I welcome the Minister and his officials, Mr. Tom Kennington, Ms Deirdre Fannin, and Mr. Michael O'Hart, to the meeting. I suggest we complete consideration of the Bill by 4 p.m. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 1.
Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road Bill, 1998: Committee Stage.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
I referred to this matter on Second Stage but unfortunately I did not hear the Minister's reply. This section contains a definition of the parameters of the Bill, including "public road" etc. Dangerous substances are more predominantly carried by rail, for example the goods going to Asahi, IFI in Cork, Arklow etc. What is the legal position as regards the transport of dangerous substances by rail as covered under the interpretation section of this Bill? Is it already covered by the same ADR agreement or by similar legislation? What are the statutory regulations which govern dangerous substances travelling on the surface of this island by rail?
Deputy Yates voiced his concern on this matter on Second Stage and I am happy to address the matter. The purpose of this Bill, as the name suggests, is to provide the legislative framework for the regulation of the transport of dangerous goods by road. The ensuing regulations will apply the details of the annexes of the ADR and the European Union Directive No. 94/55/EC to the transport of dangerous goods by road as the internationally accepted standard for safety of such transport.
The transport of dangerous goods by rail is the subject of a separate convention called RID, which is one element of COTIF, the convention concerning international carriage by rail, to which Ireland has been a contracting party for some time. RID, which sets out the minimum standards for the safe packing and transport of dangerous goods by rail, is being extended within the EU member states to apply not only to international rail transport of such goods but also to national rail transport. Two directives cover this, Council Directive No. 96/49/EC of 23 July 1996 on the approximation of the laws of member states with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by rail and Council Directive No. 96/87/EC of December 1996 adapting to technical progress Council Directive No. 96/49/EC on the approximation of the laws of member states with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by rail.
These directives are being transposed into Irish law by a statutory instrument under the European Communities Act, 1972. This regulation is currently being drafted and is expected to be signed into law by early 1999. The current transport of dangerous substances by rail in Ireland is, in general, in accordance with RID. The requirements of the directive are already being met on an administrative basis. The transport of dangerous goods by rail is outside the scope of this Bill, as agreed on Second Stage.
The Minister of State is aware of the accident in Glasnevin last year which could have been serious. It involved the derailment of a train which was carrying dangerous substances. Is he giving the House and the committee an assurance that the current legal framework is as strict as that which is being put in place to deal with the transport of dangerous substances by road?
I am not giving the House any commitment except to say that this legislation deals with the carriage of dangerous goods by road, in keeping with ADR and the appropriate directive. The carriage of dangerous goods by rail is legislated for under a different format.
Are all petroleum goods included in the definition of "dangerous goods" in section 1(1)? They are the bulkiest fuel items transported across the country. I referred to this on Second Stage as regards the number of accidents - I know of one such appalling fatal accident - due to oil spillages. Oil, whether diesel or petrol, is carried in huge volumes throughout the country. What is the fine for an oil spillage?
Dangerous substances are listed and are cross-referenced with the ADR. Petrol, kerosene and diesel are included in the list while heavy fuel oil is not.
Does that cover leakages or just spillages? Recently, I have noticed a great number of leakages, even on the main dual carriageway from Clare to Dublin. I am not talking about spillages which can be signposted. These constant leakages will cause havoc on the roads unless something is done.
Leakages will be included in the normal enforcement of the legislation as regards the substances incorporated in the Bill.
Section 1 agreed to.
Amendment No. 1 is ruled out of order as it is outside the scope of the Bill.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
The functions of this Bill are being implemented by a different Minister and Department from those sponsoring the Bill. This indicates that the legislation has been the subject of a shuffling exercise because one Department does not wish to take responsibility for it. Does the Minister accept we have a plethora of legislation relating to tachographs and latent weights and a raft of road traffic regulations for which we do not have uniform enforcement and implementation? This section deals with competent authorities. How will this section be implemented in the context of previous legislation? I know health and safety personnel will perform the front line enforcement, but it is incredible that the Minister who has responsibility at a policy level for road haulage will have no role in the implementation of the Bill. Will the Minister clarify how the legislation will be implemented and deal with the question of a competent authority for all haulage issues?
