Deputy Crawford indicated he was sharing time with Deputy Sargent and me.
Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road Bill, 1998: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
There are 12 minutes remaining. Does the Deputy propose to share time with Deputy Sargent?
Yes. I welcome the Bill. Legislation is required to control the carriage of all types of goods. Those in the haulage business are, by and large, reputable. They do an excellent job and have quality lorries and transport mechanisms for the transport of goods which can be considered dangerous. These include toxic and acid based substances. One is usually aware of such vehicles because they are generally well marked. I compliment those involved in that type of haulage.
However, it is necessary to question the safety aspects of the haulage of some other goods. There continues to be a lethal problem with oil spillages in the Border region, but the cause has not been discovered. It has been indicated that lorries from Northern Ireland are overfilling with diesel oils, although I do not believe that is the main problem. I have no difficulty with people purchasing their diesel fuel on that side of the Border. However, there appears to be a regular trade in hauling diesel substances in unsuitable containers from the Border to Virginia, Cavan and Kells along the N3 and other less important roads.
I have encountered a number of accidents where cars have slid off the road because of oil spillages. When that happens the local authority and fire services are contacted immediately and, at significant cost, the oil is mopped up and a chalk substance is placed on the surface of the road for approximately one mile. I understand these oils are being hauled in unsuitable milk tankers. This must be stopped because it is making the roads very dangerous. Serious accidents have occurred on the N3 because of oil spillages. Perhaps the relevant authorities would examine the matter and those involved should be prosecuted.
When major roadworks take place some lorries carry large boulders. While the lorries involved are well maintained and in excellent condition, they are not designed to carry such heavy loads. If they have to stop suddenly part of the load could fall off. Loads should not overhang the sides of a lorry.
In some cases insufficient care is taken to secure steel and steel girders on haulage lorries. It is not unusual to see lorries on the road on which the ties holding the loads have snapped. If a steel girder were to fall off lives could be lost. Again, it is a question of overloading lorries to take larger loads from one destination to another in the shortest possible time.
Lorry drivers are under great pressure and some of them are paid on commission rather than at a flat rate. There is pressure on them to travel fast on the roads. It is not uncommon to be over-taken by a lorry, even when travelling at 60 miles per hour. It has been suggested that, because lorry drivers are seated high in their vehicles they have a far greater view than car drivers. If an animal or child appeared on the road unexpectedly, trucks travelling at 70 or 80 miles per hour could not stop over a short distance. Lorry drivers must be prepared for the unexpected.
I admire those who get on with their work and try to make a living and I do not wish to curtail them. However, it is not acceptable that lorry drivers should be effectively held up to ransom because they are paid a commission on the number of loads they deliver a day. They should be paid at a flat rate and given a decent day's wages for doing their job safely. Those were the points I wished to raise.
Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Teachta Boylan as a chuid ama a roinnt liom. Tá sé ceithre bliana ó tháinig Treoir '94 55 EC ar an saol agus ní leor é a chur i bhfeidhm sa Bhille um Iompar Earraí Contúirteacha de Bhóthar, 1998. Caithfear cur leis mar tharla go leor rudaí idir an dá linn, agus tá sé tábhachtach iad sin a chur san áireamh sa Bhille nua.
It is regrettable the Bill is not entitled Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail because often rail is a more appropriate means than road for the transportation of freight and hazardous goods. A number of European countries give special incentives to encourage companies to take that option. Road transport arrangements for dangerous goods will always have to take account of a substantial imponderable, the behaviour of other road users. Because of deficiencies in driving licence applications tens of thousands of those in charge of motor vehicles are inadequately licensed and that has serious implications for the transport of dangerous goods by road.
The first question concerning the transportation of dangerous goods by road should always be, could this be done more safely by rail. That question raises another, why is investment in road transport vastly disproportionate to investment in public transport, including rail. I will not give the long answer I could give to that because I have only a few minutes to make my contribution.
State investment in road transport, in effect, is a subsidy to those industries which use road transport to move goods, including dangerous goods. It must be recognised that it is a subsidy to industry which is financed by the excessive taxation of ordinary working people. It is worth noting that a firm of consultants, International Risk Management Services, is close to completing a strategic review of all aspects of rail safety at the behest of the Minister for Public Enterprise and it is due to be published later this month. It speaks volumes about the rather casual attitude of successive Governments to road safety that a similar review of the carriage of dangerous goods by road has not been undertaken. It is a habit of mind that road transport is seen to be the obvious choice even when full consideration of the collateral cost of road transportation would often indicate that the public interest is not best served by the choice of road over rail. A proper balance must be struck between the two. Unfortunately, this Bill concentrates on road transport only.
A number of specific aspects of the Bill must be considered. There is a lack of inspection and enforcement of the regulations governing the transportation of hazardous waste by road. That is not addressed in the Bill, but it must be addressed through other provisions. Damage to roads can also cause accidents. It was mentioned on the radio yesterday that the speed at which lorries travel is often excessive. Even though we are told there are checks and so on, the regulations do not seem to be enforced.
Herbicides, pesticides and different chemicals are transported in bulk by road. I spoke to a fire safety officer about this and was told that the inventory on chemicals transported by road is not up to date. Many dangerous goods are transported by road and if a vehicle carrying such goods was involved in an accident, it would cause problems for the emergency services because they might not know exactly how to deal with them.
Pesticides will no longer be used now that there is genetic engineering.
The Deputy is not speaking the truth. I wish I could believe everything he says. Fluoride, a product that is in our drinking water, is hazardous when transported by road, and a vehicle transporting it was involved in an accident recently. It is ironic that substance, which is toxic when transported, is in our drinking water.
Regulations governing the transportation of animals by road are not clearly specified in the Bill. There was a serious accident last year involving a lorry and a trailer transporting sheep. Speed is a factor in many of these accidents. Enforcement of the speed limit is needed to ensure goods and animals are transported safely.
The transportation of large items, such as prefab units for use during road building, can also be dangerous. That is not specifically addressed in the Bill. As Deputy Boylan said, the transport of such large items is dangerous, particularly when the vehicle carrying them is traveling at speed.
