I welcome the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, and his officials. This briefing in advance of his attendance at the Environment Council is now a regular part of the committee's work and it has proved thus far to be a useful and informative component of its annual work programme. As I stated at previous briefings, the committee sees this as an important part of the EU scrutiny process introduced by the Government to enhance the role of the Oireachtas in the EU legislative process. Following the Minister's presentation, I will invite questions from members. I ask the Minister to address the committee.
EU Environment Council: Ministerial Presentation.
I thank the committee for inviting me to appear before it again. I also thank and compliment it on its consideration of one of the key issues for discussion today. I read with great interest the committee's comments, which I will deal with shortly.
This will be the second and final Environment Council of the Luxembourg Presidency. When we met on this theme in March, I noted that the stated objective of the Luxembourg Presidency was not so much to ensure it would be successful from Luxembourg's point of view but rather that it would be successful from Europe's point of view. The Luxembourg Presidency has been eventful and challenging. It inspires the old adage that people live in interesting times. It is also interesting that the smallest country had to step up to the plate when Europe was in difficulties.
There are eight substantive items on the Council agenda, followed by other business. The variety of themes on the agenda reminds us of the extraordinarily wide scope of the environment brief. They pick up on the relationship between environment and health and on the transboundary and global nature of environmental issues. They also pick up on the need to take measures now to protect our environment for future generations and to safeguard our natural heritage to ensure a good quality of life for everyone. The first substantive item on the agenda, the groundwater directive, deals with that theme.
We hope to achieve political agreement on the proposed groundwater directive, which is the so-called "daughter directive" to the water framework directive. The groundwater directive is intended to ensure that groundwater quality is monitored, evaluated and managed across Europe in a harmonised way. In our view, the proposed approach to establishing quality criteria is both flexible and iterative. It takes account of local circumstances, which is good, and allows for further development, which is a common sense way to approach the issue. There are no significant additional implications for Ireland in this proposed directive beyond those already imposed by the water framework directive. The proposal is well supported by all member states, except in respect of two specific aspects on which some member states have reservations. These are the scope for setting water quality standards at national and EU level and the linkage between the proposed directive and the nitrates directive.
The proposed directive allows for the setting of quality standards at EU and national level, as appropriate. We agree with this approach. A small number of member states proposed that standards should be set only at EU level. We disagree with that approach. The immense natural variability of groundwater within the EU means a local approach to setting threshold levels, as proposed, is generally preferable in most situations. It would be unduly rigid to provide that standards could be set only at EU level. I strongly support the concept of subsidiarity in this regard and the draft supports that principle.
As regards links to the nitrates directive, the proposed groundwater directive provides generally that the measures to be taken in respect of nitrates from agricultural activities should be the measures required by the nitrates directive. We support that logical approach. Some member states consider, however, that the proposed directive should provide for the application of more stringent standards and requirements than those set by the nitrates directive.
I welcome the clarity of the proposed directive which confirms the continuing application of the nitrates directive as the primary legislative measure at EU level for promoting water quality protection in the context of agriculture. The nitrates directive and the new groundwater directive share the common objective of protecting and improving the quality of groundwater and should serve as complementary legislative measures operating in parallel and should not be sequential or, in effect, competing.
The second item on the agenda is a proposal for a directive establishing an infrastructure for spatial information in the Community, known as INSPIRE, hardly an inspired title. A key objective of INSPIRE is to reduce obstacles between public authorities in sharing data, especially in the field of the environment. Another is to make available more and better spatial data for Community policy-making and implementation. This work at EU level complements the ongoing work at national level on an Irish spatial data infrastructure.
Next are two items on which Council conclusions are proposed, one of which relates to mercury. This is an environmental and health issue on which action is required on a Community and global scale. The conclusions proposed for adoption at Council recognise the need to protect the environment and human health from the adverse effects of mercury. They underline the importance of minimising mercury emissions in the environment and exposure of humans to mercury. They stress the need for a global phase-out of production and the need for the European Union to continue and intensify efforts in this regard. By way of action, they also underline the importance of phasing out exports of mercury from the Community as soon as possible. Concerns about the environment and health risks from mercury can best be addressed through actions proposed under the strategy and I will support the conclusions at the Council.
The second item on which Council conclusions are proposed is ship-dismantling. Members might ask, as I did, why this is on the agenda for the Environment Council. It is included because it is a waste, environmental and health issue. The decommissioning of a large vessel may involve the removal of many tonnes of hazardous wastes, for example, asbestos. Dismantling can also result in the release of dioxin and sulphur fumes. Workers, local communities, coastal and ocean biodiversity, groundwater and air are all at risk.
Because ship-breaking is labour intensive, the industry has established a strong presence in countries where labour is inexpensive and plentiful such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and China. The Council conclusions are proposed in order to co-ordinate as far as possible EU member states' efforts to accelerate work in the International Maritime Organisation for an enforceable international legally binding system for the recycling of ships. This is an interesting issue. In the context of the evolution of European law, as many members will know, it is issues initiated in the European Court of Justice that provided the Community with confidence in this area. The objective of such a system is to ensure environmentally sound management of ship-recycling and to protect human health in this activity. Ireland is supportive of the measures being developed at the International Maritime Organisation.
The Council will hear an update on progress on LIFE plus, the proposed regulation for a new financing instrument for the environment. We had discussions on this issue at the December Council and the related topic of funding ofNATURA 2000 sites at the October Council last year. The key outstanding issue is the scope of the proposal, on which the European Union is split. Many Mediterranean and eastern member states believe it is entirely inadequate and that much more funding should be made available to support NATURA 2000 and nature protection, in particular.
Ireland is broadly supportive of the funding approach adopted in the proposed regulation that the main EU funding programmes would be the main sources of funding for environmental infrastructure development. We are of the view that this is a better way of meeting the costs on the scale required. This issue is on the agenda to allow the Presidency to update the Council on the state of play and the progress of proceedings. Further progress will not be possible until the new financial perspectives for the European Union are agreed. In effect, we will be marking time on this proposal.
The Council will have a policy debate on REACH, the proposed new EU chemicals regime. This is a major initiative with very high environmental and economic relevance. It is being examined in the Environment Council and the Competitiveness Council which is taking the lead in this regard. The Presidency has tabled a number of questions for general discussion relating to the authorisation regime of the proposal.
Authorisation is the aspect of REACH which is aimed at controlling substances of very high concern. In general, the REACH proposal puts the onus on industry to assess the properties of the chemicals they use and supply this information to the regulatory authorities. The authorisation regime is different. In this instance, approval must be sought from the regulatory authorities for the use of the substance concerned and the authorities must grant or reject the application. Authorisation will only be granted if the risks to human health and the environment are adequately controlled or, where this is not the case, if the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risks to human health and the environment and if there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies. The authorisation may be bound to conditions such as monitoring and may provide for time limits and review periods.
In general, Ireland is satisfied that the Commission's proposals on authorisation are appropriate and balanced. Further consideration needs to be given to some aspects of the proposals from the perspective of practicability and workability. The policy debate at the Council will inform this work. An issue of concern is whether in practical terms we can move forward with the proposals as they stand. It will be interesting to hear the views expressed in that regard.
Item 9 on the agenda relates to a number of national bans invoked by certain member states in respect of specific genetically modified products in those member states. The Commission is asking the Council to overturn the national bans. There are eight bans affecting five products and five member states. The background is that the relevant directives allow a member state to invoke a national ban on an individual product previously approved at EU level in the case of an emergency or where there is new detailed information which has environmental or health implications. However, given single market considerations, the directives also provide that the grounds for any such national ban should be examined on an EU-wide basis. If the grounds stand, the product should be withdrawn from the market right across the Community; if the grounds are not proven — the Scottish verdict — the ban should not remain in force. That is the current interpretation of the directive.
In these specific cases the products, various types of maize and swede rape, were approved in the period 1996-98. The national bans were subsequently invoked in the period 1997-2000. The Commission waited until the enhanced regulatory framework on GMOs was in place in 2003 before examining the rationale for the bans. It has concluded, based on the advice of the European Food Safety Authority, that there is no scientific evidence available to support the bans and wants the Council of Ministers to agree that they be removed. This approach is being vigorously resisted by the member states which have imposed the bans as they believe their national concerns about the products must be taken into account. Notwithstanding the views of the European Food Safety Authority, they believe there are still question marks against their safety. They strongly believe a degree of subsidiarity must apply in order that the precautionary principle can be applied at a national level.
This issue was discussed at length last week at a joint meeting of this committee and the Joint Committee on European Affairs. I have been well briefed on the strong consensus view that we should vote against the Commission' s proposals. Members will be glad to hear that I share the views expressed at those meetings. This is exactly the type of action by the Commission which stokes up unnecessary public disillusionment with the EU project. I intend to speak very strongly on this issue at the Council tomorrow. If a member state, on the basis of its own detailed analysis, believes it has strong environmental or health grounds to ban a particular product, it is unacceptable that the Commission should be allowed overrule those strongly held national views. This is the application of the doctrine of subsidiarity, a doctrine which we fought tooth and nail to protect at the Convention on the Future of Europe and which we managed to write into the constitutional treaty.
While the directives give the Commission the legal power to do so, the Council has the power to prevent it exercising this power. I believe the Council should do so. Accordingly, I will be making a strong contribution in that regard. There has been a most interesting development in respect of this issue in recent weeks. Based on the voting pattern at the regulatory committee, it was not expected that there would be a qualified majority either for or against the Commission's proposals. This would mean that they would go back to the Commission for decision. While this is the procedure under the comitology rules, it clearly would not have been a very satisfactory outcome. However, the latest indications available are that a number of member states that were previously not opposing the Commission's view are now prepared to do so on Friday. This reflects a growing consensus that the Commission's approach is not well judged.
It is now almost certain that there will be a qualified majority against the Commission's proposal to overturn the bans that currently apply in Austria, Germany and Luxembourg on maize Bt176. It is also possible, although less certain, that there will be qualified majorities against the Commission in respect of the other bans. In any event, I can confirm that Ireland will be voting against the Commission. I will be intervening strongly in support of member states' autonomy in this area.
No. 10 also relates to GMOs. It is somewhat more complex. This is a proposal for a Council decision to authorise a new product, a genetically modified maize known as MON863, for animal feed and for industrial processing. This is coming to the Council because there was no qualified majority either to approve or reject it when it was considered by the regulatory committee. It seems quite certain that there will be no qualified majority at Council either. The votes are fairly evenly distributed between acceptance and rejection.
I mandated my officials to abstain on this vote at the regulatory committee and I will abstain on Friday. I want to explain my rationale for this. I heard the tut-tuts but I did not hear any hurrahs when I changed the decision from voting in favour to abstaining. Ireland's general policy in respect of biotechnology is to be positive but precautionary. This policy emerged from the work of the interdepartmental working group on biotechnology, the report of which, published in October 2000, was endorsed by the Government. That report concluded that we should acknowledge the potential benefits of genetic engineering while maintaining a fundamental commitment to safety and environmental sustainability, based on scientific risk assessment and management.
As a number of members already stated, the pharmaceutical industry in Ireland uses GMOs under controlled conditions and to positive effect. The benefits to society are clear and are generally supported. With regard to crops and foodstuffs, the benefits are less clear and much less supported. We need, therefore, to look very carefully at each proposal as it arises and make the best judgment possible on the basis of the best evidence rather than on the basis of some form of ideology. Ireland, on foot of its positive but precautionary policy, has supported the authorisation of some products on the basis of careful case by case assessment.
In regard to this specific product, there has been considerable disagreement among member states. There has also been some controversy regarding a rat feeding study carried out in support of the application. The relevant competent authorities in each member state have considered the detailed proposal. This involved, in our case, the Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, Teagasc and the Departments of Health and Children and Agriculture and Food. Following this consultation process, the EPA raised no objection to the proposal. This was also the position of the European Food Safety Authority, which advises the Commission.
The scientific advice available to me does not, therefore, support a vote against this proposal, particularly in the context of the Government's established positive but precautionary policy. However, the fact that the competent authorities in a number of member states continue to have reservations suggests that the jury may still be out on this particular product and I would not be happy to vote in its favour at this stage. In other words, application of our national policy in this instance and at this time should lean towards the precautionary rather than the positive. I will, therefore, abstain on Friday.
To return to the agenda, the final matter is other business. The list in respect of this is long. I do not expect that we will have a debate on any of these issues. Many are briefings and updates by the Presidency. Others are on the agenda at the request of delegations. The list includes briefings to Council on a number of past and forthcoming international meetings.
Climate change will be the subject of our discussion for lunchtime on Friday. At the previous Environment Council meeting in March, Ministers agreed on robust and far-sighted language on the type of global emissions reductions that are likely to be required in the period from 2020 to 2050 if the most adverse consequences of climate change are to be averted. Much of this language was endorsed by Heads of State and Government at their spring meeting. What we will be discussing at lunch on Friday is our strategy on how to translate the EU vision into global action through negotiating a new international agreement to follow and build on the strengths of the Kyoto Protocol, and achieve greater participation on the part of both industrialised nations and emerging economies. This discussion will form part of the EU preparations for the first meeting of the parties to the protocol, which is being held alongside the Eleventh Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change in Montreal this December.
We will also briefly discuss the latest figures on EU greenhouse gas emissions, which were published earlier this week. The figures, which cover the year 2003, show an overall increase in greenhouse gas emissions of 1.5% over 2002 levels for EU 25. This is a cause for some concern but it should be borne in mind that a number of measures to address emissions were not fully in place at that time. For example, the emissions trading scheme, which covers 30% of EU greenhouse gas emissions, only began operating this year and has taken a little time to get up and running.
While Ireland was notable as one of only two countries that recorded a decrease in emissions following a similar decrease the previous year, it still has a considerable amount of work to do to reach its target for the Kyoto period.
That is an outline of the Council agenda for 24 June. I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to speak here and I also thank the committee for the briefing it sent me.
I thank the Minister. The committee intends to scrutinise the LIFE plus programme at some stage and would welcome the Minister's comments on it.
I welcome the Ministers comments regarding national bans on specifically mentioned genetically modified products. It is a significant move and a change of policy at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The committee is extremely happy with that development.
For the benefit of members, I have circulated a letter circulated by me, as Chairman of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Environment and Local Government, and the Chairman of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs, Deputy John Deasy, following our joint meeting last week and I wish to highlight two or three paragraphs thereof.
The letter states:
Having listened to all the contributions a broad consensus emerged among the members of both committees that the member states currently with "National Bans" should be supported in this regard at the forthcoming Council by the Irish Government. It was felt that, in addition to the substantive concerns regarding Genetically Modified crops and food, there is an issue of national sovereignty, and indeed democracy.
As doubtless you are aware, many of the key decisions with respect to the genetically modified issue have been made by the European Commission, by virtue of the default or comitology process in circumstances where the member states have failed to reach a clear decision either positive or negative. This raises an important issue of the democratic deficit.
I thank the Minister for providing a comprehensive briefing in advance of the Environment Council's meeting because it raises the work of this committee to a level that is of significant assistance to members in terms of their work in the Houses.
I am grateful for the committee's work.
Of the many aspects involved, I wish to examine two issues that will be discussed by the Environment Council, namely, GMOs and climate change. I welcome the Minister's commitment to keeping in place the list of banned GMOs that the committee discussed last week but the decision to abstain on the matter of the GMO produced by Monsanto — MON863 — is a matter of concern. The Minister made reference to a controversial study involving rats. If the study is still a matter of controversy, we should bring to bear the precautionary principle of not allowing this particular genetically modified maize to enter the market. Simply abstaining from the vote is not good enough and the Minister should vote against the GMO's introduction. Other competent authorities in Europe have asked their governments to do so.
