I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I thank my colleagues for turning up as this is the first Bill I am presenting to Dáil Éireann as a Minister of State.
Chemicals Bill 2008: Second Stage.
The Minister of State has a good crowd.
I am pleased to bring before the House the Chemicals Bill 2008. Its main purpose is to facilitate the enforcement of certain EU regulations concerning chemicals. These EU regulations include the REACH regulation — REACH is the acronym for the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals; the regulation concerning the export and import of certain dangerous chemicals under the Rotterdam convention; and the detergents regulation. The Bill also provides the means for giving effect to EU directives concerning the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances. The Bill does not apply to human or veterinary medicines or to food flavourings or feedstuffs which will continue to be regulated under existing legislation.
The provisions of the three EU regulations, with which this Bill is concerned, are directly applicable in Ireland. That means their provisions must be complied with and cannot be changed by any implementing legislation. Therefore, the provisions of the Bill relate only to measures necessary for enforcement.
Chemicals are critical to the way we live today. They form part of virtually everything we make and use, and provide enormous benefits to society. Some chemicals, however, can present risks to human health and to the environment. They may cause damage if, for example, they are toxic or carcinogenic or they may give rise to major accidents if not properly controlled. For that reason, it is important to have systems in place to identify, monitor and control chemicals and their effects while continuing to ensure that they are available for the benefit of society.
I will first summarise the background and context of the Bill. I will then briefly outline the approach taken in framing the Bill and I will describe the purpose and reasoning behind each section. The best known of the EU regulations being given further effect to by this Bill is the EU REACH regulation. The REACH regulation entered into force on 1 July 2007, giving a legal basis to the new European Chemicals Agency. Most of the provisions of the REACH regulation will enter into force on 1 June this year, and the timely enactment of this Bill will ensure that the necessary enforcement measures are in place.
Under REACH, the burden of proof lies with industry. All manufacturers and importers of chemicals must identify and manage risks linked to the chemicals they manufacture and market. For chemicals produced or imported in quantities of 1 tonne or more per year per enterprise, manufacturers and importers need to demonstrate that they have done so by means of registering the chemicals with the European Chemicals Agency. It is estimated that about 30,000 chemicals currently in use will have to be registered with the European Chemicals Agency. The full registration will take place over a period of ten years from now, starting with chemicals of greatest risk and finishing with those with the least risk. However, all of these chemicals will be subject to pre-registration at the European Chemicals Agency over a six-month period which starts on 1 June this year. This means that all manufacturers and importers of chemicals will have to pre-register chemicals by 1 December 2008. The European Chemicals Agency is expecting 130,000 pre-registrations. The agency may then check that each chemical complies with the regulation and must evaluate testing proposals submitted by the registrant to ensure that the assessment of the chemical substances will not result in unnecessary testing, especially on animals.
REACH also provides for an authorisation system aimed at ensuring that substances of very high concern are properly controlled and progressively replaced by suitable alternative substances or technologies where these are economically and technically viable. Where this is not possible, the use of substances may only be authorised where there is an overall benefit to society from such use. In addition, REACH provides for the imposition of restrictions on the manufacture, use or placing on the market of substances causing an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. This is a feature of existing EU legislation. REACH is probably the most ambitious chemicals legislation in the world. It should enable us to significantly increase our knowledge of the use of chemicals and on using them safely.
The EU regulation on the export and import of dangerous chemical implements in the EU is the Rotterdam Convention on prior informed consent. A dangerous chemical that is listed in the annexes of the EU regulation may only be exported with the prior consent of the importer in the importing country. In addition to provisions relating to chemicals listed in the annexes, the regulation also contains provisions that apply to all chemicals when exported. These provisions address, in particular, requirements on packaging and labelling as specified by respective Community legislation. The objective of the procedure under the regulation is to protect human health and the environment from potential harm and to contribute to the environmentally sound use of chemicals.
The detergents regulation entered into force on 8 October 2005, replacing five directives concerning the biodegradability of surfactants, which are chemicals used in detergents and which can have adverse effects on the environment. The scope of the regulation is to harmonise rules relating to the biodegradability of surfactants in detergents, restrictions or bans on surfactants on grounds of biodegradability and additional labelling of detergents, including fragrance allergens and information that manufacturers must hold at the disposal of the member states' competent authorities and medical personnel. The key aims of the regulation are to safeguard the Single Market in these products and to ensure a high level of environmental protection.
The approach in framing the Chemicals Bill was to provide a clear regulatory framework for business that would result in high levels of compliance and increased co-operation between the various national authorities to maximise efficiencies in enforcement. The draft heads of the Bill were the subject of public consultation in October and November last year and a regulatory impact assessment was carried out on a number of enforcement options.
The regulatory impact assessment concluded that the principal benefits of the Chemicals Bill should be high levels of compliance; reduced administrative costs to business, increased co-operation between the various national authorities that will be involved in enforcement and a coherent legal framework, which is an important factor for industry and which would also further the better regulation agenda.
By taking the approach of putting all enforcement measures in one Bill, the Chemicals Bill should put in place a more streamlined and coherent legal framework for the regulation of chemicals in Ireland. The detergents regulation, for example, which is currently given further effect by statutory instrument, has been brought within the scope of the Chemicals Bill to streamline and make more effective the national enforcement arrangements. In addition, there are existing regulations applying to the control of major accident hazards made under the European Communities Act. Remaking those regulations under this Bill will further streamline the approach to legislating for chemicals.
I will outline to the House the provisions of the Bill. Section 1 is a standard section, providing for the Short Title of the Bill and the commencement on enactment of ministerial order of its various provisions. Section 2 is a standard interpretation provision. The Bill, the directly applicable EU regulations and any regulations that may be made under section 5 are collectively described as the relevant chemicals statutory provisions. Section 3 is a standard section which provides for the methods of serving notices under the Bill. Section 4 is also a standard provision, providing for Exchequer funding of administrative expenses.
Section 5 enables the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to make regulations under the Bill. EU regulations, as Deputies will be aware, are directly applicable but it can be necessary to make national regulations containing supplementary or incidental provisions. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment may also, with the consent of each of the named Ministers with a specific functional responsibility, make regulations giving effect to an Act adopted by an institution of the European Union relating to chemicals, including the control of major accident hazards relating to chemicals. As I mentioned, there are regulations under the European Communities Act governing this. The provision in the Bill to make replacement regulations should result in a clearer legal framework.
Section 6 provides that the Health and Safety Authority can review legislation at the behest of the Minister or on its own initiative and make proposals to the Minister as appropriate. Before it does so, it will be required to consult other parties, as appropriate. This is similar to provisions in the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005.
The area of chemicals is complex and clear guidance will be required to help industry comply with the relevant statutory frameworks. Accordingly, section 7 provides for national codes of practice to be drawn up by the Health and Safety Authority setting out practical guidance as regards compliance. Section 8 prescribes the national authorities for the purposes of the EU regulations. There are five national authorities named, spanning the functional responsibility areas of five Departments. The Health and Safety Authority is given functions under all three EU regulations; the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is given functions relating to pesticides under the two relevant EU regulations; the Environmental Protection Agency is given functions under the REACH regulation in respect of the prevention of environmental pollution; the Minister for Health and Children is given a function under the EU detergents regulation relating to information on chemicals necessary for medical purposes; and the Revenue Commissioners are given a function for controlling exports and imports under the export and import regulation. The nomination of the range of national authorities under the Bill reflects the horizontal nature of chemicals policy, ensures that the relevant expertise from across the whole system is part of the enforcement framework and reflects the policy choice of creating an enforcement network using existing structures.
Section 9 provides for co-operation among the national authorities in relation to their functions under the Bill. The purpose of this provision is to encourage and facilitate optimal efficiency and effectiveness by national authorities in carrying out their functions. The section also allows national authorities to make mutual co-operation arrangements with relevant authorities in other EU and EEA member states. Section 10 allows a national authority, subject to the approval of the Minister and the Minister for Finance, to charge appropriate fees for the performance of its functions or the provision, by that national authority, of services.
Sections 11 to 21 deal with enforcement. Section 11 provides for the appointment of inspectors for the enforcement of the relevant statutory provisions and section 12 sets out their general powers. Section 13 provides for the immunity and indemnity of inspectors or members of staff of a national authority, while section 14 allows an inspector to issue a direction for an improvement plan if he or she is of the opinion that an activity is being carried out that involves a risk to human health or the environment.
