In general I welcome the very belated introduction of this important Bill. The regulations it seeks to embody in Irish law have existed since 1968 and were in gestation for a decade before that. We are the only member of the EU which did not accede to the ADr. It seems remarkable that it has taken since October 1991 to bring forward the heads of a Bill to cover this issue, something which seems to be the result of the interdepartmental and inter-agency wrangling which Deputy Yates referred to. In saying this I am not criticising the Minister of State or objecting to the sonorous tones in which he delivered the Bill. However, the legislation seems to have been viewed as a tar baby which various Ministers have been throwing around from one to the other over the years, determined that it would not stick. The unfortunate Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment has finally got responsibility to deliver the legislation.
I commend some of the comments made about the difficulties the haulage industry may have in relation to costs and I want to question the Minister about some of the derogations he mentioned. The Bill says that some of the testing and checking procedures will be effectively self-financing. I cannot see how this could possibly be the case in the context of carrying out the remit of the ADR, its annexes and the other two directives.
As the Labour Party spokesperson for enterprise, trade and employment I am substituting for my colleague, Deputy Stagg, who has pressing business in the south. It seems the National Authority for Occupational Safety and Health is already grossly overburdened and I cannot see, even given the recent publications of the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Kitt, how this will change or how we can bring a reasonable standard to bear in terms of implementing the ADR.
The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment was responsible for the Dangerous Substances Act, 1972, the Dangerous Substances (Amendment) Act, 1979, and the original 1989 Act, but the previous Department of Labour over the years strenuously resisted the role of supervision and inspection, at least up to the past hour when such resistance was effectively ended by the Minister of State's speech.
A huge range of bodies has been involved in this difficult gestation, including the Departments of Public Enterprise, Foreign Affairs, Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Environment and Local Government, Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Agriculture and Food and Health and
Children, the National Authority for Occupational Safety and Health, local authorities, the fire authorities, Enterprise Ireland, the Radiological Protection Institution of Ireland, the Garda and health boards. It seems particularly inappropriate that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment did not introduce the Bill if it is to be the relevant inspection authority. I look forward to the Minister's reply and perhaps clarification regarding the confusion which seems to exist. The Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the NAOSH and the RPII are specifically referred to in section 5 as being supervising authorities. Clarification of their various roles should be provided.
The Minister outlined a number of derogations, one of which was that vehicles engaged in the transport of dangerous goods at 31 December, 1996, can continue in use provided they meet national requirements. Does the Minister not consider such a derogation dangerous? Tanks engaged in the transport of dangerous goods can also continue in use under similar conditions and new tanks can continue to be constructed up to 1 January 1999 under existing construction requirements. We could be well into the new millennium before the regulations referred to come into effect. The Minister also mentioned reference temperatures which determine the shell thickness of LPG tanks suitable to our climate; thicker shells are required in hotter regions of southern Europe. How does that derogation meet the requirements for international travel and carriage when a chemical product could be transported from our country into a southern climate? There is also a derogation relating to explosives and security arrangements.
This legislation has never been more necessary, both for the industry itself and for the general public. Reference was made to the train derailment at Glasnevin in the middle of a high population centre. The north side is well known for its computer and electronics industry, but there is an increasing level of chemical industry in the area, often sponsored by the IDA. The south side of Cork is also famous for its massive concentration of chemical industry. Because of the poor nature of our roads infrastructure, many major national routes still pass through or around small provincial towns. The Bill is opportune given the increasing concerns many citizens have in regard to pollution and the possibility of dangerous accidents.
What regulations apply to the rail service? When I was carrying out research for the purposes of this debate, I could not find any relevant directives in this regard. The international maritime dangerous goods code covers sea transport, but what rules apply to carriage by rail, especially in the light of projected new investment for Iarnród Éireann and its possible involvement in the transport of goods, including perhaps some toxic goods? The Minister also referred to air travel. I represent a constituency situated very close to our major airport. Huge amounts of freight are being carried over centres of population, such as Portmarnock, Coolock and so on. How can we protect those citizens? The protection of citizens and workers must be a key concern.
In general, the Labour Party welcomes the Bill and the fact it meets the requirements of the ADR and European Directives 94/55/EC and 95/50. We welcome the adjustment of domestic law to take account of the higher requirements of ADr. Extra responsibilities have been conferred on the Garda in recent years in regard to traffic management and the blitz against dangerous criminals. We may impose a further burden on them by asking them to enforce this legislation. The Minister may wish to address that issue. I welcome the establishment of a comprehensive set of regulations which will ensure Irish vehicles meet the highest criteria in this industry which is vital to our economic success.
I was not aware developments in the area of driver training testing had occurred as swiftly as the Minister outlined. He referred to the new systems of training and certification which have been put in place since 1992 and to the 1997 statutory instrument. Some 5,000 Irish drivers hold the necessary certificates at this stage. I welcome that because in the past bodies such as the Chartered Institute of Transport in Ireland expressed concerns about the level of ability and engineering knowledge drivers required to protect themselves and others. High quality training is the key in this area and any further development is to be welcomed. I do not know if a specific formal training course will be available under the new regulations the Bill will introduce. Some of the information received from the industry indicates a lack of standardisation in the level of training drivers are receiving.
Annex A outlines a wide range of goods which will be tested. Oil spillages also pose a threat. To what extent are they covered by the Bill? I presume it is covered in the full annexe on the file before me.
On the question of the haggling over costs which has been going on in the interdepartmental committee which has met on this over a number of years, we are told there will be no costs of real significance and that perhaps 3,000 to 5,000 vehicles and drivers may be affected. I wonder if that view can be reconciled with the current role of the National Authority for Occupational Safety and Health. I wonder as well, if there is not a further role for Enterprise Ireland or the old Forbairt in the testing and checks which are necessary in this regard. I understand they used to carry these out on a contract basis for various companies in relation to road vehicles and air travel. It is unbelievable, with the current crisis in health and safety administration here, that we are giving the chalice to the National Authority for Occupational Safety and Health because it seems that over the past year and a half the health and safety performance of Irish industry has seriously deteriorated.
