Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Nov 1998

Vol. 157 No. 1

Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road Bill, 1998: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister of State at the Department of Public Enterprise (Mr. Jacob)

The Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road Bill is about raising standards generally in all matters concerning the transport of dangerous goods internationally by Irish carriers and on Irish roads. I have no doubt the House will agree that it is imperative that we reach and maintain the highest standards in this area. The unprecedented economic growth we have achieved over the past number of years has inevitably led to a significant increase in road freight movements. Needless to say, there has also been an increase in road movements of dangerous substances with, of course, movements involving petroleum tankers comprising the vast bulk of such dangerous goods. It is incumbent upon us, therefore, to have in place the best possible rules for transport of dangerous goods and have a framework for ensuring that the most recent rules can be implemented without delay.

It is not sufficient however, to have the highest standards in place. We must also work to ensure that those involved have proper and adequate training and that there is adequate enforcement. I will touch on both of these topics later.

I would like at this point to explain the main aspects of the Bill. The primary aim of the Bill is to put in place enabling powers for the making of regulations which will first, allow Ireland to accede to the European agreement concerning the international carriage of dangerous goods by road known as the ADR; second, bring into Irish law the European Union Directive 94/55/EC on the approximation of the laws of the member states with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by road; and third, bring into Irish law the European Union Directive 95/50/EC on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road.

The European agreement concerning the international carriage of dangerous goods by road — the ADR — was drawn up in Geneva in 1957 and came into force in 1968. There are 33 signatories to the ADR and Ireland is the only member state of the European Union that is not a contracting party. The agreement contains two detailed technical annexes that set out the circumstances under which dangerous goods may be transported by road across international frontiers. It is an international agreement and deals only with international transport of dangerous goods by road. In practice Irish carriers who transport dangerous goods internationally comply with the detailed provisions of the ADR at present. Therefore, accession to the ADR will not result in significant changes in practice for these operators. It will, however, make compliance simpler by providing the necessary type approval and vehicle certification facilities here in Ireland. It is time, nevertheless, that we acceded to this agreement which will put Irish haulage concerns on an equal footing with hauliers from other contracting parties.

The Bill is largely enabling and will result in the making of one comprehensive and detailed set of regulations. The technical details associated with the carriage of dangerous goods by road are complex and are necessarily updated on a regular basis. I believe it is more appropriate in the circumstances that the detailed rules relating to the carriage of dangerous goods be set down in regulations. These regulations when taken together with the annexes to the ADR will be a vital reference point for all involved in the carriage of dangerous goods by road. Consignors, consignees, transport operators and drivers will have available to them clear instructions as to the requirements and their statutory responsibilities.

I would like now to describe in more detail each of the three principal elements with which this Bill deals. The first element is the European agreement concerning the international carriage of goods by road. The agreement itself is quite short and relatively simple. It consists of 17 articles that define the scope and method of operation of the agreement. Article 1 defines the terms used in the agreement. A key article is article 2 which effectively paves the way for the carriage of dangerous goods by road between the territories of the contracting parties.

Article 3 states that annexes A and B to the agreement form an integral part thereof. Annex A specifies the dangerous goods that are permitted to be carried internationally by road and the conditions to be complied with in such carriage, including packaging and labelling requirements. It also specifies goods that are prohibited from such carriage. Annex B specifies conditions as regards the construction, use, testing and approval of transport equipment intended for use in the carriage of dangerous goods by road and the training and certification of drivers of vehicles carrying dangerous goods by road.

Article 4 allows contracting parties to regulate or prohibit, for reasons other than safety during carriage, the entry of dangerous goods into their territory. It also provides for circumstances where contracting parties, by virtue of bilateral or multilateral agreements with other contracting parties, can allow the carriage of certain prohibited dangerous goods under special conditions.

Article 5 provides transport operations under this agreement remain subject to national and international regulations applicable in general to road traffic, international road transport and international trade.

Articles 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the ADR are housekeeping articles related to such matters as accession, the effective date of the agreement, ceasing to become a contracting party and territories of contracting parties.

Articles 11 and 12 are concerned with the procedure for settlement of a dispute between two or more contracting parties concerning the interpretation or application of the agreement.

Article 13 deals with the procedure for reviewing the text of the agreement itself while Article 14 is concerned with the procedure for the amendment of the annexes to this agreement. Articles 15, 16 and 17 deal with the protocols of signature and ratification of the agreement. The real substance of the ADR is contained in the annexes to which I referred earlier. The annexes specify the technical requirements that must be met when transporting dangerous goods internationally by road. Annex A to the agreement lists the dangerous goods that may be carried and deals with the classification of those goods, packaging, labelling and documentary requirements. These issues are of concern to the consignor of the load. Annex B deals with the vehicle and tank construction requirements and the rules for operation that are the responsibility of the carrier, the operator and the driver of the vehicle.

The system of classification of dangerous goods under ADR is drawn from the recommendations on the transport of dangerous goods, drawn up by the United Nations Economic and Social Council's committee of experts. This system is designed to apply worldwide to all transport modes. Dangerous goods are divided into nine different classes according to the main type of danger they could present in transport, for example, explosion or toxicity. Annex A classifies dangerous goods as follows: class 1, explosive substances and articles; class 2, gases; class 3, flammable liquids; class 4, flammable solids, substances liable to spontaneous combustion and substances that, in contact with water, emit flammable gases; class 5, oxidising substances and organic peroxides; class 6, toxic and infectious substances; class 7, radioactive material; class 8, corrosive substances and class 9, miscellaneous dangerous substances and articles. The technical annexes lay down detailed and comprehensive requirements for each of the nine classes of dangerous goods.

The movement of dangerous goods is in some special cases exempt from the rules of the ADR, for example, where the goods are being carried by a private individual for their own use, inside machines for their operational function, in limited quantities by an enterprise in support of its main activity, such as deliveries by a construction firm to a building site, and in emergency service or recovery vehicles.

If part of an ADR journey comes under other international rules such as the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code for a sea crossing, or the ICAO technical instructions for air transport, those rules additionally apply and replace the equivalent ADR rules for that part of the journey. This is particularly relevant for multi-modal operations. If an ADR journey precedes and follows carriage by sea or air, the goods shall be accepted for carriage under ADR even if the packages and containers are labelled in accordance with the sea or air mode rather than with the ADR.

The second instrument for which the Bill makes provision is the European Directive 94/55/EC of 21 November 1994 on the approximation of the laws of the member states with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by road. The purpose of this directive is to apply the detailed and comprehensive rules contained in the annexes to the ADR to national transport of dangerous goods by road. Thus, all transport of dangerous goods entering the State, leaving the State for an international destination or on a journey from point A to point B within the State is comprehended by these rules. The stringent international rules for the transport of dangerous goods between countries will apply to domestic transport of dangerous goods under the new regime. This directive was introduced in the interest of safety, uniformity and free trading across the European Union.

