Members are aware that our quarterly briefings with the Minister serve as an opportunity for the committee to obtain important updates on important aspects of the EU scrutiny process and enhance the role of the Oireachtas in the Community legislative process. On behalf of the committee, I welcome the Minister and his officials. The Minister's continuing engagement with the committee prior to quarterly meetings of the Environment Council is appreciated by members. The meetings are now an established and integral element of the committee's annual work programme. Following the Minister's presentation, there will be a question and answer session.
EU Environment Council: Ministerial Presentation.
Would it be appropriate to pay tribute to the new Minister of State, Deputy Haughey, for his superb chairmanship of the committee during the years? I am sure everyone agrees that his elevation is long overdue. He was always very courteous, businesslike and focused on the work of the committee. With members, he ran one of the most effective committees in the Oireachtas. It gets through its entire agenda in a very businesslike way. I record my personal appreciation and best wishes to Deputy Haughey and his family.
We all share those sentiments which we have already expressed. I thank the Minister for his remarks.
I thank the committee for the invitation to discuss the agenda for the meeting of the European Environment Council which takes place on Monday in Brussels. It will be the final Council meeting of the Finnish Presidency. The four substantive issues on the agenda are the marine environment, climate change, biodiversity loss and genetically modified organisms. It was something of a surprise to see the last issue arrive back on the agenda.
The Presidency hopes to reach political agreement on the new marine strategy directive which arises from the thematic strategy on the protection and conservation of the marine environment published in 2005. It was one of seven strategies to emerge from the sixth environmental action programme. We have discussed it a few times at the Council, most recently in October. Ireland has generally welcomed it, with the directive which will substantially strengthen the measures in place to protect the marine environment. My Department and the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources will work closely together to ensure the appropriate transposition and effective implementation of the directive.
The overall objective of the marine strategy is to achieve and maintain good environmental status for our marine waters. It is the environmental leg of a much broader, all-embracing EU marine policy which is being developed. The policy will address holistically the economic, environmental, social and governance challenges relating to the oceans and seas. Consultation on the policy in Ireland is being led by the Marine Institute for the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources.
Students of European law will find it very interesting to see the incremental development of a European policy on the marine because the Treaty of Rome and other European treaties were silent on maritime and shipping policy. It is interesting to note how policy in this area is evolving.
At the Council, I will be supporting the position of the Presidency on the proposed directive. I will also be taking the opportunity to emphasise our concerns about the discharges into the Irish Sea and its impact on the Irish Sea. The so-called EURO 5 regulation which deals with car emissions and particulates which also incorporates the EURO 6 standards, is still listed on the latest copy of the agenda. However, my information is that it will go to the Council as an A point — in other words we will not have a debate on it but it is necessary for the Council to approve it formally. I mention it here because the agenda that has been circulated to the joint committee will have that item on it. The Presidency has successfully, on behalf of the Council, reached a final first reading agreement on the regulation with the European Parliament. I understand that they are voting on the proposal today.
Agreement on and implementation of this regulation is important for Ireland. In the context of our national emissions ceiling, the achievement of the target for emissions of oxides and nitrogen is extremely challenging for Ireland. It is one of the pollutants covered by the regulation and I therefore welcome the tightening of the limits in the new regulation. This will assist us in further improving our air quality which, as the committee knows, is very good but nonetheless this will add greater protection for people's health and for the environment.
Not surprisingly climate change is a key item on the agenda for the Council. At the meeting we will adopt conclusions on the follow-up to the UN climate change conference in Nairobi last month. The Nairobi conference is considered by all European member states to have been a success. The conclusions provide us as Environment Ministers with the opportunity to welcome the results of the conference.
We will emphasise the need for increasing the political momentum on the basis of the available economic studies and current and forthcoming scientific issues. We will underline the crucial role of mechanisms, in particular the European emissions trading scheme. We will emphasise that the economic benefits of early action to address climate change outweigh the costs of delayed action and that climate change policies do not have to constrain the sustainable growth of countries.
Ireland can demonstrate well the possibilities in this regard. We have been successful in decoupling economic growth from greenhouse gas emissions. While emissions were 23% above 1990 levels in 2004, the economy grew by 150% in the same period. The continuing strength of the economy is putting upward pressure on emissions but we have demonstrated success in decoupling economic growth from emissions and our objective is to build on that achievement in the period to the end of 2012.
I believe that the draft conclusions clearly reflect the real achievements that were made in Nairobi. I will support the Presidency on these conclusions and I do not expect that there will be much discussion on them. Most of our time will be given to an exchange of views on the post-2012 scenario.
It is important for the Council, in the post-Nairobi setting, to reflect on what needs to be done in 2007 and beyond to maximise the global political will to develop or deliver a new global climate change agreement by the end of 2009. I believe much of the discussion will focus on how we move the political will forward internationally.
We look forward to the EU making proposals for a global post-2012 agreement including the EU's potential contribution to such an agreement. That must, of course, be consistent with the objective of keeping global surface temperature below 2° Celsius, above pre-industrial levels. This exchange of views will be the beginning of a discussion that will continue during the German Presidency.
Next on the Council agenda will be the adoption of conclusions on halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010. These conclusions follow on from the publication in May by the Commission of a communication and action plan entitled Halting the Loss of Biodiversity by 2010 and Beyond. That followed on from the substantial progress made on the review of the EU biodiversity strategy under Ireland's EU Presidency in 2004. I am pleased to see that the recommendations from the Irish Presidency, known as the Message from Malahide, are embraced in the Commission communication.
