Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 Jul 2008

Vol. 190 No. 10

Chemicals Bill 2008: Second Stage.

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

I am pleased to bring before this House the Chemicals Bill 2008. The Bill has passed all stages in the Dáil and reflects amendments based on some important issues raised by Opposition parties. I will highlight these in going through the Bill.

The main purpose of the legislation is to facilitate the enforcement of certain EU regulations concerning chemicals. These EU regulations include the REACH regulation, REACH being 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 waste, human or veterinary medicines, food flavourings or feedstuffs, all of 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 the environment. They may cause damage if, for instance, 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 they are available for the benefit of society.

I will summarise the background and context for the Bill, outline briefly the approach taken in framing it and then 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. This entered into force on 1 June 2007, giving a legal basis to the new European Chemicals Agency. Most of the provisions of the REACH regulation entered into force on 1 June 2008 and the enactment of this Bill will ensure the necessary enforcement measures are in place without undue delay. 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 they have done so by means of registering the chemicals with the European Chemicals Agency.

It is estimated that about 30,000 chemicals 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 with the greatest risk and finishing with those with the least risk. However, all these chemicals are subject to pre-registration at the European Chemicals Agency over a six-month period which began on 1 June 2008. That means 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 over the six-month period. During the first two weeks of pre-registration, the agency reported 7,360 pre-registrations. It may then check that each chemical complies with the regulation and must evaluate testing proposals submitted by the registrant to ensure 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 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 using the substance. 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. That 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 on the use of chemicals and on how to use 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 such 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 to give them the ability to remove dirt, but that 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, 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 in order to maximise efficiencies in enforcement. The draft heads of the Bill were the subject of public consultation in October and November 2007, and a regulatory impact assessment was carried out on a number of enforcement options. The analysis in 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 that 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. For example, the detergents regulation, which is currently given further effect by statutory instrument, has been brought within the scope of the Bill to streamline and make more effective the national enforcement arrangements. In addition, existing regulations apply to the control of major accident hazards made under the European Communities Act. Remaking those regulations under the Bill when enacted will further streamline the approach to legislating for chemicals.

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 and provides for the methods of serving notices under the Bill. Section 4 is 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 Senators are 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 Communities relating to chemicals, including the control of major accident hazards relating to chemicals. Currently regulations under the European Communities Act govern this area. 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. That is similar to provisions in the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005. The chemicals area is complex and clear guidance is 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. Six different national authorities are named, spanning the functional responsibility areas of five different 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 and under the detergents regulation in respect of matters relating to biodegradability of surfactants in detergents. The Minister for Health and Children is given a function under the detergents regulation relating to information on chemicals necessary for medical purposes. The Irish National Accreditation Board is given a function to approve laboratories under the detergents regulation. Last but not least, the Revenue Commissioners are given a function for controlling exports and imports under the export-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 regard to their functions under the Bill. The purpose of the provision is to encourage and facilitate optimal efficiency and effectiveness by national authorities in carrying out their functions under the Bill. 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 in regard to the performance of its functions or the provision, by that national authority, of services.

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. 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. That 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 to enforce compliance with a prohibition notice. Section 18 provides that a national authority may direct any of its staff or another appropriate person, that is, 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 22 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 21 relates to evidence in proceedings and was introduced by Government amendment on Committee Stage in the Dáil. It allows for documentary evidence to prove what is stated and means that any documents generated by a company and any documents required under the EU regulations to be generated or kept can be used as evidence, subject to certain restrictions, including legal privilege. Section 23 allows a national authority, in the interests of the 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 24 obliges the Health and Safety Authority to publish a list of persons convicted of an offence under the relevant chemicals statutory provisions and a list of persons in respect of whom an order has been made under section 17 or section 19, and allows publication of names of persons on whom prohibition notices have been served. That is partly a name-and-shame provision that should have a deterrent effect on would-be offenders. The obligatory part of the section was introduced by Government amendment on Report Stage in the Dáil, on foot of a Committee Stage Opposition amendment.

