Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 8 Nov 2011

Vol. 745 No. 4

Access to Central Treasury Funds (Commission for Energy Regulation) Bill 2011 [Seanad] : Second Stage

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

While this is a short Bill, it is nevertheless important to ensure the delivery of a stronger overall regulatory framework governing exploration and production of oil and gas. It is also important in the interests of ensuring that the cost of such regulation on industry is kept to a minimum. I am pleased, therefore, to introduce the Access to Central Treasury Funds (Commission for Energy Regulation) Bill 2011 for the consideration of the House.

This Bill proposes to allow the Commission for Energy Regulation, to be known as the Commission to apply to the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, for a relatively short-term loan to meet its start-up costs in connection with the new petroleum safety functions conferred on it pursuant to the Petroleum (Exploration and Extraction) Safety Act 2010.

The 2010 Act conferred responsibility on the commission for the regulation with respect to safety of upstream petroleum activities and associated infrastructure. This effectively means all activities and infrastructure associated with exploration, extraction and production of oil and gas. Such activities include the drilling of wells for the purposes of exploration and extraction of petroleum onshore and offshore, transmission of gas by sub-sea and onshore pipelines and gas processing terminals.

The 2010 Act also gives effect to a key recommendation of the report produced by independent consultants Advantica in 2006 following its safety review of the Corrib gas pipeline to implement a new risk assessment-based safety framework with respect to gas pipelines. This approach is the commonly accepted methodology for managing safety worldwide and reflects the approach taken in the dangerous substances and chemicals legislation. The 2010 Act expanded on this concept to provide that petroleum activities generally would be governed by the new safety framework.

The 2010 Act also provides for the cost of establishing and implementing this new safety regime to be funded by way of an annual levy on the petroleum industry and the imposition of administration charges with respect to the consideration by the CER of safety case applications and the issuance of safety permits. However, before the levy can be implemented, the safety framework must be designed and the associated regulatory structure and implementation regime devised. This is a technically challenging programme and it is estimated that the full implementation of the framework will take approximately three years and will cost in the region of €5 million.

Budgetary and schedule estimates have been determined on the basis of discussions held by the commission with a number of specialists in the area of upstream petroleum safety. The commission has also drawn from its own previous experience of the implementation of the downstream natural gas safety framework pursuant to the Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006.

The 2006 Act extended the commission's regulatory role with regard to the operation, maintenance and development of gas transmission and distribution networks. That Act conferred responsibility on the commission for the regulation of safety for the transmission and distribution of downstream gas. The Petroleum (Exploration and Extraction) Safety Act 2010 consolidated the commission's role as the safety regulator for the whole of the petroleum and natural gas industry by conferring on it responsibility for the regulation of safety in the case of upstream petroleum activities and the associated infrastructure. Under the 2010 Act, designated petroleum activities can only be carried out once a safety permit is granted, the issuance of which will be dependent on the approval of a safety case by the commission.

The petroleum safety framework implementation project is the process by which the CER will implement the requirements of the 2010 Act in full. This necessitates putting in place the people, processes and procedures to enable the effective operation and enforcement of the petroleum safety framework once designed. The process contains five phases which include the initial scoping and planning phase; the high level design of the petroleum safety framework; the detailed design of the petroleum safety framework; internal readiness of the petroleum safety framework implementation project; and implementation of the safety framework programme.

The first phase of this programme has been completed and the commission is making steady progress with the remainder of its implementation programme. It expects to be ready to receive its first safety cases for assessment by the second quarter of 2013.

Until such time as the petroleum safety framework is in place, the commission cannot levy petroleum undertakings with respect to its properly incurred implementation costs. To meet with operational expenditure to date, the commission obtained, with the approval of my predecessor, myself and the Minister for Finance, commercial loans from financial institutions to cover the implementation costs of the project in 2010 and 2011. However, in the current economic climate, it would be more financially efficient for the commission to obtain such funding from the NTMA given that a lower rate of interest and the shorter processing time that would apply, thereby reducing the regulatory burden of the levy on industry.

To enable the NTMA to consider providing a loan to the commission, an amendment is required to the Schedule of the National Treasury Management Agency (Amendment) Act 2000 to establish the CER as a body to which such a facility could be extended. It is expected that with the enactment of this Bill, the commission will apply to the NTMA to fund its safety framework implementation project. It will then repay this funding following the phased implementation of the petroleum safety framework, commencing in 2013, through the imposition of the prescribed annual levy on petroleum undertakings. Bodies that can access funding through the NTMA include the Railway Procurement Agency and the Housing Finance Agency, as well as certain universities and regional technical colleges.

For the convenience of the House, an explanatory memorandum has been published which provides a synopsis of the Bill's provisions. There are only two sections in this Bill. Section 1 amends section 18 of the National Treasury Management Agency (Amendment) Act 2000 to provide for the insertion of the Commission for Energy Regulation as a designated body under the provisions of that Act. Section 2 provides for the title of the Bill, that is that it may be cited as the Access to Central Treasury Funds (Commission for Energy Regulation) Act 2011.

This Bill, while very short, is an important measure in facilitating the further strengthening of the overarching regulatory framework governing exploration for and production of oil and gas. By providing the commission with the opportunity to access borrowings at a lower interest rate and within a shorter timeframe, it will assist in the establishment of greater clarity and robustness of process at a reasonable cost to the industry.

I hope the context I have provided for this measure has been of assistance and I look forward to listening to the views of the Members of this House on this legislation and to their assistance in progressing this Bill into law.

I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Bill. I was part of a Government that changed the safety framework for gas and oil and if I understand the Minister correctly, we are continuing with that progress so that upstream and downstream safety regulation of oil will be done by the Commission for Energy Regulation on a cost neutral basis and that any costs incurred over time will be recouped from the industry.

