JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT debate -
Wednesday, 21 Jul 2004

EU Infringement Proceedings on Environmental Issues: Presentation.

Chairman

I welcome Mr. Tom O'Mahony, assistant secretary at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and his colleagues, Dr. Alan Craig, Mr. Owen Ryan, Mr. Jason Kearney and Mr. Bernard Moloney. Members will have received a copy of Mr. O'Mahony's presentation but we will now hear his response to the allegations before taking questions from members.

I remind witnesses of the absolute privilege accorded to members of the committee; witnesses appearing before the committee do not enjoy the same privilege. I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Mr. Tom O’Mahony

I thank the Chairman for the chance to brief the committee on this issue. Detailing my colleagues' respective roles may be helpful in dealing with questions later. Dr. Alan Craig is a director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and is, therefore, involved with the implementation in Ireland of the birds and habitats directives, the nature and conservation legislation of the EU as well as our national legislation in that area. Mr. Owen Ryan is a principal officer in our environment division, with particular oversight in our dealings with the EU and Mr. Jason Kearney is an assistant principal in our waste infrastructure and regulation section and Mr. Bernard Maloney works with Mr. Ryan on our EU and international environmental policy responsibilities.

The brief we put together for today's meeting is quite detailed and goes through the nine areas raised in the EU Commission press release last Wednesday. I do not propose to go through it in very great detail but I would like to introduce what is in it briefly, comment on it and then deal with individual questions. I have some general comments on infringements and on how the EU does its business. The infringements process is the routine way in which the Commission deals with member states when it comes to the transposition and implementation of European law. If the Commission feels that something has not been done properly, has not been transposed into Irish law in a way which reflects the original directive or that Ireland is not implementing the law fully or misinterpreting its provisions, or that we are not getting everything sorted out as quickly as they wish, which often happens, the only mechanism available to them to deal with this issue is to start the process which begins with a letter of first warning and moves on to various other stages. This can, in certain circumstances, culminate in bringing us to the European Court of Justice in the event that the issue has not been resolved at an earlier stage. Ultimately, in the event that the ruling of the European Court of Justice was not implemented to the Commission's satisfaction, the final stage in the process, which, thankfully, Ireland has never reached, would be to be back at the European Court of Justice for the imposition of substantial daily fines. At any point, there will be a number of infringement proceedings against Ireland and other member state. The reason there was a lot of publicity about this last week is because the European Commission had a meeting, as it does every six months, to review the state of progress in all these cases with the various member states and put out a series of press releases, one for each country, which set out the state of play.

The reasons we can be in this situation of infringement or dispute with the Commission are varied. It can frequently be the case that there is a difference of opinion between the Commission and ourselves on how something should be implemented. It may happen occasionally that Ireland will decide the appropriate thing to do is to let the issue go the whole way to the European Court and be decided there. We may believe that what the Commission wants us to do is wrong.

Chairman

Could Mr. O'Mahony give an example of where this might have occurred in the past?

Mr. O’Mahony

There is a very appropriate example. As many members will recall, I was sitting here just three or four weeks ago discussing the nitrates directive. The nitrates directive is a case where Ireland was brought the whole way to the European Court of Justice and there was a finding against it. Ireland had taken a position over a number of years that particular steps we were taking met the spirit of the nitrates directive. A number of other member states also took that position. Ultimately, the EU took the position that the letter of the directive would have to be implemented and brought us and a number of other member states to the European Court. Members will recall from the discussion three or four weeks ago that there was probably a general consensus in the committee that the Commission is wrong, and continues to be wrong. The issue boils down to whether it is necessary and appropriate to have a general limit of 170 kg for land spreading of organic nitrogen in Ireland. All the scientific evidence is that this is not the case. We fought this as far as we could to the European Court, and the court found against us. We will be brought back to the European Court with the prospect of daily fines unless we can deal with the issue. It is probably not necessary to go over the ground we covered a few weeks ago. We must now submit an action programme to the Commission, which meets its requirements, while at the same time seeking a derogation for land spreading at the higher amount. This is a good example of a case where the authorities in Ireland and the Government would have been criticised, and rightly so, if, before the issue got to the European Court, we conceded our ground to the Commission. We would then have been told that the Commission is wrong and we should have taken it to the final stage open to us.

A common area where there will be infringement proceedings is where the Commission is just not happy with the pace at which we are doing things. There is a huge volume of environmental legislation. We point out in the brief that approximately 200 items of EU environmental legislation, including more than 140 directives, have been adopted. All of these must be transposed. Ireland, in general, is extremely good at transposing directives. The figure is currently 98.8% in terms of transposition, and we are among the top few countries in the European Union. One could say transposition is the easy part and sometimes the actual implementation on the ground is more difficult. Quite often to implement an EU directive, one may have to put in place a whole range of measures. Very often one must get into consultation with stakeholders. In Ireland, possibly more so than in some member states, we have had a very successful social partnership model for a long time where it is now expected by various stakeholders that they do have a real say, input or consultation when Government policy that will affect them is being implemented. This can be the case in regard to environmental directives, whether with farm organisations, business or any other stakeholder. Sometimes there may be a substantial process of negotiation and consultation as part of the implementation process, which can slow up the process.

