I welcome the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan.
Petroleum (Exploration and Extraction) Safety Bill 2010: Committee Stage.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 3, to delete lines 27 and 28 and substitute the following:
"3.—The Act of 1999 is amended—
(a) in section 2(1) by inserting the following definition after the definition of “natural gas undertaking”:
"‘petroleum undertaking' has the meaning given to it by section 13A(1);",
(b) by inserting the following section after section 9K:
"9L.—In addition to the functions conferred on it by section 9, the Commission has the functions specified in Part IIA relating to petroleum safety.",
(c) by inserting the following Part after Part II:”.
The purpose of this amendment is to amend section 9 of the Electricity Regulation Act 1999 to insert a definition for "petroleum undertaking" and to highlight the expansion of the Commission for Energy Regulation's existing functions to include the regulation of petroleum activities with respect to safety.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 2, 5, 8, 11, 18, 22, 30, 31, 35, 38, 40, 49 and 51 to 56, inclusive, are drafting amendments and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 5, line 27, to delete "Gas Act 1976" and substitute "Act of 1976".
These amendments were drafted on foot of consultation with the Parliamentary Counsel's office. They do not represent a policy change regarding these sections but are proposed to clarify the provisions and take account of minor drafting and typographical errors.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 7 insert the term "plant" into the definition for "processing petroleum activity" to ensure the complete life cycle of designated activities is clearly set out.
Amendment No. 4 proposes to insert the definition of a safety case for the purposes of the Bill.
Do I address amendment No. 6 at the same time?
We are addressing all of them. There are 18 amendments in this group and they are all drafting amendments. The Minister can speak to them all.
I will leave the ones I have already mentioned and will come back to amendment No. 6.
Amendment No. 6 is not one of the ones grouped.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 7 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Minister has already dealt with those amendments.
He has not.
He discussed Nos. 3 and 7.
He may have but he should not have done so.
He may have, yes.
But it was done.
We are on amendments Nos. 3 and 7.
I think the Senator is right. I had made a comment on those amendments.
Even on amendment No. 7.
Yes.
Government amendment No. 3:
In page 6, line 14, after "processing" to insert "plant or".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 4:
In page 6, to delete lines 35 and 36 and substitute the following:
" ‘safety case' means a document describing the components of the safety management system relating to the designated petroleum activity concerned;".
Amendment No. 4 proposes to insert the definition of a safety case for the purpose of the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 7, line 3, to delete "For the purposes of" and substitute "In".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 7, line 46, to delete "sub sea" and substitute "sub-sea".
The Minister has commented on this amendment. It is a drafting amendment. There is no such word as "sub". It is a prefix and therefore should be followed by a hyphen. I discovered this when reading through the Bill between 3 a.m. and 4 a.m. the other night. If this amendment were to be accepted, further amendments would be required to other references in the Bill.
I was up later than the Senator and consulted my Concise Oxford Dictionary and on the basis of that examination I cannot propose to accept the amendment. I am sure the Senator will agree that terms in general use are usually hyphenated. This is a technical term not in general use which can be and is written in a number of formats.
Following that I will look forward to a good night's sleep and worry no longer.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 7:
In page 8, line 3, before "terminal," to insert "plant or".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 8:
In page 8, lines 31 and 32, to delete all words from and including "the" in line 31 down to and including "2006" in line 32 and substitute "that Act".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 8, line 46, to delete "may," and substitute the following:
"shall, where safety considerations render it appropriate,".
This Bill is merely an enabling measure that leaves it entirely up to the commission to decide whether to designate any petroleum activity. The Bill should be mandatory where safety considerations make it appropriate to apply its provisions.
I am happy to accept this amendment which strengthens the section in that it will ensure the commission is required in all instances to make regulations with respect to the designation of petroleum activities.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 10:
In page 9, to delete lines 5 to 8 and substitute the following:
"(b) the type of petroleum infrastructure;”.
This amendment was drafted on foot of consultations with the Parliamentary Counsel's office. It does not represent a policy change in regard to the section but is proposed to ensure consistency of language.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 11:
In page 9, line 11, to delete "and petroleum infrastructure".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 20, 21, 33 and 34 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Amendment No. 12 is an alternative to amendment No. 13. Amendment No. 20 is an alternative to No. 21 and amendment No. 33 is an alternative to No. 34. Is it agreed to discuss these amendments together? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 12:
In page 9, line 37, to delete "the Maritime Safety Directorate" and substitute "the Minister for Transport".