Section 15 allows an inspector to issue a person with a contravention notice where the inspector is of the opinion that the person concerned is contravening the relevant chemicals statutory provisions. This could include the removal from the market of a chemical. Section 16 provides that an inspector may issue a prohibition notice if he or she is of the opinion that an activity is occurring that represents a serious risk to human health or the environment. Section 17 allows an inspector to apply to the High Court for an order enforcing compliance with a prohibition notice while section 18 provides that a national authority may direct any of its staff or another appropriate person, other than an inspector, to carry out an investigation and make a report of that investigation.
Section 19 applies where a national authority considers that an activity contravening the relevant chemicals statutory provisions is a serious risk to human health or the environment. In such a case, the section provides that the national authority may apply to the High Court for an order prohibiting that activity. Sections 20 and 21 effectively enable officers of customs and excise to act in the general enforcement of statutory provisions governing chemicals and also to take action at the specific request of a national authority.
Section 22 allows a national authority, in the interests of protection of human health or the environment, to make public information on matters giving rise to the issuing of contravention notices or prohibition notices. Section 23 allows the Health and Safety Authority to publish a list of persons convicted of an offence under the relevant chemicals statutory provisions, persons on whom prohibition notices have been served or persons in respect of whom an order has been made under section 17 or 19. This is partly a “name and shame” provision that should have a deterrent effect on would-be offenders, while section 24 is a protection of whistleblowers provision.
Section 25 provides that national authorities may, by serving a notice, require persons to give relevant information to that national authority and section 26 prohibits the unauthorised disclosure of confidential information. Section 27 sets out the offences under the Bill and section 28 sets out the penalties for offences committed under section 27. The maximum penalty on summary conviction is a fine not exceeding €5,000 or six months imprisonment, or both. For certain summary offences the penalty of imprisonment does not apply. The maximum penalty on indictment is €3 million or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both.
Section 29 provides that the Minister may make regulations allowing inspectors to serve fixed payment notices in amounts up to a maximum of €2,000 on persons who have committed an offence. The regulations may set out different amounts for different offences. Section 30 provides that where an offence under the Act is committed by a body corporate and that the act giving rise to the offence is proved to have been authorised by or a result of an omission by a director or manager of the body corporate, both the person and the body corporate are liable to be prosecuted. Section 31 is a standard section and provides that a national authority may prosecute summary offences under the Act. Section 32 sets out that notices or directions made under the Act shall be in writing while section 33 provides for regulations or orders to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Section 34 sets out two technical amendments to the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005.
The Bill sets out an enforcement system which aims to provide a clear regulatory framework for business to ensure high levels of compliance. It also aims to achieve increased co-operation between the various national authorities that will be involved in enforcement to optimise the use of State resources and to alleviate any unnecessary administrative costs to business. Compliance with the new chemicals regime by business should result in better management of the risks associated with the use of chemicals and, therefore, a positive longer-term health and environmental impact. By taking the approach of putting all enforcement measures in one Bill, the legislation should put in place a more streamlined and coherent legal framework for the regulation of chemicals in Ireland. I commend the Bill to the House.
Fine Gael broadly supports the Bill. We may table amendments later but we are happy with the Bill as drafted. It is a complicated Bill. When I received a copy of it, I hoped that my two years of chemistry lectures would be of some use but perhaps if I had studied law, I might have been better equipped to understand its provisions. I acknowledge the work of the European Parliament, particularly in regard to the REACH directive. The initial directive proposed by the Commission was far-reaching, anti-business and anti-industry but the important work done by the European Parliament, particularly by members of the European People's Party, the Party of European Socialists and the liberal group, has produced a more realistic directive, which balances the needs of industry and the importance of environmental protection and health and safety.
The REACH directive replaces 40 legislative texts with a single regulatory system and it fits into the global harmonised system of classification. While the Bill reflects the Seveso, REACH and the Rotterdam directives, it does not transpose the GHS directive. I understand, following the regulatory impact analysis, it is intended to amend the Bill by means of statutory instrument or secondary legislation when the directive is agreed. I share the view of Deputy Michael D. Higgins who is critical of the extent to which statutory instruments and secondary legislation are used. I do not understand why the GHS directive cannot be incorporated in the Bill and commenced at a later date rather than amending the European Communities Act 1972.
It is important to recognise the importance of the manufacturing sector in Ireland. We are often concerned and rightly critical about the demise of manufacturing but, at the same time, more than 200,000 people are employed in the sector, which is 11% of total employment in the State, and 25,000 are employed in the chemicals industry, which accounts for 23.3% in added value to the economy, as opposed to 1.7% for agriculture and 9% for construction. We debate building and agriculture at length but the added value of the manufacturing industry is not mentioned very much. It is important that legislation that impacts on manufacturing does not make it less competitive, and the Bill does not do so.
It focuses on oversight of industry and enforcement procedures as the burden of proof regarding testing, and evaluation of the risks of chemicals is transferred to industry. The Bill sets out the national authorities that will enforce the EU regulations and provides for co-operation among national authorities and between national authorities and authorities of other EU member states. It lays down enforcement procedures and penalties for those industries found in breach of the EU regulations. The Bill also aims to further the better regulation agenda by streamlining existing legislation in the area of chemicals enforcement into one Act. I will refer to the RIA later.
With regard to guidelines, the legislation provides for a code of practice to be drawn up by the Health and Safety Authority, setting out practical guidance as regards compliance. The HSA will be given responsibility to review legislation and to make proposals to the Minister, as appropriate. The authority has been designated as the national competence authority in this area, which is welcome. I am glad the Minister resisted the temptation to establish a national chemicals agency, as is the wont of the Government, and a new board and headquarters with an annual report translated into Irish and a website. I appreciate he resisted the opportunity to establish a new quango. Other relevant authorities covered by the legislation include the Revenue Commissioners, the Ministers for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Health and Children and the Environmental Protection Agency. National authorities must co-operate with each other in the performance of their functions under the Bill. Such co-operation includes the carrying out of inspections or investigations and the sharing of information. National authorities may also make mutual co-operation arrangements with authorities of EU member states and EEA states, subject to ministerial order.
The Minister of State outlined enforcement procedures. A national authority may appoint inspectors for the purposes of the enforcement of all or any of the relevant chemicals statutory provisions. I am not clear as to whether these will be HSA inspectors or chemical inspectors, who would have to be appointed. The Bill grants an inspector standard powers, provided in other Acts, to examine and search any place to which he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that the relevant chemicals statutory provisions apply; require that a location and anything at it be left undisturbed for so long as is reasonably necessary for the purpose of any search, examination, investigation, inspection or inquiry under the relevant chemicals statutory provisions; require the person in charge to produce any chemical or report relevant to the chemicals directive; remove records from that place and retain the records; require the person in charge to give him or her such assistance and facilities within the person's power or control as are reasonably necessary to enable him or her to exercise any of his or her powers; examine any person whom he or she reasonably believes to be able to give him or her information relevant to any search, examination, investigation, inspection or inquiry; take samples of air, soil, water or waste at or near that place; where appropriate, install, use and maintain at that place monitoring equipment; require the person in charge to supply the inspector, without charge, any chemicals or samples and to remove such chemicals; and take all steps to ensure product and company confidentiality.
I read the Competition Authority's submission regarding amendments to the Competition Act. The authority has similar inspection powers but it raised the issue of inspecting cars and vehicles. When the Act is amended, the authority is seeking the inclusion of a provision for its officers to inspect private or company cars on site because they have had problems in this regard during inspections. Should that provision be included in this legislation? For example, if relevant information, documentation or samples are in a vehicle, there may be a difficulty using it as evidence without specifically stating in legislation that the inspector may access vehicles.
An inspector under this legislation can ask for an improvement plan and can issue a contravention notice. Provision is also made for an inspector to go to the High Court, which the Minister outlined. A national authority, in the interests of protection of human health or the environment, may publicise information relating to matters giving rise to the issuing of contravention notices or prohibition notices. The HSA may from time to time compile and publish a list of persons convicted of an offence under the relevant chemicals statutory provisions and on whom prohibition notices have been served.
I hope this will happen. A number of naming and shaming provisions exist in legislation. The employment compliance Bill will also include for the first time provision for naming and shaming. I do not see much naming and shaming being done and I would like to see people who transgress laws being named and shamed more often. The Revenue Commissioners name and shame tax defaulters but I rarely see planning authorities naming and shaming. I hope it will become the normal practice for violators of environmental legislation and legislation such as this to be named and shamed. It is a very effective tool for promoting compliance to embarrass and shame people when they break the rules.
As referred to by the Minister of State the offences and penalties include a fine not exceeding €5,000 or six months imprisonment or both and a maximum penalty on indictment to be €3 million or a term of imprisonment not to exceed two years or both. The aim in this legislation would be for compliance rather than imprisonment but naming and shaming could be very useful. We may even propose an amendment requiring that people be named and shamed in certain circumstances.
