Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 1, in the name of Senator Collins, has been ruled out of order due to a potential charge on Revenue.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, in the name of Senator Collins, have been ruled out of order as they are not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill and due to a potential charge on Revenue.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, in the name of Senator Collins, have been ruled out or order as they are not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill and due to a potential charge on Revenue.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 6 to 8, inclusive, 10 and 11 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 10, line 8, after “experience” to insert the following: “including, but not be limited to, environmental expertise and expertise in search and rescue operations”.

The amendment relates to the investigations and investigators of incidents. It would specifically name environmental expertise and expertise in search and rescue operations as expertises that should be contained within the investigatory unit. It does not require that every individual investigator would have those expertises but given that we know some of the most important consequences of merchant shipping accidents may be related to the environmental impact, and given the concern that accidents may have consequences relevant in terms of search and rescue, these are areas of skill and expertise that should be contained within the unit. Whether or not the chief investigator has those explicit skills, the unit must be able to draw on them in this regard.

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator. These amendments deal with the experience and qualifications of investigators, the recruitment process and the eligibility requirements for appointment as investigator of the marine accident investigation unit, MAIU. First, I want to address amendments Nos. 6 to 8, inclusive, and 11, relating to qualifications, experience and training. Section 9 provides that the MAIU shall be staffed with investigators who possess the requisite independence, qualifications and experience who shall perform the functions of the MAIU. It is not desirable to provide in legislation for the specific qualifications of the investigators. It would mean that if any changes need to be made to qualifications in future, the primary legislation would need to be amended. Ireland is a member of the International Maritime Organization, IMO, the casualty investigation code of, which sets out the guidance regarding the qualifications of marine accident investigators. This code is updated periodically and the recommended qualifications and skills of investigators may change in future.

Regarding continuing professional development and training, this is similarly not a matter for legislation. The chief investigator is responsible for managing the business of the MAIU to ensure it can perform its functions. It will be a matter for the chief investigator to ensure that investigators maintain appropriate standards of continuing professional development. Paragraph (b) of amendment No. 7 seeks to provide that the recruitment of investigators shall not be at the sole discretion of the chief investigator. I assure Senators this will not be the case. Section 9 provides the Public Appointments Service, PAS, will manage the recruitment of investigators. PAS is the centralised provider of recruitment, assessment and selection services across the civil and public service. It provides an open and transparent recruitment process to identity candidates for public sector roles and has a strong reputation for independence and merit-based selection.

Amendment No. 10 arises from pre-legislative scrutiny. The general scheme of the Bill contained a provision stating a person who holds or held a position as a civil servant at any time during the five-year period before the establishment of the MAIU would not be eligible for appointment as an investigator. During pre-legislative scrutiny, it was argued by the expert stakeholders that this eligibility requirement was not necessary and that, given the size of our marine sector, it would be shortsighted to exclude experienced individuals who do not meet this criterion. The expert stakeholders proposed to reduce the period from five years to one year. I agree individuals should not be excluded by having worked in the Civil Service and, further, that removing the provision completely is the most appropriate course of action.

The Bill provides extensively for the independence of investigators on marine safety investigations. Section 7 provides that the MAIU must be independent in its organisation and in the performance of its functions. Section 9 provides that investigators shall be independent and section 10 obliges the chief investigator to ensure the compliance of the unit with the independence requirements of the EU directive. Section 10 also provides that the chief investigator of the MAIU shall not receive instruction from any official in the Department with a role in the maritime policy or operational area.

Section 11 outlines detailed provisions regarding conflicts of interest, including a requirement that the Minister put in place a robust conflict of interest policy within six months of the establishment of the unit. Section 28 outlines strict provisions regarding confidentiality and sharing of information.

