Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 17 Jul 1979

Vol. 315 No. 16

Dangerous Substances (Amendment) Bill, 1979: Committee and Final Stages.

Section I agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Mitchell

I would have preferred had the advisory council been a little less restricted. The proposal that there should be an advisory council is a good one, but in the interests of all concerned, particularly the Minister, it should be seen to be an independent body. In saying that, I do not mean to reflect on the Minister, former holders of the office or future Ministers, but a Minister may come under pressure in this regard. It is possible that the advice tendered to a Minister would be what the council think the Minister wants to hear rather than what they would like to give him. The council may only consider matters referred to them by the Minister, and the chairman and ordinary members appointed by the Minister will hold office for such a period as the Minister may decide. Subsection (3) provides that, on the request of the advisory council and subject to the consent of the Minister, an inspector may attend a meeting of the advisory council for the purpose of giving any information which the advisory council may request for the purposes of discharging its function. Therefore, the council cannot request an inspector to attend a meeting. First of all, he must obtain the consent of the Minister. I presume, if the Minister says, "Yes" the inspector will go but the subsection says that an inspector "may" go. I should prefer that to read that an inspector "shall" go. Perhaps the Minister is being over-cautious in these provisions. For example, would he consider amending subsection (3) to read:

On the request of the Advisory Council an inspector shall attend a meeting of the Advisory Council for the purpose of giving any information which the Advisory Council may request for the purposes of discharging its functions.

In other words, this would mean the deletion of the words "and subject to the consent of the Minister" and the substitution of the word "shall" for the word "may" in the second line of the subsection.

Minister for Labour (Mr. G. Fitzgerald)

I do not feel that the terms of reference of the Advisory Council are in any way restrictive. I have availed of the opportunity to introduce this Advisory Council. Naturally it would be my wish that it be independent and worth while. Obviously Deputy Mitchell must have some reservations about my capacity to select independent people for such an advisory committee or council. He need not have any reservations in the matter because I too fully appreciate the necessity for an independent Advisory Council, particularly one having the kind of expertise and knowledge of what is happening in this entire area. For that reason it would be my wish that this would be a more broadly-based Advisory Council than others at present operating under some other Acts. The type of people needed to act on such a council as I see it, would be, first of all, the social partners. There has been reference to the chemical industry and its growth. Obviously there would be a need for that to be covered. The transport industry is extremely important, and then there are the various Government Departments because this covers quite a number of areas. There has been reference made already to transport. Deputy Quinn made reference to the environment. The Department of Tourism and Transport were referred to by Deputy B. Desmond. There are also the Departments of Health, Industry, Commerce and Energy and Justice, which Department will be charged with the enforcement of some of the provisions. I believe that the Advisory Council so set up should be of particular benefit to all areas.

I might refer to the point made about the attendance of an inspector at such Advisory Council meetings. The subsection provides specifically that an inspector may attend at the request of the Advisory Council, and give any information requested by the Advisory Council for the purpose of discharging their functions. Deputy Mitchell advocated a changing of the wording of the subsection. I do not see the necessity for that. There is a similar provision contained in the Factories Act and in the Mines and Quarries Act in relation to those Advisory Councils. The Deputy can be assured that, when I saw an opportunity to establish an Advisory Council, I was concerned that it would prove to be worth while, one that would advise me or indeed any of my predecessors on various aspects of the operation of this important Bill.

I was asked earlier about the Cork scene, about the benefits or advantages I would have when this Bill becomes law on the transport of dangerous substances. At present I am informed by CIE that the equipment used, and to be used, conforms to the best international standards. The board operate international practices laid down for the movement of these dangerous substances. In addition, it could be said that all of the people concerned are given specific training in the various areas and that the situation obtaining has been satisfactory. But the passage of this Bill will give me powers not in existence at present. The Transport Act of 1950 provides that CIE are not obliged to accept dangerous substances for conveyance by rail and that, if the board do accept such goods, they shall be carried and shall be stored subject to such bye-laws, regulations and conditions as the board may think fit. If CIE should decide to make bye-laws in this matter, under section 22 (2) of the Transport Act of 1950, such bye-laws must be confirmed by the Minister for Tourism and Transport. That is the position at present. But, when this Bill is passed, the Minister for Labour may require that such bye-laws be prepared, and may accept or reject them.

Mr. B. Desmond

Without unduly delaying the debate, we are entitled to express our serious concern about the proposition. What we have just been talking about is the bulk transfer, or transport by rail, of bulk ammonia. There has not been any effective homing-in—apart from The Cork Examiner which gave a very responsible analysis of the situation—or examination of it as it affects the country as a whole. Without being scary, what is now proposed is that literally thousands of tons of bulk ammonia, a highly dangerous substance—one need only examine what it did to the vegetation on an estate in Cork to imagine what it would do to human beings—be transferred from the Marino Point plant in County Cork by rail right into Cork city, into a densely populated area, up through a tunnel, out of Cork city at a very slow speed—an area which has constant track difficulties requiring very heavy maintenance by CIE—to Mallow, progressing through all the railheads into Dublin, into the major population centre of the country. That is bad enough, but then it is proposed that it be brought right through Dublin, through south Dublin, out through Sandycove to Dún Laoghaire, through Bray, on an notorious stretch of track, and then on a slow track to Arklow.