In recognition of the fact that the ADR as an international agreement cannot always be adapted to national transport conditions and requirements, the directive contains a number of articles that provide for the granting of derogations from the full requirements of the ADr. The derogation facility in the directive has been availed of by Ireland in a number of instances where local conditions merited such. It must be stressed, however, that these derogations apply only to domestic transport and not international journeys. These derogations were sought in order to ensure, as far as possible, that the economic impact on the sector would not be excessive, but do not in any way compromise safety.

Other derogations negotiated include reference temperatures that determine the shell thicknesses of LPG tanks suited to our climatic conditions have been accepted — thicker shells are required in hotter regions of southern Europe — and a derogation relating to the transport of explosives that allows for the continued security arrangements associated with such transport. Ireland has also negotiated derogations to cover the transport of ammonium nitrate fertiliser, dispensing gases carried on the same vehicle as beverages, transport of low level radioactive material to hospitals and transport of clinical waste.

The final element of the package concerns Directive 95/50/EC on uniform procedures and levels of enforcement relating to the checking of compliance with Directive 94/55/EC. The main purpose of Directive 95/50/EC is to ensure that member states carry out checks on a representative number of dangerous goods journeys in the State. First, the directive aims to harmonise the quality of checks across the member states. For example, checks must ascertain if the correct documentation is carried in the vehicle, if the goods transported are permitted under the regulations and, if so, that they are transported in the correct containers or packages, that the equipment is in proper working order and is free from leaks or faults. Second, the directive has a quantitative element in that it requires that a representative proportion of consignments of dangerous goods transported by road be subject to checks.

I assure Senators that the legislation being enacted does not mean the carriage of dangerous goods by road in Ireland at present does not meet high standards. A range of statutory instruments made by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment pursuant to the Dangerous Substance Acts, 1972 and 1979, already cover the conveyance of all dangerous substances with the exception of class 1 — explosives and class 7 — radioactive material. These regulations are administered and enforced by the National Authority for Occupational Safety and Health. The carriage of explosives is covered under by-laws and rules made by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform under the Explosives Act, 1875, and are administered and enforced by the explosives inspectorate of that Department. The transport of radioactive materials is covered by an order made by the Minister for Public Enterprise under the Radiological Protection Act, 1991, and administered and enforced by the inspectorate of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland. The Government has sanctioned the recruitment of four additional inspectors by the National Authority for Occupational Safety and Health, each of whom will be devoted to this work. These inspectors will be fully qualified and properly trained for the task, and will maintain the highest professional standards, as do inspectors currently employed in this area. I am sure Senators will agree that adequate consideration has been given to the vital task of enforcement in this specialised area.

I am also pleased to confirm that training and certification of drivers of vehicles carrying dangerous goods have been in place in Ireland since 1992. Further, by virtue of a statutory instrument introduced in 1997, the more rigorous requirements of the ADR specification for driver training are in place. A number of people providing driver training courses have been approved by the Health and Safety Authority and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Under the regulations, my Department arranges for the examination of drivers as soon as possible after they have completed the course. The examination consists of a written and oral test set by the Health and Safety Authority. Approximately 5,000 Irish drivers have the necessary certificate at this stage, which has ensured the uninterrupted transport of dangerous goods by road.

I wish to highlight certain provisions in the Bill. Under section 17 the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment is empowered to make regulations from time to time for the purpose of specifying the requirements concerning the carriage of dangerous goods by road as they evolve. The Bill proposes that the Minister would make the necessary regulations while the Minister promoting the Bill would be the Minister for Public Enterprise.

The ADR was drawn up in 1957 and came into force in 1968. In the absence of steps to ratify the ADR elsewhere, the drafting of the necessary legislation was carried out by the old Department of Transport as accession to the ADR would have been of assistance to Irish hauliers engaged in international haulage of dangerous goods by road. In endeavouring to bring forward the necessary legislation and have the ADR ratified in Ireland, my Department always intended to transfer responsibility back to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment where responsibility properly lies. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment has overall responsibility for the Health and Safety Authority which will be the principal enforcement body and which will also enforce regulations for the handling and storing of dangerous goods generally. It is thought that it would be confusing for the public and industry if responsibility for the handling and storing of dangerous goods lay with one Minister while responsibility for their transport lay with another. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment has for some time been initiating and enforcing legislation for the transport of dangerous goods by road. This legislation takes the form of regulations made under the Dangerous Substances Acts, 1972 and 1979.

I am happy to say that considerable work has already been done on the necessary regulations, which the Minister is enabled to make pursuant to section 17 of the Bill. Preparation of the regulations is proceeding apace through the work of an interdepartmental committee that has representatives from a number of Departments and State agencies.

The bodies represented on this committee are the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Department of the Environment and Local Government, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Department of Public Enterprise, the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, the National Authority for Occupational Safety and Health and the National Standards Authority of Ireland.

The regulations have the very important value of bringing all the elements associated with the carriage of dangerous goods by road together in one document or set of statutory regulations. These regulations when read in conjunction with the annexes to the ADR will be invaluable to industry, haulage concerns and drivers alike. For the first time it will bring together in one place the laws and technical requirements necessary to inform persons engaged in the transport of all dangerous substances including explosives and radioactive materials.

A significant element of the legislative framework is the need to ensure that comprehensive and representative numbers of checks are carried out and that breaches are dealt with in a non-discriminatory fashion that is prompted by the requirements of Directive 95/50/EC of 6 October 1995 on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road. Accordingly, it is necessary to provide for adequate sanction against both national and international hauliers. The Bill breaks new ground to the extent that there is an effort to put in place measures that would bring out of State carriers to book if the requirements of ADR are ignored or flouted while carrying dangerous goods within the State.

It is my firm opinion that the combined effect of sections 9 and 18 of the Bill is an appropriate response and meets fully our obligations under the directive. Apart from that, particularly in the matter of carriage of dangerous goods by road, there is a need for us legislators to face up to the fact that there is an urgent need to make out of state carriers amenable to the law when operating in the State. This has been achieved in this Bill for matters relating to the carriage of dangerous goods by road. This will give a clear signal that strict adherence to the law is necessary by all those involved in such carriage be they from within or outside the State.

Section 9 is designed to ensure breaches of the Act or regulations made thereunder can be prosecuted against out of state carriers in the course of a journey carrying dangerous goods within the State. This is achieved by arresting any driver whom a garda has reason to believe is committing or has committed an offence and in the opinion of the garda has not given a satisfactory address for service of summons.

The Bill defines what constitutes a satisfactory address as an address at which the person will be for a sufficient length of time for it to be possible to serve that person with a summons or an address of some other specified person who will accept a summons on the first person's behalf. In such cases the address of a firm of solicitors in the State which undertakes to accept summons on behalf of the driver will satisfy this provision. The section is similar to a provision in the United Kingdom Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984, that is used extensively by UK police authorities to deal with out of state hauliers in breach of road traffic and road transport legislation in Britain.

