asked the Minister for Labour if he is aware of the extra cost which will fall on each petrol pump owner as a result of the request by the licensing authorities for plans of their pumps, storage, etc.; and the reason it is necessary to get such details.
Ceisteanna—Questions . Oral Answers . - Petrol Pump Information .
28.
: The cost which may fall on each petrol pump owner in relation to the request for plans depends on the extent and nature of the information required by the licensing authority in connection with the application by the owner for a petroleum-spirit licence under the requirements of the Dangerous Substances Act, 1972, and regulations made thereunder.
Such details as may be required by the licensing authority are necessary for the purpose of making a proper appraisal of the structural integrity, soundness of design, layout and overall suitability of the storage and dispensing pump installation. The details enable the licensing authority to process the application for the licence with due regard to the protection of life and property against risk of injury from spillage, escape, ignition, explosion or fire which can arise from the improper keeping, storage, conveying or dispensing of petroleum-spirit.
: Would the Minister not agree that before the original licences were issued to the people concerned, the information which is now being sought would have been supplied? Therefore, can he explain why it is considered necessary now to ask petrol pump operators after they have experienced a disastrous strike, to expend substantial sums of money in having plans prepared for the purpose of arranging a renewal of their licences? Is there any explanation for this situation having regard to the fact that plans in this regard which are in the archives of the local authorities are being ignored?
: This is being done mainly in the interest of safety as I have tried to explain. The position is that because of the regulations that have been introduced relating to petroleum — to insulations, jetties, conveyancing and so on — these new plans are being sought.
: Would the Minister not agree that if a petrol station operator was given a licence under the old regulations he would have supplied the necessary details and, that, consequently, it is ridiculous that those operators should now be asked to expend substantial sums of money for the purpose of having their licences renewed? There is no question of safety involved because if these people had not complied with the regulations, they would not have been licensed in the first instance. Is this not another example of bureaucracy gone mad?
: I would not agree with the Deputy and I must insist that the new regulations are in the interest of safety. While licences may have been granted in the past, and rightly so, I am sure the Deputy will agree that it is in the interest, not only of all of us here but of all our people, that we strive in so far as possible to prevent serious accidents. In some instances, the operators concerned will be involved in additional costs but this will only be in instances in which the conditions do not comply with the requirements of the Act. Surely the Deputy is not suggesting that people should be put at risk because of inadequate or improperly-fitted stations.
: I am allowing a final supplementary on this question.
: The Minister knows that the architects who will be involved in drawing up the plans will be in receipt of substantial sums of money for their work which will be only a duplication of what is available already to the licensing authorities. There is no guarantee that, say, in 12 months' time the Minister will not decide that anyone in receipt of an existing petrol station licence need not apply for another licence. We recall what happened in the case of driving licences. What is the point in asking people to provide information that they have provided already? It appears that this new situation is the result of a decision reached in a hurry. What is the difference regarding the regulations applying to petrol-filling stations now and those which will apply in the new situation?
: There was no question of a hasty decision. I would suggest that the exact opposite was the case and that were it not for my advent to the Department, the matter would not be dealt with yet. The Act was passed in 1972. Certain problems arose thereafter but these were not related to what we are discussing here. They related to explosive substances. Action was not taken on the matter until I introduced an amendment to the Act to enable us to bring in regulations dealing specifically with petroleum products. The House must realise that we are dealing with explosive substances, with dangerous substances.