Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Canney. I remind Senators that they may speak only once on Report Stage, except for the proposer of an amendment, who may reply to the discussion on that amendment. Each amendment on Report Stage must be seconded.

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

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 23, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following: "Special provisions for search and rescue operations

30. (1) When conducting a marine safety investigation involving search and rescue operations, the Marine Accident Investigation Unit shall:

(a) take into account the unique operational context of emergency response;

(b) consider the time-critical and high-risk nature of such operations;

(c) distinguish between decisions made during emergency response and standard maritime operations; and

(d) ensure investigators have appropriate expertise in search and rescue operations.

(2) The Marine Accident Investigation Unit shall establish a memorandum of understanding with relevant search and rescue organisations, including but not limited to the Irish Coast Guard, RNLI and volunteer rescue services, to ensure appropriate coordination during investigations.

(3) Volunteer members of search and rescue organisations shall not be required to:

(a) submit to medical examinations or provide biological samples under section 29 without their consent except where required by a coroner;

(b) attend interviews outside of reasonable hours or locations considering their volunteer status; or

(c) produce documents beyond those that would reasonably be expected to be maintained by a volunteer organisation.

(4) Safety recommendations arising from investigations involving search and rescue operations shall be developed in consultation with relevant search and rescue organisations.".

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

I second the amendment.

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

My amendment proposes certain special provisions. I mentioned search and rescue, SAR, as one of the contexts that may arise in which special expertise is required, alongside environmental expertise. In effect, the amendment provides for special provisions search and rescue operations that may be undertaken by the vessels covered under this legislation.

The special provisions I propose are that when conducting a marine safety investigation involving search and rescue, the marine accident investigation unit, MAIU, should do the following: take into account the unique operational context of emergency response and the time-critical and high-risk nature of such operations; distinguish between decisions made during an emergency response and standard operations; ensure investigators have appropriate expertise in search and rescue contexts; establish a memorandum of understanding with other relevant SAR organisations, including but not limited to the Irish Coast Guard, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, RNLI, and volunteer rescue services, to ensure appropriate co-ordination during the investigations; and that there be certain tasks that volunteer members of search and rescue organisations should not be required to do, considering their volunteer status, including activities to do with biological samples and medical examinations, interviews outside of reasonable hours or locations and documentation beyond that which would usually be maintained.

It is about recognising that there may be a situation wherein volunteers are involved in an incident that requires investigation by the MAIU, that there may be a need for certain slightly different provisions that recognise the voluntary nature of those roles and that their position is slightly different from that of the employees and personnel covered in other aspects of the legislation.

Are amendments grouped, a Leas-Chathaoirligh? May I speak on amendment No. 2?

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are just dealing with amendment No. 1 right now.

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

The Bill does not really address the particular circumstances of emergency responders. My amendment would strengthen the legislation. Following incidents like the tragedy involving Caitríona Lucas, it would help to ensure lessons are learnt while respecting the essential work of both the emergency responders and the marine accident investigation unit. The amendment would strengthen the Bill and it should be considered.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with much of what Senator Higgins said. In any marine accident, speed is of the essence in getting answers and understanding what happened. That is truly important. The Lucas case raised certain issues with respect to interviews, the removal of certain items from the scene of the accident and, if I recall correctly, the investigation into the life jackets that were used. I may be wrong on the last point but, as far as I recall, that was the situation.

We must treat volunteers differently but it is also the case that investigations must be immediate. We saw that with the loss of Rescue 116, notwithstanding that there was significant legal advice regarding that crash. In such cases, we depend on the report on an accident to help us to change the methodologies, procedures and practices that are in place. Reports must be comprehensive and they need to be published very quickly. I agree with most of what my colleague Senator Higgins said. Her amendment would improve the Bill.

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

I thank Senators for their contributions. This amendment deals with a number of points relating to search and rescue operations, including the conduct of an investigation in this context, the expertise of investigators, co-operation between the MAIU and the SAR bodies, the exemption of volunteers from certain requirements in the Bill and the collaborative development of safety recommendations.

I remind the House that the MAIU will be an independent unit, the purpose of which will be to determine the cause or causes of marine accidents and make recommendations that seek to improve maritime safety in the future. As an independent unit, the conduct of an investigation will be a matter for the chief investigator or his or her designated investigator in charge. The chief investigator will be guided in this regard by the casualty investigation code of the International Maritime Organization, IMO. It would not be appropriate to prescribe in legislation particulars regarding how an investigation into an accident involving search and rescue operations is conducted.

