JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT debate -
Wednesday, 8 Dec 2004

EU Environment Council: Ministerial Presentation.

Chairman

The first item on the agenda is the discussion with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche. I welcome the Minister and his officials to the meeting. This is his first appearance at the committee since his appointment and I take the opportunity to congratulate him and wish him well in his term of office.

This is the first time the committee has taken the opportunity to invite a Minister to address the committee in advance of the EU Environment Council, although I am aware this has been a regular and useful part of the agenda of the Joint Committee on European Affairs. The committee decided at its last meeting that a standing invitation should issue to the Minister to attend in advance of each of the four Environment Council meetings each year. Members are of the view that this is an important component of the EU scrutiny process introduced by the Government to enhance the role of the Oireachtas in the EU legislative process. The committee hopes to develop this process and to be fully and regularly briefed on Ireland's EU commitments. Following the Minister's presentation, I will invite questions from members.

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Roche)

I thank the Chairman for his kind good wishes and thank the committee for inviting me. I was not aware this was the first such occasion but it is a positive decision. The work carried out by the Joint Committee on European Affairs has been valuable in terms of obtaining different views. I am surprised this has not happened before at this committee and welcome the fact it is happening now. I am delighted to appear before the committee. In a sense, we are all novices on this issue.

I am joined by several officials of the Department. Mr. Ian Keating specialises in issues such as REACH, the European proposals regarding the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals, and the Aarhus Convention, Mr. Ronnie Devlin deals with GMO issues, Mr. Tom O'Mahony deals with climate change and Ms Riona Ní Fhlanghaile deals with absolutely everything else. While it used to be said if one wants a job done, give it to a busy man, that has changed.

The agenda has been circulated and some notation has also been sent to the Chairman. As there is much technical information in this area, if the committee wishes a briefing on specific issues before meetings, the secretariat should contact my office. This would make for more useful contributions in the course of committee meetings. I would be delighted to help in any way I can as this would be mutually beneficial.

Chairman

I am not sure the committee has done this either. It is probably a first.

Deputy Roche

It is important that national parliaments engage with the business of the EU. As the Minister representing Ireland at the meetings of the EU Environment Council, I am particularly pleased to have this opportunity to brief the committee and to listen to and incorporate its views, where possible. I understand from the committee's schedule of meetings for 2004 that the committee intends to be active, which is as it should be given the environmental issues facing us.

It is important for us at our first meeting to have regard to the big picture and to what we are looking to achieve at national and European level so as to put the more detailed agenda of the Environment Council into context. The mission of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is to promote sustainable development and to improve the quality of life through protection of the environment and heritage, infrastructure provision, balanced regional development and good local government. Our environment objective in support of this is to promote and protect a high quality natural environment, protect human health and secure the integration of environmental considerations into economic and sectoral policies.

The policy commitment to the environment is well reflected in a range of policy documents on subjects including sustainable development, waste, climate change and litter. We continue to work within the EU towards meeting our sustainable development and environment objectives. We have difficulties in catching up because, in the past, insufficient attention and resources were given to this area. We have a modern body of environmental legislation, a significant proportion of which originated from the EU. One of the positive by-products of EU membership is the consciousness of the necessity to create a legal architecture through which to protect our environment. This legislation needs regular updating, particularly in line with EU directives.

The EU's sixth environment action programme provides the environmental component of the Community's strategy for sustainable development, placing environmental plans in a broad perspective and considering economic and social conditions. It also makes the link between the environment and European objectives for growth and competitiveness. The programme set four environmental priorities for the period to 2006, namely, tackling the universal problem of climate change, protecting nature and wildlife, action for the environment and health, and natural resources and managing waste.

Council meetings are influenced by the programme. Regard is also had to global environment challenges and to the responsibilities that the EU is required to meet through involvement in a range of international organisations and agreements. These include the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, the UN environment programme and a number of multilateral agreements.

The sixth environment action programme called for the preparation of thematic strategies. These strategies feature an integrated holistic approach to environment policy development. By working on themes, rather than on individual pollutants or specific aspects of environmental policy, the linkages within different policies are being brought together and assessed. The thematic strategy on the marine environment is on the agenda of this month's Council and the soil strategy will get a mention under Other Business. The last item on the agenda is entitled "forthcoming thematic strategies" and for that we expect an update from the Commission. However, we are still awaiting papers.

I am preparing for my second Environmental Council meeting, which will be the last meeting of the Netherlands Presidency. As members will be aware, a country hosting the Presidency during the second half of the year always presents a challenge because with August being the holiday month, essentially there are only five months in which to do business, and only four, if one thinks about it. Things do not get going until September. In addition, very few new proposals were made by the previous Commission in the last few months of its term of office or in the last few weeks of its slightly extended term of office. The Parliament has been slow to commence work on the preparation of the first and second reading opinions and a substantial volume of ongoing business was completed during the Irish Presidency. In a sense, this European Environment Council meeting is being held in a period of transition and there is not as much meat as in other Council meetings. Nevertheless, progress has been made on a number of fronts during the period and in particular the focus during the Netherlands Presidency on eco-efficient innovation will be of benefit beyond the end of 2004. Eco-efficient innovation was one of the items that comes up in the context of the Lisbon Agenda, where the discussion was on identifying the strengths of the EU and this is an area of strength in Europe.

I had a very useful meeting two weeks ago with Mr Pieter Van Geel, the Secretary of State in the Netherlands at which we discussed the agenda for the December Council, in particular issues around climate change. The EU environment ministers, the Commissioner and representatives of Government from all over the world will attend at the tenth conference of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Buenos Aires next week. I was very pleased to hear that this committee has decided to be represented there.

Climate change is one of the most significant items on the global environment agenda. Combating climate change continues to be a major priority for the European Union and has important implications for our economy and for business. Most importantly, it has implication for the quality of life for people all over the world. The member states of the European Union have ratified the UN convention and the Kyoto Protocol. Last months the Russian Government lodged its ratification papers with the UN in New York. The Kyoto Protocol will now enter into force in February 2005. This move has transformed the political significance of the meeting in Buenos Aires. It is fair to say there was not a significant political interest in the meeting in Buenos Aires until such time as the Russian Government lodged its ratification papers. The conference will serve to make a considerable political achievement on the climate change agenda. It will be used by the European Union to push for negotiations on the next commitment period, that is post 2012, and that these discussions should start as soon as possible in 2005.