In the case of a driver of a vehicle being arrested under this section the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, as amended by section 3 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1997, come into effect. The procedure is as follows: the arrested driver is brought to the nearest Garda station; he is brought as soon as practicable before the District Court district in which the person has been arrested or he is released on bail to appear at the next appropriate sitting of the District Court; bail can be set by the station sergeant in accordance with section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967; bail can be in the form of recognizance or a sum of money, and it is lodged in the relevant District Court to the court clerk; if the driver fails to appear before the court at the appointed time an application can be made under the relevant District Court rule to estreat the recognizance or to forfeit the sum of money.

Another initiative in this area is the proposal in section 18 to introduce on the spot fines in respect of offences under the regulations made pursuant to section 17 of the Act. This section is an enabling one and it will be a matter for the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to prescribe the class of offences that will be dealt with under this section.

An inspector, who has reasonable grounds for believing that a person is committing an offence under the regulations may issue a notice to that person stating the following: the person is alleged to have committed the offence, the person may make a payment of £150 without delay to the inspector and a prosecution will not be pursued if the payment is made to the inspector without delay. This provision is significantly different from the existing on the spot fines as we know them. The current system is an invitation to pay a certain amount of money within 21 days and if payment is made no prosecution will ensue. The system proposed here is an invitation to pay a sum of £150 without delay to an enforcing inspector. If the driver refuses to pay and does not have a satisfactory address for service of summons the provisions of section 9 can come into play. If the driver has a satisfactory address for summons and does not pay the fine he can be prosecuted in the normal way.

The fine is currently set at £150; however, the Minister may vary this amount by regulations at any time in order to take account of inflation or if it is felt that a fine set at this level is not enough of a deterrent or that the offences being committed demand greater fines. Flexibility is provided in the Bill as to the currencies and the methods of payment that will be acceptable.

I hope Senators will agree that the Bill is comprehensive legislation which will enable Ireland to accede to its international obligations in this important area and put in place the necessary rules and systems which will ensure safety in the carriage of dangerous goods on our roads.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Acting Chairman (Dr. Henry)

I am delighted to see that the Minister of State's speech, which has been distributed to Members, is printed on both sides of each page, which cuts down on a great deal of waste. I compliment your officials.

Mr. O'Dowd

On behalf of my party I welcome the legislation. I understand that we are the only country of 33 that has not yet introduced this type of legislation, but we are now regularising our position vis-a-vis Europe and that is very important. As the Minister of State said, one of the big issues is the number of out of state carriers coming through our country. We must ensure that the regulations apply to them as they do to domestic carriers.

The transport of dangerous goods by rail is a major issue that we should address, although it is not within the scope of this Bill. During the debate on this legislation in the Dáil a number of people said we should encourage the transport of dangerous goods by rail instead of by road. It is quite clear that our present road network is unable to cope with current levels of traffic. Therefore, the transport of dangerous goods by road is an increasing risk given the national gridlock patterns in Dublin and other cities.

Notwithstanding the report we will be discussing tomorrow on the state of the rail system, we should have a positive policy of encouraging the transport of dangerous goods by rail. We should make every effort and provide every incentive to bring that about.

One of the problems facing the transport of goods at present is the excess speed of many vehicles. Reading through the Second Stage debate in the Dáil, it is interesting to note that Deputies from Counties Cavan, Monaghan and Louth contributed a lot. I am from County Louth where there is a major problem with carriers coming through Northern Ireland into the South and driving at excessive speeds. It is significant that 60 per cent of road traffic accidents in County Louth involve drivers from outside the State. I do not have the statistical breakdown as to whether they are lorries or cars, but there is a major difficulty posed by speeding vehicles, including lorries, coming across the Border into Counties Louth, Cavan and Monaghan.

The debate in the Dáil reflected the fact, which I want to reflect here also, that our national road network system is very poor. We are doing well economically but our transport system is very far behind. I welcome the Bill's provisions to introduce specific training for drivers as well as to have inspectors who will examine whether transport meets the necessary requirements. This is a positive approach.

In common with my colleagues, I drive throughout the country looking for votes, among other things, but I have rarely come across a garda stopping lorries to check them. Such routine investigative activity is very rare. We need proper transport police who would look at all transport issues, including speeding. We do not have a sufficient number of gardaí dealing with transport in general and speeding in particular.

Some years ago I had the privilege of driving in France where every large commercial vehicle must display the maximum speed at which it is allowed to travel. The figure, displayed on the rear of such vehicles, is clear to everyone. We do not have that system here, although the capacity of speeding lorries to cause serious injury is so much greater than cars because of their greater size. We need to increase the policing of lorries carrying dangerous and other goods. Even simple things such as inadequate rear reflectors can pose a danger.

While lorry drivers in the South are no angels, I often notice that many lorries from Northern Ireland do not even have number plates. Senators should look at lorries the next time they are in traffic and they will be surprised by this fact. There is much laxity in our system but the legislation will introduce greater vigilance and accountability from the commercial sector.

The famous tachograph concerns me. We have all read about it and have seen it featured in television programmes relating to transport. What degree of investigation is there into the abuse of the tachograph by lorry drivers? I believe they are not checked often enough. We must re-examine the enforcement of legislation relating to the number of hours during which people are legally allowed to drive lorries.

The reality is that driving a commercial vehicle these days is a business. Many lorry drivers are self-employed and are under fierce commercial pressure. Unfortunately, some of them cut corners. We must take a hard look at the pressures on such commercial operators. We should endeavour to give the upper hand to those who are not cowboys — and I stress that most of them are not cowboys — and we can do so by being vigilant and implementing the legislation to make sure we get the best deal for the public.

Another question that arises is the transport of dangerous goods through urban areas and transport corridors to Dublin, Drogheda and other ports. We must designate areas through which lorries are not allowed. A town in County Monaghan, possibly Carrickmacross, does not allow lorries through certain streets of the town although those streets are wide enough. We must designate areas, particularly in towns, through which transporters of dangerous goods are not permitted.

The Minister said the legislation is concerned with raising standards. It must also be concerned with enforcing these high standards and making sure they are adhered to. The public must be protected from the dangers of the substances which are being transported on our roads.

I wonder how ready our emergency services are to deal with a traffic accident involving dangerous substances. I welcome the fact that the Bill includes a cross-reference of the bodies involved in framing this legislation and in its enforcement. There must be liaison among local authority services, such as the fire service, and they must be provided with the latest technology to ensure they can deal with accidents involving dangerous goods. Our emergency services receive excellent training for such eventualities but they must be given the necessary equipment even if their local authority cannot afford to provide it.

Senators will be aware that local authority estimates will be coming up for discussion shortly and every item, including the fire service, will be examined carefully. The local authority of which I am a member has a policy of voting the funds necessary for whatever is required by the county fire officer. In this area we must err on the side of generosity. Our health boards and hospitals have national and regional emergency plans and they must be constantly fine tuned.