Sections 25 and 26 are provisions to protect whistleblowers. Section 25 is a more general provision, and Section 26, which was introduced by Government amendment on Report Stage in the Dáil, on foot of a Committee Stage Opposition amendment, is more specifically focused on employees. Section 27 provides that national authorities may, by serving a notice, require persons to give relevant information to that national authority and section 28 prohibits the unauthorised disclosure of confidential information. Section 29 sets out the offences under the Bill and section 30 sets out the penalties for offences committed under section 28. 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 31 provides that the Minister may make regulations allowing inspectors to serve fixed payment notices in amounts up to a maximum of €2,000 to persons who have committed an offence. The regulations may set out different amounts for different offences. Section 32 provides that where an offence under the Act is committed by a body corporate and that the act which gave rise to the offence is proved to have been authorised by or as 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 33 is a standard section and provides that a national authority may prosecute summary offences under the Act.

Section 34, which was introduced by Government amendment on Committee Stage in the Dáil, makes it clear that there is a right of appeal from the District Court to the Circuit Court by either side from a decision of the District Court to confirm, vary or cancel a notice issued by a national authority. Section 35 sets out that notices or directions made under the Act shall be in writing. Section 36 provides for regulations or orders to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Section 37 sets out two technical amendments to the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005.

The Chemicals Bill sets out an enforcement system. It aims to provide a clear regulatory framework for business in order 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 in order 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 Chemicals Bill should put in place a more streamlined and coherent legal framework for the regulation of chemicals in Ireland.

On Committee and Report Stages in the Dáil, we took a consensual approach to the Bill. We accepted a number of amendments from the Opposition. There were no divisions in the House and we had a very positive debate. This legislation when enacted will streamline and assist businesses. Most importantly it will allow us to gather information in order to assess whether, and ensure that, the chemicals being used do not have a harmful effect either on human health or on the environment. As time evolves it will give us the enforcement powers to address breaches in the Act. It is very progressive legislation that represents the enforcement side of the REACH regulation, which is already in place and to which companies are obliged to adhere. I commend the Bill to the House and look forward to this Second Stage debate.

I welcome the Minister of State and his officials. I will also adopt a consensual approach to the Chemicals Bill. Fine Gael has no objection to taking all Stages of the Bill today. The Minister of State outlined in detail the effects of different sections. The Bill relates to a number of directives that have been transposed into Irish law, principally the REACH directive to which he referred a number of times in his speech. One of the main tenets of the Bill is the transfer of the burden of proof regarding testing and evaluation to the industry as opposed to different agencies that were responsible heretofore.

I welcome the main provisions of the Bill, which provides for new national codes of practice. I welcome that it provides for the Health and Safety Authority to review the legislation and to make proposals to the Minister as appropriate. The Bill also designates as national authorities the HSA, the Revenue Commissioners, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in respect of pesticides, the Minister for Health and Children and the Environmental Protection Agency.

The primary aspect of the Bill is enforcement, particularly of the REACH directive. I welcome those enforcement provisions. The national authority may appoint inspectors, who will have stringent powers to inspect the chemicals industry, which I welcome. As the Minister of State pointed out they may at any time search any place to which the inspector has reasonable grounds for believing that the relevant chemical statutory provisions apply. The inspector may require that a location and anything at it be left undisturbed. The inspector may require that the person in charge produce any chemical or report relevant to the chemicals directive. The inspector may remove records from a location as relevant. The inspector may require the person in charge to give the inspector any such assistance as necessary. The inspector may take samples of air, soil, water or waste near or at the place where the chemicals are located. The inspector may also install monitoring instruments, which represents a step in the right direction. The inspector may require the person in charge to supply any chemical or samples thereof or may remove any chemical or samples thereof when an inspection is taking place. I welcome these provisions and that the inspection process will be given teeth.