The Bill is clear the maritime division within the Department of Transport will have no involvement in the MAIU. Given the extensive nature of the provisions regarding independence of investigators in the Bill, I do not believe amendment No. 10 is necessary. Including it would exclude experienced individuals from applying from investigator roles. Given all I have outlined above, I trust Senators will understand why I have decided not to accept these amendments.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State. My apologies to Senator Collins, I did not ask her if she wanted to speak before the Minister of State. If she does now, she is more than welcome to do so. Otherwise, I will put the question to the House.

Joanne Collins (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, is this on all amendments?

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, amendments Nos. 10 and 11.

Joanne Collins (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak for a second, if that is okay.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely.

Joanne Collins (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 10 is to ensure there is ongoing training and professional development for our investigators. Maritime technology, safety regulations and accident investigation methodologies are consistently evolving. Investigators must receive continual training to ensure their work remains aligned with international best practice. This amendment would place a legal obligation on the Minister to ensure this happens.

Amendment No. 11 would enhance accountability by requiring that the MAIU's annual report include updates on safety recommendations. We cannot allow the reports to gather dust on the shelf. There must be transparency on actions taken and not taken in response to recommendations from previous investigations. This measure will ensure lessons are learned and acted upon.

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree it is important we have continuing professional development and keep up to date with all improvements in standards. It is important to note the Bill as set out has agility in relation to people with qualifications or whose qualifications change and is not overly prescriptive about the qualifications required. Otherwise, we would have to change the primary legislation every time something new comes in. We need that agility and that is why we are sticking with what we have in the Bill.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would slightly quibble with that. I do not believe mentioning areas of expertise that are needed will dissuade individuals because it is needed across and we have this in a lot of other legislation. We have it, for example, in terms of the Climate Change Advisory Council. I can list off legislation in which we recognise that a range of expertise is needed across the entire team. It does not mean that every individual has to hit these different standards, either what I look for in amendment No. 6 or in terms of amendments Nos. 7 and 8 from Sinn Féin, which talk about what is needed in terms of master mariners and various other qualifications and practical experience. I do not think looking for that precludes it. It makes the team as a whole more agile in that its members know they have the skills to draw on right across an investigatory team. I am concerned. We have seen situations, for example, in the first Climate Change Advisory Council, where it ended up with six economists and no environmental scientist because there was no thought to ensuring there would be certain expertise, and that can sometimes happen. You get a number of similar individuals who come forward and the breadth of what is needed is not addressed.

I urge between now and Report Stage, if the Minister of State is not addressing it in the Bill, that he look to what the mechanisms there are to ensure he gets the breadth of skills that are going to be needed in what is a very serious responsibility of investigating accidents and how that will be monitored so that the gaps that may arise across that team are identified and dealt with. Again, the idea of just a sole discretionary piece for the chief investigator is not enough, and that is something Sinn Féin has spoken to. I urge the Minister to reflect on this between Committee and Report Stages and, when we come back on Report Stage, he might let us know what the mechanisms actually are going to be rather than simply saying we want to be open, flexible and agile. Agility might be one of the skills that is needed, but there are many others that are needed as well.

Joanne Collins (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 10, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: “(a) staff should be qualified master mariners, ship surveyors and/or marine engineers and their competencies should include marine engineering, naval architecture and seagoing experience;

(b) appointment of staff should not be at the sole discretion of the Chief Investigator;

(c) necessary staff qualifications should be outlined in a protocol between the Minister and the MAIU.”.

Joanne Collins (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 10, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: “(2) The Minister shall ensure the investigations must be held by suitably qualified persons who have appropriate working knowledge and practical experience in the subject matter of the safety investigation they are conducting.”.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 9 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.

Joanne Collins (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 10, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following: “(5) A person who holds, or held at any time during the one year period immediately before the relevant date—

(a) an established position as a civil servant as an officer of the Minister, or

(b) an unestablished position as a civil servant as an officer of the Minister,

shall not be eligible for appointment as an investigator under subsection (1).”.

Joanne Collins (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 13, after line 39, to insert the following: “(3) The Minister shall ensure all investigators undergo training and continuing professional development programmes in order to ensure standards in investigations are fully compliant with best practice.”.