Ireland could take the lead on this issue. It is uniquely placed as an island nation that prides itself on its clean and green image, particularly in the area of food production. I hope Ireland will follow the lead of other regions in Europe, such as Amelia Romana, that have realised the value GM-free crops can add to food production. I appreciate the Minister's decision to continue the ban on the other crops but I am concerned about the decision to abstain rather than vote against the authorisation of MON863. In a sense, the Minister must adhere to his party's U-turn, which led to Ireland's positive but precautionary principle. I hope he reconsiders the position.
I welcome next Friday's discussion on climate change. In a fortnight, the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, will put climate change on the G8 agenda alongside poverty reduction in developing nations. Ireland could do more on this matter. I welcome our reduction in greenhouse gas emissions between 2002 and 2003 but we are at the bottom of the league in terms of distance from our target under the Kyoto Protocol. We are 25% over the 2008 to 2012 period's permitted levels when we are limited to 13% over the base year's figures. I am not convinced that the 2003 savings will be repeated because these reductions were probably due to the closure of the NET plants in Arklow and Cork.
What will the Minister tell his European colleagues about other measures that could be taken? Will he be suggesting that he will modify our building regulations to provide for higher energy performance in new construction? Will he be announcing any new projects in the area of capital spending on public transport so that it might receive a larger share of the transport cake than at present? Will he be announcing plans for a carbon levy? His ministerial colleagues have said that the Government will not introduce some form of carbon taxation in Ireland. That will benefit big business at the expense of ordinary taxpayers.
As part of Ireland's commitment to addressing climate change, will the Minister make any new announcements in the area of alternative energy, whether it be wind, wave or biomass? We have witnessed the beginning of a significant phase of a new offshore wind bank at Arklow but the project's promoters cannot expand it any further because they do not have the Government's support.
Will the Minister reconsider his position to abstain on the genetically modified maize issue? Will he be bringing forward any new proposals in the area of climate change, particularly in light of the fact that the 2003 drop in emissions was principally due to the closure of the fertiliser plants to which I refer?
I thank the Deputy for his contribution. Regarding the national climate change strategy, the Deputy is possibly correct that the emission output figures for every country will reflect conditions during the previous 12 months and that the closure of the IFI plants has contributed significantly to our situation. I will not portray matters otherwise but similar events occur everywhere else. A review of the national climate change strategy is under way. I have previously informed the committee that I am interested in examining ways to achieve better performance in, for example, the building regulations.
I have given the Minister four ways to do so.
The Deputy has been very helpful and I will take on board some of his suggestions. There is room for improvement in the building regulations but we should recognise what has been done. When we last carried out comparative studies between Ireland and Europe, we did quite well in the new build context. Much has been done but there is more to do, which I fully accept. Nothing will be ruled out during the review of the national climate change strategy.
Deputy Cuffe's stance on the study using rats is at variance with that of others and, if I may say so, somewhat odd. His argument's principle is that I should ignore what our agencies are suggesting and be bound by the suggestions of agencies in other countries. For a person such as I, who strongly supports the concept of subsidiarity and defends national sovereignty on these issues, this is an odd principle to espouse. I made reference to Irish agencies and indicated that I have made changes in this area. It would, therefore, be strange to argue a case in favour of sovereignty and subsidiarity on this issue on Friday were I to then say that our nation is an exception and that we should not exercise our own views and judgments.
Every time such debates arise, there is a propensity to suggest that we should do what someone else did. I am not accusing Deputy Cuffe of this but it is an attitude in this country. We must make judgments on the basis of the best available evidence in each individual case. I have confidence in the agencies that tabled these arguments because they are far better equipped than I to make scientific judgments. If the decision were to be based on the scientific advice of other agencies and were I not entering some degree of precaution, I would simply continue with a positive vote. I will, however, abstain and I have explained the basis for doing so. Given all that we have said about protecting a nation's individual rights and sovereignty in this area, it would be odd to surrender our own. I am sure the Deputy is not suggesting this but it is the principle implied.
I must base the decisions I take on the best information that comes forward from the relevant agencies. I have already outlined those decisions. It would not be fair to suggest that it is only regional agencies in Italy that have made suggestions. I am more bound by the advice I receive from the interdepartmental group on biotechnology, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, the Environmental Protection Agency, Teagasc and the Departments of Health and Children and Agriculture and Food. We have consulted the EPA and the European Food Safety Agency on the issue. I do not accept the hypothesis that because a regional agency takes a view which is different from all national agencies, I should automatically surrender to that view. I have taken a cautionary view and I outlined my reasons for doing so earlier. I thank Deputy Cuffe for his contribution and, not for the first time, I will be accepting some, but not all, of his advice.
There has been a significant strengthening of the building regulations. Ireland compares very favourably with other countries and is in the top three or four places in the most significant emissions tables. We have improved greatly. I am not saying that we have attained perfection. We have a long way to go and I am ambitious to achieve higher standards. We are, however, getting there.
