Deputy Jim Mitchell was in possession. His time was almost exhausted as he had two minutes left. As he is not present, I call on the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Flynn.
Private Members' Business. - Smog in Urban Areas: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
"That Dáil Éireann, conscious of the danger to public health of smog in urban areas, conscious that the Minister for the Environment has taken only token steps to address the problem, conscious that the pace of progress set by the Minister is too slow, calls on the Government for a determined programme to eliminate smog as soon as possible.
—(Deputy J. Mitchell.)
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete the words "conscious that the Minister for the Environment has taken only token steps to address the problem, conscious that the pace of progress set by the Minister is too slow."
I am pleased that this important matter is being debated here this evening. After the salutary experience of smog in Dublin up to last weekend and the reactions which it provoked from all sides, I look forward to putting on the record my plans to ensure that the adverse effect of any future combination of smoke levels and weather conditions will be minimised.
I was pleased to hear the other contributions to this debate, especially those from members of the Opposition, who have not been slow to demand action in the last few weeks but who did virtually nothing to deal with the problem when they were in power. Let us not be misled into believing that our recent serious smog was an isolated incident requiring hasty decisions and imprudent measures. Dublin's smoke problem has been in the making for generations. How can it be otherwise when so many people in the Dublin area burn bituminous coal as their primary heating fuel?
The recent smog, admittedly of a sustained and serious nature, is simply the latest in an annual — though usually more short-term — occurrence. There were similar incidents in the last five years including those in which the Opposition parties were in Government. Indeed breaches of the EC levels had been reported to the European Commission every year since 1982. I realise, however, just as I am sure the Opposition realise, that there is no easy solution to a problem of such origins; 80 per cent of the smoke in the Dublin area comes from domestic coal fires and every fireplace in which bituminous coal is burned night after night during the winter and in greater quantities during cold dry weather conditions which give rise to smog. If all those who burned bituminous coal switched voluntarily to burning smokeless coal an immediate improvement would be evident.
I am realistic enough to acknowledge that this will not happen overnight. I must, however, applaud the efforts of residents' associations — and there are many of them — local groups and individuals who decided to take immediate responsibility for improving the air in their own areas by switching to smokeless coal either for the whole winter or when conditions suggest smog. Laudable as these efforts are and much as I welcome them, the need in Dublin to deal directly with the main source of air pollution by ensuring arrangements for space heating, domestic in particular, which will eliminate our smoke problem once and for all, is what we are considering at this time. It cannot be done overnight but we must put in place measures which will enable it to be dealt with in the shortest possible term.
Let me explain the strategy to date. On 8 November I confirmed the Ballyfermot special area control order and put in place a scheme of grants to allow people in the designated area to change over to heating systems which will make sure that there will be no further smoke problems in that part of Ballyfermot. Everybody has accepted that that should be done. This is the first such area designated under the Air Pollution Act, 1987, a measure which was the first legislation brought to the Dáil by the Government. Special control areas are the means envisaged to deal with serious air pollution of long standing and localised areas. Ballyfermot was one such area with the worst record in the long history of the city's smoke problem. It is not right to say that trans-boundary air pollution can somehow cause a continuation of the situation. Smog is localised; when the temperature is around 40º and the wind is at 5 knots or less, you get smog. However, it does not travel very far, it is localised and, consequently, people can make a significant contribution to ease the situation in their own areas even in the short term. Even to change to smokeless fuel for a few days in those conditions would make an enormous contribution.
Combined with the funds available for grant purposes for 1988 and 1989, £1.25 million in total, the designation of the first special controlled area gives the necessary impetus to Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council to advance measures to deal with the smog problem in other areas of the city where monitoring has shown persistent breaches of the EC limit values and our national air quality standards for suspended particles, including smoke.
Last week I met the officials of Dublin County Council and Dublin Corporation to discuss progress with the special control area orders. I was assured that the implementation of the Ballyfermot order would proceed very quickly and that no time would be lost in bringing forward further orders for designation. I understand that an order for a second area of 900 houses in Ballyfermot will be discussed by Dublin Corporation inside a week and that plans are at an advanced stage for the designation of a further 2,000 houses in the Ballyfermot area and some 3,500 houses in Neilstown, Cabra and Crumlin. Possibly a central area such as Mountjoy Square should follow as early as possible in 1989.
Is the Minister changing what he said on 8 November?
Deputy Mitchell had a good hearing and he should give the same good hearing to the Minister.
I understand his problem. Designation involves the imposition of a legal requirement to convert heating systems, where necessary, and it is part of the answer to smoke pollution in seriously affected, localised areas. It is not, however, the only measure on which we can or should rely because it will not solve the problem. Smoke levels, combined with weather conditions in Dublin in November, gave rise to breaches of the EC limits sufficiently serious to require notification to the Commission as required under the relevant directives. Breaches have occurred in Ballyfermot, Cabra, Crumlin, Mountjoy Square, Rathmines, Quarryvale and Neilstown already, although we do not have to report to the Commission until next March.
Let me be quite clear about our position vis-à-vis EC requirements. The start we have made in controlling the smoke problem is part of a plan which aims to eliminate the Dublin smoke problems permanently in a controlled manner in order comply with the EC directive by the end of April 1993, ten years after adoption of the directive — the period recognised by the Commission as necessary to solve the problem, not just in Dublin but in the other cities in Europe where levels have been exceeded. I did not hear much bleating about it until this winter and when somebody is doing something about it by way of legislation and action people are trying to get on the bandwagon——
The Minister's party were in Government ten years ago.
We know who spent the most number of years over the last ten years in Government. We will not go into that. I do not know of any productive measure taken by the Opposition to this end when they were in Government. There have been a number of Ministers for the Environment but I am the first in the history of the State to do anything about the problem and it is hard for the Opposition to recognise that.
The Minister is joking.
Please, Deputy Mitchell, there is a time limit in this debate and interruptions are particularly unwelcome, if not disorderly.
We have lost no time in bringing forward measures to control Dublin's smoke. These measures include the prescribing of air quality standards, including one for suspended particles and smoke, as well as issuing a ministerial directive related to monitoring and the putting in place, after the completion of statutory procedures, of the first special area order. In addition, I have recently made regulations which will introduce a new licensing system for industrial plants that may cause air pollution.
When I announced on 8 November that I had confirmed a special control area order for part of Ballyfermot I made it clear that this was only one of a number of measures I planned to put in place to solve Dublin's smoke problems for once and for all, and not just when it was present. When the wind comes up my resolve does not go away. It is appropriate that I should describe these measures which will, I believe, lead to further significant reductions in some levels in the future. First, I announced that the new house grants in the built-up areas of Dublin city and county would in future be confined to houses designed and equipped with heating systems which will not add to the smoke problem. Detailed arrangements are being worked out to get this new system into place. At the same time similar measures will be taken in relation to new local authority dwellings in the area.
Secondly, to back up the action taken on the housing grants side I am issuing a general policy directive under the Planning Acts to all planning authorities, requiring that, in areas where smoke emissions are a problem, decisions on individual planning applications, whether for new developments or for major reconstructions, should take account of the smoke problem and in particular should take account of the need for combustion appliances and fuels in these areas to be non-polluting. This measure, coupled with the action being take on the housing grants side, will ensure that as new developments take place, whether in the suburbs or on infill sites around the city, they will not add to the existing smoke problems.
Thirdly, I announced that action would be taken either through the existing remedial works scheme or through a special scheme to convert Dublin Corporation's houses and flats to smokeless heating systems where major refurbishment work is being carried out. That is expensive, I have already discussed this aspect with the city manager and I expect to see proposals for particular schemes coming forward without undue delay.
Fourtly, I announced that an information campaign would be developed to advise the public of the advantage of smokeless fuels and heating appliances and the conversion possibilities. I have to put it on record that everyone whom I have met so far has responded magnificiently. That is evident on radio, television and in the newspapers, local and national. The people have responded because they recognise there is a problem and they have some responsibility in that regard. From the figures given to me by suppliers and the increased uptake of smokeless fuels I believe it is taking effect. There has been an enormous upsurge in interest by way of buying smokeless fuels. Deputies here know that to be so.
Proposals for the campaign have already been sought from advertising agencies and I intend that a beginning will be made before Christmas in that regard. That will be a critical time and that is the time we want to get the biggest impact of the publicity campaign for those who can afford to make the personal choice to remove this pollution from the atmosphere. I will be looking particularly to local residents' associations and community groups around the city and county to support this campaign. I am happy to acknowledge that people are phoning and saying they are conscious of the problem and that they are willing to have these matters discussed at their residents' association. They are prepared to take the matter into their own hands and solve their own localised problem. Once the level of smoke is down to a certain degree it will be possible, not in the long term but in a reasonably short period, to find a resolution to this problem that we all accept has to be tackled.
The smoke which pollutes an area during temperature inversion conditions is the smoke actually produced in that area. Deputies here who visit their constituencies, residents' associations and other organisations should bring the message home to the people that the smoke is not blowing in from some place else; it is coming from their own street and their own district. If those who can, take the remedial measures do so, if not over the whole year then just during the period when the alert is on, they can improve dramatically the air in their own areas. This simple fact must be got across to every householder in Dublin. Many of them who can afford smokeless fuels do not buy them and do not convert their heating systems to use other fuels because they do not realise that they are contributing to the smoke pollution which is destroying the amenity of their own locality and degrading the environment in which they and their neighbours live.
I wish that people who have contributed so far had at least gone on record to say that they were personally inviting those organisations with whom they are closely associated to take that personal choice and initiative. I sincerely hope that everybody, whether for or against the Minister, would state loudly and clearly on behalf of us all that he accepts this is one way of achieving a good result this Christmas and in the short term.
The Minister said that three weeks ago in another debate.
I am supporting those who say it. All I am asking is that there would be a consensus that we can relieve much of this problem in the short term. I am having discussions with the suppliers to make sure that it is possible to make that conversion.
In addition to developing measures such as the foregoing, I have had a series of meetings with representatives of almost all the major fuel suppliers in order to impress upon them once again the importance of making smokeless options readily available to the population of Dublin and promoting and marketing the smokeless options aggressively. That is not always easy. The question of supply has to be taken into account. One can do drastic things but one causes more problems downstream. The best way to proceed is to use persuasion to get suppliers to make available these other alternatives in their own areas. That is one of the things that we are achieving now.
Very large sums of money are clearly spent by the major public sector and private companies involved in the energy and fuel supply area in advertising their various products. I want so see a large proportion of that money diverted to the promotion of smokeless appliances and products and to the development of special campaigns, creative publicity arrangements and so on. Now is the time to do that. This problem arises at certain times of the year and it is largely predictable. Long range weather forecasting is accurate enough now to be able to predict some of these times. We must get the best advantage from the promotion and publicity campaigns.
The fuel suppliers are willing to make money available to help out in this matter. I am pleased at the way the campaign is proceeding. There is not just one type of smokeless fuel, there are variations, some of which are not even as expensive as bituminous coal, as has been outlined in a full page advertisement in all the daily papers today. There are alternatives available. They may not be as broadly available as we would like but I am discussing that matter with the suppliers at present. I want to ensure that they have sufficient stocks and that they are available in every outlet which supplies fuel. The publicity campaign will then come into effect and will pin-point the people who have the choice and who will not be very much worse off financially, if at all, because of it. We are asking people to make a personal investment in their own good health and everybody should be supporting that.
Smog affects many areas of the city including those areas where people can well afford to take responsibility for eliminating their contribution to smog by burning smokeless fuels. It is vital that individuals make the connection between the environmental problem we are faced with in Dublin and their own actions. I have already mentioned the commendable efforts of local groups and individuals who have taken the initiative in this regard, but I want people to remember that even when the smog is dispersed the underlying problem remains, that of excessive use of bituminous coal in ordinary open fires. The problem will not be solved overnight. It is possible to make a big dent in it. Certainly it is possible to have the matter well cleared up before 1993. It will require the co-operation not just of the Minister and the Government — by way of financial involvement — but also that of local authorities, fuel suppliers and, more than anybody else, the 300,000 householders in the greater Dublin area who use fuel. They do not all use bituminous coal but many of those who do could make the choice this evening to effect the change that would bring about breathable air in this city.
There are many for whom the option of converting to smokeless heating systems, such as gas, oil, electricity, or a closed solid fuel burner may be too expensive but who could use smokeless fuel in their existing fireplaces at least during smog episodes. Then we could tackle the long-term problem to convert so that they would not be placed under any pressure in the longer term. But in the short term, within the capabilities of their existing heating systems, they could make that choice even for the few days at a time that becomes necessary. It does not constitute a solution but would certainly be taking a positive initiative.
An essential element of my information campaign will be the message that smokeless fuel can be used by anybody with an open fireplace and that it is value for money. There are stories put about that it is difficult to light, that it does not have this or that output. The truth of the matter which will be brought home in the course of the campaign is that, with a little experience, it is quite easy to light and, in most cases, has a greater output. I grant it may not have the same flame effect; not all of the smokeless fuels do but when people understand how to make the best use of it I believe they will make the choice, not merely for the sake of the smoke emitting from their chimneys but because of the heat value that will be radiating from the burning of that type of fuel.
I will be counting on the assistance of the coal industry in this endeavour, on all the coal importers. There are other fuels as well. I have already secured the agreement of the importers to promote smokeless fuels. I have secured the agreement of one coal distributor to reduce significantly, by 55p per bag, the price of smokeless fuel during this campaign. It is not an easy thing to achieve in any circumstance — to get any people in commercial life to take a voluntary cut in the price of their product, sometimes below their profit margin. At least it constitutes a major recognition by the fuel suppliers in this city that they have a responsibility, they know there is a problem, they know that people's health is at risk and they are prepared to do something about it. I have had other people come to me in the Department who have indicated that they will follow suit. Over the next week or two there will be many advertisements promoting smokeless fuels at reduced cost, making it possible for people to make the choice without a fianancial penalty. That constitutes real progress. I should like the House to support it and continue the good work.
There have been many calls for the introduction of smog alerts in recent weeks. I recognise that such measures can be useful in allowing preventive action to be taken on behalf of those most at risk from smoke — the very young, the elderly and those with severe respiratory conditions. I am happy to report that a meeting has taken place already with representatives of the Meteorological Service, Dublin Corporation and the Department and that agreement has been reached on a refinement of existing arrangements to allow for clear early warnings of smog. That is absolutely fundamental — that people would know as long as possible in advance that it will now happen because of the climatic conditions and the temperature control. That will be the time — even if for a short period only — to make the special effort because, in the short term that will reap the result we want.
All of the measures I have mentioned form part of the plan that will substantially reduce the smoke problems in the short term and eliminate them by 1993. Merely throwing money at the problem, contending that perhaps 30,000, 40,000 or 50,000 houses should be designated smokeless, could not achieve that result this winter despite the fact that it might cost £17 million, £18 million or £20 million. Let us at least be practical and realistic: it will cost money — I accept that in the short and long term — but the problem cannot be resolved overnight. The most effective way to bring about a solution is to adopt the measures I am now suggesting.
Other measures which could form part of the plan are being considered. Some of the suggestions made by Deputy Jim Mitchell last evening are being considered. Some of them would be drastic in many respects. Some Deputies asked me to take action which would not be permissible under the law as it stands. Nonetheless I am considering them. Even with the best will in the world, with a bag full of money, I cannot resolve this problem overnight for the very reasons Deputy Mitchell mentioned himself last evening — the availability of plant, conversion prospects and so on. It will take a little time but, collectively, we are on the right road and, if we can get consensus, we can do it. These are all concrete measures to ensure that the problem will be solved within the shortest possible time.
I am also considering what further options may be available to ensure there is no repetition of the extremely high smoke levels of last week, and they were high last week. I shall be announcing the outcome of these deliberations in due course. In the meantime I have no doubt that the accelerated designation of special area orders, the grants available for adaptation, the promotion of smokeless fuels and the other measures to which I have referred, together, can make a significant difference in the short term.
This is not a new problem. I has been growing for years and we all knew about it. It will be solved within a short time. It has to be solved before a particular date in 1993. It can be solved within a shorter period than that, of course it can, but not overnight. People should not endeavour to imply that it could be resolved by some ministerial stroke of the pen or magic wand that no Minister or Government has because it rests on 300,000 people. It is not possible to dictate to them overnight to do anything. However, I am asking them to make certain changes.
Smog has been growing in Dublin for 20 years, indeed long before I came to this city, 30 years ago. When the smog arose it was always put down to bad weather. Today people know about cause and effect and they want action. I agree with them. I support the publicity about how bad this is. Greatly heightened environmental awareness has only come to pass in the past year or two. It was brushed aside by many administrations but not by this one. Indeed it will affect all of our decisions in the future, not just about smog but about water, air waste and everything else. For the first time since the foundation of the State more time is spent in my Department doing something positive about environmental matters whether it be air, water, waste or anything else. Everybody knows that. That is why there is so much talk about it. That is the reason we are devoting more time here to talking about it. I welcome that fact but let us be realistic that we cannot change things overnight.
What was important about last week was that it marked our environmental card for the future. Until very recently the environment was a minority issue only. Now everybody wants to talk about it, it is affecting everybody, and people realise that there is cause and effect, that decisions can be applied that will change the environmental baddies. They see that it can be done. They are asking us to do it, to put our money where our talk is and that must be done too.
Some people advocate that, under section 53 of the Air Pollution Act, the Minister should ban coal or do something drastic like that. In the circumstances that would be crazy unless other products could replace it. Such alternatives are not available this evening and will not be in the immediate future. It may very well happen that one day that will be the position but it cannot be done until such time as there is an alternative so that people are not disadvantaged or discriminated against in any way. Also, remember, that if one did that there would be talk about free trade, about interference with people's rights; I get that all the time. People raise the prospect of job losses or whatever. We do not want to encourage smuggling rackets. We do not want to have measures we cannot enforce. We do not want to be unreasonable with people who cannot afford to make choices now but we must press them to do something to help themselves.
The smokeless alternatives are there and will be as cheap as I can possibly make them. I can tell the House that they have been difficult meetings, perhaps not 100 per cent successful but by and large, successful, much more so than anybody might have predicted. The climate, literally and emotionally, has changed so far as the environment is concerned. This is an environmental problem that has to be solved just like the others whether it be waste, fish kills or whatever, and if one puts certain structures in place one can bring about a good result. The package is already announced, to which hopefully we can add with the support, not merely of the Department, the Government and local authorities but with the consensus of this House, and more particularly that of the 300,000 people who enjoy the warmth and comfort of their fires but who must recognise once and for all that these fires are emitting smoke — even if not in a designated area — that is contributing to the overall general level of smog or smoke in this city. In the light of the financial resources available to those people to change to smokeless fuels, I am asking them to take the initiative, to set the good example already set by several residents' associations on the south side of the city and by a couple on the north side also who are contemplating the same action. Is it not much more important that people would take the resolution available into their own hands, rather than always depending on the Government? Despite our best efforts we cannot do everything. The problem, like many others we are facing, comes down to individual choices. It is extraordinary that everywhere I go people are talking about the smog problems and this is making them make the choice. That is why the volume of briquette sales and sales of coalite and other smokeless fuels has risen. The volume has risen so much that special orders are being placed today to cater for the demand. I welcome that upsurge in demand; we will benefit from it. So far as I am concerned, smog exists in this town. For the first time people are talking about it and about environmental problems. We cannot buy comfort or jobs at the expense of the environment. I have put that marker down for the past couple of weeks and months. We will not sacrifice the environment for comfort or jobs. The solution to this problem is in our own hands. Let us here in the House make the choice this evening to take a stand for the environment and ask everybody to contribute.