As a result of the new powers being given to inspectors a number of sanctions will be placed at their disposal in their implementation of the legislation. The Minister referred to the contravention notice and the prohibition notice. Under the legislation an inspector may apply to the High Court for an order prohibiting the activity, which is welcome. I also welcome that the authority may compile and publish a list of persons in breach of the provisions of the Bill. It is an old chestnut in this Chamber with a Senator from the other side of the House who is keen on naming and shaming. I welcome that people who breach the regulations will be named and shamed.

Much of the law that governs this area is more than 40 years old. In recent years we have seen the introduction of a number of EU directives, including the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals, REACH, directive. This legislation seeks to transpose the main tenets of those directives into Irish law. I welcome that in the other House the Minister of State took on board a number of the concerns of the Opposition. Fine Gael has no objection to the second reading of the Bill.

I welcome the Minister of State. This is the first time under this Administration that I have had the opportunity to do so. I congratulate him on his appointment and wish him every success with his endeavours on behalf of us all. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill, which will hardly be considered for the Nobel Prize for Literature. Nevertheless that does not dilute the level of importance attached to it or to the EU directives to which it relates.

The Chemicals Bill comes about as a result of a commitment under the programme for Government to implement the EU regulatory framework governing the manufacturing and use of chemicals in a way which does not impact on the competitiveness of our economy. The purpose of the Bill is to introduce an administrative framework for the enforcement of various EU chemicals regulations. There are no substantive rules on chemicals in the Bill as they are contained in the EU directives. I welcome the designation of a number 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, drawing on the most relevant expertise and areas of competence across the system. Co-operation arrangements for national authorities are to be welcomed to carry out joint enforcement activities, to make the best use of our resources and to minimise administrative costs to business. They provide for strong co-operation between national authorities. We should retrospectively put this clause into all EU directives and aspects of our own legislation in order that we can have a joined-up approach to dealing with issues as they arise.

A range of enforcement powers aimed at encouraging compliance and discouraging non-compliance, including the issue of directions for improvement plans and contravention and prohibition notices and powers to apply to the courts for orders prohibiting certain activities, are also to be very much welcomed. I welcome the provision for the various penalties. The maximum penalty on summary conviction is a fine of up to €5,000, as we know, and-or six months imprisonment and for indictable offences it is €3 million and-or two years imprisonment. There is also a provision for on-the-spot fines of €2,000 for minor offences. It is important we have in place the appropriate penalties and disincentives for breaches of legislation because we are talking about matters related to due diligence and health and safety in the workplace, including manufacturing environments where, all to often, we have ignored these. We have seen internationally the kind of accidents and issues that can arise as a result. The penalties proposed here are welcome.

I also welcome the provision to make public certain information in the interests of protecting human health or the environment and the protection of whistleblowers in the event of breaches of chemical law being reported in good faith. My colleague Senator Feeney mentioned the name and shame tactic. Another colleague, Senator Leyden particularly likes that phrase and uses it on many occasions across various headings. In this context it is welcome because we must encourage this if we are to achieve the goals as set out in the Bill.

There are two main policy objectives in the Chemicals Bill, namely, to achieve a high level of compliance and to minimise the administrative cost to industry. As anybody in business or industry knows, this burden is increasing on an ongoing basis and any steps which help alleviate the increasing costs to business that are not directly related to production and profit are welcome. To achieve the various objectives, the Chemicals Bill aims to provide a clear regulatory framework for business and increased co-operation between the various national authorities. It will be involved with enforcement, which should support high levels of compliance and alleviate any unnecessary administrative cost to business.

I welcome the Bill. In the Dáil debate on this legislation there was a consensus approach and some amendments were accepted. We can all proceed together. There will be no divisions today because there is broad support for the Bill, and rightly so. As I said, the Bill will not win any prizes for literature but is vitally important in improving the working and regulatory environment related to chemicals in industry. It seeks to reduce the burden of administrative costs in that area for business and that is to be welcomed. Like the Minister and other colleagues, I commend the Bill to the House.