These amendments remove the reference to the non-statutory body, the Maritime Safety Directorate, and insert the correct reference to the Minister for Transport as consultee for the purposes of section 13(d), (h) and (l). I am proposing amendments Nos. 12, 20 and 33 and, accordingly, there is no need for amendments Nos. 13, 21 and 34.
As the Minister is aware, the Maritime Safety Directorate is a unit of the Department of Transport and has no existence in law. The Minister for Transport is the legal entity who should be referred to in the legislation.
We agree that both amendments are the same.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 13 cannot be moved as amendment No. 12 has been agreed.
Amendment No. 13 not moved.
Government amendment No. 14:
In page 10, line 1, to delete "guilty of" and substitute "who commits".
This amendment was drafted on foot of consultations with the Parliamentary Counsel's office. It does not represent a change of policy regarding the section but is proposed to ensure clarity of language.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 19 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 10, line 18, to delete "of the Commission" and substitute the following:
"to be achieved by the Commission in exercising its functions under this Part".
It is incorrect to say the objective of the commission is set out in section 13G because it has other objectives set out in the 1999 Act. Instead, safety matters set out in section 13G are the objectives to be achieved by the commission under this Part.
I am happy to accept these amendments which provide for greater clarity in the section.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 10, line 26, after "functions" to insert "under this Part".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 17:
In page 10, line 27, after "the" to insert "designated".
This amendment has been introduced on the recommendation of the Parliamentary Counsel's office. It does not represent a policy change but improves the language.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 18:
In page 10, line 35, to delete "Part," and substitute "Part, and".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 10, line 38, to delete "section," and substitute "Part,".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 20:
In page 11, line 11, to delete "the Maritime Safety Directorate" and substitute "the Minister for Transport".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 21 not moved.
Government amendment No. 22:
In page 11, line 38, to delete "Commission," and substitute "Commission, and".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 24 to 27, inclusive, are consequential on amendment No. 23. Amendment No. 28 is an alternative to amendment No. 27. Therfore, amendments Nos. 23 to 28, inclusive, may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 23:
In page 13, to delete lines 1 to 6.
Amendment No. 23 proposes to delete section 13J(1)(a). Amendment No. 29 which I propose to discuss separately, proposes a new drafting with respect to this provision. Amendments Nos. 24 and 26 reflect the consequential renumbering resulting from the deletion of section 13J(1)(a). Amendment No. 25 is drafted on foot of consultation with the Parliamentary Counsel’s office to take account of a minor drafting matter. Amendment No. 27 reflects the amended renumbering of amendment No. 23. I do not propose to accept amendment No. 28 as its intention is captured in that all ministerial directions will be required to be published in Iris Oifigiúil.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 24:
In page 13, to delete line 7 and substitute the following:
"(a) the measures to be taken arising from”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 25:
In page 13, line 10, to delete "incidents," and substitute "incidents, and".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 26:
In page 13, to delete line 11 and substitute the following:
"(b) review or amendment of the safety”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 27:
In page 13, line 19, to delete "paragraphs (b) and (c)” and substitute “paragraphs (a) and (b)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 28 not moved.
Government amendment No. 29:
In page 13, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
"(4) Where the safety framework referred to in section 13I has not been published within 8 months after the commencement of that section, the Minister may direct the Commission in writing to publish that safety framework no later than the date specified in the direction.".
The Bill provides for the implementation of certain provisions in a specified time after the coming into operation of this Part. Amendment No. 29 reflects the fact that not all sections in this Part will be simultaneously commenced and proposes to provide for the staggered commencement of provisions as required. Earlier I indicated that I agreed the Bill should require all ministerial directions under section 13J to be published in Iris Oifigiúil. I will bring forward an amendment on Report Stage to give effect to that principle concerning any ministerial direction given for the publication by the commission of the safety framework.
On Second Stage there was much debate about the need for transparency, that the public should understand the way in which safety cases were evaluated and the criteria under which they were approved. Am I correct in understanding the safety framework creates the framework in which safety cases will be evaluated? If so, what are the circumstances which could lead to a delay in publication of the safety framework for eight months? Could it arise that safety cases might be evaluated inside a framework that might not be published and, therefore, not available to the public? Given that one of the objectives of the legislation is to improve transparency and confidence with regard to the way decisions are made, would it not be better to halve the time in which a framework is evaluated, published and made available to the public?
