Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Nov 2003

Vol. 575 No. 4

Other Questions. - EU Directives.

Joe Sherlock

Question:

48 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for the Environment Heritage and Local Government the number of cases in which the European Commission has initiated legal action, or announced that it intends to take legal action, arising from the failure by this country to implement EU directives for which his Department has responsibility; the steps he is taking to ensure that all these directives are implemented in full; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28456/03]

The European Commission has initiated seven legal actions in respect of the failure to implement EU directives in areas for which my Department has responsibility. The first six cases concern directives which address dangerous substances in water, the protection of water against pollution by nitrates from agriculture, the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, commonly known as environmental impact assessments, the keeping of wild animals in zoos, the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms into the environment and end-of-life vehicles. The seventh case concerns a number of waste issues. One such issue is the Environmental Protection Agency's progress in the licensing of municipal waste landfill and the establishment of regulatory control of waste activities by the agency and local authorities.

Legislation is in place in respect of each of the above directives. The legal actions by the European Commission relate to issues of transposition and implementation. The Commission recently indicated its intention to withdraw the action on the zoos directive. A further legal action has been notified to Ireland which concerns the reporting requirements under an EU regulation on ozone depleting substances.

In his reply, the Minister did not refer to the case which relates to the €20 fee imposed where a person wishes to make a submission on a planning application. What is the status of the EU legal action in respect of the fee? I understand the Commission decided in July to proceed to the European Court with the action.

I must admit that the Deputy is correct. We have been in contact with the Commission, but the issue remains unresolved. I regret the omission of a reference to the case in my reply. It should have been included.

What is happening with the case? The Commission informed the Government some time ago that it considered the €20 fee to constitute a breach of European law. Does the Government plan to abolish the fee now or will the Minister wait until after the country has been dragged at considerable cost and embarrassment before the European Court?

I am taking the best advice available to me. I have no plans to abolish the €20 fee, but that is not to say I am prepared to waste taxpayers' money to pursue a goal which cannot be achieved. The imposition of the fee is reasonable and fair and the Commission is incorrect in its view. Exploratory discussions of the legal approach we will take have occurred and communications have been sent to the Commission. I am waiting to see what further action I will take. The file on the matter has not come back to me recently.

The Minister said that various Acts have been introduced to implement the directives he mentioned in his reply. I note he said the case on the zoos directive has been withdrawn. Has the Minister established why the Commission is proceeding with the other cases given that Ireland has addressed the difficulties by enacting legislation? Is it the case that the Commission has rejected the responses the Minister has made? Is the Commission of the opinion that the legislation which has been enacted is inadequate?

That is a good question and I will answer it. As every Member is aware, I have made regulations in recent months concerning the keeping of wild animals in zoos, the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms into the environment, the quality of petrol and diesel, end-of-life vehicles and the protection of the environment. I have provided for the transposition of directives and integrated pollution prevention control.

The simple reason for the Commission's actions is bureaucracy. The machinery involved means there is a time lapse between notification and action. I am amazed at how long it takes in some instances before the Commission writes to inform one it is no longer pursuing a case. It can be a year after one has sorted everything out before the Commission gets around to acknowledging it. This is not just an Irish perspective as legal actions are very common across Europe. In 2001, the Commission took 71 cases against member states in the European Court under environmental directives. Once the Commission has been notified that directives have been transposed and regulations put in place, there can be quite a time lag before acknowledgement is received.

Does the Minister accept that there is difficulty in getting the message on both sides? The Government has been sent at least three warnings on its failure to comply with wild birds and habitats directives. Is there a need to be more effective in implementing the provisions of EU directives? Ireland's failure to transpose the ground water directive has been severely criticised and court action is pending. Does the Minister agree that not transposing these directives is an expensive game to play, given the court action taken involving Coillte that has cost the Government, or whoever has to pay it, millions in terms of grants which were misspent and which should have gone to farmers but instead went to Coillte? Are we not clear about the fact that this is, in many cases, an expensive transgression by the Government and that we need to avoid wasting taxpayers' money and transpose these directives?

I have no intention of wasting taxpayers' money. My objective in using taxpayers' money is to get the maximum value out of it. Question No. 77 from the Deputy's colleague specifically relates to the €20 fee. I did not realise that when I answered the question. On 22 July 2003 the European Commission issued a press release in which it stated its intention to refer the case to the European Court of Justice. No official communication has been received from the Commission to date and I have no proposals to amend the relevant regulations which reflect an approach recently endorsed by the Oireachtas in the context of the Planning and Development Act 2000.

Top
Share