I welcome the Minister and the Bill. I was concerned with the REACH directive. Its objective was to give a level playing field in Europe but it was inclined to make European countries less competitive and attractive than other countries. While there is a level playing field in Europe, the REACH directive presented problems in that area. However, this is not the REACH directive, but provides for the regulation and control of the manufacture, use, place on the market, export, import, labelling and packaging of chemicals. I was surprised to see more than 30,000 chemicals listed in the directive, and this gave rights to consumers and producers to obtain information on these dangerous substances. This will give transparency and accountability in how industry deals with these chemical substances. As the Minister said, it also aims to make industry and the public more aware of environmental protection and should lead to safer handling of chemicals during transportation in and out of European countries. While this is Irish legislation, the REACH directive on all these chemicals applies to Europe. We must be very careful in the years ahead to ensure we do not become less competitive in Europe than we would otherwise have been because Ireland depends to a very large extent on the pharmaceutical industry.

I have a couple of queries on compliance that I would like to raise on Second Stage. The only compliance burden in the Bill is the cost associated with the resources devoted to facilitating inspections and compliance checks. This is provided for under the existing health and safety and environmental legislation. While the policy objective is to minimise the administrative cost to industry, no calculation is provided. The Minister said a regulatory impact analysis has been done and I would like to have some idea of that. Will the cost of these inspections be the same or more than the current costs incurred by industry to pay for existing health and safety legislation? There could be a danger that if industry must pay for these inspections, this could become a levy on chemicals that will be passed on to consumers and result in higher prices for European consumers and make us less competitive in international trade. There is a real concern about that regarding the REACH directive.

The Chemicals Bill is drafted in the context of a commitment made under the programme for Government and, as the Minister said, the intention is to implement the European regulatory framework covering the manufacture and use of chemicals in a way that does not affect the competitiveness of our economy. However we must take into account jobs in Europe as well as in Ireland. The importance of this sector is at stake. What will happen to the downstream industries which use such chemicals? How will this impact on them? Will the same level of regulation apply to them and will it make it more difficult for them to survive?

The pharmaceutical and chemical area has made a major contribution to high-quality employment in this country. When I investigated the figures some of them surprised me. Some 25,000 are employed in the chemicals industry in Ireland, which accounts for 23.3% in added value to the economy, compared to 1.7% for agriculture and 9% for construction, as it was in the past.

One of the aspects of this Bill that must be considered is that it should not be the case that penalties of a minor nature only, for example €2,000, are issued. If we are serious about protecting our environment and our health, the Government must deal seriously with offenders. As the Minister pointed out, penalties for offences under the legislation will be subject to a maximum penalty on summary conviction of a fine not exceeding €5,000 and-or six months in prison. The maximum penalty on indictment is €3 million and-or two years in prison. There are also on-the-spot fines of up to €2,000 for minor offences.

From my experience in the supermarket business, it is possible to identify imported 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 proposed legislation, so it is very welcome. How can we accept this? Some 50% of all cereals and fresh and frozen food and vegetables tested in Ireland have some chemical residues with 3% having more than the safe limits. The EU average is worse at 46% with approximately 5% exceeding safe limits. There is a new suggestion that some of these chemicals can cause cancer. I am not sure how reliable that is but I have the figures. This information came from an article entitled, "European plans to tighten controls on food pesticides" published in the Irish Examiner on 24 October 2007. Mr. Markos Kyprianou, the EU Commissioner for Health, and Ms Marianne Fischer Boel, the EU Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, recently warned that Europe could run short of food. Consumers will suffer from food price increases and will be forced to buy imported food from countries where food may have been sprayed with dubious chemicals and where quality control is poorly regulated. That is why I welcome the Bill but we must ensure it applies. The attraction of this legislation is that it should put our minds at rest. The Minister of State should put our minds at rest in regard to the cost control also.

Eight years ago I was impressed by the Dublin food safety initiative that was aimed at the issue of food safety inspections around the world. Every company that bought food throughout the world had to carry out inspections at the factories producing that food, whether in China, Thailand or elsewhere. Some of those factories had to put up with visits from Europe, America and elsewhere almost every day. The food safety initiative was an effort to have it recognised that if there is an accepted standard, companies will not have to send inspectors, which would reduce costs considerably and yet guarantee that standards would be in place. It is a reminder of how we can reduce costs dramatically while increasing service. This is just one way of doing it but I hope it is a step in that direction.

