Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)

It refers to "Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated heavy naphtha, deisohexaniser overheads; Low boiling point hydrogen treated naphtha", which is just one example of the technical detail of the REACH regulations.

Senator Phelan asked whether there would be implementation differences in other member states but the fact that this is a regulation means no deviation is allowed. All member states are obliged to enforce the regulation, whereas a directive allows for deviations. The regulation must be enforced EU-wide.

The purpose of the Bill is to give administrative and legal support to the enforcement of the REACH regulations. Reference has been made to some issues outside the scope of the REACH regulations and this Bill. These issues are waste, human and veterinary medicines, food flavourings and feedstuffs, all of which will continue to be regulated under existing legislation.

In the context of Senator Burke's teeth and his concerns about mercury fillings, I suggest that this would come under medical devices and would not be under the scope of this Bill. I note that there are concerns among the public and in medical areas about fillings containing mercury but that would not be contained within the scope of this Bill.

Senator John Paul Phelan spoke about the burden of proof on the industry. The fact that the onus is on the industry to prove that chemicals are safe is a positive development. A statutory authority would not have the ability or wherewithal to ensure proper testing or procedures were in place. It would overwhelm any agency no matter how well-resourced it was. That the burden of proof is on the industry is a good thing.

This is an evolutionary process. There will be pre-registration and then full registration which will build up a bank of information regarding the chemicals out there. A suggestion was made that there could be up to 30,000 chemicals. We will then formulate a considerable amount of knowledge over a period.

Senator Boyle asked whether a review process take place. As I said previously, this will be evolutionary and will continue to be reviewed simply because as information comes in and new chemicals evolve, there must be a review mechanism in place and that will continue.

Senator Quinn expressed the concern when REACH was first expressed by the European Commission that the industry would become less competitive. When we were framing this legislation in the context of the enforcement side, we were very conscious and carried out a regulatory impact assessment in the context of the Chemicals Bill. In respect of REACH, it is very important to state first and foremost that there can never be a compromise on human health or the environment so we must come from that position. There was a great deal of discussion when REACH was being formulated in the EU. Acknowledgement was made by Senator Carty in that context about our MEPs on all sides getting very involved, being proactive and bringing forward a regulation that could be implemented, was a high priority in terms of the protection of human health and the environment and ensured we had a competitive industry.

Senator Quinn is correct in saying that the pharmaceutical and chemical industry is a very important plank in our economy and is very high in technical jobs. A total of 25,000 people work in it and it has a very high value-added product in the context of the economy and gross domestic product, so we must be conscious of that as well. However, we cannot compromise initially on health or the environment so we are coming from that basis. I do not believe this will be anti-competitive. Other countries and trading blocs around the world are looking at these regulations and see them as the pathway to ensure we have proper procedures in place so that we know what chemicals are being transferred and used around the world. Certainly, the more countries that buy into this concept of having an agency and the knowledge and information in the context of the chemicals being used, the better.

I re-emphasise, because people might be concerned, that waste, human or veterinary medicines, food flavourings and feedstuffs are not included in this directive or in the context of the Bill we are discussing today. Senator Boyle referred to it in the context of Haulbowline. It is important that we do not give false hope that this Bill is assessing and addressing all these problems when it is not doing so.

Senator Prendergast raised the issue of resourcing. The Health and Safety Authority is the lead agency in this context and received 33 additional staff over and above the complement to enforce the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005. The Environmental Protection Agency received two additional people. Any other agency that has an obligation in this Bill should allocate resources accordingly to ensure it can comply with the expectations in respect of the enforcement side. I am confident the HSA has the resources in place.

I again thank the Senators. It is fine legislation in the context of what we are trying to achieve. The REACH regulations are in place and this Bill is primarily the enforcement side of them to give us teeth to ensure REACH is enforced. We had a very fine debate in the Dáil. There was a considerable amount of consensus that we took on board.

Senator John Paul Phelan asked me about section 24 in the context of whistle-blowers. Again, we want to protect people who come forward with bona fide concerns and inform an agency. This is very welcome and should be encouraged in all aspects of legislation before the Houses. Concerned individuals who are putting their necks on the line and who perhaps are feeling vulnerable because they are bringing forward information on workmates or employers should be supported and encouraged if they make bona fide complaints.

In respect of naming and shaming, the HSA is obliged under this legislation to publish names of people with indictable offences or court orders. Again, this was made obligatory on foot of an Opposition amendment which we gladly took on board.