety Authority, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Minister for Transport and the Irish Aviation Authority. It is appropriate to include the relevant local authority in that list. If one is landing a gas or oil pipeline in County Mayo, Cork or Kerry, some consultation with the local authority would be appropriate in the same way that the NRA deals with local authorities when building roads. The amendment would improve this section.

Where the functions of the commission relating to petroleum safety are concerned, the commission shall co-operate and consult with the National Standards Authority of Ireland, the Health and Safety Authority, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Minister for Transport and the Irish Aviation Authority. I would have included the relevant local authority also. I presume that we would consult the Irish Aviation Authority, IAA, on flight paths, chimney stacks and so on, although I am unsure. Local authorities deserve to be a part of these consultation and co-operation exercises.

I support Deputy Coveney's amendment.

By definition, the local authorities would be involved in consultation at some level, but I do not propose to accept these amendments. Consultation in respect of the designation of petroleum activities will be conducted at a national level. Section 13D provides that the commission should consult "interested persons, organisations and other bodies". It also specifies certain bodies that perform functions that are similar or ancillary to the functions being conferred on the commission. Local authorities are included in the requirement on the commission to consult "other bodies". As they do not carry out similar or ancillary functions to those being conferred on the commission, I see no necessity to require that they should be explicitly specified.

To reassure the Deputies, the emphasis is on the national consultative bodies, such as the IAA. It is a national consultation process, but a local authority can be consulted where it is relevant to the discussion. We are not specifying their inclusion, but they are clearly a part of the process. I would not like the content of the Bill to be taken as meaning that local authorities are irrelevant to the process. They are relevant and will be consulted where an activity falls within their remit, but they are not being specified.

The Bill would be improved if they were specified. They are a part of the national plan. For example, Mayo County Council is a part of a national discussion on the Corrib gas field. I will press the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 14 is consequential on amendment No. 18, to which amendment No. 20 is related. Amendments Nos. 21 and 23 are consequential on amendment No. 20. Amendments Nos. 14, 18, 20, 21 and 23 may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 10, line 44, to delete "section 13M(1)(b)“ and substitute ”section 13M (2)(b)”.

The purpose of the legislation is to introduce a new risk assessment-based safety regime. All new licensed or authorised activity will be governed by this regime within six months of the publication of the safety framework. However, activities that are currently being undertaken must also be brought under the new regime. These are established petroleum activities defined by the Bill as an activity that, immediately before the coming into operation of the Bill, is being carried on by an undertaking, is a designated activity and continues to be carried on after the coming into operation of the Bill.

The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the established activities are transitional in nature. The intention is that they will fall under the new regime as early as possible and cease to be classified as established petroleum activities. This will occur once they have received or been refused safety permits or have failed to apply for safety permits within the prescribed timeframe.

Amendments Nos. 14, 21 and 23 are technical drafting amendments that are consequential on the introduction of this new provision.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 11, between lines 43 and 44, to insert the following:

"(e) provide safety information to the public when appropriate.”.

The amendment concerns the functions of the committee relating to petroleum safety. Under this section and without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the commission's functions under this Part are to regulate, investigate, monitor, enforce and issue safety permits. Adding my proposed subsection (e) on page 11 would be appropriate.

I thank Deputy Coveney for his proposed amendment. It is good regulatory practice and consistent with the best procedural standards to provide the public with appropriate safety information. I propose to accept his amendment as a welcome addition to the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 12, line 25, after "shall," to insert the following:

"within 6 months from the passing of this Act, having sought and considered public submissions on a draft safety framework and".

My reason for tabling this amendment is self-evident and reflects our discussion on the involvement of the public. My amendment specifies a timeframe of six months after the passing of the Act and requires that consideration be given to public submissions on a draft safety framework. This seems like a minimalist approach, but it offers the public an opportunity to make submissions that will be read. I hope the Minister of State will accept my amendment, as he made the point that the framework is the essential part of the proposal.

