Monthly Archives: September 2015

Senator Daly: I support my colleague from Clare in the call for a debate on the ambulance service, particularly the emergency ambulance service. As we know, many ambulances are stood down and are not available when required throughout the country. In my own county of Kerry, two emergency ambulances have been withdrawn over the last four years. We now see situations where patients, including road traffic accident victims, are waiting up to an hour for ambulances to arrive. I ask the Cathaoirleach and the Leader to organise a debate in the House on this situation.

I also put the House on notice that we have a motion on the Order Paper in regard to the situation with organ transplants and organ donation. We will be putting an amendment to the Order of Business next week. As we are sitting five days next week, I ask the Leader that we would have the Minister for Health in the House to give a statement in regard to Beaumont Hospital.

Senator Cummins: He was here yesterday.

Senator Daly: I know that, but the situation has not been resolved and we need urgent action. Obviously, when the House rises, the situation is not going to be improved.

On an important point, the skillsets simply are not there. We know the answer we have been getting, which is that the jobs have been advertised and so on. Unfortunately, the current pay thresholds mean the people have to come in from abroad, if we are going to get them at all. The treatment purchase fund is also an issue we have raised in our motion as it would allow those on the kidney transplant list and the pancreatic transplant list to become eligible for the treatment abroad programme.

The most amazing situation dealt with in our motion is that those who are on the transplant list are being instructed to go to accident and emergency, which is hard to believe. These people are very sick and vulnerable to infection. For the HSE and the medical services to be instructing them to go into harm’s way by telling them to attend the emergency wards is entirely wrong. They never had to do this before and, in fact, it is the exact opposite of what they had to do and what they should do. I ask that the Minister would come to the House to explain why our transplant patients are being put in harm’s way.

Senator Daly: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive presentation. I share the concerns expressed about the Bedouin village in the Occupied Territories. I am pleased to have received a note on the issue from the Department. When we discussed the matter in the Seanad, I emphasised that this was a classic example of the policy of eviction, dispossession and demolition that was being relentlessly pursued as part of the Israeli occupation. In many cases, albeit not all, its purpose is to allow for the expansion of Israeli settlements. I am glad that the Department has put this in writing. We have tabled a motion asking the Minister to contact his Israeli counterpart about the issue and to write to the Israeli military’s chief-of-staff to oppose the measure. There is no point in the joint committee discussing the issue if we do not let the Israelis know what the Irish point of view is. While our view may not be shared by the rest of the European Union, we should not to worry about it acting in unison as it takes some time for it to do anything in unison.

The Government has taken a very important case involving the United Kingdom’s treatment of the so-called hooded men to the European court. The Minister has spoken about this issue. Will he outline the current position in the case and when he expects a determination to be made? The case is about more than the 14 men involved. In 1978 the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg overturned a previous decision in the men’s case and this decision was interpreted aggressively by the former US President George Bush, to use his description. As a result, countries that we consider to be democracies are using the 1978 ruling on the so-called five techniques – subjecting prisoners to noise, depriving them of sleep, food and fluid and using stress positions – as grounds for permitting torture. It is incumbent on Ireland to ensure this decision is overturned.

Despite the significant improvement in relations between Ireland and the United Kingdom, the British Government has not handed over the files on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. I am not sure if the Government has formally requested the files. The files on the Birmingham Six will remain sealed and unavailable to the general public until 2069. What are the British authorities hiding in these files? Anne Cadwallader’s excellent book, Lethal Allies, shows the collusion in which the British state engaged and the murder gangs it had in operation.

