Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 2 seeks to amend section 46(3) to ensure offshore vessels and IP rules shall include requirements the Minister considers necessary to implement the provisions of Chapter XV of the SOLAS Convention and the IP code. I am particularly concerned about the lack of an obligation on the Minister because this is inconsistent with the approach taken under other legislation.

Let me move back in time. What are we talking about is the safety of lives at sea, SOLAS, convention. Its title is as clean and clear as can be. In previous merchant shipping legislation, when we talked about the SOLAS Convention, there was a requirement that the Minister shall include requirements on implementing the provisions of the convention in respect of the rules related to tankers, liquefied natural gas carriers, nuclear-powered carriers, high-speed craft and a number of other vessels. In previous merchant shipping legislation, the Minister committed that any regulations he would make shall be consistent with the international standards of the convention. In this Bill, however, shall has become may. That is a step backwards and a dilution of what we had previously. We have been told one of the reasons for this Bill is that Chapter XV of the SOLAS Convention explicitly relates to the kinds of vessels in question and that standards are required in this regard, but the Minister has told us he may make regulations, not that he shall make them, and that even if he does make them, they may comply with international standards. That is simply not good enough and it is a step backwards. I was more, rather than less, concerned coming out of Committee Stage when the Minister told us it may not be practical to implement all the standards within Chapter XV and the SOLAS Convention as a whole. That is really worrying. There is no painting that as anything other than a dilution of the previous approach taken.

Between 1968 and 1979, 33 oil spills were recorded at Bantry. Some of these incidents involved small vessels, exactly the kinds of vessels covered by this legislation. For example, on 10 January 1975 a tugboat collided with a tanker, releasing 115,000 gallons of heavy fuel oil into the bay. The Harbours Act 1976 was introduced to regulate the activity of these vessels, but the sections concerning the enforcement of safety were never implemented, ultimately leading to greater tragedies such as the Whiddy Island disaster, which saw the tragic loss of 50 lives. This is very serious stuff and the set of provisions is very serious, and that is why it would be absolutely remiss of the Oireachtas and the Minister if we did not pay attention to the difference between shall and may.It is a very small change to make. I find it befuddling why such a small shift from "may" to "shall" in that amendment would not be accepted. It would not significantly delay the Bill. It might mean one more day in the Dáil. At a minimum, it will bring this legislation into line with the other standards we have previously applied. This is important, particularly because there are conversations at the moment about bringing liquefied natural gas into Ireland and about bringing a whole new form of heavy fuel - incredibly dangerous polluting fuel - into and through Ireland. The vessels regulated by this legislation include those that may be servicing, repairing or engaging with heavy LNG tankers or, indeed, the infrastructure associated with them. Why, therefore, would we have a lowering of guarantees to the public on standards at a time when the Government is talking about introducing a new risk for the public? I would like answers as to why that amendment is not being accepted and why it is believed to be acceptable to have language that is weaker than the previous language. Amendment No. 2 is clear. It simply would replace "may" with "shall" with regard to the safety of lives at sea convention.

Amendment No. 3 would amend section 46(4) to ensure the Minister shall make different rules in respect of different classes of offshore service vessels having regard to, among other things, the size of the vessel, the service for which the vessel is to be employed, the nature of the voyage and the type of cargo being carried, including dangerous goods. That means, for example, making special provision where there may be particular dangers associated with the kind of vessel. My concern is that the rules as outlined in the Bill may not adequately distinguish between different types of craft and ensure that appropriate safety standards are laid out for vessels that carry greater cargoes.

It is extraordinary, and we are going to come to it shortly, but we have an opt-out whereby entire categories of vessel can be removed because we can show it is complicated and not everything will suit everybody. However, this amendment is saying that, rather than carving out entire categories of vessel from these regulations, we should have regulations that are adapted and tailored to address the specific circumstances around different categories of service vessel. It seems sensible that offshore service vessels employed in different services might be subject to different rules, but that all of them should be subject to rules.

Specific safety concerns associated with LNG terminals have been highlighted by civil society groups including Not Here Not Anywhere, Friends of the Earth, Frack Action and others. Terminals can malfunction. If a leak occurs, it forms a cloud of low-lying natural gas that drifts until it hits an ignition source, even simple static electricity, and then can burst into flame. Fires can cause second-degree burns up to two miles away. If liquefied natural gas were to be spilled on the ground, it could turn into a rapidly expanding odourless cloud, which could have a terrible impact on human flesh and cause asphyxiation. It is crucial that vessels servicing facilities that are dealing with this kind of fuel would be subject to particular safety rules, given the particular risk of the industrial activity in which they are involved. I do not believe we should be importing liquefied natural gas, but at the absolute minimum, safety standards should be applied.

Amendment No. 4 seeks to amend section 46(6) to ensure that offshore service vessel and industrial personnel rules would include requirements relating to the survey and inspection of offshore service vessels and the manner and interval of such surveys and inspections so that when we put in place regulations, those regulations will ensure not just that these are the rules and we hope people abide by them, but that there will be regular inspections to make sure they are being implemented. As I stated on Committee Stage, in my correspondence and just a few moments ago to the Minister of State, the Whiddy Island disaster sets a precedent we cannot ignore in this debate. Fossil fuel companies involved in the accident at Whiddy Island were allowed to self-regulate, which had tragic results with the loss of 50 lives and also the 1 million gallons of oil that were spilled into Bantry Bay. This Bill will regulate safety conditions on vessels that conduct service to maintain offshore LNG terminals. It must contain guaranteed, clear and appropriate regulation and safety standards that recognise the dangers of this activity.