There is also concern about the parking of dangerous goods vehicles in residential areas. That should be addressed in the Bill. It should not only provide for the transport of dangerous goods by road but also the parking of vehicles carrying dangerous goods. Special parking spaces for such vehicles need to be provided sooner rather than later.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Eoin Ryan.
That is agreed.
I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak on this technical but important Bill. It puts in place the legislative framework to enable Ireland become a contracting party to the ADr. It involves two European Union directives. That highlights how much of our law originates in the Commission and other institutions of the European Union. All Departments are constantly taking on board new directives and issues which originate in Europe and that is beneficial. There is no doubt the European Union has been an engine for modernisation. This Bill deals with the health and safety of our citizens and in that regard the involvement of the European Union is particularly welcome.
The Bill seeks to ensure that dangerous goods, while in transit on our roads, adhere to the highest standards. This is particularly important in urban areas, particularly in residential parts. Many residents in urban areas have to put up with noise and pollution from heavy good vehicles. This Bill highlights that they also have to cope with the risk of an accident involving a vehicle carrying dangerous substances. That is a constant fear, particularly in the inner city close to Dublin Port, but also throughout the country. Many houses are sited only a few feet from the main road and some of the trucks transporting dangerous goods are bigger than those houses. There is the possibility such trucks could be involved in an accident and many people consider that an unacceptable risk.
There are many accidents on our road, as was highlighted in public debate this year. I welcome the publication of The Road to Safety, the Government strategy for road safety 1998 to 2002 by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. I hope it will have some impact in reducing the number of road accidents.
As a result of our unprecedented level of economic growth, road haulage has increased dramatically in the past ten years relative to the use of public transport and railways which has declined. The list of dangerous goods that come under the ambit of this Bill is rather frightening. It includes explosive substances and articles, gases, flammable liquids, flammable solids, substances liable to spontaneous combustion and substances which when they come into contact with water emit flammable gases, oxidising substances and organic peroxides, toxic and infectious substances, radioactive material, corrosive substances and other dangerous substances. It is rather frightening that trucks which carry those dangerous substances pass very close to households. Therefore, this Bill is necessary to harmonise the law throughout the EU. Deputy Sargent mentioned railways which are important. In the inner city areas close to the port, railways run close to residences. The fear of an accident or a derailment is a real one for many living in those localities.
Investment in railways is needed.
I agree, especially when one considers the road haulage statistics compared with railway transit figures.
The Bill deals with packaging, labelling, vehicle construction and the technical requirements which need to be met. The Minister outlined the derogations Ireland negotiated to cover the transport of ammonium nitrate, fertiliser, dispensing gases carried on the same vehicle as beverages, transport of low level radioactive material to hospitals and transport of clinical waste. Why did we seek derogation in those cases? The question of radioactive material and clinical waste concentrates the mind of residents in the vicinity of a hospital. We need to be clear about why we are not including the disposal of radioactive material and clinical waste in this provision.
I wish to refer to the enforcement of this legislation. There is a great deal of law on our Statute Book and we have passed many Bills in this House since the foundation of the State, but one wonders whether all this law is being enforced. I travelled the Dublin-Limerick road last August behind a truck which spewed diesel for 20 miles over the cars behind. Nobody could stop the truck but eventually a brave motorist passed it and stopped the driver because he was causing untold damage to cars and putting a great number of people at risk.
We may have rules and regulations on the Statute Book but unless they are enforced by the Garda Síochána, they will be to no avail. It is important that the Garda enforce this legislation and treat it as a critical matter as far as the health and safety of our citizens is concerned. The old Irish attitude of "it will do and it will be all right" is fading fast, which is good. When we are dealing with health and safety issues, we cannot leave anything to chance. I ask the Minister to be conscious that this law must be enforced and the Garda must take appropriate action.
The Bill does not deal with the transport of goods by rail or the transport of nuclear waste at sea. This is an issue I would like to discuss but I cannot as it is not covered by the Bill. Most people are concerned about what is transported on our seas, particularly nuclear waste.
Deputy Sargent mentioned the parking of heavy goods vehicles in residential areas. Article 38 of the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997, prohibits the parking of large vehicles in areas where the relevant traffic signs and information plates are erected. Under the regulations, the signs and information plates must be erected at the entrance to these areas and a further sign and plate must indicate where the prohibition ends.
Members of Dublin Corporation were concerned about these provisions and we sought a blanket ban of the parking of trucks throughout the city and a specification of where trucks could park — which is a reverse of the present system. However, we were told by the Minister that he had no immediate plans to change the regulations and that it may not be possible for him to introduce a blanket ban. Individual proposals to prohibit the parking of heavy vehicles will be considered by the corporation as they arise. We will see a proliferation of these signs throughout the city which is unfortunate. However, if we can get trucks out of residential areas, many residents will be happy. This is a new development and I am glad local authorities are finally grasping the nettle on this issue. Parking articulated trucks on residential roads causes untold nuisance to house-holders. I hope we will be able to do something about that.
I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Minister for bringing it forward. It is a technical Bill but a necessary one. I hope we can all feel safe in our homes and on the roads as a result of this Bill being passed. I hope it is rigidly enforced by the Garda Síochána.
I welcome this Bill and commend the Minister for introducing it. It ensures the highest standard of safety for dangerous goods in transit. It is not before time such a Bill was introduced considering the number of accidents on the roads. It is good that we are meeting the highest standards of safety for large trucks. There is more traffic on the road because of the economic boom and in many areas the road infrastructure cannot cope with current levels.
Nobody predicted the economy would boom as it has. However, people are concerned by the huge trucks rolling in and out of small towns, going through urban areas and travelling at high speeds on rural roads. People do not know what they contain or what safety standards are applied. They block roads and add to the number of accidents, causing a great deal of concern.
I wish to refer to an issue mentioned by Deputy Haughey and Deputy Sargent. I have always been puzzled as to why we have not properly invested in our rail network. Rail transport is a safer, easier way of transporting dangerous and heavy goods than road transport. That method is used all over Europe, but for some reason we seem to have a mental block about our railways. If it could be done here, the volume not alone of dangerous but heavy goods would be reduced, eliminating the need for some of the investment in our roads. The number of commuters in private cars would also be reduced, easing traffic congestion in urban areas. When one considers what is being done on mainland Europe the lack of investment by the Conservative Government in the United Kingdom in the rail network becomes apparent. It was one of its biggest mistakes. Neither did it invest in the education system. Each month Members receive a copy of a magazine on the European rail network which makes interesting reading on how the network is being used to best advantage.
