Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute on behalf of the Labour Party on this Bill. We are broadly supportive of the regulatory framework that has been incorporated into this Bill on foot EU regulations. I was one of the first spokespersons for agriculture to make some of the points that were just made by Deputy Bruton. I remember somebody saying that I was a eurosceptic at the time. I was not a bit of a eurosceptic, but I realised that the more impositions and unnecessary burdens imposed on a business, the better chance there is that the business will go to the wall. It is important that we examine every regulation and Bill that is brought forward.

The Minister of State pointed out how important this is for human health, the environment and so on. When they are used properly, chemicals such as pesticides can be very positive, but they also can have deleterious consequences if they are not used properly or if contamination arises as a result of their utilisation. Therefore, I certainly understand the Minister of State's point. However, the regulatory assessment regime in this country needs greater fuelling and needs somebody to drive it in order to ensure that various hurdles that are placed in the way of businesses by the legislative framework can be examined.

I heard the Minister of State speaking of the standard modelling cost system and he seemed to have a particular interest in it from his days with Chambers Ireland. I wonder where would this Bill fit within that context, and I certainly concur with some of the points made by Deputy Bruton in this area.

There is a feeling of déjÀ vu, because only two years ago we spent quite an amount of our valuable time and energy enacting the Chemicals Act 2008, which had to be implemented as a matter of urgency to comply with pressing timelines. This Bill has again been brought forward to amend that Act and primarily to meet the EU obligations and provide for the enforcement of two new directly applicable EU regulations. This is part of the problem with chemical regulations, the main regulation being the classification, labelling and packaging of chemicals. This is important in the context of the EU Reach chemical regulations, which was arduous legislative work and taxed our understanding, appreciation and absorption of complex law and legal principles.

The directly applicable aspect of this legislation means that we do not get much choice, and I do not think we can make many amendments. We are left with the baby and we have to nurse it. We have no input other than the timeline, and rights arise from it. The Government might be afraid of the EU when a registration process is to be put in place and we might be left behind in that context. The Bill is necessary given that the EU's deadlines for the implementation of the two regulations have passed, although I know there is an extension to 2015 for part of it, so time is of the essence. The Labour Party will co-operate in getting the Bill passed into law to stave off any difficulties that might arise. However, one must take cognisance of the points Deputy Bruton mentioned that we cannot take everything as handed down. We must put it through the rigour of evaluation and assessment of the impact it would have on pharmaceutical and chemical businesses, which are important. He referred to the medical device area. Members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Innovation were flabbergasted to hear that companies in the medical device sector cannot even get cohesive Government action across the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation and the Department of Health and Children. We submitted a motion in that regard to both Departments to try to get a degree of cohesion to the approach in that area.

In effect the Bill puts in place a series of largely technical amendments to the 2008 Act and amends in relatively minor ways the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, particularly regarding improving notices which arose as a result of a High Court case.

We are all aware that the development, production and trade of chemicals represent a very significant industry giving rise to approximately 9% of our international trade. Approximately 30,000 people are employed in Ireland in the chemical and pharmaceutical sector. Revenues from the chemical sector approximate to 10% of GDP in 2009, which indicates it is a significant area.

We are all aware of the significant benefits that derive from chemical applications once they are properly utilised - the use of chemicals is important in the context of helping to reduce the spread of malaria and other diseases. In the agriculture area herbicides have been important in helping to secure significant increases in crop yields. Chemicals having been fully tested against the impacts of toxicity when used properly and not overused have a very beneficial effect. However, there are cogent reasons to regulate the use of chemicals owing to the potential harm to human health and the environment. In that regard strict regulation is important to minimise the risks to human and plant life, and the environment in general.

The 2008 Act deals with the impact of dangerous chemicals. The detergents regulations imposed a two-tier testing regime on the biodegradability of the active ingredients of detergents, which achieved harmonisation of rules of the biodegradability of surfactants in detergents leading to the necessity for precise and additional labelling of detergents. This was substantial legislation and without the help of staff in the library and research section we would not have been able to get stuck into it at all. The major regulation was EC 1907/2006, the regulation on registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals, REACH, which aimed to improve the protection of human health and environment through better and earlier identification of the intrinsic properties of chemical substances. A major criticism of the REACH regulation was the fear of the imposition of the unnecessary costs of compliance on businesses, particularly in the storage and transportation of chemicals, a point made by Deputy Bruton and the National Competitiveness Council. In his speech the Minister of State referred to the role for Forfás. The National Competitiveness Council made a number of observations in this regard and we should not dismiss them lightly. The Minister of State needs to balance this with the enhanced safety that has arisen as a result of the significant reduction in exposure to chemicals and the positive impact it will have on everybody's health in the longer term.

One could ask whether there has been a significant level of compliance with the registration process. The Minister of State stated that under the provisions of section 3 the Minister can amend the Act by regulation and therefore can act speedily to ensure any urgent EU regulation relating to chemicals is incorporated into the corpus of domestic law, which is a useful tool. However, I would like to see that all regulations of that nature would be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas in due course. I have an abhorrence of laws being implemented by regulation. It not as though I want to have to read Bills such as this which can be difficult for everybody concerned, but I have a deep distaste of anything introduced by way of regulation. I remember all sorts of things were promised to be done after the introduction of the Diseases of Animals (Amendment) Act 2001, but they became embedded and were never revisited after having been laid before the Oireachtas.