I welcome the Minister and acknowledge his willingness to discuss the agenda for the European Council meeting, which he correctly describes as very full and comprehensive.
I welcome his response to the discussion we had at the joint meeting of the Joint Committees on Environment and Local Government and European Affairs in respect of genetically modified products. I hope the outcome of the Council meeting will be a qualified majority vote to retain the national bans on GMOs.
I share Deputy Cuffe's disappointment with the Minister's intention to continue to abstain on the Monsanto product, MON863. I have difficulty understanding the Minister's approach, or his interpretation of the positive but precautionary policy. As he stated, the competent authorities in a number of member states continue to have reservations about this product and the jury may be out on it. If the jury is still out, we should not sit on the fence. My understanding of the positive but precautionary policy is not that it justifies us standing by or that it would seek to require that the evidence must support us voting against something rather than the reverse. In my view, to abstain does not, as the Minister stated, lean towards the precautionary rather than the positive. Sitting on the fence is no position for the country to adopt in respect of this issue. I join Deputy Cuffe in requesting that the Minister reconsider his position on it. If, at some point in the future, the evidence is such that it might justify voting in favour of the product, so be it. That would be the positive but precautionary approach acted out to its conclusion. However, I do not agree with the approach of sitting on the fence.
I am curious about the Minister's comment on the REACH directive to the effect that in general Ireland is satisfied that the Commission's proposals on authorisation are appropriate and balanced and that further consideration needs to be given to some aspects of the proposals from the perspective of practicability and workability. I would like to hear more from him on that matter. That sounds as if we are in favour of it in general and against it in particular. I would like to know more about the practical issues arising from the directive.
I have a number of questions on the groundwater directive. The proposed directive allows for the setting of quality standards at EU and national level, as appropriate. We agree with that but we do not agree with the proposals from some member states that standards should be set at EU level only. How does the groundwater standard in Ireland compare with that in other member states and how does it compare with the requirements of the groundwater directive? Are our groundwater standards higher or lower than those outlined in directive and how does our monitoring system compare with that provided for in it?
On a related issue, the committee gave a great deal of thought to the nitrates directive when Ireland was under the cosh from the European Commission because the compromise formula that was being considered at that time had not been implemented. Will the Minister clarify our position in regard to the nitrates directive and is the European Commission happy with it? Will the groundwater directive impose additional requirements, other than those contained in the nitrates directive?
Does the Minister anticipate that the discussion on climate change will focus on the European Union's implementation of the various climate change strategies and to what extent are the member states meeting the climate change obligations and the Kyoto targets? Will the European Union consider its position in respect of climate change vis-à-vis that of the United States? The central issue in global climate change is the refusal of the United States to play ball. Reports about the various debates in the US Senate and House of Representatives and the pro-oil approach of the Bush Administration do not suggest any great improvement from that side. Where does that leave the EU in terms of its competitiveness with the United States?
I raise this issue because of the extent to which the competitiveness agenda dominated last weekend's budget and financial arrangements for the EU. Will this lunchtime discussion focus on relaxing the European Union's position on climate change? If it does, I would be very concerned. There is a great deal of rhetoric about climate change but, given the position of the United States on Kyoto, some members of the European Union seem to want to relax the position on climate change commitments.
On the question of climate change, the lunch discussions tend, by theirnature, to be fairly wide-ranging. The Deputy asked if issues in regard to the United States would arise and the answer is most likely yes. There is a consciousness that Europe faces a certain competitive disadvantage in the short term because of decisions that were taken elsewhere. I have expressed the view on several occasions that Europe is in a good position to evolve new technologies as a result of a much more realistic and serious view of climate change and its responsibilities. In my view, Europe will ultimately have a competitive advantage arising from this because new, energy-lean technologies will undoubtedly arise and the countries that have put that to the fore in terms of research and development and public policy will clearly win. We are not talking here about the entire United States. There are many states which take a different view. Some of them have examined what Europe is doing and are of the view that the European assessment is correct.
The discussions relating to the post-2020 period will probably be quite broad in nature. There was a discussion at the previous lunch meeting about how we should engage with other evolving and developing economies in respect of this matter. It was formally agreed that when we visited many of these evolving economies, Europe's view would be expressed. That has been ongoing. It will necessarily be a very wide-ranging discussion.
As members are aware, we made our presentation on 21 April and the Commission has been examining it and has been very helpful. There has been a much more positive interchange between the senior Commission personnel and Irish personnel from my Department and other agencies than was the case heretofore. I am not apportioning blame for that but the approach was previously much more adversarial. I have worked very hard on it, speaking at a very senior level in the Commission and to the Commissioner, to try to create a more workmanlike atmosphere. I think that has been achieved.
The farming organisations have been immensely positive. We all realise that it is in everybody's interest to reach agreement on this. It is somewhat frustrating that we have not signed off on the final details because we are very close to agreement. We must then engage in detailed discussions on the regulations, which will require a great deal of work. However, the partnership process we have put in place has served us well in recent months and will continue to do so.
I was asked specifically about what I meant when I referred to the workability and the REACH directive. One of the arguments I have always made is that Europe has a propensity to be rather heavy handed in terms of the structures it puts in place. That is necessarily so because we must deal with the complexities of 25 different administrative settings. The issues involved are really concerned with workability and the level of practical common sense that is written into the directive.