The provisions dealing with packaging and labelling are in accordance with Annex B of the agreement. There have been a number of accidents in my constituency involving heavy goods vehicles and in some instances it took a long time to discover if the goods being carried were dangerous in circumstances where there was liquid on the road. Vehicle construction, equipment and operation are also covered.
Contracting parties are required to regulate or prohibit, for reasons other than safety during carriage, the entry of dangerous goods into their territory. Under the agreement transport operations remain subject to national and international regulations applicable in general to road safety, international road transport and international trade. The provisions governing multi-modal operations are to our benefit.
Driver training is well covered. The standard is high but it will be further improved as a result of this Bill.
Up until now out of State hauliers have been able to do whatever they want without fear of prosecution. The strict penalties set out in the Bill are long overdue. Out of State hauliers may now be arrested and brought before the courts. Irish drivers are clobbered if they break the law abroad. They complain that out of State hauliers escape scot-free here.
Deputies Sargent and Haughey mentioned the parking of large trucks in urban areas. This is a major issue at Dublin Corporation level. There are no controls in place. In one case if the driver of a truck bringing cars to a break-up yard in Marrowbone Lane was late arriving he would leave the truck in a residential area. He did this for about nine months. Eventually he was threatened with prosecution. It proved extremely difficult to get him to move. This is an issue that should be covered.
I live along the Ravensdale section of the Dundalk-Newry road which carries the largest volume of traffic in the country. This Bill which I welcome and which is being introduced at the instigation of the European Union adds to the mountain of Bills which have been enacted but whose implementation and enforcement are not being monitored. I refer in particular to the drinking laws. If enforced, a Garda car would have to be placed outside every public house in the country. While I congratulate the Minister on introducing this Bill, will it be enforced? I fail to see how it will given that there are only four inspectors. Will other personnel, including members of the Garda Síochána, be provided with the necessary training?
While great strides have been made in recent years in providing top-class roads and flyovers, many of our roads were built for the pony and trap. The playing field vis-a -vis mainland Europe is not level. Huge lorries traverse the narrowest of roads. I have long been deeply concerned at the number who lose their lives on our roads. There is an acceptance that it is inevitable people will die. To date this year 14 times the number of people killed in the Omagh atrocity — 29 — have been killed in fatal accidents without any hysteria or concentration in the media. Deaths on the road are now so commonplace they are no longer even a nine day wonder.
A large number of those deaths result from accidents involving lorries. On the road between Dundalk and Dublin, which I travel regularly, the speed at which lorries travel is horrifying. They travel in convoy and because of their size they are quite frightening to car drivers. Does the Minister know if it is legal for large vehicles to travel in convoy? It is frightening to attempt to pass a lorry travelling at a great speed only to meet another large vehicle coming in the opposite direction. If we are serious about reducing the numbers of deaths on our roads we must have a highway patrol. I wonder why we allow the importation of cars which can travel at speeds up to 140 mph when the speed limit is 60 mph? This is like asking children not to play with a loose bomb. Children will play with such things and people will drive too fast if there is no deterrent. I drive too fast myself on occasion. We see large numbers of adolescent boys driving with their right arms resting on the open car window, putting on the style. They will continue to drive too fast unless they are deterred by a permanent highway patrol similar to those in France and Germany where persistent offenders have their cars confiscated. We have removed deterrents in too many areas of Irish society.
I support Deputy Eoin Ryan's suggestion to develop the rail system. He rightly contrasted our rail system with those of other European countries. The illogicality of previous administrations' decisions to downgrade and sometimes remove the rail network is now clear. The complete removal of the rail network from County Donegal was particularly unfortunate because it effectively cut the county off from what might be called the Irish mainland and certainly from the capital city. The beautiful county of Donegal, arguably the loveliest county in Ireland, has suffered greatly as a result of that decision.
Is a firm obliged to notify the Garda if a dangerous substance is being carried in one of its vehicles and do the gardaí provide a flanking escort to ensure the safe passage of such lorries through towns with narrow streets? This is absolutely necessary. While there has been no really serious accident involving dangerous substances in recent times the possibility of such a catastrophe remains.
Once more I draw the attention of the House to the speed at which lorries travel. This is particularly true of lorries from Northern Ireland. When these vehicles cross the border their drivers are often under great pressure to reach a port in time for a sailing or to deliver their loads at a certain time. They break the speed limit, intimidate other motorists and are often a contributory factor in the escalating rate of deaths of the road. It is not the purpose of this Bill to counteract this practice but I hope the Minister will bring forward legislation governing the use of lorries regardless of whether they are carrying dangerous substances. I anticipate letters to the paper criticising my comments and I know there are many responsible lorry drivers. However, the presence of irresponsible lorry drivers on the roads is frightening to other road users. I hope meaningful legislation will be introduced to establish a highway patrol. Every driver needs a deterrent if the unacceptable rate of road deaths is to be reduced.
I welcome the Bill by which we give effect to two directives and accede to the European agreement concerning the international carriage of dangerous goods by road — ADr. It is essential to legislate for the transport of dangerous goods across national boundaries and within our own country. We are approaching a time when all dangerous goods will have to be listed, labelled and prioritised in order of their degree of danger. It is important that the required handling methods and equipment are listed in the Bill. The fact that the Bill deals with bulk substances which come into the country is an indication of growth in many sectors of our economy. Because dangerous substances are imported in bulk form their transportation on our roads poses a great danger. We must legislate in the interest of the health and safety of lorry drivers, companies and the general public.
Legislation involving a mechanism for the inspection of safety equipment, proper education for drivers and company operators and a number of officers to police it places a further burden on the haulage industry. Haulage companies must spend more money on equipment and on educating staff. With the legislation must come a proper policing mechanism and this must be made very clear in the Bill. The Minister said the legislation provided for four inspectors. Because we are dealing with bulk hazardous goods, we should specify where these people are to be trained, how they should operate, the number of stops they should make when driving through the country, whether they are dealing specifically with imported goods and if they will extend their activity to the internal distribution of dangerous goods.