Recently I have been dealing with the farm organisations on issues around the implementation of the habitats directive, particularly the designation of SACs. It is well known there have been issues about the way in which this directive has been dealt with on the ground. It is European and national law which must be implemented. In doing so, it is preferable to do it in a situation where the stakeholders have been persuaded of the need to do it and given whatever they can be given in terms of reassurances about the manner in which it will be done. In certain cases, compensation arises. It is preferable that this should be dealt with on the basis that the stakeholders are happy with the compensation they are receiving. This enables us to implement the directive in a way that is broadly acceptable, rather than finding ourselves in the situation in which we have found ourselves in the past where farmers have notices up telling Government officials to keep off the land.

Sometimes we need to do things in Ireland in order to ensure that implementation can proceed in a satisfactory manner. However, doing these things can take time. The Commission gets impatient and ups the ante by threatening legal proceedings against us. This is a gun to our heads, which can sometimes be quite useful because it helps to make the stakeholders aware there is pressure on us to resolve the matter quickly. In the area of SACs specifically, there have been extremely good negotiations with the farm organisations over the past year. I am now extremely hopeful that possibly within a matter of days, these negotiations will be completed successfully and we will reach agreement on what members of the committee in rural areas in particular will be aware has been quite a bone of contention for a considerable time. I believe we have this issue sorted out. However, the length of time it has taken to sort it out has meant we have fallen foul of the Commission in regard to some of the areas.

There is another area where I would have to concede something is happening on the ground which should not be happening, and we have not properly prevented it. An obvious example is illegal dumping. The Commission would argue that this country has not been as strong as it should be in terms of enforcement. This was an escalating problem for a period. A number of solutions have been put in place but the most substantial of them has been the establishment of the Office of Environmental Enforcement as part of the EPA. The Commission has recognised this is a substantial step towards reducing the extent to which we are held to be in default in terms of our obligations.

I will leave it at that because there is a lot of detail in the brief. I am not sure on what areas members of the committee might want to focus. Waters are dealt with by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. We have briefing material, but we would be fairly limited in our response to any probing on the issue because we do not deal with those ourselves.

Deputy Allen

I am unhappy with the way we are doing our business. Before the meeting began we received a copy of the Department's response to our request. It is a detailed and complex document on which we are now expected to ask informed questions.

Chairman

At last week's meeting it was proposed that the joint committee would meet today. At very short notice, officials agreed to come to the committee and the document was placed in the pigeon holes of all committee members before lunch time today.

Deputy Allen

I was unaware of that. I did not get the document. It was at my request that the officials were asked to come to this meeting. This is a complex document on which I would like to ask informed questions. I would like to have been in a position to do so. It may be that we are too efficient.

It was stated that waste management is still unsatisfactory. At previous sessions we discussed the need for North-South co-operation on environmental issues, particularly the illegal exportation of waste from this jurisdiction to Northern Ireland and the flagrant breach of the law in that regard. A recent North-South Ministerial Council joint secretariat report on the environmental sector appears to show no priority being given to the control of the exportation of illegal waste from South to North. There is mention of co-ordinated implementation of the EU water directive, the development of an all-Ireland strategic approach to market development for recyclable material and continuing work on a scoping study of the main environmental impacts of agriculture, including an inventory of relevant management practices and controls. There is reference to an initial work programme aimed at developing opportunities for information exchange and raising environmental awareness in areas of common interest, which was taken forward in 2003. There is no mention of a joint approach to control of the transport of illegal materials, such as toxic building rubble, or the illegal export of such materials to the northern jurisdiction. Is this an oversight? I am trying to make up questions on the hoof. What controls are in place or are proposed to be put in place to deal with unauthorised activities of waste management under the heading, "Existing Infringement Cases", where the Commission has issued a second and final warning? What joint approach is being taken?

In October 2002, I asked a parliamentary question regarding the number of cases in which the EU Commission had initiated legal action or announced its intention to take legal action. I was informed that one of the cases related to the quality of drinking water. I presume that matter has been cleared up. The second case related to the nitrates directive, which is ongoing. The third case concerned the quality of shellfish waters, Directive 923. Is that ongoing? How can it be ongoing since 2002 when we were told the EU was taking legal action on the issue? The fourth case concerned the dangerous substances directive. That is linked to the Local Government (Water Pollution) Acts. I would like an update on that. The fifth case related to the waste issues, which we are discussing today, including progress on the licensing of municipal waste landfills and the regulatory control of waste activities by the local authorities and the EPA. I was told the deadline for that matter had been extended to 30 October 2002 and that a defence had been submitted to the European Union. Is that case ongoing?

