Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am afraid I am not satisfied with those answers. Sadly, I have to say that I think the Minister of State's response is misleading, and it is important that it would be very clear in the record. To say that this legislation will apply to offshore wind and that is its limit is misleading because we know it goes further than that. The language is explicitly clear in the Bill with regard to servicing the hydrocarbon industry. The hydrocarbon energy sector is not wind energy, and it is covered by the terms in the Bill.There may be an example of the kind of vessel that is of greater interest and focus and the thing the Government likes to talk about, but we, as legislators, need to lead with what is actually in front of us in the legislation. This legislation is clearly not limited in respect of the offshore wind industry. It explicitly includes the hydrocarbon industry. In that regard, it is extremely relevant that I talk about things like liquefied natural gas. Indeed, if we were talking about major coal imports and so forth, and I know Ireland has a poor record on the importation of coal from the Cerrejón mines in Colombia, for example, it is explicitly linked to the hydrocarbon industry. I have been very clear; I am not talking about the tankers. We are not talking about the large vessels that are carrying fuels. We are talking about, as was said, the service vessels containing the personnel who are servicing the energy infrastructure, be that renewable energy infrastructure or hydrocarbon fossil fuel infrastructure. Those who are servicing include those who are carrying out repairs, engaging in inspections and carrying out deliveries. I gave the example of one the many accidents we had in Bantry Bay, which involved a tug boat, not a tanker, whose collision led to the consequence and the accident. That is the kind of service vessel being covered by this legislation.

It is the case that this very much relates to the hydrocarbon industry, and we will come in a moment to my other amendments where I explicitly ask that there would be specific situations where we do not have any danger of exemptions for the hydrocarbon industry. It is also the case that I have been very clear about the kind of vessels I am speaking about, and the SOLAS Convention covers these. Chapter XV of the SOLAS Convention is the new chapter and it relates to service vessels. It is disingenuous to say we are not sure if we will apply it because we do not think it applies. Either the SOLAS Convention does not apply, in which case saying we will be consistent with it should not be a problem and we will be fine because the convention has nothing to say about service vessels, we can be consistent with the SOLAS Convention and it will not have an impact, or it does apply, in which case we are saying it may not be practical to implement the provisions of the SOLAS Convention. The SOLAS Convention is a very nuanced piece of work. It is very clear in the provisions it puts forward for different kinds of vessels. Nobody is saying the regulations for tankers within the SOLAS Convention should be applied to service vessels. We are explicitly saying we should look at Chapter XV of the SOLAS Convention, a new chapter designed to update the SOLAS Convention to address the new realities, address the new role and the role of service vessels and other vessels and be consistent with that. Either it applies to service vessels, in which case we should be consistent with it, or it does not apply to service vessels and putting the word "shall" should not be an obstacle. The choice of the word "may", however, points to the suggestion that there are rules that should be applied and we may apply them, and we will be applying this new practicality test - we do not know what will be included in it - as to whether we will choose to apply these new safety standards under Chapter XV. I do not believe that is adequate or reassuring enough for the public and it is a cop-out, frankly. Again, I do not say this to the Minister of State in a personal sense, but I believe our legislation should be very clear and say "shall" where it should say "shall". It is a step backwards.

I have covered the issue of service vessels and the question of LNG and its relevance. It is extremely relevant and it is covered by this. Why not accept "shall", even in terms of making regulations? I trust the Minister of State personally and I know he will make regulations, but I am not comfortable with a Bill that says a Minister may make regulations. That is not about this Minister of State but about a future Minister and, again, it is about looking back, learning from the Whiddy Island disaster and looking to the fact there were entire parts of the Harbours Act that were not put into effect. There were safety rules that should have been brought into effect and applied which were not. I do not feel comfortable with us letting legislation through this House that gives a future hostage by saying "may" when a future Minister may be under pressure from an industry - who knows what the circumstances - and may or may not decide to exercise the really important safety powers they are given under this legislation. I accept the Minister of State's bona fides that he will put those regulations in place, but as circumstances change and as new categories of service vessel come into play, I would like to be assured that any future Minister would also do the same.