Where an offence under the Act is committed by a body corporate and that act giving rise to the offence was authorised by a director or manager of the body corporate, both the person and the body corporate are liable to be prosecuted.
If I may digress, I know that most Members of the House would be aware of my interest in regulation and the better regulation agenda. I am pleased that at long last the Government has agreed to a 25% target for the reduction of the administrative costs of regulation by 2012. I am yet to be convinced that the Government is serious about this matter. We have yet to calculate what the base figure is so that a reduction of 25% can be achieved. The absence of baseline calculations is very worrying.
The Financial Regulator attended the Joint Committee on Economic Regulatory Affairs on Tuesday and was unable to inform the committee what is its baseline calculation for the cost of financial regulation. This figure had not been requested by the Government. I ask how one can go from 100% to 75% without knowing what 100% is.
The regulatory impact analysis in this case outlines four options. One option is to do nothing which is not really an option and neither is self-regulation an option. The third option is to use existing legislation and the fourth option is new legislation. This is not really what a regulatory impact assessment is supposed to do, in my opinion. A regulatory impact assessment is supposed to make a financial calculation as to the cost of these regulations. It may well be the case that this is an example of better regulation and of reorganising and reducing large amounts of legislation into one Bill. What should happen in a regulatory impact assessment, in my view, is a calculation as to what are the savings in the cost of regulation. If one is serious about achieving that target, this might be an example of how one can begin to do so. A financial calculation could be made by using the standard costs model to find out the net savings on the administrative burden of regulation by replacing the existing large body of regulation with this new streamlined system. More important, that calculation analyses and proves whether it really is the case that this legislation streamlines regulation and reduces administrative costs; without doing that calculation we are depending on a political statement that this is streamlining.
The regulatory impact assessment does not consider the impact of EU legislation but only the impact of the Chemicals Bill. This is probably reasonable in that the Lisbon target exists for European legislation. I have referred to the impact on business and on the manufacturing sector. The regulatory impact assessment states that the Bill will have no impact on national competitiveness and I accept this assessment. It will not have an impact on socially excluded and vulnerable groups but it will benefit the environment. It will have a positive impact for consumers and for competition because of the better information available to consumers. In terms of compliance, the only compliance burden in the Bill is the cost associated with the resources devoted to facilitating inspections and compliance checks but there is no calculation of the cost provided. This is not acceptable or adequate, in my view; a school child will know that. Where is the financial calculation of what those costs are? It also states that these costs are borne by industry in facilitating such inspections and checks under the existing health and safety and environmental legislation. I am not clear in my understanding of this aspect. It is stated that the policy objective is to minimise the administrative costs to industry but there is no calculation provided. Is it the case that industry will be paying for the inspections? Will there be a form of levy on chemicals? How is it argued in the regulatory impact assessment that the costs will be borne by industry? This may be as a result of my own ignorance but is there some form of chemicals or other levy which the industry must pay in this regard?
I have referred to the global harmonised system regulation and my concerns about what would appear to be some plans to use secondary legislation to include this in the Bill at a later stage. I would be very concerned about such a plan.
My party offers general support to this legislation which derives largely from the REACH directive, which we strongly supported in the European Parliament. I do not think this legislation will have major negative impacts on competitiveness; it may even be of benefit in terms of regulation but I would like to see proper calculations and I would like some answers on the GHS regulation in particular.
On behalf of the Labour Party I want to offer a broad welcome to this Bill. The Bill has obviously been subject to a significant background review in the context of the REACH regulation and consolidates the enforcement of a number of European laws in the chemicals area.
I am greatly indebted to the staff of the Oireachtas Library research service for bringing this subject down to some degree of common sense. I compliment them on their work and also compliment the work of the environmental scientists there who are excellent and most helpful, which I wish to acknowledge on the record of the House. People like me are grateful to them. Despite being a barrister and despite being familiar with nuanced elements and provisions of legislation, I found this a complex Bill. One would expect it to be so because it deals with a significant amount of legislation. This is a framework Bill introducing a regulatory framework which is extremely important. At least it will all be collated in one source which is important for industry. It will bring into play the Council Regulation EC 1907/2006 concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals — the REACH regulation which came into force on 1 June 2007. This is urgent legislation from our perspective in so far as it must be enacted by 1 June 2008. It also deals with Council directives on the control of major accident hazards, the Seveso Directive, Council Regulation EC 648/2004 on detergents and Council Regulation EC304/2003, concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals.
This Bill is very important in that context and this is the reason it must be supported because it will ensure that Ireland is in compliance with EU legislation through the denomination of national authorities and the identification of methods of enforcement through the imposition of penalties for matters of non-compliance. This is very important legislation in the absence of strict enforcement and regulatory framework. It is dealing with matters that may well have an impact not just on human life but also on the environment. We are all aware of the importance of the control of production of the manufacture and use of chemicals from the perspective of the protection of human health and the protection of a safe environment. The focus of this Bill is to protect human health and to protect the environment from potential harm. These are worthy objectives to which we all subscribe. We may wish to table amendments on Committee Stage. However, the Bill is generally successful in encompassing the thrust of the EU provisions, with which we must comply.
The implementation of this legislation will undoubtedly lead to some costs that must be borne by industry in respect of inspections and non-compliance. The policy objective must be to minimise these administrative costs as much as possible. However, a broad overview of the cost benefit analysis suggests that national competitiveness will be enhanced by the implementation of a more cohesive and focused regulatory regime, as set out in the Bill. It is important to acknowledge that.
There is existing legislation which applies to human and veterinary medicines and to food flavourings and foodstuffs in general. We have a fine and significant corpus of legislation in this regard. This Bill incorporates the relevant EU regulations and directives on the authorisation and control of chemical substances. The REACH regulation requires transposition into Irish law by 1 June 2008. The urgency of the Chemicals Bill hinges on this far-reaching legislation.
The Bill has implications for manufacturers, importers, formulators, distributors and users of chemicals. It places a clear onus on the companies concerned. That is an important consideration for any legislation. Too often in legislation there is reference to Tweedledum and Tweedledee but no clear indication of precisely where the onus lies. In this case, however, it is placed firmly on the companies concerned, which must devise appropriate strategies to ensure they become REACH-compliant.
I understand the pre-evaluation process and so on has been completed but there may well be teething problems given the significant number of chemical substances currently in use, spanning a broad range of industrial and household purposes. These will have to undergo health and safety screening before being submitted to the registration process. The legislation effectively transfers responsibility for the control and safety of chemicals from the various supervisory authorities to the chemicals industry itself. The greatest level of responsibility in this regard will rest with manufacturers, but all links in the chain, including distributors, importers and users of chemicals, must adhere to the relevant obligations. That is clearly set out in the Bill. The REACH regulation will be beneficial in so far as it invests control and power in one regulatory body. The system of regulation will likewise be simplified.
In examining the background to this legislation, I received excellent assistance from the Oireachtas research staff. I compliment them on their efficiency and helpfulness. I understand the REACH regulation was one of the most intensely lobbied legislative proposals at EU level in recent years. The then Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Killeen, was in Brussels in November 2005 and on other occasions to discuss the legislative proposals. There were various attempts to reduce the scope of the Bill and dilute its provisions. However, its central tenet remains the placing of the burden of proof on manufacturers to show that some 30,000 commonly used industrial chemicals and substances that were placed on the market by them are safe and pose no threat to human health or the environment. These are serious concerns.
At the same time, many of these chemicals are essential for the production of various goods and processes which are of benefit to consumers. A balance was therefore required. Genuine concerns have been expressed that the legislation might go overboard, making the process of manufacturing so prohibitive from a cost perspective that it would have implications for our economic competitiveness. Nevertheless, the primary focus must be to ensure that chemicals, of whatever nature, do not threaten human health or damage the environment.
In October 2006, the EU's environmental committee rejected an amendment to the legislation that would have required the EU to accept data prepared for the OECD, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and other chemical regulators. On 18 December 2006, an agreement was reached with the European Council on the REACH proposal. This obliged producers to register all chemical substances produced or imported above a total quantity of one tonne per year. This provision has come into force progressively from June 2007. The Minister of State observed that it will take some 11 years to complete the process and that all relevant substances will have to be registered by 2018. It is a significant undertaking. In the meantime, pre-registration requirements must be met.