The legislation currently in place is not being properly policed and, as a result, a mixture of dangerous and non-dangerous goods are being transported in the same container. There is little evidence of policing of the internal distribution of hazardous goods. There are examples in the industry of hazardous goods being transported with less harmful goods every day without any paperwork or any indication on the vehicle. Few penalties have been imposed on companies which operate on a daily basis in a fashion contrary to the current legislation.
I appreciate that consignors are responsible for selecting carriers that adhere to the criteria laid down in legislation but there is little evidence in the marketplace that people who use this service go to the trouble of determining that the operators they use operate within the law. Some companies are not bothered about this once they get their goods transported from the place of production to the customer. As a result, the laws we pass in this House are being broken on a daily basis.
There is a shortage of trained, certified drivers in this country. Currently it is difficult for a company to take up any of the Hazchem courses because companies operating in this field, which are extremely busy due to the current economic boom, would have to do without their drivers for up to three days to allow them become certified. We, as legislators, should be conscious of that and we must be careful that we do not create a problem by ignoring the fact that there is a shortage of drivers and courses and that the system currently in operation is not easily accessible by the various companies involved.
In relation to cost, the Government will have to examine the possibility of putting in place some type of grant-aid system for the industry to ensure companies wishing to operate within the law are given every opportunity to put their employees through the various courses, acquire certification and improve the standard of operators on our roads. This can be done through FÁS, by way of direct payments or through an educational process whereby the current system would be extended to give greater availability of courses to interested companies. If we do not do that, we are asking operators to adhere to legislation without giving them the necessary back-up.
There is also need to ensure the operators of companies involved in the transport of dangerous goods are given an opportunity to take up specialised courses on which they will be given an overview of the legislation currently in place and the requirements placed on their companies by virtue of that legislation. In having that overview they will be in a position to insist that key members of staff take up in-house training which will ensure the office staff, for example, who take in the various shipment orders, are aware of the way in which hazardous goods are to be handled in their warehouse and delivered to the customer. These courses are needed because not only should the drivers responsible in this area be educated but also the people who control the general operation of the business. If we are to be successful in ensuring this legislation is properly enacted and given meaning in the marketplace, we must put in place the necessary support mechanisms which will enable companies participate fully in this regard.
There is provision for an on-the-spot fine of £150 but substantial fines should be imposed not just on domestic hauliers but also on international hauliers. If someone is in breach of the law a serious financial penalty should be imposed on them and that should be laid down in legislation. The buck stops with the operator or the managing director of a company and they should be penalised in some way. There should be a serious penalty on every company or factory handling dangerous goods if they breach any aspect of this legislation. If that is not done, we will encourage people to break the law.
There are cowboy operators in the industry and they seem to operate without any sanction being taken against them. They use redundancy money or take out a loan and set themselves up as operators in the transport industry without acknowledging any laws or regulations. There is little evidence of the industry being properly policed. I am aware of companies whose trucks are fully licensed, whose drivers are certified and who want to have a licence to carry dangerous goods, whether it be in bulk or in a group operation, but there is little evidence of the State co-operating fully with them. There is evidence, however, of people not co-operating in this regard. They operate in the industry without displaying any responsibility and in a fashion that is contrary to the general good of the industry for which we are legislating today. Mention was made earlier of trucks containing dangerous chemicals being parked on the side of the road. Goods are also loaded in a dangerous manner without any respect for health or safety and it appears that nobody, not even the Department officials, is scrutinising this area.
Today's market is driven by a rates structure and payment for services rendered which cannot be sustained. People in the industry are operating against the clock. They want to pick up the goods and deliver them to the customer with the least amount of paper work or policing. If we are to put this in place and make it meaningful, we must ensure the operators who do not comply with the legislation are rooted out. We must also ensure the organisations which distribute the goods — the factories and warehouses — understand the mechanism in which they are becoming involved. We must ensure those who break the law, assist in the breaking of the law by allowing their tachographs to be used incorrectly and ignore the legislation in the various areas of operation are rooted out. Unfortunately some of them, who are licensed operators, do this to meet a very competitive rate structure. Until the cowboy operators are policed out of the market there will not be a proper rate structure in place which will sustain an industry capable of ensuring that all the legislation we pass is implemented, drivers are trained and loads are safely conducted from A to B without infringing upon local government planning regulations for housing estates in breach of general Department policy.
Four inspectors to police this legislation is inadequate. There must be an inadequate number of inspectors at present because the legislation currently in place is not being policed to the satisfaction of the industry concerned.
While we may put in place all the regulations required, Europe has a role to play. If we pass the legislation, and if this State signs up to it, surely Europe has a role to play in funding the issues which I have raised — training, education, the provision of proper equipment and ensuring the consignor and the consignee are aware of the requirements. As the legislation filters down from Europe, with it must come the accompanying finance to ensure the industry is in a position to educate itself. We have a responsible industry, one which will respond to legislation. It has done so in the past and most of the operators who fall within the licensing structure of the Department are willing to co-operate. When a State such as ours signs up to this legislation, the onus should be on Europe to ensure the proper funding is available.
I join other Deputies who highlighted the problem of speed on the roads. Most bulk containers are carried on roads in 40 foot containerised vehicles at speeds which are totally unacceptable. When we are experiencing such carnage on the roads, the problem is fuelled by many of these containers breaking the law by speeding.
A further indication of the law being ignored is that a vehicle's speed governor can be removed so the driver is no longer bound by the speed control. There is a case for ensuring truck manufacturers install a mechanism which cannot be tampered with in terms of the speed these vehicles can reach. It is a wonder some of the trucks driving through my area, on the way from Kilkenny to Dublin, travel safely from one place to the other without an accident — they use the fast lane to pass cars which are already speeding. While there has not been a major accident involving the transportation of dangerous goods in recent times, it is only a matter of time before it happens if we do not ensure the law is adhered to. There is a genuine concern that trucks are passing through towns, villages and cities at frightening speeds.