At Council we will be seeking to adopt conclusions on medium and long-term strategies, including targets for the post-Kyoto period. That seems like a long time away but this is the sort of timescale in which we must operate in terms of climate change. At the spring European Council, heads of state and Government will further consider these strategies because the work of this Council will feed into the spring Council. Part of this consideration will be based on a cost-benefit analysis that is being carried out by the Commission. This will analyse, inter alia, the costs of actions to reduce emissions and the cost of inaction, which is not cost free. This report will be published in January 2005. The Environment Council on 20 December will consider draft conclusions in preparation for the spring European Council. The question of whether these discussions will conclude at the December Council or at the March 2005 Council will be considered further by EU Ministers when they meet next week in Buenos Aires.

Ireland will be represented in Buenos Aires at NGO level and I am pleased to advise the committee that my Department has provided support for this. The participation of civil society including environment NGOs is an important dimension of the sustainable development agenda, which is built on partnership. The Aarhus convention on access to information on the environment is another key mechanism in support of this and I cannot over emphasise the importance of information sharing and communications for the EU. I spoke to Commissioner Wallstrom on this when I met her at the October Council meeting, which would have been her last, before taking up her new position as Communications Commissioner. As members will be aware, the concept of communicating Europe was put on the agenda during the course of the Irish Presidency. The Dutch Presidency embraced it and took it further. Forthcoming Presidencies will do that also. The idea is that communications is a two way process and that one becomes involved across the gamut of policies. Commission Wallstrom will have special responsibility in her new position to drive that programme.

We hope to reach political agreement in Council on two measures relating to the Aarhus Convention. One is the draft regulation on the application of the provisions of the Convention to EU institutions and bodies — one of the oddities is that European institutions and some bodies are less than forthcoming with information. The other is a draft Decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community of the Convention. Discussion is ongoing in COREPER on both of these issues. The agenda also provides for information to be given by the Presidency to the Council on a proposed directive on access to justice in environmental matters.

A policy debate is planned on the proposal for a regulation on REACH, that is the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals. REACH is a major initiative with a very high environmental and economic relevance. It has attracted considerable political attention and is being examined both in the Environment Council and in the Competitiveness Council, which is taking the lead. The approach to the proposals is to ensure that the EU proceeds on the basis of achieving effective health and environmental protection, while promoting innovation and the competitiveness of the European chemicals industry. The proposed regulation will replace about 40 existing legal instruments. In future there will be a single, harmonised regulatory system for new and existing chemicals. Full implementation of REACH is projected to take up to 11 years from the date of entry into force of the regulation. So, as with climate change the lead period is very long.

The Presidency has placed on the agenda a proposal for a decision to place on the market an oilseed rape product that has been genetically modified for tolerance to the herbicide, glyphosphate. The product is intended to be imported for animal feed and processing. Discussion at Council on this item may be limited to checking if there has been any change in the position of member states that might allow a decision to be taken under qualified majority voting, QMV. I am aware that this committee met with officials from my Department, the Department of Agriculture and Food and the EPA on 10 November last and with NGOs and the Food Safety Authority on 24 November on this issue. I will, of course, listen closely to any views that the committee may have in advance of finalising my position in regard to the vote nearer to the Council meeting.

The Dutch Presidency aims to achieve political agreement at Council on the proposed Directive on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators. There are still, however, major issues to be resolved on the proposed nickel cadmium ban and on the collection targets. The file is to be discussed further in COREPER today and the possibility of one final discussion in COREPER on 13 December. A significant number of member states have problems with this proposed Directive and it would appear to be difficult for the Dutch Presidency to achieve political agreement at this time.

The Council will be asked to adopt conclusions on the Kok report and on sustainable development. The draft conclusions to be adopted on the Kok report- which represents an input to the mid-term review of the Lisbon strategy — are deliberately narrow in their focus. Essentially the Netherlands Presidency wants to highlight common ground between the conclusions of Kok and the Environment Council's own agenda. These come together in eco-innovations. The conclusions make the point that eco-innovations can give the EU a competitive advantage in the development of environmental technologies and this can be a win-win outcome for the environment and for the competitiveness of the European economy, especially as regards energy and resource efficiency.

The conclusions on sustainable development ask the Commission to include a comprehensive stock-taking on progress with implementing the EU Sustainable Development Strategy and to assess policy options for a revised strategy. The European spring Council 2005 will be invited to give political guidance for the revision of the sustainable development strategy so that it can be adopted at a later European Council next year.

An exchange of views on the new environment funding instrument, LIFE+, is also scheduled. This instrument is intended to support those environment measures which would not receive funding under other community funding mechanisms including cohesion, agriculture and rural development, research, innovation, competitiveness, pre-accession, development and external assistance programmes. This is a full gamut of programmes but some still fall through and hence the LIFE+ programme. The intention is that the significantly greater proportion of environment funding should in the future come through these funding mechanisms, thus encouraging greater integration of environment concerns into other sectoral areas. LIFE+ will be a policy support instrument intended to contribute to the development, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and communication of Community environment policy and legislation as a contribution to promoting sustainable development in the EU.

Discussions on this proposal have been ongoing in the environment working party in Brussels, allowing member states the opportunity to engage with the Commission on the detail of the proposal. These discussions form part of the wider discussion on the future financial perspectives for the EU, the funding of the EU for the period 2007-13. Major decisions will need to be taken in the not too distant future.

During our Presidency of the EU Ireland worked hard to maintain the Union's leadership in the promotion of sustainable development at international level. The Netherlands Presidency has maintained a high level of activity on this important agenda. It will continue some of this work into 2005 on behalf of the Luxembourg Presidency. Members will be aware that because of the very small size of the Luxembourg administration there is traditionally a carry-over from the Dutch Presidency. They will lead EU participation in the 23rd General Council meeting of the United Nations environment programme in Nairobi in February next. That meeting will have regard in particular to the contribution of UNEP to the so-called "major event" in New York in September 2005.

That major event is a summit called by the UN to review, in the 60th meeting of the General Assembly and with heads of state and government, the progress being made towards achieving the millennium development goals, referred to as MDGs. The environment goal, MDG 7, is to ensure environmental sustainability. Meeting the targets set for this goal will be critical if we are to achieve the reductions in poverty envisaged in the 2000 UN millennium declaration. The exchange of views at Council will provide an opportunity for Environment Ministers to consider EU preparations for discussions on this matter at the UNEP meeting next February.

The thematic strategy for the marine environment will be on the agenda. Ireland has a valuable but vulnerable coastline. We are accordingly very conscious of the need to protect and enhance the marine environment in order to derive optimum benefit from the resource. Council will be asked to adopt conclusions underlining the importance of preserving a balance between sustainable use, protection and conservation of the marine environment, welcoming the results of a stakeholders conference on the strategy hosted by the Presidency last month and requesting the Commission to take account of the results of the conference when finalising the strategy.

This presentation has given an outline of the main agenda items. Typically there are a number of items under the heading of Other Business. These are items of information from the Presidency and the Commission.