More attention needs to be paid to certain areas of safety but I welcome the Bill and the fact that we are regularising our status in relation to our European partners. Vigilance is the price of safety and we cannot be vigilant enough.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

Fearaim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit agus gabhaim comhgairdeas leis as ucht an Bille um Iompar Earraí Contúirteacha de Bhóthar, 1998, a chur os comhair Thithe an Oireachtais. I welcome the Minister of State and commend him for bringing this Bill before the House.

During the debate in the Dáil repeated reference was made to the Minister's delay in bringing the Bill to the House. However, I commend him for his motivation, determination and enthusiasm in ensuring that the Bill was brought before this House at the earliest opportunity. I wonder how Opposition Members of the other House explain the failure of the previous Government to deal with this issue.

I am delighted that out of state hauliers who, for long have thumbed their noses at our authorities, are now being taken on. It is time to give a clear signal to hauliers who drive through our State showing reckless disregard for our laws that they will be dealt with effectively.

I agree that the state of our roads gives cause for concern. Much money has been invested in our roads infrastructure in recent years but they are still not adequate for the level of commercial activity in the country. This adds to the hazards caused by heavy duty vehicles.

I was reassured to hear the Minister say that derogations are never applied in a manner which would compromise safety. However, the question of derogations must be examined more closely. I wonder why derogations exist at all, even for the domestic traveller.

The Bill introduces the legislative framework to enable Ireland to become a contracting party to the ADR, the European agreement on the international carriage of dangerous goods by road. It gives the framework for bringing into Irish law two important European Union directives; the Minister of State has referred to the details of those directives.

The Bill is concerned with public safety on our roads. The manner in which trucks are operated gives great cause for concern. For example, trucks, both domestic and foreign, travel at excessive speeds. I am convinced that a systematic survey would show that most truck drivers break the speed limits. This is particularly hazardous when the trucks concerned are carrying dangerous substances. We are all aware of the increase in the number of road accidents. The combination of speed, dangerous driving and the presence of dangerous substances constitutes an enormous danger. One of the objectives of legislation of this sort must be to ensure that heavy goods vehicles, particularly when they carry dangerous substances, are subject to very strict speed limits which must be rigorously enforced. The enforcement authorities should be visible at all times on all routes used by such vehicles. This will ensure that the law is complied with and the safety standards to which we aspire are achieved.

The question of signage has been referred to. In my experience signage on large lorries is inadequate and in some cases completely absent. It is often not possible for other road users to know of the potential hazards to which they are being subjected and it is important that they are aware of them. If a vehicle is carrying inflammable, toxic, explosive or other dangerous substances, other road users should be cautioned by the signage on the vehicle. In the event of an unfortunate accident or if the lorry gets into difficulties, other road users would be cautioned by the signage as to the desirable evasive action they should take. If there is no signage, such evasive action will not be possible.

Another problem which I have encountered on numerous occasions is the incidence of heavy duty goods vehicles travelling in convoy. This is becoming a common feature on our roads, as I discovered on my frequent trips to the west and south. For reasons best known to themselves, lorry drivers appear to enjoy travelling in convoys probably because they do not have to contend with other road users. Other road users cannot cope when confronted with a convoy of two, three and often four lorries which sometimes travel at speeds in excess of the local speed limit. Such convoys prevent them from passing the lorries, as they would do if they encountered them singly. This type of practice must be condemned and enforcement of the rules must be rigorous. I hope the Minister of State will tackle this problem.

Members have talked about the fruits of the economic boom. However, we have also seen the negative consequences. My constituency and neighbouring constituencies in north Dublin have, thankfully, experienced an enormous boom in industrial parks and estates. From Howth through Coolock, Finglas and Cabra to Blanchardstown, a plethora of industrial estates have developed while existing estates have expanded greatly. The area forms the hinterland of Dublin Airport and Dublin port. Consequently, there is a huge increase in commercial heavy duty traffic.

The traffic traverses densely populated areas. This causes great concern about the potential risks for residents in those communities. Fear and concern have frequently been expressed about trucks, obviously with signage, carrying dangerous substances to and from the port, the airport and the industrial estates, many of which are the location of chemical industries.

Undoubtedly, serious action must be taken to ensure emergency plans are in place. The need for such plans was mentioned earlier. They are necessary for rural towns and villages as well as city suburbs. However, given the density of population in Dublin and its traffic gridlock, the number of heavy goods vehicles on streets adjacent to residential areas poses additional risks of far greater dimension than would normally be the case. It is extremely important to ensure that emergency services, on both a national and local basis, be in place to deal with a potential catastrophe.

Dublin Corporation goes to great lengths to revise its procedures annually. I was delighted to hear Senator O'Dowd say that the fire officers in his area err on the side of generosity. I would like to think that is also the case in my area. No single local authority could have the type of resources each year that would be necessary to deal with a potential catastrophe.

The Bill is welcome. Its objective is to improve the quality and standards of public safety. It also brings Irish law into line with that of other European jurisdictions within the ADr. However, the quality, effectiveness and success of the legislation and its consequent regulations depend on the standards of policing and enforcement and the quality and calibre of the inspectors. It also depends on the standard of training for heavy goods vehicle drivers.

The Minister of State said there are more than 5,000 such drivers in Ireland and pointed out that the standards for certification increased during the years from 1992 to 1997. That is reassuring but there is still public concern about the calibre of some drivers. Most of them are decent, hardworking, genuine, committed and enthusiastic people but a certain number act in a manner which does not conform to the high standards to which we aspire. The quality and standards of heavy goods vehicle drivers should be reviewed annually.

Furthermore, the inspectors employed to police the regulations should have a multidisciplinary capacity. The comprehensive provisions in this legislation will be flouted even under the eye of an individual if he or she does not have a wide range of expertise and the necessary qualifications.

Mr. Caffrey

I welcome the Bill in so far as it contributes to road safety and the reduction of the carnage on the roads.

Senator Fitzgerald said the Minister is dealing with the problem expeditiously. There is a perception that when legislation is introduced to comply with an EU directive it means we are dealing with a problem. Unfortunately, we are not. As other Senators have pointed out, the problem is enforcement. If the Minister of State had said that, in addition to the Bill, the Government would recruit another 1,000 gardaí to enforce the law on the road, he would be dealing with the problem. There is a plethora of legislation on numerous topics but there is virtually no enforcement of it.

Some Members drive from rural areas to the Seanad twice a week. On our journeys we encounter all types of non-compliance with the rules of the road. It must be said that for every motorist who is caught, there are probably another 50 offenders who are not caught. That is not good enough. No legislation will change that unless the level of enforcement is increased. The Government will have to tackle that problem.