Despite the Minister's reply to my parliamentary question here today—and I accept his remarks in absolute good faith—my question has been shunted round literally by rail through seven different Government Departments in the past fortnight until finally the Minister for Labour answered the question under the Dangerous Substances Act. I had a question down to the Minister for the Environment who said he had nothing whatever to do with it. Apparently the Minister for Tourism and Transport had no responsibility for CIE's operations in that area. I share the view of the senior staff of Cork County Council that, despite the fact that the tender might be somewhat more expensive, that bulk ammonia should be trans-shipped by bulk——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I might point out to the Deputy that this section deals only with the Advisory Council.

Mr. B. Desmond

I shall conclude by saying that, in my opinion bulk ammonia should be trans-shipped by ship from Cork harbour right into Arklow port. That is the proper way of doing it. I cannot see any other prospect in terms of Dublin to Ballina because there there was no other option. There is an option in relation to the current situation and, notwithstanding the fact that CIE may use the best of equipment and so on, that is the kind of instance. I urge the Minister that when it comes to making the regulation under the Dangerous Substances Act the regulation may, and I hope would, preclude the unnecessary transport of the major dangerous substances to major population areas. That is the kind of concept that I would like to see provided in the Bill. I accept the Minister's competence in that regard. I regret that we had to raise this on the second last day before the House adjourns. I thank you, Sir, for the latitude you have given me.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is quite a lot of latitude. We are dealing only with the Advisory Council.

Mr. Calleary

The Minister and the Deputies went through a list of the people whom they felt should be on the advisory council. Let me add one other class of people—the people who live with this problem daily and in whose vicinity a lot of these dangerous substances are stored. They should have representation on such a council. The Minister is well aware that my constituency has the Asahi plant and in the town of Ballina they have a considerable amount of acrylonitrile stored there. The residents there, who have had almost weekly consultation with CIE, should be considered on any advisory council.

I also contradict one thing that Deputy Desmond said. There is an option in the transportation of this substance. It can come by sea, and we should not close our eyes to that option.

I welcome this Bill. I am sorry, if only for the peace of mind of the people who live on the Foxford road in Ballina, that this legislation was not brought in and enacted three or four years ago. Perhaps in that case they would have had some peace of mind. I look forward to the Minister consulting with them, as he has done with CIE and Asahi, to see how this problem can best be overcome to the advantage of everybody.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

First of all, Sir, I should like to reply to Deputy Desmond, who obviously used this to get across some of the points made in his parliamentary question today. Obviously also, he was as aware of the latitude he was taking as you were yourself. CIE's arrangements for the movement of anhydrous ammonia have been drawn up in accordance with the standards laid down at an international convention concerning the transport of dangerous goods by rail. The special precautions being taken by CIE have safety as the prime overall requirement and include a specially designed train, special tank containers and specially trained staff engaged in the operation. If, however, despite stringent precautions being taken, an accident should occur, co-ordinated emergency measures have been established, following discussion with appropriate Government Departments, to deal with the situation.

Ammonia is one of the chemicals most commonly transported by rail all over the world with a very good record of safe handling. I say that in reply to Deputy Desmond. I also say to him that he is expressing concern now about the Bill before the House. His Government during their time in office should have seen to it that a Bill like the one I am bringing in here today was brought in then. It did not take the Spanish disaster of last year or any other disaster to make the Fianna Fáil Government in 1972 conscious of the need for that Act. I listened while Deputy Desmond, in a snide, mischievous way, did a little bit of scaremongering. Reasonable precautions have always been taken. This Bill gives to the Minister for Labour certain powers which were not available to him prior to now. Deputy Desmond is concerned about this Bill being introduced only now. Had he been concerned earlier to see this amending legislation introduced, it would have been before the House before now.

Deputy Calleary raised an interesting point about representation on the advisory council. That very valid point was that the community should be represented, and I will have that examined in a favourable way.

Mr. Mitchell

I am not pressing the point, but it would help Parliament if there was a more open attitude to the amendment. We could participate in cooperation——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is no amendment to the Bill.

Mr. Mitchell

I suggested to the Minister that he might make certain changes to subsection (3). It is regrettable that not just this Minister but other Ministers, and not just this Government but other Governments, come in not prepared to change a dot or comma in any Bill. That does not help Parliament. I do not blame the BBC commentators who have been saying recently that Parliament is a charade. I do not wish to make this controversial but, nontheless, I make a point.

I did not see Deputy Desmond's contribution as mischievous. It was a serious contribution.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It was not in order.

Mr. Mitchell

It is not helpful that the Minister should describe Deputy Desmond in that way, nor should he be talking about four years that were lost. Four years were lost, but two years have been lost since he became Minister. We on this side of the House did not see the Bill as controversial and we welcome it. I am not going to press the amendment, but I wish that the Minister and other Ministers would come in here with open minds.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 3 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment and passed.