Joanne Collins (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 14, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: “(4) The annual report will also identify the safety recommendations issued and action (by whatever body or authority) taken or planned in accordance with recommendations issued previously.”.

Amendment No. 12, is all about strengthening co-operation between the MAIU and other authorities. When a maritime accident occurs, multiple agencies may be involved, whether it is An Garda Síochána in the case of criminal investigations, authorities identifying victims, or international bodies with a stake in the incident. This amendment would impose a duty on investigators to co-operate fully with these authorities, ensuring that investigations are not carried out in silos. This amendment also introduces a clear protocol for handling incidents where there may be evidence of unlawful interference or criminal activity. If investigators suspect foul play, they must be required to immediately notify the appropriate security and law enforcement agencies, both in Ireland and internationally. This is a critical safeguard to ensure that serious incidents are not treated solely as safety matters when there may be broader issues of concern.

Furthermore, this amendment will familiarise people with how the national accident investigation office should collaborate with other agencies, which includes issues such as evidence collection, site management and witness interviews. Having clear written protocols in place will prevent jurisdictional conflicts and ensure the investigations proceed smoothly and effectively.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister of State wish to respond? I want to check that Senator Collins was speaking on amendment No. 12.

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I believe it was amendment No. 14.

Joanne Collins (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Was it?

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 14 is out of order, as it is not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill. We are on amendment No. 12.

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It concerns the annual report with regard to safety recommendations and the actions taken by bodies and authorities.

Joanne Collins (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry. I bunched that in with the other amendment.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine. Does the Senator wish to speak on amendment No. 12?

Joanne Collins (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, that is okay.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister of State wish to respond on amendment No. 12?

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. Section 15 deals with the annual report of the MAIU. It provides that:

The annual report shall- (a) identify the marine accidents occurring during the period to which it relates,

(b) contain a summary of the position in respect of marine safety investigations ongoing or completed during that year, and

(c) provide information on safety recommendations that were issued by the MAIU that year and actions taken in that year in accordance with recommendations issued in previous years.

The amendment tabled by the Senator proposes to add to paragraph (c) actions taken "by whatever body or authority". The text of the Bill is clear that the annual report shall provide information on actions to which recommendations were issued the previous year. Recommendations are directed towards specific bodies or authorities. The action is linked to the recommendation and this is implicit within the text of the Bill as it stands. Therefore, I consider amendment No. 12 unnecessary.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 20, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following: “(3) Where a person requests that a direction under subsection (1) be given in writing, an investigator must provide that direction by such means.”.

Section 25 outlines the powers an investigator has but I am a little concerned about the lack of clear checks and balances in terms of the potential overreach of those powers and accountability for how they are used. Section 25 allows an investigator to give a direction orally or in writing that must be complied with to avoid serious penalties. That is fine if there is clarity on the direction, everyone is agreed on the direction and the actions are taken. However, if there is ambiguity, if there is going to be an issue where somebody is being charged with failing to follow a direction, for example, or if there is a lack of clarity in regard to the direction, it is reasonable that the person who has been given a direction would request that he or she be given the direction in writing.An oral direction is fine if someone is required to move to a certain location or empty something out, but where there is ambiguity regarding a direction and somebody is concerned their rights may have been infringed and that they might be charged with or accused of not complying with it, it is very reasonable to ask for it to be in writing. That does not have to mean a delay in that there is the capacity to issue a direction in writing there and then. It could be done on a notepad. It is important that somebody has a record that he or she has been given a certain direction if this is requested. It is important that if a person has concerns about the implications of a direction, such as its safety implications, he or she has a record of having been given that direction.