I have stated previously, and it remains my view, that it is not desirable to provide in legislation for the specific qualifications and experience of individual investigators. Section 9 requires that the MAIU be staffed by investigators who possess the requisite qualifications and experience in order for the unit to deliver its functions. The chief investigator will be responsible for ensuring the MAIU can effectively perform its marine accident investigation functions, including by ensuring staff across the unit develop and maintain the appropriate mix of skills and training.

There is nothing in the Bill to preclude the MAIU from developing, within the protocols, a memorandum of understanding with SAR bodies regarding how they work together within the confines of their respective remits. However, such arrangements are not appropriate for legislation. It is a matter for the chief investigator to determine whether such protocols are needed and what arrangements should be set out therein.

On exempting search and rescue volunteers from certain requirements within the Bill, I am concerned that this would weaken the ability of investigators to collect crucial evidence. I remind Senators that the purpose of a marine safety investigation is not to apportion blame or determine liability but to seek to identify the cause of the accident to develop safety recommendations. It would not be appropriate, nor would it be in line with our EU obligations regarding independence, for the MAIU to be required to develop safety recommendations in consultation with search and rescue organisations. I would like to highlight, however, that section 33 requires the MAIU to share a draft report with anyone likely to be adversely impacted by its publication. The Bill provides that the MAIU should take any observations submitted in accordance with this section into account before publishing its report and may incorporate the observations into its findings or recommendations in the report, or make such comments on them in the report as it sees fit. Given the reasons I have stated, I trust Senators will understand that I have decided not to accept the amendment.

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

I understand the Minister of State is not accepting the amendment but I suggest we are just trying to ensure an understanding and expertise. We have suggested a few different ways of achieving these. During our consideration of the previous Stage, I suggested there be internal expertise within the independent unit or among the investigators it will be employing. I am not talking about the expertise of each investigator but about the whole spectrum of the MAIU's employees. I am suggesting it would have somebody or maybe some persons with expertise in search and rescue. As an alternative, we have suggested engagement with the bodies with expertise. We are being stymied in both directions in that when we suggest that capacity be developed internally, we are told "No", and when we suggest engagement with external experts, we are also told "No". The Minister of State talks about the report but we do not want to wait until the next accident or investigation of what went wrong to have a report available with people's feedback outlining what could have been done differently or better. It is exactly a matter of ensuring there is capacity or that, if the expertise is not internal, it is identified and engaged with beforehand to ensure best practice. All of this is simply trying to ensure that, in the work of the independent unit, it will engage in best practice regarding search and rescue, learn from accidents that have happened and realise the search and rescue component is a fundamental aspect after any marine accident. Many marine accidents may occur but search and rescue operations to save lives are fundamental. I would like to be assured about this, even through the Minister of State saying he will try to address it in regulations he is going to put in place. It seems to be a case of setting the unit up with some very generic provisions on service vessels, but not the very non-generic provision I will come to later whereby entire categories of vessels can just be excluded. There will not be nuance in recognising very dangerous and specific situations, such as those colleagues in Sinn Féin suggested on Committee Stage could involve the coroner's court. There are areas where co-operation will be crucial and this is one of them. I regret the Minister of State is not accepting my amendment.

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

Let me make a point on accident investigation qualifications. Ireland has been a member of the International Maritime Organization, IMO, since 1951. The IMO is a specialised agency of the UN responsible for regulating shipping and maritime activities globally. We participate actively in its initiatives to ensure safe, secure and environmentally sound shipping practices. The IMO casualty investigation code was adopted in 2008 and became mandatory on 1 January 2010. Its aim is to standardise the investigation of marine casualties, improve maritime safety and prevent pollution. The code states investigators should be qualified in accordance with Resolution A.996(25). As qualifications could be periodically updated, it would not be appropriate to put them into legislation. We talked about this before in respect of continuing professional development and changes to qualifications.

The MAIU will be led by the chief investigator and staffed by a team of investigators, who will all be recruited through open competition run by the Public Appointments Service, which is a centralised provider of recruitment, assessment and selection services across the civil and public service. It provides an open and transparent recruitment process to identify candidates for public sector roles and has a strong reputation for independent and merit-based selection. Therefore, I feel the Bill covers the qualifications. As well as that, the chief investigator has a huge role to play in this.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

I move amendment No. 2:

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

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I second the amendment.

