Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Like other speakers, I question the timing of the introduction of this legislation, which has come down to the wire. As I understand it, we have two years to transpose European directives into national law and I fail to see why it takes one year and 363 days to get it to the floor of this House. It does not make much sense and it does not allow for the proper scrutiny which should be envisaged for such legislation, particularly when it relates to something as important and as potentially damaging as a major oil and gas extraction incident. If there was a major incident, it could take 20 or 30 years for our shoreline to recover. The environmental damage could be huge. Legislation such as this should therefore be given the proper time to be scrutinised.

The legislation is fairly complicated. It provides for definitions of operators, owners and petroleum entities and there are layers of different responsibilities. All of these should be teased out. Ultimately, whether an operator, owner or petroleum entity, they should all have equal responsibility in respect of safety in the operation of wells. The directive provides that the operator should always be the entity with primary responsibility for the safety of operations and should be at all times competent in that regard. Surely the owner who is contracting the operator should be able to ensure the operator is competent also.

I know the Commission for Electricity Regulation, CER, has a role under this legislation in deciding whether operators are competent and it can ask the Minister to refuse the appointment of an operator. Section 7 of the legislation states an operator has to be approved by the Minister but it does not require this approval to be made in conjunction with CER or to be based on a consultation with CER. CER examines the safety records and reports. Could the Minister approve an operator without referring to CER? Could an operator be approved without having been subject to the proper scrutiny? Those things needs to be clarified a wee bit.

I agree with Deputy John Browne on the fines for non-compliance with the safety statements requirements. The exploration and development of a site might cost up to €1 billion but the maximum fine for failing to report an incident is €3 million.

That is peanuts in terms of the financial impact it would have on the operators. I do not see a deterrent in the level of the fine if an operator is caught out and sanctioned because of something carried out that was unsafe or that might lead to major incidents.

Under the legislation the Commission for Energy Regulation will review the safety plans of the operators and owners, consider how they might work and get them to simulate a response to any incidents or possible incidents. What is the role of the CER and the State and how would they respond in respect of a major incident? If there was a major oil spill offshore there would have to be a State response as well; the State would have to step up to the mark. While it is right that the operators should be responsible and should carry the liability, in any serious or major incident the State would have a role to play as well. Is there any role for CER in examining how prepared the State is for such an eventuality? It would be interesting to see how prepared the State is to deal with significant incidents or events that might take place offshore.

The legislation has to be transcribed into law. It will go through the House and will not be objected to. I realise it is not only the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources that runs these things down to the wire in transcribing legislation. However, when a Department has two years to do it, those responsible are aware it has to happen. It is something that should be introduced in a timely fashion.

See this speech in context