Again, it is a simple amendment. It states that where a person requests that a direction under subsection (1) be given in writing, the investigator must provide that direction by such means. Just to clarify, the legislation as it stands is drafted to allow an investigator to issue directions orally. This could lead to a lack of clarity, even where there may be a language barrier. Since there is a class A fine for those who fail to comply with a direction, it is a minimal thing for those who face such a consequence to be told clearly, in a manner they can understand and can then point to, what they have been asked to comply with. It is a small change but it would lead to better accountability, clarity and efficacy regarding the processes set out in the Bill.

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The section provides for the powers of investigators to give directions to any person in or in the vicinity of a ship or the wreckage of a ship involved in a marine accident. Such directions may prevent or regulate access to the scene of the accident. This is crucial for the preservation of evidence. The nature of investigations is such that an investigator must have powers to give directions orally and for those oral directions to have immediate effect. Investigators must be able to secure the site of an investigation immediately or risk compromising the evidence. If a person requests a direction in writing, this will be a matter for the chief investigator of the MAIU, not a matter for legislation. The reason is that requiring an investigator to provide directions in writing may cause ambiguity about the point at which those directions apply. If directions do not apply until received in writing, there is nothing to prevent a person from accessing the site of the accident in the meantime, potentially compromising crucial evidence. For this reason, I trust Senators understand why I am not accepting the amendment.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With respect, what is in fact created by the current wording is ambiguity. It is not just a matter of a person at a site; it could be a person in the vicinity of the site. There may be an issue over language, for example. If, for instance, someone is simply engaged in an animal rescue after a disaster or accident, the direction might not be clear. There does not need to be a delay. My amendment does not state a warrant must be created nor does it require a judicial order. It does not even require that the chief investigator would have to give the direction. If an order is worth giving orally, it is worth giving it in writing. There does not need to be ambiguity. My amendment requires that the direction be given in writing. If the Minister of State is concerned solely with the issue of timing, maybe he wants to come back with an amendment that states a person may ask that the direction given be confirmed for him or her in writing. That would ensure the direction has applied from the point at which it was given orally. A person is entitled to have a record of the direction given to him or her. There are significant consequences, including class A fines, for those who breach directions. While we are referring to persons in the vicinity of an accident, I am almost concerned about those who might be in a community surrounding an accident, who may, absolutely inadvertently, not be clear about what they are required to do. Again, it is worth considering. As I said, the majority of my amendments, as the Minister of State will see later, look to strengthen the penalties and measures because this is extremely serious. I am worried that a large portion of the Bill is far too light, and certainly for major commercial actors, it represents barely any disincentive in terms of compliance with safety standards. It is not in any way a case of looking to undermine the powers of an investigator or somebody acting in a similar role but to ensure clarity and transparency. The Minister of State might consider, if the sole issue is the timing issue, whether the solution might be - I may be bring something on Report Stage regarding this - that if a person asks for a record of the direction, it may be given to them in writing. That seems to be something that could address the concern about when it takes effect. I am taking on board the Minister of State's concern there.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 14 and 15, in the name of Senator Collins, are ruled out of order as they are not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill and include a potential charge on Revenue.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On this section, I am surprised by the rulings regarding the amendments tabled by Sinn Féin but it would be useful to clarify, with regard to the core issues of the section, why these amendments cannot be considered at this time. This section is one where there is the possibility to address the core issues, which relate to co-operation with other authorities and how that works. It would be useful for us, especially before the Bill goes on to Report Stage, to be clear as to what the plans are for how this Bill will intersect with other authorities and jurisdictions, and with regard to areas where there may be questions around international co-operation. Later, I will come to my own amendments on search and rescue and those kinds of contexts, but that is certainly one example where an element of international co-operation may be involved. On those issues, the wording of the Sinn Féin amendments may not have been acceptable but the issues will be significant with respect to how this Bill operates.

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

First, the amendments were ruled out by the direction of the Clerk.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand completely.

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This section prohibits the unauthorised disclosure of confidential information by investigators. Is that the section we are talking about?