The Commission will provide information to Council on the mercury strategy which they were invited to prepare by the December 2002 Environment Council. We have yet to receive papers on this item.

The Presidency will update Council on a number of conferences held during the past couple of months. These include a conference to mark the 25th anniversary of the directive on the conservation of wild birds which was attended by officials from my Department. A Presidency conference held in Amsterdam in October last entitled, "Energy in Motion: EU journey towards a clean and climate neutral road transport system" will also be reported on.

A conference on Environment and Health last week was attended by officials from my Department and from the Department of Health and Children which is the lead Department in this case. Environment and health are inextricably interlinked. I have already mentioned my Department's environment objective and members will have noted its reference to health. The Presidency conference addressed the implementation of the EU environment and health action plan and was also a follow-up to the WHO conference on environment and health held in Budapest earlier this year. Members will note that the draft agenda for Council only makes reference to the Budapest conference. I expect clarification in COREPER today.

The Presidency will report on a conference held in October on exploring new approaches for the regulation of industrial installations. This is a Netherlands sponsored research project aimed at assessing whether there may be better ways to regulate industrial installations rather than simple reliance on IPPC, integrated prevention, pollution and control directive.

I have outlined the Council agenda for 20 December 2004. We still await papers from Brussels on some items and that is frequently the case with Council meetings. The committee will appreciate that there is still some time to go before the Council meeting. Meetings of the working party and of COREPER will continue on for at least another few days. Unfinished business will be finalised at these meetings.

The so called "A" items are unlikely to be available to us until the morning of Council, as is the norm. This was something of a bugbear with the Joint Committee on European Affairs which frequently held meetings as near as possible to the Council meetings but the "A" items were never available in time. All "A" items will be sent to the committee secretariat as they become available. We can discuss them at the next meeting. I appreciate the committee would prefer to meet with me closer to the Council meeting date but that is not feasible in the circumstances because of my attendance at the climate change conference next week. I thank the committee for accommodating me. We should endeavour to have our next meeting closer to the Council date because it would be more useful to us all.

Chairman

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive presentation. There are new concepts and terms which the committee will need to research further.

Deputy O’Dowd

I welcome the Minister to the committee and I wish him well when representing the country at the meetings. Will the Minister be voting on any policy issues at them? Will he make a contribution on climate change and the situation in Ireland, including what is not happening? A television programme last night dealt with pollution of ground water and waste management. Are those issues discussed at the meetings and if not, why not?

Senator Bannon

I compliment the Minister on his informative and interesting presentation to the committee. Climate change is recognised internationally as the most significant and threatening environmental problem. I understand all EU member states and governments have approved national climate change strategies to meet the Kyoto targets. Some have watered down their targets to some extent and Ireland is not proceeding with the carbon tax. Has the Minister any alternatives in mind? To comply with Kyoto there is a need to source alternatives. It should be recognised internationally that we must try to re-engage the Americans and the Australians in this process. What action is being taken by the EU to re-engage those nations? America has friends in Europe and they should be asked to persuade the Americans to sign up to the agreement. We must try to re-engage the Americans. Since the US election the vibe from some sections of the US Government has been a little more positive and it is important we work with that.

Deputy Gilmore

I join colleagues in welcoming the Minister to his first session with this committee. I thank him for discussing with us, in advance, the agenda of the Environment Council meeting. I look forward to future discussions of the Environment Council agenda, as the Minister said, perhaps closer to the date of the Council meeting.

I wish to raise two areas with him, one of which is climate change. In the briefing material and the Minister's presentation, he stated that this issue will be discussed at the heads of state meeting, the European spring Council meeting. Will that subject be considered by an Environment Council meeting again in advance of the European spring Council meeting? The Minister referred to the draft conclusions which will be passed to the European spring Council meeting. Is it envisaged that proposed targets in respect of climate change will be agreed and set by the European Union? I note it is intended that some kind of a cost benefit analysis on this matter will be carried out by the Commission. Is it intended to set targets independent of such a cost benefit analysis? What is the Minister's view on a suggestion there will be a maximum temperature rise which will be a starting point for climate change policy? Are there proposals to agree an average reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in terms of setting a specific target for 2020 and a longer-term target for 2050? Are there proposals on improvements to ensure energy efficiency? If so, does the Minister have a view on those? I appreciate we are talking about climate change when we have not seen a cost benefit analysis on what is proposed in this area and we do not know what the draft document will contain. If something is settled on this area at the spring Council meeting, I presume at least some informal discussions have taken place on the setting of targets. What is the state of play and our view on those?

In regard to the agenda item on the directive on batteries and accumulators, is our position on the waste directives undermined by our performance on waste matters? I agree with the Minister and welcome that this is one of the major challenges he has to address in his term of office.

I draw to the Minister's attention the Advocate General's opinion handed down on 23 September. In it he states that he is of the opinion that the court should declare that by failing throughout its territory for a protracted period of time first, to establish an adequate and fully operational licensing framework for the disposal and recovery of waste; second, to ensure that the holders of waste have it handled by a public or private waste collector, by an undertaking authorised to carry out waste disposal or recovery operations, or that they recover or dispose of it themselves; third, to prevent the abandonment, dumping and uncontrolled disposal of waste, thereby endangering human health and causing environmental harm; and fourth, by failing to establish an adequate network of disposal installations, Ireland has infringed its obligations under Articles 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 of Council Directive 75/442 on waste. The Advocate General recommends that the court declare that, by not providing information requested by the Commission on 20 September 1999, Ireland has failed to observe its obligations under Article 10, and asks that the court order Ireland to bear the costs in regard to this matter.

The European Court of Justice is likely to hand down its ruling on this issue early in the new year. I acknowledge the Minister's interest in this area. Given what we saw on last night's "Prime Time" programme, is our position and that of the Minister when attending the Environment Council meeting, at which another waste directive will be under discussion, undermined by the country's failure in this area and by the fact that we are at such an advanced and exposed position at the European Court of Justice in regard to non-compliance with waste directives? I am probably stretching this agenda item just a little——

Deputy Roche

Just a little.

Deputy Gilmore

Will the Minister inform us what he will do to deal with the waste problem, which we saw so well on a good RTE documentary programme on the issue?

Chairman

A number of speakers are offering, but given the number of questions raised, perhaps the Minister would reply to them first.

Deputy Roche

I will start with the last item raised because it is probably the most topical. While it is off this meeting's agenda, Deputy Gilmore skilfully moved from the agenda before us to raise a matter that is not on it.

The first point to be made, and I do not say this by way of mitigation or excuse, is that there will always be a number of outstanding actions against member states on a variety of issues at any one time. The complaint in question dates back to 1999. There have been significant changes in this area but we must accelerate the pace of change.