In section 4(1) the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment is defined as the competent authority. This section provides for the formal appointment of competent authorities by that Minister after consultation with any Minister whose statutory responsibilities are to perform functions in relation to the ADR directives which come within the responsibility of these authorities. The functions which competent bodies may be required to carry out include enforcement, testing and type approval of vehicles, type approval of packaging and approval of training providers and driver examinations. The tasks to be undertaken by competent authorities will be specified in the regulations to be made under section 17. Competent authorities so appointed will be responsible to the Minister and must retain, under subsection (2), such records of information as the Minister may direct. The Minister, under whose aegis the competent authority will operate, will also get records and information regarding these tasks. Under subsection (3) the Minister may revoke or amend an appointment made under subsection (1).
We already have a number of enforcement authorities that are tried and trusted and doing an excellent job in this area. The Health and Safety Authority is responsible for enforcement and driver training. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Garda Síochána are responsible for explosive substances. The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland has a proven track record with regard to radioactive materials. The Department of the Environment and Local Government is responsible for vehicle testing and the NSAI is responsible for type approval of tanks, tankers etc. The overall competent authority in this regard will be the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
What will happen if everybody's business tends to be nobody's business? I will return to this question in relation to the inspectorate when we debate section 6, but it is unusual that the Minister responsible for sponsoring a Bill is not subsequently the competent responsible Minister. This represents a slick fast shoe shuffle by the Department of Public Enterprise to shift responsibility to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. I fear we will pass the legislation but its implementation and enforcement will be weak. I would prefer if the Department of Public Enterprise and a real Minister for transport took responsibility for this and all the other related areas.
I appreciate the Deputy's viewpoint. He articulated his concerns on Second Stage, but I assure him there is nothing slick about this. The agencies which have competently dealt with these issues in the past will do so in the future, supported by this new legislation.
I support the comments of Deputy Yates. There seems to be a dearth of resources in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to ensure the health and safety of our workforce in the construction industry. The safety record of that industry has been disastrous this year. What Department will be in charge of the peace-time emergency plan? Who will take responsibility when an accident involving a truck creates a major emergency?
The emergency plan begins with the local authorities. A review of that plan is currently in progress. The responsibility for the containment of an incident involving dangerous goods in transit lies with the local authorities. They are responsible for rendering an area safe and for protecting life and property. Overall control of the activities required to carry out this function and the final decisions on actions to be taken rest exclusively with the local authorities. Cleaning up after an incident is the responsibility of the supplier or carrier involved in it.
The Bill represents common sense and aims to bring us into line with other member states. One aspect of the Bill strikes me as odd. It defines a vehicle as one which operates on at least four wheels, but one which operates on two wheels could be used to carry dangerous goods. The Bill is welcome because it strengthens the right to stop people carrying dangerous goods by road. However, a couple of ounces of plutonium could be stashed in the pillion of a motor cycle or forestry tractors. Is it significant that such vehicles are excluded by definition from the legislation?
The carriage of radioactive materials, whether on four wheel or two wheel vehicles, is subject to licence from the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland. That is the situation and it is strictly enforced.
I use that as an example. There are other goods which are dangerous in small quantities; contaminants other than radioactive contaminants could cause a real hazard. The only query I have about this otherwise excellent Bill is on the definitions used. The Bill and its propositions are very sensible. I wonder if, in the context of a sensible Bill, we are somehow excluding potentially dangerous goods in vehicles other than those with four wheels.
We are complementing those provisions in existing legislation. I have explained the situation regarding radioactive material. With regard to explosives, enforcement is carried out by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Garda Síochána. There are other areas such as volume, weight and speed limitations for which legislation already exists. This Bill adds to and complements the legislation which is in situ.
I remind Deputies that I have allowed people to wander away from the substance of the section before us.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
Will the Minister give an indication of the level of fees to be charged under section 5, as currently envisaged, and their operation date?
There is a fee system already in operation but it will change and there will probably be more substantial fees although this has not yet been established. That will follow when the legislation and the regulations come into being. I assume the Deputy has in mind fees for driver testing etc. Other fees have yet to be decided upon.
Is there an implementation date for the Act?
I said on Second Stage that it would be in the new year and that still appears to be the case.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Amendment No. 2 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."
This is the core of the issue. The biggest issue for haulage in this State is the black economy and the Minister knows this. He has seen the attrition in the disputes in the Dublin docks area because people are undercutting to a point which is uneconomical. He has seen the numbers who have gone out of business and the domino effect which this has on others left with creditor problems.
Our haulage and transport sector should be developed in an orderly manner, with uniform enforcement of legislation across the board. Successive Governments have failed to do this. We need an effective Minister for Transport who deals with local authorities, the Garda Síochána and the RPII. A squad of as few as 20 throughout the State which would properly enforce the rules governing those transporting meat, dangerous substances, cement - anything that might be a hazard on the roads - should be set up to tackle defective insurance, tax and cowboy operators.