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

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.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not going to delay on this. I am just concerned where there is vague language when we are talking about regulation. The word "may" should never appear in anything. It should be very clear. There should be an onus and duty on those to carry out whatever instruction in whatever section of the legislation there is. The word "may" gives an opt-out to people. It allows for a situation when something does happen that people will say the Minister never made an order in that particular instance. Therefore, I do believe that what is being proposed here is valid and should be looked at again. I will leave it at that.

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

I reiterate that the purpose of Part 5 of this Bill is to allow us to regulate offshore service vessels for the carriage of industrial personnel to service the offshore wind industry. There appears to be some confusion between the regulation of these vessels to service the offshore renewable energy, ORE, industry and the recent Government approval of the LNG terminal. They are two entirely separate issues. I know concerns were raised around the definition for offshore industrial activities in the Bill containing references to the hydrocarbon energy sector, but this is to reflect the definition used in the SOLAS Convention. I would like to clarify that different rules and certification apply to ships involved in the carriage of dangerous goods, such as LNG, which is not the case here. The vessels to be certified under this Bill will be used to carry industrial personnel to service the offshore wind industry.

With regard to using the word "may" in relation to the SOLAS Convention, I want to restate that it is our intention to apply the SOLAS Convention in full to ships that fall within its scope, which are generally larger ships on international voyages. This is an obligation we must meet as a party to the convention. However, some of the vessels, such as the smaller crew transfer vessels that will operate over and back to the wind farms, do not fall within the scope of the SOLAS Convention, as they will be operating on domestic voyages. I would like the flexibility to be able to apply the provisions of the SOLAS Convention to these smaller vessels as far as is practical and that is why we need to use the word "may" instead of "shall" here. We need to be able to determine the most appropriate safety standards for the vessel based on its size, purpose and area of operation. It will not be practical to apply the SOLAS Convention in full to small vessels that are not captured by the convention. In addition, it is practical to have the option to have different sets of rules for different types of vessels. However, 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 word "may" is practical for that purpose.

Senator Higgins 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 can confirm that any rules drafted under this section will set out the detailed survey requirements.

For the reasons I have set out, I do not accept the amendments.

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

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.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Normally, I would only allow the Minister of State in once, but because Senator Higgins has so many questions, I know he is anxious to answer them so that is no problem.

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

The purpose of Part 5 is to provide for the power of regulation of offshore service vessels. We are obliged, as part of the SOLAS Convention, to implement its provisions, including the new Chapter XV and its code for the safe carriage of industrial personnel. If and when the primary legislation is in place, work can commence on drafting the rules under this section to allow us to meet these obligations. However, we will provide rules not only for these vessels that fall within the scope of the SOLAS Convention but also for a broader range of vessels, including small vessels operating on domestic voyages to and from wind farms off the Irish coast. This is why we need to keep "may".

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

I move amendment No. 3:

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

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

I second the amendment.

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

I move amendment No. 4:

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

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

I second the amendment.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 5 has been ruled out order.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 6 to 8, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 33, line 3, after “rules” to insert the following: “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”.

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

I second the amendment.

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

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.

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

First, I wish to give some context for the exemption provision in section 46(9), to which these amendments relate. This is a practical provision, given the various types of offshore vessels we will be legislating for. For example, a small crew transfer vessel, which does not have the ability to carry cargo, may be exempt from the provisions in the rules related to the carriage of cargo. This provision is practical from a safety, construction and operational point of view to ensure we do not have a one-size-fits-all situation and can apply the rules having regard to the type and size of vessel, its purpose and its area of operation.

The Senator has suggested several amendments to the provision but I must reiterate its practical nature, which ties in with my earlier explanation of the need to be flexible in applying the provisions of the SOLAS convention to vessels that do not fall within its scope. In addition, the safety convention itself has exemption provisions, which 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 requirements, as determined appropriate by the administration with regard to the type of voyage being undertaken. There are strict governance arrangements in place in these instances, with the State required to report any such exemption to the International Maritime Organization, which audits our compliance with its international conventions. It is not intended that this will be the default position, but rather will occur in exceptional circumstances. The vessels we are talking about are new and evolving all the time, including in how they are powered, where some flexibility is required. Therefore, I cannot accept these amendments.