While I share some of the Senator's concerns, there is a need to be as prescriptive as possible in the safety framework. The more discretion we allow to overshoot deadlines and guidelines the greater the risk factor. All Members remember what happened at the Whiddy Island oil refinery in Bantry Bay in 1979. Senator Michael McCarthy may be too young to remember but he will certainly know about it.
I was only three years of age then.
Given that the administration of the safety framework falls within a wider remit of the commission and is sectionalised, we need to ensure we have stringent timelines in place for people to react. I have concerns on which the Minister can reassure us. We will only find out if the system is not working when it fails. Unfortunately, the consequences at that stage could be horrendous. It is important, therefore, that all procedures and timelines are absolutely controlled in a disciplined way with few excuses allowed for people not to meet the standards and timelines.
I agree with Senator Walsh. From my understanding of the safety framework, could we have a situation where a safety case would be evaluated against an unpublished framework because it might be inside the eight-month timeline?
For a safety case evaluation to take place, the framework must be completed and in place in advance. It will take a certain amount of time to put a framework in place, primarily because there will need to be consultations with the various bodies and an examination of international technical aspects. There is a need for certain speed and urgency on the matter. Much work has been done in certain high profile cases, in which a series of international reports examined standards and set out safety issues. There is urgency attached to the Bill to put that framework in place quickly and to then allow safety case applications to be made within it.
My point is not about whether they are in place but whether they are published. Could we end up with a situation where a safety case would be evaluated against an unpubished safety framework? On Second Stage the Minister stated one reason the legislation had been introduced was he wanted to put in place a framework within which the public could understand the way decisions were made. It would be a real mistake if the public or an interested body was to find itself in a place where a safety case was being evaluated and it asked to see the safety framework against which that case was being valuated to be told that it had not been published yet and it was not available.
My question is not the need to have it in place. I understand that. My question is whether we can ensure such framework is published. As I look at this amendment and see the specific phase "has not been published within 8 months", I wonder whether we could inadvertently end up in that situation. Why do we not ensure that such framework is published so people can understand how a case is being evaluated?
Section 13I(7) sets out that:
The Commission shall publish in the prescribed manner—
(a) a copy of the safety framework, and
(b) where the safety framework has been amended in accordance with subsection (5), a copy of the safety framework as amended.
I agree it does have to be published and be publicly available for people to understand the framework within which any safety case is made.
Given the presence of that stating "The Commission shall publish...", and that it does need to be published as he just stated, could the Minister state again why he feels the need to state to the commission if it has not done it within eight months?
To express the importance of timeliness that we see in terms of getting this in place.
What will happen if there is a case being evaluated inside that eight month period? Does the Minister see my point? Let us say the commission gets in place——
That goes back to my other application that the safety case cannot be evaluated in advance of such a framework being completed.
Fine.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 30:
In page 13, line 28, to delete "reasonably practicable," and substitute "is reasonably practicable,".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 31:
In page 13, line 34, after "as" where it secondly occurs to insert "is".
Amendment agreed to.
On a point of order, it is my understanding that these are grouped with the first group of amendments and that because amendment No. 2 has been agreed, that these cannot be moved as a result.
It is not that they cannot be moved. They have already been discussed and they are now being moved as they are itemised.
The previous ruling was that in cases where there were groups of amendments, subsequent amendments could not be moved because the principal ones were agreed. I may be incorrect.
We are about to come to one, amendment No. 33, which, if it is agreed, amendment No. 34 cannot be moved, where they are in conflict with each other. These are not in conflict with each other. Any of these amendments that have already been discussed are not negated by the fact that ones that have come previous to it have been agreed.
We are about to approach one, in amendments Nos. 33 and 34, where what the Senator states is the case. If amendment No. 33 is agreed, amendment No. 34 cannot be agreed because they are alternatives to each other or they contradict one another.
Yes, but amendments Nos. 33 and 34 are the same. I do not wish to be pedantic.
We are in order. I thank Senator McCarthy for keeping me on my toes.
Government amendment No. 32:
In page 14, line 20, after "danger" to insert the following:
"arising from the carrying on of petroleum activities".
This amendment, which was also drafted on foot of consultation with the Parliamentary Counsel's office, represents not a policy change but rather an improvement to the clarity of the provision.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 33:
In page 14, line 36, to delete "the Maritime Safety Directorate" and substitute "the Minister for Transport".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 34 not moved.