In many cases there is need to predetermine a vehicle's route if it is carrying a bulk load. There should be a detailed routing mechanism so the vehicle operator and the owner of the company is forced to comply with the regulations and the route imposed, diverting it from housing estates. While there is limited legislation at present to divert chemical and other dangerous loads, it should be extended to ensure most loads of dangerous goods are routed in a similar manner. That would be welcome legislation which would deal many of the problems faced by local authorities. It would certainly be a relief in city areas, through which the traffic is forced, to know that such traffic would no longer use those areas.
I support the legislation but ask that, in future, we go further with it and try to encompass the suggestions I have made.
I congratulate the Minister for introducing this legislation, the Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road Bill, 1998. The three initiatives he has taken are most welcome, including the implementation of European directives 94/55 EC and 95/50 EC. Overall we are acceding to the European agreement concerning the international carriage of dangerous goods by road.
It is important to point out that under successive Governments we have provided a great deal of funding for roads, particularly national primary and secondary routes. The transport industry has received major benefit from this investment. For that reason I was surprised the Department of the Environment and Local Government and the National Roads Authority were not mentioned often in the legislation. When we discussed the charging of fees by competent authorities in section 5 of the Bill, I felt that those bodies would have a say in the appointment of inspectors. We are told in the Bill that the inspectors will be appointed by the Ministers for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The other two organisations mentioned are the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland and the National Authority for Occupational Safety and Health. The Minister might indicate why the Department of the Environment and Local Government is not involved. That Department has drawn up plans under various Ministers to provide funding for our road network.
There is a great deal of pressure to complete the major by-pass road programmes which the Department of the Environment and Local Government has planned for some time. As a western Deputy I am most familiar with the by-pass at Kinnegad. I am pleased there are plans to provide a temporary by-pass next year. It is most frustrating for a truck driver with a cargo of dangerous goods to be stuck in a traffic jam for many hours when a by-pass would solve the problem. It is significant that much of the pressure for the Kinnegad by-pass is from Galway city. Business people in Galway recognise the major delays at Kinnegad when travelling from Galway to Dublin and vice versa. Loughrea, in my constituency, is earmarked by Galway County Council for a by-pass. I hope the necessary funding will be provided in the not too distant future. There is much pressure from Galway Chamber of Commerce and Galway Corporation to speed up the delivery of goods between Galway city and Dublin.
I pay tribute to the truck drivers who work unsocial hours to avoid traffic congestion travelling from east to west and vice versa. This has avoided many serious problems and the choking of smaller towns.
I reiterate what has been said about the importance of the railways. The whole question of carriage of dangerous goods could be solved by a more efficient and modern railway system. I recall when the railway was the only means of transport for goods and materials to the Asahi plant in Killala. In the past the railway was the preferred option for the carriage of coal and cement. As we head into the next century the carriage of timber should be promoted by rail. While we may not reach our planting target by the year 2002 — more and more timber has been growing in the western region — Coillte can procure enough timber to supply Louisiana Pacific in Waterford, the plant at Clonmel and Masonite in Carrick-on-Shannon. This product is most suitable for transport by rail.
Nowadays large trucks which carry timber and heavy and dangerous goods damage our roads. Those involved in the timber processing industry complain that the railways are not suitable, particularly the Sligo-Limerick line, which would serve many of the plants to which I have referred. The Sligo-Limerick line could be developed as a Euro rail link since it can link up with Rosslare port which is an access point to the Continent. Given that funding has been provided for some of the major railway lines out of Dublin perhaps the Euro route from Sligo-Limerick can be considered.
I happen to be a member of the western inter-county railway committee, the secretary of which is Fr. Michéal Mac Greil, the well-known historian, who is passionate about railways. He hopes the railway can help the development of the west. He has plans not only for carrying timber but for carrying people. The line has not been used since the mid-1970s. There is a great future for that line given the extra business in the western and north western regions.
I hope the development of railways will ensure tourist areas in the west will have greater access from Rosslare. One of the problems experienced by those arriving at Rosslare is getting a transport connection to the west.
I welcome the fact that driver training and driver examination is dealt with in the Bill. This is an area which has been the subject of much criticism. Recruitment of four additional inspectors for the purpose of enforcing the legislation is provided for in the Bill. Given the shortage of certified drivers it is important that the Minister and his Department address that issue as quickly as possible. Mention of inspectors means the legislation must be enforced. If inspectors are to deal with this matter in a realistic way there must be realistic fines and penalties.
Recently there have been many horrific accidents. These have involved not only truck drivers but drivers generally. I compliment the Minister for the Environment and Local Government on the statements he has issued in this regard. Given that we are all drivers, I hope we can make this matter a priority of the Dáil. I hope the suggestion about education courses for new drivers will lead to a reduction in the huge cost of insurance claims. There is much to be gained from having additional inspectors. I hope, following the education courses, drivers will be mindful of the rules of the road.
There is also the question of implementation of this legislation. When will the regulations be put in place? On occasions there have been delays of ten to 15 years, following the enactment of legislation, before regulations were put in place. This matter should be addressed as quickly as possible.
When spending money on roads in the past we did not always provide for what is known as the hard shoulder. This issue is being addressed on the Galway-Dublin road. If hard shoulders are not provided there is no place for trucks or slow moving traffic to pull in and allow other traffic overtake. When a road with a hard shoulder is followed by a road with no hard shoulder this can lead to frustration on the part of drivers and accidents may occur. We all have to learn to be patient and not to do anything stupid or silly when driving. I welcome the legislation and compliment the Minister for introducing it, as it allows us to accede to the European agreement and bring Irish law into line with EU Directives. Once we pass the legislation I hope the regulations will be put in place as quickly as possible.
I congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, for introducing this Bill, which deals with raising standards in all matters concerning the transport of dangerous goods on Irish roads and internationally by Irish carriers. Its main aim is to put in place enabling powers for the making of regulations which will, first, allow Ireland to accede to the European agreement concerning the international carriage of dangerous goods by road, known as the ADR; second, introduce into Irish law the Directive 94/55 EC on the approximation of laws of member states with regard to the transportation of dangerous goods by road; and third, bring into Irish law the Directive 94/50 EC on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road. All three of those outcomes are welcome.
