Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are related and may be discussed together.
Petroleum (Exploration and Extraction) Safety Bill 2010 [Seanad]: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 12, line 15, to delete "and".
On Committee Stage I accepted an amendment from Deputy Coveney to confer a new function on the Commission for Energy Regulation to provide safety information to the public when appropriate. The insertion of this new provision necessitated these consequential technical drafting amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 12, line 16, after "permits," to insert "and".
Amendment agreed to.
Recommittal is necessary in respect of amendment No. 12 as it does not arise out of committee proceedings. Amendment No. 13 is related and the amendments may be discussed together.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendments No. 12 and 13.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 12, to delete lines 22 to 26 and substitute the following:
"(a) such functions with respect to the safety of petroleum activities as may be performed by the persons specified in paragraph (c),”.
Similar to previous amendments discussed earlier and arising from the Committee Stage discussion on the appropriate bodies to be consulted, these amendments are to establish a higher degree of clarity with respect to the bodies to be consulted by the Commission for Energy Regulation in performing its functions in respect of the safety of petroleum activities under the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 12, to delete lines 38 and 39 and substitute the following:
"(c) The following are the persons to whom paragraphs (a) and (b) apply:”.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 12, to delete line 47 and in page 13, to delete lines 1 and 2 and substitute the following:
"(v) the Irish Aviation Authority, and
(vi) such other persons as may be prescribed by order by the Minister.".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 15 not moved.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 13, to delete lines 3 to 10 and substitute the following:
"13I.—(1) In exercising its function under section 13H(2)(a), the Commission shall, subject to subsection (5) and after consultation with such of the persons specified in subsection (2) as the Commission considers appropriate, establish and implement a risk-based petroleum safety framework (in this Part referred to as a ‘safety framework’) in relation to the carrying on of designated petroleum activities.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 13, to delete lines 11 to 13 and substitute the following:
"(2) The following are the persons specified for the purposes of subsection (1):".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 14, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
"(5) (a) The Commission shall not establish or implement a safety framework until after a public consultation process has taken place in respect of the safety framework.
(b) In paragraph (a) ‘public consultation process’ means an invitation by the Commission to the public for submissions, within a specified time limit, on a draft of the proposed safety framework where such invitation is made by means of a notice to that effect published in a newspaper circulating within the State and published in the prescribed manner.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 14, line 31, to delete "(5) The Commission" and substitute "(6) The Commission".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 14, line 34, to delete "(6) The Commission" and substitute "(7) The Commission".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 14, line 37, to delete "(7) The Commission" and substitute "(8) The Commission".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 14, line 43, to delete "subsection (5)" and substitute "subsection (7)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 15, line 21, to delete "8 months" and substitute "6 months".
Amendment agreed to.
Recommittal is necessary in respect of amendment No. 25 as it does not arise out of committee proceedings.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 25.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 15, to delete lines 26 to 28 and substitute the following:
"13K.—(1) In addition to complying with the requirements of any other provisions of this Part a petroleum undertaking shall ensure that—".
The amendment seeks to set out clearly that while petroleum undertakings are subject to a number of obligations under this legislation, the principal duty of a petroleum undertaking will be to ensure, in so far as reasonably practicable, that petroleum activities are carried out in a manner that reduces any risk to safety to a level that is as low as is reasonably practicable and that petroleum infrastructure is also designed, constructed, installed, maintained, modified, operated and decommissioned to this standard. While I suspect the amendment is not controversial, I will leave that decision to the Deputies opposite.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 17, to delete lines 1 and 2 and substitute the following:
"(v) the Irish Aviation Authority, and
(vi) such other persons as may be prescribed by order by the Minister,".
Amendment agreed to.
Recommittal is necessary in respect of amendment No. 27 as it does not arise out of committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 28 to 30, inclusive, are consequential on amendment No. 27 and the amendments may be discussed together.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 27 to 30, inclusive.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 17, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
"(c) the standards and codes of practice applicable to designated petroleum activities including relevant standards and codes of practice, that have been formulated or recommended by the National Standards Authority of Ireland,”.
The main purpose of amendment No. 27 is to set out in clear terms that details of the codes of practice and technical standards recommended by the National Standards Authority of Ireland, which is the Irish standardisation authority, will be set out in the safety case guidelines to be published by the Commission for Energy Regulation in respect of each designated petroleum activity. This will add to the robustness of the process as the safety guidelines will establish beyond any doubt what are the relevant standards with respect to each specific designated authority for the purposes of safety assessment in Ireland. Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30 are technical amendments that follow as a result of amendment No. 27.