I live in an area through which the most dangerous known substance was transported safely for 20 years. Acrylonitrile was transported by Iarnród Éireann without serious incident from Dublin to Killala for 20 years to the Asahi chemical plant, which unfortunately closed down one year ago with the loss of 120 jobs. There were a few minor incidents but, by and large, there were no serious incidents. This bears out the argument made by Senator O'Dowd and others that we must concentrate more on transporting dangerous goods by rail. The line from Ballina, Westport and Athlone is probably used only two or three hours out of 24. There are railway lines lying idle and unused for 90 per cent of the time while the gridlock on the roads continues to increase every week.

The economic boom, which is especially significant on the east coast and to which Senator Fitzgerald referred, is contributing to this. I note his remark that there are many industrial estates on the east coast. If some of them were located in the west, it would relieve much of the gridlock in Dublin.

Miss Quill

Wait until the west achieves Objective One status. We will all go west.

Mr. Caffrey

It will be a help but it will not solve the problem.

The other question about increasing the level of road transportation is the damage it does to the roads. The infrastructure is not in place to take the increasing volume of traffic on the roads. If one travels from Ballina or Westport to Strokestown or further north, the roads are not capable of even taking two articulated trucks passing simultaneously. One must be careful because the road is so narrow. That leads to more accidents on the roads.

When the Minister is drafting amendments to the Bill he may consider this. It is virtually impossible to pass heavy articulated trucks on a wet day because they spray vapour and water right across the road and even into the fields on the far side of the road and visibility is reduced to a minimum — in many instances it may be reduced to a few feet. There should be some mechanism which would prevent this happening on public roads.

It is virtually impossible to pass two articulated trucks on a very wet day; however, one would possibly have no need to pass them because they would be exceeding the speed limit. As Senator O'Dowd stated, with regard to the level of compliance, many truck drivers are conscientious and helpful on the road. Unfortunately, as in every profession there are a few who are not contributing anything to road safety or to improving the standard of driving on the roads. Those drivers must be brought before the courts.

I am delighted that the fines are increased in the Bill. If the fines are substantial, we may achieve a level of enforcement which heretofore has not been achieved because the Judiciary can play an important role in this. I have noticed recently, especially in offences for speeding, that the level of fines has increased substantially. Disqualification for six months is now the norm. This is contributing to a reduction in speeding on the roads. I am sure everyone has noticed that many motorists are not exceeding the speed limits; that is to be commended.

As I said, the problem is not a lack of legislation but of enforcement. If the Government cannot recruit more gardaí, there should be a traffic corps to police the roads to reduce the level of tragic and fatal accidents; we are at the higher level of the European table in this regard. This is no recommendation for a country like Ireland. The Government is making a stab at tackling this problem but until the level of Garda recruits is increased, the existing manpower will not make a significant dent in it. Only last week when returning from Leinster House I passed an articulated truck which had no rear lights. As it happened, I had not travelled 200 yards when I reached a Garda checkpoint, he was one of those who got caught. However, not enough of these drivers are being caught to reduce the level of accidents.

As I said, the amendment I would like to see to the Bill would provide for the installation of some mechanism on all articulated vehicles to prevent this spray and vapour from spreading over top of passing motors and reducing visibility. That would be a worthwhile amendment.

Miss Quill

I could say I agree with everything which has been said by everybody else and sit down but we are not as economical with words in this House that I would do that. On behalf of my party, I welcome this Bill. We are incorporating into Irish law two EU directives, one of 1994 and one of 1995. It is high time we did this. Particularly in matters of public safety, we should never drag our feet in putting in place the best available and most up to date legislation possible. In addition, we should provide the best available procedures and manpower to ensure that the legislation is enforced.

There are two points which I wish to emphasise. As a sophisticated nation of educated people we ought to be sending a high percentage of dangerous goods, which are currently being transported on the roads, by rail. Maybe the political opportunity to do that is beginning to present itself now, although the railways have undergone a quarter of a century of neglect. In many cases this was studied, official, active neglect. I detect in this Government a willingness to redress that situation and to make new and substantial investment in upgrading the railroads. In that context, a new opportunity now presents itself to advance the case for switching from roads to railways a substantial percentage of the volume of dangerous goods which day after day are carried on the roads. Our railroads are the proper way to transport these goods. As Senator Caffrey said, their track record in transporting highly dangerous goods from Asahi to Dublin port was second to none. That should put paid to any doubts about the suitability of railroads. This type of traffic should be designated, if at all possible. to run on railroads.

Many dangerous substances are taken from their source to another location for disposal. We should try to minimise that practice. New industries, particularly those in the pharmaceutical and health care sectors in Cork harbour, generate a certain amount of toxic waste. The Environmental Protection Agency and our legislation require them to reduce the amount of toxic or dangerous substances at source so that they are not carried from one place to another. We should work towards disposing of such material on site. The technology is available to do that. The Government should try to find ways to at least reduce the volume of dangerous goods on our roads.

We have talked about the carelessness and casualness of many drivers. We have been lucky that there have been so few serious accidents as a result of the carriage of dangerous goods. However, we cannot look fortune in the face forever. Despite the fact we spend millions of pounds on our roads, they are less safe than they were 20 years ago. The number of fatal road accidents is testament to that. It is critically important that we enact this legislation as quickly as possible and that we police it thoroughly.

Senator Liam Fitzgerald said we should have a dedicated core of transport inspectors with a multidisciplinary brief to police this type of law. Should we establish an inspectorate to inspect the contents of vehicles which carry dangerous substances and to assess the roadworthiness of the vehicles as well as the suitability and capability of the drivers?

A number of vehicles which transport dangerous substances are not up to standard. They do not have proper lights and it is often difficult to read their licence numbers. They stay on the road even when there is a hard shoulder and people take their lives in their hands when trying to overtake them. If an inspectorate is established, it must have a broad brief to ensure that vehicles are of the highest standard. It is also important that vehicles are checked and monitored at regular intervals.

Other substances, such as slurry and building materials, may not be dangerous but they are environmentally unacceptable. Senator O'Dowd spoke about lorries which carry such substances through the streets of our towns. I have seen lorries filled with slurry and building materials travel through the streets of Cork. Many of these have liquid dripping from them which leaves a residue on the main street. That is not acceptable. It shows contempt for the people who live and trade in our towns and villages. We should tighten our regulations, regardless of the type of goods being transported. I hope these matters will be dealt with in the context of this legislation. I endorse the emphasis put on the importance of enforcing and policing this law.

Despite the fact that bypasses have been built around a number of towns and cities, there is still a huge volume of heavy traffic through our streets. I attended a meeting of Cork Corporation last Monday night where I asked the city engineer and the city manager to carry out an audit of the heavy container traffic travelling through the city's streets so that when the Lee tunnel is opened, which is the last section of our ring road structure, it will be directed on to the ring road which is fit to take such traffic. If drivers of heavy vehicles continue to travel through our city streets after ring roads, tunnels and connecting viaducts are built at huge cost, local authorities must devise by-laws to penalise them.

