Alice-Mary Higgins
National University of Ireland · Independent · Ireland
“We are signing up to be customers of liquefied natural gas - potentially fracked gas, potentially coming from a country that is busily fighting against climate action and trying to fast-track our route to destruction. We will be doing that every year in the budget and every day in the terminal.”
“We are not getting solid measures on those safeguards. The other safeguards we have, which are our planning laws and climate laws, are being either fast-tracked or suspended. We are suspending the existing safeguards and are not putting hard safeguards into this Bill, and we are being asked to go on faith.”
“Nonetheless, I have some practical questions. We need a little more on what the emergency is because it is not sufficient to say we will deal with it then. The emergency is the ground on which the Minister of State is asking for the normal planning process and the climate Act to be suspended. We need to know what the emergency is.”
“It should happen only after all relevant market-based measures have been implemented. Those market measures should include the demand-reduction strategies that are eligible under N-1, including demand reduction by large energy users, and should have been implemented, exhausted and proven insufficient.”
“Sure there is detail in it but the key issue is that what he is asking of the Oireachtas, which is to agree to it being built, is on the argument of there being an emergency. It should be very clear what the emergency is. I mentioned previously that the committee said our N-1 obligations could be met through demand management.”
“It comes from real places with real communities that are immediately and terribly impacted by fracking, as well as having an impact on the atmosphere that surrounds our beautiful planet, which we are destroying. As the Minister of State said, it impacts not just on business but on the liveability of large portions of this planet.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,900 lines we hold for Alice-Mary Higgins, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 36 of 38.
“This Bill is particularly urgent now because the United States has promised another €12 billion in military aid to Israel. We know where the weapons are coming from and what they are doing. We have to ask if we are playing a part between the supply of those weapons and their landing on the children of Gaza. As a reminder of what we are talking about, according to UNICEF, 100 children a day have been killed or maimed in Gaza over the past ten days. It would be a useful clarification and would help us as we bring this Bill forward - of course, we want to engage with the Government to strengthen it as we bring it to Report Stage - if the Minister would indicate what measures the Government is taking in respect of these exemptions.”
“We need to bear that context in mind when we see 1,300 decisions by the previous Minister and current Minister allowing weapons to be carried through here, to be carried on an Irish-registered civil aircraft or to be landed at our airports. Each of the 519 Irish-registered civil aircraft permissions that make up that substantial increase resulted from a decision. With this Bill, we are saying exemptions should be the exception and not the rule. Despite this, we have seen 99% of all requests for exemptions being granted. We have not seen any indication from the Government of the safeguards it might apply to ensure none of the weapons on these flights that are the subject of the exemptions it is granting are going to play a direct or indirect role in the appalling actions taken by Israel.”
“It is not plausible to see increases in these categories and claim not to see a correlation or the risk of one. I do not believe the public find credible the idea that we would continue with business as usual. We may need to take a step back. To be clear, when we talk about exemptions, the base law in this State is that there should be no carriage of munitions through the State or transport of weapons or dual-use goods that can be used in military machinery. That is the base law in our State. Each individual time a flight carrying such weapons, munitions or dangerous goods goes through our airspace, permission must be granted by the Minister. Each individual exemption is a ministerial decision.”
“A total of 142 exemptions were granted in January 2025 alone. A total of 1,354 exemptions were granted in 2024. There is one category in which there has been a very substantial increase, almost a doubling since the former Minister, Eamon Ryan, was in the House and far more than a doubling over recent years. I would like to know what actions or investigations the Minister has undertaken in respect of requests for exemptions in this particular category. In 2022, there were 26 requests for exemptions for Irish-registered aircraft operating outside of the State. In 2024, the number had increased to 519. This increase from 26 to 519 can be mapped directly onto the period of time in which Israel has been conducting its bombardment. Indeed, it announced today that it intends further annexation of Palestinian territory.”
“It cannot rely on excuses or evasions and it cannot plausibly look at the massive increases in certain categories of flights seeking exemptions for the carriage of weapons and munitions over the past 18 months, even in the months since the Bill was delayed by the outgoing Government, and say it does not know where the bombs, weapons, munitions of war or dual-use goods with military purposes are likely to land and what purpose they are likely to serve. Ireland's exports may well be contributing the military machinery of the illegal occupation. As we go through Committee Stage of the legislation and look towards Report Stage, I note the previous Government had indicated it would look at the legal provisions of the Bill and take relevant actions. I am very discouraged to hear that exemptions have continued to be granted.”
“When we brought this Bill forward previously, we were met with a large number of excuses and evasions. There is no more time for excuses or evasions. Since we first brought our Bill to the Seanad, there have been many more deaths, bombardments and reports of executions, most recently the very worrying reports of 15 paramedics being killed and buried in a shallow mass grave. There have been multiple breaches of the Geneva Conventions. The Government can no longer turn a blind eye.”
“Section 2 relates to the restriction on the transit of military items and dual-use items to Israel in the context of the International Court of Justice ruling and the provisional measures it outlined, which were very clear about the responsibilities of all states to ensure they are not contributing to the risk of genocide and to take all necessary steps to prevent acts that may be committed in contravention of the Genocide Convention. Many right across the world and across Ireland in particular - I know because they have told me - were absolutely heartbroken when they saw Israel renew its bombardment of Gaza on 18 March, killing 400 people in just one night, including 174 children. It is horrifying to think the weapons being used to destroy so many lives may well have been allowed to pass through Ireland.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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".”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 CO². There is also an horrendous record in terms of environmental and human rights damage at the point where LNG is extracted.”
“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.”
“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 Times in 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”