I am not clear about what the National Standards Authority of Ireland does or what its role is. The Bill states that the standards and codes of practice applicable to designated petroleum activities will have been formulated or recommended by the authority. Essentially, the CER will have to take guidance from the authority. Is that how it will work? Is there expertise within the authority in respect of the petroleum industry to do that?
I believe there is. The authority makes the standard and establishes Irish standards in all areas that require a standard. That, clearly, is its remit and role. The Deputy rightly identified that it must have this capacity if it is to be the standard setter in this area.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 17, line 20, to delete "(c) the safety standards” and substitute “(d) the safety standards”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 17, line 24, to delete "(d) the procedures” and substitute “(e) the procedures”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 17, line 29, to delete "(e) the relevant performance” and substitute “(f) the relevant performance”.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Amendment No. 31 arises from committee proceedings. Amendment No. 32 is related and the two amendments may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 19, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:
"(f) 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.”.
This goes back to my big issue with the Bill, namely, that it must contain a very strong element of public consultation and the giving of reassurance to the public on matters of risk and safety and other issues in respect of projects. To try to be helpful and in an effort to get some consensus from the Minister of State, I will be happy to withdraw amendment No. 31 with a view to pressing amendment No. 32. If this is done a company would not be required to undertake a comprehensive public consultation process during the putting together of a safety case.
In regard to amendment No. 32, I wish to see the commission providing for a submissions process to allow the public to express concerns relating to a project if such concerns exist before a safety permit is issued. I am trying to meet the Minister of State half-way by not making the putting together of a safety case over-bureaucratic for companies, over-expensive and time consuming. However, before a safety permit is granted to allow work to proceed there would be, as part of the permit process, an opportunity for local people or experts to make submissions that might be relevant and of concern to the local community for the CER to consider before granting a work permit. This is the nub of the issue in light of our earlier discussions on public consultation at the framework stage and during the putting together of safety frameworks. A community wants to have its say before a permit is granted to allow work to commence. I accept that we cannot have public consultation processes at every stage without having time or other kinds of limitations regarding companies and the CER. However, we should require it before the permit is granted. On that basis I shall withdraw amendment No. 31 in order to press amendment No. 32.
I do not propose to accept Deputy Coveney's amendments. Having listened to the concerns raised on Committee Stage, I believe that the additional public consultation process I proposed in the context of the safety framework, together with the existing consultation process in the designation of petroleum activities and the development of safety case guidelines, allows a high degree of access by the public to both the establishment and implementation of the safety framework regime. I believe there is now sufficient scope for any concerns members of the public might have to be addressed.
The chair allows for submissions on framework and guidelines. The Bill also provides that the permit must be published so there is no secrecy about the outcome and there is no precedent internationally for this type of approach, as I pointed out at earlier stages in this discussion. The commissioner for energy regulation has a public remit and therefore is always open to the public in that regard, like any public body which may be subject to submissions, views, lobbying or whatever is required. Commissioners are not shrinking violets in that regard but are open to representation of one kind or another.
With respect, the Minister of State is missing the point I am trying to make. Putting a safety framework in place is essentially a policy direction. Yes, there will be an element of accepting from the public views, considerations, concerns and so on and I accept that. However, I do not believe this will happen. Unless one is dealing with the specifics of a project, namely, a safety case or a decision regarding a permit for a certain project, the local communities in question will not become involved in the consultation process. There must be some way of reassuring local communities that a project that will impact on their environment and, potentially, on their way of life and property is safe, properly thought out and has been through all the necessary permit arrangements. My party's proposal is to give those people a say, if they want it, when the safety framework is being put in place. Otherwise they would not even know it was going on. This is head in the sand stuff. They will not even know that a project will affect them in the future until they see a safety case that relates to a petroleum project and the permitting of that project. That is what will get the interest of local communities. Otherwise we will be telling them they did not make a contribution to the generalised safety framework which was made six months before. They would not have done this because they would not even know it was happening.
It is when a community is concerned and potentially confused about the impact and safety consequences of a project that we must ensure the people have their say and that there is a proper information flow between the CER and the public to ensure that people do not believe in conspiracy theories and that they understand there is a regulator which considers their safety concerns to be of paramount importance. The permit stage, when a decision is being made to allow a project go ahead, is when the public must have information and the chance to formulate and ask questions. We do not provide for that anywhere in this Bill and as a result there will be repeats of what we experienced in Corrib, namely, ugly and damaging scenes that not only damaged Ireland's reputation in respect of investment and the encouragement of future oil and gas exploration but also was very damaging to the local communities involved. I believe the Minister is making a mistake and for that reason I shall press amendment No. 32.