I welcome the general tenor of the Bill. While I have expressed my concerns, the objective of the Bill is one of which we must approve.

I, too, welcome the Bill. It is particularly welcome that a European Union directive and regulation, which stems from Parliament decisions from 2006 and Council decisions from 2007, is being inserted in Irish law so quickly. Unfortunately, this has not always been the case, particularly when the directives have had at least some degree of an environmental undertone to them.

While this Bill is being led through the House, as it was in the other House, by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, it obviously has environmental consequences. I am pleased that in terms of identifying the various agencies which are responsible and which must be consulted or from which agreement must be sought in the establishment of regulations, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Environmental Protection Agency are included.

It is fair to note that, in the past, we have had an ambivalence and indifference towards how chemicals were accounted for in our economy. First, we lacked a national database of the quantities of substances that existed and, second, there seemed to be no acceptable standards with regard to how and where chemicals were stored or what chemicals could be stored together. Thankfully, we are moving away from that and legislation of this type will provide public confidence that has been eroded by the lack of such standards in the past.

It is also interesting that we are taking Second Stage when there is obvious public disquiet on particular issues regarding the existence of hazardous substances. One of the effects of this Bill is to identify the by-products of chemical residues in everyday substances. The controversy in regard to Haulbowline, for example, has focused media attention on the existence in the waste stream of the substance chromium 6, which forms part of the plot of the film "Erin Brockovich". Chromium 6 also comes from the well-used, everyday substance creosote, which is used on many items of furniture. To enable people to become more aware of the type of substances that are used in everyday life, how they are used and how they are eventually disposed of, legislation like this is an important step in the process.

Having a database of all available chemicals and how and where they are stored will help in terms of their ultimate disposal, with which, as a country, we are still struggling. The proof will be in the policing of legislation of this type. The fear is that to avoid regulation and being under the watchful eye of any State agency or Department, people will take shortcuts and will still tend to use chemicals in a dangerous way. I am encouraged by the fact the legislation is coming through these Houses so quickly in response to the European Union directives and regulations. There seems to be an intent that this legislation will be made to work and that resources will be provided to police its provisions.

As it is enabling legislation, I would make the simple request that the regulations as laid before the House are given every opportunity. This will be the choice of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and will be discussed on a regular basis. One thing we know about chemicals is that tolerance levels, or the amount of a chemical to which someone can be exposed over a period of time, are constantly being reassessed. Once regulations are made, I would hate it if they were kept in situ for prolonged periods.

We may need further legislation, perhaps through the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, that would ensure regulations issued on this basis are reviewed regularly. While 12 months may be too soon, to have a set of regulations that would be in place for five or ten years and not take account of changes in scientific information as regards safe exposure to chemicals is not likely to be responsible legislation.

Perhaps there could be a reporting mechanism on the condition of chemicals in the country at any given time. One thing we are learning from the current controversy regarding Haulbowline in particular and other legacy sites throughout the country is that the lack of knowledge provided in the past creates a fear in the present and a lack of confidence that would be sustained into the future. The Government, the representatives of the political system and the State agencies representing the legislation that is being passed in these Houses need to take a different approach with a view to restoring and maintaining public confidence in these areas. No one could deny such confidence is badly shattered and in need of being repaired.

I am encouraged that legislation of this type will be part of that process. The fact it has been commented on so positively in this House and is being treated in a consensual manner in the other House gives great hope. However, I would like to put on record those particular caveats. The making of the regulations will be crucial in terms of making sure members of the public have confidence in this legislation and that it is effective at the end of the day.

On behalf of the Labour Party, I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Kelleher, to the House. The Labour Party broadly welcomes the Bill, which is undoubtedly long and complex but also essential. It enforces the REACH regulations which were the result of many hours of intense talks and compromises, and it brings together 40 pieces of EU legislation under one umbrella. It is, therefore, strong legislation.