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply on the case of Ibrahim Halawi. Concerns have been raised about the torture of Mr. Halawi and the Irish ambassador to Egypt saw bruising on his back which had been caused in beatings received in prison. Doughty Street Chambers and Amal Clooney which are involved in the case have written an opinion on the torture to which Mr. Halawi has been subjected. Ms Clooney is also involved in the hooded men case which, in some senses, brings me full circle. Reprieve, a human rights organisation, has also concluded that Mr. Halawi has been subject to torture and has listed some of the things done to him. They include the use of whips, chains, blindfolds and electric shocks, the denial of medical treatment, psychological torture by prison guards, being held in overcrowded and unhygienic conditions and solitary confinement, the provision of inadequate food and the denial of access to a lawyer. The Taoiseach recently stated in the Dáil that Mr. Halawi was facing lesser charges. Mr. Halawi’s legal team has confirmed to me that he is still facing the death sentence and that the charges against him have not been reduced. The Taoiseach’s statement was tantamount to misleading the Dáil.

—-Later—-

Senator Daly: It is from the only legal team he has got. Could we get some clarification on this, because it is an important issue? If he faces lesser charges, the Egyptian court should have released him last February, because a person can only be held in detention for 18 months. Therefore, we would be quite within our rights to ask for him to be released on bail. However, if he still faces the death penalty, the more important issue of the presidential decree comes into play.

We had various briefings from the Department of Foreign Affairs about Peter Greste, and his case is the precedent we have focused on. His trial had finished and he had been convicted and sentenced. It was only when that initial judicial process had been concluded that the Egyptian authorities were in a position to release him, according to the briefing note we got from the Department. That is technically misleading. The Doughty Street Chambers’ opinion, which has been received by the Department, states that when applied in practice, law 140 supports the conclusion that the final judgment is not required prior to transfer. The Australian journalist Peter Greste, who for a time shared a cell with Ibrahim Halawa, was transferred to Australia pursuant to the decree. He had been convicted in 2014 on charges of falsifying news reports.

—-Later—-

Senator Daly: On 1 January, the Egyptian court set aside the conviction and ordered a retrial of the charges and Mr. Greste was then transferred to Australia. Mr. Greste was in the same position as Ibrahim is today. The conviction had been set aside and he was now awaiting a retrial. Ibrahim Halawa is in the same position today.

There are many UN and international procedures we could pursue, such as the International Court of Justice in this case. Are we going to pursue this issue through the UN conventions regarding a fair trial, the rights of the child and freedom from torture conventions Egypt is part of? I believe we are all agreed that we want the same result. I am concerned with what works. I know that when the Prime Ministers of Australia and Canada became involved, that worked. It is simple to see it worked, because we see that in the newspapers and their citizens are now on bail or have been transferred back to their home countries.

There are important issues in regard to the charges Ibrahim Halawa faces now and as to whether he is in the same position today as Peter Greste was when he benefited from the presidential decree. There is significant information and misinformation out there. We need to get the situation clarified because Ibrahim is now approaching his 700th day in prison. This is unacceptable for an Irish citizen, who was a child of 17 when arrested. We need to do all we can to get him released. I appreciate the efforts made by the Minister to date to get him released.

Minister Flannagan: In respect of the charges and as in any court case, we are reliant on the information given to us by the lawyers. They are the local legal advisers. They are the closest to the proceedings. They are involved on a daily basis in the subject matter of the detail of this case. Notwithstanding that, we have been circumspect in public references to the charges, as this is a serious situation for all Irish citizens, particularly the one who is facing the charges. This is not an issue that we have treated in anything less than the most serious way. We want to make a positive progression leading to a positive outcome.

I will make a further brief point. Senator Daly was incorrect to state that Peter Greste was in the same position as Ibrahim Halawa is today. I have stated this on the record of the Dáil and this committee. Unfortunately, it does not suit some people to read the situation as is. Regarding the presidential decree, Ibrahim Halawa is facing charges and is on trial, but the trial has not yet been concluded in the manner that we would all like. He is in the process of a court case. Peter Greste’s initial trial had been completed, as admitted by Senator Daly, and his retrial had yet to start. He was not in the course of court proceedings. A conviction had been obtained by the court and a sentence had been handed down by it. This fundamental difference is of importance in the context of what we are discussing. The presidential decree and its terms will not be applied when an individual is in the course of a court process. Through the Chair, I ask Senator Daly to retract his statement that the Department was misleading people. It was not and it does not. My officials have given a considerable level of commitment. I resent having their professionalism called into question, given the fact that there have been 42 consular visits. These will continue until this matter is disposed of, as we are anxious to ensure the welfare and return home of Ibrahim Halawa.