As a Minister I strongly supported safety regulation being separate from the Department. In the old days there was misunderstanding of ministerial approvals at various stages of the process and the present arrangement should allow us to follow best practice to ensure we have good safety processes. I also noted the Minister's intention to ask the EPA to look at fracking, which is a vital issue, and we must satisfy public opinion that sound safety regulations are in place.

At present, the law provides for full cost recovery but cost recovery cannot take place until the regime is up and running. The research by its very nature, and the preparation and consultation that must take place, will take some time. The start-up costs until now have been funded by commercial loans and it is now intended that these be taken from the NTMA so there will be a saving in interest charges there. Since this is full cost recovery from the industry, the savings in the interest charges will ultimately lead to lower costs for the industry but the principle of full recovery of costs from the industry for safety regulation is absolute. On that basis, I have no difficulty with the Bill.

It is not often we get a Bill with just two sections and I support its introduction as quickly as possible so we have a thorough and comprehensive safety regime that follows the world's best practice. I do not believe it is possible to ensure that something is absolutely safe but we must follow best practice in respect of safety. I welcome the five phases relating to the development of the safety regime and I am aware that work is ongoing in this regard.

It is important that those who have concerns with regard to the safety of oil and gas should engage with the public consultation phase of the process in order that their views might be taken into account by the CER. It is also important that the CER should try to engage the public as much as possible as the framework is being developed. In cases such as this, what usually happens is that a framework is developed but no one pays too much heed to it until a difficulty arises. When that difficulty arises, people then tend to reconsider the framework and ask why it was written in a particular way. The answer that is given in such instances usually contains the phrase "you were consulted". People often do not engage with consultation processes until it is too late. As it develops the framework, the CER should ensure, as far as is possible, that members of the public will take part in the consultation process. That process should be proactive in nature in order that we might encourage those who are interested in the subject to make their contributions so that they might be taken on board. We might then reach a stage where there would be a general consensus to the effect that a good safety framework is being put in place for the oil and gas industries.

I welcome the Bill in so far as it allows the Commission for Energy Regulation, CER, to fulfil its responsibilities in respect of the safety aspects of the infrastructure associated with petroleum and gas exploration and development. This legislation is long overdue and I thank the Minister for bringing it before us. I look forward to the Committee Stage debate on the Bill and, in particular, to discussing any amendments which might be tabled.

The need for this legislation arose from the controversy to which the Corrib project gave rise. There are aspects of that project which remain to be dealt with but we will not discuss them today. We owe a debt to the people of Rossport and elsewhere who, in the interests of the safety of their families and communities, were prepared to take a stand in respect of the Corrib field. Those to whom I refer played a major role in the context of the development of the Bill before the House.

I do not accept — as was stated during the Seanad debate on the Bill — that had this framework been in place when the protests relating to the Corrib field were at their height, the matter would have been resolved. It is disingenuous to suggest this because the protests in respect of the Corrib were to do with more than just safety. Those protests also related to the exploitation of the resources of the Corrib for the benefit of the local communities there and the people of Ireland in general rather than for the benefit of the oil companies, and so on.

A question arises in respect of start-up costs. I welcome the fact that what is proposed will be cost-neutral and that the companies involved will be obliged to shoulder the costs incurred. While welcoming the measures in the Bill, my party would support the State — through the CER or any other body — having wider powers in respect of overall exploration costs. In the context of the specific areas to be covered by the CER in respect of this matter, I take it that there is little controversy involved and that those who took part in the consultation process are — in light of the low-key response to the Bill and the lack of lobbying in respect of it — satisfied with the outcome thereto.

It is essential that the consultation process should be as wide as possible and that it should take account of the concerns of communities. We are all on the same ship — for want of a better word — when it comes to safety. The Minister will have the full support of my party in respect of any measures relating to safety. I am somewhat concerned with regard to the timeframe relating to putting the framework in place, particularly as a number of controversial projects may be entering the planning process prior to its introduction. The Minister and his officials must take cognisance of that fact.

Any difficulties which Members may have in respect of the Bill can be dealt with on Committee Stage. I look forward to everyone involved — the Government, the Minister, the officials and the Opposition — approaching the Committee Stage debate with an open mind. It is essential to put in place as all-encompassing a safety programme as possible in order that the industry might develop. The Minister can rely on my party's support, provided it is satisfied that the safety aspects have been addressed, that widespread consultation will take place and that what is proposed will remain cost-neutral to the Exchequer.

An bhfuil tú sásta caint?

Tá mé sásta freagra a thabhairt. Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis na Teachtaí as ucht a gcuid tuairimí a nochtadh agus cuidiú a thabhairt don mBille seo go bunúsach. Má tá fadhbanna faoi leith ag baint leis — luaigh siad fadhbanna áirithe — is féidir linn smaoineamh níos mó a dhéanamh orthu ar an chéad Chéim eile. Tá súil agam nach fada go mbeidh an díospóireacht sin againn. Tá sé mar chomhaidhm ag gach éinne go mbeidh rudaí níos sláintiúla agus nach mbeidh aon difríocht ann ó thaobh an airgid atá ag teastáil. Ba chóir go mbeadh an coimisiún in ann dul chuig an NTMA chun an t-airgead sin a fháil. Tá mé an-sásta go bhfuil na Theachtaí ag cabhrú linn an dlí á athrú chun é sin a chur chun cinn. Caithfidh mé buíochas a ghabháil leis an dá Teachta a labhair anocht. Má theastaíonn uainn aon tuairimí eile a nochtadh ar Chéim an Choiste, beimid in ann é sin a dhéanamh chomh luath agus is féidir.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn