Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 9 Jun 1988

Vol. 381 No. 9

Convention for Protection of Ozone Layer: Motion.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Flynn)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of

(1) the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, 22nd March, 1985,

(2) The Montreal Protocol on Substances that deplete the Ozone Layer, 16th September, 1987, and

(3) the Protocol of 26th March, 1986, amending the Convention for the Protection of Marine Pollution from Land-Based Sources, 4th June, 1974 by the inclusion of provisions on the prevention of transatmospheric pollution,

copies of which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 6th May, 1988.

These three international agreements have the common purpose of limiting air pollution of the kind which does not respect national boundaries but can have regional or even global effects. Air pollution of this kind has been the subject of extensive discussion and regulatory activity in recent years. At EC level action has been taken to limit air pollution from industrial plants and motor vehicles. At the level of the Economic Commission for Europe in Geneva the emphasis has been on the reduction of overall national sulphur and nitrogen oxide emissions. More recently, and because of the global nature of the problem, the United Nations Environment Programme UNEP has become involved and, under its auspices, the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol, both of which are concerned with the protection of the ozone layer, have been negotiated. I propose to deal first with these agreements which the Dáil is now being asked to approve.

There has been growing concern over the past few years about the depletion of the ozone layer. The discovery by scientists of a hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica each spring has been graphically illustrated in satellite images and shows the threat facing the earth's atmosphere. The main substances implicated are chemicals called chlorofluoro-carbons, commonly referred to as CFCs. These are widely used as propellants in aerosols, in refrigerants and in the manufacture of foam plastics, such as the packaging used in the fast-food outlets.

Ozone is a gas comprised of three oxygen atoms. It surrounds the earth, protecting it and its inhabitants from the direct effects of the sun's rays. Ozone is most dense in the atmosphere at level of 20-25 kilometres above the earth in a layer known as the stratosphere. However, even there, only one molecule in 100,000 is ozone. It has been estimated that if all the ozone were collected at the earth's survace it would form a layer less that three millimetres thick, roughly one-tenth of an inch. It is obvious, therefore, that even small changes in ozone concentrations could have major effects for life on earth by reducing the extent to which we are screened from the harmful ultraviolet rays of the sun. It is this ultra-violet radiation which gives our skins a tan in summer. As is now widely recognised, excessive exposure can result in increased skin cancers and eye diseases such as cataracts. Animal health can also be adversely affected and crop yields reduced. Increased ultraviolet radiation could also contribute to global warming, or the so called "greenhouse effect", which could result in dramatically altered weather patterns, shifts in deserts and fertile regions and a rise in sea levels.

Ozone is produced naturally from oxygen, high in the atmosphere, where strong radiation from the sun breaks up oxygen molecules. Natural forces also break down ozone, with the result that the gas is being constantly created and destroyed. The speed at which these reactions occur determines how much ozone is naturally present in the atmosphere at any given time. But we now know that the presence of certain chemicals in the atmosphere can speed up the destruction of ozone. In the early seventies researchers in the United States suggested that certain man-made long-lived compounds containing chlorine — in other terms CFCs — would penetrate the stratosphere and decompose; this would release chlorine, which in turn would speed up the destruction of ozone and deplete the ozone layer surrounding the earth. Research and monitoring since the early eighties has shown the validity of the theory of the effects of chlorine on the ozone layer. While some changes can be explained by seasonal and natural factors, it is clear that the release of CFCs to the atmosphere is the main problem.

As I stated earlier, CFCs are used as propellants to force substances through the nozzles of aerosols. They are also used as the refrigerant for refrigerators and air-conditioning systems, foam blowing for take-away cartons, and in insulation materials, including the foam used for cavity insulation in houses. Some CFCs are also used in fire extinguishers for specialist uses, such as computer and electrical systems, and as solvents in the electronics industry. These chemicals are released to the atmosphere during the manufacturing process, when aerosols are used, when fast-food containers are crushed, and when refrigerants leak. As they are inert, they remain in the atmosphere for a long time.

Research has already shown a reduction in the ozone layer surrounding the earth. This reduction is mainly concentrated over Antarctica, but monitoring has indicated reductions in the Northern hemisphere as well. High altitude aircraft, fitted out with special instruments, have been measuring the constituents of the upper atmosphere and analysis of the results has revealed an abundance of chlorine. This supports the link between the presence of chlorine and the depletion of ozone, but many uncertainties remain to be resolved. What particular factors cause Antarctica to be most affected? How exactly does chlorine affect the chemical processes in the atmosphere? Valuable international research is continuing on these and other issues.

Changes in the ozone layer will have effects throughout the world, changes which will not be limited by national boundaries. It is essential, therefore, that countries co-operate extensively with one another in international efforts to resolve the problems. In 1985, the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer was concluded under the auspices of the United Nations Environmental Programme. The Convention is essentially a framework one; in other words, its obligations were expressed in general terms but it envisaged more specific measures being negotiated as Protocols to it. The Convention provides for international co-operation in research, monitoring and exchange of data, and it obliges states which are a party to it to adopt legislative or administrative measures to control, limit or reduce activities found to have adverse modifying effects on the ozone layer.

Within the Convention framework, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was concluded in September 1987. The Protocol contains measures to control the use of the eight substances regarded as having the greatest potential for depleting the ozone layer. The substances involved are five CFC's and three halons, compounds which also contain chlorine. The controls on these substances apply to their production, consumption, import and export. As regards CFC's, the main measures involve stabilisation by 1989 of consumption at 1986 levels, a reduction of 20 per cent on these levels by 1993 and a reduction of a further 30 per cent by 1998. Consumption of halons must be stabilised at 1986 levels by 1992. Parties to the Protocol will be prohibited from importing the controlled substances from third countries and parallel controls will apply in relation to the production of CFC's and halons.

Ireland must support the aims and objectives of both the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol. Ireland did not sign the Convention during the limited period it was open for signature because the enactment of the Air Pollution Act, 1987, which contained extensive statutory powers for the control of air pollution was then imminent. However, we are now committed to completing all the procedures necessary to allow us to accede to the Vienna Convention and sign and ratify the Montreal Protocol in the autumn.

The Air Pollution Act, 1987, provides all the statutory powers necessary to meet our obligations under the Convention and Protocol. It contains a general provision in section 24 requiring the use of the best practicable means to limit and if possible to prevent emissions. In addition, section 23, dealing with the prohibition of certain emissions, was drafted specifically with the Convention and Protocol in mind. It enables the Minister for the Environment, by regulations, to prohibit the production, treatment, use, import, placing on the market, distribution or sale of any substance, other than a fuel, which may cause air pollution. The general provisions of the Act in regard to research and monitoring are also relevant. In addition to statutory measures, the option of administrative measures is available; indeed EC decisions of 1980 and 1982 on a reduction in the use of CFC's in aerosols were implemented effectively here by a voluntary agreement with industry. I look forward to, and indeed confidently expect, the co-operation of industry in the implementation of the international agreements, the terms of which I am now asking Dáil Éireann to approve.

As the world's major producer of CFC's, responsible for some 57 per cent of total world output, the European Communities, represented by the Commission, played an important role in the negotiation of the Montreal Protocol. Indeed, the Protocol provides that the required controls may be observed jointly by the EC as a whole rather than at the level of individual member states. A draft regulation has now been proposed by the Commission limiting both Community imports of controlled substances and the quantities of these substances which may be produced within the EC for Community use. This would gradually restrict the supply of controlled substances within the EC and encourage the speedier development of alternative products. The proposed regulation would bear directly on producers and users of CFC's within the Community and, save perhaps for technical measures to facilitate inspection and enforcement, would satisfy the control requirements of the Protocol for the Community as a whole, without the need to use national legislation. However, as I said earlier, adequate national measures could be developed, if needs be, by regulations under section 23 of the Air Pollution Act, 1987.

CFC's and halons are not manufactured in Ireland and our overall use of these substances is small. For example, our 1986 annual consumption of CFC's was about 1,200 tonnes or only about 0.4 per cent of EC consumption. Use of CFC's for aerosol manufacturing here has continued to decline since 1975 and Ireland has more than observed a 30 per cent cutback enjoined in the EC decisions of 1980 and 1982. Some 95 per cent of the CFC's and halons used in Ireland are imported from Community countries, principally the UK and the Netherlands.

I do not anticipate that implementation of the convention and Protocol will pose particular problems for Ireland. The fact that controls will apply on a world-wide scale should encourage the timely development of alternative substances to replace diminishing quotas of the CFC's and halons regulated by the Protocol and thus avoid real problems for industry.

I believe that the Montreal Protocol can most effectively be implemented within the European Communities by means of the binding regulation now proposed. For this reason, I strongly supported the Commission's proposals in this regard at the last Environment Council meeting in March. I was pleased that there was general support for the Commission proposal although some of the details remain to be ironed out. The Council will be considering the regulation again at its meeting on 16 June in Luxembourg and today's debate in this House, is, therefore, a very timely one.

