Feargal Quinn (Independent)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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