Council Directive 2003/87 EC relates to an allowance trading scheme for greenhouse gas emissions. The deadline for this directive was 31 December 2003 and the Minister made regulations transposing the directive fully into Irish law on 14 July 2004. I assume that these regulations should come before this committee for consideration. I cannot remember this one being considered or vetted.

My opening comments were not intended as a criticism of anybody. I know that this meeting was requested only last week and I understand that the deadline was short. I do not intend any criticism of the staff of the Department or of the Oireachtas. It would help if members were briefed one or two days before committee meetings so that we could have our homework done.

Mr. O’Mahony

With the Chairman's agreement, I will bring members of the team in to deal with their respective areas of expertise. I appreciate Deputy Allen's difficulty in responding on the hoof to a brief such as this. We did not interpret anything he said as criticism. Sometimes it is hard to know whether to give too little or too much information. As the Chairman has said, the matter arose at very short notice.

The issue of the illegal transport of waste from South to North is fundamental. It is one of our major difficulties. I cannot say why it is not in the document to which Deputy Allen referred. I can say that in April, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government discussed the issue with his counterpart in Northern Ireland, Ms Angela Smith. Arising out of that meeting, Mr. Carney and I attended a meeting of representatives of all relevant authorities, North and South, in Dundalk in late May. That meeting was attended by representatives of the Garda, the PSNI, the customs authorities from both jurisdictions, Departments from both jurisdictions, the EPA, local authorities in the Border area and others. A number of approaches were agreed at that meeting. Some of those approaches were to be taken between the law enforcement agencies. There will not be a public statement of what those are but it is hoped they will bear fruit over time. There was a general agreement and acceptance that this was an all-island issue which had to be sorted out. The issue is not being ignored. It is being given a high priority.

I do not pretend to have any expertise on shellfish waters beyond what is in the briefing document because it is being dealt with by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources.

A judgment was made against us with regard to drinking water in November 2002. That breach is primarily related to our problem with rural water supplies and group schemes. A major programme is in place on this. In 2004 alone, the funding for the rural water sector is approximately €100 million. Deputies know from the number of times schemes are referred to in parliamentary questions that a colossal number of water and remediation schemes are in the course of development and adequate facilities are being put in place. We are liaising closely with the European Commission on that area on an ongoing basis. We are confident that, provided we keep up the progress, the Commission is happy with what we are doing to meet the terms of the judgment.

We also had a judgment against us in connection with nitrates, an issue to which I already referred, and we are trying to resolve the problem. I will ask Mr. Ryan to discuss the judgment regarding dangerous substances.

Ireland was late in implementing the greenhouse gas regulation because the Commission provided such a short period of time for its transposition — something like three months. In that case it was important for stakeholders, in particular the business sector, to be consulted. Our understanding is that now we have formally notified the Commission of its transposition — some member states have not done that yet — the case is closed. The regulations do not come before this committee although legislation does, as do European directives. My understanding is that if a regulation needs to be made by ministerial order on foot of a directive, it is laid before the Houses and does not have to come before the committee for discussion. However, I may be wrong on that.

Deputy Allen

I wish to clarify whether we deal with directives.

Mr. O’Mahony

We deal with directives but I am not sure about the regulations made on foot thereof. I am not certain that all regulations——

Deputy Allen

I stand corrected. I have been informed that we deal with directives and not the regulations.

Mr. Owen Ryan

On the dangerous substances directive, a case against us was commenced by the Commission in July 2002 and it is ongoing. It is based on alleged inadequate transposition and implementation and we are currently defending that case in the court.

Deputy Allen asked about shellfish. Two cases are ongoing with regard to shellfish waters. They can be seen in the brief we circulated to the committee. The first case is No. 2 and appears on page 3 of the brief and the second is No. 5 and appears on page 5 in the brief. The first case is quite advanced. It has been through the courts and the Commission has initiated further action for non-implementation of the court decision. The second case, No. 5, is an existing infringement case which the Commission has now signalled it intends to move up to court level. The Commission is clearly not happy with the response in that case and has decided to take it to court level. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources will deal with that particular case.

Mr. O’Mahony

Lest I have omitted anything on waste issues, I will ask Mr. Kearney to speak.

Deputy Allen

Before he speaks, may I raise a matter under waste matters regarding unauthorised activities? Two specific examples are given here, one the Granny ferry incident, Newrath, County Kilkenny, where the Commission asserts illegal disposal of demolition waste from two separate sites took place on a national heritage site. How could that have happened if we are managing our sites adequately?

The second example relates to waste disposal at Blackpool, County Cork, in my constituency where unauthorised disposal of demolition and construction waste arose from a local authority project. This was an NRA project which was managed by both Cork County Council and Cork City Council. I declare an interest here as I was involved in that case. The breaches were made known to the two local authorities and no action was taken. Have detailed explanations been sought from the two authorities as to why a project funded by public funds involved illegal activity? Why, once the illegal activity by a contractor was brought to the attention of the two authorities, was no action taken? The people involved were forced to go to the Commission in order to get some action on the issue.