The draft conclusions outline the key challenges facing us in our ambition to meet the target of halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010. Key challenges for Ireland in implementing the EU action plan will include: the completion and protection of the Natura 2000 Network; the further integration of biodiversity considerations with other sectors; including agriculture and forestry; tackling the impact of invasive alien species; and supporting biodiversity adaptation to climate change. This has an all-island dimension and an area in which North-South co-operation could prove very useful. At Council next week I will support the Presidency conclusions.
Despite the intentions of the Finnish Presidency not to address genetically modified organisms to any significant extent, the subject is appearing again on the Council agenda. At the Council meeting next week there is a proposal for a Council decision to overturn the national bans in Austria on the use and sale of two types of genetically modified maize — the maize labelled MON 810 and T 25. This is the second occasion on which the Commission has attempted to have the Austrian national bans overturned. Similar proposals were put before Council in June 2005, at which stage the Commission proposed overturning eight national bans, including these two. The Council, on the basis of a vote on the proposals and acting by a qualified majority, opposed their adoption by the Commission. I voted against overturning the national bans at the time and will continue to vote against the Commission's proposals to overturn them.
The Presidency has invited the Qatari Minister for Energy and Industry to join the Council for lunch. He will be the chairman for the 15th session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development. His views on the state of play of preparations for the session in New York next May will be interesting and useful.
Some 11 items are listed on the agenda under the heading of "Other Business". I think this is the longest list I have seen yet. Papers on them are beginning to filter through this week. In the main they are progress and information reports. We will receive a progress report on the next waste framework directive. Intensive work continues on this technically complex proposal, into which the Finns have put a lot of work but there is quite an amount yet to be done. I understand it is the ambition of the German Presidency to reach a Common Position on the directive by the summer of 2007.
We will receive information from the Presidency on the thematic strategy for the sustainable use of pesticides, the associated framework directive and the revision of the regulation covering the placing of "plant protection products" on the market. This information will also be presented to the Agriculture Council later next week. The proposal for the directive has recently been submitted by the Department of Agriculture and Food for Oireachtas scrutiny, as it falls primarily within that Department's remit.
We will receive information from the Presidency on a proposal for a directive on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy. The directive will be the final major piece of EU legislation needed to support the water framework directive. It lays down environmental quality standards for 33 substances. The proposal has recently been submitted by my Department for scrutiny by the Oireachtas.
The Presidency and the Commission will report on a number of meetings held in recent weeks with, among other countries, the United States, Ukraine and Russia, as well as on the Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial Conference held in Cairo last month. We will receive information from the Commission on the process it envisages for the review of the emissions trading directive, the basis of which is the report Building a Global Carbon Market.
We will receive information from the Presidency on the eighth conference of the parties to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal. That meeting was held in Nairobi at the end of November. Members will recall that at the October Council we adopted conclusions on a negotiating position for the European Union at that meeting. I understand that, overall, the meeting was a success, as it seemed that, in the wake of the Cote d'Ivoire incident, countries were more resolved than ever to reinvigorate the convention. In fact, the disgraceful pollution on a vessel at Côte d'Ivoire was discussed to a significant degree at side meetings at Nairobi.
We may hear from the Commission on the results of the review of the Community strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from cars. We will hear information from the Commission on European action on water scarcity and droughts, which is on the agenda at the request of the Portuguese and Spanish delegations. At the request of the Swedish delegation, the need for a gradual substitution of phosphates in detergents has been put on the agenda — I welcome its addition. Those who are interested in angling will be aware that actions taken to remove phosphates from domestic washing powders were very successful. However, there has been an increase in phosphates discharges due to detergent use in dishwashers. It is clearly time for movement in this regard. At the request of the Spanish delegation, the foreseeable impact of the Community mercury strategy on the Almaden region has been put on the agenda. At the request of the French delegation, there will be mention of a conference to be hosted by President Chirac in Paris next February on international environmental governance, which is a subject close to the heart of President Chirac, who spoke about it at the UN General Assembly in 2003. The French Government has played a key role in encouraging EU and UN engagement on this topic over the years.
That is an outline of the agenda for the 18 December meeting.
The forthcoming Environment Council meeting is very important and important issues will be discussed. With regard to the marine environment, the question of pollution in the Irish Sea has been an issue for some time, in particular the question of low-level radiation as a result of discharges from Sellafield over several years. How much will this impact on the Minister's view? He said he generally accepted the directive and generally welcomed the strategy in it. Will he raise specific issues in this regard?
Also with regard to the marine environment, there was talk some years ago with regard to the dumping of munitions — I understand they were Second World War munitions — by the British Government in the Irish Sea between Scotland and Ireland, although I am not sure of the exact location. Will the Minister raise this issue? Is he satisfied there is no danger to marine or any other life as a result of that dumping?
A key issue concerning climate change was raised in yesterday's statement by Sustainable Energy Ireland on its website that we have gone astray in terms of our emissions under the Kyoto Protocol and are now 57% above 1990 levels. This directly contradicts the Minister's statement to the committee, which suggests we were 23% above the 1990 levels in 2004. I understand we are well above that figure. It is an issue that needs urgent and immediate action. While I understand the Minister does not have direct responsibility for transport, which is one of the main areas in which we are losing out with regard to carbon dioxide emissions, what steps does the Minister propose to take? Does he have an arrangement with the Department of Transport to deal with these issues? What joined-up thinking is there in this regard?