The European Chemicals Agency in Helsinki will be responsible for the authorisation process. The former President of the European Parliament, Mr. Josep Borrell, described the REACH regulation as one of the most complex texts in the history of the EU. He also observed that it was essential to protect public health and the environment from the risk of chemical substances without threatening European competitiveness. The Government played a significant role in the development of the EU provisions and was acutely aware of their significance. It supported the objective of the legislation while seeking to ensure a degree of balance, with particular reference to the concerns of the manufacturing industry. We discussed the continuing threats to our manufacturing base with the Minister, Deputy Martin, during Question Time yesterday. There are some 230,000 people employed in this area and we must ensure it remains competitive and continues to grow. As the Minister observed, the growth of the last decade will be difficult to sustain, but the industry remains an important source of employment. We must provide the support necessary to allow it continue as such in the years ahead.
As I understand it, chemical substances will be categorised according to a defined gradation. The European Chemicals Agency will be responsible for the authorisation function. This transfer of responsibility for the testing and evaluation of chemicals represents a change in the traditional practice. Instead of public authorities being obliged to prove that a particular substance is dangerous, the onus is now on the producers to prove it is safe. That is an important change.
It is clear that Ireland played its role in formulating the provisions that ultimately emerged. There were balances to be struck between the concerns of an industry which serves as an important source of employment and the important objective of ensuring that neither human health nor the environment is put at risk. The Bill before us achieves that proportionality. I understand the Health and Safety Authority will have a role to play. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will deal with pesticides. The EPA will deal with the REACH regulatory function. The Minister for Health and Children will deal with the detergents regulation. The Revenue Commissioners will deal with controlling and exporting the various substances.
One of the problems to which Deputy Varadkar referred is whether authorities, such as the Health and Safety Authority, which already have a significant workload will have the resources and personnel to ensure the objectives of this legislation will be carried out with regard to scrutiny on compliance and enforcement. One could postulate that one will never have enough personnel to carry out all the functions of a Bill. It could go on to infinity as new areas are developed and new products come on stream which must be dealt with. However, it is important that additional staff are allocated to enable the legislation passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas to be implemented. Deputy Varadkar made the point that there is nothing worse than legislation being passed which becomes nullified because its effectiveness is lost by the failure to ensure it is implemented in the way it should be.
This has gone through a process with industry groups and one anticipates they have been attuned to the issues and that the information and the contents of the legislation have been disseminated to the various constituent bodies of the business and industrial groups. It is important that they are fully aware of this and dry runs and screenings have already taken place. The regulation on the import and export of dangerous chemicals implements the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade.
This appears to be all about the headline industries. What will happen to the downstream industries which will utilise chemicals? How will this impact on them? Will the same level of regulation apply to them? We discussed regulation with ISME and other such groups who came before the joint Oireachtas committee and over-regulation is a major problem. Every Oireachtas Member, councillor and aspiring public representative knows that a business can be strangled by the level of bureaucracy imposed. Small and medium enterprises are still the lifeblood of many areas throughout the country. Will we make it difficult for them to survive? Has a cost benefit analysis been carried out to ensure the obligations with which they must comply will not be of such a nature that the entire system will be put out of place?
A significant element of the Bill comprising ten sections pertains to enforcement functions. This is well and good and as Deputy Varadkar mentioned, it contains a name and shame provision. Those who contravene or fail to act in compliance with the obligations imposed upon them by the legislation will have their names published. The idea is that this will have a deterrent effect on others who might contemplate not complying with the express wishes of the Oireachtas laid down when a Bill of this nature is passed.
I notice a parallel with the provisions of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005. This is useful because the same procedures will be utilised in terms of improvement, contravention or prohibition notices. With regard to enforcement penalties and provisions, in the case of a minor breach will someone be brought before the District Court to be dealt with in a summary fashion rather than put through a more rigorous process? Will a person only be brought to court if he or she fails to comply with the various notices served? A minor or technical breach may be involved and we should not need to bring the entire armoury or panoply of the State enforcement system into play. A person or company should be given an opportunity to remedy the position, rectify the grievance which inspectors discovered and ensure compliance.
The Seveso directives came about because of a major accident in the chemical industry in Italy in 1976. The aim of these is one to which everyone subscribes, which is to prevent further major accident hazards involving dangerous substances and, where accidents do occur, to limit the damage to human health and the environment. Rather than having this split between various Bills, it has been brought under one umbrella and this is important.
The detergents regulation deals with biodegradability testing requirements and providing better information on detergent labels. It requires manufacturers to produce safety data sheets for the medical profession and for consumers. This has been raised at European level and officials from one of the Departments explained it to us. In this context, labelling is extremely important so people are made more aware. Labels should be in readable form.
I broadly welcome the Bill. I am amenable to ensuring it is passed as quickly as possible to meet our deadlines. The last thing we want is the European Commission imposing fines on us. We have enough places to utilise our moneys without paying fines. Will the Department officials produce an easy to read digest to the legislation? It is complex and Deputy Varadkar's opening comments are apposite and correct. The essential elements of the legislation could be simplified and put into a small handbook. This would be useful not only for the manufacturers, producers and distributors involved, but also for people using detergents in domestic situations. It will ensure they have the full details of the products with which they are dealing and will also make them aware of the system of regulations in place and what are the remedies for breaches and non-compliance with the legislation. It would be a useful adjunct to the Bill.
I wish to share time with Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I, too, acknowledge the work of Irish members of the European Parliament in the formation of the EU REACH regulation, in particular, Liam Aylward, MEP, whom I know worked on it for more than two years. I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the Bill.
Previous speakers mentioned the importance of the manufacturing industry in Ireland, in particular chemical and pharmaceutical plants which are prevalent in my constituency of Dublin North and in Swords, and which provide significant quality employment for people there. As mentioned, the Chemicals Bill is complex as it derives from EU regulations. It is relevant not alone to business but to citizens in Ireland in general.
I ask that the Minister take on board Deputy Penrose's suggestion that citizens be issued with a guide on the regulations and their rights in this regard. This is important legislation. A number of years were spent formulating the regulations in Europe and it is important that when the Bill is enacted Irish citizens are familiar with them.
Enactment of the Chemicals Bill will fulfil a commitment made by the Government under the programme for Government to implement and give effect to a regulatory framework to oversee the manufacturing and day-to-day use of chemicals in Ireland. The Bill is formed in such a way as to ensure that these regulations will in no way negatively impact on the competitiveness of our economy, which is crucial.
The Bill contains two main policy objectives, to ensure that we achieve a high level of compliance while ensuring we minimise the costs to industry of complying with the terms of the Bill. As mentioned by previous speakers, it is vitally important we do not strangle companies with additional regulation. The main measures of the Bill are to designate a number of national agencies, including the EPA, the Health and Safety Authority, the Departments of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Health and Children and the Revenue Commissioners as responsible for specific areas of enforcement to ensure compliance with the new regulations; to allow national authorities to carry out joint enforcement measures in co-operation with each other — it is crucial there is co-ordination in this regard — thereby making the best of existing State resources, minimising administration costs to business and enabling State authorities to share relevant information with each other and, when deemed necessary, other EU member states; to bring into law a range of enforcement powers aimed at encouraging compliance, including issuing directions to business and industry to ensure improvement plans are put in place; to issue contravention and prohibition notices; and to provide the relevant State agencies with the power to apply to courts for orders to ban specific activities.
I do not often agree with Deputy Varadkar but it is crucial the provisions for naming and shaming are used by the State in this regard. We are all aware of the damage caused to the environment and human health by the misuse of chemicals and other products. It is crucial we are serious about enforcing these provisions and that when misuse occurs the State uses the full power of the law available to it.
The Bill introduces penalties of up to €5,000 and-or six months imprisonment for summary offences and €3 million and-or two years imprisonment for indictable offences. Of particular importance are on-the-spot fines of up to €2,000 for minor offences. This is not about fining or imprisoning people but ensuring compliance with the legislation. Provision is also made for making available public information deemed in the interest of protecting human health and the environment. This could be commenced by the distribution of a user-friendly handbook to citizens and companies.
I do not know if it has been mentioned but the protection of whistleblowers is important. We rely on such persons to report breaches of chemicals law. It is crucial these people and their rights are protected. I am certain the public will welcome these measures that will bring about much-needed regulation and, more importantly, enhance the protection of citizens and the environment from unscrupulous individuals and businesses who flout the law by using chemicals in a manner that is damaging to health and the environment.
Businesses and individuals who manufacture and use chemicals will have concerns about whether this Bill will place on them heavy burdens of compliance thereby increasing costs to their operations. It is important to state that the only compliance burden associated with this Bill is that businesses and individuals facilitate compliance checks and inspections. These costs already exist in industry which facilitates inspections and checks under health and safety regulations and existing environmental checks.