Looking at the figures, some of which were included in the report of the health and safety authority the other day, there appears to be a pattern developing of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment not conveying reports and information immediately to Opposition spokespersons and Deputies. I know it is not the responsibility of the Minister's Department but perhaps he might carry the matter to Government. I raised it with the Taoiseach about six months ago. I refer particularly to the 1977 report on health and safety about which there was significant publicity last week and which still has not arrived on my desk or on Deputy Owen's desk either. This is the fourth or fifth report we have awaited only to see it published in a sudden press release on a Sunday or not presented in a credible way. Perhaps that does not happen in the Department of Public Enterprise. I hope not. It has happened in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment on a very consistent basis.
From the press releases and from the speeches of the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, we can see there is a serious crisis in health and safety administration here. Between 1992 and 1997 accidents in industry increased by about 18 per cent. Since 1996 the accident rate has gone up by 14 per cent. If one looks at the rate per 100,000 employees over the past nine years, the rate has gone from 1,268 accidents in 1996 to 719 per 100,000. That is a very significant increase. Despite that increase the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, and the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Harney, are prepared to give only the princely total of 13 extra staff for occupational health and safety and to boost the inspection staff to something like 130 to 140, which is still a very small inspectorate. I wonder how the extra work which the Minister is now transferring to the health and safety authority can possibly be carried out with such meagre resources.
It is probably unnecessary to mention the catastrophes in the construction industry relating to a number of deaths on sites in Dublin and on small sites around the country which were raised on several occasions in this House on the Order of Business. Our colleagues in SIPTU, particularly the secretary, Eric Fleming, have fought a courageous battle in raising this issue during the summer and early autumn and seeking fundamental extra resources. Opposition Deputies can ask the Minister for the resources, but the only people who can allocate extra resources are Ministers.
As the Minister probably knows, I hope in the next week or so to publish a health and safety Bill on behalf of the Labour Party which, since I cannot introduce a money Bill to bring in extra resources, will seek to immensely improve safety and standards in relation to the construction industry by building health and safety plans into local authority planning permissions. In other words, before permission will be granted there will have to be an outline plan on how a site will be conducted. I will also demand that the appointment of safety representatives will be compulsory.
Most disappointing of all, the penalties here for non-compliance are too soft. The spot fine of £150, which I know can be increased, seems derisory in relation to the value of loads carried on some of these giant vehicles. The summary fine of £1,500 or 12 months imprisonment seems very little. In my Bill I hope to introduce an unlimited fine and a jail sentence of up to ten years. The Minister might look again at that in his Bill to see if he could bring in serious fines and penalties. A previous Minister in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the former Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, said in one of her speeches a couple of years ago that it would not do to bring in these regulations on a wing and a prayer. The key is enforcement, and the Government must be prepared to bear the cost of that. I ask the Minister to look at that again.
To go back to the major incident in Glasnevin, which was referred to on a couple of occasions here tonight, has the Minister considered the strategies that are necessary for local government to deal with a disaster in this area whether in relation to the carriage of dangerous substances by road, rail, air or otherwise? I know we have a peacetime emergency plan and the Civil Defence, but I am not sure to what extent those plans have been reviewed in recent years and made more effective. Representing a highly industrialised area on the north side of Dublin, I am concerned, as are Deputies representing the south side of Cork, to know how we will react if, despite everything we have done to make transport of these substances as safe as possible, there is an accident. Will there be any reference in the various annexes attached to this document to the kind of emergency plan that should be in existence? We are not talking of something that is extremely unlikely to happen because in my constituency and in the neighbouring Dublin North constituency there have been a few serious accidents where insulation made of plastic went on fire or where trucks crashed and significant fires resulted, and evacuations had to be carried out. I presume it is another Department that is responsible for this area, but it is something which we are concerned about and the Government might look at it again.
At the moment all our local authorities, Fingal County Council, Dublin City Council and others around the country are making new development plans for the next five years in the various counties and county boroughs. It would be useful to have a strategic environment assessment built into those plans to take account of the routes through our constituencies and the various concentrations of industry and their relationship to housing. I live in a highly industrialised zone with industry on three sides of the part of the constituency in which I live. While myself and other local representatives, such as the former Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, obviously welcomed industry to such locations over the years, the sheer concentration of industry now presents its own difficulties. We should try to embody in the planning process some of the principles which the Minister is rightly imposing on the transport industry in this Bill. Will the Minister be liaising with local authorities on this matter? Will he ask them to embody this in the development plans for places such as Dublin city and Fingal?
As I mentioned, the Minister could look again at the issue of penalties. However, in general terms, I welcome the Bill which the Labour Party will be delighted to support. I have raised a number of issues. It is unfortunate that the Bill's gestation and preparation was such a lengthy process and that the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment is not in the Chamber because she will be responsible for its implementation and the cost of its enforcement.
The Minister should convey to the Government the feeling on much of the Opposition benches that more resources must be spent on the health and safety area; for example, there is a cost/benefit relationship between good safety practice in business and higher output. The Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, mentioned recently that 16,000 or 18,000 jobs are lost through people being injured in accidents at work. There is a clear correlation between saving some money in the long term and taking action now by investing real money in health and safety. I hope when I have the opportunity in the coming months to present my own health and safety Bill that the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, and the Tánaiste will not as usual throw out the Bill but will embrace it and seek to build it into the legislation.
I am interested in hearing the Minister's comments on the derogations, penalties and rail transport.