On the last point concerning joined-up thinking, a Cabinet sub-committee has been established on energy, environment, agriculture, transport and finance. Yesterday's SEI report specifically referred to energy. It stated:, "Growth in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2005 was higher than energy growth for the first time since 2001". The figure was 3.2% compared with a growth in energy use of 3%. However, the 0.2% difference arises specifically from the introduction to the grid of two peat-burning power stations. The two peat-burning stations were introduced into the system to create a greater spread in terms of energy generation and to use a native resource.
The report went on to say that renewable energy grew by 26% in 2005 and wind energy increased by 70%, but both increased from a very small base. Nonetheless, both increases are useful. Electricity generated from renewable energy reached 6.3%. The figure of 57% mentioned referred to energy emissions, which will grow as energy use grows over a particular period.
The report contains some interesting statistics. The growth in energy rate emissions primarily resulted in a 73% increase in peak consumption in electricity generation and a reduction of 9% in the use of gas for electricity generation. Gas is more expensive and is imported. Pending settlement in the west of Ireland, gas is less of an emission issue. There was an overall increase of 5.6% in the final consumption of electricity.
I understand how the Deputy came to the view he did. I read the press statement yesterday and found it rather odd. Initially, I got the very same impression as Deputy O'Dowd and that was the reason I sought additional figures.
I still have that impression. I appreciate the Minister's response, but the issue is that emissions are increasing, from whatever source and the report states it is a significant increase over the 1990 levels. That is the basic point I picked up from the statement. With regard to joined up thinking, the Minister is on his way to the Environment Council to discuss the issue of emissions, but what new strategy will he take on behalf of Ireland as a result of what he now knows? The Council will obviously deal with carbon issues etc.
Notwithstanding what the Minister has said, the issue here is that our emissions are increasing. I am concerned about that. I take the point with regard to diversity in terms of energy production. However, we need a more hands-on approach from the Minister to deal with the matter of meeting our Kyoto targets. I am not satisfied the Minister has anything new to say at the Environment Council meeting.
I am disappointed the Deputy is not satisfied. With regard to the two other issues raised by the Deputy, I will mention the impact of Sellafield on our marine environment as a concern. It is one of the significant issues between Ireland and the United Kingdom. I welcome the discussions to come because they give us another opportunity to raise that issue. I will also mention the issue of the dumping of munitions in the sea. The seas are used as a dumping ground for all sorts of noxious materials, but dumping of munitions is a concern. I will ensure that issue is raised in the discussions on Monday.
I received complaints some time ago that I have not been able to substantiate that some nuclear submarines based in Scotland have discharged some of their quench tanks at sea off the Irish coast. These tanks contain material that may have a low level radioactive content. These materials should be discharged into special tanks. Will the Minister raise that matter with the British Minister?
I will mention it, but if the Deputy has any details on the issue he should forward them to me.
All I have is a report that it happened. I do not have conclusive evidence. We need reassurance that it is not happening and that any discharges from nuclear submarines are only into official containers.
I will meet the British Secretary of State for Industry, who is responsible for the nuclear industry, in January and will mention the issue at that meeting. However, I find that when one raises an issue with a British Minister, he or she always says the issue belongs to another Minister. When I talk to my counterpart in the Ministry of the environment about nuclear issues, he refers me to his colleague with responsibility for trade and industry.
This is a conference to discuss the marine environment.
It is the appropriate place to mention it.
That is the place to raise the issue with him. The Minister should get a report on it from it.
I will take the opportunity to do so.
I welcome the Minister and his officials and thank them for coming to the joint committee to discuss the agenda for the forthcoming meeting of the EU Environment Council.
I wish to raise the issue of climate change and the decoupling of Ireland's emissions from economic activity. As I understand it, the report of Sustainable Energy Ireland states the decoupling, in so far as it relates to energy production, has ended. If it has ended in that respect — the latest figures provided by the Minister relate to 2004 — has it ended in respect of the wider economy? What is the Minister's understanding of the position since 2004? The figures in his speech refer to the period from 1990 to 2004, the most generous picture he can paint in terms of the growth of the economy.
I was not comforted by what the Minister had to say on the reason for the increase in greenhouse gas emissions from energy production. He said it was due to the coming on stream of two new peat burning electricity generating stations which were provided to widen the available options. I contend they were built for very local political reasons. I question the wisdom of generating electricity from peat. The Chairman may recall that the Minister came to the House last year with a Bill that in the course of time will require people with turbary rights on bogs to apply for planning permission to cut turf. The legislation was a conservation measure. While I share the Minister's concerns on conservation, it is contradictory to legislate for the conservation of bogs by telling people to limit their use of bogs in the interests of conservation, while at the same time allowing intensive and inefficient use of peat for generating a small wattage of electricity. The only purpose was to feed a certain political requirement in a constituency.
