Paschal Donohoe (Fine Gael)

I thank the Minister for that correction. That appointment appears to have taken place without regard to the public and transparent process the Minister said needs to be in place. This body has a role in increasing transparency and public confidence in this sector. One of the jobs that will be pivotal in doing this appears to have been filled without regard to the process that we deem necessary and expect to be undertaken. I am commenting on this Bill and the Minister has spoken at length in previous roles about the need for ensuring confidence and security in our public bodies. The Minister would raise the same question I have raised about the commission. This body has a role in ensuring there is confidence and security in this sector, but it appears one of the key roles in the commission has not been filled in the way we expected it would have been filled. The Green Party stated in the programme for Government that it would "introduce a legislative basis for a more open and transparent system for appointments to public bodies". Is this not a case of saying one thing and doing another? This will be an important body and the job will be an important one. I ask the Minister to clarify the process by which the person concerned was appointed. I am not casting doubts on the credibility or authority of that person, but I need the Minister to answer that question because the lack of a transparent process lets down that person and the people who need to have confidence in this organisation and the Commission for Energy Regulation.

With this in mind, I will move on to deal with the Bill, outline the reasons my party is supporting it and the ways in which it can be improved. As I said, it appears the reason this legislation is being introduced is to expand the scope of regulation of the commission from downstream to upstream activity. This is to be welcomed for two reasons. As we have learned to our cost in many other areas recently, the more regulatory bodies which are involved in monitoring one area, the greater the opportunity for something to slip through and the right kind of supervision to be lacking. What this legislation will do is to tidy up and establish a more unitary system, which is to be welcomed. It is also particularly important in this area because one of the reports that led to this legislation acknowledged that we had a system in which a Government body or Department was charged with marketing and expanding petroleum exploration and extraction, but we could have ended up with the same body - or the company which gets the contract for the activity - becoming the regulator for that activity and its safety. We now know that is not the right way to operate; this appears to have been one of the major lessons of the controversy over the Corrib gas field. It is for these reasons the legislation should be welcomed.

When considering the background to the Bill, one of the Acts I looked at was the Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006 which put in place the regime for all of this to happen from the point of view of downstream activity. If that appears to be successful and working well, we should be expanding the level of power and oversight to include upstream activity, which the Bill does. This is particularly important for two reasons. The first and most important reason is the human risk involved, which could be considerable. People who engage in this kind of work do so at great risk to themselves if the right safety procedures or regime are not in place. The other concern, about which there has been much discussion, is the risk to people living near the activity proposed to take place. The potential for loss of human life is something we always want to avoid and any legislation that recognises this and finds a way of improving matters must be welcomed.

The second reason which, although slightly less important than anything involving the loss of human life or injury, is still a major issue is commercial risk. The companies involved in such activity often operate at great commercial risk to themselves. My understanding is that the exploration and setting up of rigs for this activity can cost anything up to €150 million per operation, an awful lot of money. For those involved in this activity, it is fair to ensure there is in place a regulatory regime which is as strong and efficient as possible. It is for these reasons that we should comment constructively on the Bill.

There are five particular matters on which I would welcome a response from the Minister. The first is the interaction between the CER and the Health and Safety Authority. While the Bill will expand the powers available to the CER, it is my understanding, based on the Bill, that the HSA will still have a role to play in many cases, particularly with regard to the safety of persons working at or near the activity. We need to ensure the work done by these bodies is efficient and does not undo any of the work done in the Bill. This is recognised in the legislation, but I would like to hear the Minister's comments on what his Department will do to make sure this happens and that both bodies function well.

Section 13M of the text to be inserted in the principal Act deals with the submission and preparation of the safety case and is one of the most important parts of the Bill. What can we do to ensure the preparation of the safety case is more visible to the public during its development and presentation? Infrastructure deemed to be of national import is referred directly to An Bord Pleanála. The paperwork involved in background planning, the environmental impact study or a railway order and so on can frequently make up ten, 20 or 30 boxes of material. It is landed on members of the public who then have a short period in which to prepare submissions and go before An Bord Pleanála.

Particularly in view of the background to the Bill, I encourage the Minister to consider how we can ensure the preparation of the safety case by the company or contractor is made as transparent as possible. We must do all we can to make sure that body of work is shared as quickly as possible with those interested in knowing the effect the activity will have on them. We hear time and again that this is impossible for reasons of commercial sensitivity, but I am speaking in particular of the safety case. I urge the Minister to find a way of making sure it is published quickly in order that those who wish to make observations can do so and thus consider they are participating fully in the process.

Subsection (5) of section 13M deals with the person charged with leading the audit of the adequacy of the safety management system for an activity or piece of equipment. The line in the Bill referring to the qualifications of this person reads: "persons who are sufficiently independent of the system (but who may be employed by the petroleum undertaking) to ensure that such assessment is objective". I ask the Minister whether we are not holding ourselves out as a hostage to fortune by including such a provision. There is much expertise available in this area. Surely the person carrying out the safety audit should be prevented from working for the organisation preparing the safety case? There should be a clear delineation between the person conducting the audit and anybody who might end up working for that organisation in the future. If the person who conducted the audit of the safety case ended up working for the organisation presenting the safety case, it would be the first item to be criticised as involving a potential conflict of interest.

Section 13N lays out a minimum review period for the safety case, stating: "A safety case ... shall be reviewed at least every 5 years". The Minister should consider lowering the threshold to provide for more frequent audits. The subsection highlights that technical knowledge relating to safety can change quickly and more frequently than every five years.

My final issue relates to the definition of "petroleum exploration". The Bill details the activities that covers but I read a briefing note which suggested it might be more worthwhile to include a broader definition based on function in order that an activity would not be precluded in the future from the ambit of the legislation because the definition is restrictive. We are supportive of the direction being taken in the legislation but I have outlined issues on which I would appreciate a response from the Minister and to which my party will return on Committee Stage, if needs be. With regard to public confidence, an appointment will be made under the legislation in a way that is completely different from the way the Minister's party said it wanted such appointments to be made and from how Fine Gael would do so. One cannot say one thing in this regard and do another.