It has been claimed that this is a matter of lifting the telephone. I have heard it stated that if certain senior politicians lifted the telephone, Ibrahim would be immediately sprung from prison. That is an overly simplistic view of the process. The Egyptian authorities will make the decision and we will work towards that.

Senator Daly: I thank the Minister for his reply. We are all working for the same objective. I know we are focusing on the Peter Greste case to use as a mechanism but that original trial was set aside. I would prefer if the Minister were representing Ibrahim Halawa by having a presence there. Peter Greste’s conviction was set aside and a retrial arranged while he was still in prison, therefore, he was in the same position as Ibrahim is today. Of course, that is where lawyers come into play but my understanding is that it has been communicated that he is still facing the serious charges.

Senator Daly: I move amendment No. 7:

In page 7, line 37, after “decision” to insert “within 90 days”.

This is an issue relating to the wording “as soon as may be after it is made”. My concern is that the other issues in the Department take over. The Minister said it is already in place but I believe that deadlines are important because one knows whether one meets the deadline. However, down the line we might wonder whether a particular regulation was ever put in place only to find that because there was no deadline, there was no real need to do it. I suggest that “as soon as may be after it is made” is a loose term.

Minister White: I thank the Senator. Section 66D of the Communications Regulation (Postal Services)(Amendment) Bill sets out an obligation on the postcode contractor to draw up procedures for dealing with complaints by owners or occupiers of property relating to the use of postcodes by the contractor or by a value added reseller. As is the general rule on primary legislation, this section of the Bill contains the general principles and policy governing the complaints process and, pursuant to section 66D(7), the Minister is given a regulation making power to set out the details of the complaints process. I confirm for the House that the regulations will make provision for the procedure to be followed in investigating complaints, the requirements to be complied with by complainants, the remedies and redress available to complainants, and any other matter considered necessary or appropriate to secure the effective protection of complainants. Furthermore, pursuant to section 66D(1), the postcode contractor will set out a detailed complaints process in its code of practice, and that code is referred to in section 66E. I repeat that the postcode contractor has consulted with the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner in the drafting of the code of practice.

The Senator raises a fair question, which I have considered. The idea of a time limit can be provided for but I respectfully suggest to Senator Daly that the proper and appropriate instrument in which to include a time limit would be in the regulations that will be enacted pursuant to section 66D(7) and the postcode contractor’s code of practice. I do not believe it is necessary or even appropriate to amend the primary legislation but I am prepared to agree, having considered the issue the Senator has raised, and it is a fair issue, to include a time limit in the relevant regulations in response to the point he makes. I can confirm that the time limit will also be provided, if the Senator can accept my good faith in this regard, in the complaints procedures to be included in the postcode contractor’s code of practice. On that basis, the Senator might be agreeable not to pursue an amendment to the primary legislation but to rely on my good faith and intention to do as he wishes us to do but to do that by way of regulations.

Senator Daly: I thank the Minister for the reply. We will not press the amendment.

—-Later—-

Senator Daly: I move amendment No. 11:

In page 8, line 5, to delete “may” and substitute “shall”.