The Deputy asked if our performance in this area undermines our position on the directives. It does not do us any credit as a nation to be in the position portrayed last night on television. As I have said on many occasions in the recent past, we must have an open, objective and truthful debate on waste. Coming from a county that has been more despoiled than most by waste and environmental criminals, I am aware it is not possible to reach the Nirvana of having a zero waste position, but we should strive to eliminate waste as much as we possibly can.

As the Deputy will be aware, we have adopted tight targets for 2013 on a number of specific headings. The first interim report on our transition to that position was issued by the EPA in the past 12 months — I am not sure of the exact date. It suggests that we have reached at least the position where we are not increasing the amount of waste going into institutions. We have an awful long way to go before we have an appropriate waste infrastructure in place, and we should be honest about that. There are more resources being put into this area now than at any time in the history of the State. That is not a major boast because in the past we did not put the necessary resources into this area.

The decisions we must make in the years ahead involve reducing, recycling and preventing waste arising. We are all agreed on that. We must also make decisions on what to do with the surplus. This matter is not on today's agenda, but it is an important question to answer. Even if we reach those ambitious targets by 2013, we will still be accumulating hundreds of thousands of tonnes of waste over and above that which we could possibly hope to address by way of reduction. A graphic image was portrayed on last night's television programme when the reporter stood beside a pile of waste that represented an individual household's average waste output in a two year period. The waste trailed behind where the reporter stood and towered way above her head. If one multiplies by 1.6 million that volume of waste, one will begin to realise the size of the waste problem we have here.

We will have to make difficult decisions on highly emotive issues such as incineration. I agree with members who hold the view that incineration is only part of the process of addressing the problem. It will not and should not be the entire method by which we get rid of waste. The countries in Europe that have a good record on waste management recycle, reduce and remove waste from the system. They compost waste, an issue with which we have to deal, as a considerable amount of organic waste could be composted and thereby handled in an environmentally sustainable way. Those European countries convert waste into heat. Combined CHP is used in a number of countries. Germany and the Netherlands, which are among the best in managing waste, use a mix of alternatives.

The attitude "not in my back yard" or "not over there either" will not resolve this issue. I made the point last night——

Deputy Gilmore

The Minister engaged in that practice.

Deputy Roche

I did not engage in it. If the Deputy had the benefit of hearing my full response, he would understand that I did not do so. A number of years ago I argued strongly that rather than have a proliferation of landfill sites, it would be much better to have a properly sited, properly monitored high technology waste incineration process that would remove waste. I made a protest to RTE on this one day between the "Six One News" and the "9 o'clock News" and it subsequently changed its running schedule.

We must deal with this debate. We have dodged it for far too long. I recognise that more than most because I was one of the people who was instrumental in bringing to public attention a major national scandal involving an area in my constituency. Environmental criminals, some of whom are from the corporate sector, have destroyed the area. I cannot say too much on individual cases because as members know I cannot intervene in such cases as Minister as I may have some residual responsibilities in those matters.

If Deputy Gilmore's point was that we have nothing of which to be proud, I agree with him. We have to improve our record. That will involve a partnership arrangement. Policy in this area will not be decided by the wave of a wand. We must have a much more mature debate than we have had on this area because the time bomb is ticking. Members who saw the television programme last night realise that. They would have seen the image of leachate coming out of a legal waste pit which is the subject of prosecutions because of a failure to comply with environmental protection regulations. What is the position about the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of waste that is not monitored which is illegally deposited in pits throughout the country? This practice is a time bomb that is ticking.

Some members said I was engaging in scare tactics when I said last night that the problem is an inter-generational one. However, I was pointing out the reality. When one puts hundreds of thousands of tonnes of waste into a hole in the ground, one passes on the waste problem not only to this generation but to the next generation for God knows how long. As pointed out during last night's programme, once aquifers become tainted, it will take a generation for them to be cleared. It is time we woke up to the reality of the major problem we face.

This problem makes life more difficult for me. It is one of a number of issues with which I have to deal. Deputy Gilmore asked a fair question on what I will do about it. We have put good legislation in the form of the 1996 Act on to the Statute Book. Prosecutions under it are under way. I made it clear that prosecutions being dealt with in the District Court are not an appropriate way of dealing with corporate criminals who have destroyed part of my constituency. I saw on last night's programme young constituents of mine who have spent every penny they have on buying a house only to find that ten or 15 metres from their house a site huge dump will be sited. They did not know where they were going to be based and there was no way for people to be informed about their location. That makes me angry not only as a Deputy representing my constituency but as a person who cares for young people and wants to see them properly housed.

Prosecutions under this legislation will have to be made and taken to the senior courts. There is legislation on the Statute Book which provides that criminals in this area can be fined up to €15 million and put into jail for up to ten years. That is the wish of the Oireachtas, and not only of Government, as determined in law. I hope that when these cases come to the senior courts, there will be sufficient courage to deal with these people in a way which demonstrates that criminality in the environment is not something we will tolerate.

As Minister, all I can do is encourage the relevant agencies, particularly those that are autonomous and independent, to take on this issue and deal with it as seriously as it should be dealt with. This behaviour has been tolerated for far too long. The Deputy was right when he said it does us no credit. It will undermine our capacity to speak on environmental issues if we cannot demonstrate to the Commission, the Council and our fellow member states that we are serious about addressing this matter.

I mentioned that I took the opportunity during the last Council meeting to have a brief discussion with the then Commissioner. I intend to do the same in respect of the new Commissioner at the next Council meeting. The Deputy raised an important issue. I made arrangements recently on a visit to Luxembourg for officials from the Department to visit the European Court of Justice to be fully briefed on the court's thinking on issues and to brief the court on what we are trying to do to catch up in this case, which is difficult to do. All I can say is that while I am in the Custom House, I will strongly demand that we have explanations for the blind eye that was turned in this regard. Several other cases are due to come up in County Wicklow and I have been informed of other cases around the country. I want to know why a blind eye has been turned to regulations in this area. I want to know why statutory agencies have failed to such an extent in their responsibilities. Above all, I want the people responsible brought to justice. When they are brought to court I fervently hope, as I am sure does every member of the Oireachtas irrespective of his or her political party, that they would be treated as they deserve to be treated. Somebody who has not only despoiled the countryside but endangered a generation of our people, our health, well-being and reputation deserves to be treated accordingly.

I apologise for the time I have spent on this issue but it is a hot point of mine. I want to deal with the other issues raised. I had hoped to hear members' views on the GMO issue. The committee may have noted that on the last occasion when this issue came up it was reported in the press, although not as dramatically as I had anticipated.

A Deputy

It arose at a regulatory committee.