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It prohibits the disclosure of confidential information by investigators, administrative staff of the MAIU, staff of the Department to whom access to information and documents is granted for the purposes of administration and information technology functions, and any consultant or adviser engaged by the unit. This section also provides for the meaning of "maintain confidentiality" with regard to the Act, for the avoidance of ambiguity. These provisions are an important part of maintaining the independence of the unit.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps we can come back to this on Report Stage but it is useful to get the back-and-forth in order that we can refine the meaning. The question as to that exchange of information becomes an issue with regard to co-operation between different bodies and to international co-operation, so I wanted to signal that that may be something we need to come back to. It would be good if on Report Stage the Minister of State could elaborate on how that exchange of information operates between jurisdictions and bodies, as well as internally with respect to the independence of the unit, which I think is fine.

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 21 on mutual assistance transposes the requirement of the EU directive that the MAIU must co-operate with and provide assistance to the marine safety investigation authorities of other member states for investigations that fall within the scope of the directive and impact on one or more of the member states. It also provides that only one member state should lead an investigation that impacts on more than one member state. Parallel investigations may only be carried out in exceptional circumstances, and the reasons for doing so must be notified to the European Commission. It also provides that a member state assisting the lead member state with an investigation is not responsible for costs.

This section provides for the MAIU to co-operate in a marine safety investigation conducted by a substantially interested third party and to co-operate with the European Maritime Safety Agency.

This section also outlines the responsibility for investigating an accident involving a ro-ro ferry or a high-speed passenger craft. The MAIU is responsible for an investigation into an accident involving such vessels if it takes place in territorial waters of the State or where the State is the last member state visited by that ferry or craft.

That was just a little more on that section.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 16 is ruled out of order due to a potential charge on Revenue. Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are ruled out of order because they are not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill and a potential charge on the Revenue.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 19 is ruled out of order because it is not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill and a potential charge on Revenue.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is one of the key pieces. The Minister of State will be aware of the many recommendations arising from the committee pre-legislative examination of this legislation and others. I understand that what is ruled in and out of order is not the Minister of State’s decision but I regret the House’s decision on matters like the tribunals of inquiry and the safety checks and balances. While the Bill addresses the functioning of the investigatory unit and so forth, the question of the checks and balances and how the unit fits in with the wider architecture, which is part of ensuring its independence and effectiveness, is the missing piece.

There had been proposals on what the review mechanism would be in terms of investigations and what a tribunal of inquiry would look like in respect of the practices of investigations. However, I wish to explicitly raise the question of the coroners’ courts, what the engagement of the investigators with them will be and how they will be part of that, because it touches on the question of search and rescue, in which context there are sometimes significant marine casualties, sadly. Perhaps this is covered by the coroners legislation, but it is important that the Minister of State at least give verbal assurance to the House that investigators under this legislation will be expected to give full co-operation to the coroners’ courts, including in the provision of relevant evidence. It may be covered by the coroners' end of the legislation and might not need to be inserted here, but as we are setting up this new unit, it is important there be no ambiguity in their responsibility. We know there have been situations of marine casualties where coroners’ investigations have been required.

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator for raising the issue. There are a number of matters. There is nothing in the Bill that precludes the MAIU from engaging with the coroner. Nothing in the Bill precludes a coroner from referring to a report of the MAIU during an inquest because questions of liability, whether criminal or civil, are not part of the coronial process. It is a strict requirement of the new directive that the investigations of the MAIU must be independent of other parallel investigations. The sharing of evidence between the MAIU and other bodies would be contrary to this. There is also a risk of creating a chilling effect whereby witnesses would be fearful of sharing evidence with investigators if that information were to be used for any purpose other than the investigation of the accident.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am a little more concerned now than I was when I first spoke. The Minister of State indicated that there is nothing to preclude the MAIU from engaging but then outlined something that seemed to suggest it would be precluded. I do not believe this is the intention of the directive. The coroner's court looks into causes of death. I do not believe this should be considered to be at odds with an investigation into the cause of an accident. Perhaps there is an issue with the sequencing of investigations.

