Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 31, line 13, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".

I thank the Minister of State for his correspondence on these issues and for his engagement with me since the debate on Second Stage. He indicated that offshore service vessels are those vessels that engage in the development of offshore renewable energy, including offshore wind energy, and that to support this sector the development of a new category of vessel is necessary, namely vessels carrying industrial personnel. The Minister of State also stated that these vessels will typically be crew transfer vessels or other specialised servicing vessels for the maintenance of offshore wind turbines.While that may be what is envisaged, the definition in the Bill is somewhat different and more broad. The definition of what constitutes offshore industrial activity explicitly includes the hydrocarbon energy sector. In other words, it explicitly includes fossil fuels and those working in the area of fossil fuel energy. If the Bill was only concerned with the development of offshore renewable energy, then it would be more explicitly directly related to that, whereas, in fact, the wording is quite wide and fossil fuel companies are explicitly included. That inclusion lies at the heart of my concerns around Part 5. It is not that I am not concerned about safety issues relating to offshore renewable energy; these are also very important, and some of my amendments would be relevant in that context. My core focus is on the long record of extremely negative consequences due to a neglect of safety by fossil fuel actors in their operations.

As I stated in my correspondence with the Minister of State, the Whiddy Island disaster set a precedent that we cannot ignore. Frank McDonald, writing in The Irish Timesin the immediate aftermath of the incident, noted how sections of the Harbours Act 1976 to enforce safety were never implemented. The fossil fuel companies involved in activity at Whiddy Island were allowed to self-regulate. Tragically, this led to 33 spills between 1968 and 1979 at Whiddy Island, which is located in Bantry Bay in beautiful west Cork. Very tragically, the Whiddy Island disaster resulted in 50 people losing their lives and over 1 million gallons of oil being spilled into Bantry Bay.

This Bill deals with safety conditions on the vessels that will construct, service and maintain offshore LNG terminals if we bring LNG to Ireland. Of course, we should not be doing that. Given the direction in relation to this, however, it is very important that regulation and safety standards recognise this industrial activity. Amendment No. 20 seeks to substitute the word "shall" for that of "may" in section 46(1). Section 46 concerns offshore service vessels and industrial personnel rules. As drafted, the section does not place an obligation on the Minister to make the rules. Again, I note that the sections on enforcing safety in the Harbours Act 1976 were never implemented. It is not enough simply to have the willingness or the word of the Minister. We need to have a guarantee that not just this Minister but his successors will ensure that safety measures and regulations will be in place.

I again recognise and accept the bona fides of the Minister of State when he says that it is his intention to progress the drafting of the rules. However, it is very concerning that there will not be a mandatory requirement for future Ministers to make rules under this section. As the Minister of State mentioned, it is an area which will evolve. If LNG is allowed into Ireland, there will be extraordinary regret, particularly in view of the immense environmental consequences, not least in terms of its acceleration of the climate crisis and the climate change disaster. It acts as an accelerant to climate change given that it has a much quicker and stronger impact on emissions and global warming than even CO_². There is also an horrendous record in terms of environmental and human rights damage at the point where LNG is extracted. There is a reason that Ireland banned fracking on our own territory. In importing LNG, we are giving tacit support to fracking taking place in other parts of the world, including the United States, which has left the Paris Agreement, meaning that the fracked gas that is being extracted is not being measured in any meaningful way and the emissions from it will be without any limitation in the context of climate thresholds. These are the wider safety elements, but there are also specific safety concerns. We are aware of doctors who recently spoke about some of the impacts of liquified natural gas. If we bring this dangerous material into Ireland, and if we have boats that are going to service it, repair tankers and engage in and around it, we need to have a guarantee, as a minimum, that the State will be rigorous around the safety thresholds because one thing we can guarantee is that the companies and corporations will not apply them on their own and they will not apply them unless they are made to do so. That is what the Whiddy Island disaster tells us. That is what multiple examples of oil spills, leakages and, indeed, LNG disasters across the world, tell us. Companies such as British Petroleum, which had extended the threshold for its renewable targets, recently announced it is dropping them. That is because countries like Ireland are giving a new lease of life to the fossil fuel industry. That was a dying industry in terms of fracked gas, the worst form of gas and LNG. These are the wider contexts but they are very relevant because those are the actors we are speaking about and those are the actors explicitly covered by this Bill.