I know I will be relying on the Minister’s word on this one. We are all conscious of the words “may” and “shall” inserted in Bills. The Bill refers to the requirement on the Department regarding the procedure to be followed in investigating complaints, the requirements to be complied with by complainants and so on. I know the Minister is doing it but the reason behind the primary legislation is that the onus is on the Department that it must do it. We have been given assurances that it is in the process of doing it but, as often happens, between the primary legislation and the regulations, sometimes it does not happen. The word “may” is inserted to allow for the opt-out in that if it does not happen, no one is breaching anything. I know the Minister is doing it and that it is all in train, but the reason behind the primary legislation is to keep the word “may” out of something. The word “shall” is far more important and powerful. I ask the Minister to consider inserting the word “shall” in the Bill. This is the reason for some of the concerns about the Bill and the reason the Data Protection Commissioner asked for this primary legislation in regard to remedies and redress available to complainants. It must be done. This is the core issue behind the legislation but we are saying in the primary legislation, that we might do what the commissioner said. The primary legislation is about ensuring that all the regulations will, not may, meet the requirements of the Data Protection Commissioner.

Minister White: Although the regulation-making power in the proposed section is expressed as “may” and it is not framed as a mandatory obligation on the Minister, it remains the case that the regulations permitted under the section form part of the overall scheme of the Bill. The Data Protection Commissioner has been enormously helpful and supportive of this entire process, but the decision to bring forward this legislation was my decision. It was the Government’s decision on my recommendation. I do not want anybody to think we are in some sense being directed to bring forward legislation. Although the Data Protection Commissioner has been extremely helpful and supportive it is my call and I take absolute responsibility for having this legislation drafted and bringing it before both Houses.

I am tempted to tell the Senator I shall certainly bring forward the regulations. The Department is drafting them. It is part of the scheme of what we intend to do. Substituting the word “may” with “shall” would not make any constructive difference to the process as it stands. When I was a Member of this House we had debates on other legislation as to “may” and “shall”. The view taken generally about the use of the word “may” is it is in legislation to enable a Minister to do something. It is not mandatory that a Minister do it but it is there to say it is part of the scheme of what it is intended to do. One puts into primary legislation the basis on which it would be done, in other words an enabling provision for the Minister to do it. It will be done and it shall be done. It is not necessary to put it in the legislation. Regrettably, in the circumstances I will not accept the amendment, but I take very much the thrust of what the Senator has said and assure him of my bona fides in this regard.

Senator Daly: 

It is a drafting issue. The intention is “shall” and “may” allows for cover for the Department if it is not done. If no regulations are put in place anybody in the press can say the Department is not obliged to do it, which it is not under the legislation.

Our job here is not about the Minister or the officials but the process. According to the process if a Department under legislation shall do something then it must be done. There are consequences. I take into account that regulations form part of all legislation and they are very important because we cannot deal with minute detail in the primary legislation. Perhaps the Minister will examine it once more and explain to the other House that this is the kernel of the issue. What I look for in something like this is that the Department must do it. Delays can happen. A question might be sent to the Attorney General before the summer but then another piece of legislation might come before the Department to which the Minister’s energy and that of everybody else would be turned. This is the difference. Of all the lines in the legislation, and I thank the Minister for bringing it forward, this is the one with which we have an issue. This is the kernel of it. We will not press it to a vote but it is about requiring the Department to ensure if, God forbid, the Minister was not in office in five months time because he was promoted to Tánaiste and leader of the party at least his successor, the Department and the system would be required to ensure the regulations which the Minister wants in place shall be put in place.

Senator Daly: I move amendment No. 1:

In page 8, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following:”(3) The Minister shall issue a clear definition on what constitutes ‘as low as is reasonably practicable’.”.

This is an issue we raised on Second Stage. Section 3 provides that the Commission for Energy Regulation, CER, has a responsibility to ensure the risk of accidents offshore as a consequence of the activities of petroleum developers is “as low as is reasonably practicable”. That is a very vague term and surely not the world’s greatest definition. Will the Minister of State indicate how the concept has been defined in legislation in other jurisdictions? The current wording does not provide any clear benchmark or standard to be applied. The petroleum companies’ version of what constitutes “as low as is reasonably practicable” might be very high compared with that of environmentalists, which could be very low indeed. The wording is too vague and I am interested to know what definition is used in legislation in other countries.