It is the intention that the Montreal Protocol would come into force on 1 January 1989. However, for this to come about, the Vienna Convention must be in force and the Protocol must have been ratified by at least 11 countries representing two-thirds of the 1985 world consumption of the controlled substances. The Environment Ministers of the European Communities have committed themselves, therefore, to completing all necessary national and Community procedures so that the EC and all its member states can ratify the Vienna Convention and Montreal Protocol this autumn. It is important, therefore, that I should be in a position to tell my colleagues in Europe that the Irish Parliament has approved of the terms of this important Convention and Protocol.

When the EC regulation has been adopted, as I expect it may be at the next Environment Council meeting on 16 June, I will be able to complete the remaining procedures to allow for Ireland's participation in these international agreements. As I stated already, most of the obligations arising are likely to be dealt with under the EC regulation but some ancillary action may be necessary here. I expect also that research and monitoring will be developed in Ireland. Already some research is being carried out at UCD and UCG, and I am anxious that this should be continued and developed.

I am aware of calls for banning the use of CFC's in aerosols. I believe, however, that the controls on production and consumption to be introduced under the Montreal Protocol will lead quickly to CFC's being used only for purposes for which alternatives cannot be found. Accordingly, I am confident that the decline in the use of CFC's in aerosols will accelerate as alternative substances are developed. Public awareness of the issues will help to accelerate this decline in consumption and I intend, therefore, to devote some attention to this aspect in the coming months.

There have also been calls for the labelling of aerosols containing CFC's. This would be difficult to apply unilaterally in Ireland as the majority of aerosols used here are imported. However, I welcome recent statements from some multinational manufacturers of their intention not to use CFCs in their products and to label their products as CFC-free. At the Environment Council in March, the Commissioner responsible for environmental issues stated that the Commission was examining the possibility of introducing a Community label for CFC-free products. I believe that this would probably be the most effective way forward, given that most of our aerosols are imported. I will, however, keep the situation under review and if there are no early developments at Community level, I will be considering other possibilities.

Environmental protection should not be dependent solely on Government regulation. As individuals we are all responsible for the quality of our environment and in our daily lives we should exercise the options which are favourable to the environment. Therefore, I would strongly urge all my colleagues in the House and all consumers to consider whether or not they really need to buy certain products in the form of aerosols which use CFCs. Many toiletries are available in formats other than aerosols. Where the consumer prefers to buy an aerosol, he or she should ask if it is CFC-free and thereby help to create demand for such products. Many aerosols, such as furniture polish and hairsprays, are available CFC-free. This is one of the areas where we can take responsibility ourselves for the quality of our environment.

I now turn to the Convention for the Protection of Marine Pollution from Land-Based Sources, commonly known as the Paris Convention, which was concluded in recognition of the need for concerted international action to protect the marine environment. The Convention requires contracting states to take action under a number of headings. There is a general obligation to take all possible steps to prevent pollution of the sea from land-based sources through the introduction by man, directly or indirectly, of substances or energy which cause hazards to human health, living resources and marine ecosystems, or damage to amenities, or interference with other legitimate uses of the sea. In particular, measures are required to be taken so as to achieve the elimination, if necessary by stages, of pollution caused by certain persistent and toxic substances and the reduction of pollution by other less noxious substances. In addition, contracting states are required to forestall, and as appropriate, eliminate pollution by radioactive substances, including wastes.

With the growing awareness of the effects of transboundary air pollution, it was decided that the Paris Convention should be amended to include measures on the prevention of marine pollution from the atmosphere. Accordingly, a Protocol was adopted in April 1986 extending the provisions of the Paris Convention to the prevention of marine pollution from atmospheric sources. The Protocol is in the nature of a framework agreement and was signed on behalf of Ireland in June, 1986. It allows the Commission which administers the Convention to develop proposals and carry out research to protect the marine environment from pollution from atmospheric sources and, together with the original Convention, will enable comprehensive measures to be taken to protect the marine environment from pollution from all sources. The Air Pollution Act, 1987 enables us to meet our obligations under the Protocol.

Since the Protocol was agreed in 1986, work has been concentrated on research projects on atmospheric inputs to the sea. There is no evidence that Irish emissions contribute to any significant extent to acid deposition in other European countries and this is also true in relation to atmospheric imputs to the sea. It is likely that any specific measures which may be adopted by the Paris Commission under the Protocol will be closely aligned to the provisions of the air pollution directives already adopted by the EC and implementation here should not create difficulties.

This motion is before the House today because of the requirements of Article 29, sub-article 5.2, of the Constitution under which the State shall not be bound by any international agreement involving a charge upon public funds unless the terms of the agreement shall have been approved by Dáil Éireann. A charge on public funds arises indirectly from these international agreements and relates only to our proportionate contributions to the cost of administering the agreements. The annual liability in the initial years is likely to be of the order of £3,000 in respect of the Vienna Convention and Montreal Protocol, and about £2,000 in respect of the Paris Protocol. These payments will be financed from the Environment Vote.

Molaim an tairiscint seo don Teach. Is ábhar an-tábhachtach é truailliú an aeir. Caithfimid an teachtaireacht a scaipeadh go bhfuilimid go léir freagrach as ár dtimpleacht a chothú. Léiríiríonn an diospóireacht seo faoin sraith ozón pointe eile freisin, 'sé sin an gá atá ann le comhoibriú idirnáisiúnta chun timpleacht an domhain ar fad a chaomhnú. Tá sé í gceist agam go nglacfaidh muidne anseo in Éirinn páirt chuí sa bhfeachtas seo. Mar sin, tá mé cinnte go n-aontóidh an Teach leis an tairiscint mhórchúiseach seo.

Mr. Boland

The need for the motion before the House today serves well to bring home to us the fact that so often what we regard as normal activity or development can have a harmful effect on the environment. We in the developed world can be quite uncaring about the effect of our activities on the environment of the wider world. It is interesting that until recent times very few people using aerosols or the inert gases in the various ways which the Minister described would have realised that they were contributing towards the inevitable break-up of the earth's atmosphere. In the past few years it has been coming home to all of us that the use of what have come to be regarded as normal everyday household goods are a source of pollution and that everyone who uses them contributes to that pollution with its disastrous effects.

The Minister in this introductory remarks referred to the fact that the European Commission have concerned themselves primarily in recent years with the question of transboundary pollution from national sulphur and nitrogen oxide emissions. Whilst the debate this evening is not primarily concerned with these matters, the fact that the Minister referred to them and that they have been the subject of some debate in this House merits the point being made that despite our contention that this country's overall contribution to the European level of pollution from sulphur and nitrogen oxide emissions is relatively small, the example given in relation to the ozone layer is a salutary lesson for us. Despite our contention that the emissions from Moneypoint and our national emissions represent only a minuscule amount of the emissions in the EC generally, we are nonetheless a contributor to that pollution. I wonder about the validity of our excuse or explanation that as we are by far the smallest contributor in European terms there does not devolve upon us the same obligation that ought to fall on the more heavily industrialised nations.

My remarks are particularly appropriate in the context of any further development at Moneypoint. I know that the estimated cost of eliminating atmospheric pollution from Moneypoint is regarded as being prohibitive but it is fair to say that the technology in relation to combating atmospheric pollution is improving and changing rapidly. There are now steps which can be taken which fall short of the ideal and they are less costly. In that regard it behoves us to see, in relation to any further development at Moneypoint, that it is obligatory — bearing in mind the sort of debate we are now engaged in — that the highest possible standards are built into the costings for Moneypoint or any similar development, and that we progressively endeavour to retrofit or to use different types of fuel at Moneypoint which would reduce the levels of sulphur emissions which occur there at present. At least in relation to those emissions we know that they contribute in a deleterious way to atmospheric pollution and that our contribution represents a small part of the general pollution of the atmosphere over the greater Europe.

I saw recently a contention that Swedish sources claimed that a major part of their atmospheric pollution, from the point of view of acid rain, had been traced by them to a source somewhere in Southern Ireland adjoining the Shannon. Regarding the validity of that claim, I cannot comment; but it is interesting to speculate on the geographic location which they had pinpointed and the proximity of that location to Moneypoint. Despite our contention that our emission in relative terms is quite small, it is interesting for us——

Mr. Flynn

I insisted on a lengthy contribution because it is an important and interesting matter.

Mr. Boland

That diversion prompts me to say that the Minister is obviously beginning to follow a tendency towards excessively lengthy speeches in this area.

Mr. Flynn

I think that quite often many people do not pay enough attention to such matters and if we can relieve the problem why not.

Mrs. Doyle

He is sincere to his boots.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Boland to continue without interruption.