This, however, is another layer of bureaucracy which will give those charged with compliance more onerous responsibilities while those in the sector who are operating with clapped out vehicles which are a danger to society are not being properly policed. If you go to any IRHA conference, enforcement is the major issue. Until there is a crack squad of people who cover all facets of enforcement, it will be a joke. I ask the Minister, although not in the context of the narrow nature of this legislation, to examine the purpose of my amendment and address its proposals.
The Deputy has addressed his amendment which was deemed out of order but I am happy to respond to him. On Second Stage the Deputy was derogatory of the review of the haulage industry which I put in place shortly after coming into office and of which I am very proud. That was a positive step. The review is ongoing, with excellent across-the-board consultation with all concerned. It will enable us to see where we are going within the industry in the next five or ten years and beyond and the report will be a very useful document.
We are talking about the establishment of some kind of super enforcement body to implement the provisions of the Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road Bill, the road traffic laws and road haulage regulations. The enforcement of all road traffic legislation is solely a matter for the Garda Síochána. The gardaí have dedicated traffic corps throughout the State to carry out that task and it is not envisaged that role will be removed from the Garda. Enforcement of the Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road Bill is a specialist task which must be undertaken by inspectors from the Health and Safety Authority, duly qualified and duly trained personnel. The Health and Safety Authority inspectorate has the qualifications and the training which are necessary to enforce the regulations.
Explosives and radiological substances are the responsibility of specialist inspectors attached to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the RPII. Those people have a proven track record. Inspectors from both of those areas would have duties other than enforcement of the Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road Bill.
I notice there is no intention to give the Minister for the Environment and Local Government responsibility. Is there a reason for that? The Department of the Environment and Local Government is the Department which supervises the steps taken following spillage which leads to an emergency.
Part of the job of the inspectors will be to inspect premises. The Department of the Environment and Local Government has some responsibility in matters of planning. There must be some reason that Department and the Minister are not covered in this. If some other mechanism is used, the Department and the planning authorities can be brought into play and the issue of planning for storage space would be subject to scrutiny under this legislation. An authority like An Bord Pleanála or the Minister for the Environment and Local Government should have some involvement in this.
I appreciate what Deputy Yates is trying to do through this amendment. I mentioned something similar on Second Stage. Even though the Minister is not accepting the amendment I would ask him to reconsider it.
The amendment is not before us, it is the section.
It is timely. I support Deputy Yates in calling for a root and branch review of all State agencies involved in different aspects of road transport, safety and equipment inspection. From my own practical experience, a number of different agencies are responsible for different aspects of the carriage of dangerous goods and other aspects of road transport. Deputy Yates is correct in saying that it is time for the Department of the Environment and Local Government and other Departments to come together with an inspectorate. I hope the Minister will take those views on board and perhaps at some stage in the future he could advise us on that matter.
I understand that you have already rightly ruled the amendment out of order, chairman. To address the section, there is a case to be made for doing something in a general sense to pull together those responsible, although I do not think you could do it in this Bill.
I am deeply concerned at some of the things we see on the roads - this is the point Deputy Yates was making. Deputy Daly mentioned earlier that people are adopting a dangerous attitude while transporting bulk oil around the country, which is not necessarily defined as dangerous goods. As the chairman knows, oil spillages have become a feature on the roads and each local authority erects signs warning drivers of them. Deputy Yates is making a good point and while I have no argument with the principle of the amendment, as both the chairman and the Minister have said, this is the wrong Bill in which to address this matter.
The need to have better enforcement of regulations on the road - other than speed regulations, which seem to be the only thing the Garda Síochána is focusing on at the moment - is a point well made. In County Wicklow, both I and the Minister of State see material being transported on the roads in a dangerous manner every day of the week, even though the material itself may not be a dangerous substance. One sees overloaded lorries, which results partly from the problem of undercutting. While I differ with Deputy Yates as to the mechanism for achieving his end, I share the common concern he expressed.
There is a wider issue of pulling together safety aspects on the road rather than just dealing with speed. The most dangerous people on the road are those who drive in the outside lane at 25 miles an hour in a clapped out car. That is a different day's work, however, and should be addressed in another way.
Unfortunately, it is not relevant to the section. We have to deal with today's work and we can leave the other work for another day.
I have finished, chairman.
