John Whelan (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and I commend him on bringing forward the legislation. It seems to me that in some quarters one is damned if one does and one is damned if one does not. The legislation is in the House but not before its time and there is a deadline on it. It is important that it is passed in the interest of public safety, the people who work in the industry and, of course, the broader environmental issues that are at stake. In his address he set out in great detail the provisions of the Bill. On the face of it, the legislation that has emerged appears to be thorough and robust. It is vitally important that is transposed into Irish law.

Senator Tony Mulcahy has set out two examples of the kinds of incidents that can occur with devastating and disastrous consequences for the workers and the environment. Therefore, any measures that can be put in place to prevent such incidents should be put in place. We have only to get these things wrong once and then it is too late. We are dealing with the area of prevention. Once an incident occurs it is too late to address it. Colleagues across the floor have made valid observations which should be taken into consideration. A bond is a good idea. Who is going to chase down the developers of the sector and the industry once a rig or a well has expired and run its course? It is important that the infrastructure is not left to rust at sea or in close proximity to the shoreline and whatever other infrastructure is in place. The onus is on anybody who has developed rigs and wells to put things back as they found them and to decommission the facilities properly. There have been incidents around the country where that has not always been the case. It has happened in the case of mining developments and in the chronic situation in Cork where the taxpayer continues to pick up the tab for restoring facilities in the former Irish Steel plant in Cork harbour. Again, the taxpayer has had to clean up a really dangerous hazard and environmental mess left behind by the industry when it closed down. It is important we do not have those kind of scenarios.

We have a pitiful record in terms of enforcement of regulations from child safety to financial regulation to charities regulation. I do not have any confidence whatsoever in the Environmental Protection Agency in terms of how it goes about its business. I am glad it is not the assigned authority in this instance. The CER has been selected as the competent authority. In terms of resources, competence, skill sets and staffing how will it police the legislation? How will it ensure compliance? In recent decades basic building regulations were not adhered to or respected. We can have all the rules and regulations we want but if they are not enforced and policed, they are virtually pointless. We found out after the building boom was over that only a small percentage of building developments were inspected by planners to ensure that the conditions that had been applied had been adhered to.

This is important, robust and timely legislation but it will not be worth the paper it is written on unless the competent authority, in this case the CER, has the resources to ensure and insist on compliance and that, as colleagues have pointed out, the penalties for non-compliance are sufficiently imposing to ensure shortcuts will not be taken. As we have noted in the House, the consequences for human life, wildlife, sea birds, fish stocks and the broader environment and ecosystems could be devastating in the extreme for generations to come should an accident occur.

It is welcome that this legislation is before the House and it is important that we tease it out here, but my concern is that the regulations as set out should not be dealt with in a light touch, self-regulating or self-policing fashion. The CER should have the teeth, the personnel, the skill sets and the resources to police this legislation and to ensure it is enforced and complied with.