I pay tribute to the staff of the Oireachtas Library and Research Service who reduced the Bill to a relatively digestible size for Deputies and Senators. Not many Senators, except those with an exceptional knowledge of the chemical industry, could speak today without the help of the library.

This is a highly complex item of legislation that has its origins in EU directives and regulations. It wraps up a difficult and long process that began in the European Union. The REACH regulations were the most intensely lobbied subject in the history of the EU and even the man at the centre of the regulations, the Italian, Guido Sacconi MEP, said that the result is not perfect. Mr. Sacconi is a member of Labour's group in the European Parliament, the PES, and it was he who shepherded this legislation. The PES understood the massive undertaking these rules and regulations represented, which is why Labour will support the Bill.

I also pay a small tribute to the Government in this regard. Ireland had a function in pushing forward the proposals and, as I understand it, the Minister of State responsible at the time, Deputy Tony Killeen, was in Brussels on numerous occasions to discuss the proposals.

It is a complex document, probably more complex than any other EU-related text with which this House has had to deal. It has become vital that this Bill be passed as soon as possible and I fully understand that, despite its complexities, the Seanad must take all Stages today. In fact, it is my understanding the Government originally envisaged that these regulations would be in place by 1 June, although the Minister may correct me in that regard.

In light of the referendum that took place in this country a month ago, it is important we consider this Bill in the wider context of Ireland's place in the EU. These regulations are a prime example of all 27 nations working together. It is imperative that a Bill such as this would pass, thus ensuring Ireland complies with EU legislation sooner rather than later. Like the Lisbon treaty, the Bill has a "Yes" and a "No" side, so to speak. Those on the "No" side argue that if the REACH regulations are introduced, it will lead to job losses, higher costs for chemicals companies and that environmentally, they do not go far enough. However, I believe the pros outweigh the cons. I do not believe that the Bill will result in job losses. In the long term, it may increase jobs in this country in areas such as research and development. Costs for the chemical companies may increase in the short term, but the research that I have seen suggests that the cost-benefit analysis is in favour of this Bill.

As my party's spokesperson on health in the Seanad, I am particularly pleased that there will be considerable reductions in the risk to human health from chemicals. A large part of the Bill is dedicated to the importance of human health, the protection of which is something to which we would all subscribe. The Bill also deals with the potential hazards certain chemicals pose to the environment. At a time when we are being told that our environment is extremely precious and somewhat at risk, any protection of the land on which we live is important, not just to our generation but to subsequent ones.

The Bill incorporates the Seveso directive which came about as a result of a major chemical accident in Italy in 1976. The aim of this part of the Bill is not only to prevent accidents but to limit the damage they cause when they do occur, which is very important. We all know that one can only prevent so many accidents but this Bill allows the industry to cope with the aftermath of any such event.

A significant proportion of the Bill centres on enforcement functions — ten sections in all. It contains a name and shame provision, whereby those who contravene or fail to comply with the obligations imposed on them will have their names published. Similar provisions have worked in other areas such as tax compliance, so there is no reason why they should fail in the chemical industry.

Much of the onus for chemical safety has been on the Government of the day, or on particular agencies. The Bill provides for the establishment of the European Chemicals Agency, to be based in Helsinki. This will mean a significant transfer of responsibility. The onus will now be on the producer to prove that a chemical is safe, which is an important step. Having said that, I understand that a number of Deputies in the Dáil raised concerns about what that will mean in Ireland. Of particular concern was the responsibility of the Health and Safety Authority in implementing the REACH regulations in this country. The authority already has a significant workload and Deputies were anxious to ensure that an increase in it will be met with an increase in staff and resources. We all understand that an under-resourced agency will only get through a percentage of its workload. I urge the Minister of State to keep in mind the HSA once the Bill is implemented. It is an important Bill and it would be sad to see its sting removed because of a failure to implement it fully.