That is precisely the question I was going to ask you, chairman. I understood that this Bill was related to the carriage of dangerous goods. However, if it does not relate to that, people have obviously strayed off it.
Strayed off? They have gone off the road, if I can put it that way.
One can define slurry as dangerous goods because it contaminates rivers. One could also regard milk as dangerous goods because when spilt it can cause accidents. I fully agree with Deputy Roche who said this is a wide-ranging issue and that we should pull all those components together. I often see farm machinery on the road at midnight. I came across such agricultural machinery on the road a week ago with no lights on it. These issues are very important and I would like the Minister to address them at some future stage.
Section 1 deals with dangerous goods. Does the Minister of State wish to reply?
Yes, briefly, if I may. We have gone off at a tangent but that is healthy. Deputy Daly mentioned the Department of the Environment and Local Government and local authorities, which are well stitched into the situation. Local authorities are the first line of defence or activity in terms of fire or oil spillages.
The inspectors referred to in the legislation will be empowered to inspect dangerous goods only, in transit or otherwise. Deputies Yates, Broughan, O'Flynn and Brady all aspire to a more co-ordinated and more efficient overall management of the situation and I would not disagree with them about that. Perhaps there is another forum for that issue, but this Bill is not the one. Our road transport review will be instrumental in, if not correcting, highlighting the points made by colleagues in this regard.
The proposed fine of £1,500 seems very low for somebody in charge of a premises with dangerous goods. The fine should be more substantial.
We have three categories of fine. The one the Deputy referred to concerns section 6(9), which states that: "a person who obstructs or interferes with an inspector when the inspector is exercising a power under this section, or who fails or refuses to comply with a request or requirement of an inspector under this section, shall be guilty of an offence". Under sections 6, 8, 10, 11 and 17 a person is liable to a fine of £1,500 on summary conviction. Under sections 8, 10 and 11 that liability is to a fine of £100,000 on conviction on indictment. I consider that is rather substantial.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."
In his very detailed and comprehensive speech on Second Stage, the Minister of State referred to the annexes, which I presume are in the directives referred to. It is critical for all that information to be available to the inspecting authorities and that they are aware of it. We are not really discussing again the EU legislation in depth, we are simply implementing it. Will the annexes be available to all the inspection authorities so they will know in depth what the full remit of this legislation is?
Absolutely, Deputy. Before coming to the committee I checked that the list of dangerous substances and the various details are all cross referenced to the issue itself. I am quite satisfied to answer the Deputy in the affirmative.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."
The issue of consignor liability is a bone of contention in the haulage industry. In an increasingly competitive market users of haulage firms, such as oil companies, etc., put increasing pressure on independent hauliers, but the users are not liable when something goes wrong. Is there a provision in section 12 or the legislation in general which, in the case of a large company that recruits a haulage firm and makes it tender at a price or efficiency rate which squeezes it until the pips come out, places liability on the person who ultimately exerted undue pressure on the haulier? In other words, if the hauliers, who operate on a thin margin, are the victims, they are guilty. I am not stating that guilt should be mitigated, but there is also clear consignor liability. When will broader legislation be introduced to deal with this matter? As far as the Bill is concerned, is there provision for consignor liability?
This subject is close to my heart. I agree with Deputy Yates about the necessity to deal with the issue of consignor liability which has been neglected by successive Governments. This is the first time an effort has been made to place liability and onus on the consignor. In broader terms, this will be incorporated in the road transport Bill which is virtually complete and which I would like introduced as expeditiously as possible. I hope it will be published before the end of the current session. Consignor liability will be comprehensively addressed in that legislation.
Section 11 deals with consignor liability. Subsection (1) states:
A person engaged in the carriage of dangerous goods by road shall take all practical steps to prevent risk of injury to person, or damage to property in or resulting from the carriage of those goods.
Section 11(4) states:
In this section "person engaged in the carriage of dangerous goods by road" includes the operator of the vehicle (whether or not the owner), the driver of the vehicle, and the consignor of the dangerous goods.
Therefore, I am glad this is the first occasion consignors will be dealt with under road transport legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."
On Second Stage I raised the issue of foreign drivers and operators in this jurisdiction who will be subject to the legislation. What will happen to Italian or Greek operators carrying dangerous substances who are found, for example, in the vicinity of Arklow, to have infringed the legislation? If a summary conviction is involved will they be remanded in custody? There is no possibility of extraditing people who commit minor infringements of the law from their home country once they return there. Will the Irish haulage industry alone be obliged to comply with the provisions of the legislation or will their foreign counterparts also be obliged to do so?