Amendment No. 20 seeks to change "may" to "shall" in order that the Minister "shall" enact rules relating to offshore service vessels. Amendment No. 21 seeks to amend section 46(2) to ensure the Minister "shall" specify requirements on recognised organisations relating to the design, construction and maintenance within offshore vessels and industrial personnel rules. These are crucial standards. Again, in all of these cases, it is a very minor amendment. I am replacing "may" with "shall" to provide basic guarantees. The public deserves to know that these standards will be created and applied. Amendment No. 22 also seeks to ensure that the offshore vessels and industrial personnel rules "shall" include requirements that the Minister considers necessary to implement the provision of chapter XV of SOLAS and the industrial personnel code.

In my communication and engagement with the Minister of State, he indicated that it is common practice to use "may" instead of "shall" and that this is often the case. It is not always the case. It is sometimes the case that "may" is used and it is often the case that "shall" is used. One place where "shall" is explicitly used is in the Merchant Shipping Act 2010. The Act required that the Minister "shall", not "may", include requirements to implement the provisions of SOLAS, which is the main safety convention, and therefore that the Minister "shall" include requirements to implement the provisions of SOLAS in rules relating to chemical tankers, liquified gas carriers, nuclear carriers and high-speed craft. These are the carriers for the fuel, as opposed to the service vessels, which is what we are discussing. Under sections 18(5), 27(5), 36(5) and 44(5) of the Merchant Shipping Act 2010, the language used is "shall". The Minister "shall" ensure that there is compliance with the crucial international standards in terms of marine safety and the SOLAS provisions. It does not make sense that we have "shall" in the Merchant Shipping Act 2010 and "may" in this Bill when it comes to the standards in that international convention. The Bill will transpose chapter XV of that convention, which is a new chapter recognising the kinds of issues that need to be addressed for the new category of vessels. I would like to have an answer on that and for the Minister of State to indicate that he will genuinely go away and look to ensuring that, particularly when it relates to the application of these international convention standards, the language will match the previous merchant shipping legislation and will not be a dilution or a move away from "shall" to the more vague language of "may". Even if the Minister of State may not agree with the conversion of "may" to "shall" in every point, in terms of amendment No. 22, that is absolutely crucial. I may or may not press this amendment today because I am genuinely urging the Minister of State to look at this and ensure alignment. Otherwise, I am afraid it will be seen as a backwards step. Amendment No. 23 seeks to amend section 46(4) to ensure the Minister shall make different rules in respect of different classes of offshore vehicles, having regard to, among other things, the size of the vessel, the service, the nature of the voyage and the type of cargo. My concern is the rules outlined in this Bill may not adequately distinguish between those different kinds of craft and ensure appropriate safety standards are laid out for vessels with greater risk. For example, I mentioned vessels that may be involved in the repair of fossil fuel tankers or in the servicing of them in that sense.

I will not move amendment No. 24 as I feel it is unnecessary.

Amendment No. 25 seeks to amend section 46(6) to ensure offshore service vessels and industrial personnel rules shall include requirements regarding the survey and inspection of offshore vessels and the extent, manner and intervals of such surveys and inspections, ensuring there is regular inspection, which is crucial.

Amendment No. 26 seeks to amend section 46(7) to ensure the incidental, supplementary and consequential provisions necessary or expedient for the purposes of the rules as appear necessary to the Minister. I believe my other amendments are in a separate section, but I hope the Minister of State looks at this. I know he has been told that this is common language, but it is not consistent with actual previous language in this exact relevant area with regard to previous merchant shipping legislation. I urge that we at least have the same strength of language as we have had in previous legislation.