Mr. O’Mahony

I will ask Mr. Kearney, who has been following those cases, to respond on that.

Mr. Jason Kearney

I will revert first to an earlier question the Deputy raised about a European Court case on waste. That case was heard on 6 July and it is expected a decision will be made in September. Ireland has defended that case.

On the first of the two incidents of unauthorised activity, the one in Kilkenny, the Commission initially alleged that the activity had taken place on a proposed national heritage site. When the local authority reported to the Department it indicated that was not the case and it maintains that position.

Once the case relating to Blackpool, County Cork, was brought to our attention through the Commission, we immediately sought a report from the local authority. Again, on foot of the recent press release we have received further reports. The county council has issued legal proceedings and has advised us that remediation work is ongoing and will be completed in the coming weeks.

Deputy Allen

Against whom are the legal proceedings being taken?

Mr. Kearney

Against the landowner involved.

Deputy Allen

Are the proceedings against the landowner?

Mr. Kearney

Yes. The indications we have received are that they are examining that option.

Deputy Allen

Was it the contractor who dumped it?

Mr. Kearney

Yes, but the landowner is responsible for accepting the waste.

Deputy Allen

The employing agents were the local authorities and the NRA.

Mr. Kearney

Cork City Council was involved as it was its contract. However, the activity occurred in the county council's functional area and it was responsible for the enforcement in the case.

Deputy Allen

Why would the landowner be pursued if it was the contractor who dumped it?

Mr. O’Mahony

The contractor may be pursued and the county council is examining that option.

Deputy Allen

Could the committee get a full report on that incident?

Mr. O’Mahony

We will send on a full report to it.

Deputy Sargent

Cuirim fáilte agus fiche roimh na hoifigigh ón Roinn. We are being asked to examine a lot here and are not only talking about the nine publicised alleged infringements. I would like some clarification on the matter because judging by the reports and Mary Raftery's article in The Irish Times which mentioned 118 breaches and a further 85 which are being assessed, it appears that we are only dealing with the infringements publicised by the Commission or the infringements being proceeded with by it. The numbers keep changing and I would like clarification. Are we talking ballpark figures? The Department referred to 200 pieces of legislation which implies a lot of infringements.

I am interested in the issue of the shellfish waters. It was stated that the particular issue will not be dealt with by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and that is the reason for my question, which concerns where responsibility lies. It is stated in the briefing that it arises as an infringement because Ireland did not adopt action programmes to ensure high water quality for the 14 water areas designated to date. I was contacted by a company in that business on the matter of the adoption of an action programme. The company contacted the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment because it wanted information on the procedures for tendering in order to help the Government comply with the legislation. The Department responded by saying that no such service was required. All the company wanted to know was whether it should contact the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government or the Department responsible for the marine. There is a need for some interdepartmental awareness. If companies wish to help Ireland avoid being brought to court, it might be useful to talk to them at least, without obligation. I can understand why this company was frustrated.

I am surprised that this does not seem to have been included in the Commission's announcement. I asked a parliamentary question on the issue of the €20 charge for citizens regarding planning applications. Ms Catherine Day in the Commission expressed her unhappiness with that practice and said it required a further assessment of fees across the EU. Has action been taken to offset the unhappiness of the Commission? I will put it no more strongly than that. It is an issue which is a matter of some complaint in Ireland also that citizens are being thwarted in their involvement in the planning process by that unwarranted charge. That parliamentary question was replied to on 22 July 2003, one year ago. I would like to know what has happened in the meantime.

I hope the Office of Environmental Enforcement lives up to its name. There has been some discussion with the Commission on the EPA licensing arrangements. Has the Department offset any problems with the Commission by changing things? For example, when an application is made for an incinerator and a licence is requested retrospectively, health and environmental considerations are not being allowed as factors at the planning application stage. That could continue to be a problem. Has there been a change in the Department's policy in that regard? There have been no statements in the recent past but I know it was mentioned previously.

The EU directive on birds was issued in 1979. Dr. Craig might be able to inform the committee on the frustration in the Commission on this matter. I have asked about the appointment of wildlife rangers on a number of occasions. Deputy Allen referred to infringements on protected areas. It seems to be difficult to protect areas if the wildlife rangers are not there to monitor, report and take action. New legislation in that area is mentioned as being promised, in an article in The Irish Times of 13 July 2004. Is Dr. Craig aware of this new legislation in the area of wildlife?

In terms of the percentage of national territory covered, Ireland has special protection areas which cover 3% of the national territory with the EU average being 8%. Is it unreasonable that the Department is insisting that something is done about the threatened and vulnerable species which have been identified and are poorly protected by the site protection measures, species such as corncrake, chuff and hen harrier, among others? Is there any plan to increase the number of rangers as well as the number of sites in order to keep the country out of court?