I support the legislation and I look forward to its speedy enactment. I hope it will add to the safety of all road users. I also hope that, in time, more of this type of traffic will be moved to our railroads and that our roads will become more pleasant for road users.

Mr. Walsh

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire go dtí an Seanad arís. Molaim é as ucht an iarracht a rinne sé chun a Bhille um Iompar Earraí Contúirteacha de Bhóthar, 1998, a chur ós chomhair Tithe an Oireachtais.

This is an important technical Bill. The explanatory memorandum highlights the fact that the ADR, which is the European agreement on the carriage of dangerous substances, was initiated in Geneva in 1957 and came into force in 1968. We cannot be accused of rushing to accept the provisions of the ADR given that we are joining 30 years after its inception. The Minister of State deserves to be complimented on bringing the Bill before the House and ensuring that Ireland will become a contracting party to the ADR.

As previous speakers stated, recent economic growth has given rise to a greater volume of hazardous goods being carried on our roads. For that reason it is imperative that the regulations be enacted and adhered to. To some extent, the Bill is overdue but it is welcome nonetheless. The Irish Road Haulage Association, which, for some time, has been seeking to have the various regulations brought together into a composite Bill to provide a comprehensive way to regulate the system, is satisfied with the legislation. Given that radioactive materials, clinical waste and other toxic and acidic substances are carried on our roads, it is imperative to ensure that effective regulations are put in place and that people comply with those regulations.

Senator Caffrey and others spoke eloquently on the enforcement aspect of the legislation. There is a need to provide gardaí with training and a broad enforcement remit. A person involved in the haulage industry with whom I spoke earlier today stated that the law enforcement agencies usually only come under pressure with regard to accidents caused by speeding and drink driving. However, it is essential that the other provisions in our regulations which must be policed from the point of view of safety are not forgotten. To date, one would have been conscious that these types of regulations are better policed in continental countries. It is to be hoped that the legislation, which is good, comprehensive and necessary, will meet with a commensurate response from the law enforcement agencies.

One aspect of the Bill and the regulations which stands out is the fact that many Departments and agencies are involved in this area. For example, local government is responsible for initiating emergency plans where accidents occur. Under the legislation, many Departments and agencies — the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the National Authority for Occupational Safety and Health and the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland — will be in a position to appoint inspectors. It strikes me that there is a weakness in the system in that the Department of the Environment and Local Government, which is responsible for introducing a great deal of legislation dealing with transport in general and road infrastructure in particular, does not hold a remit in this area. As stated in previous debates on road improvements, etc., perhaps there is a role for local government in enforcing the provisions in legislation relevant to its area of responsibility. Local government plays an effective role in this regard in other countries, particularly the United States; perhaps my proposal could be considered in a future review of the legislation.

Senator Quill referred to the need to transport hazardous products by rail. I agree that this should happen where appropriate but I question the safety of transporting these products by rail given the recent report on the state of the rail network. However, the concept is probably correct. Given that accidents can happen on the railways in much the same way as they occur on our roads, to what extent does the Bill exert an influence over the rail network? None, as far as I am aware. How then can we hope to regulate the carriage of hazardous goods by rail and is there a need to draft legislation in that regard?

Since many hazardous goods are exported or imported through our ports it is important to ensure that good and effective safety procedures are put in place at our ports. It is also important to ensure adherence to the rules governing consignments of hazardous goods. In that context, it is vital that adequate safety precautions are put in place by ferry operators and adhered to on their ships, which, in addition to passengers, carry large amounts of hazardous goods.

I welcome the fact that the inspectors will have powers similar to those granted under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 1989, the provisions of which have been effectively implemented. It is important that the legislation be proactively enforced. I have no criticism of the legislation but I query whether hazardous goods should be carried by rail and I would like to know the nature of the precautions and procedures which will apply in that regard. The Bill will cover the requirements of any reasonable person interested in safety in this area. However, we must ensure that its enforcement procedures are effective.

Mr. Costello

I welcome the introduction of this legislation. It is sad that it was not introduced heretofore because Ireland will be the last of the contracting parties to sign the European agreement on the carriage of dangerous goods by road into legislation. That is ironic because, out of all the countries in the European Union, Ireland and Great Britain probably have the greatest need for the legislation because they are island nations and goods must be carried on vehicles by road, transferred to ships and transferred to vehicles again when they reach mainland Europe. While the regulations relating to the carriage of dangerous goods are already in operation in Europe, they are not in operation in our domestic jurisdiction. Thankfully this legislation will address that anomaly.

It is important that uniform procedures, regulations and supervisory mechanisms covering the transport of dangerous goods are put in place. More than any other European country, Ireland requires a uniform set of standard procedures which are certified, policed and enforced. The road infrastructure in this country is far inferior to those of our European Union neighbours. There are large trucks transporting goods of every nature, many of them dangerous, on those roads and, as a result of the poor quality of the road network, there is a greater danger of accidents involving the spillage of dangerous material. The number of vehicles carrying petrol to petrol stations located in small villages and at the sides of very bad roads is an area where particular care is needed. There is a danger of the infrastructure not being adequate to support those vehicles and a danger of accidents taking place with consequent damage.

There is no access to Dublin port without passing through residential areas. Every carrier coming by road to the port must go through the heart of Dublin. Goods can be transported on the M50 for part of the way but must come in via Whitehall, Drumcondra, Fairview and East Wall. All these areas are built up. Goods coming along the quays pass residential areas on both sides. There is also an enormous number of commuters and pedestrians at all times of the day and night.

Anyone travelling through Dublin is as likely to see a large haulage vehicle stuck in the traffic at peak hours as a commuter vehicle. We should consider regulating the timing and scheduling of vehicles carrying dangerous goods on the streets of a major city like Dublin. Is there any valid reason for petrol lorries travelling the city at peak times? There should be a ban on certain vehicles, including articulated vehicles, using the streets of the city between certain hours when there are huge numbers of pedestrians and a high volume of commuter traffic. A prohibition should be introduced which prevents vehicles of this nature travelling through residential or built up areas at certain times. We could negotiate those times with the fire brigade, Garda and local authorities — the services which would be on call if there was a spillage or serious accident. Is there any valid reason the local authorities in Dublin, which get together to regulate other matters, should not get together with the other bodies to regulate times and schedules for dangerous products to be brought through the capital city?

We need this legislation so that all dangerous goods are properly classified, packaged and inspected, and are in proper vehicles which are of an age which ensures they can be carried in safety with the minimum danger. We have an equal responsibility to ensure they are carried at the times when they can do least harm, certainly until such time as we have a port relief tunnel enabling vehicles to go directly to Dublin port without traversing residential areas. That, however, will not be for another five years. Interim measures are necessary to facilitate the haulage industry.