There are massive benefits to be gained from the implementation of the REACH regulations. At a time when this country is going through some economic troubles, I encourage the Minister to correlate this Bill with developing the research and development sector in Ireland. The increase in knowledge about chemical substances and the necessity to substitute unacceptable substances, given their risk to human health or the environment, is expected to stimulate the research and development sector. One can envisage Ireland becoming a leading light in this context.

The former President of the European Parliament, Mr. Josep Borrell, described the REACH regulations as one of the most complex texts in the history of the EU. It is important that industry embraces the thrust, content and objectives of the legislation. It will be to their benefit to engage with the registration process at the earliest possible opportunity. It is also important that this legislation is enacted forthwith and that everyone takes cognisance of the thrust and objectives of it.

Undoubtedly, legislation of this magnitude will have its teething problems. There is a significant amount of chemical substances currently in use and these will have to undergo health and safety screening before being submitted to the registration process. However, I believe that the advantages of this legislation outweigh any disadvantages, even if its positive effect takes ten or fifteen years to become clear.

I thank the Minister of State for his time and ask him to consider the points I have made. I have already had dealings with the Minister of State, who is going to sort out an issue in my constituency. In that context, I am happy to keep the focus positive.

I, too, welcome the Minister of State to the House and compliment him on this comprehensive Bill. The main policy objectives of the Bill are to achieve a high level of compliance while keeping to a minimum the costs to the chemicals industry. The Bill provides a clear regulatory framework for business and allows for increased co-operation between the various national authorities involved in enforcement.

The Bill is complex as it derives from EU regulations. I ask that those in key areas of chemical use are issued with a guide to the regulations and their rights. A considerable period of time was spent formulating the regulations in Europe. In this context, I compliment the work of Irish MEPs, which deserves acknowledgment.

It is important that when the Bill is enacted people are made aware of the regulations. The farming community should be well informed, given the amount of chemicals used on farms. If applied correctly, according to the instructions, chemicals can play an important role in the production of food in a safe way.

I welcome the enforcement provisions contained in sections 11 and 12, including the right of the authority to appoint persons it considers would make suitable inspectors for the purpose of enforcement. I also welcome the very clear outline, set out in section 12, of how such inspectors can operate. The level of detail is welcome and there should be no doubt in anyone's mind concerning the powers of inspectors.

I welcome the Bill and compliment the Minister of State for bringing it before the House.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and wish him well with his portfolio. I also welcome this legislation because it is very important that we have proper control over chemicals.

Concerns have been raised recently regarding the use of mercury in tooth fillings. I ask the Minister of State to clarify whether the use of mercury is covered by this legislation. I note that some countries intend to ban the use of mercury for tooth fillings. Furthermore, many people are having mercury fillings replaced with white fillings, although there are some dangers involved in that process of which people should be aware. Does this come under the scope of the legislation?

We can always rely on Senator Burke to come up with a good one.

I thank the Senators for their kind words and for their broad expressions of support for the Bill. The official journal, L136 of 2007 contains the REACH regulations and while Senator MacSharry argued that the Chemicals Bill would not win any literary prizes, the same could also be said of the official journal. It is probably as complex as the Lisbon treaty. I encourage Senators to obtain a copy of the official journal and read it.

We all know what Commissioner McCreevy said about Lisbon.

It refers to "Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated heavy naphtha, deisohexaniser overheads; Low boiling point hydrogen treated naphtha", which is just one example of the technical detail of the REACH regulations.

Senator Phelan asked whether there would be implementation differences in other member states but the fact that this is a regulation means no deviation is allowed. All member states are obliged to enforce the regulation, whereas a directive allows for deviations. The regulation must be enforced EU-wide.

The purpose of the Bill is to give administrative and legal support to the enforcement of the REACH regulations. Reference has been made to some issues outside the scope of the REACH regulations and this Bill. These issues are waste, human and veterinary medicines, food flavourings and feedstuffs, all of which will continue to be regulated under existing legislation.

In the context of Senator Burke's teeth and his concerns about mercury fillings, I suggest that this would come under medical devices and would not be under the scope of this Bill. I note that there are concerns among the public and in medical areas about fillings containing mercury but that would not be contained within the scope of this Bill.