I note the HSA is engaged in a monitoring process. Given the imposition of additional regulatory burdens, it is important to have a helpdesk to provide information and assistance to manufacturers and importers in meeting their obligations. People should see this as an opportunity to be constructive and helpful rather than seeing it as just another burden to be placed upon the companies involved.

The Health and Safety Authority plays the lead role, along with other competent authorities, such as the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the EPA, the Minister for Health and Children and the Revenue Commissioners, in making proposals on initiatives. It also carries out inspections and acts as a supervisory authority.

The essence of the CLP regulation is that substances and mixtures will need to be appropriately classified labelled and packaged before being made available on the market. It will be effective from December 2010 for substances and from June 2015 for mixtures. It is largely a technical Bill in so far as it incorporates amendments made to regulations and it amends the 2008 Act.

The division of responsibilities of the various competent authorities - the HSA, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Minister for Health and Children - are clearly set out. I wonder whether the 2008 Act was drawn so widely that there was an overlapping of responsibilities. I always interpreted the HSA as having a lead role in the 2008 Act. Great care seems to have been taken to ensure the division of responsibilities are more explicitly laid out in this legislation, but I could be wrong in my interpretation.

National authorities will be required to co-operate together under the enhanced co-operation provisions. While that always applied, it now seems to have become almost mandatory to have the exchange of information and advice, and the carrying out of joint inspections, checks, examinations and investigations. The Bill allows the HSA to enter into co-operation arrangements with its equivalents in other member states, which I hope will lead to a more seamless transition to what is acceptable in all states. If something originates here it will be possible to determine the degree of acceptability it will achieve in another market. I hope that enhanced co-operation and information exchange will be available and useful to all the companies involved.

Section 14 of the 2008 Act required that where an inspector had formed an opinion that an activity was being carried out involving a risk to human health or the environment, he or she could require or direct that an improvement plan be submitted in respect of the particular activity, in other words a process or plan for remedial action to be taken. Section 6 of the Bill amends section 14 of the 2008 Act by providing for a new procedure to be followed by the HSA inspector upon receipt of an improvement plan, which streamlines the process involved in the implementation of the improvement plan. The Minister of State clarified that this amendment arose following a High Court case in a related area.

Section 7 provides for a simpler formulation of the contravention notice which was issued under section 15 of the Act. Offences and penalties seem to be a significant part of all the Bills that come before the House and significant changes have been made in the Bill in respect of array of offences and penalties provided. The maximum term of imprisonment has been increased from six months to 12 months. I understand the Attorney General advised that change, although I do not know why it has been made. The fines that will apply have been revised. Furthermore, a list of individuals is specified in terms of the commitment of offences under the CLP regulation in that context.

This legislation is subject to the various caveats I outlined on behalf of the Labour Party. We must recognise that the protection of human health and the environment are the main objectives of the Rotterdam regulation, the detergents regulation and the REACH regulation, which were before us two years ago. The CLP regulation is now coming into force. It carries a corpus of additional obligations in regard to compliance, classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures.

This regulation in terms of this Bill is directly applicable but there must have been some incongruence between that 2008 Act and the regulation, otherwise, we would not have had to revisit this legislation. Am I correct about that? Could the Minister of State have adopted the regulation by the simple process he will use under section 3 of the Bill? Is that how such matters will be dealt with from now on, rather than by revisiting the relevant legislation and introducing an amending Bill? We have to amend the principal Act, the 2008 Act, to ensure that what was brought in under the CLP regulation can now be incorporated. Is that the position?

Once chemical hazards are identified, the onus will be placed on the various people within the supply chain to ensure that information about the risk is disseminated or communicated with a view to reducing the risk to the environment and, principally, to human health.

The Health and Safety Authority will have a significant role in ensuring that we comply with the CLP regulation. Will the Minister of State indicate if adequate staff are available to ensure that level of compliance, or is this part of the Croke Park agreement such that another item of legislation will require significant attention in the context of the CLP regulation and the other regulations to ensure that all the various regulatory responsibilities that will be imposed on us will be carried out? On the passing of this Act, I understand that the European Union must be notified as to what steps are being taken in this regard.

We broadly welcome the legislation and we may table amendments to it. I understand that it must be dealt with by the end of November and I assume it will be considered by our committee. It is purely a technical Bill. Given that it is directly applicable and that it amends an Act to ensure that directly applicable provisions are encompassed in the corpus of the principal legislation, there is not a great deal we can say or do in that context, other than to send out a signal that we should not simply accept measures carte blanche. In terms of measures we have adopted in the agricultural sector - I note that Deputy Johnny Brady is in the Chair - other countries have not been as easily fobbed off as we have been in Ireland. Other countries put down markers and they interpret legislation in the way that is best fitted to their particular circumstances, as opposed to us who seem to be - as I said here one day as a result of which various accusations were made against me - too good as Europeans. We are almost lapdog-like in our attitude to any measure that comes from Europe.

Under the recent referendum, I thought a critical change was that we would all have a chance to have an input into much of this legislation and ensure that some of the worst excesses, which some bureaucrats seems eager to impose, would be at least addressed in a positive fashion from the perspective of Ireland before they get on to the EU Statute Book. That might be one of the good measures that will be helpful in that context.

I understand from where the Minister of State is coming in terms of this Bill and we will try to facilitate its passage.

See this speech in context