It would be useful if Members could know the sections which the Minister intends to bring into effect immediately. Am I to understand that it is the whole of the Bill, apart from Part II, dealing with explosives? Is that correct?
Dangerous Substances (Amendment) Bill, 1979: Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
That is correct. There are very substantial regulations to be made, but when this amendment is passed, it will enable me to bring in the Bill in sections. The only section it is not intended to bring in at this time is Part II.
I thank the Minister for that clarification. I note that section 21 relates to the storage of petroleum spirit and, in particular, its storage in private houses. Is it the case that this section has not been operative until now and will it become operative when the Bill is passed? If so, would the Minister take steps to publicise the implications of this for people who are storing petrol in private houses? Is he in a position to ensure that there is not storage of petrol in private houses in greater quantity than either the present law or section 21 of this Bill, when it comes into effect, allows? There are a lot of rumours and scare stories about large quantities of petrol being stored in people's garages or in the spare room or, in one instance I heard of, being stored in a bath. This poses a possible terrible hazard for the householders themselves and for people in the area. It is the kind of problem that could worsen if we continue to have shortages. Are the provisions of section 21 to come into effect as soon as the Bill is passed? As I understand it, section 21 (2) (a) provides that a person can store a quantity not exceeding three gallons kept in suitable leak-proof containers securely stopped and containing not more than one gallon each. I would like the Minister to comment on this whole situation.
The fast answer to the Senator's answer is "yes", that is the intention. It is timely to raise this point. I cannot give the Senator an indication of how much, if any, quantities of petrol are held by people. I, too, hear stories and rumours. I would like to avail of this opportunity to express the seriousness of this action and the consequent dangers that could arise from storing petrol. Under the Department of the Environment the road traffic petroleum regulations 1964, made under sections 5 and 122 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, provide that, subject to certain conditions, a person may keep without a licence under the Petroleum Acts a limited quantity of petrol for the purposes of a mechanically-propelled vehicle owned by him. The quantity of such petroleum is limited to four gallons when kept in a storehouse attached to a dwelling and 60 gallons when kept in a storehouse complying with more stringent requirements, including a requirement that it must be situated a distance from other dwellings. In other words, these regulations are in existence at present without the introduction of this Bill. Section 21, as the Senator pointed out, covers the storage of petroleum spirits. We should all impress on people and bring to people's notice, the dangers and risks involved if rumours of persons storing petrol are true. These persons may be creating problems for neighbours, for children and so on.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
The Minister referred to the importance he attaches to the establishment of this advisory council. They seem to be a weak body in their composition, security of tenure and their capacity to act. They are appointed by, and hold office at the discretion of, the Minister. Even if an inspector wants to attend a meeting, it appears that he needs the consent of the Minister to do so. It may be that I am construing it too strictly according to the letter of what is in the section and that the Minister intends it to be an effective and useful advisory council to him. What kind of work will this advisory council undertake? For example, will they be advising on the kind of precautions which would need to be taken in relation both to the labelling of dangerous substances and to the safety precautions, if a container which contains dangerous substances has an accident on the road or rail? This is a problem other countries are coping with. There are particular ways of labelling substances to ensure that if, for example, the fire brigade or other emergency service are called, they do not use the wrong method of tackling the particular substance. There are a number of other areas where we need a great deal more warning. To reinforce Senator Moynihan's point on education, will the advisory council advise the Minister on ways of improving public awareness and public education in relation to dangerous substances?
The Minister referred to the desirability of having maximum flexibility under this section. The way it is worded, it appears that that maximum flexibility is not being given to what should be a very important advisory council. The last line of subsection (1) says: "which the Minister may refer to the advisory council". This appears to mean that the Minister will tell the advisory council what he wishes them to investigate, and that they may not meet or discuss, except when the Minister refers certain matters for discussion and investigation to them. This is making the whole thing rather inflexible and is also putting the advisory council under certain constraints.
I want to raise a point which Senator Robinson referred to. The advisory council are subject to the consent of the Minister in requesting some inspector, or other persons, to come before the council and discuss matters with them. As I see it, the advisory council are to concern themselves with a very wide field, not only in the identification of what are dangerous substances but also in regard to how these dangerous substances may affect workers in their employment, the public generally and the environment through pollution.
I would like the Minister's comments on the two points I have raised. First, is he not constraining this advisory council by the wording of subsection (1) which says "which the Minister may refer to the advisory council"? I would prefer that the advisory council should be an on-going council and should meet as they wish on certain matters. Second, is he not also constraining them by making them seek his consent to invite people to come and discuss matters with them?
It is my wish that this advisory council would be as flexible as possible, for obvious reasons. Certain interests would have to be represented. There are advisory councils at present in respect of factories and under other Acts. Representation will have to be from bodies such as trade union and employer bodies but there will have to be representation from a much wider field. For example, transport and the chemical industries are involved. A good point was made in the Dáil yesterday that the community should be represented. I said that point had a lot of merit and should be included.
In the terms of reference of the advisory council it would be in the Government's interest and the community's interest to have as much flexibility as possible, bringing on to the council any expertise that may be needed from time to time.
The question of the attendance of an inspector has been referred to. This is, in most cases, very desirable but there has to be a protection on the basis of the Minister's responsibilities to ensure that information in regard to matters relating, for example, to prosecution cases pending, is treated as absolutely confidential. In other words, it would not be right for this House or for me as Minister to give carte blanche to an inspector's attendance in a situation where there was a prosecution pending where he could be a vital witness. There could be an interested party or a commercially represented person on that advisory council and the inspector would be facing an inquisition or a haranguing about a pending prosecution. This is merely a protection in the case of responsibilities in the general run of the advisory council's working. I would see no reason why discussions could not go on or why an inspector should not attend, but at the same time his attendance has to be protected in certain circumstances.
Senator Robinson mentioned labelling, to which I had referred earlier. Labelling is a very important part of this operation. It will be provided that tankers carrying dangerous substances will be suitably marked and will also carry warning signs. Emergency services will readily identify the substances which are being carried and will know how to cope with an incident.
If we are to accept that an inspector from the Department would need the Minister's consent before he could attend before the advisory council, can we also take it that the Minister would not prevent the advisory council inviting in experts in the field of petrochemicals and so on without necessarily having to seek consent?
I would regard it as a very valuable contribution because we are dealing with a highly technical area and it may be more technical in the future.
Did I understand the Minister to say that he probably would have community representation on this advisory council? Would it be a consumer association type of representation? I would like to know what the Minister has in mind. I do not necessarily want him to name names but just to give an idea of the scope of the membership of the advisory council.
It would be my intention that there should be such representation. At this stage I cannot say the precise type of community representation. Concern is expressed by communities about loading or unloading operations. A person from that type of community would be what I would have in mind.
Will the Minister entertain any applications from Killala?
The Minister indicated that the vehicles would be suitably marked. I should like to know if we will have a common identification for all dangerous substances so that there will not be a multiplicity of symbols?
The intention is that there will be a group of signs relating to the particular hazards of dangerous substances. As I have already said, there will be labelling of the specific substances.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.