Government amendment No. 35:
In page 15, line 2, after "to" to insert "the".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 are related and will be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 36:
In page 15, to delete lines 24 to 41 and substitute the following:
13M.—(1) A petroleum undertaking that—
(a) proposes to carry on a designated petroleum activity shall prepare a safety case and shall, at least 6 months or, such other lesser time as the Commission may specify, before it proposes to commence the activity, submit the safety case to the Commission for approval, or
(b) is carrying on an established petroleum activity shall prepare a safety case and shall submit it to the Commission for approval within 12 months of the publication in the prescribed manner of the guidelines relating to that activity.
Amendment No. 36 deletes the definition of safety case from section 39, as amendment No. 4, which we have already discussed and agreed, proposed to insert this definition in the interpretation section.
On amendment No. 37, I agree with the principle underpinning the amendment, which is that the new safety regulatory framework should be transparent in its development and operation. The Bill requires the commission to engage in a wide and open process of public consultation when it is developing the safety framework and when developing the guidelines relating to the preparation of safety cases. In both processes the public will have access to the commission's proposals and will have the opportunity to provide their views and to influence the outcome of the process. I believe that to be important and appropriate.
The safety framework will set out the systems and procedures to be operated by the commission in designation and regulation of petroleum activities. The commission will then assess individual safety cases against the approved safety framework.
It is envisaged that the process of assessing individual safety cases will be an iterative process. That process may involve the commission requiring a petroleum undertaking to revise or add to its initial proposed safety case before the commission would be prepared to grant a safety permit. While that type of iterative process does not lend itself to a public consultation phase in the way that, for example, a planning process would, it provides an opportunity for the strengthening of the final safety case.
The approach being proposed is consistent with the approach followed by the Health and Safety Executive in the UK and by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority in Australia. It is also the approach adopted by the Health and Safety Authority in Ireland in the submission of safety reports to the HSA under the Control of Major Accidents Hazards Involving Dangerous Substances Regulations.
I am conscious of the need to ensure public confidence in the new safety framework. Accordingly, with the aim of ensuring maximum transparency to the process, I propose to bring forward an amendment on Report Stage to establish a system to widen the scope of public access to information in respect of safety cases that have been approved and safety permits that have been issued.
I welcome the latter point on which the Minister concluded because that is the subject of an amendment we will discuss later. It is extremely important that the public has access to material. Even if they are not at the stage in the process in which they will be participating, the earlier that material is made available to them, the better this system will work.
Amendment agreed to.
I ask Senator Donohoe to move amendment No. 37, but it has already been discussed with amendment No. 36.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 15, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following:
"(c) A safety case prepared under paragraph (a) shall be publicly displayed for a period of not less than 6 weeks.
(d) A safety case prepared under paragraph (a) shall be open to consultations from the general public for a period of not less than 6 weeks.”.
In light of what the Minister has stated, I will have a look at what comes back from Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 38:
In page 15, line 46, to delete "subsection (1)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 16, lines 35 and 36, to delete all words from and including "(but" in line 35 down to and including "undertaking)" in line 36.
This amendment refers to the person who might be involved in carrying out the audit of adequacy of how safety will be put in place and how it will be managed. The legislation here is quite pointed in stating that the person who will carry out that audit may also be somebody who can be employed by the person who is putting in the safety case in the first place.
To my mind, there are two consequences of this. The first consequence is that there is a potential for conflict of interest. If the person who is involved in putting together the safety case is the same person who is working for the company which is looking to get the safety case in and approved, there definitely appears to be potential for conflict of interest.
Second, I am certain there will be somebody in the future who will have concerns about a safety case that has been put in who could find himself or herself in a situation where the person who is creating the safety case is working for the company which is looking for the licence in the first place, and they will be sitting around asking how can this person be trusted and how can they ensure the safety case being put in is not biased. If such a situation were to develop it would create the perception of a conflict of interest, even if a conflict of interest does not take place. Given that we seek to increase confidence in this system and this legislation is worthwhile in attempting to do so, why not simply get ourselves to a point where the person carrying out the audit for the safety case should not work for the company which seeks to have the safety case agreed?
I listened to the Senator's remarks but I do not propose to accept amendment No. 39. Section 13M(5) defines audit for the purposes of the obligation on petroleum undertakings with respect to their internal auditing responsibility only. It is set out for internal auditing responsibility. Consequently, there is no conflict for an internal auditor potentially being employed by a petroleum undertaking. However, the Bill provides for an ongoing system of inspection and auditing to be carried out independently by the Commission for Energy Regulation. I propose not to accept amendment No. 39 on that basis.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 40:
In page 16, line 41, to delete "safety systems" and substitute "safety management system".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 41:
In page 17, line 1, after "audits" to insert the following:
"(whether within the meaning of section 13M(5) or otherwise)".