Mr. O’Mahony

The Deputy has covered a fair bit of ground in his questions. I will ask the experts to comment. Mr. Owen Ryan will examine the big picture. There will be far more cases than the nine here. In answer to the Deputy's question on whether any understanding has been reached with the Commission on EPA licensing, there is no such change. More and more of the issues being dealt with in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, cut across other Departments. I cannot explain why a third Department gave the answer it gave. It does not sound very satisfactory but I have no knowledge of that case. I would have some difficulty giving any detailed account of exactly where the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, is at, apart from what it says in the brief, that it is working very hard at the moment to try to get a satisfactory response together for the Commission. I will ask Mr. Ryan to respond and later Dr. Craig can address the issues raised by the Deputy in respect of the nature conservation directives.

Mr. Ryan

I will deal with the numbers first because they are extremely difficult to follow. We have difficulty ourselves at any given time putting our hands on our hearts and testifying to the exact number of cases. As sure as we would write one case out of the equation, the European Commission would say it was not quite finished on that case and it would wish to return to it. It is very difficult to say at any given time the number of cases in hand. There are always a number of cases in the melting pot with a question mark hanging over them as to whether they are finished or otherwise. In ballpark terms, the Department calculated that at 6 July 2004, it had 104 files in which correspondence or proceedings were ongoing. Of those files, the vast majority are at pre-court stage, cases where preliminary inquiries have been made and initial and second warnings have been issued. They have not gone next or near the court. That accounts for about 90% of the cases in hand. The numbers situation is difficult. Of the 104 cases in hand, a substantial number are dormant or inactive for quite some time, a year or more. It is very difficult to know whether they are still live cases or cases where the Department has sent back correspondence. The Department has answered correspondence in almost every case. There are few, if any, areas of correspondence outstanding.

If one takes the cases which are dormant for a year or more, for example, the figure of 104 cases would be reduced significantly. Of the nine cases which the Commission identified in its press release last week, just two are new. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government recognises seven of the cases. Page 7 of the submission we have circulated refers to cases 8 and 9, the only two cases that are brand new. The Commission is introducing the cases to the infringement proceedings process for the first time. We have given members of the committee details of where the Department stands in respect of the two cases. The other seven cases are at various stages of the system. The Commission has suggested that the cases should be taken on a further step of one kind or another. They may be elevated from a preliminary stage to the first formal notice stage, for example, or from the first formal notice stage to the second formal notice stage. The figure of 104 cases we had on 6 July may have increased to 106 at this stage. It carries a question mark, to a certain extent, but it is a reasonable ballpark figure.

I was also asked about the fee of €20 by a Deputy who had concerns in respect of the reply he received to a parliamentary question some time ago. The Department has received second warnings, known as "reasoned opinions", in respect of some of the 104 cases, including the case in question, which is an ongoing infringement case. It responded when the Commission put an issue to us and no further action has been taken. In a press release in July 2002, the Commission indicated its intention to refer the case to the European Court of Justice. The Department has not received any formal communication to that effect from the Commission or the court.

Deputy Sargent

The Department is playing hard ball, in other words. It is waiting to see what the court says, rather than making a change.

Mr. Ryan

The Department has made its defence on the basis of what exists. It is a matter for the Commission to come back to the Department.

Dr. Alan Craig

I will try to respond to Deputy Sargent, who has raised three broad issues that relate to my area of nature and wildlife conservation, by clarifying the position in respect of each of them.

The first issue raised by the Deputy was the designation of sites under the birds directive, which is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year, as the Deputy said. One must admit, regrettably, that the process has not been completed although 25 years have passed. It would be foolish to deny that that is the case. The National Parks and Wildlife Service accepts that it needs to do more. A great deal of emphasis has been placed in recent years on the making progress on the habitats directive. In concentrating on the latter directive, perhaps we took our eye off the birds directive slightly. We have almost completed our work in respect of the delivery of sites under the habitats directive, but a significant amount remains to be done under the birds directive. The concern of the Commission was not reflected in the flurry of activity last week or in the service's documentation on this issue. The Commission indicated in a previous batch of announcements last January that it would pursue the issue to court, if necessary.

We do not necessarily agree on every detail of this issue, obviously, but we agree that more special protection areas for birds must be designated. We have a certain amount of catching up to do in that regard. As well as the wetland and seabird concentrations, we need to provide sites for some of the more dispersed species specifically covered by the directive, such as the hen harrier and the chough. We might argue with the Commission in terms of degree, but not on the essential point that there is work to be done. Our predecessors concentrated on State lands and State-owned foreshore when they tried to get the system of special protection areas for birds up and running. In many cases, we have to extend sites that have already been designated to give adequate coverage of adjoining privately owned lands. It is clear that the boundaries of such sites should be determined by bird usage rather than by land ownership patterns. More remains to be done in that regard, but we are making progress and we hope it will continue at a pace that will satisfy the Commission before the matter goes to court. I remain optimistic although significant work remains to be done.