I do not propose to accept the amendment, but I agree with its principle, namely, that it is desirable for the commission to develop the new safety framework in a timely manner. I will reflect further on the timelines envisaged in the Bill with a view to reverting to the matter on Fourth Stage. I agree with the Deputy, but something surprised me. While she specified six months and we specified eight months, I was horrified when I spoke with the Commission for Energy Regulation, CER, just before attending this meeting and was told that it envisaged a timeline of 18 months. The commission is under resource pressures of some kind and it wants to get this matter right. If that can be done on a one-off basis, we might shorten the timeframe for dealing with these issues. The commission contacted me before I entered this room and I was surprised that it would take the CER 18 months. Obviously, this will be subject to further negotiation. Under the Bill, I have the power to direct the commission if it does not do something within a specified period. Broadly speaking, this is the situation.

Including the provision in the Bill would be much neater and more streamlined than would getting the Minister of State involved and bogging everything down. However, the timeframe is only one part of my amendment, the other part being the public's input. I do not understand the Government's resistance to having some type of public input. It is simply a question of putting an advertisement in a newspaper. When the public makes submissions in this type of area, they can be enlightening and useful. Will the Minister of State agree not to shut the door on this amendment, seeing as how he will be reverting with a further amendment? We need to value the contribution made by the public instead of viewing it in a defensive manner. As the senior Minister would say, there must be a sense of ownership.

There is public consultation on this.

Where is the public consultation on the framework?

It is provided for on page 12 in section 13I: "In exercising its function under section 13H(2)(a), the Commission shall, having consulted with any or all of the persons specified in subsection (2), establish and implement a petroleum safety regulatory framework”. It refers to the Minister and the Ministers with responsibility for the environment and transport.

These are all insiders.

No, there is a reference to any other relevant person.

That is not the public.

Would Deputy McManus prefer if we included the word "public"?

I would prefer if the Minister of State accepted my amendment. All relevant persons is a catchall phrase to cover particular circumstances.

It is the public.

No, this is a separate thing. The reference to "any relevant person" should remain. It is a way of including people who may not have occurred to the Minister of State and the provision may arise in the future. This is simply saying that an advertisement will be published, the public can contribute submissions and all the commission must do is read them without accepting them. It provides a sense that the public has a role to play before the framework is developed.

That is the intention.

No, "any relevant person" does not refer to the public and could never be interpreted in that way.

Does Deputy McManus want to change the wording from any other person to the public?

If the Minister of State wants to do so, that would be better.

The CER needs to proactively invite suggestions.

I think it has its own practices for public consultation, covering a period of 28 days.

That is not in the framework.

When the framework is being put together, we need to invite proposals. Otherwise the public will not know what is going on. Any other relevant persons will not know that there are safety guidelines and a safety framework being put together.

Among the guidelines set out in the review is a minimum of 28 days consultation for all consultations the commission holds. It is quite proactive in this area. If we need to improve the language in the Bill in order to get the message across, I would be delighted to do so.

To put it at its crudest, when people say that nobody asked them, the answer that can be given is that they were asked.

It is like the planning notices we all have difficulty with. Many people claim they did not read them but most people do not spend their time scanning newspapers for planning applications.

If an Oireachtas committee puts out an advertisement seeking public submissions, the level and standard of submissions tends to be very high and very useful. We should not dismiss the positive contribution that can be made.

This is a minimalist approach. We are not suggesting people should have hearings.

We could put an advertisement in the newspaper and invite proposals. We will give a direction to the chair that it should invite proposals. Is that what Deputy McManus is saying?

Directions do not work because this must be included in the legislation. Will the Minister of State examine the amendment?

Absolutely. I am very open minded on this point as long as we are not creating another tier of bureaucracy.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 17, to delete lines 36 to 45 and substitute the following:

"(2) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), a petroleum undertaking shall not carry on a designated petroleum activity unless the safety case submitted under subsection (1)(a) has been approved by the Commission and a safety permit has been issued under section 13P in respect of the designated petroleum activity.

(b) Notwithstanding section 13E(1), a petroleum undertaking may continue to carry on an established petroleum activity—

(i) where the petroleum undertaking has submitted a safety case to the Commission within the time specified in subsection (1)(b), until the day which is 14 days after the Commission notifies the petroleum undertaking of—

(I) the approval of the safety case and issue of a safety permit under section 13P, or

(II) the refusal of a safety permit under section 13Q(1),

or

(ii) where the petroleum undertaking has failed to submit a safety case within the time period specified in subsection (1)(b), until the expiry of that time period.”.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 19 not moved.