Most drugs have been brought into the State in commuter vehicles or long distance haulage vehicles. We have no idea of the quantities of drugs which are being imported. It would seem that the vehicles least likely to be inspected are those which are labelled as carrying dangerous materials. The strength and uniformity of labelling could result in a degree of laxity on the part of the port authorities and Garda in relation to inspection. When regulations are put in place and inspectors appointed to monitor compliance with them, it should be done in consultation with the excise officers of the Port and Docks Police and the Garda. They have a broader remit in relation to what comes through the ports. A situation might arise where the authorities would say that something is clearly labelled as a dangerous contaminant and let it pass through. That would not assist our intentions.

The Minister proposes a derogation for a number of items in relation to certain prohibited goods. Why should there be a derogation for the transport of clinical waste? It can be extremely dangerous. It often contains low level radioactive material. I thought we would have emphasised that as not being subject to derogation.

I welcome this legislation. I am glad the transport of dangerous goods will be subject to stringent regulations, as in other European countries and that there will be proper training, certification, labelling, classification and packaging. I am also glad there will be an inspection process and sanctions will be introduced and imposed. I hope the legislation will contribute considerably to health and safety on the roads.

Mr. Farrell

Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an mBille agus roimh an Aire. This Bill will bring into Irish law EU Directive 94/55/EC. I pay tribute to truck drivers and haulage contractors who for the past 20 years, without this legislation, have carried dangerous substances without any problems. I only remember one incident in Edgeworthstown when a lorry carrying butane gas had to brake violently. The gas escaped and ignited in a house which burnt down.

I remember when Asahi located to Killala and the self-proclaimed experts said that the environment around Killala Bay and Enniscrone would be destroyed. They said tourism would come to a standstill, that Ballina railway station would be blown up and that the road from Ballina to Killala would become such a traffic hazard it would be denuded of population. Twenty years on, Asahi came and went and gave a great number of people employment. Killala Bay was cleaner when it left than when before it came, tourism multiplied a thousandfold and there was not one accident of any kind. We heard nothing from the self-proclaimed experts who went to ground. They bombarded Mayo and Sligo County Councils and said a terrible atrocity would be imposed on people and it had to be stopped or it would ruin us. Asahi brought employment, money and prosperity to the area and it is sad that it has gone.

Truck drivers keep the industrial wheels of this country turning. They got a great deal of bad press recently which was not justified. They are the most considerate drivers on the road. They always watch their mirrors and pull in to the hard shoulder to let traffic pass. We are too harsh on truck drivers. Under another directive they will only be allowed drive for eight hours at a time. In Ireland, a truck driver driving for eight hours is lucky to cover 180 to 200 miles. Driving in England or on the Continent, one can cover from 350 to 400 miles in the same time. I recently drove from Cornwall to Pembroke. I averaged almost 60 miles per hour and I never exceeded the speed limit. I bypassed every town and only left the motorway for the last 20 miles. One can cruise for 70 to 75 miles per hour continuously. However, here one can do 80 miles per hour, yet ten miles down the road one is travelling at ten or 20 miles per hour. There is no flow of traffic.

We are introducing directives but we have not built proper roads. This is not the fault of this Government or the previous one. It is the fault of the self-proclaimed experts and the objectors who will not allow roads to be built. We are enforcing directives to the letter of the law yet we are not comparing like with like. Many truck drivers are giving up their jobs because they cannot take the hassle. If we do not have truck drivers or haulage contractors many industries will close. They transport goods during long and unsocial hours and are excellent, highly qualified and highly skilled. The £150 fine proposed in this legislation is too much — £100 is enough.

It is difficult to maintain trucks perfectly. A truck is really only a tractor pulling different trailers continuously. This involves a great deal of plugging in and out of connections and results in cables being broken. It is easy for this to happen. I was a truck driver for a while when I was two handed and I know all about it. It is not easy maintaining lights, etc. There has been a big improvement in the quality of bulbs in the last 30 or 40 years. However, a car driver can check their lights and before they reach Lucan a brake light can go. That is 1,000 times more likely to happen to a truck.

It is too easy to attack truck drivers. Directives must be implemented. More by-passes would help trucks move more quickly through traffic. I agree with Senator Costello that deliveries should be made early in the morning or late in the evening after the rush hour. I often see trucks backing into laneways around the city. The drivers are great men and often back big trucks into a space in one lock. I recently saw a young lady driving a truck and her ability amazed me. She hopped into a 40 tonne truck and drove down a narrow laneway watching her two mirrors. We are not providing services for truck drivers to comply with EC regulations.

We should use our railways more. CIE is responsible for a decline in the transportation of goods by rail. For 20 years I worked for a firm that had all its goods delivered by rail. If something that should have been delivered to Ballina was left at Ballymote, one could spend three days phoning railway stations to find out where it was. CIE became very careless when it had a monopoly. The same thing happened when it had a monopoly on road transport. It was very careless and lost a lot of business. Private transport would have not been successful if CIE had done its job efficiently. It is much more efficient now but for a number of years it abused its monopoly. The railways started to decline because people stopped travelling and sending goods by rail. Trucks delivered more quickly and as a result our railways deteriorated. I am glad the Government is actively working on and investing in this.

I hope the line from Dublin to Mullingar and Sligo will be upgraded in the near future. It is a very important line as is the one to Ballina and Westport. If those lines were improved much transport could be taken off the roads and put on a fast and efficient rail system. It is a much more efficient system and I would like the railways to be improved as soon as possible to help take that type of traffic off the road.

Minister of State at the Department of Public Enterprise (Mr. Jacob)

I thank Senators for their thoughtful, helpful and useful contributions. The technicalities associated with the European agreement on the international carriage of dangerous goods by road, the ADR, and the two associated European directives are complex and difficult. For this reason I am all the more appreciative of the helpful and excellent contributions from Senators.

As the technicalities of carrying dangerous goods by road are so complex, they are necessarily updated on a regular basis. This Bill is largely enabling. It is important that this proposed legislative framework be put in place as soon as possible and the Bill is a vital first step towards achieving that objective.

In my opening statement I mentioned the Bill will enable comprehensive and detailed regulations to be put in place. These regulations, together with the annexes to the ADR, will be a vital reference point for all involved in the carriage of dangerous goods by road. The Bill and the regulations will ensure that all those involved in the carriage of dangerous goods by road, be they consignors, operators or drivers, will have available to them clear instructions on requirements and statutory obligations.

A number of Senators made excellent contributions, including Senators O'Dowd, Caffrey, Quill, Walsh, Costello and Farrell. I took note of some very important and pertinent points they made and I will endeavour to address them.

Senator O'Dowd referred to out of state hauliers. He welcomed the measure as did Senator Fitzgerald. Senator O'Dowd indicated this is a problem in his constituency because of its geographic location. This is one provision with which I am particularly enamoured and I wanted to stitch it into the Bill. Senator Fitzgerald made this point very strongly. He will be glad to know that this measure will also be included in the forthcoming Road Transport Bill. It is very welcome and Irish hauliers deserve it because, as has been said, they have been abused in this area in that out of state hauliers were getting away scot free.