Minister McHugh: I acknowledge the Senator’s concerns in this matter. There is no definition of what constitutes “as low as reasonably practicable”, ALARP, set out in either domestic or international legislation. The concept has been considered by the Court of Appeal in the UK and by the courts in Ireland. The Judiciary has found that for a risk to be determined as ALARP, it must be possible to demonstrate that the cost involved in reducing the risk further would be grossly disproportionate to the benefit gained. The concept of reducing a risk to as low as is reasonably practicable is best practice internationally and the concept is reflected in the offshore safety directive.

Providing guidance on what constitutes ALARP is a matter for the Commission for Energy regulation under the Petroleum (Exploration and Extraction) Safety Act 2010. That Act places an obligation on the CER to, among other things, establish and implement a risk-based petroleum safety framework which includes standards and a system for assessing safety performance. In 2013, the commission published a document entitled ALARP Guidance, the purpose of which is to provide detailed guidance to petroleum developers on the CER’s requirements concerning the processes that must be used to determine whether or not a risk is ALARP. It is the responsibility of the petroleum developer to ensure the cumulative risk from its activities is reduced to a level that is ALARP and to demonstrate this through its safety case. The CER will assess whether that demonstration is adequate given the full array of information provided and having regard to the requirements of the 2010 Act and the safety case guidelines.

The ALARP demonstration forms a central part of the safety case submitted by the petroleum developer under the framework. The ALARP guidance is intended to reflect best international practice in this field. In preparing the guidance document, the CER drew on guidance issued by statutory bodies regulating safety in the petroleum exploration and extraction industries internationally, particularly those in the UK and Australia. The commission may amend the guidance document from time to time to take account of changes in national or international practices. It is important that the concept of ALARP be kept under review and modified periodically to reflect developing practices.

Given that the CER has an existing statutory obligation to provide guidance and has already acted in this regard, I do not propose to accept the amendment.

Senator Daly: I suspect even the Minister of State is not happy with the response that was drafted for him. He indicated there is no definition of ALARP but went on to refer to the guidance document that was drawn up. The guidelines in this matter do not have any statutory backup. In other words, petroleum developers can follow the guidelines if they like, but they do not have to do so.They are there for a reason. The guidelines would not necessarily mean that there was any sanction available to the State or any individual if the guidelines were not followed. The reply contradicts itself. It states that there is no definition of “as low as reasonably possible” that can be included, but there are guidelines and it would be quite simple to include a version which includes the phrase “but not limited to” following the guidelines set down. If there are guidelines, they should have a statutory basis. As we all know, including the Minister of State who has dealt with them in his county in the context of planning, guidelines are only indicative and they do not have to be followed. One can tell a planning officer that guidelines exist, but he or she can say that is all they are and they do not have the power of legislation.

This is such a fundamental issue that using terms like “as low as reasonably practical” could be included on a statutory basis in the primary legislation. The legislation could state the guidelines now have regulatory effect and must be followed, but the scope of what they do is not limited in terms of safety. I do not have to emphasise that terms such as “as low as reasonably practical” will make millionaires out of the legal profession. Giving a statutory basis to guidelines and upgrading them to regulations that must be followed, but not limiting them to that alone, might be something the Minister of State would consider. We are not pressing the amendment, but I ask the Minister of State to take the points on board.

—-Later—-

Senator Daly: I move amendment No. 5:

In page 16, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:“(c) the requirement for any operator, who is granted an exploration licence or petroleum prospecting licence by the Minister, to put a bond in place, so that in the event of the decommissioning of petroleum infrastructure, the licensee not dismantling the infrastructure within 2 years of extraction being stopped, all cost associated with the decommissioning can be recouped by the State from the bond;”.

This amendment relates to an issue which I raised with the Minister on the last occasion he was in this House. We can learn a lot from the housing crisis. Section 3(b) refers to the modification and decommissioning of petroleum infrastructure. However, nowhere in the Bill is reference made to who will bear the cost of clean-up in that regard. Ultimately, the taxpayer will have to meet that cost unless provision is made in law that an oil and gas extraction company will bear it.