Senator John Paul Phelan spoke about the burden of proof on the industry. The fact that the onus is on the industry to prove that chemicals are safe is a positive development. A statutory authority would not have the ability or wherewithal to ensure proper testing or procedures were in place. It would overwhelm any agency no matter how well-resourced it was. That the burden of proof is on the industry is a good thing.

This is an evolutionary process. There will be pre-registration and then full registration which will build up a bank of information regarding the chemicals out there. A suggestion was made that there could be up to 30,000 chemicals. We will then formulate a considerable amount of knowledge over a period.

Senator Boyle asked whether a review process take place. As I said previously, this will be evolutionary and will continue to be reviewed simply because as information comes in and new chemicals evolve, there must be a review mechanism in place and that will continue.

Senator Quinn expressed the concern when REACH was first expressed by the European Commission that the industry would become less competitive. When we were framing this legislation in the context of the enforcement side, we were very conscious and carried out a regulatory impact assessment in the context of the Chemicals Bill. In respect of REACH, it is very important to state first and foremost that there can never be a compromise on human health or the environment so we must come from that position. There was a great deal of discussion when REACH was being formulated in the EU. Acknowledgement was made by Senator Carty in that context about our MEPs on all sides getting very involved, being proactive and bringing forward a regulation that could be implemented, was a high priority in terms of the protection of human health and the environment and ensured we had a competitive industry.

Senator Quinn is correct in saying that the pharmaceutical and chemical industry is a very important plank in our economy and is very high in technical jobs. A total of 25,000 people work in it and it has a very high value-added product in the context of the economy and gross domestic product, so we must be conscious of that as well. However, we cannot compromise initially on health or the environment so we are coming from that basis. I do not believe this will be anti-competitive. Other countries and trading blocs around the world are looking at these regulations and see them as the pathway to ensure we have proper procedures in place so that we know what chemicals are being transferred and used around the world. Certainly, the more countries that buy into this concept of having an agency and the knowledge and information in the context of the chemicals being used, the better.

I re-emphasise, because people might be concerned, that waste, human or veterinary medicines, food flavourings and feedstuffs are not included in this directive or in the context of the Bill we are discussing today. Senator Boyle referred to it in the context of Haulbowline. It is important that we do not give false hope that this Bill is assessing and addressing all these problems when it is not doing so.

Senator Prendergast raised the issue of resourcing. The Health and Safety Authority is the lead agency in this context and received 33 additional staff over and above the complement to enforce the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005. The Environmental Protection Agency received two additional people. Any other agency that has an obligation in this Bill should allocate resources accordingly to ensure it can comply with the expectations in respect of the enforcement side. I am confident the HSA has the resources in place.

I again thank the Senators. It is fine legislation in the context of what we are trying to achieve. The REACH regulations are in place and this Bill is primarily the enforcement side of them to give us teeth to ensure REACH is enforced. We had a very fine debate in the Dáil. There was a considerable amount of consensus that we took on board.

Senator John Paul Phelan asked me about section 24 in the context of whistle-blowers. Again, we want to protect people who come forward with bona fide concerns and inform an agency. This is very welcome and should be encouraged in all aspects of legislation before the Houses. Concerned individuals who are putting their necks on the line and who perhaps are feeling vulnerable because they are bringing forward information on workmates or employers should be supported and encouraged if they make bona fide complaints.

In respect of naming and shaming, the HSA is obliged under this legislation to publish names of people with indictable offences or court orders. Again, this was made obligatory on foot of an Opposition amendment which we gladly took on board.

The Terry Leyden clause.

We always take on board advice from the other side of the House if it is positive, proactive and sensible. Certainly the amendments tabled by the Opposition in this case were all of these. However, the HSA does not have to publish in the context of prohibition notices. This is left up to the discretion of the HSA for good reason which was explained in the other House.

I again thank Senators for their kind words in the context of the support they are giving this Bill today. I know this will have a positive impact on the chemicals industry, human health and our environment, which is what we are trying to achieve.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Top
Share