On the LNG tankers, the carriers importing LNG into Ireland, which involves the carriage of dangerous goods on a large scale, are separate to what is proposed by the Bill. Given the primary purpose of such carriers is the transport of LNG internationally to Ireland, they would not be certified as offshore service vessels under the Bill. Instead, such carriers must be certified under the relevant provisions of the SOLAS Convention, including Chapter VII on the carriage of dangerous goods, and the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk. LNG carriers do not fall within the scope of the Bill.

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

I have been clear on multiple occasions that I am not seeking to legislate for LNG tankers. I am aware LNG tankers are covered. In fact, they are covered by the stronger provisions in the Merchant Shipping Act 2010. It is still not clear why in 2010 the Government was able to be definitive and talk about "shall", yet, a few years later, it has become so concerned with a different kind of practicality that it has been diluted to "may". I have been explicit about what is included in this Bill, namely, service vessels engaged - this is the language of the Bill - in offshore industrial activity related to the hydrocarbon energy sector. That is the fossil fuel energy sector, which includes LNG. It is the service vessels that may be involved in, as I think I outlined, the construction, repair, servicing and so on of LNG infrastructure. I am not talking about the tankers but about the vessels that will service the tankers and such other LNG infrastructure as may be introduced, but I hope will not be. That is explicitly clear. Ultimately, we have heard there is not a willingness to give guarantees that this category of vessel will not be allowed exemptions.

I accept the Minister of State's bona fides. It is good to hear there is a notification process where exemptions are applied. I will probably still press the amendment but that gives me some assurance in relation to the safety convention, if it is reflected in the rules, which we hope it will be. It is being said there may be new kinds of vessel and we want to provide a transition period. However, we are talking about a new and very dangerous industry that it is proposed to introduce to Ireland. There may well be kinds of service vessel that are slightly different from those we have had previously and that are designed to service the liquefied natural gas industry. In those circumstances, I want to be assured it will not be said that it is a new kind of vessel and should be exempted from the rules for now. That is my fear.

The Minister of State has informed us of a reporting structure relating to one category of exemptions but I am not assured. It may be misleading that his notes continually say this is not about tankers. We have said from the very beginning it is not. That is the 2010 legislation. We are talking here about service vessels for the hydrocarbon industry which, if the Government is successful in its U-turn on this issue, may include liquefied natural gas. That is why safety concerns are paramount. I make no apologies for saying there should be no exemptions in that area.

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

Offshore service vessels to be certified under this Bill are those vessels which carry industrial personnel engaged in the development of offshore renewable energy, including offshore wind energy. The International Maritime Organization recognises the growth of ORE-----

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

I have to object. That is an inaccurate and selective quoting from the Bill.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sorry, Senator Higgins. The Minister of State has the floor. The Senator has had her time.

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

Thank you, Chair. Where was I? I suppose what I would say is ORE necessitated the development of a new category of vessel to support the sector, especially vessels carrying industrial personnel, who are the workers engaged in the working, operation and servicing of such offshore projects. The vessels involved would typically be crude transfer vessels or other specialised servicing vessels for the maintenance of offshore wind turbines. This has resulted in the development of a new category of offshore worker, referred to as the "industrial personnel", and to the addition of a new chapter to the SOLAS Convention and a new International Code of Safety for Ships Carrying Industrial Personnel to regulate this new type of vessel carrying such personnel. The reference to the hydrocarbon energy section in the Bill is to reflect the definition used by the SOLAS Convention.

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

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 33, line 3, after “rules” to insert the following: “with the exception of requirements outlined under subsection (3)”.

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

I second the amendment.

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

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 33, line 3, after “rules” to insert the following: “with the exception of offshore service vessels engaged in offshore industrial activity related to the hydrocarbon energy sector”.

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

I second the amendment.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When is it proposed to take Final Stage?

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Now.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

I thank Senators for their input into the Bill and for facilitating Report and Final Stages. The Bill enhances our maritime safety regime in terms of maritime accident investigations and also provides for the necessary regulation making power to cater for vessels being used in the offshore service sector and the carriage of industrial personnel on those vessels.

I once again take this opportunity to thank the Marine Casualty Investigation Board, MCIB, including its board, investigators and staff, for its ongoing work. The new unit will build on the important contribution it has made.

I thank the previous Minister, Deputy Lawless, who initiated this Bill, and the officials in the Department for their ongoing support and help with the Bill. I thank Senators for their engagement on the Bill, the first I have passed since I became Minister of State. It is a special moment for me.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask the Leader to move the suspension of the House until 7 p.m. Is that agreed? Agreed.