Mr. Boland

We should endeavour to give a lead to our more industrialised colleagues in Europe by taking advantage of the fact that we produce in overall terms a relatively small level, about 76,000 tons, of sulphuric emissions annually. We should address ourselves to that problem and progressively try to have it eliminated. I must confess that during my time in Government it was a source of some concern to me that we endeavoured as it were to fight, mainly on behalf of the ESB, a rearguard action to protect decisions which they had made and which they now claimed would represent an excessive cost to rectify. From my recollection I think the suggestion was that to absolutely eliminate the emissions from Moneypoint would represent an overall increase of some 15 per cent in the cost of electricity. It was difficult to deny that that was factually correct. It was equally difficult to understand why that costing had not been taken into account when the decisions were being made in relation to the siting and building of Moneypoint in the first instance and why measures to combat that degree of pollution had not been built into the overall costings and the projections as to the effect on electricity prices. It is an expensive lesson for us and our European colleagues to have learned. I would earnestly counsel in relation to any further developments of that type or at that site that we should learn from them. There is an onus on the incumbent in the Custom House to ensure that in any proposed or projected developments far more stringent standards are applied in the future. Perhaps the lesson of the damage to the ozone layer, which was not apparent until recently, and perhaps was not so apparent when Moneypoint was being built in relation to those types of emissions, would come much more to the forefront of our minds and that we would realise that things which we have now come to take for granted in the developed world are of themselves contributing to the inexorable damage of our worldwide environment.

It is difficult for us in Ireland to envisage the concept of this extraordinary ozone layer, this skin which stretches right around the entire global ball and which is of such a sensitive——

Mr. Quinn

And delicate.

Mr. Boland

——and delicate nature that emissions from aerosols and refrigeration plants and, indeed, from such apparently simple things as the foam containers used to pack take-away fast foods could collectively contribute in such a way that the nations of the world have suddenly realised that all of us have contributed to the damage of this skin. The Minister suggested that this ozone layer represents a skin around the world of less than one-tenth of an inch in diameter and through what most of us would have regarded as simple everyday activities the world has collectively damaged that skin in a way that apparently cannot be repaired, but is permanent.

The collective attempt through the adoption of the Conventions and the Protocol is to limit any further dangers or damage, not to rectify what has been done, but to try to contain and prevent that damage becoming any greater, damage which would result in an effect upon human and animal health and plant life and upon the environment in various countries of the world. It is interesting to reflect that we should be discussing the adoption of this Convention and Protocol a week after the world powers had met and congratulated themselves on taking steps to try to eliminate the threat to the world through the military activities of the world powers. Yet in a far greater way the ordinary everyday activities of individuals, sponsored by the consumer society, has in many respects created a greater danger to the world than the threat posed by the military activities and developments of world powers. It brings home to us again that all of us are contributors to the environment in which we live and all of us are contributors to the interference with or damage or danger to that environment.

I am pleased that the Air Pollution Act, which was eventually implemented by the Government last year and which had originally been sponsored by the previous Government, had made provision, as the Minister referred to, for, if necessary, statutory regulations to be made which would allow for certain Government moves to prevent activities which foster emissions such as this. It is equally pleasing to note that there was previously a voluntary agreement regarding the use of aerosols. I cannot help wondering, in relation to the Minister's remarks, if the mandatory labelling of aerosols which are CFC free should be given greater consideration. I would have thought that because we are a relatively small community we would have a relatively simpler task in informing that community of dangers or opportunities.

It might well be that our best contribution to reducing the level of CFCs used in this country would be through a relatively inexpensive — I am talking in terms of a couple of hundred thousand pounds — public information campaign which would bring home to people through the use mainly of the visual media, television and radio, what damage can be caused by ordinary everyday items. I would have thought that there was an opportunity in this country to carry out such a public information campaign perhaps more readily and successfully than in larger countries. The answer may be given that because we are smaller we contribute less to the problem, but each of us has our relative responsibilities; and, if we can carry out ours, we can perhaps with a clearer conscience demand of larger polluters and larger colleague countries that they in relative terms carry out their responsibilities too. The Minister ought to pursue the idea of promoting an EC sponsored label which would indicate aerosols which are CFC free and I urge him to pursue that actively at European level.

In relation to the final Protocol regarding the prevention of marine pollution from land-based sources, which is the last subject of the motion, although the Protocol refers to marine pollution from atmospheric sources originating from land-based sources, it is difficult not to reflect upon the Paris Convention and this Protocol and the great difficulties and dangers we face in relation to levels of pollution in the Irish Sea — carried out to a large extent by our neighbouring country. I remind the Minister of the very clear and categorical undertaking which he and his colleagues gave when in Opposition to ensure that any further pollution of the Irish Sea from Britain, and specifically from nuclear plants emitting waste water into the Irish Sea, would be prevented, stopped and eliminated by his party upon assuming power. We have seen just how little has been achieved in that area in the last year and a half.

In the adoption of a Protocol regarding marine pollution from land-based sources it is relevant that we ask the Minister to explain to the House just what level of success the Government have had in persuading the British authorities to desist from the continuation of the operation of Sellafield at its present level of pollution and its present rate of discharge into the Irish Sea, because very clear undertakings were given by his colleagues and, I suspect, by himself when the Minister's party were in Opposition. Now after a reasonable time has elapsed it is appropriate to ask to what extent the Government have lived up to those undertakings solemnly given in relation to Sellafield and other sources of marine pollution of the Irish Sea emanating from the other side of the water.

The effect of the Minister inviting us to agree to the adoption of this motion is to bring home to us the great advantages of technology and how technology has assisted, changed, promoted and made our lives easier; yet, on the other hand, that technology and its introduction and inventions that have assisted us often can have a detrimental effect upon our environment and way of life in a way we might not easily or lightly understand. The example of the use of aerosols, so much an everyday matter, and now the knowledge and realisation of the dreadful effect they have had progressively on the ozone layer surrounding the earth, brings home to us that in many respects things we take for granted, or which when criticised we are inclined to defend and insist have no harmful effect whatsoever, are not always as simple as they might seem and perhaps we should be more questioning and careful and consequently more caring about our environment and the world around us. Often something we may do here may not affect us but may affect some neighbouring country or a country quite some distance away and perhaps for that reason we may have the idea that it is of no great relevance or concern to us. If all the world and its individual countries adopted that attitude, of course the effect upon each country of the world through the ignorance or uncaring attitude of their neighbours would be disastrous.

This country in its legislation has in recent years an admirable record of care in relation to environmental protection. It behoves us to see this motion adopted and to pursue at European and UNO levels the goal of ensuring that all countries are aware of and make their individual people and citizens aware of the precious jewel a clean, healthy environment is and how important it is that each of us at individual, national and international level contributes to ensuring that is so.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair may indicate that it has noted how the Minister and the spokesman for the Opposition have on an expansive topic such as this encapsulated their thoughts and I know subsequent speakers will do the same in so far as I have an intimation from backbenchers that they would like to contribute.

Mr. Keating

In doing so, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, it was not because of any fears you had in respect of the next speakers.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If I had I would not have said it at this stage.

Mr. Keating

I commend the Minister for introducing this measure this evening and for taking the opportunity which arose on the Order of Business to have this matter dealt with and have the terms of the Convention and Protocol approved. As the Minister has outlined, the issue is extremely serious and I hope our approving of the measures involved will assist in galvanising public interest here and making a contribution to galvanising international public interest in relation to environmental matters generally and particularly this extremely serious issue.

However, the Minister might take the opportunity of going a little further. Although he is reluctant to go as far as introducing a ban on the sale or importation of aerosol sprays and foam based packaging which incorporate chlorofluorocarbons, he should consider such. It seems unreasonable to continue by act or omission to endorse the sale of these sprays and various forms of packaging containing this gas when they are contributing to the depletion of the ozone layer. The Minister might take on this issue not merely in terms of endorsing an international agreement in a retrospective and supportive manner but by giving a lead and saying we in this country believe that it is not acceptable or desirable to import such goods or market them for sale and any goods we so import or sell should be free of CFCs. I think that is not an unreasonable suggestion and I recommend it to the Minister as an avenue of approach.

Rather than a worthy but very limited appeal such as we are hearing here this evening, late on a quiet Thursday afternoon, perhaps his appeal to consumer organisations and the Irish Housewives Association and other might be more fulsome and broad based. I suggest he might invite in for a discussion the Consumers' Association of Ireland and the Irish Housewives Association and ask them to co-operate with him in educating their members to avoid wherever possible purchasing such products and in heightening awareness so that effectively there is a consumer boycott of such products. However, that can be done only if the Minister grapples with the issue of insisting on there being a labelling requirement on such products. That labelling requirement is applied to a range of other products more usually by his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, but most of our goods are imported and the practicalities of labelling do not impose insuperable problems for the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

I see no reason in principle why we should not insist here that the consumer is educated and able to make an informed choice by seeing on the shelves preferably only the CFC free product. Where the other product is on the shelf at least one of them should be labelled so that the consumer can make a choice. The Minister recommended that the consumer ask which was which. The average retailer will not be able to answer that question if there is not such a label and accordingly the appeal will fall on deaf ears. In an area like this is it not unreasonable to ask the Minister, and the Government to give a lead. I would be interested in hearing the Minister's reaction to my suggestion that he should invite to meet him the major organisations representing consumer interests and put it to them that they should join with him in doing what they can to lead the public interest in this respect.