I am glad of the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate on this motion. The Minister said that everybody is talking about the problem. Of course they are. It has reached crisis proportions now and we have breached EC limits on smog and smoke pollution on a number of days to the extent that we are now required to formally report the matter to the EC. That is an indication of the seriousness of the problem.
I will willingly give that information to heighten awareness of the problem.
We do not need to have our awareness of the problem heightened. We are all familiar with the major problem we have. What we are doing tonight is trying to find ways to address that problem. The motion on the Order Paper notes that the Minister has taken only token steps to address the problem and it points out that the pace of progress set by the Minister is too slow. The Minister has not just taken token steps in relation to the long term solution. The Air Pollution Act and the area control order he confirms under it, will in time provide a solution to this major environmental and health problem. What we should be doing here tonight is addressing what needs to be done in the short term to address the problem that has now reached crisis proportions. We must home in on that while accepting that the legislation now in place will in the fullness of time present a solution.
I listened to the Minister and some of the Fine Gael Members having a slight argument about whose fault all this was and there was some discussion as to which of the former Governments did not tackle the problem with the energy with which it should have been tackled. Successive Governments are to blame for this problem. Indeed in the seventies Governments did not face up to the problem because the oil crisis at that time caused problems and grant assistance was made available to householders to instal chimneys. That exacerabated the problem because, as we know, it is domestic fires that account for 80 per cent of smoke pollution in this country. Unfortunately the fuel used most frequently in open fires is bituminous coal which is the one that causes the greatest amount of pollution.
The 1987 Air Pollution Act is enabling legislation which provides the Minister with a framework whereby he can issue directives to local authorities and make orders that local authorities should implement. There are major powers in that Act. Under the Act the Minister could dramatically reduce the levels of the predictable pollution when certain weather conditions prevail. The Minister must realise that the smog problem in Dublin and in other densely populated areas has reached crisis point and emergency action is needed to eliminate the resultant very serious public health problems that are being created. Last week the limits were exceeded regularly. This week the weather is milder and the problem is not as great, but it is likely to get worse in the immediate future, because the weather is bound to get colder which will give rise to conditions where temperature inversion is likely to occur. This is something that is predictable and we should devise an action plan that will address the situation we know is about to occur, because we have the capacity now to be accurate in our weather forecasting and consequently we know that if action is not taken the smog problems will get out of hand.
The smoke control order confirmed by the Minister on 8 November last for the pilot scheme in Ballyfermot which comprised about 840 houses has been the first practical attempt by the Government to tackle the problem using their powers under the Air Pollution Act. The Minister knows that this order has run into practical problems on the ground. The Minister will recollect that with a deputation from that part of my constituency, I had a meeting with him yesterday where certain views were expressed about the difficulties in complying with the conditions of the order. I know the Minister has undertaken to examine a lot of what was said at that meeting and to come back in due course having considered it, but he is obviously aware that things are not going as smoothly as he and I would like them to be going.
Another point is that the order has a very limited area of application and its extension to other areas as far as I can gauge will be very slow. One of the very important things about these orders is the time at which they become effective. We have to wait for six months after the Minister signs the order before it becomes compulsory and has to come into effect. At that rate the first area order will not be compulsory until 31 May next and people will not have to convert to approved fuels or appliances until then. This is well into the summer and it is too late to deal with what is mainly a winter problem.
The area orders are also causing a problem in another respect. I consider the order in Ballyfermot to be somewhat counterproductive in that we are now bogged down in discussions about what level of grant will be available for conversion to approved heating systems. Householders outside of the designated areas who had intended converting to gas and other approved fuels on a voluntary basis will now adopt a wait and see attitude until they discover what level of grant will apply. The slowdown in the voluntary conversion rate to clean fuels is unfortunate, but it is a consequence of introducing the area order in Ballyfermot. As I said, I think the level of grant is a problem for the people who intended converting voluntarily.
I mentioned earlier that the short-term problem has to be addressed in a fairly dramatic way. The Minister mentioned the importance of a campaign to inform the public how necessary it was that they should convert to clean fuels, but we need a major public health awareness campaign on the health aspects, particularly on the problems that arise out of the smog we had in the recent past. I do not believe the availability of money, or who qualifies for a grant, is relevant when we measure that against the prospect of shortening people's lives or bringing about an increase in respiratory illnesses. There are many people in the Ballyfermot area who suffer from those illnesses. We cannot lose sight of the fact that on an ongoing basis health care costs will be much more expensive than the long-term solution in eliminating the smoke problem.
I am asking the Minister to bring in an outright ban on bituminous coal and other high smoke content products when temperature inversion conditions are forecast. There are only a few of these days each year, but this move would have the effect of reducing the very severe health problems that arise from smog when temperature inversion conditions exist. As I said, the effective way to fight smog is to ban outright the burning of high smoke content fuels at that time. This has been the experience in other countries. They got rid of their smog problems by implementing an outright ban on days such as I have mentioned.
The crisis of the last week underlines the fact that we must take dramatic action. The Minister might ask what would be the consequences of an outright ban, and particularly how would it affect people who might have difficulty in meeting the extra expense in buying low smoke fuels. As I suggested before, such people should be assisted through the local supplementary welfare allowance scheme to purchase smokeless fuels which are more expensive than bituminous coal. I would ask the Minister to bear in mind that we do not get temperature inversion conditions lasting for more than a few days. To ensure that we do not have a repeat of the conditions of last week, it is necessary to have an outright ban on high smoke content fuel.
People have other options. About 99 per cent of houses have electricity and the Minister said that people who can afford to use clean sources of heating should do so. This brings me back to the public information campaign on the health aspects of this problem and the need to convince people that it is in their interest and in the national interest to opt for smokeless and clean fuels wherever they can.
Another source of fuel the Minister touched on briefly that would comply with the requirements under the area order he confirmed in Ballyfermot, were Bord na Móna peat briquettes. Earlier today we debated the Turf Development Bill and I had some words to say about Bord na Móna's performance generally, but I also mentioned the problems in relation to peat briquettes. As a result of the Minister's area order we have a captive market for a fuel like this. It is disappointing that Bord na Móna have been unable to respond as they should have done. This is an indigenous fuel which emits smoke levels well within EC limits — I think the smoke levels are about 70 per cent less than for Polish or English coal, large quantities of which are burned in this country.
As I see it, there are two problems with peat briquettes. The first is the cost factor. The company have stated they will supply peat briquettes at a cost equivalent in calorific value terms to coal, and that is an improvement, but there is a resistance to briquettes in the Dublin area, basically because people are not as familiar with them as they are in midland areas, and they feel they are not getting good value for money. It is up to Bord na Móna to convince the consumers. They need to heighten their campaign and to bring about a greater awareness of the benefits of using a native fuel like peat briquettes which comply with the smoke level limits the Minister's order demands.
The second problem about Bord na Móna briquettes in an area like Ballyfermot is that there is a need for a distribution and delivery system which suits the people there. They do not have cars. They cannot go to the local supermarket and pick up a bale of briquettes. They are used to having coal delivered regularly in small lots — by the bellman system, as it is known. Bord na Móna need to get such a system in place to penetrate that captive market. As I said, I am disappointed that they have not made the progress they should have done.
In the longer term, the legislation undoubtedly provides a solution but it will take time to come into effect, and I can understand that. I can also understand that there are periods within which people affected by the area order have to be given an opportunity to have their say, but a short-term solution should be implemented, particularly on days when weather conditions cause problems.
Natural gas is an obvious solution if it were used in areas which at present burn high smoke content fuels. Here again it is a matter of bringing together the energy agencies and getting them to put their heads together, especially on the pricing system. This applies particularly to the gas industry. Gas is a major natural resource, it is in abundant supply and it does not emit smoke. It is highly efficient and there is an extensive distribution system already in place.
On the pricing side, the gas company operate a multi-tiered pricing structure and the domestic rate is the most remunerative for the gas company. Any significant uptake by the premium, domestic market would have a major beneficial effect on the gas company's revenue and should lead to major reductions in price. I know the Minister does not have direct responsibility for energy, but in relation to this issue it is very relevant.
It is also possible to bring about a conversion to gas much more speedily than was the case previously. The Minister will recall that the entire conversion to natural gas in Dublin was carried out on time and within budget within a two-year period. It is perfectly feasible to use the same methodology and contractual approach to provide new connections now as was used for the whole conversion process in Dublin. Obviously you must start with the smog-sensitive localities. If you adopted a blanket gas connection programme the cost effectiveness of doing it in that way would also be greatly improved. It would be much more effective in terms of cost to do it that way than by the ad hoc system we have at the moment.
Gas is available in 235,000 houses out of the 300,000 houses in greater Dublin. It is not always easy to get people to use it, but I take the Deputy's point.
I am talking here now about connections. It is an education process and so on that the Minister spoke about earlier. On the cost of gas, I have mentioned the necessity to change the pricing structure in favour of the premium domestic market. I have not heard the Minister say anything about it; if he has done so I have not been listening, but the cost could be further defrayed by having some EC funding available to us. The prospects of getting EC funding for this should be very good in that it complies with directives from the EC regarding maximum utilisation of indigenous European resources. It complies also with other directives regarding improvement of environmental standards. Maybe the Minister should tell us his plans vis-à-vis getting funding for conversion to a clean system of fuel like gas.
I did, but not in the House.
Not in the House tonight. I would like to talk briefly about appliances. They should qualify, too, for EC funding if the energy source itself is going to qualify. The net cost of an appliance to a householder could be greatly improved also by long-term, low interest funding and there are various institutions like underlent building societies who could block lend to the gas company. Consumers could then purchase their appliances. The cost would be amortised over a period of years and the consumers would pay for their appliances through the normal gas billing system. It would make it easier, in other words, for people of little or low means to avail of such a system.
Deputy Mitchell in talking about gas last night commented about gas meters. Ideally, people who have not a high income have always preferred to pay for fuel as they consume it and the old gas meter with the shilling in the slot no longer exists. It has been taken away for various reasons, one of which was a great deal of deal of vandalism. There were numerous break-ins and money was being stolen. There are ways around that to enable people to buy gas as they use it and the gas company informed me today that they are now looking at a new meter operated on a disc basis. In your local shop you can buy a disc for £4 or £5, you put that in the meter and it will give you £4 or £5 worth of gas. Also there is being developed elsewhere an electronic card which seems to be the way of the future for paying for gas as you consume it. These kind of things need to be planned for and co-ordinated. Maybe certain aspects of what I am talking about are not within the Minister's brief; they tend to be energy matters but they are relevant to the smog problem and the desire to get clean fuels in place instead of using bituminous fuels.
We in the Progressive Democrats will be supporting the Fine Gael motion. I reiterate that I think it very important that we have an emergency system in place to deal in the short term with the problems which arise when particular weather conditions prevail. I have said there should be a compulsory ban on the burning of all bituminous coals and high smoke content fuels at that time. The Minister has indicated that he is talking with suppliers to ensure they are going to have readily available sufficient stocks to meet the demands that would arise when those conditions obtained. Of course, other options are available, like electricity which is in virtually every house, and I have said those who have difficulty in paying for any additional cost arising out of such a ban should be assisted through the supplementary welfare scheme.
Does the Deputy really think that banning coal for three or four days could be worked, enforced or supervised?
I would not have said so if I did not believe it.
Somebody buys two bags of coal on a Friday——
It has happened in other countries——
Not in that way.
——where the problem is being taken seriously. Other countries have found that the most effective and best way to deal with it is to have a blanket ban on the use of certain fuels when certain weather conditions prevail. I do not see why the Minister would not consider that as a perfectly reasonable thing to do, given the crisis that existed particularly in Dublin last week. It is a serious health matter and we have to use emergency means to redress it.
Only if it is workable.
I am convinced it would be workable.
If you buy two bags of coal on a Friday and a smog alert says you are going to have high inversion on Tuesday and Wednesday what are you going to do? You are going to burn what you already have in stock because that is the only thing you can afford. You cannot enforce a three-day ban on bituminous coal like that.
The Minister is putting up excuses, possibly without having considered——
No, I am not.
We cannot have a duologue on this.
It is Committee Stage.
Deputy Pat O'Malley to conclude in the next three minutes.
I conclude by restating what I was saying when the Minister entered into dialogue with me. I believe in a blanket ban on the days I have indicated. With weather forecasting systems nowadays it is possible to predict that inversion conditions will arise and on those days a ban should be introduced and any expense involved for people who cannot afford it should be met through the social welfare system. That would be a very effective way of eliminating the problem. It has been done in other countries and if we are to take the issue seriously we have to address it in a serious way. The main cost in society as a result of not doing that is we are going to have major health problems; we are causing problems for young and old people and we are prolonging and giving rise to further increases in respiratory disorders for people who have to live in smog conditions. Such conditions warrant the bringing about of controls.