I concur with the Minister that it is very important that the marine environment is being address by the Council. I have a number of questions to put to him. He stated that: "The Presidency hopes to reach political agreement on the new marine strategy directive". What I understand from that is that the principal areas that will be covered by the directive will be agreed by the Council. My first question relates to the scope of the directive and if it will deal with issues relating to pollution from both land and marine based sources. How will it dovetail with the existing OSPAR agreements and will it specifically include the emissions of irradiated liquid material from nuclear power plants and operations such as that at Sellafield? My understanding is that the OSPAR agreement provides a deadline for the complete ending of discharges into the sea from nuclear based sources. Will the new EU directive include a similar prohibition on discharges of wastes from nuclear sources? I raise this in the context of the failure of the legal case taken by Ireland under the OSPAR agreement, the judgment of which was, as I understand it — the Minister may correct me on this if I am wrong — that Ireland should have taken its case to the European Court of Justice under European Union law and not to OSPAR. I am interested to know how this new directive relates to that and what will be our options under this directive should it be brought into force.
The Deputy's last point is an interesting one. The European Court of Justice judgment was that Ireland should have taken the case to it rather than to OSPAR. I am sure that is what the Deputy intended. As I said at the time, this raised a very interesting point in that it made clear that the European Court of Justice has a jurisdictional role in this area and that member states such as Ireland who are seeking relief can do so through it rather than something a little less domestic from the point of view of the EU.
On the directive, OSPAR will not be discussed per se on Monday. The point the Deputy makes is relevant particularly given the fact that I will specifically refer to the discharge of nuclei into the Irish Sea. The normal reaction we tend to get when we raise this issue is that it is dealt with in the EURATOM Treaty. The view of most people who think about this from the Irish standpoint is that if that is the case, it is dealt with only very vicariously and not at all efficiently. The main focus of the directive is to establish a framework for the development of marine strategies. Deputy Gilmore made the fair point that a reference to OSPAR and the objective of a complete ending of radio nuclei discharges is something that is well worth throwing into the debate mix. I will follow his advice and do precisely that.
The intention is to reach political agreement on this on Monday. Securing political agreement is similar to producing the heads of a Bill in that the main headings of what will be in the directive will be agreed. Is the issue of nuclear discharges addressed in the draft the Minister received?
The Community will take the view that it is covered by EURATOM but the directive specifies that the introduction of radio nuclei into the marine environment must be taken into account by member states. That probably encompasses the Deputy's point.
No, the point I am making is, the case taken by Ireland under the OSPAR agreement failed because it was considered the proper jurisdiction for it was the European Court of Justice. The OSPAR agreement provides for a complete end to the discharge of nuclear liquid wastes into the sea, a legacy, I might add, of the last time the Labour Party was in Government. I want to know if that ban will be repeated in this directive. If not, my advice to the Minister is that he should withhold Irish agreement on the directive until it is included. This is an important issue and should be in the directive. I respect the fact the Minister will contribute to the debate and make a strong case. However, it must be included in the directive. If not, the Minister should withhold agreement to the directive on behalf of Ireland until it is included.
There is no ban in the directive. The directive is primarily about measuring material that is discharged and about having a measuring policy. I will pursue the issue on Monday, but members should remember that the purpose of the directive is not to introduce a new prohibition, but rather to introduce an arrangement for measuring.
It is interesting that the French wanted to remove this element from the directive, but a number of member states, including Ireland, opposed that. The United Kingdom also opposed it. Perhaps the directive should be about introducing a new prohibition and perhaps the Union should look at that.
I will bring Mr. John Sadlier of the Department into the discussion to inform us of any other potentially relevant areas.
Mr. John Sadlier
The proposed marine strategy directive does not mention or set any specific target for a substance of any kind at present. It aims to provide a framework for carrying out an assessment of the marine environment and developing objectives and a programme of measures to achieve good environmental status, which is not even yet defined by the directive. The directive is really about setting up a framework to address these issues.
I expect that in the course of developing objectives specific standards must be developed for specific substances. In that case, the control of radioactivity discharged nuclides will have to be addressed. The directive states expressly that the obligations under existing international conventions and other directives must be taken into account in implementing this directive.
Monday's discussion will provide a good opportunity to put a marker down in this regard because this is the beginning of a framework that will deal with the establishment of measurement of discharges. This may well indicate why the French sought to remove the reference to radioactive nuclides from the directive. We will have a good opportunity on Monday to reiterate our view that we should include a strong reference. We should make the point that member states have committed to OSPAR and to zero discharges and that this should be factored into the directive. However, that would be done at the next stage. It is a good point that I will take on board and consider between now and Monday.
We could champion this issue and Monday's discussion is a good opportunity to do so. I will strengthen my speaking notes for Monday. I had intended to deal with the issue of Sellafield, but I will also take into account the issue of dumping of other materials in the sea, as mentioned by Deputy O'Dowd, and will mention the issue of OSPAR and see what progress we may make in that regard.
I have spoken at several informal bilateral meetings with a number of other environment Ministers with a view to increasing the voice of the member states in Europe who do not see the nuclear option as a way to deal with issues such as global warming. A false proposition was put forward that nuclear energy was our saviour, but a number of member states, including Ireland, do not take that view.
Deputy Gilmore mentioned the issue of emissions. The SEI report refers to the year 2005 and the last year for which full measurements were taken was the preceding year. Economic activity up to that had grown by 150% and emissions had grown by just over 23%. The figures for the two peat-burning stations and the explanation as to their significance are not my explanations; they are produced by Sustainable Energy Ireland and are contained in its report. I would be surprised if the Labour Party took the view that peat should not be part of the mix. In addition to being very important for employment, it is strategically important that we have a mix of generating capacities and are not entirely dependent on importing.