The second issue raised by the Deputy was the number of field staff employed by the service. There have been significant improvements in that regard over the years. The service employs 78 rangers, many of whom share the workload in some of the bigger counties. There is a hierarchy of officers above that level — district officers, regional managers, etc. There was a particular pinch point recently at the level of the district conservation officers, who are the immediate supervisors of the rangers. The number of officers in that grade has increased from ten to 16. In the current climate, improvements in the promotion and management structure for that group had to be achieved within the overall numbers, unfortunately.

We have more chiefs and slightly fewer Indians, to a certain extent, because we have more management staff than we had. Such an increase was necessary in the interests of an efficient structure and the delivery of results, but it has resulted in a slight reduction in the number of rangers. We have agreed with the rangers' representative union to try to return to the issue in the not too distant future. It is hoped that the new promotion posts will be in addition to the overall number of rangers, so that there will be more than 100 rangers throughout the country, representing an increase of approximately 20% on the current figure. That is our overall position at present. The situation is much healthier than it was some years ago. It really has improved.

The third issue raised by Deputy Sargent was the new legislation. I am afraid that I cannot immediately identify the reference, as I do not recall seeing it. I did not think there was any particular publicity. We made clear in the documentation we provided today that we are working on revisions of the legislative provision in a number of areas. We addressed the use of rough terrain motor vehicles in conservation areas, for example. Our protection system for special areas of conservation has been largely, and almost unavoidably, based on ownership. One can identify the owner and place certain obligations on him or her, but it is somewhat more difficult to control third party activities. We have agreed with the Commission that there is an issue.

Deputy Sargent

A journalist, Mr. DenisStaunton, reported that although the Government has promised to draft new legislation protecting wildlife, the Commission has yet to see satisfactory movement on the issue. It has decided to refer Ireland to the European Court of Justice.

Dr. Craig

That is the issue I am talking about. We have had discussions with the Commission. We have told it the general way in which we are working on it. It takes time to get legislation right. The Commission is putting pressure on us, but it has not seen the draft legislation yet. Our legal advisers have advised us that the issue in question can be addressed by means of a statutory instrument revising the existing habitats regulations. We hope it can be done in quite a short period of time. Other more complicated issues which have been raised by the Commission may require primary legislation. It is obvious that that would take longer.

Senator Bannon

I also welcome the delegation. Since he came to office, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, has been preoccupied with the abolition of the dual mandate and the introduction of a flawed e-voting system rather than dealing with environment issues. How can the Government continue to claim that Ireland has the best record in Europe on EU environment law while the reality is that we have been singled out in the Commission's name and shame policy as having the worst record to date? Will the officials explain why Ireland has received 30 warnings on illegal dumping compared to only 21 against Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France combined? This is a serious concern for many people.

What facilities have been put in place for the disposal of hazardous waste? Local authorities have not been given any direction by the Department on how to deal with this serious problem. Most of the cases taken against Ireland involved public safety issues. The majority of cases related to waste, water quality, water safety etc. What is the Government doing to protect the health of citizens? That is the bottom line. I do not see it doing a great deal at present. Perhaps the officials can explain what is happening.

When the Chairman asked Mr. O'Mahony for examples of infringement, in effect, the response was to blame farmers in regard to the nitrates directive. From involvement with farming organisations I am aware that farmers are committed to maintaining clean water and a high quality rural environment. This is borne out by the number of farmers participating in REP schemes. These people are the custodians of our environment. Many farmers will be forced out of business because of the nitrates directive. What steps does the Government plan to take to alleviate the extreme situations in which some farmers will find themselves? There is a great deal of bureaucracy and red tape attached to this issue with no real impact on the quality of the environment.

Senator Brennan

Regarding unauthorised waste management activities in landfill, local authorities are being advised by the Department that extensions to landfills are preferable to new landfill sites. What would constitute an extension in the case of a licence granted for a landfill of 100 acres? If a local authority looks for a size greater than the original size of a landfill, surely that is a new development and it should be looked at as a new landfill site?

Deputy Cregan

To be fair, I do not think Mr. O'Mahony blamed farmers. His opening comments were quite helpful. He gave a fine example when the Chairman asked him when we should decide to let something go to the courts. We all felt strongly about this, particularly the farming community, whom we support, as do the officials. He said we should go to the courts and then work from there, which we have done in this case, when we feel strongly enough about something. That is a sensible approach.

We can be criticised when we do not implement directives quickly enough. Perhaps Mr. O'Mahony can confirm that the reason we are not proceeding quickly enough for the Commission's liking is because of the consultation process we undertake.

Dr. Craig referred to the habitats directive on which I am delighted to hear agreement has been reached. It started off as a very hot potato and was a divisive issue between Dúchas and the farming organisations. There was a great deal of misinformation, lack of information and conflicting information which we have all discussed around the table. That is a positive outcome despite the fact that our knuckles were rapped for not implementing the directive more speedily. That worked out well in this case and there are probably other such examples.