Deputy Roche

Yes, at a regulatory committee the GMO issue was discussed and action was proposed against Austria. We abstained on that vote. Previously we had supported the group who would have voted "Yes". I am reviewing the position in that area. Deputy Gilmore asked would there be a further Council meeting at which this issue would be discussed before the spring Council, to which the answer is "Yes".

Deputy Gilmore and Senator Bannon asked about the position on the Kyoto Protocol. The Council will consider on 20 November the draft conclusions in preparation on this issue. There are differences on it across member states. A number of countries undertook cost benefit analysis before taking decisions on numbers.

We have sympathy with the Commission's general position. There is no particular urgency about the conclusions at this stage because it will be some time before we come to deal with them. Perhaps by the time I come back to this committee before the next Council meeting, I may have something more definitive and could give members a run-down as to where other member states stand on this, which would be interesting. Deputy O'Dowd also asked about issues relating to the Kyoto Protocol.

Deputy O’Dowd

I also asked what position the Minister will take on votes that may be taken on such issues.

Deputy Roche

The Deputy asked about comparative national positions, but national positions will not arise in this regard. Some members states, including Germany, Belgium, France, Sweden and Greece, are of the view that the Environment Council should give a clear direction on the issues in question while others such as Finland, Italy, Poland, Portugal and the United Kingdom are of the view that it should await the results of the European Commission's cost benefit analysis. Broadly, we are in sympathy with the Commission because if it has initiated a study, we should wait until we receive the report. Its view is that when the results of the cost benefit analysis are available, a more comprehensive and considered input can be made. This will be done before the spring European Council meeting. We are in a transition period between Council meetings. I will ask for a briefing note to be sent to members to ensure they will have first-hand knowledge of the position for the next meeting. I apologise for spending so much time on this issue.

Chairman

We are not discussing the issue of waste management today. It is not on the agenda.

(Interruptions).

Deputy Roche

That was my fault.

Deputy Gilmore

I asked about a European Council item.

Deputy Roche

The Deputy knew what he was doing.

Chairman

Senators Brady and Brennan and Deputies Cuffe, Grealish and Mulcahy are offering. I call Senator Brady first.

Senator Brady

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive presentation. The main item on the agenda of a meeting of members of EU environment committees and MEPs last week was climate change. There seemed to be a slight cynicism as to whether Russia had fully signed up to the Kyoto Protocol. Can the Department confirm that the lodging of papers with the United Nations ties Russia in completely?

My second question relates to GMOs. Have there been any changes in position or movement since departmental officials last appeared before the committee? There was a question regarding the stances taken by some countries. Has any progress been made?

Deputy Cuffe

I warmly welcome the new Minister to the committee.

I wish to touch on four issues, the first of which is the application of European directives. I note the Minister has a proposal for a directive on batteries and accumulators on the agenda for the forthcoming Council meeting. In this regard, I wish to refer to the role of the Government in the implementation of European directives. I voice concern that Ireland appears to be going to court in an attempt to defend the indefensible and pass the bill on to the taxpayer for the non-transposition or partial transposition of European environmental directives into Irish law. Will the Minister comment on the Department's view on the action Ireland takes in this regard? We appear to be spending a considerable sum in defending the actions of the State rather than on fully implementing directives. Recent court judgments have gone against us on several issues. In that context, I note the comments of my colleague, Deputy Gilmore.

The second item on which I wish to touch is the Aarhus Convention. My understanding is that it has been signed but not ratified by Ireland and that it will touch on the issue of access to information on the environment, planning and related matters. Does the Minister have a view as to when Ireland will ratify the convention and whether it will have any implications for the payment of fees by third parties who wish to comment on planning applications within the State?

The third issue is that of genetically modified products. It appears that, in respect of item 6 on the Council's agenda, the Minister will have to make a decision on this issue in a fortnight's time. What will be the Government's view at that meeting? I highlight my party's major concern about the introduction of genetically modified products in Ireland. In this regard, I was impressed by a member of a delegation, a cattle farmer, who appeared before the committee last week. In a strong contribution he made a temperate and careful plea that we should proceed cautiously. There is a groundswell of concern about the introduction of such products in Ireland. The gentleman in question referred to the Emilia Romagna region of Italy which is well known for its production of parmesan cheese and parma ham. He also mentioned that GM foodstuffs were not allowed in that province because the authorities wished to safeguard the market base and the position of its products. He talked about the export of Irish meat products and how we targeted our products at the premium end of the market and mentioned that there would be concern if we allowed in foodstuffs or feedstuffs that were genetically modified.

I also wish to refer to climate change. An analogy often used is that trying to change a country's climate change emissions is a little like changing the course of or slowing down a supertanker. Decisions on such emissions will take many years to implement in Ireland and even if we can implement them, their effect on the world's climate could take many generations to become apparent. Specifically, how is Ireland doing and what changes does the Minister intend to make in this regard? In particular, building regulations require changes such as in Pardel as regards increasing the thermal performance of buildings and increased efficiency in energy use. Is the Minister willing to make a significant change to the regulations to partially address the issue of climate change in Ireland? How optimistic is he that we will comply with the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol?

Senator Brennan

I, too, welcome the Minister and congratulate him on his appointment.

On the groundwater directive, amendments to which will arise in 2005, I compliment the Government on its list of priority developments under the national development plan. Is the Minister confident that Ireland will meet its commitments regarding local authorities implementing these schemes within the six year period? On the costs to agricultural communities, I welcome the concessions made in the budget and hope they will be continued in the coming years to meet the requirements of the directive.

Deputy Mulcahy

I join the Chairman in warmly welcoming the Minister and congratulating him on his appointment. I missed some of his comments because I was attending a pre-GAERC meeting next door listening to the Minister of State with responsiblity for European Affairs, a post the Minister previously held.

I welcome the last sentence of the Minister's contribution on the GMO issue. He states he will listen closely to the views of committee members in advance of finalising his position nearer the date of the Council meeting.

The Government and the Oireachtas must get their act together a little more with regard to GMOs because the issueis discussed by various committees. I am also aware there is an interdepartmental committee dealing with it. For example, GMO Bt11 was referred for consideration to the health steering committee in Brussels and finally decided at the Agriculture Council. This committee is now dealing with another GMO. Across the areas of health, agriculture and the environment, the GMO issue is being dealt with by three Departments and three or four Oireachtas committees. It is difficult, therefore, to get a handle on the issue when it is not being co-ordinated by one Oireachtas committee. For example, GT 73 is an animal feed that will be fed to animals we will end up eating. Indirectly, therefore, it is entering the food chain. An argument could be made that the issue should be debated by the health committee as well as the environment committee. I am strongly of the view the Minister should say “No” at the Council of Environment Ministers meeting. Ireland previously abstained on concerns regarding leakage, slippage or whatever. I made the point in writing to the former Minister for Agriculture and Food, and I agree with what was said in this regard, that Ireland is famous the world over for its natural produce. Will we make ourselves hostages to fortune by opening up this? In my opinion, we will and we will undermine the country’s reputation for top of the range natural produce. Why open it up and where does the advantage to Ireland lie? We are all aware of where the disadvantages lie. I know the Minister will engage in deep contemplation on this matter. From my point of view, his answer should be “No”.

