Joint Committee on European Union Affairs debate -
Wednesday, 29 Nov 2017

Engagement on the Future of Europe: Discussion (Resumed)

Chairman

Apologies have been received from Deputy Frank O'Rouke and Senator Paul Coghlan.

We are resuming our engagement on the future of Europe. On behalf of the members of the joint committee, I welcome Dr. Eoin O'Neill and Dr. Finbarr Brereton, lecturers in environmental policy at the Earth Institute, UCD; and Mr. Michael Ewing, co-ordinator, and Mr. Oisín Coghlan, director, Friends of the Earth, and member of the steering committee of the Environmental Pillar. We appreciate their taking time out of their busy schedules to come here. The committee was very impressed by their submissions on the future of Europe and potential environmental impacts. All members of the committee are well aware of the detail of the European Commission's White Paper. However, the two submissions brought up the issue of potential environmental impacts. We are, therefore, greatly interested in the input of the delegates. I suggest they make their opening statements before taking questions from members. If we do not have many members present, it is because they are giving evidence to or are tied up at other committees. The delegates must understand all of what we will say will be recorded. Those who are absent will be able to access what the delegates will have said. It is not as if the delegates will only be talking to those of us who are present.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Dr. O'Neill and Dr. Brereton to make their opening statement.

Dr. Eoin O'Neill

I thank the Chairman, Deputies and Senators for the invitation to attend and make an input into the discussion on the future of Europe. This is a hugely important issue for every citizen of Europe, especially in the light of the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. With the European Union in transition, environmental considerations are a concern. Dr. Brereton and I are both lecturers in environmental policy at UCD. Our presentation will be focused on the environmental dimension of the discussion.

In presenting a range of scenarios in the White Paper, the European Commission’s stated aim is to start a debate to answer the question, "What future do we want for ourselves, for our children and for our Union?" It puts forward five scenarios: implementing the current reform agenda; deepening only certain key aspects of the Single Market; enhancing co-operation in specific policy areas; reducing its focus to a limited number of areas; or sharing more power, resources and decision-making. The question embedded in each of the individual scenarios concerns the extent to which EU competency beyond the narrowest interpretation of the Single Market should be pursued. Should its scope be widened through further integration, that is, "more Europe", or should it have a more focused and narrow scope, or "less Europe"? Each of the scenarios put forward raises questions about the future level of competence the European Union may retain or have conferred on it in terms of climate policy and the environment.

The European Commission also published a series of reflection papers to discuss what some of the five scenarios might entail across policy areas, namely, the social dimension of Europe; economic and monetary union; harnessing globalisation; Europe’s defence; and the future of EU finances. A notable omission is a reflection paper on the environment. From an environmental policy perspective, we wonder about the extent to which the Commission sees environmental issues as central to this discussion. This is surprising.

The June European Council acknowledged that sustainable development lay at the core of European values. The environment is one of the few areas of the European project that enjoys genuine public support. A majority agree that the European Union is the appropriate level at which to take action. A strength of EU environmental law is that it represents a long-term commitment and cannot be changed by individual governments which are motivated by short-term thinking. It is also a widely held view that the European Union has a strong environmental record. It has one of the most progressive environmental policies in the world. The House of Commons environmental audit committee makes reference to over 800 pieces of EU environmental legislation. It has implemented one of the largest environmental policy instruments in the world, namely, the EU emissions trading scheme. It is a global leader in international climate change negotiations. Over 75% of EU citizens find EU environmental legislation necessary to protect the environment in their own country.

Perhaps the environment does not have as high a priority in the eyes of the European Commission, given the current issues facing the European Union in the form of Brexit, migration, the euro crisis, etc. Irrespective of this, the climate and environmental implications arising from each of the scenarios the Commission has put forward for the 27 member states are very significant, but they are not elaborated on in the White Paper.

We will outline what we believe to be the implications of each of the five scenarios. The first scenario foresees the EU27 continuing to shape the global agenda for climate policy and sustainable development. Progressing this scenario would involve the EU27 continuing to pursue implementation of existing environment-related directives and promoting measures at international level to deal with environmental problems, in particular, combating climate change.