Industry will benefit by having a clear regulatory framework within which to work. The public and industry will benefit from the provisions of this Bill. It will ensure high levels of compliance, tangible reduced administration costs to business and clear and coherent legislation which provides an open legal framework within which Industry can operate. It will also provide much-needed increased co-operation between various national authorities, which is crucial. I am glad a separate agency has not been set up to deal with this issue. It is important we ensure, through our agencies, that the Bill when enacted is complied with. Obviously, a lead-in time will be provided but it is crucially important if this is to work that there is co-operation between the various agencies.
If we assume that with this legislation we will achieve high levels of compliance in regard to how industry uses and manufactures chemicals, Ireland will benefit from reductions in costs associated with public health and through further protection of our environment, thereby saving on environmental remediation costs. There are also real benefits to the consumer with the enactment of this Bill. Irish consumers will have much clearer and better information on chemicals and chemical usage in day-to-day products.
As mentioned by Deputy Varadkar, the sharing of chemical information between EU states and particularly between authorities in the North and Britain should ensure greater protection for all people on this island. For industry, it will provide a much clearer EU-wide framework on the use and manufacture of chemicals in all member states, thereby making it easier to do business across the EU and on the island of Ireland.
I believe that the approach taken in this Bill provides for a flexible and proportionate range of compliance measures. The legislation should act as a major deterrent to any person or business who through bad business practice and procedures puts at risk human health and the environment. Any person or business who breaks the law should be named and shamed and dealt with using the full severity of the penalties contained in this Bill. It is important that the public knows that where its health or the protection and enhancement of our environment is put at risk, offenders will be dealt with using the full provisions contained in this Bill.
I do not want it to be the case that penalties of a minor nature only are issued. If we are serious about protecting our environment and our health, the Government must deal seriously with offenders. I am pleased to note that within this legislation there are provisions to publish the names and addresses of those subjected to penalties, court convictions, prohibition notices and High Court orders, prosecute offenders in the District Court or the Circuit Court and provide fixed payment notices for summary offences.
The Government has given firm commitments under the programme for Government to protect and further enhance our environment for future generations and to ensure that public health is protected. The Bill goes part of the way to delivering on that commitment. I support the provisions contained in this Bill and acknowledge its welcome by Deputies Varadkar and Penrose on behalf of their parties. I believe this legislation will be good for the public and for industry. I urge all Members to support this well thought-out legislation.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Chemicals Bill. It fulfils a commitment under the programme for Government to implement the European Union regulatory framework governing the manufacture and use of chemicals and does not impact on the competitiveness of our economy. The Bill will put in place an administrative framework for the enforcement of various pieces of EU chemicals legislation. It includes no substantive rules on chemicals because they are already contained in the EU regulations, which are directly applicable in Ireland.
The measures proposed in the Bill include the designation of national authorities, including the Health and Safety Authority, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Minister for Health and Children, and the Revenue Commissioners, to be responsible for specific areas of enforcement that draws on the most relevant expertise and areas of competence across the system. The Bill also proposes co-operation arrangements for national authorities to carry out joint enforcement activities to ensure the best use of our resources. It will minimise administrative costs to business since it provides for strong co-operation between national authorities, and it provides for authorities to share information with each other and with authorities in other EU member states. The Bill also proposes a range of enforcement powers aimed at encouraging compliance and discouraging non-compliance, including the issuing of directions for improvement plans, the issuing of contravention notices and prohibition notices, and powers to apply to the courts for orders prohibiting certain activities.
I welcome the provision in the Bill for substantial penalties, including up to a fine of €5,000 and six months' imprisonment for summary offences, a fine of €3 million and two years' imprisonment for indictable offences, and the on-the-spot fines of up to €2,000 for minor offences. I also welcome the provision for making public certain information in the interests of protecting human health or the environment. This is an important element of the bill, as is the protection of whistleblowers in the event of breaches of chemicals law being reported in good faith.
The two main policy objectives of the Bill are to achieve a high level of compliance and to minimise the administrative cost to industry. To achieve these objectives, the Bill aims to provide a clear regulatory framework for business and to increase co-operation between the various national authorities involved in enforcement. This will support high levels of compliance and should alleviate any unnecessary administrative costs to business.
A regulatory impact analysis considered the costs and benefits likely to arise from a number of options regarding the enforcement of current and pending EU chemicals regulations. The analysis concluded that the principal benefits of the Chemicals Bill should be high levels of compliance, reduced administrative costs to business, increased co-operation between the various national authorities involved in enforcement and a coherent legal framework. Industry will benefit by having a clear regulatory framework in which to operate. The Bill provides for increased co-operation among national authorities and between national authorities and authorities in other member states, and enforcing a number of different pieces of legislation under the one Bill has the potential to minimise administration costs and will be of benefit to industry. In the course of inspections, national authorities could check compliance with all legislation in the scope of the Bill at the same time, thereby saving industry time and money. Increased co-operation among national authorities and agencies, such as the HSA, the EPA, the pesticide control service and Customs and Excise, should also facilitate a greater level of information exchange and should minimise the need for individual businesses to supply the same information to a number of different bodies.
The costs associated with public health and environmental remediation would be significantly reduced by a high level of compliance with this chemicals legislation. The reputation of the State will benefit from introducing the regulatory regime. The provisions to make replacement regulations for the Seveso or control of major accident hazards regulations should result in a clearer enforcement framework. This should result in increased compliance with the regulations and a consequent lower risk of major accidents occurring. The Chemicals Bill will have no negative impact on national competitiveness. On the contrary, there should be a benefit to national competitiveness arising from the improved regulatory efficiency it aims to introduce.
Compliance with the new chemicals regime by industry should result in better management of the risks associated with the use of chemicals and therefore a positive longer-term environmental impact. A positive impact on customers and competition can be expected as the Chemicals Bill contains provisions to ensure better information on chemicals for customers. Benefits will arise from co-operation and mutual assistance arrangements among the national authorities under the Bill and competent authorities in Northern Ireland and the UK, thus having a positive impact on North-South and east-west relations. The Health and Safety Authority has already taken part in joint awareness raising and training initiatives.
The only compliance burden with this Bill is the cost of facilitating inspections and compliance checks. These are already borne by industry in facilitating inspections and checks under existing health and safety and environmental legislation. The policy objective is to minimise the administrative cost to industry. The Bill provides for compliance approaches that emphasise measures that fall short of prosecution. These include serving a direction for an improvement plan, which will require the submission within one month of an improvement plan setting out how the company proposes to address the risk that is the subject of the plan. Enforcement notices may also be served to deal with a failure to comply with the law. A contravention notice will give a period of time for the matter to be remedied, and a prohibition notice will require that the activity that has created the risk to human health or the environment is stopped immediately. The Bill also provides for application to the High Court for an order prohibiting or restricting the activity.
Deterrence approaches that are penal and use prosecutions in order to deter future breaches include provision for specification in regulations of fixed payment notices for summary offences, the prosecution of offences in either the District or Circuit Courts and the publication of the names and addresses of those subjected to a prohibition notice, High Court order or a penalty following a court conviction.
The three EU regulations being given further effect by the Bill are as follows: the EU REACH regulation, the EU regulation concerning the export and import of certain dangerous chemicals under the Rotterdam convention and the EU detergents regulation. The EU detergents and export-import regulations are currently subject to enforcement measures in different statutory instruments, which will be repealed in due course.
I congratulate the Minister on introducing the Bill, and I wish it a speedy passage through the House.
Like others, I am glad to have the opportunity to make a contribution on the Bill. It is interesting and timely that we should discuss the subject. It has engaged us all over the years in various instances. Chemicals, preservation and all that goes with it now form so much part of our society and even our diet. If we read the ingredients on a food product, we are liable to find it contains certain chemicals — E chemicals in particular. Some of them are deemed to be bad for our health, but they are frequently used. Many people have particular allergies to the E-number chemicals and other preservatives in our food chain and part of our daily diet, and I wonder whether the Bill is likely to cover those preservatives or alter them in any way. For example, DDT, a famous chemical which was a great controlling agent and widely used here, is gone.
I remember it well.
We all do. Ironically, other countries still use the product, often on our food products that we import. There is a certain contradiction in that that leaves me askance. If it was bad for us here, surely it is still bad. There is an ongoing international argument whereby in the countries in which it is still permissible to use it, it is seen as the lesser of evils, that it does more good than harm. This begs the question why we got rid of it in the first place. There is a contradiction in the whole area of the use of chemicals in the food sector, in particular in the growing of food and the use of herbicides, pesticides and so on. The reason I mention this is that it is timely to have a look at those items and ascertain whether the legislation covers all, any or none of those. I honestly do not know. Perhaps the Minister of State would refer to that in his reply. As an amateur gardener and food grower I take a special interest in these things.