The Green Paper on energy contains references to co-burning, that is burning different mixes of material. I accept the Deputy's point about bogs being a resource that do not renew themselves, at least not in the scale of most human lifetimes. However, it would be imprudent to try to take peat out of the mix until we had something with which to replace it. In the next couple of years we will find materials such as miscanthus and willow being burned. These are quite clean burning and would have fewer problems than peat. Co-burning is the way forward. It is specifically mentioned in the Green Paper on energy.
I welcome the Minister to the meeting. I will speak briefly about the marine directive, vehicle emissions, climate change and genetically modified organisms.
Many of the countries the Minister will meet at the EU Environment Council are very well versed in marine matters and many have coastal zone management plans in place. Our coastal zone management plan has been in draft form for the best part of ten years. Does the Minister have proposals to move it forward? One of the better ways of dealing with the effective management of marine waters is to have a plan in place. In the period since we produced a draft form of a coastal zone management plan we have had enormous pressures on our marine environment, and not only from Sellafield. For example, the tax incentives given for development in coastal areas has led to a rash of development on very vulnerable coastal habitats where discharges are at their height in the summer months when the water is at its most sensitive. We have had huge development in coastal towns.
In Dún Laoghaire we saw the dereliction of the public swimming baths and there are proposals for high-rise development in many areas on the coast, whether in Ringsend, where 20 storey high buildings are proposed, or in Blackrock. An incinerator is proposed next to the coast in the centre of Dublin. Does the Minister agree that having a coastal zone management plan in place is one of the most effective methods of ensuring a high quality marine environment? Can he explain why we have been waiting for eight years for the draft plan to become a reality? I hope we do not have to wait until 2021, which is mentioned in the directive.
May I deal with that matter?
Please do.
Coastal zone management is an issue for another Department. The directive itself does not deal with——
The Minister's Department is the lead Department——
If the Deputy will let me finish——
Am I right in saying the Minister's Department is the lead Department in this area?
Deputy Cuffe is not right. However, let me make the following point to him. The starting point for the directive is one mile out to sea. It applies to the sea area that starts one mile out from the coast. It does not deal with coastal zone management issues.
An issue that does arise and which comes within my Department's remit is that of effluent discharges into water systems, in respect of which there has been extraordinary progress during the past decade. A decade ago less than 20% of discharges met EU requirements; the current figure is 95%. There have been phenomenal improvements in that regard.
The issue of coastal zone management is not touched on in the directive. Important though it may be for all the reasons outlined by Deputy Cuffe, the matter does not arise under this directive.
Given the Minister's clarification of the matter, it might be no harm if he were to examine the issue of offshore wind turbines and perhaps discuss the matter of the regulatory regime with his colleagues. For instance, there is no requirement in respect of site notices. As I understand it, there are also no grounds for appeal in regard to such structures, unlike the planning framework which is more familiar to the Minister's Department. I am in favour of the production of wind energy at offshore locations but it seems from my preliminary inspection that the regulatory regime in that regard is not as rigorous as the planning framework under the auspices of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. This issue might be worthy of consideration in the context of the development of this resource.
I recently issued guidelines in respect of wind turbines and windfarms located on land. The issue is outside the scope of the directive. The Deputy is correct that the regime in regard to offshore turbines is less onerous. I agree with him that this is the way to go.
The Minister should take the opportunity to exchange notes with his continental colleagues.
I was thinking of expanding my remit to include offshore issues. The Deputy has raised an important issue, although it does not arise in this context. It struck me that it was not mentioned in the guidelines, again because they are purely terrestrial in nature. Perhaps we should take another look at it, given all the virtuous arguments made in favour of offshore energy projects.
The issue arose in the context of the tourism industry within the Minister's county.
Yes, it arose in the context of matters to do with the Wicklow coastline and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown.
In essence, the point was well made to me and, possibly, the Minister that there should be a rigorous assessment regime in regard to offshore wind turbines.
I do not think that matter is captured by the draft directive either. It is one that arises in the context of the marine environment. My understanding, from what happened at Arklow, is that wind turbines can have a beneficial impact on the marine environment. Their construction has resulted in the reappearance of many fish in the area. While I do not think the issue is covered by the directive, I will discuss the Deputy's concerns with the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources.
I would appreciate that.
The second issue relates to item No. 4 on the European agenda, namely, motor vehicles and emissions. I note the Minister's comments on NOx emissions, in respect of which we will reach the guide limits within a couple of years. Is the Minister satisfied that a new regime for new motor vehicles will lead to compliance with the directive? I am concerned that, regardless of tighter emission guidelines for new vehicles, we may run into problems in urban areas in a couple of years' time. Does the Minister have any ideas on how we can reach the required targets and what is best practice abroad?
The Deputy's point on NOx emissions is correct. One of the reasons we support the directive is that we are technology takers and do not have an indigenous industry. The changes in the VRT and motor taxation regime will take account of the Deputy's concerns. It would also have a beneficial impact on the continued importation of second-hand vehicles which has not been factored into the public discussion. One of my concerns is to ensure we do not import vehicles at the poor end of the spectrum.