By and large we can be proud of what has been achieved by the Minister and his officials. We are rated among the top four in Europe for the transposition of directives and we can also boast that we have an implementation level of 98.8%. I accept we have to concentrate on the remaining 1.2% but we should not lose sight of the positive record of which this country can boast. An implementation rate of 98.8% is exemplary and we compliment the Minister and officials on that. It is far from the case that the Minister has taken his eye off the ball because of the issues mentioned by Senator Bannon. The Minister has kept his eye very much on the ball.

Mr. O’Mahony

I thank Deputy Cregan for making the clarification for me. I would have been very quick to reassure Senator Bannon that what I was actually doing was acknowledging that farmers and ourselves were singing from the same hymn sheet, as I said before the committee a few weeks ago. At the time, I did not think the IFA fully appreciated——

Senator Bannon

When a delegation from the agricultural community met departmental officials, it was promised a Bill would be in place by a particular date. That did not materialise and farmers were very disappointed about it.

Mr. O’Mahony

The action programme was one week late. They were promised that it would be issued by a particular Friday and it was issued the following Friday. The reason for that was the very great lengths we went to in order to ensure the inclusion in the document of every aspect of agricultural science that could be properly scrutinised and included. The document benefited from that. We added a week to the consultation period at the other end to compensate for it. At the end of the day people were reasonably happy with the outcome.

The point I wanted to make about the nitrates directive has been well made by Deputy Cregan. It was a very good example of where the right thing to do was not to accept it without using all of the legal avenues open to us on a Commission position which we did not feel was appropriate for Ireland. That is the bottom line on that. That was certainly the very strong view I heard expressed at the committee a few weeks ago.

There is no question but that the implementation of EU legislation in Ireland benefits from the most extensive consultation. It is now a tenet of Government policy under the regulatory reform agenda that consultation would take place on any regulation which would have an impact upon people — stakeholders, business, farmers and interest groups of any type. The consultation process gives people an opportunity to give their views and have them taken into account which can sometimes result in us moving more slowly on the implementation of an EU directive than the Commission would like.

Every organisation has its way of exerting pressure. In the case of the Oireachtas it might be to table a parliamentary question, raise a matter on the Adjournment or use Private Members' time. In the case of the Commission, it is to send the first letter of warning to start infringement proceedings and to ratchet that up if necessary. That is the process that is followed. It seems strange to speak of it as routine or normal but that is how the Commission carries out its business. The situation has not developed to the point where Ireland is subject to daily fines. The Government has always been prepared to go the European Court because it wants to get matters right, including the consultation process.

My colleague, Mr. Kearney, will respond to Senator Brennan's question regarding extension to landfills. Senator Bannon is correct that there are issues regarding unauthorised waste and Ireland's record is worse than that of other countries. Ireland is a late arrival to the business of dealing properly with waste management. The current Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government as well as previous Ministers have acknowledged that until ten years ago, the extent of waste management in Ireland was to dig a hole, put the waste in, and forget about it. There was no serious enforcement. There was no legislation to enforce until 1996. Little attention was paid to waste minimisation and recycling. There was a great deal of catching up to do. As part of this catching up process we try to discourage landfill. Landfill is becoming more expensive, and this unfortunately gives people an incentive to break the law. This has resulted in activities, such as unauthorised dumping, coming to light. We are at a point in the evolution of waste management where it is almost inevitable, for a period of time, that a large number of such activities will occur. They will do so until the nut is cracked, which will happen through proper enforcement. The Government takes this enforcement seriously and the Office of Environmental Enforcement is the best example of this.

I will ask Mr. Kearney to address the issue of landfill.

Mr. Kearney

I will deal with the issues as they arose. There is no significant hazardous waste treatment capacity in Ireland. All hazardous waste is exported to mainland Europe for thermal and landfilling treatment. However, a recent hazardous waste management plan from the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, identified the need for one thermal treatment facility and two landfill cells capable of dealing with hazardous waste. Planning permission was recently granted for a commercially-based thermal treatment facility in Ringaskiddy which will effectively take international hazardous waste. We would not, therefore, export our waste although we currently do so.

Senator Brennan wished to know what constitutes a landfill extension. A licence is issued by the EPA based on the maximum tonnage per annum and a set time period. When a local authority or private landfill operator applies for an extension this takes the form of increased tonnage or an increase in the number of years the facility can operate. I cannot express a preference for either option. However, it is our objective to have 20 state-of-the-art landfills operating in Ireland. Mr. O'Mahony mentioned that ten years ago waste management amounted to a large number of holes in the ground. We had more than 130 such facilities. This number has decreased to approximately 35, so we are rapidly heading in the right direction.

Senator Brennan

In a situation where a 100 acre landfill reaches full capacity as set by the licence and the local authority applies for a greater area than originally sought, is that not an extension to an existing landfill?

Mr. Kearney

If another 20 acres are added——

Senator Brennan

If they are added to 100 acres, and can exist in that area for the set period of time.

Mr. Kearney

That is an extension to a landfill as distinct from a new facility. There was a recent increase in tonnage capacity at the existing Ballealy facility in Dublin. It is a question of interpretation, but in my view it is an extension.