We must put this in context. There is an oral hearing in the planning process and the actual environmental impact process will deal with this, as will the Environmental Protection Agency. It is important to remember that the CER will be represented at these hearings. It is not the case that the public will be outside the loop concerning the safety of what is being proposed in individual projects. They will be in the loop because we have a planning process that allows them to be.
With respect to Deputies Coveney and McManus, who have borne with this legislation, if we add an extra layer here we will invite further potential vexatious or ideologically motivated ambushes. As I said earlier in the debate, the process is already causing significant problems from the perspective of investment in offshore exploration in Ireland. I agree with Deputy Coveney that we are at the nub of it here. As Minister of State with responsibility for natural resources, I am speaking from personal experience when I say that innumerable people have decided not to invest here, or not to apply for licences, precisely because of the reputation we have generated for ourselves as a result of the Corrib project. Although I have only been in this job since last May, I am aware of a number of cases in which approaches were made by investors and people on the ground who represent international exploration companies. Their personnel and key executives on the ground were very positive about investing in Ireland. They accepted that we have tried to streamline the process and make it easier for them to invest here and create jobs. When they returned to their global boards, in London or elsewhere, the boards decided not to invest because of what they had seen, read and heard from their own analysts at headquarters level. They did not believe their own executives.
That is the issue I am trying to address.
Yes, but with respect, by adding——
The Minister of State is trying to bulldoze things through.
I am not suggesting we should bulldoze anything. If we add an extra layer as proposed by Deputy Coveney, we will do what is not done in other jurisdictions. One of the big problems, from an investment point of view, is the legacy of Corrib. As a result of that case, many people are not prepared to apply for Irish exploration licences. There is a perception that the process is difficult, cumbersome and bureaucratic. They believe that a multiplicity of permissions is required in the safety area and in other areas. Officials in the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources are working on this process pretty much night and day. They are trying to make it simpler, easier and more in keeping with what happens internationally. If we do not do that, there will not be any jobs. As the Deputy is aware, the oil situation is causing many exploration companies to take risks in deeper waters like those off the coast of Ireland. They are keen to do so. However, there is a very negative attitude towards Ireland in this area.
As someone who worked in business, I am most worried about the fact that the global boards of companies are saying "No", even after their key executives have recommended that licences be applied for. There is a perception that our system is cumbersome, unwieldy, difficult and subject to ambush by conspiracy theory.
We have managed to confuse this whole area with different processes. We are at the nub of it here. I accept that Deputy Coveney is approaching this issue with the best of intentions. To be honest, this problem is not just a feature of this area. I will not bore the House with my views on the manner in which, over the last ten years, we have made other areas much more bureaucratic than they should be. I will put my hands up in that regard because we have been in Government for that period. I strongly believe it is time for this country to reduce the obstacles that inhibit inward investment in Ireland. We should allow such investment to occur. While I appreciate the support I have received today, and admire Deputy Coveney's approach to this legislation, I cannot go along with what the Deputy has proposed in this instance.
I would like to make a final point. I agree with some, but not all, of what the Minister of State has said. I do not think all of the concerns are spurious or are led by conspiracy theories, although some of them may be. There are plenty of people who have genuine concerns. In my view, they have an entitlement to make comments and ask questions before it is decided to grant a safety permit for a big project that will affect their communities. We are not providing for that in this legislation. I am withdrawing my amendment that asked for "a comprehensive public information and consultation process" to be undertaken as part of the safety case being made by a company. The amendment I am now pursuing states, "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". I am asking for a ten-day period — or any other period the Government may decide on — to be provided so that local people, or anybody else, can make submissions. I suggest that the CER be required to take note of such submissions before it makes a decision on a permit. That is a useful belt and braces approach, as well as a useful pressure valve that will allow the local community to get its concerns off its chest before a decision is made. It is not an extra layer of bureaucracy.
If we have learned one thing from the Corrib affair, it is that when the State takes a hardline approach to try to drive things through — when it reduces the process in terms of bureaucracy, etc. — it does not work. It has not worked. People resist that type of approach by digging their heels in. They are prepared to martyr themselves for their communities, if necessary by getting sent to prison. That is why Ireland is now perceived as a country in which it is difficult to develop this kind of project. Rather than providing for some kind of tokenism after decisions are made, or at some early planning stage when local people do not even know that planning is taking place, which will be the case with the safety framework proposal, we need to find imaginative ways of giving local communities an opportunity to speak before decisions are made. I have made my case. I will withdraw the more extreme amendment, which would have imposed an extra layer of bureaucracy and expense on companies. I will press the more moderate amendment, which would give local communities an opportunity to express concerns in writing to the CER before decisions are made.