I do not agree with the Minister of State's on sharing evidence. It is not a parallel investigation if there is a coroner's investigation into the cause of death of an individual and an investigation into a marine accident . I do not see these as being at odds. I hope the Minister of State, either today or on Report Stage, will very clearly signal that this will not be an obstacle. What the Minister of State has described is something that could be very easily used by investigators to choose not to share information with a coroner's court, using the exact arguments that they do not want to be part of two investigations, it would interfere with their independence or that it may have a chilling effect on people coming forward. Perhaps there is a need for safeguards regarding the type of evidence that is shared, how the evidence is shared and the sequencing involved. These issues may be complicated, but the fact that they are complicated points to the need to be very clear in the law in terms of how the engagement should take place. As the Minister of State said, there is sensitivity in the context of independence. However, there is also the very important work done by coroners. That work should be supported. There may be an opportunity for the Department to come back with an amendment on Report Stage which clarifies the position when it comes to engagement.

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Nothing in the Bill precludes the MAIU from engaging with a coroner.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister of State have an expectation that there would be such engagement?

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely. In addition, nothing in the Bill precludes coroners from referring to a report of the MAIU in their investigations. This is the kernel of what Senator Higgins is saying, which is that there should be a sharing of information.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 20 to 26, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will respond to amendments Nos. 20 to 26, inclusive.

The purpose of Part 8 is to allow us to regulate offshore service vessels, and there is a key aspect in this section which provides the Minister with the power to make rules for such regulation. I confirm that it is my intention, if and when this Bill is enacted, to have rules progressed as soon as possible using that power. Indeed, work has already commenced in updating the cargo ship rules and high-speed craft rules which will form the base certifications for these vessels. It is important the powers are provided, but not that there is a mandatory obligation placed on a Minister to make rules or regulations. Under the Merchant Shipping Act, it is standard drafting language to use the term "may" rather than "shall" when providing such a power.

The Senator is also proposing to make it mandatory for any rules made under the section to specify the need to comply with requirements of recognised organisations. Some of the vessels we are referring to here, however, will be small crew transfer vessels which will be operating domestically to and from wind farms. Recognised organisations typically only prescribe requirements for larger ships on international voyages. As such, it is impractical to make it mandatory for smaller offshore service vessels on domestic voyages to comply with the requirements as set out by recognised organisations.

The Senator also wishes to make it mandatory for the rules to require compliance with the provisions of chapter XV of the SOLAS Convention and the IP Code. That convention and code typically relate to ships on international voyages, however, which are 500 gross tonnes and greater. For such vessels, it is our intention to comply with our obligations under the convention. It may not be practical, however, to apply the provision of the convention or the code to smaller vessels less than 500 gross tonnes operating on domestic voyages. We need to be able to determine the most appropriate safety standards from the vessel based on its size, purpose and area of operation. The Senator further wishes to make it a requirement to have different rules for different classes of vessels and make it mandatory to take into account the listed criteria. It is practical to have the option to have different sets of rules given the different types of vessels that may be involved, but it will be determined during the drafting process as to what rules are required and whether a single set can be used to cover a range of vessels. As such, the use of the term "may" is more practical in this instance. The Senator also wishes to make it a mandatory requirement for the Minister to accept alternative approaches in terms of construction and provision of equipment, which is not appropriate. This should be the exception rather than the rule. It could be the case that some of the offshore service vessels may be, or were previously, flagged to another state that provided for different requirements. This provision, therefore, would allow acceptance of an alternative manner in terms of construction or equipment once it was of an equivalent standard. This will be determined after the full survey and should not be mandatorily accepted under legislation.

The Senator also wishes to make it mandatory for any rules to include survey requirements. Offshore service vessels cannot be provided with a certificate under section 48 of this Bill without first having undergone the appropriate survey. I confirm that any rules drafted under this section would set out the detailed survey requirements, but it is more appropriate to maintain a consistent drafting approach throughout this section.