I will provide an example. Let us consider circumstances where a complaint might be made about a member state under one heading in a specific case. If such a complaint is made and an adequate response is forthcoming, the complainant will usually accept that the matter has been resolved. That is not the way it works in Europe. In some instances, complaints have begun in respect of certain issues and have migrated to different issues. I do not believe that is a workable approach.
General concerns on the REACH directive relate to the approach that will be adopted. The national policy on the REACH directive is framed by the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The Competitiveness Council is the lead body on the matter. One of the major concerns about the Competitiveness Council is the fact that regulations introduced, while effective, must be light handed and must not be not destructive, intrusive or unduly bureaucratic. The issues relate to the appropriateness of the regulation and the level of balance. We need to ensure that the arrangements put in place will recognise the differences in member states.
Another issue that is causing concern is how to regulate the substitution of one substance for another. There is a level of technical concern about how this will be handled. There is an anxiety not to take an overly bureaucratic approach to it because of competitiveness in the Council. The general principles are agreed but there is concern about getting the specific balance right. Having analysed the activities of the Commission and various directors general down through the years, it is evident that many did not get the balance right. People sometimes forget that going 99% of the way is progress. The argument being made by European industry is that the EU is overly regulatory and overly bureaucratic. We must achieve our objectives but we must do so in a way that avoids being destructive. Another issue that will arise is the question of capacity, which is a complex area.
I was asked about the relationship between the groundwater directive and the nitrates directive. I made the point earlier that it is important that the requirements of the groundwater directive do not compete with those contained in the nitrates directive. It is difficult enough to reach the requirements of the latter. There is an acceptance that the two directives are interlinked but the groundwater directive, as drafted, provides for activities which fall within the scope of the nitrates directive. I refer, for example, to programmes and measures required in respect of the groundwater quality standard which should be in accordance with the nitrates directive. In other words, the groundwater directive should defer to the nitrates directive in that regard. I am not sure if the Deputy wanted to clarify which directive would be superior. There is a deferral to the standard — where that is the appropriate approach — set in the nitrates directive.
I have already outlined the position on Monsanto. I reiterate that it seems odd to suggest that I should pay more attention to information emanating from a regulatory or advisory agency in a country other than Ireland than to the strong advice from our domestic agencies. It would be odd for an Irish Minister to simply overrule the advice he or she obtained from a domestic agency and accept and be bound by information supplied by the foreign regional agency — which I am not denigrating in any way — to which the Deputy referred earlier. I would also contest the suggestion that a contradiction somehow exists. There is no contradiction. I have made the point as regards the general ban on this issue. It is up to us, individually, to make our decisions and that is what I am doing in this case.
It is only fair to acknowledge the Minister's proactive approach vis-à-vis this committee. That is probably the end of the good part.
His last comments in respect of the obligation he feels to abide by the advice from the agencies of the State on the GMO issue is one matter. Surely, however, that is counter-balanced by the view of this committee. I am aware that his party colleagues share that view and support the ban. Then there are the views of the members of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, together with those of members of this committee. Surely these counter-balance the advice the Minister is receiving from the agencies here. Whatever about that, however, the real test of sovereignty, not just for the Minister's office but for the Government in general, is to take the best advice available, regardless of where it comes from. The case has been well made by the two previous speakers, so there is no need to rehash it. As regards maintaining the national ban or sitting on the fence, to opt for the latter is ludicrous, particularly because the case of MON863 is so well made that it does not need to be reiterated.
Deputy Gilmore's point about the current position, with so many of us agreeing that the ban should remain, was well made. If the Minister was to come off the fence and vote in opposition to removing the ban, that would not preclude him from revisiting the issue at some future date when further research might demonstrate the existence of benefits. As society moves on, whether medically, in terms of food production or in any other way, there are many areas in which it might be possible to detect progress. However, given that such indications are not available at present, I add my voice to those asking the Minister to vote proactively in support of the ban remaining.
On the issue of climate change——
Perhaps members can share out the questions. There are two different proposals before the Council. Perhaps the Minister willclarify the position.
I will just clarify the position because I am not sure whether the Deputy was here when I was speaking on it. I am supporting the national ban.
I know that but the Minster intends to abstain in Friday's vote on the——
No, that is an entirely different matter. There are two specific issues and if the Deputy reads back over the transcripts from last week he will see that. The first issue is whether I wish to support the countries that want to apply a national ban. It is Deputy Morgan's wish and that of the committee that I should do so. I am predisposed to, and will, do that. I am in agreement with the Deputy on that.
The second issue arises as regards the maize product which has already been discussed and whether I should follow the advice of the Irish agencies — which is to support it and not to vote against it or abstain — or take the advice of other agencies. With respect, very few of us, with the exception of the EPA representative, are scientists. We have our own agencies which advise on this matter. I am of a mind to accept their advice rather than that of an agency outside the State. It is not that they are State agencies but that they are the best scientific advisers available to me. It would be imprudent and foolhardy to act otherwise. What is the point of having the EPA, the Department of Health and Children and the health service agencies if I simply ignore all of them on the basis that agencies in other member states take a different view?
I appreciate the Minister's clarification.
Without labouring matters, the judge's position has probably contributed to the confusion. I know the Deputy's primary concern is the national ban, the sovereignty of individual member states and their right to make their own determination in that regard. I share the Deputy's viewpoint and that is why I am commenting in this way.