The directive requires a 90% reduction of particulate matters for vans, a 25% reduction of NOx emissions by petrol cars and a 20% reduction of NOx emissions by vans. SUVs come in for very specific mention and a series of beneficial measures are set out. We are technology takers and moving towards an emissions-related system of excise taxes on cars and motor taxation. An item in the budget which was the subject of surprisingly little comment was the compulsory emissions labelling of vehicles, which is a cost-free, positive measure. It will be very helpful given public consciousness of the issues involved. Not everyone wishes to jump into an SUV.
I appreciate the point and note the absence of a clear strategy for dealing with NOx in Ireland. To take the Minister up on the labelling issue, it beggars belief that he allowed the Society of the Irish Motor Industry to design the label. It has resulted in a black and white, hard to follow sticker. In the case of white goods, there is a very clear, multicoloured label setting out an A to E rating which makes it very clear to a purchaser how efficient a product is. It is immediately clear, even to the uninitiated, which is the best fridge to buy. The Minister has not facilitated a similar arrangement for the purchasers of new cars. I am flabbergasted that the Minister did not place a label on cars which was as obvious for purchasers as the label on fridges. I am quite upset about this issue.
To ensure the Deputy is not upset, I note that one of the issues dealt with specifically in the budget was the introduction of a new labelling system. The point the Deputy makes relates to colour coding.
The point is that the Minister allowed the SIMI to design the label in the first instance, which was outrageous.
The budget was introduced ten days ago. It announced a new labelling system. We will take on board comments about the labelling system.
I hope the Minister reforms it. He is letting the poacher call the tune.
I am not.
The Minister has been doing so until now.
Perhaps it has been done up to now, but I do not intend to allow the poacher to call the tune. Colour coding is the way to go, which is what the Deputy is talking about.
It is. I would like the Minister to move quickly on it.
It is happening in 2007.
It should be as clear as a fridge label, which is an approach I hope the Minister will take.
I am concerned that the Minister has placed on the long finger the question of an annual tax on high emissions vehicles. It is curious, to say the least, that the Minister is waiting until 2008. We have called for the tax for many years and do not believe engine size is the appropriate measure. We want it to be based on emissions and have said as much for four years.
Four years ago, the Minister said he saw no reason to change, but while I am glad he has changed his tune, more and more Chelsea tractors are purchased by the month. Instead of capping the taxation at 3.5 litres, the Minister should penalise high emissions vehicles and do so now. As the Minister knows from vehicle purchase statistics, greater numbers of 4x4 SUVs are being bought and causing incalculable damage to the environment. The Minister should move on this matter sooner than he has suggested.
I was not aware that I made any pronouncement on the matter four years ago.
The Minister's predecessor, Deputy Cullen, did nothing, and Deputy Roche declined to move on the matter in his first year in office.
I have indicated since taking office that I was interested in moving in this direction. It is important to provide for a period of public consultation first. We are technology takers and, whether we like or dislike it, there is a rhythm to motor industry import operations. It is a good idea to allow interested parties, not just those who are involved in the motor industry, to make submissions on the matter. I have no doubt that Deputy Cuffe will do so. It will be a valid thing for people to do given the strong views they hold.
The current system needs to be changed to recognise a number of things, one of which is the discharge at the end of the pipe. If we are to move in that direction, however, we must recognise that many people are involved, including those in the industry, and we must listen and give them the opportunity to make submissions. The consultation period runs to the beginning of March and has been criticised for being short. It is nonetheless prudent to allow for consultation before the mechanics are put in place. There was fair criticism last night, for example, to the effect that even when one is moving in a virtuous direction, one should not do so too quickly. It is a valid criticism. The period of two months we are providing to people is not an extended one.
Given that the Government can increase the price of a packet of cigarettes at midnight, it is providing a very long period of grace for SUVs.
I dispute that. There are many issues involved. If one attempts to introduce the same change overnight on taxation, excise or motor tax, one ignores the reality that systems take a long time to be adjusted. It will be necessary to introduce a completely new system, whichever scheme one chooses. It is not possible to do so overnight and it would be foolhardy to try. There will be an adjustment period during which the new motor vehicle registration system and its benefits are explained. The computer systems to handle and support the new mechanisms will have to be put in place and forms printed. With the best will in the world, it is not possible to do those things overnight. To give the industry and general public two months to comment is not excessive. In fact, there is some merit in the criticism that the consultation period is too short. The reason it is short is that we want to establish the system and create certainty by the summer when people order cars for delivery in the back end of the year. Delivery times are up to four months. Consultation is a good idea and while the two-month period is short and ambitious, it has the virtue of providing people with an opportunity to register their views. It also provides time to put supporting frameworks in place.
If the Government can increase the price of cigarettes in every corner shop in the country at midnight, it is curious, to say the least, that it cannot treat climate change with the seriousness it deserves.
On that note, I move on to the fifth item on the Council agenda, which is the discussion of climate change. Some time ago the Environment Council agreed that we need to cut emissions by between 60% and 80% by 2050. I wonder what the Minister will bring to the table from Ireland, especially in light of Sustainable Energy Ireland's report yesterday. Do we intend to continue to take a business as usual approach? I note that the Minister for Transport threw another €100 million into the roads budget a few weeks ago, which will take us to a 6:1 ratio of roads to public transport spending. Does the Minister continue to subscribe to the view that building motorways will reduce emissions or has he come around to the green way of thinking that we must invest massively in public transport? Perhaps, there are lessons to be learned from our European colleagues on the issue.