The Senator proposes to make it mandatory for any rules under the section to include incidental, supplementary and consequential provisions. There may not be any of those types of provision required and, therefore, it is not practical to make it mandatory to include such matters.

For the reasons I have set out, I cannot accept the amendments. However, I wish to reiterate my commitment to the Senator that it is my intention to progress the preparation of the rules using the powers under this section of the Bill.

The Senator mentioned LNG tankers. LNG carriers importing LNG into Ireland, which is the carriage of dangerous goods on a large scale, is separate to what is being provided under this Bill. Given that the primary purpose of such carriers is the transportation of LNG internationally to Ireland, they would not be certified as offshore service vessels under this Bill. Instead, such carriers must be certified under the relevant provision of the SOLAS Convention, including chapter VII on the carriage of dangerous codes and the international code for the construction and equipment of ships carrying liquefied gas in bulk. LNG carriers do not fall within the scope of the Bill.

The definitions in the Bill are entirely in line with the SOLAS Convention and we want to align with international best practice and meet our obligations under the convention. The 2010 Act's provisions refer specifically to ships that fall within the scope of the SOLAS Convention only. That is why the term "shall" is used. The vessels to be provided for under this Bill may fall outside the scope of the convention and we need to be able to determine the most appropriate standards from the convention that can be applied to smaller vessels. It would not be practical to apply all the provisions of the convention to them.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is somewhat of a contradiction there because, on the one hand, we are talking about wanting to abide by international best practice and the SOLAS Convention but, on the other, we have twice been told that it "may" not be practical to apply the convention. Are we applying the international best practice standards or are we not because we do not think it is practical to do so? I am very aware that the other parts of the SOLAS Convention deal with other categories of vessel but its chapter XV, which my amendment explicitly names, directly engages with and addresses the issues of exactly this category of service vessel. Chapter XV is relevant. The convention has updated its standards and chapter XV is a new chapter that was added to it to reflect the urgent need of ensuring proper safety and regulation of this category of service vessels.

With respect, the Minister of State's position is inconsistent with the fact that, when we spoke about the SOLAS Convention in previous legislation, we indicated that we would apply it. Here, the Minister of State is saying that we "may" apply it. The speaking notes that seem to be arriving from the Department are saying that it may or may not be practicable. That does not give reassurance or confidence to the public. This is not ancient history.Fifty people died in Cork due to negligence by companies, compounded by the negligence of the State in not ensuring there was proper application of safety standards. This is an immensely serious piece. I am not suggesting these are LNG tankers but the point is if we are dealing with one of the filthiest, most dangerous forms of fossil fuel on earth and are bringing it through Irish waters, there will be service vehicles and vessels related to it, which will engage with it, may repair such tankers, and may engage in all the various categories of activity. It is not too much to ask that they have to abide by safety standards given, and this is the direction of travel, sadly, that will affect all our futures on this planet, that the fossil fuel industry is profiteering like never before. In 2022, that industry went from approximately $1.5 trillion in profits to approximately $4 trillion in profits. It is making hundreds of billions of dollars. It can afford to reach and meet safety standards, even on the service vessels that are engaging with these tankers and this industry. If we want our renewable industries to have high standards, we should expect that its service vessels also have the highest of standards. That is very important because I do not want the public perception of renewable energy to be tainted if accidents occur in circumstances where they could have been avoided.

I am not reassured in respect of the applications. I have no doubt about the Minister of State's personal commitment regarding these regulations but the fact that reasons we might not are already being included and mentioned indicates that we need guarantees in the legislation. I urge him on this. He mentioned consistency in the style of the Bill. The consistency of this Bill in respect of previous merchant shipping legislation is as, or more, important than happening to use the same words of "may" and "shall" throughout the different sections of the Bill. As I said, the Bill should move from "may" to "shall" at many points, but when it comes to amendment No. 22 and the application of the directly relevant chapter of SOLAS, namely, chapter XV, the word has to be "shall" and it has to be a guarantee.