It is my belief, because of the enormity of the international problem involved, that the Government should give a lead internationally. Ireland still has a marketing edge in the environmental area. The country is still seen as a leader environmentally. There is a wonderful opportunity for the Minister not just to ban, reduce or contain the problem within our own shores but to raise his voice in a vehement way at every international forum available to him on this and other environmental issues. I have no doubt he would be listened to. We should use all opportunities, whether it is the agenda of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in relation to Sellafield, or the various European institutions, to highlight an issue like this. We should not lose sight of the potential of our involvement at various levels to push forward the frontiers of environmental improvement, education and awareness internationally. We are not pursuing those opportunities at present.

The seriousness of the problem is not fully understood by the public. The most recent scientific research shows that the likelihood of a sharp increase in the incidence of skin cancer is very serious due to damage caused by CFCs in weakening the atmosphere's ozone layer which shields us from excessive ultra-violet radiation. There is international scientific alarm — alarm is not too strong a word — at the discovery in recent years of ozone holes at the Arctic and Antarctic circles. That hole is growing at a rapid pace and that is extremely worrying from the point of view of the future of human and other forms of life on the planet. That would be the logical and inevitable extension of what we are talking about.

Indeed, scientists tell us that if there was an immediate cessation of all production and sale of CFC products it would still take 100 years before the effects of the present ozone depletion would be healed or remedied. In some respects we are approaching the outer limits of the planet's environmental capacity for self-regeneration and that is a frightening thought.

The Minister, and the Government, could have had this Convention and Protocol before us earlier than today. The Minister advanced the Air Pollution Bill as the reason for the delay but it is fair to point out that some 50 other countries found no difficulty in signing this international agreement before now. We have yet to sign the agreement and ratify its conditions. That is regrettable. Instead of being dragged in at the tail-end of a list of countries, we should try to be to the forefront particularly where we can give a clear and unambiguous message by virtue of our own industrial record.

I am told that last year we imported in excess of 700 tonnes of CFCs and that our next door neighbour produces an estimated 700 million aerosol cans each year, two-thirds of which contain CFCs. Unquestionably, in the context of these islands, there is a serious and sigificant problem to be faced and contributions are being made to this systematic undermining and devaluation of our environment. It is one that has to stop.

The Minister might consider making direct approaches to Irish-based subsidiary companies, representing multinational corporations, engaged in the manufacture of CFC. I have every expectation that there is — I would hope an Irish entrepreneur or manufacturer — a person who will develop a CFC -free aerosol. We should give every encouragement and assistance to such an entrepreneur so that we can in our own way not make just a legislative but an industrial contribution to redressing the problem that confronts us.

The problem is one of a series of facets of environmental issues with which we are confronted. Unfortunately, being on the periphery of a large industrial bloc and being relatively powerless in numerical or economical terms, we are getting more than our fair share of adverse spinoff from the point of view of industrial pollution and environmental degradation whether it is in the context of the depletion of the ozone layer, the dumping of toxic waste around our coast, the dumping of radioactive materials in the Irish Sea or the attempt by the Spanish Government to incinerate at sea off our south-west coast. There is a serious risk to this country and somehow we will have to ensure that our voice is more forceful and is heard at international fora. In that context the Minister should entertain the possibility of approaching countries of a similar size that may have to deal with similar problems to see to what extent, with as much political and economic clout we can muster, we can unite in a campaign to counteract environmental degradation. We should try to take on some of the economic giants of the world. Certainly, standing alone our voice would be relatively puny but if we co-operate with other countries who face similar challenges we could get places in this respect.

A range of scientific and medical experts have told us in detail about the problem of CFCs and the atmosphere and those interested in this matter should check out their reports. There is no doubt we are dealing with a serious problem. I have been told that the number of parts per billion of CFCs in the ozone layer has increased by 50 per cent since the early seventies. In other words, there has been a 50 per cent reduction in the protective shield that encompasses the earth since the early seventies and I presume that that rate of degeneration has increased. Unfortunately, each 1 per cent loss of that ozone layer yields, we are told, a 5 per cent to 7 per cent increase in the incidence of skin cancer. This is not just a question of medical effects or of skin cancer. The truth is it is unlikely we could have anticipated that we would have this problem but is is probably the case that there will be other by-products or medical side-effects arising from the wanton and widespread use of such processes. I can see serious implications for animal life, for the food chain and other aspects of the environment in which we live and on which we depend.

The Government should lead an international environmental campaign to seek the outright banning of the international manufacture of CFCs unless they are absolutely essential and non-replaceable in certain key areas. Frankly, I do not believe that that is the case. If we are serious about this we can provide the scientific ingenuity to replace them with products that will not cause such damage. We do not have the right to inflict such fundamental environmental damage on a thin envelope which protects this generation, and generations yet unborn. We do not have the right to use up the scarce resource which would shield and nurture future generations but unfortunately, we are doing that. Any action on our part which contributes to that is morally wrong and should be politically corrected at the earliest opportunity.

I am very pleased that we will be a signatory to these Protocols. I am concerned that the necessary regulations to give effect to the implications of some of these Protocols may not be put in place quickly or readily enough. I am aware that, as the Minister said in his speech, the Air Pollution Act, 1987, provides all the statutory powers necessary to meet our obligations under the Convention and Protocol. It contains a general provision, in section 24, requiring the use of the best practicable means to limit and if possible to prevent emissions. He also stated that it enables the Minister for the Environment, by regulations, to prohibit the production, treatment, use and so on of various products. The Act facilitates the Minister in making regulations; but, if the regulations are not made, then the Act is obviously pointless and will not be effective. I was struck by the fact that it took 14 years before regulations were made in regard to the Planning Acts. I would like a commitment from the Minister that because of the seriousness of this issue the regulations necessary to give effect to the collective wish of this House, and I am sure of the people in this respect, will be made forthwith. Every possible action should be put in place to ensure that we achieve as rapidly as possible the intent of the Convention and Protocol involved. Otherwise, it will be a pointless exercise.

There are other issues, which we may discuss on another day, in relation to the alleged greenhouse effect on the environment of the various matters that we inject into the atmosphere, including the heat content and so on, which have serious and scientifically verifiable consequences for all of us on this planet. There is nothing more fundamental than what is at the heart of this issue. All other economic and social issues recede into relative insignificance when you are confronted with a fundamental global challenge of taking every step possible to protect the very fragile life-raft on which all of us depend. If this mini debate and the Minister's intiative this afternoon helps to take us a little way along that path, then I welcome it, particularly if the Minister follows through by making the appropriate regulations, by galvanising public opinion and by taking whatever action is open to him to discourage or outrightly ban the sale of these products immediately. Above all, he should do everything he can to alert anyone who is purchasing or retailing them that we do not need this kind of product and that on the contrary the sale or purchase of such products is a contribution to the degeneration of a very limited and a very finite resource.

Mr. Quinn

I will start by complimenting the Minister and the Department of the Environment for bringing forward this item and for availing of the time that became available to deal with it. I thank the Minister for the very comprehensive speech he has prepared for us. There is no division in this House on this matter and the Labour Party will be supporting the three items set out in the Minister's motion. I am not going to repeat what has been said already. Spaceship Earth is the only ship that most of us are going to travel upon, and for those of us who do not think that we are going anywhere else after we end on this ship it is particularly important——

A Deputy

We are bringing God into it.

Mr. Quinn

He has been in and out of the Constitution already.

Mr. Keating

He is now a card-carrying member.

Mr. Flynn

The Deputy is talking to a Damascus type beside him.

Mr. Boland

There must be something about those benches over there.

Mr. Quinn

There are a number of ozone layers under threat at present and the political ozone layers of a few parties in this House is also under threat. I am going to be very brief because other speakers wish to contribute. By virtue of my spokesmanship on behalf of the Labour Party I have been called. I congratulate the Minister on his initiative in this area. I would like him to be in a position to be able to say categorically and authoritatively on 16 June at the Environment Council that he has the full and enthusiastic support of this House for an effective prohibition or ban or whatever is deemed to be the most efficient way possible of reducing the CFCs. This is a rich man's disease. The products of CFCs are effectively the products of a consumer society. We are rich enough within the European Community to deal with this problem. I do not think you can deal with these matters with national measures. Increasingly, as we approach 1992, the option of looking for national measures will be severely reduced.