The European agreement concerning the international carriage of dangerous goods by road was drawn up in Geneva in 1957 — I may be considered a mature, middle aged person but I had not yet been born. The ADR came into force in 1968 and has 33 signatories but it is regrettable Ireland is the only EU member state which was not a contracting party until now. Ministers dealing with these matters should consider introducing a mechanism for reviewing EU directives after they have passed their sell-by date, rather than allowing for compliance at a late stage. There has been great change since 1968, let alone since 1957, and one wonders about the implications of a member state signing up to an agreement this late.
To take another example with which you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, would be familiar, I was shocked to discover the executive of the Tallaght hospital met the Minister for Health and Children to discuss an extension to the accident and emergency unit of the hospital after it was built but before it opened. Consultants — I will not name them but we know who they are — reported on the need for additional accident and emergency services and hospitals for the greater Dublin area and the hospital was built, but before its doors were opened it required a special allocation of additional moneys to change its infrastructure. In that case, there was only a ten year gap between drawing up the plans and the discovery of extra need. In the case of this Bill, it is more than 40 years since the agreement, which must necessarily cause its own complications and difficulties.
The agreement contains two detailed technical annexes which clearly set out the circumstances under which dangerous goods may be transported by road across international frontiers. It is an international agreement which deals with transnational transportation of dangerous goods. In practice, Irish hauliers who transport dangerous goods internationally currently comply with the detailed provisions of the ADR and the Irish Road Hauliers' Association welcomes the measures, late as they may be.
In light of the recent tragic accident in Arklow, one provision which stands out as being merited and welcome is section 9, which allows for the arrest without warrant of hauliers from other states for certain offences in cases where a summons may not be satisfactory to assure appearance. Section 18 also deals with hauliers from other states and this is welcome because it is the first time we have covered them in legislation. Section 18(2)(b) provides for a fine of £150 — that should be increased to about £1,000. When one considers the implications of the offence and the process involved, £150 is not an acceptable sum. The Minister may be tied to this figure by EU legislation or provisions in other member states, but if not perhaps we should show leadership and provide for a greater fine.
The Bill makes compliance easier by supplying the necessary type approval and vehicle certification facilities in Ireland. It is time we acceded to the agreement because it will put Irish haulage concerns on an equal footing with hauliers from other contracting states, and in that regard the Bill is welcome.
The second aim of the Bill is to introduce to Irish law Directive 94/55 EC, adopted on 21 November 1994, which has the objective of applying the detailed provisions of the ADR to domestic transport within each member state. As a result, the high standards laid down in the ADR concerning the international transport of dangerous goods shall also apply to internal movements within each country. This is welcome and should lead to a higher overall standard. I will refer later to my concerns about the transportation of dangerous goods, which I have raised previously in this House.
As the directive applies to the domestic transport conditions of 15 countries, from the Mediterranean to the Baltic, there are a number of derogations from the annexes to enable member states take account of different domestic circumstances in each state. One must appreciate such differences but states may use this opt-out clause to request a derogation when they would be able to comply with the agreement and it would be in their best interests to do so. I ask the Minister to vigorously tackle this with our EU counterparts — as he does on most issues — to ensure the derogation is not used in this way. Ireland has availed of a number of these derogations and I hope that is to take account of our circumstances rather than to avoid difficulties which might arise if we did not have such derogations.
The third element of the process relates to European Directive 95/50 EC which provides for uniform checking procedures for transport of dangerous goods by road. This directive also provides that a representative proportion of such transport movement be checked annually. That is welcome, but it might be argued that annually is not sufficient and that it should be done more regularly.
With the making of the regulations pursuant to section 17 of the Bill, we have a detailed and comprehensive set of rules and regulations concerning the carriage of dangerous goods internationally and domestically, and the enforcement of those rules. A number of important features in the Bill deal specifically with enforcement. Perhaps we should ensure there are regular checks in that regard and take the opportunity to consider what enforcements there have been to date with regard to the current regulations. I would also like to know what the current rules and regulations are, not just in relation to the carriage of dangerous goods but in relation to the haulage industry as a whole, and the level of enforcement. I would like to be advised also of the success of such enforcement, particularly in relation to the speed of heavy goods vehicles. I understand there are regulations in place. Perhaps the Minister would let me know what checks took place in the first nine months of this year, and what Garda statistics are available.
Section 8 provides for the prohibition of a vehicle or other transport equipment if, in the opinion of an inspector or garda, that vehicle constitutes a danger to the public if used for the carriage of dangerous goods by road.
Section 9 provides for the arrest of a driver who is in contravention of the Bill or the regulations where the driver cannot give a satisfactory address for the service of a summons, and on arrest the driver will be brought to the nearest Garda station and released on station bail if there is no sitting of the District Court at the time. If the driver is from another jurisdiction and subsequently fails to appear in court at the relevant time, he may forfeit the bail. I welcome the fact that sections 9 and 18 are included in the Bill but we should seek to address the £150 fine. I appreciate the Minister's position in regard to the sections I have just referred to, but if the Garda Síochána are to be the policing mechanism, I would like to know how they have policed in recent months and their success in the area I mentioned.
It is proposed also to deal with some of the minor offences by way of on-the-spot fines which must be paid without delay. This will have the effect of bringing to book any out-of-State driver who offends. These elements of the Bill represent a genuine attempt to deal with the problem of hauliers from other jurisdictions who might be tempted to flout the law and take advantage of the fact that they cannot, in the normal course of events, be served with a summons. The Minister has made a genuine attempt to deal with this problem.
My colleague, Deputy Eoin Ryan, referred to the road infrastructure. In the early days of my participation at city council meetings I was concerned about the number of deaths in the city of people waiting for bus services. These accidents happened because there was no difference between the road surface at bus stops and the rest of the road, and leaking oil from the buses made the road slippy with the result that there were some grave accidents. I am pleased Dublin Corporation is currently addressing that with a special anti-skid surface, particularly at bus stops.