I will press these amendments. I may not press amendment No. 22 because this matter is too serious. I genuinely urge the Minister of State to go back, look for a standard, and say we need a very good reason for not wanting to apply safety standards in this context. The public will want to hear some very good reasons we choose not to apply the relevant international safety standards. That is one we need to come back to.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 31, line 30, to delete “may” and substitute “shall”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 31, line 32, to delete “may” and substitute “shall”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 31, line 35, to delete “may” and substitute “shall”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 32, line 15, to delete “may” and substitute “shall”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 32, line 35, to delete “may” and substitute “shall”.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 27 to 30, inclusive, are related. Amendments Nos. 28 to 30, inclusive, are physical alternatives to amendment No. 27. Amendments Nos. 27 to 30, inclusive, may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 33, to delete lines 1 to 3.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator, before you speak, I wish to let you know that, in about three or four minutes, I might have to interrupt you.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sure, to report progress. That is fine.

Amendment No. 27 seeks to delete section 46(9). This subsection, very worryingly, suggests that entire classes of offshore service vessels may be exempted from requirements to comply with any provision of the rules. This provision is particularly concerning in the context of offshore service vessels that may be involved in the construction, maintenance and servicing of offshore LNG facilities.

Amendment No. 28 is an alternative to amendment No. 27 and seeks to amend section 46(9) to ensure that exemptions from offshore vessels and IP rules cannot be extended to any rules that are necessary to implement the provisions of chapter XV of SOLAS and the IP code.

Amendment No. 29 seeks to achieve the same thing as amendment No. 28 but with a different wording.

Amendment No. 30 seeks to amend section 46(9) to ensure that offshore services involved in industrial activity related to the hydrocarbon energy sector shall not be exempted from requirements to comply with offshore service vessels and IP rules.

This subsection basically says we can exempt entire categories of offshore service vessels from all the rules we may put in place. We can decide there is a whole kind of vessel that will just not have any rules applied to it such that those vessels have a blanket exemption. This is in a context of our record of accidents in the State and the failures in Cork and elsewhere in addressing this. It is extraordinarily alarming that there are such exemptions. This may not involve the Minister of State, but any future Minister may come under pressure from industry lobbyists. He or she may decide to exempt a whole category of vessels and say the rules do not apply to them. That is a wrong provision. It should not be in the Bill. At a minimum, it should not be the case that vessels can be exempted from the rules contained in the international convention. If Ireland has signed up to it, we have signed up to it, so we should not be able to exempt certain people and say that those international safety standards apply to everybody but not to these guys. At another minimum, given the explicit and extra dangers, environmentally and socially, that flow from the fossil fuel industry and hydrocarbons more widely, it should not be the case that any vessels working with or involved in the fossil fuel industry would be exempted from requirements to comply with safety standards under this legislation. To me, that is obvious, and I would like the Minister of State to indicate whether he will remove this subsection altogether or whether he will at least put some form of guardrails around how that exemption may be applied by a future Minister.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call the Minister of State to respond. He has about 30 seconds before I adjourn the debate.

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator proposes the deletion of an exemption provision. This is a practical provision, however, and it makes sense to include it, given the various types of offshore vessel we will be legislating for. The Senator suggests that no exemptions should be permitted under rules implementing the safety convention and the IP code or for offshore service vessels involved in certain activities. I must point out that the safety convention itself has exemption provisions within it that recognise that features of a novel kind may be required for certain vessels. Such exemptions are permitted where the vessel complies with the necessary safety requirement as determined by the appropriate administration. It is not intended that this will be a default position but rather occurring in exceptional cases. The types of vessel we are talking about are new and evolving all the time, including in terms of how they are powered, so some flexibility is required. Therefore, I cannot accept these amendments.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As it is 6 p.m. now, I ask Senator Duffy to report progress on the Bill.

Mark Duffy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I report progress.