I appeal to Deputy Coveney to understand that as part of the current planning process, local communities can have their say at the oral hearing stage, at which representatives of the CER are present.
I accept that they can.
In other words, anything that is required — letters, submissions or campaigning statements — can be done as part of the planning process. The approach advocated by the Deputy is already provided for in the oral appeals stage of the planning process. The important point is that officials from the CER are present at such hearings. They can respond to local people in that context, just as I am responding to the Deputy now.
An Bord Pleanála does not have safety expertise.
The CER will be represented at the oral hearings. Not only will its officials will be able to respond to specific local and community concerns, worries and anxieties at that forum, but they will also be in a position to respond further in writing at a later stage, if necessary. There is no problem with people making submissions at that time. Those who make representations may receive a direct response during the oral hearing process, or by means of a letter at a later stage. As a public personage who has the responsibility of an executive position in the Government, I am responding to Deputy Coveney in an open public setting. In the same fashion, local concerns can be publicly addressed during the oral hearing stage of the planning process. The Deputy is asking me to replicate that, in effect, at a later stage in the process. I do not consider it necessary to do so, as it would represent a move beyond international best practice in this area. I will leave it at that.
I accept that the Corrib case is exceptional. There are differing opinions on it. As a Minister of State who is trying to promote and encourage investment in offshore exploration, I am open to the accusation that it is inevitable that I would hold my particular view on it. That is how I define my job in the context of the ongoing recession. I am in the business of attracting investment in exploration to this country and cutting out any undue delays and forms of bureaucracy that are over and above what is internationally regarded as best practice. Governments are often accused of creating more bureaucracy. The Opposition has often alleged that this Government has created too many quangos. I do not disagree with the assertion that we have done that in recent years. It is time to unwind these bureaucracies and make it easier and safer or people to do business and, ultimately, create jobs here.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 21, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:
"(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.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank Members opposite for their positive engagement in the debate. The Minister and I will continue to take the same approach in this area. I did not mean, in making my remarks a short time ago, to cast any aspersion on Members opposite. I recognise that they are as motivated as I am to create jobs and simplify our response in terms of international investment in Ireland.
I welcome the completion of the passage of the Bill through the House. It is important that we have dealt with an issue of safety that was highlighted as a result of the controversy surrounding the development at Corrib. Some good has come out of that sorry saga. I thank the Minister of State for his openness in accepting amendments. That approach is to his credit and has improved the legislation.
The only offence I took to the Minister of State's remarks is that he thought we on this side of the House might use the word "bureaucratise". That is not a word that comes from this side of the Chamber. The large volume of legislation coming through from the Department is to the credit of all, particularly the civil servants involved. However, it has led to a type of practice which has not, in my experience, been the norm in the past and is not the intention of the process itself, whereby at each Stage, including Report Stage, new amendments are being introduced by the Minister. The recommittal process was most unusual in the past but is now becoming the norm because of the productivity of the Department.
I offer the Minister of State the warning that this is not a good way to produce legislation. I recall one instance where the name of a Bill was changed twice as it made its way through the House, along with major changes being made to its content by the Government. Our job is to scrutinise, but we cannot do so if Government amendments are put forward without sufficient time for consideration. It is great to see the Department's enthusiasm, but at the end of the day, if one runs too fast one will end up falling. It is important that we take our time over all these matters.
I thank the Minister of State for taking on board some of the ideas we brought forward on Committee Stage and, to a certain extent, Report Stage. I thank his officials for their patience and for their informal briefings in response to requests for information.
By way of information for Deputy McManus, ours is a small Department and the officials work extremely hard on a very heavy legislative workload. However, I will reaffirm to the officials who work under my direction that they should, when bringing forward additional amendments in transit, partake in comprehensive briefing of Opposition Deputies. I am open to making sure there is fuller and better briefing, where necessary, from officials directly to Members opposite. I agree with the Deputy that amendments should not be introduced in that manner, but it inevitably happens because of the pressures under which the Department is working. The compensating measure, if it is to happen, should be that Opposition Members are briefed regarding such amendments in a better and more timely fashion as the legislation is moving through the House.
Question put and agreed to.
The Bill, which is considered to be initiated in Dáil Éireann in accordance with Article 20.2.2 of the Constitution, will be sent to the Seanad.