I am not sure which section of the Bill deals with this matter. What will happen to foreign operators, whose country of origin is a considerable distance away, who contravene the provisions of the legislation while hauling dangerous substances through Ireland? How will the legislation be policed, given that it could take up to three months for a case to come to court following the issuing of a summons or the completion of the relevant paperwork by the Garda?
I am surprised we did not deal with this matter on section 9.
The chairman is going through the sections so quickly it is difficult to keep up with him.
He is very efficient.
Sections 9 and 18 are relevant to the important issue raised by Deputy Yates. Section 9 is designed to ensure breaches of the Act or regulations can be prosecuted against out of State carriers in the course of a journey carrying dangerous goods within the State. This will be achieved by arresting drivers who a garda has reason to believe are committing or have committed an offence and who, in the opinion of the garda, have not given a satisfactory address for service of summons. In the event of a person being arrested, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967 come into play. The regulations under the Act are enforced by inspectors appointed under section 6. In the course of a road check where an inspector finds a breach of the Act or the regulations, the garda supporting the road check must be called and must satisfy himself, on the advice of the inspector, that an offence has been committed. If, in addition, the garda forms the opinion that the address given by the driver is not a satisfactory address for summonses he may arrest that driver.
Subsection (2) defines what constitutes a satisfactory address, which is an address at which the person will be for a sufficient length of time for it to be possible to serve him or her with a summons or an address of some other specified person who will accept a summons on behalf of that person. An example of that would be a solicitor acting for the person within this jurisdiction. When operating in the UK, Irish hauliers constantly encounter this difficulty and that is how they deal with it. They usually have established a rapport or an arrangement with a solicitor UK.
The Deputy's question related to the precise procedure of whether a non-resident driver could be arrested without warrant. Under section 9 an arrested driver must be transferred to the nearest Garda station and, as soon as practicable, brought before a District Court or released on bail to appear at the next appropriate sitting of the court. Bail can be set by the station sergeant in accordance with section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967. It can be in the form of recognisance or a sum of money and must be lodged with the clerk of the relevant District Court. 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 entreat the recognisance or to forfeit the sum of money. For the first time, the matters about which the Deputy is concerned are comprehensively dealt with under the legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."
I reiterate the point I made on section 6 regarding the inclusion or involvement by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government or a local authority in this area. In my view, these people are at the coalface of this kind of activity. Why was it decided not to appoint the Minister or the local authorities to act in these situations? A county engineer might have jurisdiction in terms of implementing the provisions of this section. Why has the Department of the Environment and Local Government not been included in the section?
My good friend and colleague is determined to get the Department of the Environment and Local Government involved in this issue. I cannot add much to what I said earlier. The appropriate agencies and departments which have been involved and which were deemed to be necessarily involved were the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the National Authority for Occupational Safety and Health, the RPII and the Garda Síochána who were appropriate in the justice section.
Some of the agencies mentioned have a limited number of personnel who could involve themselves in the widespread abuse that is taking place at present regarding some of the issues that are covered by this legislation. As we all know, the roads are becoming increasingly dangerous. At present they are treacherous, as is proven by the number of people that have been killed or seriously injured. Some of these accidents are due to the carriage of oil and other substances on our main thoroughfares. It is essential that we include the Department of the Environment and Local Government. With the NRA they have responsibility for putting in place the roads structure and either they, the Minister or the local authorities should be involved on a day-to-day basis in the implementation of this legislation.
I see the Deputy's concern and I agree with him to an extent. Overall responsibility rests with local authorities because they are at the coalface of the situation with regard to accidents, particularly those involving fire, dangerous substances, etc. With regard to this legislation, enforcement will be carried out by the specialists and proven specialists such as RPII, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, etc. Provision is being made for further specialists, for example, inspectors, to be recruited to do that.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are cognate and shall be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 13, subsection (1), line 8, to delete "Explosive Substances" and substitute "Explosives".
What is the difference between explosive substances and explosives?
These are merely editorial amendments. The title of this Act has been misquoted and it should read the Explosives Act, 1875. The Explosives Substances Act, 1883, amended the Explosives Act, 1875, but this is not the Act which is being referred to in our Bill. The error arose as the Act is referred to as the Explosive Substances Act.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 13, subsection (2), line 11, to delete "Explosive Substances" and substitute "Explosives".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 13, subsection (3), lines 13 and 14, to delete "Explosive Substances" and substitute "Explosives".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 17 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.