The amendment seeks to ensure that anybody given a licence by the Minister will put in place a bond which could be accessed by the State in situations where a platform is decommissioned but not dismantled within two years. I am not suggesting the amendment as drafted is to the satisfaction of the Attorney General. The Minister of State will, I am sure, have had the experience when on the Opposition benches of being told proposals were not in compliance with the Constitution or to the satisfaction of the Attorney General. I wonder if the current Attorney General is aware of how often that office is mentioned in the context of reasons for not doing something.

For the same reason that there is a bond in place in respect of developers of housing estates, I believe it is entirely practical that in the event of a company not decommissioning an oil and gas platform local authorities would have access to a bond in respect of any infrastructural work in that regard. Otherwise, the taxpayer will have to foot the bill for that work. It does not make sense not to provide that a bond be put in place. It is not that it is prohibitive. Oil and gas companies are supposed to decommission platforms. However, I do not know if they are obliged under current law to do so. If such a provision exists, I have not come across it. Also, in the event of an oil and gas company being deemed insolvent and having no assets that could be seized and sold to ensure no loss to the State, from where would the State get the necessary funding in respect of the decommissioning of a platform? I await the Minister of State’s response to the introduction of this very practical measure. As a requirement for a bond has been already been put in place in respect of the construction industry, I see no reason a similar measure cannot be put in place for the oil and gas industry in respect of the decommissioning of oil and gas platforms, the cost of which would be hundreds of millions of euro. A bond is a very practical solution and would not cost the State anything.

Minister McHugh: I agree on the need to learn from past mistakes. No greater mistake was made than that in respect of the construction industry. The old adage that those who fail to plan plan to fail comes to mind. I agree with the overall principle of the Senator’s argument. It is important, however, to point out that in the history of this State only four fines have been issued in respect of commercial production.

In regard to whether the State or the company should bear the cost of works in this area, the decommissioning regime currently in place in respect of the Kinsale and Corrib gas fields is based on the full cost of decommissioning being borne by the holders of the petroleum lease and not the State. Licensees are also obliged to provide an outline of plans and timeframe for decommissioning of the facilities, including full details of the methods, timing and cost of decommissioning, which are included in a separate facilities decommissioning plan. This plan must be agreed with the Minister early in the life of a producing field and is then subject to review over the lifetime of the field. Such plans will generally make provision for a financial formula relative to reserves left in the field versus the cost of producing those reserves. This provides a trigger for the decommissioning process.

Provision is also made with regard to the obligation on all parties to the lease to post a decommissioning a security once the decommissioning process has been triggered. A petroleum lease also includes a condition that requires a parent guarantee, which means that a deed of guarantee and an indemnity in favour of the Minister must be given by each licensee. This, in effect, means that the Minister has the authority to call on this guarantee in the event of a breach of the lease condition, including obligations with regard to decommissioning.

This Bill is focused on safety and the prevention of major accidents and the question of liability for the cost of decommissioning is already addressed elsewhere. I do not, therefore, propose to accept the amendment.

Senator Daly: The reason I raised the issue is because decommissioning of petroleum infrastructure is mentioned in the legislation. The Minister of State said that the guarantee is given by a parent company. The problem with companies is that they can become insolvent. The reason we put in place the requirement for a bond in respect of the construction of housing estates is to ensure a third party insurance company or otherwise is available in the context of redress. The provision to which the Minister of State referred in his response appears to be a very cumbersome process in the context of ensuring no loss to the State. The decommissioning process is very expensive. The only motivation of petroleum companies is profit, such that a company that does not have another licence in the Irish territorial area will not be too concerned about cleaning up any mess it leaves behind. This has been, unfortunately, the experience in respect of many companies. I do not think the Minister of State or I will be around to see the consequences of this. I believe a bond is a very practical measure, one which would not put too much pressure on the industry. However, I thank the Minister of State for his reply.