Very good.
I am glad to hear it.
To those who speak about organic growing and so on, I know all there is to be known about it and I know how difficult it is. I am in favour of organic growing but if anybody thinks we will be able to supply the food requirements of the world organically we have another hard lesson coming to us, because it does not work that way.
Hear, hear.
We need to look carefully at what we are doing and, by all means, let us do it if it is good for us and if its possible but let us not cod ourselves and shelter under an umbrella that has holes. Do not let us soldier on in the belief that what we are doing is correct because it does not apply to the rest of the world. They export their goods and their food into this jurisdiction and it is considered all right for us to consume it then. Certainly that is a laugh.
In supermarkets all over the country it is possible to identify food products that have been subjected to chemicals that have been banned here for many years, and which are banned in the context of this legislation. The question arises as to how serious we are about these issues. It is all right if we import them but it is all wrong if we grow them.
There is a number of chemicals, particularly in the horticultural and farming areas, with which I am familiar, such as herbicides, having worked with them over many years, which have been quite helpful. Those that leave a residual build up are the most dangerous because they have a cumulative effect. They build up in the soil and multiply as time goes by and never leave the system. Those are the chemicals about which I am most concerned. However, there are others that do a good job, have few ill effects and are beneficial. I mention these at the outset even though the Minister of State should have a thorough knowledge of them given the constituency from which he hails. Nationally and internationally, people will always legislate for the things that upset them unless it affects them directly and economically. It raises a different hare if it does.
I turn to the question of importation. We have good chemical manufacturers here. In regard to the Cork scene, the Minister of State needs to be careful to avoid a dramatic negative impact in the event of large-scale manufacturing of chemicals in our own back yard. In some cases we export them and we use some in the domestic market. We must ensure that if there is a ban on a particular substance that we do not wake up some morning and find that the chemical manufacturing plant has closed because there was not adequate warning. There is a need for scaling down and a recognition that the process is harmful. It must be proved that it is harmful and changes have to be made. I do not wish to dwell on past history in regard to emissions. If it affects employment it is simple until it comes to one's own back yard.
The shipping of hazardous substances is one of the major problems, particularly since the history of such transport has led us to the conclusion that in not all cases has the crewing of ships met the highest international standards. Not all the hulls tested, where transportation is taking place inside damage-proof casks, are safe in the event of shipwreck etc. That applies to oil, gases and so on but it applies particularly to hazardous substances. I ask the Minister for an assurance that irrespective of what rules and regulations apply, they must apply from production to shipping and road transport, ensuring the public is protected in every circumstance.
I turn to the area of road transportation. Often one is driving at night and one pulls up behind a vehicle with a sign which indicates it is carrying hazardous material but one hopes it is empty or the material is stable. Given that not all transportation that takes place here is done to the highest standard of specification, where vehicles have the potential to come in direct contact with the general public and thereby create a serious health hazard the legislation covers it. There is also the whole question of dangerous substances and spillages. As my good friend and colleague, Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick, will recall, I remember in our county there was a simple spillage of diesel and suddenly it ended up in the water supply because of the network of drains, pipes and so on. Everybody could taste it. One can imagine the dangers to the general public if a more poisonous material got into the water supply.
We have a national emergency plan about which I have asked many questions in the past. I was inspired over the years to ask more questions to the extent that I was of the opinion that I knew nothing about the subject.
I am amazed at that.
I can well understand how the Chair would be amazed. I too was amazed. Despite asking all those questions about that subject I ended, at the heel of the hunt, where I started — raising more questions about it. I am glad to say that recently some positive movement has taken place. I am glad to hear we have been forewarned. We have got the St. John of it already through the bigger plan that is coming. I welcome that because a national emergency could come from dangerous spillages, a terrorist attack or a terrorist attack on a storage plant that could result in a dangerous spillage. There are many variations of an emergency that might present itself. I am glad something is being done about that and that something has been put on paper. I am sure we will hear more about it at a later stage. Over the years, Deputies have been made aware of various chemicals which may have carcinogenic properties. The high incidence of cancer means everyone is conscious that certain chemicals may be conducive to the spread of cancer. While I am aware that this issue is covered at European level, I hope none of the products we import, which must comply with regulations, is potentially harmful. I ask the Minister of State to comment on this issue.
I am concerned about the use of preservatives and other methods of preservation, such as irradiation, in the food chain. After so many years as a Deputy, I have been my party's spokesperson on most issues. Like Deputy Charlie O'Connor, I have done nearly everything at this stage, although I have not yet mentioned Tallaght today — I may do so in a moment. In studying these matters, I learned about the extent of the use of irradiation for preservation purposes.
The Deputy is a font of knowledge.
Although the debate on this process has been done and dusted for about 20 years, I am not aware of the evidence base for setting aside concerns about irradiation. One can buy unrefrigerated fruit and vegetables in the shops and supermarkets that are one or two months old, the reason being that they have been subject to irradiation. What conclusive evidence is available to show irradiation is harmless? Having spent considerable time reading about it, I am not certain it is harmless. Is it permitted on the basis of the balance of available evidence or because the alternative may be a shortage of food? If it is fear of food shortages, that argument could be applied in many other areas. I ask the Minister of State to comment.
For the first time in 50 years, the European Union is experiencing a deficit in food supplies. This is ironic given that the European Economic Community was established, in the first instance, to counter the problem of food scarcity. In the past 18 months, EU imports of food have increased to their highest ever level. We do not know what preservatives are used on these products, whether irradiation has been used or if the processes used comply with European Union regulations. Perhaps the necessity to have access to a steady food supply is considered the lesser of two evils.
The use of detergents has been raised in the House on many occasions and Deputies have heard arguments at local and national level about their widespread availability. While the argument that these substances are harmless has not stood up, nor has the argument that they are a somehow evil. I seek further information in this regard.
This wide-ranging legislation covers the full spectrum of chemicals. The approach taken by other EU member states must be borne in mind. I note the Health and Safety Authority will draw up national codes of practice. Would it not be preferable to give one Department responsibility for all regulation in this area? Is it not inadvisable to give different Departments responsibility for different areas? The Health Service Executive illustrates the problem I highlight. A large number of individuals at senior level of the HSE have authority and responsibility but no one is in charge. This is not an implied criticism of the Minister or anyone else, but a fact of life. As all elected public representatives are aware, all organisations, whether a large business or a local shop, are full of executives who have responsibility. The problem is that one can never find the person with ultimate responsibility. Similarly, the danger with legislation of this nature is that when one dishes out responsibility as if one were dealing cards, one can be certain that nobody will take responsibility.
The Bill refers to five different national authorities spanning the functional responsibilities of five different Departments. How could one go wrong? If one authority fails, responsibility shifts to the second, third or perhaps fifth body.
Does the Deputy support the establishment of a chemicals agency?
The Environmental Protection Agency is a useful body engaged in an important area. Deputies regularly correspond with it to point out that local landfills are not operating in accordance with their licence, a problem Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick and other Members will readily recognise. We also write to An Bord Pleanála because it shares responsibility in this area and local authorities because they give the initial planning permission for the operation of landfills, for which strict regulations are laid down. However, when one writes to planning authorities they respond that the matter is the responsibility of the EPA.
I am concerned about the decision to have five or six agencies involved in this area. The more one spreads the burden of responsibility, the less accountability one gets. It is as short and simple as that. Unfortunately, I do not have time to discuss in detail the various sections of the Bill. I will give the Minister of State, Deputy Billy Kelleher, some advice. He is an experienced politician and should not be led by experts, advisers or anyone else on this legislation. He will find that following his own heart and mind is a hell of a lot better and dependable than taking advice from specialists and experts.
I wish to share time with Deputy Charlie O'Connor.
Perhaps the most enlightening and pleasing facet of Deputy Durkan's contribution was his interest in organic gardening. I will share with the House my interest in reading, which probably got me into the Green Party. In the 1970s, I read a most incredible book entitled Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, which tells the story of chemical contamination in the United States. It had a profound effect on my future politics as well as on how we treat, store, ship and transport chemicals. The author, Ms Rachel Carson, had to spend a good deal of her scientific life defending her reputation and I am glad to say she was vindicated in the end. I very much welcome the introduction of this Bill to the Dáil. For many years the track record of many countries, including our own, has been poor and this is an opportunity for that to be addressed.