While I would favour a banning, I recognise that within the context of the Community the most efficient and effective way such a banning can be put into place is through the harnessing of the energies of the Environmental Council. All the concerns that I and the Labour Party share in relation to the vulnerability of the earth's atmosphere and the fact that the rich countries of the world are now the major threat to its survival are already on the record. In many respects, as Deputy Boland has said, the real threat posed daily by the pollutant use of CFCs in other atmosphere is far more real in its damage than the threat that the possible use of nuclear weapons might pose.

In recognition that there are other speakers in the Chamber who wish to contribute, in conclusion I compliment the Minister and wish him well on 16 June. I hope that he will have time in the Dáil, either on his return or in the autumn, to report comprehensively on how he proposes to use the Air Pollution Act, 1987, to administer in part the provisions set out in the three Conventions and Protocols we are adopting.

Mr. T. Kitt

I wholeheartedly welcome this debate. There is an obvious all-party consensus on it. In the spirit of the debate so far, I will not detain the House too long. It is quite obvious that this is a serious matter when the United Nations have become involved. Through their environmental programme they brought about the Vienna Convention in 1985 and the Montreal Protocol, both of which have been negotiated. It is absolutely essential that the Dáil approves the terms of this Convention and Protocol.

Every young child is aware of the hole in the ozone layer over Antartica each spring and that indicates the awareness, in this country in particular, of this issue and the dangers that will result if action is not taken globally. To follow on what Deputy Quinn has said, the solution lies in acting as a Community because it is a Community issue. We are all aware that the cause of the problem is the substance known as CFCs. That is a very common substance, as has been pointed out by Deputy Boland. It includes aerosols, refrigerants and plastic fast food containers. I propose, and I presume it would have agreement, that we harness this awareness by following up with a very comprehensive educational programme in our schools. As I have said, young children are aware of this issue and we must simply follow through with a positive environmental educational programme in our schools.

I compliment the Minister on the scientific nature of his address. Much work has gone into this speech. It is one of the most comprehensive speeches I have heard in my short term in this Dáil.

Mr. Keating

Hear, hear.

Mr. T. Kitt

This whole issue deals with life itself. As we know, small changes in the ozone layer can alter weather patterns and that in itself points up how serious this matter is. There are practical measures that we can take. Under the Montreal Protocol parties are prohibited from importing controlled substances from third countries and parallel controls will apply to the production of CFCs and halons. The bottom line is that, had we not introduced the Air Pollution Act, we could not follow through with this Convention and Protocol and the Paris Convention. Again, I compliment the Minister on bringing to the Dáil the Air Pollution Act, 1987. We can now meet our obligations under the Convention and the Protocol. The co-operation of industry is obviously most important in implementing the agreement and I welcome the progress to date in that area.

It is a frightening statistic to see that the EC are responsible for 57 per cent of the total production of CFCs. That points out the urgency of acting as a community to tackle this problem. Under the Protocol controls may be observed jointly by the EC rather than by individual countries. It is time we started looking, as a Community, to alternative products.

When we had the nuclear debate we talked about an EC inspectorate. This is something I have advocated for a long time. This must be followed through by the EC, because obviously the British nuclear industry are not listening to us. Only this morning I read in The Irish Times three or four different stories on the dangers and developments in the nuclear industry along the west coast of Britain. This shows that, unless we get our act together as a European movement to tackle this problem, whether it be in relation to the ozone layer or the nuclear industry, which are obviously related, we will get nowhere.

We do not produce CFCs or halons in this country. That means we are in an ideal position to lead in Europe. I have often said that we have not taken advantage of our clean environment. Looking across this Chamber I know many Deputies who have waited for this debate and have taken a very keen interest in protecting and developing our environment. The Minister has done a lot of good work to ensure that our rivers and lakes, as well as our atmosphere are kept clean. With the positive image we are creating abroad, backed by action at home, we are in a very fortunate position when it comes to speaking at a meeting of an environmental council and leading in this issue.

I too, support the proposal to label aerosols containing CFCs. We are told the Commission are examining the possibility of introducing a Community label for CFCs. That would be a very positive step forward. I support Deputy Quinn's proposal that the Minister go to Europe with the backing of the House as a whole.

The Paris Convention is particularly important. As an island nation we have a keen interest in protecting our marine environment, but there has been much double talk at European level on this issue. At European level Governments have spoken about the need to protect our seas, yet industrialists continue to fill our waters with industrial waste. If people do not accept the health argument, they should look to the economic argument. If Irish people are not convinced that it is important to protect our land, seas, rivers and lakes from a health point of view, they should look to the economic argument, which I hope will make sense to them. From our point of view there is an economic argument in protecting our natural resources. I am thinking particularly of the effects a clean environment has on the tourist industry.

At European level it is important that we cut the emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide from our power stations. A number of countries have spoken about the need to introduce catalytic convertors on all new cars, but they have not been fitted. Within the next ten years CEGB, for example, will clean three of their power stations. That is an insult to the people of this country. In Sellafield, nuclear dumping still goes on. Nuclear submarines are moving around our coasts and there is still incineration at sea.

There is much to be done in this area, but I hope this debate will unite this Parliament in presenting a strong voice in Europe. There were similar debates in this Parliament in relation to Sellafield and we were unanimous in the steps we wished the Minister to take. This was noted outside the House. I hope there will be a greater awareness to protect the ozone layer, our invironment and our atmosphere as a whole as a result of this debate.

The survey of the British Forestry Commission revealed an alarming and systematic deterioration in the condition of British trees. In 1986, 26 per cent of the Scots Pine older than 50 years surveyed were severely damaged, dying or dead. In 1987, the survey showed that the proportion of the trees in this category had risen to 40 per cent.

Whether it be acid rain, the ozone layer, pollution or incineration at sea, there are many worrying trends which the Dáil should address. Again, I commend the Minister for bringing this motion before the House. I only heard about it 30 minutes before the debate began. I was very pleased I contributed and I thank the House for giving me this opportunity because normally a Government backbencher would not get an opportunity to contribute to such a debate.

Mr. Keating

I will try to do something about that.

Mr. T. Kitt

Again, I welcome this motion.

Proinsias de Rossa

Like other speakes, I welcome the motion in relation to the Convention and Protocol. Over recent years environmental issues have become the topic of daily conversation. Not too long ago if one were to raise an issue like the ozone layer one would be marked as a crank involved in science fiction. It is significant we have reached the point that this House agrees it is important that we produce a motion to implement a convention which will to some small degree help to protect the ozone layer.

The ozone layer is not the only part of our atmosphere, important as it is, which is under attack. Almost on a weekly basis there are incidents of our rivers and lakes being polluted. We have a constant outflow of sewage into our rivers and seas; we have a constant outflow of radioactive waste from Sellafield into the Irish Sea and the incineration of waste at sea, and a range of deliberate steps are being taken to pollute our environment. Why, despite all the public concern about the environment, do these things keep happening? It is not too strong to say that to deliberately destroy the environment would make you out as a lunatic, yet it continues. It has to be said that part of the reason is the constant desire for finding ways of using modern technology to produce the greatest possible profit. Another element is the constant desire to find the cheapest possible way of disposing of waste, in many cases waste arising from the use of this technology.

It is clearly a matter for the Government to intervene because the environment is no longer the responsibility of the individual. What happens to the environment is a collective responsibility. By "collective" I mean collective internationally, not just individuals in this State. More and more it is being borne on us how dependent each individual is on the other right around the globe. That is why it is important that these Conventions are being brought before us today. While not being an expert on these Conventions, the fact that pollution and attacks on the environment continue to such a large extent indicate that, despite the development of these Conventions and Protocols, they lack teeth.

We do not have sufficient powers to prevent the kind of problems we have been discussing here today. The Minister said earlier he does not see it being feasible for us unilaterally to require products brought into this country to be labelled as containing CFCs and that an alternative might be to have voluntary labelling of products indicating that they do not contain CFCs. If we are serious about tackling this problem we should give a lead. Being a small island country with a relatively small population it should be possible for us to say that unless products brought in here are clearly labelled as to their contents we do not want them, they will not be allowed in. That would give some muscle to other countries to do likewise. The Minister seems still prepared to allow this whole question of the environment to be left to the goodwill of those who have the power to stop onslaughts on it, the polluters themselves. We should be taking a far stronger line in this regard.