Is a licence required to sow GM seeds in Ireland? As I understand it, such a licence is not required because there are two lists of GM food products. The first is the national catalogue of agricultural plant varieties of Ireland and the second is the EU common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species. As long as a GM seed appears on one of those lists, it can be sown in Ireland without a licence. This raises the prospect that a GM seed Ireland may have voted against in Europe can be sown here without a licence. That is scary and it is a matter this committee and the Joint Committees on Agriculture and Food and Health and Children must consider a matter of urgency.

Deputy Roche

Everyone referred to the issue of GMOs. Deputy Mulcahy, who has a particular interest in the matter, noted the fact that, however incremental, there has been a change. I varied the position that we took previously. The tradition had been to go along with the group. As it turns out, however, most countries voted the same way as Ireland or abstained. I do not believe the GT73 issue is going to be successful under the qualified majority vote on this occasion. That answers the question asked by Senator Brady and Deputies Cuffe and Mulcahy.

Deputy Mulcahy also inquired if a licence is required to sow GM seeds. He was correct to state that such a licence is not required. This issue comes within the competence of another Minister. The Deputy made the point that this committee and others might take a joint view on it but that is a matter for the committees concerned.

Deputy Cuffe inquired about directives. We debated this issue on the airwaves on more than one occasion. When I was appointed Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs two and a half years ago, Ireland was second or third from the bottom of the table in terms of transposition. However, the same was not the case as regards implementation. When I concluded my term as Minister of State, we had moved to a position of being joint third from the top of the table. I pushed for the improvement because I am of the opinion that if one is in the club, one should not only endorse the rules but also live by them. However, the point must be made that court actions must be defended.

Deputy Gilmore referred to a case from 1999 but there have been significant changes since then. The case in question would have referred to a period before 1999. We have, therefore, a responsibility to go before the court — it would be contentious not to do so — and make our case. We rarely choose to go before the court but we have done so on an uncomfortable number of occasions. We are in good company or bad company, depending on the way one wants to look at it, in that regard. It is not a question of complying with European regulations or doing something they have told us to do. We should be doing these things ourselves and we should not be faced with situations about which Deputy Gilmore and I engaged in dialogue a few moments ago. We have done a good deal in terms of transposition. A lot done and more to do is a good slogan to apply to this matter.

Deputy O’Dowd

It was a good slogan.

Deputy Roche

It still is.

Senator Bannon

What about last summer?

Deputy O’Dowd

The Minister was caught out.

Deputy Roche

That was before we achieved so much. We have achieved a great deal.

Deputy Cuffe

The Minister is obliged to defend the indefensible in the European Court.

Deputy Roche

That is a fair point but I do not believe it to be the case. We are obliged to go before the court to demonstrate that we are serious.

As I stated last night, I am not in any way averse to criticism about our position because there is much to criticise about it. However, I have travelled extensively throughout Europe — long before I became Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs I was familiar with quite a number of countries — and I have always been mystified by the fact that we seem to come in for an inordinate degree of attention because, in environmental terms, we are certainly not at the bottom of the table. We are not where we should be, which is at the top, but we are nowhere near the bottom. That, however, is a different issue.

With regard to the Aarhus Convention, the directive on access to information on the environment will be transposed by the deadline of 14 February next. The directive on public participation in decision-making on certain environmental matters will also be transposed by the deadline. There is an issue as to whether Ireland has enough complaint agencies. Reference was made to this matter recently but I am somewhat of a loss in respect of it. I will be seeking, during the course of bilateral meetings, to define what has been said about Ireland in this regard. The one thing we are not short of in Ireland is entities to which complaints can be made.

Deputy Cuffe

Would that relate specifically to environmental emissions as opposed to, for example, planning issues?

Deputy Roche

That may be true, I do not know. I merely heard that complaints had been made. The Deputy adverted to this point on a radio programme. I am not certain with regard to what is the basis of criticism in this regard because we have the EPA and the OEE in place. The system is extremely open, particularly on the planning side. For all its flaws and warts, there is no doubt our planning system is the most transparent in Europe.

Deputy Cuffe

I agree with the Minister in respect of physical planning. There is possibly, however, a lacuna in the area of environmental protection, where a draft integrated pollution control licence can be reviewed only by the Environmental Protection Agency. In the case of local authority planning decisions, the process is considered completely anew by An Bord Pleanála.

Deputy Roche

That is why the OEE was established to be separate to the EPA. It is early days because the OEE has been in operation for only 12 months. It has a quasi-autonomous oversight activity.

Deputy Cuffe

In enforcement but not in terms of decision-making reviews.

Deputy Roche

The Deputy has a point. I have a great deal of confidence in the EPA and its director, who is a woman of outstanding character and extraordinary personal independence. I have had one meeting with Dr. Kelly since I became Minister and she is not the type of person any Minister would feel he or she could push around. If one did so, one would be pushed quite forcefully in the opposition direction. The Deputy made an interesting point.

Deputy Gilmore

Is the Minister going to provide her agency with more money?

Deputy Roche

Her agency is more than adequately funded.

Deputy Gilmore

It has endured cutbacks for the past two years.

Deputy Roche

No. That is actually more of a book-keeping issue than a real issue. The Deputy must accept that the EPA has a flow of income which it did not have previously. The two directives to which I referred will be transposed by the deadline. In addition, it is my objective to get as far ahead of the posse as we can in moving from transposition to implementation.

One member referred to the groundwater directive. The Irish position is that we welcome the European Commission's proposal for a directive in this area. There are no significant additional implications for Ireland beyond those already imposed by the water framework directive. Regulations will be required to give effect to the new groundwater directive which might also replace or update legislation that gives effect to the current directive.

The two senior spokespersons of the Opposition parties have agreed to assist me in pushing through Second Stage of the water services legislation currently before the House and ensuring it moves to Committee Stage.

Deputy O’Dowd

We will do so once the Minister does not speak for too long.

Deputy Roche

My problem is that, unusually for a Minister, I am prepared to provide people with as much information as possible.

Deputy O’Dowd

The Minister is unique.

Deputy Roche

I may change after a few weeks.

Senator Bannon

The Minister's officials are constantly trying to get him to focus on certain matters.

Deputy Roche

Yes, I can feel it.

Deputy O’Dowd

They listen to their master's voice.