Senator Brennan

If the matter ends up in Europe, it will be a few hundred million euro of a blot in someone's copybook.

Deputy Healy-Rae

We are in a similar position in County Kerry. There is a landfill facility at Muingnaminane near Tralee. It was not big enough and a further extension was bought from the forestry division. There was no significant problem in extending the licence to the new extension.

Senator Bannon

I have one question on the inflated cost of waste disposal in Ireland. It is three times more than for our competitors in the EU. The Government must deal with this issue. Some 75% of Irish businesses are unaware of their obligations under the EU landfill directive. The provisions of the directive will treble disposal costs to over €7 million within the next decade. What will the Government do to inform businesses of their obligations? Little is being done at present. It is an issue which must be urgently tackled by the Government.

Mr. O’Mahony

I wish to make a clarification. Deputy Cregan responded positively to what I said about the SAC negotiations with farmers. I have not announced there is a deal in place at this time. I do not want misunderstanding on the matter. We have successfully concluded our negotiations with farm organisations and a package is in place which will meet all the organisations' requirements. Hopefully we will learn in the next few days that the package is acceptable. However, it must be given full consideration by the farm organisations and I cannot pre-empt the outcome. I am extremely confident it will be accepted but I cannot state so until they have completed their considerations.

Mr. Kearney will answer the question on our waste costs and how they compare. In the area of waste management, the Government cannot be accused of not putting a lot of resources into awareness. Many millions of euro have been spent on a significant awareness campaign over the past year. The thrust of waste policy in Ireland is not about disposal. Ultimately, there must be disposal of residual waste. However, waste policy is about recycling, minimising and reducing, especially in business. All of the incentives — carrots and sticks — in waste management policy, from European directives and Irish legislation directed towards business, are about reducing the amount of waste. Industry is on the ball. There are now a large number of producer responsibility initiatives which entail an industry reaching an agreement with the State. This existed before, through Repak, in terms of packaging. We are moving in a similar direction with regard to electronics, tyres and other goods. Business organises itself to deal with recycling and minimisation of waste. All of the representative organisations such as the chambers of commerce, small firms associations, IBEC, the farming organisations and others are working closely with the Department. I find it difficult to accept that businesses are not receiving the information they need in order to manage their waste efficiently and economically.

Mr. Kearney

State-of-the-art landfill facilities with ultimate environmental protection are expensive. To move from our low base of ten years ago to having all our landfills licensed to European standards and in compliance with the landfill directive will incur a significant cost. The Department has undertaken several initiatives. Mr. O'Mahony mentioned the industry initiatives; there is a market development group aimed at getting value for recycling material, and there is compliance with the packaging waste directive. Industry is well aware of what is happening.

Landfill capacity has grown from an estimated six years, as of 2001, to ten years so while there may be no cost reductions there is capacity. Mr. O'Mahony also mentioned the successful race against waste campaign, a key component of which was the small change initiative which we undertook with IBEC and the small to medium enterprises. In phase two it will extend to sectoral issues. It is fair to say we are engaging with industry on this and it is well aware of what is happening.

Chairman

It has been suggested that landfill here costs three times as much as it does to our European colleagues.

Mr. Kearney

I do not have figures to hand but anecdotally I would not dispute that. The illegal movement of waste across borders is evidence there is an economic incentive to move it to other parts of Europe.

Senator Bannon

I have carried out research on other countries and it has been proven that disposal of waste here costs three times as much as in other EU countries. We have an appalling record in this area because prior to 1998 there were only 16 formal EU warnings against us. That has increased sixfold. Are we improving or is the situation deteriorating? The Government needs to do something to reverse this appalling trend.

Mr. O’Mahony

We have given the background to the figures and shown that at any point for any country there will be many cases at different stages. At one point Ireland might compare unfavourably with other countries but a year later the position might be different. The objective is to settle matters before the country is subject to daily fines which is the last stick the Commission can wield. We have never been subject to daily fines.

Chairman

Could Mr. Kearney comment further on the cost of landfill? Why does it cost three times as much here as elsewhere in Europe, if we all work within certain EU limits?

Mr. Kearney

I can only speculate that some of our neighbours have greater capacity and have landfill space to sell. Therefore, they can offer it at a lower price. There is also the question of compliance with the landfill directive. We effectively comply whereas some member states may not. The objective is to achieve 20 residual landfill facilities. We do not want to use landfill as the primary means of waste disposal. The high cost can drive people into recycling. In recent months there has been a dramatic increase in recycling rates. We are already on our way to meeting the requirement for 35% recycling set out in 1998.

Senator Bannon

Would the officials be prepared to return to the committee with disposal costs and comparative rates across Europe?

Chairman

In fairness, that was not part of the Department's brief for today. We can decide on that at a later date.

On behalf of the committee I thank Mr.O'Mahony and his officials for coming in to make a presentation to us today, and for responding to our questions. They have helped to clarify the situation and we thank them for that.