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 18, to delete lines 34 and 35 and substitute the following:

"(5) A petroleum activity shall cease to be an established petroleum activity—

(a) when the Commission approves the safety case and issues a safety permit under section 13P,

(b) when the Commission refuses to issue a safety permit under section 13Q(1), or

(c) when the petroleum undertaking fails to submit a safety case within the time period specified in subsection (1)(b).

(6) In this section ‘audit' means systematic assessment of the adequacy of the".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 19, line 7, to delete "section 13M(5)" and substitute "section 13M(6)".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 20, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) The Commission shall before deciding whether or not to issue a safety permit, allow for submissions to be made by the public in relation to safety issues or concerns relating to the project under consideration for a safety permit.".

This could easily have been grouped with amendment No. 19. This is dealt with in the section concerning safety permits given to developers on approval of a safety case. Developers put the safety case, which is then discussed and improved and when the CER is satisfied the safety case is adequate, it provides a safety permit to the developer. The amendment concerns the point we have been discussing but I do not expect the Minister of State will accept it.

We discussed this point earlier. Our trawl of other jurisdictions suggests this is not a requirement in other countries. Under the terms of this Bill, the commission will be required to consult widely in respect of the development of safety framework and safety case guidelines. This provides an opportunity for the public to have an input into the shape and detail of the new regulatory regime, with which the industry must comply. I am unaware of any safety regulatory authority for the offshore industry that publishes a safety case for public consultation prior to assessment and approval. My Department has reviewed the websites of the member states of the International Regulators' Forum for Global Offshore Safety and found no evidence of such an approach being adopted by those regulatory authorities. Indeed in some cases, such as the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority in Australia and the Health and Safety Executive in the UK, there is no concept of consultation. Those bodies take the view that safety cases are confidential documents and are not published at any stage either before or subsequent to approval being granted.

Under this Bill, in a departure from this philosophy, it is proposed the commission would publish the details of safety permits and the Bill also provides for a right of access to approved safety cases. The UK approach is to not publish these because they are confidential for security and commercial purposes. The public or individual mischief makers are not entitled to peer into the safety cases. We are publishing the safety cases but where there are sensitive security or commercial considerations in safety statements, sections will be blanked out.

They are only published after they are approved.

Yes, but they are not published at all in the UK.

It is not that I do not care what is happening in the UK. We are trying to design something that has learned the lessons from what happened in the Corrib, which is a fiasco. It has cost everyone a fortune.

There were significant anarchic and subversive elements involved in that protest. If Deputy Coveney is saying we should invite them to peer into this process at every stage, I caution against it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 21, line 8, to delete "section 13M(5)" and substitute "section 13M(6)".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 28, to delete lines 42 to 45 and substitute the following:

"(b) a member or members of the Defence Forces, where the place concerned is in any part of—

(i) the licensed area to which subparagraph (i) or (ii), or both, or paragraph (a) of the definition of ‘licensed area’ relates, or

(ii) a designated area.".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 25, 26, 27, 29 and 30 are consequential on amendment No. 28. Amendments Nos. 25 to 30, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 28, line 52, to delete "section 12" and substitute "subsection (8)".

This Bill is proposing to amend the Electricity Regulation Act 1999 by the insertion of a new part that will provide for the regulation by the CER of upstream safety matters. These are technical drafting amendments prepared on foot of consultations with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. They do not represent a policy change in the provisions of this Bill but are proposed to ensure compatibility with the existing provisions of the Electricity Regulation Act 1999, as amended.

These amendments are subsequent to amendment No. 28. Amendment No. 28 is not technical amendment. I do not disagree with it but the description of amendment No. 28 as a technical amendment is not how I read it. It is doing something very definite, giving powers to a District Court judge to make judgments on the basis of evidence given by safety officers. I do not have a problem with the content of it but I do not think that "technical amendment" is an accurate description.