Deputy Roche

No, that is not true. One could not wish for better officials.

A number of interesting questions have arisen in the House in respect of groundwater protection during the Second Stage debate, to date, on the water services legislation and I am anxious to conclude our deliberations in that regard. I have listened carefully to the points made during the debate. A number of good submissions have been made in respect of groundwater, particularly in terms of who — managers or councillors — should hold the balance of power. Members will, I believe, be surprised by my response in that regard. However, the matter to which I refer falls outside the ambit of this committee.

Chairman

I have three questions the Minister might answer to guide us in our work in the new year. He should feel free to say what he likes in response to them.

Does the Minister have any plans to change the retail planning guidelines? If so, will this involve the introduction of legislation?

On the second issue, I am aware that the NESC and the Goodbody group will be publishing reports on house prices in the near future. When will they be published and will the Minister be announcing any initiatives on foot of their publication?

The third issue I wish to raise relates to the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004. Arising from his obligations under the Act, when will the Minister make a decision in respect of the Tara-Skryne valley?

Deputy Roche

I would have thought the Chairman would be able to inform me what I should do in that regard.

Chairman

It depends on what the Minister has to say.

Deputy Roche

The third matter about which the Chairman inquired is serious. As Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, my role focuses on matters of archaeology, not the ultimate decision. However, it is not a question of my passing on responsibility. I have spoken to a number of former academic colleagues who work in the area of archaeology and I am aware of the sensitivities involved. The issue that arises is not primarily about archaeology but rather the landscape. The direct answer to the Chairman's question is that I am still awaiting all of the papers, as they relate to my ministry, in respect of the M3 decision. I do not intend to spend overly long considering them but will give them a fair amount of attention. I took it upon myself to visit the area in question on a number of recent occasions. There is no doubt that the traffic problems there are horrific. I do not yet know how we will resolve the issues involved.

The Chairman also inquired about the NESC and Goodbody reports. There will actually be three reports because the All-Party Committee on the Constitution also produced a report. The Goodbody report came out separately and effectively was one of the elements that informed the NESC report. As soon as they are ready, I will publish the two together because we will then be in a position to engage in a fully informed discussion on the issue. If the committee so desires, I will come before it again when the reports are published when we can discuss the issues involved and how they relate to housing. I am firmly of the opinion that the issue of housing can only be resolved in partnership.

During the week — I was surprised at the controversy it caused — I released the records over a ten year period in order to be fair to local authorities. I thought councillors throughout the country would universally be of the opinion that it would be great if statistics were available. Woe is me, however, because at least one councillor was extremely vociferous in issuing criticism. Nothing but good can come in publishing objective information and being as open as possible because there have been some bad failures in the area of housing.

The combination of policies in place — they were not all introduced by one Government or Administration and date back over a number of years — will prove to be very good in the long run. There remains a number of relatively minor changes that must be made, particularly in the area of affordable housing, for example. As Deputy Gilmore has stated on more than one occasion, building societies and loan agencies are not prepared to provide funds in that area. I am introducing legislation — I again thank the Opposition for facilitating me in this regard — which will institute a small change to allow a clawback in order to facilitate those people entering the market. The changes made in the budget in respect of first-time buyers are welcome. A combination of elements will resolve difficulties in this area.

When the NESC report is published, I will be delighted to engage with the committee in a much fuller debate on the issue. The Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, has driven housing policy and his passion about the matter is extraordinary. He is tremendously knowledgeable about the minutiae involved.

I intend to publish even more objective indicators which will be of assistance to the committee. If it wants to see such indicators relating to any of the areas we have determined, I will make them available. There is no point in hiding them in a cupboard somewhere and being of no use to anyone. It is our responsibility, as politicians, to drive the policies we all espouse. There is no difference between us, in a political sense, in terms of social and affordable housing, the use of shared ownership schemes and the DPG. We should, therefore, take command of matters and drive the policies forward. If the committee wants to be briefed on these issues, I will ensure any objective information available to me is put at its disposal.

As regards retail policy guidelines, it is probably one of the worst kept secrets in the world that this was one of the issues I began to consider when I became Minister. The existing guidelines have served us well in that things that have happened elsewhere have not happened here. However, we have reached the point where we must consider the possibility of allowing very specific and focused variations in the guidelines in instances where social benefits can be obtained. Ballymun is a case in point but there are also other IAPs throughout the country. If, on the one hand, one can assist consumer demand while, on the other, achieve huge social benefits, it would be foolhardy to fail to take the opportunity. There are two jurisdictions on this island and we do not have control over what will happen on the opposite side of the Border. It would be foolhardy in the extreme for us to fail to recognise this reality and the fact that some major international players will go north of the Border if they cannot establish operations here.

There are genuine bona fide concerns about a number of issues. I refer, for example, to capacity and whether we can cope in this regard. I am in discussions with the Cabinet in respect of looking at the retail guidelines in a way that would achieve positive social and consumer benefits without opening the floodgates. The guidelines have achieved many positives. However, one or two of the larger operators will inevitably come to this island. If we can modify — it is only a modification, not a question of throwing open the floodgates — the guidelines in a sufficiently sensitive way in order that we obtain the benefits offered by large operators while retaining the general benefits offered by the guidelines, we should seize the opportunity to do so.

I am concerned only with those operators which sell durable goods. This fact has been lost in some of the debate on the matter. People were concerned that terrible damage would be done to those involved in the grocery retail industry. One of Deputy O'Dowd's colleagues spoke to me about the matter, of which I am extremely conscious. I do not intend to harm the latter industry and I am focusing on durable goods and areas where integrated area plans are in place. I will also be considering the capacity of areas to facilitate the operators to which I refer. A combination of elements will be taken into consideration. It is not the case, as some journalist commented, that I am prepared to tear up the retail policy guidelines at the behest of one international operator. To characterise the matter in that way does a disservice to the debate in which we should engage. When and if amendments are made to the guidelines, I will come before the committee to discuss them. I cannot be more open than that.

Deputy Cuffe

I wish to highlight my concerns about the opening of a Pandora's box in this regard. The mistake made in respect of Ballymun in the 1960s was the choice to opt for a simplified planning solution which looked, on the face of it, like it would solve all the problems with one wave of a magic wand. There is a danger that this mistake will be repeated if the retail planning guidelines are relaxed to allow a large retail warehouse to be built between Ballymun and the M50. The particular concern has operated extremely successfully in other countries with smaller stores than that being mooted in respect of Ballymun. There is a danger that smaller operators will go to the wall if that box is opened.

I urge the Minister to give careful consideration to this issue. I appreciate that he may simply be looking at integrated area plans and the possibilities open to him. The Ballymun built in the 1960s suffered from being a quick fix solution. The spectrum of challenges it faces require a fine-grained approach, with support and co-operation from all players. I am concerned that the provision of a large retail warehouse would dramatically increase levels of car traffic in the area, might not assist local employment opportunities to any great extent and could create more problems than it solved.