—-Later—-

Senator Daly: I move amendment No. 6:

In page 22, line 32, to delete “not exceeding €3,000,000”.

This is a simple amendment which deals with an issue we discussed previously.I do not know why we would limit a fine for non-compliance associated with oil and gas extraction to €3 million, which I am not saying is an insignificant sum. If the cost of any related issue, such as clean-up, is greater than that, it is a matter for the taxpayer, which is the ultimate issue here. I wonder where the figure of €3 million came from. Why not delete it and state that there is no limit to the potential fine? As I pointed out on Second Stage, 8,000 barrels of oil were lost in the first 24 hours after the Deepwater Horizonincident, and the loss was exponentially higher for the three years it took to stop the leaks and reduce the damage that was being done. I merely wanted to get the Minister’s view on that.

Minister McHugh: There are a lot of broader issues being discussed here. As I stated at the outset, it is a complex issue. There is no harm in raising the issues and, at a different stage, having these debates.

There is a safety regime that has been agreed to, with a system of fines for companies that are not following the proper implementation of that safety regime. The issue of environmental damage is separate to this legislation. It is merely a fine for failure to ensure that the safety case and safety management system are implemented. As I said earlier, there is a separation here. This is not the section that addresses liability for environmental damage arising from petroleum activities. The fine has no bearing on environmental pollution or any clean-up costs relating to a major petroleum hazard, to which I will refer in a moment. As for the amount of the fine, it is set at €3 million for an instance of non-compliance with a safety case or safety management system. This is considered proportionate and is consistent with the provisions of the existing fines set out in the Petroleum (Exploration and Extraction) Safety Act 2010.

Turning to the question of liability, section 7(9) of the Bill, which transposes Article 7 of the directive, provides that “a petroleum undertaking is financially liable for the prevention and remediation of environmental damage”. The Bill does not propose a limit on such liability. More generally, section 22(2) of the Bill provides that in assessing an application for any authorisation, the Minister must consider, among other matters, the ability of the applicant “to meet the costs for the immediate launch and uninterrupted continuation of all measures for effective emergency response and subsequent remediation in the event of a major accident”. The Minister must also be satisfied that the applicant for an authorisation has “put in place appropriate insurance, indemnity provision or other financial assurance instruments to cover liabilities potentially deriving from the particular petroleum activity or activities in question”.

As the Bill needs to provide guidance with respect to the maximum level of fines that may apply, I do not propose to accept this amendment.

—-Later—-

Senator Daly: I move amendment No. 9:

In page 27, line 15, to delete “and no later than 24 hours” and substitute “within 180 minutes”.

The amendment relates to what seems like an inordinate delay in the time allowed for the commission to be informed about any immediate danger or risk to human health in relation to a petroleum incident. The Bill provides for a timeframe of “no later than 24 hours”. As I pointed out earlier, in the case of Deepwater Horizon, 8,000 barrels of oil were lost in 24 hours. In the amendment, we submitted a figure of 180 minutes. It is not asking much of somebody to pick up the phone within three hours to inform the Government about an incident. Twenty-four hours looks like an awfully long time in which somebody could be sitting back.

This is only about process. We want to ensure that operators, rather than spending time trying to solve the problem internally, inform the State as soon as is reasonably practicable. At least there is a defined figure here of 24 hours, but I think the Minister of State would agree that 24 hours, in view of the immediate danger to human health from a petroleum-related incident, is too long. We do not want operators to sit back and say “We have another 23 hours and 59 minutes before we have to inform the Government.” I ask the Minister of State to accept the amendment. Even 180 minutes, or three hours, does not seem to represent an emergency. One would imagine that 60 minutes would be appropriate, but we will give them 180 minutes if they feel they need to assess it for a little longer than that.