To what extent can any of these Conventions protect that part of the world which is not what we euphemistically call developed? I am speaking about those countries outside the EC, those that are underdeveloped in terms of comparison with the EC countries. To what extent are they becoming victims of our great strides towards eliminating pollution of our atmosphere? It is quite common to hear reports of transational companies shifting their operations out of the more industrial countries where there are laws restricting effluent and so forth and into those less developed countries that have less developed laws in relation to pollution. To what extent will the pressures exerted by these Conventions simply mean a shift out of our own country, Britain, France and other such countries towards those areas that are under-developed and do not have the protection with which we seek to provide ourselves. This is an area we would need to examine. We should try to ensure that if transnational companies are shifting their operations out of Ireland or other places in order to continue with their industry which is creating the pollution and there is some way in which we can stop that by refusing to handle their products, we should look to how that might be done.

Another aspect in which I was interested was the Minister's reference to research being carried on in UCD and TCD and his hope that that would continue. Again, it is not sufficient for us to express hopes in this regard. I would like to hear the Minister announce some measures which would assist in that kind of research, in the development of alternatives and research into the effects of the various products on our environment.

The question of the hole in the ozone layer in Antarctica mystifies me. One would have thought that that hole would have occurred above areas where there was the greatest use of the aerosols about which we have been talking. However, it would not seem to be working that way. I do not know if the Minister has the answer, but perhaps if he has he could let us know why the hole has come above Antarctica. Has it something to do with the cold climate there?

Mrs. Doyle

I shall be very brief. I welcome wholeheartedly the motion before the Dáil this evening to approve the Convention and the two Protocols. In my area of responsibility it is particularly the Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution, or the Paris Convention, and the Protocol to it on which I am going to address a few short remarks. However, the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Protocol relating to same must be welcomed by any of us who are concerned about the environment and our future generally. If we continue to use and abuse the use of chlorine compounds, mainly in the form of aerosols, we will exacerbate the existing breaches of the ozone layer and increase the risks, through increased ultra-violet rays to the earth's surface, of cancers; we will affect crop yields and, as the Minister pointed out, there will be possible effects on and changes in weather patterns, or what is known generally as the greenhouse effect will be with us. We welcome the Bill. A unanimous front can be expected, and I am sure the Minister expects that, in relation to support for the motions.

I should like to question whether we are really serious as a country in relation to our commitment, not just to the Paris Convention or the Oslo Convention, if I might mention it in passing. To date our record has not been great. Only last week I tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister for the Marine asking what our views were in relation to certain aspects of the Paris Convention meeting which is due to take place this month. There is also an Oslo Convention meeting this month and a joint meeting of the Paris and Oslo Conventions. Up to last week my three line answer from the Minister of State at the Department of the Marine was that we were still considering our position. It was on 2 June I asked this question and apparently we could not be told, or apparently it was not yet known what our position was in relation to certain aspects coming up at meetings this month of the Convention about which we are talking today. If that is a headline as to our commitment as a country to environmental and to marine matters particularly, we need to have another think and another look at it. Adding another Protocol to all the legislation that now exists, if we do not intend to pursue it and act in the spirit and the letter of the law, is a futile exercise. I would appreciate if the Minister could give a commitment that we will be working along with all the member states for the ideals and achievements that we hope and wish for from the Paris Convention and the Oslo Convention.

In relation to bringing a transboundary air pollution aspect to the Paris Convention, I support that wholeheartedly. However, I have fears as to whether we will get the support of other countries, of other North Sea states, for example, when it comes to sitting around the table at the Paris Convention meeting. We were not prepared up to last week to state whether we supported the other North Sea states in their various motions relating to pollution of the North Sea. We could not give them the commitment for which they were asking, or our support. We expect support from the other countries and North Sea states for our stand on Sellafield, for instance, and the potential transboundary air pollution effects that a major accident could pose for this country from Sellafield and the other nuclear power stations on the west coast of Britain.

If we are looking to Europe to support our position and the threat we see from these stations, the least we can do is to take a stance in relation to their proposals to the Paris Convention and their fears of pollution in the North Sea. We should share their fears; we should not have to be asked or cajoled into supporting their line. We should be out leading the pack and not, as somebody mentioned earlier, involved in a rearguard action. If we want the support of Europe and the other North Sea states against environmental threats to our nation, both of a transboundary nature and concerning the seas surrounding us, we must be prepared to put our money down and support them in their moves to protect an environment which should be equally as important to us as it is to them. I am not convinced of the bona fides of the Department of the Environment. I was junior Minister to that Department not too long ago and know the many difficulties and sides to every argument and the number of solutions to every problem that will be presented to the Minister.

Mr. Flynn

The Deputy does not know the changes that have taken place since she left.

Mrs. Doyle

We are here discussing issues vital to the future of Ireland and of the globe. There is no dissension among any party concerning what the Minister is proposing here today. However, I doubt the commitment in regard to implementing what we are talking about and going the whole way in terms of supporting other countries in their problems. We have always had a particular difficulty about whether the Department of Energy or the Department of the Environment is the head of the dog, and that difficulty arose in some of the issues today.

Power stations were mentioned and the whole issue of whether scrubbers should have been installed in the emission stacks. The cost of electricity going up by 15 per cent was also mentioned and whether it would have cost too much in relation to our contribution in regard to pollution of northern Europe generally. We manage to hedge our bets, there are ifs and ands, we get ourselves into all sorts of positions and we manage to justify, to a certain extent, the position we take. However, we expect higher standards from others and we criticise them when they threaten us or are a potential threat to our environment. We are inconsistent in how we follow through and in how we wish to protect our environment on those issues when we are in the international area.

Recently I read a report where the acidity along the east coast has increased relative to the rest of the country. We are now receiving the effects of transboundary air pollution on the east coast and we need to get to terms with those affecting us. Before we demand standards of others we must be sure that we are implementing those standards in our own country and we must be prepared ultimately to put our money where our mouth is in relation to this. The Minister for Finance imposed a 5 per cent VAT charge and the money collected from that amount would implement the scrubbers in Moneypoint. In two or three years we would have the money which is needed to protect our environment there. The argument does not follow directly but if we were willing, if the intention was there and if the Department of the Environment, in the person of the Minister, banged the Cabinet table, he would not let the Department of Energy Dictate policy, particularly when environmental issues are concerned.

Mr. Flynn

I am much too genteel to bang tables.

Mrs. Doyle

Well, metaphorically, the Minister should start banging the table, as there are ways and means. I have very limited experienced in that regard but it is sufficient to know that you must stand up for your own area. If you believe in it, you can achieve it.

I very much welcome the motion and the Minister's speech, it went into great detail and it was worth the length of time it took to deliver. For too often, we give scant attention to environmental matters or perhaps we just take the headline grabbing aspect and do not get down to discussing thoroughly the detail of what is involved. Generally, our environment is under threat through the disposal of increased waste loads, for example, increased agricultural production and industrial and commercial output. The disposal of such waste loads causes a dilemma in many areas.

We are all interested in the development of the economy and we hope that there will be room for our children to work here if they choose to do so. We also hope that jobs will be created and those of us who are interested in development of that kind must never feel threatened by any conservation or environmental protection measures. Environmental protection is not the enemy of development nor should developers feel threatened by conservationists. In all our development plans for the future we must integrate conservation policy in water, waste, air and litter management and indeed in the new Coillte Teoranta Bill. The development of forestry should not feel threatened by those of us who are interested in the amenity and scientific aspects that must be protected in that legislation. Right through any development proposals, we must integrate conservation measures and, if we start at the drawing board, there will not be difficulties later. These difficulties are now given as excuses, for example, the non-installation of the scrubbers in Moneypoint.

We support what the Minister is trying to do but I am not convinced of our commitment when it comes to sitting down at the table of the Paris and Oslo Conventions. Are we prepared to go the whole hog and support our European colleagues in return for their support for our point of view? We must take our place at the European table and not be afraid to stand up for environmental matters. We should not be afraid to be called conservationists because we should be the playground of Europe. Our tourist industry should be second to none because we are still perceived as an environmentally pure and clean country. Our agricultural products are second to none in Europe but if we do not protect our environment and if it is not perceived to be clean and pure we will all be the losers.

Mr. G. Brady

I wish to add my contribution to a critically important motion before the House. On planet earth we live in a very delicate ecological environment and very often people go through their everyday lives ill concerned about just how delicate that balance is. That is not surprising as we all have a busy life-style but we go about our everyday work not considering what type of environment we will leave for future generations to inherit. Herein lies the most important aspect when we consider any part of this great, finite resource, which is planet earth.

We are just the temporary custodians of this planet, the certainty is that we will leave it but the lack of certainty is in relation to leaving it in a better way than we found it. It is critically important to realise in environmental matters that it is a race against time, perhaps in many different aspects of the environment but critically so in relation to the few decades that we have to secure protection against any type of atmospheric pollution that is causing damage to the surface of the planet.