The transposition of the REACH directive is very important and the benefits of the Bill, such as the implementation of the "no data, no market" principle — producers or importers not being able to introduce a chemical onto the market without recording the details of it — is very significant and important. We should not have to read the tiny print with binoculars. We should be able to access that information very clearly to monitor what passes through our countries. This means better control. Where possible, the chemicals industry will have to use alternative, and sometimes safer, substances to some of the more toxic substances being used in industry. The rights of consumers and producers to obtain information on dangerous substances included an incredible number of chemicals listed in the directive, more than 30,000. This is a very positive step which will increase transparency and accountability in how industry deals with chemical substances. It will make industry and the public more aware of environmental protection and lead to safer handling of chemicals during transportation in and out of our countries. That is to be welcomed.
The transposition of the Seveso II directive included in this Bill is another very important step in modernising our chemical legislation. This directive and its predecessor are very important and, unfortunately, arise from the carelessness and reckless environmental behaviour of some members of the industry. The incident at Seveso, where dense vaporous clouds were released from a reactor giving rise to a poisonous and carcinogenic by-product in an uncontrolled reaction, led to untold environmental damage. Anybody who has read the history of that incident will heartily welcome this new directive being enshrined in legislation.
We have all read about other incidents such as the accident at a Union Carbide factory in India in 1984. I well remember reading the reports of the 2,500 deaths, many of them children, and the dreadful vapour from this chemical leak in India. The survivors of that still live with the untold suffering of poorly controlled industry. Closer to home contaminated fire-fighting water caused serious pollution of the wonderful Rhine river. These are two further reminders of how we must never be complacent about what can happen when safety surrounding the use of chemicals is ignored or safety measures in our legislation are insufficient.
In this context the Seveso II directive is very important in Ireland, particularly on storage of dangerous substances. I have been contacted by many people in the constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny about such substances located very near to residential homes and which may be slightly under the threshold for protection by the Seveso directive. They are worried in case an explosion has a detrimental impact on their homes, particularly in north Kilkenny, where I am dealing with a particular incident.
I note the current review of this area by the European Commission and look forward to reading the report of the study on this directive's effectiveness when it comes out hopefully later this year. In this area I urge the Minister, perhaps in consultation with my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, to work proactively at European level to further all safety measures to enhance safety here at home and throughout the Union. Perhaps aspects of this Bill need to be amended, such as higher fines, but anything we can do beyond the directive to further strengthen and enforce safe use and treatment of chemicals in Ireland is to be deeply welcomed.
I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution on the Chemicals Bill debate and note that the two main policy objectives of the Bill are to achieve a high level of compliance and minimize the administrative cost to industry. We should bear this very much in mind. I thank my colleague, Deputy White, for sharing her time with me. A Fianna Fáil and a Green Party Deputy sharing time together is proof positive that the coalition is working well.
They are as thick as thieves.
I was particularly glad to hear Deputy White mention she was so interested in reading some few years ago when she was clearly quite young. I must take up a little reading. I was regaled by Deputy Durkan's contribution and I am sorry the Acting Chairman had to cut him off because he was going very well. I was going tell him I must check with him and Deputy White about my lost gardening skills. I had such skills a long time ago but seem to have forgotten them. I must pick them up again. I listened to Deputy Varadkar's contribution and I was glad to hear him say this is a good piece of legislation and Fine Gael will support it. It was good that he acknowledged the work of our MEPs. This week I had the opportunity to meet a number of them when they were home, if they do not mind my using that phrase. I particularly mention my Dublin colleague Eoin Ryan, MEP, because he has taken a particular interest in this subject. I look forward to seeing Mr. Ryan in Tallaght this week where he will come out, as he often does, to deal with Lisbon issues and other matters that are of concern to us as we represent, in my case, a major population centre here in Dublin. As other colleagues have mentioned Tallaght I will not be worried about doing so the odd time.
I acknowledge the presence of the Minister of State, Deputy Kelleher, who has been particularly helpful to all of us. I am glad to hear Deputy Durkan also praising his work. I have raised a number of issues that fall into his remit as Minister with responsibility for labour affairs and he has been particularly generous in his support of the work I am attempting to do. I do not want to talk too much today about job losses in Tallaght but he has been helpful on that and I appreciate it. It is right that we acknowledge the clearly effective job he is doing and the work he has done on this Chemicals Bill. When I recently began to read about the Chemicals Bill, like everybody else, I asked him — and I am nearly afraid to say this — what it is all about. I have listened to most of the contributions today including the Minister's very fine contribution. Only when one reads such legislation and listens to the debate does one realise, as another speaker said, that this affects us on a daily basis. Sometimes one thinks it does not.
It is good that we are down to earth today. Like everybody else, and I hope this was shared across the benches, I was on a high yesterday having watched television coverage of the events in Washington. From talking to some people in the United States this morning I know the Taoiseach has done a tremendous service to the country and people have responded in a very positive way to his speech, not only here, as I would expect, but throughout Europe. Having spoken to some people this morning, including my sister who is on a few days break in Boston, I can tell the House for a fact that it has gone down extremely well. It is good to acknowledge that and it is good that we are back down to earth today dealing with issues of concern to people here.
While it may not be possible to say that as we go about our constituencies, whether in Dublin West, Cork, Carlow-Kilkenny, Dublin South-West or Dublin South-Central, people are stopping us to talk about the Chemicals Bill, they are talking to us about issues that are of concern to them. People often talk about our use of technology and ask if our use of computers and mobile telephones in our daily lives does us any harm. That may also include the food we eat. We all like our food and are all careful enough. I follow a diet since my little health scare some years ago and am always very careful. Still one wonders whether we will discover in 20 or 30 years that some of the things we do, consume or come into contact with are doing us harm. The jury may be out for a long time on some of those issues. In a discussion on this important piece of legislation it is important that we understand and acknowledge that.
It is important we acknowledge the issuing by the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, and our Taoiseach of the emergency planning literature. Sometimes people might guffaw about these things but we should understand their importance. Emergency planning is part of the Minister's remit with regard to this Bill. As other speakers have acknowledged, this is something to which we need to give attention. It is only when something horrendous happens that we realise how important these measures are. I am glad to say I supported the issuing of the emergency planning booklet and I raised the issue on a number of occasions with our colleague, the Minister, Deputy O'Dea. I am glad the distribution appears to have been effective. I have seen the booklet in many houses. Importantly, householders are paying attention to it. However, Deputy Durkan made the point — I am not afraid to say this from the Government benches — that there are still issues that must be dealt with. People have written to me, for example, about the availability of health services in cases of an emergency. There are still issues about which people are concerned and it is fair that we raise these.
The Chemicals Bill, as a number of speakers have pointed out, is drafted in the context of a commitment made under the programme for Government to implement the EU regulatory framework covering the manufacturing and use of chemicals in a way that does not affect the competitiveness of our economy. It is important that we stress this point, which is relevant in the context of current worries about the economy. We all saw the report issued by the OECD on Monday in the presence of the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste, Deputy Cowen. We should remind ourselves of the importance of competitiveness, particularly in the context of this Bill.
The purpose of the Bill is to put in place an administrative and enforcement framework for various pieces of EU chemicals legislation. There are no substantive rules on chemicals, as such, in the Bill because they are contained in the EU regulations which are directly applicable to Ireland. Reference has been made to some of the measures proposed in the Bill, which include the designation of a number of national authorities, including the Health and Safety Authority, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Health and Children and the Revenue Commissioners, as being responsible for specific areas of enforcement which draw on the most relevant expertise and areas of competence across the system. Speakers have singled out some of these agencies and there are some, including the Department of Health and Children, that we could talk about all day.
I wish to mention the important work of the Environmental Protection Agency. Issues are raised with the EPA on a regular basis. I have just spent a couple of days in Wexford, where the EPA is based, at a meeting of the British Irish Interparliamentary Body. I was thinking the other day about the environment, which is something we should all do. As the Acting Chairman, Deputy Ardagh, knows, because it is quite close to the constituency boundary that he and I share, there are issues in my constituency that I often have cause to raise with the EPA, particularly the operation of the baling station in Ballymount, which is regularly of concern to my constituents in Green Park and the Greenhills area. I suspect the Acting Chairman also receives calls from the Walkinstown-Crumlin area, which I know well as that is where I come from. We need to understand that people have such concerns.
As I said earlier, often we do not know whether something is doing us harm and we may not know for quite some time. Those of us who care about the environment — that is, nearly all of us — must understand people's concerns. The Acting Chairman will also be aware, from his knowledge of the Tallaght region, that there is still an issue with the old landfill site at Bohernabreena, which is now blocked. As I go about my business — I try to walk the hills fairly regularly — people stop me and talk about these issues. With the national agenda now focusing on the environment, climate change and the dangers to our future and the future of the world, it is important that we are not afraid to raise these issues. The work of the EPA, as with all other quango-type groups, attracts some critical attention at times. When I bring my concerns to its attention, I usually get a response. However, we must remain vigilant and continue to give these matters particular attention.