Let me refer briefly to our road structure. I appreciate we have inherited a structure and that we are attempting to put a better structure in place, but we should look at the feasibility of using rail transport, on lines that are currently in use or lines that were in use in years gone by that are currently lying idle, particularly for the carriage of dangerous goods. I have a particular concern about the Dublin-Ballina train on which dangerous and explosive substances are carried through a very densely populated area of Dublin city. I support the view that we should encourage the use of rail. Equally we should closely monitor how we can achieve the transportation of dangerous goods in the interests of the wider public and keep the rail transport links out of heavily populated areas, particularly when carrying dangerous and explosive substances.
I welcome the fact that the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment will make one comprehensive set of regulations which will combine with the annexes of the ADR and the Directive 95/55 which will be applicable to both manufacturing and transport operators and will be a comprehensive set of rules relating to the transport of dangerous goods by road.
In speaking about the carriage of dangerous goods, I have to put on record my concern, which is well known, about the transportation of nuclear waste materials and the activities of British Nuclear Fuels, particularly on the British west coast which is so close to our own east coast, and the carriage, handling and storage of such waste. I am deeply concerned about it. I do not have confidence in British Nuclear Fuels' handling of serious accidents which seem to be covered up for a period of time before British Nuclear Fuels gives any information.
I am on public record as expressing my concern about the road infrastructure in the city of Dublin and, currently, the new design and layout of the Malahide Road and Fairview. When the regulations on the carriage of dangerous goods are in place, will they provide for the width of road which should apply for vehicles carrying such goods? Despite expenditure of £1.7 million on the Malahide road, one stretch of it is less than 11 feet in width. A quality bus corridor which will be used by vehicles carrying up to 50 passengers will run alongside it, leaving little or no room for cyclists. Soon after one leaves that stretch of road one encounters what I consider a computer zigzag directing cars to move from one lane to the other.
Like thousands of people living on the northside, I am frustrated at the people who drafted the new design and layout for the Malahide road. They have compounded the difficulties for commuters at peak traffic times. What they have done might appear to be suitable on a computer, but it is impractical and unsafe in practice. That is particularly important when considering legislation such as this, which seeks to provide for the safe carriage of dangerous goods. While this legislation is being considered another statutory authority is providing road of only 11 feet in width for use by such vehicles.
The legislation is welcome. It will finally enable Ireland to accede to the ADR and bring two important EU directives into Irish law. We must insist on the highest possible standards in the carriage of dangerous goods. We must also ensure the rules are properly enforced without discrimination. The framework we are putting place paves the way for that.
I thank Deputies for their thoughtful, constructive and useful contributions. The technicalities associated with the European agreement on the international carriage of dangerous goods by road, the ADR, and the two associated European Union directives are complex and difficult. For that reason, I am even more appreciative of the helpful contributions of my colleagues in the House.
I am heartened by the welcome for the Bill. However, I wish to respond to a number of points made by Deputies during the debate. Deputy Yates was critical of the delay in bringing forward the Road Transport Bill. However, he failed to explain that the Bill was hurriedly introduced by the Government of which he was a member and that it was deficient in a number of ways. In particular, it failed to tackle the problems posed by out of State hauliers. I have been working on this issue with the Attorney General, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Garda Síochána and the haulage industry and it will be addressed in the Road Transport Bill which I intend to publish shortly.
The difficulties which have been experienced in the past with out of State hauliers are being addressed in the legislation before the House. I agree with Deputies who emphasised the need for consignor liability in the case of overweight haulage. This will be dealt with in the forthcoming Road Transport Bill.
Deputy Yates, who was in a critical mood, was somewhat derogatory of the road haulage review which is in the course of preparation. The criticisms levelled by the Deputy are unacceptable. I am extremely proud of that initiative and much work has been done on it by the officials in my Department. It is an important initiative. It is the first major review of the structure of the Irish road haulage sector and it is particularly timely in the context of liberalisation of the sector in Europe. The review is necessary to establish a firm basis on which to make decisions in this sector.
Concern was expressed about section 9 of the Bill which provides for the arrest of a driver if an offence has been committed. Members were concerned about who should set bail and what amount the bail should be. Currently there is no provision for arresting a driver unless he or she is alleged to be guilty of dangerous driving. Section 9 confers that power in relation to offences under the Bill where the driver is unable to give a satisfactory address for the service of summonses.
Bail is set by either the district court judge or the station sergeant if a suitable sitting of the District Court is not taking place. Setting of bail by the station sergeant is in accordance with section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967. It will be a matter for the sergeant to set the amount of bail having regard to the alleged offence or offences.
A number of Deputies believe the level of fines is not sufficient to deter offenders in an area of transport which has potential for extremely dangerous accidents. There are three categories of fines. Under section 11 a person is liable to a fine of £100,000 on conviction on indictment. A person is liable to a fine of £1,500 on summary conviction. Provision has also been made for on-the-spot fines of £150.
The concern raised by colleagues related to the level of on-the-spot fines. These fines will be levied only for minor specified offences. These could include breaches of marking and plating requirements, non-provision of required equipment and deficiencies in documentation. The amount must be paid without delay and the inspector will have discretion as to whether to treat the case as an on-the-spot fine offence. In the context of a £50 on-the-spot fine for speeding or the £15 fine which obtains for a parking offence, the £150 fine is adequate for the type of offence which is envisaged. There is provision for the amount to be increased if it is found to be inadequate in practice.
Deputy Broughan asked if the Bill could be self-financing. Income will be generated through a number of enforcement activities and that income will accrue to the Health and Safety Authority. Income will also be generated by approval of training providers, approval of training courses, driver examinations and the issuing of driver training certificates. Inspectors of the Health and Safety Authority currently carry out much of this work and are paid in respect of those duties.
On the passing of the regulations, all the revenue from this source will go to the HSA to cover enforcement activities. It is estimated that at current fee levels, £88,000 per annum would be generated for the HSA. The Government has sanctioned the recruitment of four additional inspectors for the HSA for the enforcement of this legislation.
Deputies Broughan, Haughey, Callely and others raised the question of derogations negotiated by Ireland. First, it must be stressed that derogations apply only to domestic transport and not international journeys. Second, derogations were sought so as to ensure that as far as possible the economic impact on the sector would not be excessive. A number of these derogations were introduced for good and practical reasons. For instance, the derogation relating to ammonium nitrate fertiliser in bags means that farms do not have to take on board all the ADR requirements. The derogation relating to dispensing gases carried on the same vehicle refers to small amounts. It makes sense to distribute the necessary dispensing gases to pubs in cans.
