Conor Lenihan (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 8, to delete lines 1 to 3 and substitute the following:

"'safety framework' means the risk-based petroleum safety framework established under section 13I;".

As amendments Nos. 2, 16, 18 and 24 were not referred to on Committee Stage, they will be recommitted. I propose to discuss the amendments together with amendment No. 17. The core objective of these amendments and a number of further amendments which I also propose to recommit is to provide the maximum level of clarity to everyone with an interest in the development of the new safety regulatory framework.

The primary purpose of the Bill is to establish a national risk assessment safety framework based on international best practice, as recommended by Advantica following its safety review of the Corrib gas pipeline. A risk assessment framework is a regulatory mechanism that will require petroleum undertakings to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commission for Energy Regulation that they have reduced and are managing safety risk to a level that is as low as is reasonably practicable. Having reflected on this core purpose, together with the consultation methodology underpinning the establishment of the new safety system, and having reflected on the contributions of Deputies during the Committee Stage debate, I am proposing a number of amendments that will further clarify the language used in the legislation to ensure clarity for all parties interested in the formulation of a new safety framework.

I consider it necessary in amendments Nos. 2 and 16 to reference explicitly risk assessment both in the definition of a petroleum safety framework and in reference to that framework in the body of the Bill in section 131. Amendment No. 18 is also being proposed in the interests of clarity in that it sets out in a more comprehensible manner which are the specific bodies to be consulted by the commission in establishing the petroleum safety framework.

With regard to the timeframe for the implementation of the safety framework, Deputy McManus proposes that this new system should be both established and implemented within six months. While it is my intention that the new system is implemented at the earliest possible opportunity, given the range and depth of consultation necessary to ensure we introduce the most robust and effective system, I do not believe this is achievable in the timeframe suggested by the Deputy. For this reason, I do not propose to accept the amendment.

To ensure the petroleum safety framework is introduced without undue delay, however, I am proposing to reduce the timeframe by which the Minister may give a direction to the commission with respect to the publication of the safety framework. Amendment No. 24 now proposes that where the safety framework has not been published within six months of the commencement of the safety framework provision, the Minister may direct the commission in writing to publish it not later than the date specified in the ministerial direction. I am, therefore, leaning towards Deputy McManus's proposal for a six month timeframe rather than the original eight month timeframe. I have moved halfway towards the Deputy's position, while reserving the right to give a direction as opposed to imposing an absolute time limit of six months.

See this speech in context