In the second scenario which involves nothing but the Single Market, a reduction in regulation could result, with differences in environmental standards emerging between member states. This would mean that there would only be a focus on the environmental issues that required action to reduce competitive distortions, for example, maintaining basic vehicle source emission standards. The standing of the environment would return to its status in the EEC prior to the Single European Act. With a common position on climate change not necessarily achievable, the European Union as a whole would not be represented at relevant international environmental fora. A race to the bottom could emerge between member states, with divergences in standards, especially for non-transboundary environmental effects, for example, noise or localised air pollutants.

The third scenario which involves those who want more doing more would not see any further EU27-wide integration, unless the EU27 agreed to move forward together; rather, member states would co-operate in introducing environmental standards stricter than those in the communities in accordance with the existing treaties. Just as every EU member state is not in the eurozone or the Schengen zone, a small group of countries could co-operate to pursue more ambitious targets to achieve carbon neutrality, implement higher air quality standards, etc.

The fourth scenario which involves doing less more efficiently could involve a reduction or, potentially, although less likely, an increase in focus on environmental issues. Should there be a reduced focus on environmental issues, attention would still be required, where necessary, for the Single Market, for example, to deal with economy-related environmental problems. Should this arise, environmental standards could move away from harmonisation towards a basic minimum, with a race to the bottom. Climate action ambitions could be diminished, with those struggling to meet their existing obligations opting out and divergences in climate-related environmental performance and perhaps other areas emerging.

The fifth scenario which involves doing much more together could involve expanding the scope beyond existing environmental policy parameters. This would also see the European Union maintaining and strengthening the principles underlining the protection of the environment based on the precautionary principle, the principle that preventive action should be taken, the polluter pays principle, and maintaining its global representation at international environmental fora. In addition, the potential for new environmental taxes such as a carbon tax to be pursued at EU level could be considered.

The "less Europe" scenarios - nothing but the Single Market and doing less more efficiently - share some commonalities with a so-called soft Brexit. For example, Brexit-related research suggests the habitats and nitrates directives may be more impacted on, given that they are expensive for farmers to implement, as would other non-transboundary environmental issues. With differences in ambitions for energy and climate targets between EU member states becoming evident, other research suggests diverging tiers of climate ambition could be widened if the European Union's environmental competency is diminished in either of these scenarios. Should a reduction in competence for the environment be realised within the European Union, it would have negative implications for environmental performance. This should be of concern to people in Ireland, as we have a poor record in achieving improvements in environmental performance in a timely manner, even when obliged to do so under EU directives. More generally, it would damage the European Union's global leadership role. With a common position on the environment or climate action not possible, the European Union may not be represented at relevant international fora. This would prove damaging for Ireland's interests. Divergences in environmental standards between member states would be expected to arise. This would concern, in particular, non-transboundary environmental effects and there could be a race to the bottom. The principal point we want to make is that a loss of environmental competence for the European Union would have negative impacts on environmental quality and citizens' well-being across the European Union, including in Ireland.

We thank the committee for inviting us to attend to make an input into the discussion. We are happy to answer, as best as we can, whatever questions members may have.

Chairman

I thank Dr. O'Neill. I invite Mr. Ewing to make his contribution.

Mr. Michael Ewing

I am the co-ordinator for the Environmental Pillar, an advocacy coalition of 26 national environmental NGOs. I am not sure whether members have a copy of my PowerPoint presentation. If they do not, it will not matter too much.

Chairman

We have a copy.

Mr. Michael Ewing

I wish to comment on Dr. O'Neill's submission. It was excellent. It clarified and identified the issues related to the five scenarios presented in the White Paper. The NGO sector, specifically SDG Watch Europe in Brussels and Friends of the Earth Europe, devised a sixth scenario to the effect that, while the other scenarios were interesting, they were not adventurous or ambitious or a solution to the problems we must face. The groups considered a broad sweep of social, environmental and economic issues.

Before I outline the sixth scenario, I will discuss what is presented to us as the real world by the media and other elements that have an input into our thinking. The real world is one in which the environment is fundamental. It is from where we come and on what we rely entirely for our existence. Without it, we are nothing and would die out as a species. If that is the case, why do we always think about the issue in a different way, for example, in terms of the economy? It is always the economy first and, "It's the economy, stupid", when, in fact, it is not. It is actually, "It's the environment, stupid", because, without it, we would have no economy or society.

