Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 6 to 8, inclusive, concern exemptions. It was interesting what the Minister of State said about how there will be other kinds of vessels that the SOLAS Convention does not apply to, because applying the SOLAS Convention within the regulations does not mean they have to be consistent with it. There is nothing to say the Minister of State cannot exceed the provisions in the SOLAS Convention. On that idea that we have to say "may" because we may apply these standards to some vessels, I do not know if that actually stands up. We can say we shall apply it and shall be consistent with it, which means we would be meeting the standards where we need to meet them, and we can have other standards where we do not have to do so. When I put to the Minister of State the idea of having separate categories for different kinds of vessels, that was rejected by the Government in the previous set of amendments.It has chosen not to have separate provisions in respect of different kinds of vessels, and yet we have this very blunt tool whereby entire categories of vessel can be exempted from the rules. There is no tailoring or nuance but a blunt measure that allows for exemptions from the rules.

Again, I am opposed to the exemption, or the idea that any service vessels would be exempted from the rules and regulations set out here. That vote has been put on Committee Stage and lost, so I cannot bring it back, but at a minimum, there should be certain kinds of rules and vessels where exemptions are not going to be appropriate. This set of amendments tries to look at the kinds of rules from which no vessels should be made exempt, and the kinds of vessels that should not be able to make themselves exempt from the general applied safety standards.

Amendment No. 6 provides that the exemptions from the rules would be "with the exception of any rules that are necessary in order to implement the provisions of Chapter XV of the Safety Convention and the IP Code". The rules will only apply where they are relevant. With regard to Chapter XV of the safety convention, if there are rules in our set of rules and regulations the Minister makes, which are placed there to ensure compliance with Chapter XV of the safety of lives at sea convention and the international protection code, that is not something we can be exempting vessels from. Nobody should be getting an exemption from the rules put in place to ensure our compliance with international law. We have dealt with the question of whether we may include provisions in this. There are already loads of get-outs built in, such as "may include", "may apply", "it shall" etc., but if we have rules that are necessary - the standard I have here is "necessary" and not just ideal - in order to implement the provisions of Chapter XV of the safety convention, we do not exempt industrial personnel or service vessels from those rules.

Amendment No. 7 refers to "requirements outlined under subsection (3)". Those are the clear requirements with regard to essential safety and are areas without exemptions.

Amendment No. 8 specifies that the exemptions would not apply to "offshore service vessels engaged in offshore industrial activity related to the hydrocarbon energy sector". The Minister of State has stated that from his perspective, this Bill is really just about offshore wind and that the fossil fuel industry and the LNG sector are not the key focus of the legislation. They are a key danger, however, so it should be reasonable to accept my amendment No. 8, which provides that any exemptions from the application of the rules will not be available to "offshore service vessels engaged in offshore industrial activity" servicing the fossil fuel industry. The provision I am concerned about includes the potential exclusion of vessels associated, for example, with the construction of offshore LNG facilities from safety rules as laid out under section 46.

Just yesterday, Donald Trump suggested that Europe could avoid tariffs if countries began to buy something that is, in effect, asking people to burn our future in order to appease the United States today. That is what we are talking about, given that LNG as a massive accelerant of climate change. The United States is the largest LNG exporter in the world today and they have left the Paris Agreement. The liquefied natural gas and fracked gas that is being extracted in the United States is in no way being moderated in terms of its impact on climate change. They are out of the Paris Agreement. This is directly contributing to an intensification of climate change and is in a situation where they are not even going to be bothering to measure that impact or in any way seek to mitigate or cancel that anymore. We are talking about a fuel that has a quicker and more intense impact on emissions coming from a country that has said it no longer cares about emissions at all. That is what is being proposed to come into Ireland and Europe. In that context, where there is a whole lot of not caring happening, it is very important that at a minimum we show that we care about the safety of the immediate environment and of the communities who will be affected. There is a reason why Ireland brought a ban on fracking on our own soil, even though we now propose to import the gas fracked elsewhere.

Section 46(9) refers to "a class or classes" of service vessels. Amendment No. 6, as I said, is related to amendment No. 27 from Committee Stage. Amendment No. 7 I have outlined. Amendment No. 8 specifically focuses on the industrial activity, including the construction, maintenance, servicing and repair of offshore LNG facilities associated with the hydrocarbon energy sector. I would like if the Minister of State could specifically answer whether he will agree that there will be no exemptions from the rules for the service vessels involved in this industry, and second, the other questions around there being no exemption from those rules that are necessary to implement the provisions of Chapter XV of the safety convention.

I would suggest, because on Report Stage we do not get to come in very often, that it is not sufficient to say Chapter XV of the SOLAS convention does not apply to all vessels. In that case, my amendment would not be a problem because it relates to the "rules... necessary in order to implement the provisions of Chapter XV". If there a vessel to which Chapter XV does not apply, it will not be caught in my amendment. My amendment will only capture situations where there are rules that are necessary for the implementation of Chapter XV. Surely there should be no exemption from such rules.