I have been spending some time lately going to different schools around my constituency because it is important that politicians engage with young people in their schools. It is one way of dealing with the cynicism that young people sometimes feel about politics, which I suppose we have all experienced. I find that when one talks to young people of all ages, they talk about their local environments and the dangers to their communities. As one reads through this Bill, one sees many provisions to deal with issues that could cause disasters in the future. I will not repeat what other colleagues, including Deputy White, have said, but we have all experienced shock at disasters involving chemicals that have occurred abroad — there but for the grace of God we go. It is important that we are vigilant in this regard. We must understand that legislation and regulations such as these will be at their most effective, and their true importance will only be seen, if something such as this occurs. The Minister of State and his officials who worked on this legislation have taken this into account and we should acknowledge this. The Minister of State has introduced a Bill that is accepted across the floor of the House and that is to his credit. I wish him well next week and beyond and I ask him to keep my number handy because I look forward to his continued help.
It is important that we note the range of enforcement powers in the Bill that are aimed at encouraging compliance and discouraging non-compliance, including, I am told, the issuing of directions for improvement plans, the issuing of contravention and prohibition notices and powers to apply to the courts for orders prohibiting certain activities. I am glad to note the provisions for penalties for offences that are contained in the Bill. I hope this will make people sit up and take notice. I am also pleased to note the provisions to make public certain information in the interests of protecting human health and the environment and to protect whistleblowers who report breaches of chemicals law in good faith. I know my colleague, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, referred to the protection of whistleblowers and we have often discussed this issue in the context of other Bills. We must continue to encourage such provisions.
I wish the Minister of State well with the Bill. I compliment him on his work and thank him for his time.
I welcome the kind comments of the Deputies opposite and their broad support for the thrust of what we are trying to achieve in the context of ensuring compliance and minimising regulation of the industry. These are the two purposes of the Bill. I also thank Deputy O'Connor not only for his support of the Bill but also for his kind words about me personally. We will have a discussion about that later. In the context of the broader debate in society at large about Europe, the Lisbon treaty and the approaching referendum, this Bill is an indication of the positive things that Europe can do. We must have not only national but also transnational legislation to deal with issues outside the State's control. This is an example of the positive role the EU can play in people's lives.
As I have said from time to time at the Council of Ministers, national parliaments and governments take the credit for the positive things that Europe proposes, but if a measure is not popular in a member state Europe is blamed immediately, irrespective of whether it is a European issue. I acknowledge that point in this context.
Equally, as Deputy Varadkar and others stated, I acknowledge the role played by our Members of the European Parliament, particularly in discussing and bringing forward a rational and effective regulatory programme in the context of REACH. Mr. Liam Alyward, MEP, for example, spent long hours discussing REACH and bringing forward a rational proposal in that context. I also acknowledge the contribution of MEPs from other parties and groupings. Obviously, this issue was discussed at the Council of Ministers as well. It goes to show that the European Union works. It is just another indication of what we are about.
Deputy Varadkar raised a few issues in the context of the legislation. On the powers of inspectors, the place is defined in the interpretation section of the Bill, section 2. It states:
"place" means any structure, premises, land or other location or part of such place, and includes any container, railway wagon, vessel, aircraft, motor or other vehicle;
This Bill has broad support. We will look at any amendment on its merits and if it improves the legislation and is put forward in that spirit, we would look favourably on those issues.
The regulatory impact assessment was raised yesterday during Question Time by Deputy English and the Minister responded. In the context of the Bill, the Minister, Deputy Martin, outlined yesterday the baseline calculation of a 25% reduction. The measure of the baseline for the implementation of the Chemicals Bill is being done this year and the plan is to repeat this measurement in three years' time so that we will have real figures on savings or at the very least that there will be no increase in administrative costs. We are working on that aspect in this Bill. Obviously, as a lead Department in reducing regulation on companies, we are conscious of that area.
The GHS was raised by Deputy Varadkar. The draft GHS regulation is still being negotiated in Brussels and it is suspected that it will be adopted by the end of this year. That regulation, when adopted, will be directly applicable. Like all EU regulations, member states will be required to put in place the enforcement provisions. The Chemicals Bill, when enacted, will have a ready-made enforcement framework and the legal advice available to me is that the GHS can be enforced under it by means of regulations under the European Communities Act. I hope that provides clarification. In any case, we can clarify all of these matters at a later stage.
Deputy Penrose raised the issue of authorisation. This will be a process carried out by the European Chemicals Agency in co-operation with the national authorities of member states; the HSA will be the main agency involved in Ireland. The idea of authorisation recognises that there are some chemicals which, while dangerous, are vital for certain manufacturing processes and authorisation will ensure that they are used safely. Authorisation may be issued to specific operators who apply — it will not apply generally.
Deputies mentioned staffing in the context of the HSA. I am delighted to state that the Government approved 44 staff for the HSA and an additional two staff for the EPA in June 2005. The additional EPA staff are in place and 33 of the 44 staff for the HSA are in place. Obviously, the other national authorities will have minor roles under this legislation and will make decisions in the context of budgets available to them for the provision of staff to ensure that there is compliance with the legislation.
While we are committed to ensuring that there is compliance and that there are staff available to enforce the legislation when it is passed, I have often made the following point to the HSA when I address its board or go to conferences. The purpose of legislation is to encourage compliance and if compliance is not forthcoming by individuals or by companies, then there is enforcement, prosecutions and heavy penalties. The primary purpose of legislation is to encourage. In that regard, we should foster a culture and inculcate in industry that compliance is good for it as well before bringing down the heavy hammer to crack the nut. I draw attention to the brochure published by the European Chemicals Agency which is a fairly straightforward and self-explanatory flier. Obviously, the HSA will run seminars informing businesses, such as chemical companies involved in the chemical industry in importing, exporting, transporting or manufacture, that a simplified code of practice will be in place. The HSA has been positive in all aspects of what it is doing, even with the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005. They go out to educate and encourage people to comply as opposed to going out to prosecute. Let us be under no illusions, one cannot have a labour inspector, a health and safety inspector or an inspector in the context of this legislation in every place. One must hope that industry complies, but knowing full well that in the absence of compliance there will be enforcement and prosecutions.
I want to inform industry and business on what they will be doing. The registration of the chemicals under REACH is not only a matter for the chemical industry, but for all industrial and professional users of chemicals. It is important for manufacturing industry and professional users to contact their suppliers as soon as possible. I hope that if anybody is listening, other than those inside the Chamber, he or she will engage in this preliminary process on REACH and the pre-registration deadline of 1 December this year to find out if the chemicals with which they are being supplied will be registered. If one is dependent on a chemical for one's business process and it is not pre-registered, one may be out of business by 1 January 2009. I say that to everybody, organisations such as IBEC and others involved in representing businesses, so that they will be conscious of this and will engage actively. The HSA and others will be advising as well, but at the end of the day it is the prerogative of the individuals to ensure that they are up to speed on the legislation and the regulations. Substances that are not registered under REACH will not be available anymore to downstream users. Checking with suppliers will give them time look for alternative future suppliers, if necessary.
As I stated, the Health and Safety Authority has been running information campaigns and I am sure that will continue. There is a helpdesk as well and I will outline its details so that when people are reading this tonight, or watching "Oireachtas Report", they will have all the information. The REACH helpdesk telephone number is 1980 289 389. There is a considerable lead-in time and people should engage at an early stage. There is assistance and co-operation available; seminar and presentation material are also available.
Let us be under no illusions. Manufacturing industry is important to the economy, as other speakers relayed also. While the numbers employed in manufacturing in Ireland have reduced from approximately 15% to 11%, nevertheless, the value to the economy is substantial. Obviously, the pharmaceutical and chemical area has made a major contribution to high-quality employment in this country. We are conscious of that and that is why there is a lead-in approach. In this context there has been plenty of forewarning. There is pre-registration and everybody should buy into that — I hope that when the time comes they will have done so.
Much reference was made to whistleblowers. It is important that we protect those who have made a bona fide complaint about people who may be in breach of this Act. It is also done in other legislation. Generally, we should be conscious that a concerned citizen is willing to bring forward a complaint because he or she sees a breach of a particular piece of legislation. Section 24 will protect people who bring forward a bona fide compliant in the context of a breach of the legislation.
I again commend the Bill to the House and I look forward to discussing it with the Deputies on Committee Stage. I thank my officials.
Question put and agreed to.