With your permission, Sir, I would like to share some of my time with Deputy Chris Flood.
Deputy Lawlor, you will have to conclude before 8.15 p.m. if the House agrees to your sharing your time with Deputy Chris Flood.
We might be able to learn from the past and we are here tonight discussing this matter, the seriousness of it, the concerns we have and the decisive action that is needed. One would assume this has occurred only in 1988, but let us look at what has been happening in recent years. A very informed article in this morning's Irish Press states:
It may be cold consolation to choking Dubliners, but the city has experienced worse smog levels than those which have provoked an outcry in recent weeks. The worst on record was in January of 1982, when a smog level of 1,800 micrograms per cubic metre was recorded in the city...
in my constituency—
In the Neilstown area of Clondalkin last weekend, a level of 1,352 was recorded, more than five times the EC limit...
To be fair to the Minister for the Environment, he has put on the record that the releasing of the factual detailed statistical information has created this great awareness, plus the excellent medical attention that people are getting in St. James's Hospital which is directly affected by the problems arising in the Ballyfermot and Clondalkin areas. Medical people are highlighting the problem, and hopefully now we are going to do something about it.
I would point out to the Minister that people in his Department and people at environmental engineering level in the local authorities have been ignoring this problem for some time. In the Neilstown and Rowlagh areas many of the houses are no more than ten years old. We were well aware of the difficulties of other European capitals in that period, yet very little in the way of proper engineering design and facilities was provided.
The root of this problem is in the oil crisis of the seventies. In my own constituency in one 400-house estate that had warm air electric heating installed, this was ripped out when there was a hike in oil prices and there was a reversion to solid fuel and open fireplaces. What the people with full-time responsibility in the local authorities were doing in relation to this problem, I do not know. Perhaps they did give warnings but were ignored. In any event what happened showed a great lack of awareness of what was likely to develop.
We are now addressing the situation and it will be difficult. The Minister has put on record here this evening certain actions that can be taken. I fully agree with him and welcome the programme of Dublin Corporation to address this issue by ensuring that upgrading of flats and other housing stock will include facilities that will not add to the air pollution problem. This Minister for the Environment brought in the Air Pollution Control Bill last year and it is now on the Statute Book. He is now following up with these various smokeless zone orders. I think it is ill advised and negative on the part of Dublin Corporation to take a square block of 800 houses in an area of up to 6,000 houses in Ballyfermot and go forward with that sort of limited smokeless zone area.
The Minister made them do it. They were told to do it.
We have to address the situation now. At least the Minister is doing a lot more. I do not want to go into it now. I have just referred to the fact that in 1982 we had the worst ever recorded levels of smog in this city.
Fianna Fáil were in power as well.
We will not get into an argument. We are now all aware of it and are debating it and are going to take some action on it. I would urge the Minister to ensure that whatever scheme is being introduced it does not end up with a whole lot of excessive costings. So many of the grant schemes that we abolished on coming back into power were overspending and wasteful and I have a feeling that we may rush headlong into the same situation again with prices for various pieces of equipment being automatically jacked up because there is a grant scheme. The Minister met a delegation from an area in my constituency in Ballyfermot and they explained to the Minister the quotations they were receiving for fixtures and fittings, and he is grant-aiding to the tune of 100 per cent. There seem to be anomalies emerging already in the figures. The Minister and his officials took note. I would like to make sure that we are going to get value for money.
I would also like to know what EOLAS are doing on this testing. How long more is it going to take to test this smoke eater or whatever the unit is? Why was it not done long ago? What have they been doing for all of the eighties? What were they doing in 1982 when the levels were as high as they were? Where is the urgency at official level? The debate is going on now at a political level, but there are people with full-time responsibility for these matters and they have failed us miserably. Dáil Deputies representing Dublin west, including Ballyfermot, Neilstown and Rowlagh felt quite aggrieved on seeing in recent days and weeks the problems we are having with smog in those areas. We should endeavour to reach a consensus here tonight on the element of self-help in this situation. People can improve the environment.
Then there is that select group of people who require protection and who cannot afford to buy the products that we would like them to buy. I am asking the Minister to ensure that any support mechanisms he introduces will be effective and practical. I would also like to ensure that no PR company now embarks on a national television advertising campaign when we could focus on a practical localised campaign which would bring about a much more decisive solution.
The Minister has highlighted about 800 homes in the Dublin area and that is where the spending and awareness campaign should be carried out. It should be a community-led campaign of awareness, a clean air campaign in these areas. I sincerely hope that the programme being drafted and the campaign envisaged will be carried out in the areas where its impact is most needed.
I agree with Deputy O'Malley's comments as to what the ESB and Dublin Gas were doing. Here are two national bodies with basic resources. The ESB have surplus electricity generating capacity and will not provide it at an economic rate to people who could use storage heating. Dublin Gas now cannot keep up with the demand to pipe the gas into homes. Why did we not make it a condition of every planning permission in the last 15 or 20 years that houses would be piped for gas just as they are piped for television? Now we will be going out digging up every side street and road in the county to try to put in gas and so forth. It amounts to absolute mismanagement and incompetence.
I sincerely hope the Minister, in overseeing this campaign, will not be overly dependent on those who helped to get us into the dilemma we are in in this city and in my constituency in particular. Why cannot the Dublin Gas Company, who tell us the banks are stuffed with money, put some imaginative package together in co-operation with the banks or with building societies, or provide for payment for equipment by putting it on the price of the therm to rapidly grapple with the problem and bring about an eventual solution?
It might not be practical to put a total ban on the sale of the fuels that cause the real problem. If we could do that, would it not be better to ban it outright and to have a whole publicity campaign with grant schemes and spending of money so that one fell stroke could do the job? I appreciate the Minister's dilemma. If we rush into a total ban there could be smuggling and illegal trading and all sorts of problems and we would replace money lending with illegal coal sales or something.
The House should accept that the Minister is now taking decisive action, however belated, to deal with the problem and should be supported. I feel the House should not divide on the issue. I appreciate my constituency colleague, Deputy Mitchell, put down this motion and gave up his party's time on Private Members' Business and wishes to push it to a vote. If that is the way it is to conclude, be that as it may. I would prefer that we could be seen to be tackling this problem as one. I would urge the Minister to take note that the ESB, Dublin Gas and environmental experts in the local authorities and in his own Department are the people who should be taken to task for creating the situation that has arisen. Secondly, the operations should be overseen so that they do not waste taxpayers' money and fail to solve the problem. I should like to compliment the Minister on the action he has taken. There is not an instant solution to the smog problem but the Minister has taken a major step in the right direction.