The damage to our rain forests, the seas and the air we breathe is very difficult to comprehend in perhaps what future generations might term an uncivilised generation that inhabits this planet. Ireland can, or course, give a very forceful lead and, in our role as parliamentarians, we are obliged to make sure that we do. Unbridled progress in industry, without an inherent commitment to preserving the environment, should not be tolerated. Those who strip the rain forests and who cut away our natural resources are causing untold damage which will take perhaps centuries to correct.

The key to all this lies with future generations. Environmental studies have now reached the stage, certainly in the public mind, where consideration should be given to making this a subject on the syllabus in secondary schools. It should be structured within the educational system for at least six years, it could even be started in primary schools. It could then be inculcated into the minds of children that it is necessary to protect our environment, the seas, land, rivers, the quality of air and many other aspects of the environment.

The ozone layer is of critical importance and there is a lack of information on how this layer is starting to break down. It could well be caused by the huge increase in air transportation and gaseous matters left in the atmosphere. It could also be caused by the indiscriminate use of aerosols which are breaking down the delicate balance of the air. I have noticed that the Minister is taking his brief very seriously as far as the natural environment is concerned. Perhaps the Minister could try to add some weight to the argument that this goes beyond appeals, beyond rules and regulations and abiding by Conventions. We must get it into people's minds, and start from a very early age, that this is important.

My own children, having watched television programmes on the subject, find it incomprehensible how people can cause untold damage to the rain forests of West Africa and South America in the cause of progress in industry. These youngsters perhaps will be making the rules and regulations in the future; but they will not think of it in terms of rules and regulations per se. They will feel there is a duty on them to behave in a certain manner. I do not think the present generation feel that they are under such a duty — progress, yes; but progress with protection. It is interesting to note that recently in a remote country where forest trees were being cut down at an alarming rate the women of the rural villages literally lay in front of the tractors moving into the forests and the developers endeavoured to buy these women off by offering them money and extra material wealth and comfort. But their answer was — and we are speaking here about people who do not have the education we are privileged to have —“What good is all of this to us if we have no forest trees to protect us or to build our homes from?” Therefore, they were not prepared to trade off in the cause of making progress of this kind.

Ireland definitely and decidedly lost a most important part of its environmental awareness in permitting the Moneypoint plant to operate without sulphur dioxide recovery apparatus. I remember that a few years back the Electricity Supply Board issued figures which were quite alarming on the cost of fitting these so called scrubbers at the plant in order to abide by EC regulations and it seemed as if it would be impossible to provide that kind of money. Since then substantially less expensive equipment has come on the market and it is imperative that Moneypoint is put in order. Even though the authorities will state that the acidic levels are very slight and the levels of sulphur dioxide are insignificant in the European context, that belies the argument. As the previous speaker said, and I agree wholeheartedly with the point she made, it is very difficult to appeal to our neighbours for restraint in the face of the potential risk of major pollution, which could clear millions off the face of this planet, and at the same time engaging in the type of pollution being caused by Moneypoint. Apart from the delicate balance of the neighbouring Burren in County Clare which could be wiped out by perhaps a change of wind direction, this uncontrolled emission of 70,000 tons of sulphur dioxide can be spewed right across our country and travel upwards towards the Scandinavian countries, with which we have great ethnic ties. I appeal to the Minister to see if funds can be provided from the EC Regional Fund or in some other way for the plant at Moneypoint, because this is all wrong and should not be allowed to happen.

I would now like to refer briefly to a question which has great importance for our capital city and which has a direct bearing on atmospheric pollution and that is in relation to the recent availability of unleaded petrol. Perhaps the Minister should provide some incentive to the public to use unleaded petrol rather than leaving it to the commercial interests to brand their products. The Minister has made a very definite impact in his contribution to protecting the natural environment and this is one area where he could give a lead. It would be a start if the Government decided to use unleaded petrol in State cars and Members of the Oireachtas also decided to use unleaded petrol in their cars. It is that type of lead which would act as a catalyst and incentive for other people to use this brand of petrol to prevent this killing disease in young people — those who pollute at night-time, those who break the law indiscriminately — are very hard to identify. They should be isolated and fined very heavily for any transgressions.

Once again, I compliment the Minister on the speech he made to the House this evening and we are all at one in wholeheartedly endorsing what he said. We need leadership from the Department, some marker, in facing up to the tremendous threat being posed to this country by an ill concerned, selfish and what will now become a commercial nuclear industry not too far away from us. How can we expect to get much consideration from our neighbour, Britain, in our protests against Sellafield when she shows scant regard for the people living within even her own frontiers? The great challenge is to convince those living in Britain that they are facing just as large a threat as we do on this island a short 100 miles or so away.

I welcome this motion. I wish the Minister well in his endeavours to ensure that our island remains to the fore in the area of conservation and protecting our delicate natural environment.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Flynn)

I thank all Deputies who contributed to what I regard as a very important motion. Indeed, I am somewhat flattered by the level of interest shown this evening, the number of Deputies who remained and the number of important contributions made.

Mr. Keating

I believe that had we had advance notice of this issue there would have been an incredibly large number of Members interested.

Mr. Flynn

As the Deputy knows, it is not easy to get a matter like this on the Order Paper at all and, when the opportunity presented itself I grabbed it. The interest shown indicates the new awakening of special interest in environmental matters among the community at large and their representatives. It is flattering to me to observe so many people displaying an interest at this time. For so long there was apathy on the part of the general public and in here with regard to environmental matters, all of which seems to have been swept away in the past couple of years. I do not know what sparked it off but certainly those who express an interest in environmental matters will receive a willing hearing on the part of this Minister. I have always felt that we are all individually responsible for the condition of our environment, that we all have a responsibility not just to what we found when we came into this life by way of the condition of the environment but by way of what we propose doing about its improvement and preservation.

I take the point about awareness. The whole question of developing that awareness of the environment must have an educational dimension. In the recent past I have been talking on a number of occasions to my colleague, the Minister for Education, concerning the matter raised by Deputy Gerard Brady. We are at present talking about a little programme. I take the point made about second-level education but I feel it is better to begin this type of educational process early. I contend that the primary level is the place to begin environmental awareness programmes in the schools curricula. We shall be seeing something done about that before too long. I have always believed that the general public are very responsive when they understand exactly what is afoot and what is expected of them.

Deputy Brady will also be very pleased to know that today we had the first meeting of the steering committee to deal with the promotion and the wider usage of unleaded pertol. The various oil companies, motor manufacturers and distributors, Departments and tourist interests were all present at the inaugural meeting which I addressed earlier today. I know there was not much media coverage — it is an internal matter — but we did begin the process today. We feel we can make a very big impression in so far as getting a better, more balanced and widespread distribution network of unleaded petrol established in the near future. There are at present 26 such outlets. Many of the motor cars of foreign motoring tourists can use only unleaded petrol and there is that incentive to help us develop our tourist potential. Of course I would be particularly concerned that the level of emissions from leaded petrol would be very much reduced over the next couple of years. The committee that began its business today in that regard will help to make the choice more readily available to individuals. It is all a question of choices, anyway. One must always have alternatives available before one can request or press people to do something that is in their best interests.

I take the point on board concerning the whole question of awareness programmes. I am tempted to say something that is going to happen in the not too distant future in that regard. I am not saying it by way of a sort of throwaway remark, hoping that somebody will ask me about it but I want to refrain from referring to something that will happen, in a major way, in so far as that whole area of awareness of the environment is concerned.

Mr. Keating

The Minister knows we will not give him a minute's peace until we find out what that is.

Mr. Flynn

I know that. I should like to refer particularly to the question posed by Deputy Doyle about the Paris and Oslo Conventions in so far as the North Sea is concerned. What the North Sea states decided in relation to the North Sea as far as I am concerned is totally acceptable to us. The decisions taken there were based on scientific studies in relation to the North Sea. We must now decide whether those decisions are relevant to the Irish Sea, based on the scientific studies of that sea. When the repeat of the ICES study is available to us shortly we will be able to take quite a big step forward to enable us to consider, in co-operation with the United Kingdom, what steps of a similar nature must be decided on. Those steps that will have to be taken and applied now to the North Sea that are relevant and should be extended in so far as the Irish Sea is concerned will also be considered. The matter is not being given any kind of lateral treatment.

Mrs. Doyle

Do I understand the Minister correctly, that we will be supporting the North Sea states in relation to their own environment?

Mr. Flynn

As far as I am concerned, what they have done in so far as the North Sea is concerned is totally acceptable to me as Minister——

Mrs. Doyle

——and our representative at the Conventions will be supporting the line of the North Sea states?

Mr. Flynn

I am not saying that because, as the Deputy knows, that is not my responsibility. But to me it is acceptable and I am expecting——

Mrs. Doyle

Will the Minister have a word with his colleague, the Minister for the Marine, about it?

Mr. Flynn

I will not answer for him because we are talking about something different here this evening. At the same time, I take the Deputy's point. She will find that following publication of the report of the ICES study there will be some movement to the betterment of that area also.