This is a technical drafting amendment the purpose of which is to clarify references to audit where the term can be applied to either the commission or the petroleum undertaking.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 42 to 44, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 42:
In page 17, line 21, to delete "Subject to subsection (4), where the” and substitute “Where the”.
Sections 13N(4) and 13N(5) currently provide for certain circumstances where a petroleum undertaking might revise its safety case without the prior approval of the commission. The original intention was to provide a means by which, in exceptional circumstances, a petroleum undertaking could revise its safety case without prior approval from the commission with a view to meeting the obligations proposed by the Bill. On balance, it is considered better that any revision of a safety case would require the prior approval of the commission. Amendment No. 43 deletes these provisions to ensure all revisions to safety cases are subject to the approval of the commission. Amendments Nos. 42 and 44 are consequential, reflecting the changes to drafting required as a result of the deletion of sections 13N(4) and 13N(5).
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 43:
In page 17, to delete lines 30 to 42.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 44:
In page 17, to delete line 43 and substitute the following:
"(4) A revised safety case shall be submitted to".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 45:
In page 19, to delete lines 1 and 2 and substitute the following:
"(e) relating to audits (whether within the meaning of section 13M(5) or otherwise) and reporting requirements, or
(f) in respect of safety performance requirements.”.
This is similar to amendment No. 41 because it is a technical drafting amendment to provide clarity in terms of the audit reference. The term can be applied to either the commission or the petroleum undertaking.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 46 to 48, inclusive, are related and consequential and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 46:
In page 20, line 27, after "13M," to insert "or".
Amendment No. 48 proposes to delete section 13R(1)(c), which provides for circumstances under which a petroleum undertaking would notify the commission of a revised safety case under section 13N(5). Since amendment No. 43 has proposed the deletion of this provision, section 13R(1)(c) is now unnecessary. Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 are minor drafting amendments consequential on the deletion of section 13R(1)(c).
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 47:
In page 20, line 29, to delete "or".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 48:
In page 20, to delete lines 30 to 31.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 49:
In page 22, line 16, after "person," to insert "or".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 22, line 48, to delete "certificate" and substitute "warrant".
The use of "warrant of appointment" of an authorised officer is a well-established and understood legal term. We see no rationale to replace it with the new concept of a "certificate of appointment" at this stage.
I note Senator McCarthy has been up late at night again, but I do not propose to accept this amendment as the terms "certificate" and "warrant" are equally valid. There are no additional powers associated with either term. Following consultation with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, it suggested that the term "certificate" is a more current reference.
In view of my very obvious sleeping disorder, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 51:
In page 23, line 10, to delete "the provisions of".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 52:
In page 26, line 6, after "produce," to insert "or".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 53:
In page 28, line 2, after "plan," to insert "or".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 54:
In page 28, line 6, to delete "carrying on its activities" and substitute "operating".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 55:
In page 28, line 47, after "which" to insert "the".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 56:
In page 30, line 43, to delete "which" and substitute "whom".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
My comment is to do with the long list of amendments to section 3. Normally, there are certain textual Government amendments made to a Bill, but it strikes me there is an inordinate number for section 3. Does this indicate any deficiencies within our drafting system, given that subsequent to the publication of the Bill so many textual amendments were proposed? Perhaps it does not but I would welcome some reassurance in respect of that point. I have never seen so many Government amendments to one section before. I appreciate it might signal a desire to have the Bill expedited and on the Statute Book. However, if concerns in this area were not picked up subsequent to publication, it could mean the legislation might encounter difficulty down the line.
Has the Minister any reassurance to offer?
No. Our system works in terms of going through a given Bill. It is an iterative process, which is the benefit of being able to go into this House and the Dáil and come back again and make changes as appropriate. That is absolutely right. This section is really the whole Bill. I have always found the legislative process, whether through accepting Opposition or Government amendments, to be of real benefit. I stand by our Bill and the amendments put today.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
Dé Mairt seo chugainn ar 3.30 p.m.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 9 February 2010.
When is it proposed to sit again?
I have not been told but I presume it is 2.30 p.m. next Tuesday.