I should like to touch on a point referred to by Deputy Lawlor and others and it relates to the question of a ban. I do not think the introduction of a ban would be a practical proposition. In fact, it would mean that we would be returning to the era of the "glimmerman" of old. I do not think it would be possible to police such a ban and it would create a whole new bureaucracy which we cannot afford. The most regrettable aspect of the issue we are discussing tonight is that the high smoke levels leading to smog have been around Dublin for the last two decades. Notwithstanding that nothing has been done to effectively arrest that problem. Measures have not been initiated to remove the root cause of smog in our cities, particularly in Dublin. We had to wait until the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Flynn, took control of the Department of the Environment.
Cities abroad affected by smog took initiatives to deal with it. I am referring to cities like London, Glasgow and Belfast. I understand that Belfast hope to be smog-free in six years time, some 25 years after they established their first clean air zone. I make those points about those cities because, just as the problem has been recognised in regard to Dublin, it is one that cannot be solved overnight. It will take a long time to solve it.
The Minister for the Environment has shown by the urgency of his actions that he intends to ensure that major improvements will take place soon. It is worth noting that 300,000 homes in the Dublin area burn solid fuel and that much of it is heavily laden with ingredients which under certain weather conditions clog up the atmosphere and give rise to smog. There is no doubt that smog worsens the health of men, women and children. Therefore, it behoves all of us to work together to try to deal with that problem and not have our hospitals filling up with people suffering from the effects of smog.
I wish to acknowledge that many people contacted me expressing their concern about this problem. I have been asked by them to convey to the Minister the need for urgent action. Many of those people have offered to help to alleviate the problem in their own area. As the Minister said, the problem of smog is very much a localised one and we must welcome the offers of help from local associations and others. I am pleased that the Minister has adopted such positive steps to date and committed resources to try to deal with the problem. He has put money on the table for the first time. His determination to make progress in the matter is well documented and he has outlined the measures he proposes taking, particularly the allocation between 1988 and 1989 of £1.2 million to support the schemes he has introduced. The Minister has said he hopes to extend those schemes to areas outside Ballyfermot in the months ahead. He was referring to areas such as Rathmines, Mountjoy Square and Neilstown where Dublin County Council will have a role to play.
I agree with the Minister that we must work together. A team effort is required if we are to eliminate smog. I should like to touch on the role that energy agencies can play in regard to this, with particular reference to Dublin Gas. I should like to appeal to that company to develop their own plan to extend the gas grid to housing estates in Dublin that are not connected to the system. In some estates underground gas supplies are available in certain houses but not in others. Dublin Gas should participate in the Minister's scheme. They should extend underground gas supplies to all the houses referred to by the Minister. The Minister told us that 237,000 houses in Dublin have gas but I would like to see the gas system extended to them all.
The Minister has made a positive commitment to eliminate smog and it is supported by the allocation of money. He has given us an indication of his commitment to deal with the problem and if he gets the support of the energy agencies and of local associations, who have pledged support, we will eliminate the problem once and for all. It is important to point out that we will not be able to eliminate it overnight but it can be done over a short period. The Minister has made a good start by putting money on the table and we must support him, and the Government in their efforts.
I will speak for five minutes and then give way to Deputy Shatter, if the House agrees.
I think we can anticipate formal agreement to that arrangement.
I admire the Minister's ability to troop his Deputies into the House and into the lobbies, to reject the notion that he has been delaying on this issue. Members present in the House for the Order of Business in recent weeks will recall that he sat smiling as he was asked what he intended to do about smoke-free zones, regulations and so on. There was not a budge out of him. The plain truth is that the measures he announced tonight will only work in the long term, and in the very long term at that. He referred to new house grants, new buildings, refurbishing of houses and flats in Dublin but that is pie in the sky. It will not happen between now and the end of this winter and the Minister is aware of that. The Minister is aware that the areas zoned by him will not be smoke-free between now and the end of the winter. They will not be smoke free until late next year. The plain truth is that the Government have at their disposal methods to deal with this problem promptly and effectively. Under section 25 of the Bill referred to the Minister has the right to put in place a regulation dealing with emission levels of smoke from premises during smog alerts. That power can be used by the Minister tomorrow morning and during smog alerts people would be required to burn non-polluting fuels. That applies to industries and householders.
A Deputy suggested that that might bring back the "glimmerman" but, obviously, we will not seek to enforce this by locking people up in our jails. It is important to remember, however, that there is a lot of moral support for a change. There is a need to give clear leadership in view of the urgency of this matter. Smoke-free zones in two per cent of the city will not give an indication of a degree of urgency. The extra cost maximum for a full week of smoke alert for a householder would be £1.50. For those heating their rooms by open fire — that represents 40 per cent of Dublin houses — it would be cheaper for them to switch to direct electric or bottled gas heating for the week. We are not talking about enormous costs on householders. Those on social welfare and eligible for assistance under the fuel scheme should be aided by the Minister for Social Welfare. The Minister for the Environment should suggest that those people be given extra money if it is needed during smog alerts.
The other instrument immediately available to the Government is to change the ridiculous tax structure on home heating fuels. Oil, a clean fuel, is taxed at 23 per cent and coal, the main polluter, is taxed at 10 per cent. That is ludicrous and it should be reversed. It could be done by order of the Minister. To be fair I must say that the Minister has to carry the can for the Minister for Energy who repeatedly in the last two years refused to do anything about an effective conservation policy. Burning fuel in an open fire is massively wasteful. As a country we are wasting up to £100 million per year by using fuel in open fires in a way that creates a maximum amount of smog and the least amount of heat. I have been trying to get the Minister to cotton on to that but he has refused to do anything about it. In his book conservation is the lowest of the low in priorities. Now we see that it is a real issue and it has taken the smog alert to bring it to the fore. The Minister should consult with the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Social Welfare about the problem. It is about time that instead of perpetuating low income families on bad heating systems we had a decent fuel programme for them that will provide insulation and a clean and efficient heating system. They are being given £5 per week to use the worst possible fuel.
It is important to be conscious of what our motion is about. Our motion refers to the Minister taking only token steps to address the problem and it is critical of the Minister for the lack of progress he has been making. I want to recall, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that for weeks from the commencement of this Dáil and, indeed, during last spring until the Dáil went into recess, members of this party, including Deputy Mitchell, regularly raised this issue. Indeed, it took a number of weeks for the Minister to make the Ballyfermot order, limited though it is, following regular calls from Opposition Deputies to make that order.