I am glad to note all the awareness concerning all of the matters referred to this evening. Mind you, much more than just the ozone layer was talked about. The increase in parliamentary questions on environmental matters in recent years is an indicator of exactly what is happening. For example, there were 46 questions tabled to me yesterday for oral reply, 14 of which had a direct relationship and relevance to environmental matters. That is not so bad.

I welcome the consensus in the House on the need to protect the ozone layer. It is high in the stratosphere and is essential in order to protect us from the harmful ultra-violet rays of the sun. We are now aware of the link between overexposure to sun and the increased incidence of skin cancers. Deputy Doyle referred to that matter. We are also advised to take measures to protect ourselves in strong sunlight, such as the wearing of sun hats, the usage of tanning lotions, protective balming creams or whatever. The scientific view is that the risk to skin cancers will continue to increase if the depletion of the ozone layer continues. The sad aspect about it is that the depletion of the ozone layer is spreading. It is not just a hole in Antarctica; it is spreading up into the Northern hemisphere. The most alarming aspect — I have no way of substantiating this but I believe it to be true — is that it is unlikely that we can ever replace the ozone layer that has been depleted. I know there is conflicting evidence about it, that in perhaps 100 years it might close back or develop itself. But there is now conflicting evidence available that with the rate of depletion taking place there is no possible way, even over centuries, that that slack can be picked up even though the ozone layer might have the facility to regenerate itself. The pace of regeneration is not sufficient to catch up on the depletion that is taking place. It is highly technical and there are conflicting views on it. The point is anyway that we are at present at risk.

Of course, the depletion of the ozone layer is linked to man's activities. There is now widespread agreement that it is the emissions into the atmosphere of man-made chemicals, CFCs that are mainly responsible for the destruction of the ozone in the upper atmosphere. National measures alone cannot reduce this threat to the world's environment. It is through the co-operation of all countries involved in producing and consuming these substances that the ozone layer can be protected. That is why I welcome the Vienna Convention For the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The Montreal Protocol involves controlling production and consumption of CFCs and halons. It requires, first of all, a stabilisation by 1989, of consumption and production at 1986 levels. By 1993 those levels must be reduced by 20 per cent with a further reduction of 30 per cent being required by 1998. Thus, the amount of CFCs available for all purposes will be reduced drastically. The effect of the reduction of the availability of these substances will be to confine their use to areas where alternatives are not available. I believe that to be the most effective procedure to deal with the matter.

The view has been put forward that the use of CFCs in aerosols should be banned and that this would have a more beneficial effect on the environment. Deputy Keating was strong on that point. However, it is the total amount of CFCs emitted to the atmosphere and not its particular source that affects the ozone layer. The Montreal Protocol will deal with all CFC uses. The use of CFCs for purposes other than aerosol is growing throughout the world and this must be controlled. We are not talking about aerosols only but about everything that affects the atmosphere.

Since the Montreal Protocol was agreed in September last, a number of large companies — and this is very pleasing to note — in the aerosol business have decided to move away from using CFCs in their products. Quite a number of the huge manufacturing concerns involved in that business have decided on that course. The effects of consumer organisation campaigns are also very evident. We should get consumer awareness here because nothing stops the manufacturers of CFCs quicker than the fact that their products are not being requested by the multinationals for their shelves. In Britain the largest manufacturers have announced their intention to discontinue using CFCs except for specialist medical and chemical purposes. I welcome that move. Many of the aerosols used in this country are imported from our nearest neighbour so due to no special effort on our part our usage will be reduced annually.

That is not to say we should not give a small lead internationally in our concern. One of the pleasing aspects of taking this debate this evening, as a result of the good fortune that other business had run out, is that I will be able to go to Luxembourg on 16 June and take a lead with our European partners and say that not only are we concerned but that we have given this concern prominence in our national parliament. I will also press the point, which was well made by Deputy De Rossa, that preaching about this in Europe and at home and reducing the usage will be of little comfort if we transport or transfer it to another location in Africa where it will be manufactured and sold, thereby creating the same depletion of the ozone layer in a different locality. Deputy De Rossa's point is well taken and it will be stated in that way at Luxembourg on 16 June.

I also welcome the announcement by the multinational companies of their intention to label their products "CFC-free". That is important. It will be no good if the people buying the products do not understand what it is all about, so the awareness aspect has to be entertained also.

Mr. Keating

Could the Minister regulate for that?

Mr. Flynn

I do not think that would be necessary. We might take on board the question of contact with——

Mr. Keating

Consumer associations.

Mr. Flynn

If that is the suitable vehicle.

Mr. Keating

Or the housewife.

Mr. Flynn

There is a possibility that, because of something which will happen before too long, we might be able to get the necessary air time and visual time on a——

Mr. Keating

Television series.

Mr. Flynn

Yes. It might be possible before too long to get suitable coverage in the infills in order to get better environmental awareness among the Irish people. I will leave it at that for the moment.

Mr. Keating

We will get it out of the Minister by the end of the debate.

Mr. Flynn

No, the date for the launch has been set and I am not going to tell the Deputy what it is. There is an EC Commission proposal on the possibility of introducing a Community label for CFC products. I will raise this matter on behalf of all of us at the Environmental Council meeting next week. I will keep this matter under review and we can consider what action might be required if there is no progress at Community level. That is the way we should look at these matters. If they do not support us in what we want to do we will have to go on our own.

Of course, CFCs are not manufactured in Ireland and our use of the substance has declined considerably. Our trade statistics now show that 95 per cent of our imports of CFCs come from EC countries. The largest volume comes from the United Kingdom and the Netherlands; smaller amounts are imported from France and the Federal Republic of Germany; and most of the 5 per cent imported from non-EC countries comes from Switzerland, with small amounts coming from the United States and Sweden. We should at least know where we buy these CFCs from. Detailed statistics are not available on the use of CFCs within the country. In implementing the Protocol, consideration will be given to its statistical and reporting requirements and any consequential amendments or improvements needed to our own data collection system.

Deputy Boland, who has left the House, referred to the Irish emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide and their contribution to transboundary pollution in Europe. Many people made similar references. I did not intend to deal with this subject during the course of this debate but because it was raised I think I should answer it. International research conducted under the auspices of the European Economic Commission shows that the Irish contribution to transfrontier pollution is negligible. That is the advice we have received. We import more air pollution than we export.

Mr. Keating

Does the Minister know the date of that research?

Mr. Flynn

It was since Moneypoint. The Deputy referred also to the negotiations at EC level on the control of emissions from large combustion plants.

Mrs. Doyle

Would the Minister agree that we cannot demand standards of others that we are not prepared to implement ourselves? This is my fear. I know it is very little relative to the other states but does that justify it continuing?

Mr. Flynn

I spent some time at European level on the SO 2 emissions so far as the large combustion plants are concerned. This issue has come up at every single meeting we have had and it is very difficult to settle. Sometimes it is very difficult for me to preach about it because they say "You have no problem". The big problem comes from the highly industrialised states such as Germany, the UK and Spain. One can get agreement on certain matters but some member states will say "We have been doing a lot, so why are you preaching at us? We are doing the best we can from a very high level". I am starting from no level. If we were to reduce our percentage in the same way as they reduce theirs this would cause us terrible problems because we would be starting from a different base line. However, that has not prevented me from making the case that what is happening in Europe is affecting us. We are suffering from transboundary emissions which are coming our way. On the last occasion I felt that there was a real consciousness about this at Commission level but there will be huge economic problems attached to doing something positive about it. I believe we are close to reaching a decision on that issue. We managed to agree that Irish SO 2 emissions would be stabilised at 124,000 tonnes. That will have to be achieved by the greater use of low sulphur fuels.

Mrs. Doyle

That was agreed to two years ago.

Mr. Flynn

No——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but I feel bound to inform the House that by reason of an order of the House this morning two hours were provided for this debate and that time is now exhausted.

Mr. Flynn

I am sorry a Cheann Comhairle, I thought the debate would end at 7.30 p.m.

Mr. Keating

That was my understanding also.

An Ceann Comhairle

The order of the House this morning said that the debate should not exceed two hours. That time has now transpired.

Mr. Flynn

There are many other matters of interest I should like to have referred to but that will not be possible now. I thank the Deputies for their contributions to the debate. Valuable points were made on a range of issues and it is a pity that more time could not be found for a much wider discussion on a range of environmental matters. If we had more time I believe we would get the awareness needed, not just here but outside also through media coverage. Perhaps that will come too. It is my intention that our policy on the protection of the ozone layer will be kept under regular review and that the measures needed to ensure its effectiveness will be taken. We have just moved away from being called "élitist, late sixties idealists" so far as environmental matters are concerned. That is a big step and I look forward to the continuing support in a unanimous way for the measures put before us in this motion.

Question put and agreed to.