Low level radioactive material for hospitals is another example where very small amounts are involved. Through the distribution licence the distributor is approved by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland or RPII. There are other examples.
Under Article 64 of Directive 94/55, existing tankers circulating in Ireland are allowed to be used to the end of their commercial life, provided they are maintained in accordance with the national provisions applicable on 31 December 1996. Irish requirements on that date were set out in Statutory Instruments 386 and 389 of 1996. These require tanks to be examined at the interval specified in ADr. For example, with regard to petroleum tanks, a leak proofness test is required every three years and a thorough examination every six years. The periods could be different for other substances. Tanks can continue to be manufactured in accordance with existing pre-January 1997 standards, until 1 January 1999. That is now being extended to 1 July 2001. After that date it is expected that CEN standards for tanks will be included in ABR. These will be applicable to new tanks from that particular date. The position, therefore, is that existing tankers can continue quite safely in the domestic market, provided they undergo and satisfy the necessary checks.
A number of Deputies expressed concern about the transport of dangerous goods by rail. The transport of dangerous goods by rail is covered by a separate convention entitled RID. This convention is fully operated by Iarnród Éireann in the matter of rail transport.
There are individual codes for the transport of dangerous goods by sea and by plane. The rules for transport by sea are covered by the International Maritime Dangerous Goods code, IMDG. The ICAO technical instructions apply to air transport. Dangerous goods packaged and labelled for transportation by sea and air are accepted for any road leg in accordance with the ADR.
A number of colleagues raised the matter of training drivers and all saw this as a necessity. I fully agree with that. As I mentioned in my introductory comments, in excess of 5,000 Irish drivers have training certificates. It might be helpful if I detailed the situation as it stands at present. Driver training is carried out to full ADR requirements. Training is provided by professional trainers who are approved by the Health and Safety Authority, as are the training courses they provide. Each driver is required to undergo a basic training course of three days. Drivers of tankers, vehicles carrying explosives and vehicles which carry ADR quantities of radioactive materials require a further two days' specialisation course. Following training, the driver is obliged to sit an examination and, if successful, is issued with a certificate which lasts for five years. Between years four and five he is required to attend a refresher course and sit a refresher examination.
There is an ongoing commitment on the part of the Government to ensure that drivers are trained to the highest standards. They are required to retrain every five years. I am of the view that this system is excellent and has raised standards of professionalism significantly in Ireland in the area of dangerous goods transport.
Deputy Cooper-Flynn raised questions about the enforcement staff who will be charged with enforcing the rules. She was also concerned about who will carry out type approval and vehicle testing, and whether they will be trained. First, we must enact the Bill in order that the competent authorities can be appointed. Only then can the various elements be put in place. As I mentioned previously, the bulk of enforcement will fall to inspectors of the HSA. These inspectors are fully qualified and properly trained for the task. They maintain the highest professional standards.
In the transport of explosives, enforcement duties will rest with the Government inspector of explosives who has long experience in this field. Inspectors from the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland will be appointed inspectors under this Bill for radioactive substances.
The type approval of tanks and other equipment will come within the ambit of the National Standards Authority of Ireland. Vehicle testing will be conducted by trained mechanical staff at test stations, to be approved by the Department of the Environment and Local Government. Tank inspections will be carried out by insurance surveyors attached to Irish insurance companies for ADR type tanks, and by competent persons for the existing tanks.
I believe that Deputy Cooper-Flynn need have no concerns about the abilities and competencies of those who will be appointed to perform these various tasks.
As already mentioned, the Government has shown its commitment to adequate enforcement by approving the recruitment of four additional inspectors to the HSA for this task. Much work has been done on drafting the regulations under the interdepartmental committee established for that purpose. Arrangements are in hand to organise vehicle testing and type approval authorities. A target date for making these regulations has been set for the New Year.
A number of Deputies expressed concerns about oil spillages. This issue has been looked at and there is no evidence that the reported oil spillages are from petroleum tankers. A testing regime for these tankers was put in place in 1996 to ensure that tankers are properly maintained. One of the tests is a leak proofness test, which will immediately identify a leak. These tests are being carried out by competent persons and inspectors from the HSA. They are carrying out road checks to ensure that tank tests have been done.
Deputy Boylan mentioned irregularities in the Border area with regard to tankers being used for purposes for which they were not designed. I always have great respect for local knowledge and what Deputy Boylan said will be noted. It is deserving of some vigilance. It is known that some of the reported leaks have come from the fuel tanks of vehicles which have been overfilled or are leaking or whose fuel caps have not been properly replaced or are missing. One small drop of oil on a wet surface can give the impression of a more serious problem.
Deputy Broughan asked about emergencies and the role of local authorities. Major emergencies involving dangerous goods in transit are planned for in the national peace time emergency plan. A major emergency is defined as an event which usually, with little or no warning, causes or threatens death or injury, serious disruption of essential services or damage to property beyond the normal capabilities of the emergency services. Examples are fire, explosive gas releases, transportation accidents, spillage of dangerous substances, etc.
Each emergency service is obliged to prepare plans governing its response to any major emergency. The plans must conform with the broad guidelines laid down in the framework for co-ordinated responses to a major emergency. This framework sets out the responsibilities of each service in an emergency and requires that plans be co-ordinated between the services. A co-ordinating group of senior representatives from each service meets at least once a year to review the co-ordination arrangements. The emergency services involved are the Irish Marine Emergency Service, local authorities, including the fire services, health boards and the Garda.
Exercises to test plans are undertaken frequently and the Departments involved normally have officers in attendance to act as observers and to advise on the lessons learned from the exercise when reviewing the plans. The first port of call in an accident involving the transport of dangerous goods is the fire services who are fully trained to deal with such incidents. The gardaí will also be involved in making the area safe and other emergency services will be called in if required.
I thank Members for their useful contributions and I hope I was able to respond to the concerns raised. When this Bill is passed, we will be able to put in place the three blocks necessary to ensure a safe environment surrounding the carriage of dangerous goods by road — statutory provisions, training and enforcement.
Question put and agreed to.