We must do both. The idea of stopping the building of world class roads is a very foolish and dangerous one. A good road system, in addition to supporting the wider spread of industry and development, produces safer roads.
The level of emissions was the issue.
It also helps to improve the position on emissions.
Does it reduce them? I am not sure what the Minister means.
It can reduce them.
Is the Minister saying the building of motorways leads to a reduction in emissions?
The Deputy is deliberately being a little pedantic.
The Minister said this a few months ago.
We have a fundamental point of disagreement. I have said on a couple of occasions that a good road network is important to the country's economic development.
We are talking about emissions.
The Deputy does not agree with that hypothesis. The deputy president of his party was in favour of economic collapse to prevent roads being built.
She never said that.
She did and she threatened to sue me once. We actually recorded it.
She did not say that. The Government stated it would have a metro system built by 2007 but we are still waiting. Can we move to the issue of whether building motorways leads to an increase or a reduction in emissions? I would be curious to hear the Minister's view.
I have said several times that one does not judge the building of a motorway simply on the basis of the level of emissions. If we want economic progress, we must have world class infrastructure. I disagree with the Deputy on the issue.
If the Minister does not want to answer the question, let us move on.
I am fundamentally disagreeing with the Deputy. I agree with many of the Green Party's policies but its economic policies border on lunacy, particularly in the matter of roads.
The Green Party believes there is a need to have a world class road system but we would like to get the world class public transport system built first.
The world class public transport system is being put in place too.
Two Luas lines and a gap in the middle.
We have invested a vast amount of money in roads.
The amount spent on roads this year is six times that spent on public transport.
I disagree with the Deputy.
Does the Minister think the 6:1 ratio is acceptable? Will he throw an extra €100 million into providing more roads instead of public transport?
I represent a constituency which is not covered completely by the Luas or the metro.
The Gorey train service is not great.
The Deputy will admit that there has been an investment in that service and an upgrading of the line.
It is a pittance compared with the amount allocated for the roads programme in County Wicklow.
The Deputy will admit the DART has been extended to Greystones, that DART capacity has been doubled, that two Luas lines have been built——
I do not so admit; I support the doubling of the DART capacity.
Good. In that case the Deputy supports some aspects of Government policy.
The Minster's language is disingenuous.
The Deputy must admit that these things have happened. Other things are happening too.
If we are to take the issue of climate change seriously, we should probably put more money into public transport than into roads. That is all I am suggesting.
I am suggesting we need both.
By the Minister's actions we shall know him. The Government is spending six times more on roads than on public transport. That is the reason for my exasperation.
Which of the motorways would the Deputy abandon?
I would postpone work on some of them until we have a decent public transport system, not only in Dublin. We should have Luas lines in Cork, Sligo, Limerick and Galway. The Government is doing nothing about this.
Which of them would the Deputy abandon? Which would the Green Party abandon? Would they abandon the Galway road and the one to the south west?
I would provide a decent public transport system in Galway before I build motorways north, south, east and west of the city.
I am sure Mr. Ó Brolcháin who is very interested in the road network to Galway will take due note of what the Deputy has suggested. Should we abandon Galway and provide a Luas system in the city instead?
That is not what I said. Historically, Fianna Fáil has ignored public transport, to which it has given the crumbs of the transport cake. That is what the Green Party wants to change. If the Greens are in government, that is what we will change. We will give public transport its fair share of the transport budget.
May I move on to my last point, Vice Chairman?
I will allow the Deputy to make his last point, but I am glad he is not the Minister with responsibility for the environment, although he may be a terrific man.
Your impartiality is being called into question, Vice Chairman.
That is not so.
I know you are filling in, in the absence of the Chairman.
I am delighted with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
We have known that for a long time.
He has put considerable emphasis on road and other forms of development.
I thought the Vice Chairman was a strong supporter of the railways.
I raise the issue of genetically modified organisms. I was interested to see that the Minister supports the Austrian line on genetically modified organisms on the basis of subsidiarity, with which I agree. I also note his statement that all products approved under previous regulatory arrangements will fall to be reviewed from 2006 anyway. With that in mind, will the Minister reconsider his decision to license the release of GMOs on Irish farmland or will he continue with his policy of allowing GMOs to be grown in Ireland?
That issue will not arise on Monday. The issue to be discussed on Monday is the view, which I take, that subsidiarity should be allowed to determine the manner in which the Austrian Government has dealt with this matter.
The Minister gave two reasons.
My very strong concern, which I have mentioned on several occasions, is regarding subsidiarity. I am also concerned in principle with the Commission continuing to reiterate this issue and coming back to it. This emphasises a point that Commissioner Verheugen himself made a while ago about people within the Commission driving favoured policies of their own. It happens on the environment side and it happens on this side also. My counterpart in Austria has been in touch with me on this issue. It is a bad way of dealing with European matters. If this issue has been determined by the Council and, as Deputy Cuffe said, there is to be a review, it seems imprudent for the Commission to take the matter up. I will make that point on Monday.