Senator O'Dowd welcomed driver training and talked about the tachograph and the enforcement of these rules. Tachograph rules are enforced by the Garda and transport officers in my Department. The transport officers focus on the education of drivers and operators. They visit premises to check on tachograph charts and there are ongoing road checks. A few months ago, a purge was ordered. For example, the Department took part in operation Lifesaver. Department inspectors, transport officers and the Garda carry out ongoing road checks. I agree this must be continued and the practice must be enhanced.

Senator Farrell and others mentioned aspirations to switch to rail wherever possible. Of course it would be desirable to switch the transport of commodities such as dangerous goods to rail and get them off the roads. Senators Caffrey and Farrell mentioned Asahi. It is a typical example of how our rail service dealt with a potentially hazardous substance from Dublin to Killala.

I can relate to other such substances which were carried by rail over the years and to this day. Prior to joining politics I worked in this area. For most of my working life I worked as distribution manager for the largest chemical company in Ireland, Nítrogin Éireann Teoranta. One of the products we transported was ammonia from the Marina Point plant in Cork to the Arklow plant. That continues to this day and CIE have a magnificent record in this regard. I congratulate CIE and its employees on that.

Ammonia is potentially a hugely hazardous commodity. If there was a derailment or a leakage we would need to evacuate towns or villages. This example demonstrates the desirability of switching from road to rail. In an ideal world that would be done. However there are problems of practicality due to the flexibility road gives in terms of quantity, the scale of a customer's requirements and getting from A to B. For example, the route from Dublin port to Asahi was tailormade for that mode of transport, as was the route from a plant in Cork to a plant in Arklow for the transport of ammonia. However, I am thinking of other commodities which came under my control in those years, such as sulphuric acid and nitric acid. Smaller requirements by customers, the inflexibility of access at receiving points and so on would force the carriage of these goods by road rather than the less flexible but more desirable and safe method of carriage by rail. We should endeavour to address the aspiration to transport dangerous goods by rail rather than by road whenever possible.

Senators spoke about the need to try to avoid transporting dangerous goods through built up areas. Senator Costello mentioned confining the movement of such traffic to certain times of the day or night. This could be looked at by the appropriate authorities because it makes good sense. Tacograph enforcement was mentioned.

The carriage of dangerous goods by rail was raised by a number of speakers. There is a separate convention which deals with the transport of dangerous goods by rail. RID, as distinct from ADR, is one element of the convention concerning international carriage by rail — COTIF. Ireland is a contracting party to COTIF as are all member states. RID sets out the minimum standards for the safe packaging and transport of various dangerous goods by rail. Rail safety will be debated next week and the Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy O'Rourke, will deal with the matter comprehensively. EU Council directives relating to rail and rail safety are yet to be transposed into Irish law. These directives will be used as standards to deal with national and international transport of dangerous goods by rail within the EU. It is convenient for the EU to use RID regulations as all the member states are party to the COTIF convention. A statutory instrument to transpose the directives into Irish law is currently being drafted and it is expected this will be signed early in 1999.

Senator O'Dowd and others raised the issue of road traffic enforcement. The primary responsibility for road traffic enforcement rightly rests with the Garda Síochána. The Garda have traffic corps throughout the country to ensure the day-to-day enforcement of road traffic legislation governing private cars and heavy goods vehicles. As Senators mentioned, road traffic accidents are a major problem. I sometimes think there was an inbuilt safety factor in our potholes; there are still some potholes around the Wicklow mountains. The big improvements in the quality of our roads and cars seem to have had the devastating effect of fatal accidents. The gardaí have made great strides in trying to reverse these appalling trends.

During 1996 a review was carried out within the Garda Síochána by personnel from their organisational and development unit into the structures and functions of the traffic section. This report established a number of important factors, including the fact that traffic policing is an essential public service. The report stated that the importance of the traffic function within the realm of policing is evident.

Developments such as a 50 per cent increase in road mileage between 1978 and 1993 and a 30 per cent increase in the number of vehicles between 1985 and 1994 have culminated in serious problems of congestion and pollution and a danger to human life on Irish roads. There is an onus is on all of us to improve the situation in the context of dangerous goods being carried by road.

Senator Fitzgerald was concerned about driver training. I assure the Senator that driver training is comprehensive and has been taking place for some time. These training courses teach drivers the necessary requirements concerning handling, loading, unloading, documentation, equipment marking, emergency procedures and protective clothing. Drivers who are successful in the examination receive the relevant certificate. There is a requirement that drivers attend a refresher course every five years to ensure that they remain fully trained and au fait with up-to-date developments regarding the carriage of dangerous goods. This process will continue under the proposed new regulations to be put in place following the enactment of this legislation.

Senator Fitzgerald mentioned derogations. Derogations are included to deal with established transport practices which have obtained in this country for some years. For example, reference temperatures that determine the shell thicknesses of LPG tanks suited to our climatic conditions have been accepted. Thicker shells are required in hotter regions of Southern Europe. There is a derogation relating to the transport of explosives that allows for the continued security arrangements associated with such transport here. Ireland has also negotiated derogations to cover the transport of ammonium nitrate fertiliser — I can understand the practical reasons for this given the explosive qualities of this product — and dispensing gases carried on the same vehicle as beverages. In other words, the Guinness lorry carrying the kegs of our favourite brew are for practical reasons deemed to be allowed to carry the gas used to pour that product.

Senator Costello mentioned clinical waste and the fact that some of this waste could come under the radioactive category. This derogation refers to the type of packaging used. The practice here and in the UK is to use plastic sacks approved by the United Nations. The ADR requires rigid containers and packaging. Under this derogation, we can continue to use plastic sacks for the next five years when presumably we will have to comply with the ADR.

The measures regarding out of state carriers are something everyone has welcomed. The Bill breaks new ground in that it is an effort to implement measures to bring out of state carriers to book. To some extent Directive 95/50/EC places an onus on us as a member state to ensure a comprehensive and representative number of checks are carried out and that breaches of regulations are dealt with in a non-discriminatory fashion. While it has given impetus for action in this area, there was already a determination to find a suitable formula to achieve this. The previous Government was endeavouring to deal with the matter in the Road Transport Bill which it produced in early 1997. It was deemed by the then Attorney General to be very difficult to deal with but since then, we have succeeded in finding suitable wording. I am sure all are pleased about that.

I thank Senators for their invaluable contributions and for teasing out Second Stage. With the passing of the Bill, we will have in place the three blocks necessary to ensure a safe environment surrounding the carriage of dangerous goods by road — the statutory provisions with which we are dealing today, training and enforcement.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 12 November 1998.

Sitting suspended at 5.15 p.m. and resumed at 6 p.m.