asked the Minister for Labour if he will state the number of dangerous substances which have been so designated under the Dangerous Substances Act; the number of substances that have been designated since 14 December 1983; and when it is intended to have additional substances included as dangerous.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dangerous Substances.
3.
No change has been made since 14 December 1983 to the Dangerous Substances Act, 1972 (Part IV Declaration) Order, 1980, which declared 25 substances, other than petroleums, to be dangerous. These substances had been selected on the basis of a survey carried out by the industrial inspectorate of my Department of substances most commonly carried on our roads.
The question of extending the list of 25 substances to cover about 1,000 substances is at present under active consideration in my Department and I hope, shortly, to be able to make an order to that effect.
Is the Minister of State disappointed at the lack of progress in this area or the lack of commitment that appears to be the case since the change of administration? It was I who designated those 25 substances some time ago. Is the Minister of State aware that that Act, passed in 1975——
It was in 1972.
It was a 1972 Bill passed in 1973. That Act was allowed to lie on the stocks without any action being taken on it during the term of the last Coalition Government. Is the Minister of State saying that the present Coalition are not going to extend the list of substances? He must be aware that more substances are being transported daily on our roads and it is extremely important that the Dangerous Substances Act be extended to cover all substances of that nature being carried on our roads at present.
I am aware that the Act to which the Deputy refers has a rather curious history. My information is that it is a 1972 Act but I accept the Deputy's suggestion. It was not brought into operation until 1979.
That is right.
There was a further delay before July 1980 when Deputy Fitzgerald as Minister for Labour made an order under Part IV of the Act dealing with some 25 substances. I have had that matter under very active consideration in the Department and, as I have indicated, I hope to extend that shortly from 25 substances to something bordering on 1,000 substances.
What does the Minister of State mean by shortly? How soon?
I am talking of a matter of weeks rather than months.
Can we discuss the matter in the Dáil before the summer recess?
I do not think this matter requires discussion in the Dáil. It can be covered by ministerial order. I hope that I will be able to put it in order before the House adjourns for the summer recess.
Is the Minister of State aware that this is not as simple as he seems to think it is? Apart altogether from our own legislation and regulations which we can and must introduce in certain areas and the various substances that need to be identified, a number of EEC directives have not been implemented here. Has the Minister of State any plans to implement these? Is he aware that many dangerous substances and compounds which are at present completely unregulated are in use here, being transported here and being imported here? There is also a total lack of awareness, a lack of information, a lack of personnel with skill and expertise——
Deputy——
Is he aware how serious the situation is and what action does he propose to take regarding it?
One would not need a deep knowledge of chemistry to identify even from general knowledge in excess of 25 substances which are dangerous and which are in use in this country. That is why the Government's intention is to increase very substantially the number of substances. I have indicated to the Deputy's colleague that my hope is to move on that this side of the summer recess.
What is the position with EEC directives? Has the policy decision been taken by the Minister and the Government in relation to whether the Minister proposes to act in this regard under the dangerous substances legislation or under the EEC directives?
In compiling the list of some 1,000 substances that I have referred to regard will be had to a number of international codes, in particular to the Hazchem code and the ADR Agreement, in other words the European agreement concerning international carriage of dangerous goods by road.
It is very easy for the Minister to state the purpose of designating a number of other substances. The whole controls at present are fragmented, in effective and inefficient. The present controls on substances which are designated are not being enforced. That has been acknowledged by the commission who reported recently. What action does the Minister propose to take?
I do not think that I can repeat much more often that if I succeed in my objective of increasing the number of substances that are controlled from the present level of 25 to 1,000 this side of the summer recess, that seems to me to be very substantial progress.
Would the Minister of State agree that even the 25 substances are dangerous in varying degrees? In other words, some are more dangerous than others and because of that there is no reason why the Minister must just wait until the summer recess to name 1,000. He can name 25 if they are ready to be named, he can name 50,200 or whatever the figure might be. He should not hesitate or waste any time in supporting what my colleague has asked him. How many cases have been brought under the Dangerous Substances Act in respect of the substances designated? Have any cases been brought because of illegal or incorrect handling of those substances?
I have not those statistics, and obviously they are the subject of a separate question.
How can that be a separate question when the question refers specifically to dangerous substances? Does the Minister of State say there have been no cases?
The Deputy will have an opportunity next week to put a question dealing with statistics of prosecutions under that or any other section of the protective legislation.
I thank the Minister for the report of the commission which he forwarded to me yesterday, but is he aware of the very serious charge being made that the dangerous substances regulations are not being enforced? Has he any plan for ensuring that the present regulations, apart from the many others, will be enforced?
I indicated in answer to an earlier question that the priority the Government afford in this area can be seen in the fact that, exceptionally, we have departed from our normal policy of recruitment in the public service in order to increase the number of posts in the industrial inspectorate. In pressing for action at this stage, Deputy Daly might be reminded that in February 1982, during the last weeks in office of the then Minister for Labour, Deputy Kavanagh, a number of additional posts were sanctioned. These were, one of deputy chief inspector grade, two of grade I inspector, three of grade 2 inspector and six of grade 3 inspector. Those posts remained unfilled for some months and it was only with the return to office of Deputy Kavanagh as Minister for Labour that they were sanctioned. That is an indication of the priority this Government afford to the matter.
This must be the final supplementary on this question.
The Minister seems to have a lot of statistics now that he did not have earlier.
I was not asked for them earlier.
How many inspectorate posts at the Department of Labour are filled? Surely he has that information.
The position is that the number of authorised posts has been increased by this Government from 49 to 58. Three of those posts, one at inspector, mining, level, one at inspector, civil architect, level and one at inspector, chemical, level, are in the process of being filled.
I am calling the next Question.
Is the Minister putting on the record that there are only three vacancies in respect of the allocated inspectorate posts for his Department?
As I have indicated, there are 58 authorised posts. Three of those, which I have identified, are in the process of being filled. In one instance the competition is being organised and in regard to the other two, the competitions will be held shortly.
Are they the only ones?