Deputy O’Dowd

As the Minister is aware, I have tabled a priority question on this matter for tomorrow. I am delighted, however, that we are dealing with it now because it is better to discuss such matters here than to try to do so at Question Time, particularly as there is a two-way flow.

Deputy Roche

This a rehearsal for tomorrow.

Deputy O’Dowd

No, it is not. I welcome the Minister's concern. I support the views expressed in respect of consumer demand and social justice or equity. If we can meet consumer needs and create 500 jobs in Ballymun, that would be fantastic. However, as others stated, there are problems as regards infrastructure, transport issues, etc. However, I agree, in principle, with what the Minister is saying and take on board Deputy Cuffe's point regarding the size of the Ikea building, that it need not be so large. I understand the company operates much smaller units in other countries. Would the Minister consider appointing three wise men or women — for example, someone from the Competition Authority or the business community — to give objective consideration to the points he has raised? In this regard, I stress that I support what he said.

Deputy Gilmore

I share many of the concerns outlined by Deputy Cuffe in respect of this matter. The variables to be considered are not confined to, important though they are, consumer demand and social need. What also must be considered is the knock-on effect on the hardware retail business, employment therein and the geographic areas that business currently serves. The M50 encompasses a large sweep and, as the Minister is aware, there are many furniture shops in Bray and Drogheda. The considerable knock-on effects must be taken into account.

I am not clear about what the Minister is proposing. Is he proposing a once-off exemption to the retail planning guidelines in respect of a specific facility for Ballymun or is he saying that, in effect, there will be a second set of such guidelines which will apply to places with IAPs? If the latter is the case, will he indicate the number of IAPs in place throughout the country?

Deputy Roche

I am grateful for the opportunity to explore this matter and particularly grateful to Deputy O'Dowd.

To take the last point first, there are a number of criteria. While I do not want to go into this matter in detail, I have no intention of changing the law for one operator. Anything I introduce will be general rather than specific because one would leave oneself open to challenge if it were the latter. It is not just IAPs to which I will be tying this issue. The change, if introduced, will be extremely limited.

Deputy Cuffe

Will the Minister also be including town renewal plans?

Deputy Roche

I will not be drawn into further discussion on an issue that is not on the agenda for today's meeting. I must try to achieve something which makes sense and which is capable of being done.

Deputy Cuffe made the point that there were quick fix solutions in Ballymun in the 1960s. It is interesting to consider the eulogies and hurrahs that greeted it when it was first opened. It is embarrassing to remind those who subsequently stated it was a dreadful development about their earlier comments. None of the members present was here at the time because we were all in short trousers at the time. The point is, however, that mistakes were made. The people of Ballymun deserve their day in the sun.

I spent a day in Ballymun recently — it was a low key visit, unaccompanied by any brouhaha — in order to discover what was happening there. At the beginning of the 21st century, it is dreadful to see people still having to shop out of the back of steel containers illegally placed on open grass. We must ask why this is happening. If I can bestow some benefit on consumers and people living in Ballymun, I have a moral responsibility to try to do so.

The second issue which must be borne in mind is that we live on an island. While we can determine what happens on one part of this island, we cannot determine what will happen on the other. If any of the major international operators locate their activities slightly north of the Border, we will bear the disadvantage in terms of traffic movement and the various knock-on effects to which Deputy Gilmore referred. I am very conscious of that. There are all those knock-on effects, and that is why we must make the decision not in the abstract but facing reality. Second, the decision made must be very tightly focused to present precisely the thing of which the Deputy is talking. Third, it must be focused in a way that addresses issues such as traffic, which is Deputy Cuffe's bona fide concern, and mine too.

I am therefore aware of all the complexities in this matter, but it is time that we examined it. In six or even three months, if the announcement is made that one of those very large operators, of which there are several, has moved slightly north of the Border, we will have lost an opportunity. We must see if we can square the circle, which is not easy. If it were easy, some other Minister would have done it before me. However, I am very conscious that in the case of people living in Ballymun we should at least make an effort.

I am very grateful for today's helpful comments, to which I will respond. Colleagues have asked me the same question that has been asked here, but if I cannot produce a formula — though that is not a foregone conclusion — I will return and discuss the matter with this committee.

I believe very strongly that the people of Ballymun deserve some flagship. I will not make a political point, but I say this to Deputy Cuffe. I was on the radio with one of his colleagues today. Someone asked whether Dundrum shopping centre should not go ahead since, when one adds up all the shopping space there, it is more than that in any IKEA store anywhere. The other participant and I agreed that it should go ahead, and hats off to the people out there. People in Ballymun are entitled to the same. I accept the sincerity of Deputies' concerns on traffic, but——

Deputy Cuffe

From my limited knowledge of Ballymun, the various neighbourhoods within it need good retail space. Areas such as Poppintree need good neighbourhood shopping centres. People do not need a Wal-Mart outside their door but good shopping facilities within walking distance of where they live. Regardless of how they——

Deputy Roche

Wal-Mart is off the agenda.

Deputy Cuffe

Whether it is Wal-Mart or IKEA, such developments tend not to solve local shopping requirements. I would examine the different needs very carefully, along with the range of services.

Deputy Roche

It is worth taking a trip out. The president of the Royal Town Planning Institute said to me the other day that what was going on in Ballymun was the most exciting experiment in urban rejuvenation in Europe. Dublin City Council and Ballymun Rejuvenation Limited, which is driving the project, are entitled to our compliments, since they are addressing an horrific mistake for which the taxpayer is footing the bill. In Ballymun neighbourhood shopping facilities are being set up which should have been established 30 years ago. That did not happen, but it is happening now. I would also like to see a flagship there that would make Ballymun worth visiting for what it is. I apologise to the Chairman if we have strayed a little more than anticipated.

Chairman

We are not allowed to anticipate the debate in the Dáil Chamber tomorrow, so I will bring this discussion to a close.

Deputy O’Dowd

The Minister was off the record.

Chairman

No, nothing is off the record here.

Deputy Roche

Deputy O'Dowd is quite correct, since one of the great benefits of a committee system such as we now have in the Oireachtas is that we can tease such matters out. One can approach a debate much more logically than in the bear pit that the Dáil Chamber can sometimes be, and I am very interested in today's comments, especially in the support from Deputy O'Dowd.

Chairman

I thank the Minister for attending and for his comprehensive responses to our questions, for which we are very grateful.

The joint committee went into private session at 4.04 p.m. and adjourned at 4.24 p.m. until 12 p.m. on Wednesday, 15 January 2005.