On 15 November last Deputy Mitchell and I again raised the problem of smog in Dublin on an Adjournment debate. The busy ministerial meetings that have been taking place in the last ten days, when the Minister has been meeting corporation and county council officials and directors of the various firms who supply fuel in this city, only took place as a result of our raising the problem on an Adjournment debate, on an evening when this Chamber was filled with the smog that was polluting Dublin. I want to reiterate what I said that night. It is clear from everything the Minister said today, both in the context of Dáil questions on the issue, and in the context of his response this evening, that he still does not have in place the necessary comprehensive Dublin action plan that is required to tackle the problem of smog that is polluting the city and county of Dublin.
We have a temporary release from the problem this week because of the change in the weather. It will be back with us again, if not next week, then the following week. What is being done at this stage still does not recognise the urgent necessity to take immediate action. In response to Dáil questions today the Minister indicated that the Ballyfermot area order may be extended in the months ahead when Dublin Corporation finally get their act together. He indicated that maybe by February or March he would be considering orders to cover Cabra and Crumlin despite the fact that he mentioned Rathmines, Mountjoy Square, Neilstown and indeed other areas, as suffering smog pollution away above EC limits in the last three weeks.
There is no plan to indicate by what date smoke-free zones, or smoke controlled zones, will be extended to those areas. What we need to do is to extend dramatically the smoke-free zones or smoke controlled areas, throughout major portions of the city and county of Dublin. If the corporation and county council officials are not showing the necessary urgency, the Minister has the power to issue directions under the Air Pollution Act to require that speedier action be taken. We have invited him, from this side of the House, to bring in amending legislation so that the necessary lengthy procedure we have under the Air Pollution Act — a procedure which is not designed to deal with an emergency, which is what we have in Dublin city and county — can be reduced and so that the timescale for making smoke controlled zones, or bringing them into being can also be reduced. The necessary legislation should be brought before this House and it would be supported, I have no doubt, by all parties. There has been no indication that he intends to bring such amending legislation before this House. There is no indication that he will use the necessary speed required to extend smoke free zones or smoke controlled areas; I would predict that if the Minister is still Minister for the Environment this time next year this city and county will have exactly the same problems as some of the areas have experienced in the last few weeks and smog levels well above EC limits. This time next year they still will not be within smoke controlled zones.
It is extraordinary that the Minister should raise the matter again this evening. The approach he has taken is to urge people in Dublin to take voluntary action themselves. I agree that they should. There are many people who can take voluntary action, but what is extraordinary about the Minister raising it is that two weeks ago it was pointed out to him in this House that regulations he has introduced to provide grants in the Ballyfermot area are a direct disincentive to anybody, anywhere else in Dublin, taking remedial action to provide new forms of heating in their houses. The reason is that people in Ballyfermot who converted to gas during the summer have been told that they are now excluded from the financial assistance that is available to those people who did nothing until the smoke controlled zone order was made. People living in Neilstown, Crumlin or Cabra who do not have the finance to change their heating systems easily but who would like to see this done will not do it this week, or next week, or next month but will wait until the Minister gets out of his lethargy and turns their areas into smoke controlled zones. The grant system that is operating is a direct disincentive for those people who are suffering most from smog taking action themselves, within their own community, to turn to alternative heating systems.
During the last three weeks we have had regular stories in the newspapers about the fact that the Minister is about to act, he is about to do this and that.
Indeed, we have seen some national papers being confused by running similar stories on a daily basis, written by different reporters about the action he is about to take. In effect, the people and the citizens of Dublin have been subjected to what could best be described as a political smog screen, a smog screen designed to cover up a lack of action on an issue that requires immediate action and requires a degree of priority being allocated to it that has not been allocated to date.
It is very sad that the Minister should come into the House this evening and tell us that the aim is to eliminate the problem by 1993. There are elderly people suffering from respiratory problems. There are people who suffer from bronchial conditions. There are people whose lives are being placed at risk by the type of smog we have experienced in Dublin. We have a duty in this House to take action to ensure that this problem will be eliminated before 1993. In so far as existing legislation is inadequate to tackle the problem, we have an obligation to change that legislation. In so far as there is lethargy on the part of local authorities or, indeed, on the part of the officials in the Department, we have an obligation to shift them out of their lethargy and require the extension of smoke controlled zones throughout the city and county where they are most needed.
In the context of educating the general public to take action themselves Deputy Mitchell and myself, on 15 November, urged that a television advertising campaign or a radio advertising campaign, to urge people, where they can do so, to use smoke-free fuels should be undertaken. We pointed out how ludicrous it was for the State to be sponsoring a campaign to encourage people to use lead free petrol, which is virtually unpurchasable in the State because there are so few garages that sell it, at a time when there is a need to urge people to use smoke-free fuels. The Minister came into the House this evening and told us there may be an advertising campaign around Christmas, because that is the time when people burn most coal. I have news for the Minister. If next week or the following week the weather goes as cold as it was last week people will be burning the same amount of coal in early December as they may burn at Christmas and they will be burning it in January and in February. When the Minister made that remark I was wondering whether he was making a prediction that the next weather inversion will take place on 25 December next. Has somebody indicated to him that the weather is not going to deteriorate again before 25 December but on Christmas Day we will have another inversion and it will not happen again thereafter?
Another form of white Christmas.
Are we going to have a smog-free free Christmas or are we going to have a smoggy Christmas?
It is not the Deputy's best effort.
The Deputy is under pressure.
The only thing the Minister will get an award for is for retaining a sense of humour. The difficulty is that the people of Dublin find it very difficult to laugh when they have to suffer the type of conditions which they have been stuck with in the last few weeks while the Minister has been issuing happy press releases and engaging in a public relations campaign. To suggest action was being taken when the reality is that no action of any nature whatsoever has been taken to substantially change the position, nothing of substance has been done——
When the Deputy's party were in office what did they do?
(Interruptions.)
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 74; Níl, 72.
Tá
- Abbot, Henry.
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Matthew.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Browne, John.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary T.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, William Gerard.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Hilliard, Colm Michael.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lynch, Michael.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- Mooney, Mary.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Swift, Brian.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bell, Michael.
- Birmingham, George.
- Boland, John.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Colley, Anne.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Farrelly, John V.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gibbons, Martin Patrick.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harney, Mary.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCoy, John S.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Malley, Pat.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Wyse, Pearse.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and D. Ahern; Níl, Deputies J. Higgins and Boylan.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.