On the issue of climate change and carbon emissions, I wonder whether talks with the Department of Finance might be one way to progress matters in terms of dealing with carbon tax implementation, etc. Perhaps it might be more fruitful to have such discussions and to go to Europe fully briefed, rather than the other way around.
On the issue of dismantling ships, the Minister referred to large vessels. I understand that the facilities in the State for dismantling vessels of any size are very poor and that a significant cost is involved in towing them to competent decommissioners abroad. Will there be an opportunity for incentivising enterprises to develop such facilities throughout the State?
The first point that should be made in terms of an emerging fleet is that, regrettably, Ireland, as an island nation, is quite small. The one positive point is that the fleet is very modern. Companies such as Arklow Shipping, the largest group on the Irish register, are very progressive, small and lean and have achieved a great deal. We import most of the vessels. As regards the issue of dismantling or decommissioning, it is, therefore, not appropriate that they should be returned to where they came from.
The issue under discussion, however, is the environmental impacts that arise from the world trade which has arisen, particularly in the trade of very large vessels. As the Deputy will appreciate, these vessels have an enormous scrap value. Some of the older vessels have all the worst problems built in. In that context, I referred earlier to asbestos. One finds a good deal of asbestos in older vessels. These vessels are being towed into some of the countries to which I referred. They are being beached in those countries, without any great supervision as they are being dismantled. There is, quite clearly, an environmental hazard but there is also danger for the dismantlers.
The question is how to handle waste ships in general. The leading international body in this area is the International Maritime Organisation, IMO. The objective is to try to evolve a Union view on the issue. It is a complex issue because a good deal of dismantling actually takes place outside the EU. It is a question of trying to set standards on that. This is a concern that has also arisen in other areas. I refer here, for example, to recyclables in general.
Some of it has taken place here in a haphazard manner. That is one of my concerns. In the fishing industry, a significant number of boats have been rendered for decommissioning in recent years. As the Minister of State with responsibility in this area announced the week before last, this process is ongoing. A couple of months ago in my constituency, a small container vessel created a serious problem for the local authority and gave rise to its incurring serious costs.
The focus generally is on developments in the international trading fleet. Extensions to fishing vessels, in particular, will require further detailed consideration. There is a cut-off point and the International Maritime Organisation's proposal will only apply to the merchant fleet. In addition, it will probably only apply to vessels of significant size, perhaps in excess of 300, 400 or 500 gross registered tonnes — most likely the last figure.
The one positive element is that although our fleet is very small in the light of our status as a maritime nation, it is also very modern, has a large turnover and is well operated. One wishes it was much larger.
It is a pity the Minister cannot deal with flags of convenience.
Perhaps we should have flags of convenience for Haulbowline.
The Deputy mentioned my discussions with the Department of Finance. I spend a great deal of time talking to it, although I am not sure it always listens to me. The context in which the Deputy made the observation was the issue of a carbon tax. I must be honest and point out that I am not a fan of such a tax and would much prefer to use other means to achieve the improvements forgone by not having one. For example, we can do much more in building regulations.
The hypothesis in favour of a carbon tax is not proven. One need only consider consumer choice; people will not cross a road to avail of lower prices at another petrol station. As the Automobile Association recently noted, we are not particularly cost conscious buyers. I am glad it did so because it was inclined to have a go at me when I made similar statements a couple ofyears ago. I am not sure when the carbon tax mechanism will trigger.
I return to a point made by Deputy Gilmore. We will achieve much more by raising consciousness and making it profitable for companies to become more energy lean, which will be the case when carbon trading commences. Some large Irish companies have operated correctly. I do not intend to undermine Deputy Cuffe as he is correct. We must be truthful and open about the major savings we made last year due to the closure of IFI. We must encourage industry to continue to make savings while the Department must try to build savings into regulations.
With regard to votes at Council meetings, has Ireland generally voted in favour of authorisation of new genetically modified products? Is my assessment correct that the Minister has abstained on each occasion the matter has been brought to his attention for consideration?
Correct.
The policy has changed since the Minister was appointed.
That is true. I sometimes wonder why people have not recognised this.
The Minister did not prompt me to ask that question.
No, I have let off enough flares but nobody has picked up on the matter. I take the point that in this job I must make the best possible judgment on the basis of the information available to me. I have done this on the Monsanto project, one of the issues we discussed. I do not adopt an ideological approach that one must say no outright to a process such as genetic modification. One must make a judgment based on what one believes.
The joint committee has recognised that the pharmaceutical industry, a major employer in Ireland, has used genetically modified products in specific controlled circumstances where the benefits have been overwhelming. I am not predisposed to taking an ideological view on the issue as it is much more pragmatic to be informed. Our stance during the years has generally been good. On the one hand, we have exercised caution, while, on the other, we have recognised that science marches on. If we continuously set our face against genetic modification, it will have a detrimental impact on an important industry which employs thousands of Irish people. We must control the circumstances in which we say yea or nay.
I am more disposed to accepting the advice given to me directly by Irish agencies, including the EPA and other Departments, than to accepting what I read about agencies in other countries. It would be bizarre and wrong for me to simply surrender our sovereign decision-making powers to whatever prejudiced view was being taken by agencies abroad.