Again, I am informed by the loyal and faithful civil servants beside me that the word "technical" in this respect is used because its purpose is to make it compatible with other legislation. The content, as Deputy Coveney quite rightly stated, is significant but the purpose is to confer on these safety officers powers that are similar and exercised elsewhere with regard to electricity and other matters, so it is not ground-breaking in that respect. It is a substantive amendment but it merely transfers similar powers. No extra powers are being given that are not compatible with what happens in other areas where the regulator is active.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 26: In page 29, line 4, after "made" to insert ", subject to subsection (9),".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 27: In page 29, lines 5 and 6, to delete "section 12" and substitute "subsection (8)".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 29, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:

"(8) Without prejudice to the powers of a petroleum safety officer under this Part, if a judge of the District Court is satisfied by information on oath of a petroleum safety officer that there are reasonable grounds for believing that—

(a) there are any articles or substances at any place or any records (including documents stored in a non-legible form) or information relating to a place, that the petroleum safety officer requires to inspect for the purposes of enforcing this Part, or

(b) there is to be found, or such an inspection is likely to disclose, evidence of a contravention of or failure to comply with a provision of this Part,

the judge may issue a warrant authorising a petroleum safety officer, alone or accompanied by such other persons as may be necessary, at any time or times within one month of the date of issue of the warrant, on production of the warrant if requested, to enter the place, if necessary by the use of reasonable force, and perform any of the functions of a petroleum safety officer under this section.

(9) Where the place the subject of an application under subsection (8) is located in any part of—

(a) the licensed area to which subparagraphs (i) or (ii), or both, of paragraph (a) of the definition of ‘licensed area’ relates, or

(b) a designated area,

the application for a search warrant may be made to a judge assigned to any district court district.".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 29, to delete line 7 and substitute the following:

"(10) A person who—".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 29, to delete line 35 and substitute the following:

"(11) A person who commits an offence".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 37, line 31, to delete "reasonable fee."." and substitute the following:

"reasonable fee.

13AD.—A contravention of any provision of this Part (including a failure to comply with the conditions of a safety permit) which occurs in any part of—

(a) the licensed area to which subparagraphs (i) or (ii), or both, of paragraph (a) of the definition of ’licensed area’ relates, or

(b) a designated area,

shall be treated as having occurred in the State.".".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Title be the Title to the Bill."

On behalf of the committee I thank the Minister of State and his officials for attending the meeting and I thank the committee members.

I want to ask a question on a related matter, with regard to the distribution of gas from the Corrib gas field. Sligo is the nearest city to the Corrib gas field but at present gas does not go to Sligo. Last week, I attended a public meeting on jobs which was unique in this country as far as I know in that it was called by a combination of the unions, the Chamber of Commerce and employers. There is an infrastructural problem and the provision of gas to Sligo would greatly ease that problem. Will the Minister of State use his influence, if at all possible, to get the pipeline extended from north Mayo to Sligo? I apologise to the Chairman for raising this matter now but it is related.

I think the Deputy is aware of the——

This is an important issue and it is very striking. One of the lessons from the Corrib saga that has been overlooked with all the headlines is that there was no strategic planning by the Department or the CER on towns in that region that could have benefitted, and some ultimately did so only as a result of all the uproar. That is a real failing and I support Deputy Devins. It was only under pressure that towns were linked in and regrettably Sligo was not.

Naturally Deputy Devins knows of some of my Sligo antecedents and I would be delighted to press that case for him with the distributors who come into operation. Ultimately it is a decision for the distributors but I would welcome a note from the Deputy following his meeting with the local interested groups and to follow up that matter as best we can.

At a broader level, I thank Deputies Devins, McManus and Coveney for their very timely suggestions. Again, I thank my public officials; we are a small Department and there is much pressure on the officials because of the legislative load at present. We appreciate the positive and constructive approach being taken by Deputies McManus and Coveney on the Bill and we appreciate that they are putting forward sensible suggestions and that is reflected in some of the amendments we are committed to taking on board and changing the spirit of the Bill.

The Minister of State's open attitude is quite destabilising for us.

As the Minister of State is here, the Inland Fisheries Bill 2009 will be on Report Stage in the Dáil tomorrow and the Department was to come back to us on a number of matters prior to Report Stage.

Has the Department not been back to the Deputy?

Perhaps it has but I have not seen the correspondence.

I will double check that.

It is quite possible that it has come back to me and that I have received correspondence.

I am not apologising in advance for anyone but it is a very small Department and much legislation is being churned through it at present.

It may be small but the quality is high.

I thank the Deputy. Everyone is being very nice today. I do not know what is being pumped into the air here.

Question put and agreed to.
Top