Senator McHugh: 

Senator Daly: An interesting document entitled, How the State should approach the issue of torture, came from a civil servant in the then Department of Foreign Affairs in 1974, in which he suggested it should be to support proposals on humanitarian grounds where they do not create serious problems or are not impractical. In some instances, such as the case of Ibrahim Halawa, some NGOs have been asked not to issue statements.

I am surprised that in Amnesty International’s 2014 report that it never referred to the case of the Hooded Men, which has been used by countries such as Britain and the United States to justify the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, or what Amnesty would call torture. Doughty Chambers, along with Amal Clooney, is involved in the case of the Hooded Men. The Irish Government has taken the case up again and is bringing it back to Europe. If that ruling is overturned, the use of torture in Abu Ghraib and other instances in Iraq and Afghanistan will be deemed to have been torture. Will Ms Ashling Seely explain why this issue has not been addressed by Amnesty? It is our duty to overturn that case because then western countries cannot use enhanced interrogation techniques as they would call it, or torture.

This issue of torture is important in the case of Ibrahim Halawa. On 21 April, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade issued a statement claiming there were inaccurate reports some weeks ago that Ibrahim Halawa was tortured. Amnesty International has said he was at risk of torture. Will Amnesty clarify this? Doughty Chambers has a 62-page report on it and believes he was tortured. Reprieve, an NGO, has said he has been subject to torture. A lawyer for Reprieve stated, the torture, degradation and mistreatment he has suffered at the hands of prison officials includes multiple physical beatings, use of blindfolds, the application of electric shock, denial of medical treatment for a gunshot wound sustained during the address, psychological torture from the prison guards who told him he would face the death penalty and be executed, taunting about his Irish nationality, being subject to sexual humiliation, being placed in highly overcrowded and unhygienic conditions, being placed in solitary confinement in a cell 0.5 sq.m, unable to lie down, no provision of adequate food, denial of access to paper and telephone and being held under the threat of potential death sentence.

That is the legal opinion of Reprieve, an NGO like Amnesty.

Reprieve’s legal team has put that forward. I suggest for the benefit of everyone that Amnesty International would get together with it, write back to the committee and someone would come up with a definition because either Amnesty International and the Department is correct that he has not been tortured or Reprieve is correct. According to Reprieve, in respect of the very substantive issues of the charges, according to his legal team’s opinion, his lawyer has yet to receive any formal confirmation of the fact the charges have been amended. The Taoiseach said in the Dáil that he is now facing lesser charges. This is very important because if he is facing lesser charges, according to the Egyptian code of criminal procedure, he should have been released last February because, under its code, he should only be detained for 18 months while facing the lesser charges. If he is facing the more serious charges, if he is not sentenced on 2 August, he should be released on 17 August. I will not say that the Taoiseach should intervene and ask for special favours or treatment for Ibrahim Halawa but should he pick up the phone to ask that he be treated the same as anyone else and that the law in Egypt, not any other law, be applied? Will Mr. O’Gorman tell us whether he thinks the Taoiseach should ask the President of Egypt to get involved?

I took issue with Mr. O’Gorman’s point that the world’s politicians have failed miserably and his comment that politicians who are in a position to make a difference should do so. We all know what the Canadian Prime Minister did about the Canadian citizen in Egypt and what the Australian Prime Minister did. In The Sunday Business Post, Mr. O’Gorman said the Irish Government must do everything in its power to bring Ibrahim Halawa home. I presume he would agree that the Taoiseach should pick up the phone but—–

—-Later—-

Senator Daly: I would appreciate it if Mr. O’Gorman would answer my question. An article in The Irish Timeson 23 June 2015 stated the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission backed down from making a statement on the case of Ibrahim Halawa after being told to do so by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. At any stage, did the Department ask Amnesty International not to make a statement or back down from making a statement? Was it implied that it would be counterproductive, to use the word from the official? This happened in respect of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission in April this year. Did it also happen in respect of Amnesty International?