Has the chemical industry had a word in the ear of the Minister or his officials about the proposed REACH directive? Is it correct that the groundwater directive is at an early political agreement stage and has some distance to go? One question the Minister did not address was whether there should be a single standard for groundwater across the European Union or whether member states should have separate standards.
The Deputy is correct that I failed to answer his question. I thought I had mentioned it and apologise for the omission. National authorities have a better view of this issue than someone based in the Berlaymont in Brussels. The Deputy is correct that the discussion on the groundwater directive is ongoing and not even approaching finality. As I indicated, two diametrically opposing camps have emerged on the issue. One camp takes the general view that the setting of standards is a matter for the European Union, while the other argues that it is a joint matter for EU and national authorities. I have been more disposed to support the latter view.
Clean unpolluted water is not a complex concept. Given that common standards apply across the European Union in a wide range of areas, why does the Minister support the position that common quality standards on groundwater should not apply across the Union?
We have a tendency to defer to the judgment of others. My position on the issue is not unique. A minority of member states take the view that groundwater standards should be set at EU level. We disagree with them on the issue. The quality of groundwater varies naturally from member state to member state and conditions are dramatically different. For example, in the context of the nitrates directive, it is striking that on moving from one district electoral division, DED, to the next, one finds different standards or readings. The variability in groundwater in the European Union means that a local approach in setting threshold levels which is, incidentally, what is proposed is generally preferable to the idea that we should surrender this responsibility to the Commission.
Who owns groundwater in Ireland?
While I do not want to venture a guess, I presume groundwater is much like any other resource in the ground. However, the Deputy should not ask me to speculate, given the number of lawyers and barristers. He will be aware of difficulties that arose regarding ownership of minerals which appear to be an underground resource. I do not want to speculate on who actually possesses groundwater.
Has the Minister come across any suggestions that groundwater might be exported?
I have read propositions on the matter. We export a lot of groundwater in the form of bottled water — Ballygowan and Tipperary are both successful exports. Other than in that commercial sense, I am not sure what the Deputy has in mind. I have not read anything other than this.
I am surprised my question surprises the Minister.
The question of exporting groundwater——
No, the question of who owns it.
The people own the resources underground. There are specific cases involving issues in leases in some areas.
What about group water schemes?
The issues are particular to the schemes. Deputy Gilmore's question is a general one. Groundwater is a resource that belongs to the nation. The issue has arisen in respect of ore in the past and there have been legal cases about who owns what. There was a famous case close to Navan on the issue. Water rights tend to be recognised in titles and are usually related to fishing rights on surface waters. I am not sure if reference is made anywhere to groundwater rights.
We will be returning to this issue because water is the new oil.
I agree; it is a positive resource, which is why I am interested in the matter. I will come back to the Deputy on it.
The Deputy also asked about the REACH directive. I cannot recall meeting the chemical industry but presume its governing body would be in regular contact with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. While I meet IBEC, the building industry and the social partners, I have not met the chemical industry.
Has there been any lobbying on the issue?
I am sure there has. Lobbying is part and parcel of the democratic process. Citizens and corporate bodies have a right to lobby, from which we should not shy away. We involve the social partners, trade unions and industry in the social process as it is part and parcel of the way we do business. It would be odd if we said an industry which employs tens of thousands could not make its views known.
I will take that as a yes.
It would be strange if the industry had not lobbied. It is what is done as a result of the lobbying that is important. I am due to address a business conference in the autumn that may involve the chemical industry. I will send the Deputy a copy of my speech. However, I do not know what I will be saying just yet.
I will not be surprised if the Minister addresses the practicability and workability of the REACH directive.
The Deputy has touched on an important point. Directives and standards are important but it is also important that they achieve what is required in an economically justifiable way rather than being overly onerous. That is one of the problems that has caused disillusionment with the European Union — an excessive degree of detail.
I draw the attention of the Minister and members to a document entitled, Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the co-existence between genetically modified crops and conventional and organic crops. It was published in December 2004 by the European Economic and Social Committee which was established to brief the European Commission and Council of Ministers on European Union issues. I will ask the clerk to hand out copies of the document which makes for interesting reading, particularly for those opposed to the introduction of GMOs.
That issue arises on the agricultural rather than the environmental side.
It is important for committee members to brief themselves on the wider issues involved.
I would not dream of advising them not to read it.
I thank the Minister for addressing us in advance of the Council meeting. We look forward to ongoing discussions on the issues raised.
I am grateful to the joint committee. Other issues will arise in the near future. It would be useful if the committee considered how we should implement the WEEE directive, one of the major challenges we face. I have made it clear to the industry that we will not be laggards. Many of our problems arise from our signing up to directives and not applying them. I will be applying this directive from August. While it presents a challenge, it is better to be ambitious. I have had worthwhile discussions with the industry and it would be a good idea if the committee looked at the matter. The other issue I am pushing in which the committee will be interested is that of end of life vehicles.
As soon as the discussions on the nitrates directive are complete, I will brief the joint committee fully. We have had some good negotiations. We have worked from a situation where we faced serious penalties to one where we are now involved in progressive and positive discussions that will have a positive outcome. The devil is in the detail but we have made progress.
We wish the Minister well in his endeavours.