We have had to put up with the same issue on the matter of national sovereignty and taxes, on which the Deputy's party and I disagree. We take the view that taxes are a sovereign matter while the Green Party's spokesperson at the convention on the future of Europe took a different view. We must agree to differ on this issue. However, it is not right or proper that the Commission should continue to come back again and again to an issue such as this which is a political issue that touches on subsidiarity and has been determined to touch on subsidiarity. This is bad practice by the Commission and I will make this point on Monday. I will not go beyond this point.
The second reason given by the Minister is that all products approved under previous regulatory arrangements were falling to be reviewed from 2006 anyway. Is the Minister reviewing his decision to allow GMOs here? I would like to encourage him to change his mind.
I take note of the Deputy's point but it is outside the remit of our discussions on Monday. My contribution on Monday will be exactly along the lines I have outlined to him. First, issues of subsidiarity should not be further eroded within Europe. We will agree to disagree on that. The Deputy's party and mine take a different view or this issue on a point of principle. Second, it is a bad practice. This matter was determined; the Austrians were given to believe the matter was resolved and now the issue has been resurrected. That is not a fair or right way to act. I go further. It is events such as this that help to produce a certain disenchantment with Europe. We find people within the Commission riding a favoured hobby horse and taking a member state to book time and time again, exhausting much effort, when an issue has been resolved. This is not a prudent way to handle European business at the wider level.
I note this will be the final Environment Council of the Finnish Presidency. Will it also be the Minister's final Environment Council or does he expect there will be another before the general election?
As I understand it, the general election will be in the summer and there are certainly Environment Councils in the diary. The Deputy can have two dates off over Christmas as opposed to canvassing for the entire period, and a happy Christmas to him also.
As the Minister is here, there is a dark rumour circulating that he jumped the queue of traffic on the M50 the night of the road works.
I noticed that.
Would the Minister care to take this opportunity to put the public record straight?
I would be delighted to do so.
People say the Minister was escorted by military outriders.
That is right. I am delighted to put the record straight. That was an astonishing story run by Joe Duffy who, a few days later, I note, launched a book by Deputy Gilmore's candidate in Wicklow. He did not refer to road traffic, insurance or other issues while doing so. Earlier in the programme, a doctor told how he was on call and it took a Garda patrol car to get him through the traffic jam. At the end of the programme, Mr. Duffy announced, "It was a doctor, so that's that". So much for the impartiality of our national broadcasting station, even though RTE had been phoned by my office about this. I am glad the Deputy has given me the opportunity to say this.
I now regret asking the question.
I am sure but I am glad the Deputy asked the question because it raises a bigger issue. It was a pointed, slanted and badly balanced presentation. The suggestion was that a Minister had jumped the queue with a Garda escort, but the opposite was the truth because I was stuck in the traffic chaos like everybody else. I rang the Garda to ask what in the name of God was happening. In the course of the radio presentation — and this is one of the perils that any public representative could face — it was suggested that it must be a local Minister, although no Minister was named. It was said that the Minister was in a big, black Mercedes, which may be the case, and that he was being escorted by Garda outriders. My press office phoned the Joe Duffy programme because the inference was clear that it was a Minister from Bray. As I am the only Minister from Bray, I pointed out that I do not drive in a black Mercedes, but in a grey Lexus. They then said, "We have just had a correction; it could have been a grey Lexus". It was not the peak of public service broadcasting. A few days later, the gentleman who runs the programme, Mr. Duffy, was pleased to launch a book by a candidate from Deputy Gilmore's party, and made absolutely no reference to traffic issues. I thank the Deputy for giving me the opportunity to put the record straight.
I am glad to have facilitated the Minister. On a more serious note, I join in the tributes to this committee's Chairman, Deputy Haughey, on his appointment as a Minister of State.
I suggest that either this committee, the Joint Committee on Transport or both, should bring in the relevant agencies to discuss this matter. It is ridiculous that if there is a leak in Bray the entire M50 on the southern side of the city is gummed up for seven or eight hours. I do not understand why that happened. I would like the local authorities and traffic and transport agencies concerned to appear before this committee, which has responsibility for local authorities, or the Committee on Transport. There needs to be some accountability for what went wrong. The type of traffic chaos we had on the M50 was akin to what would happen in San Francisco if something went wrong with the San Andreas fault — not when there is a leaking water main in Bray.
Deputy Gilmore's point is well made. The hole in the ground for repairing the leak was very small. The situation was extraordinary. I have written, as a local Deputy, to the local superintendents in both cases as well as the local councils, including Dublin City Council, and the National Roads Authority. That was an astonishing event. There were apologies the next day but it did not stop my phone from reaching meltdown.
There was another rumour doing the rounds that there was no actual digging, just traffic cones.
No. There was digging all right. They excavated at the Silverbridge halting site. The Deputy should go down and have a look at it. It is a very modest excavation.
I did.
It was coned off and a couple of traffic corps gardaí were there. I was stuck in the traffic jam. There was also one lady in advanced pregnancy who was stuck for hours between one of the M50 junctions and that intersection between the M50 and the N11. It was a nightmare. I would support any inquiry into it.
Would the Minister support the return of maternity services to Loughlinstown Hospital?
That is a little bit outside my remit. I would not be hypocritical on that.
I thank the Minister and his officials for attending the joint committee and facilitating this open discussion with all the members. I wish everybody a happy Christmas and urge them not to speed on the motorways.
I thank the staff of the committee and our absent members.
The joint committee adjourned at 11.52 a.m. until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 17 January 2007.