The way in which the European Commission is considering the future of Europe is cock-eyed. In my submission I referred to how we had believed the situation was looking better under Mr. José Manuel Barroso, given that the European 2020 strategy suggested an opening up of understanding about sustainability and the idea that dealing with climate change and biodiversity was essential to the whole picture of Europe. Unfortunately, there has been a gradual narrowing of the focus on economic issues under the Juncker Commission. This is understandable to some degree in the light of the economic crash in the 2000s. Nonetheless, that time has passed, yet the direction has not changed dramatically. Brexit has pushed matters a little in a new direction.

The European Commission has been focusing more and more on economic issues and less and less on the community and the environment, as evidenced by the semester process, the annual cycle of review, reporting and making recommendations. Over the years, the Commission has grown less interested in making recommendations for countries on environmental or social issues and more focused on economic issues. That is a symptom of the thinking at play, which is sad. The Europe 2020 strategy is gradually being sidelined, while the semester process is narrowing year on year. The Commission is making fewer country-specific recommendations, CSRs, which reflect its narrow economic focus. From 2012 to 2015, there was a significant reduction in the number of CSRs on energy, tax shifts to green taxes and the removal or reduction of environmental subsidies. In 2015, there was only one. As far as I am aware, there has been none since in any country in Europe, which is a major change.

The sixth scenario was devised by SDG Watch Europe and Friends of the Earth. It refers to something about which we have known since 1992 or thereabouts with the Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development, namely, that economic, social and environmental well-being are intertwined and cannot be separated. If we were to try to separate them, we would have an unbalanced society, economy and environment.

We would like to see the European Union focus on two elements, the first of which is the 2030 agenda for the sustainable development goals, around which the European Union must build its thinking. Even more so, it must build its thinking around full implementation of the Paris Agreement on decarbonising the economy in order to achieve a safer, if not safe, place for us in which to live in the context of climate change.

Those are the two issues.

I am sure members are all aware of the 17 sustainable development goals so I do not want to go through that list. Ireland and the EU have signed up to these goals and the future of Europe needs to be intrinsically and fundamentally based on the sustainable development goals and the Paris Agreement. While there are 17 sustainable development goals, most fit into three basic categories: the fundamental one of "Planet", which comprises five sustainable development goals; "People, Dignity and Justice", which comprises six of the goals; and "Prosperity", which comprises five of the goals. Combined, they tell us that we need to reschedule the way we think about things.

As it stands, the EU has created most of the environmental legislation that has been put in place in Ireland in the past 30 years. We have the birds directive, although we still see rapid declines in bird species across the Continent; the habitats directive protecting areas of particular sensitivity; the water framework directive, which looks after our inland waters, such as lakes and rivers - it should be fully effective and is not yet, but without it, what would we have? - and the marine strategy framework directive. All of these measures need to be implemented better and the implementation needs to be followed up by Brussels to make sure all the countries in the Union are actually delivering on them. Every year, 400,000 people in Europe die as a result of air pollution, which is like a battle of Verdun every year, and some 1,400 of these people are in Ireland. What is being done about it? There is air pollution legislation and air pollution directives but we need more of this and we need to make sure these measures are implemented.

Brexit is a moment of great danger for Ireland in many ways. It is not just about the economy, trade and the Border, but a border which does not exist for nature. This island is one biogeographic unit. Plants and animals do not know anything about our borders, and neither do the fish or the other creatures in the sea. We need to make sure that whatever happens with Brexit, Ireland remains one biogeographic unit in terms of the legislation and its implementation and enforcement. We need to ensure that, across this island, there is just one system. I thank the Senators and Deputies.

Deputy Seán Haughey

I thank the groups for their presentations. They have done us a great service in highlighting the environmental issues in the context of the debate on the future of Europe. I am disappointed to realise just how low a priority the environment has been given by the Commission in the debate on the future of Europe, and that is something we need to be very strong on in our final report, although we can talk about that at a later stage. There is no doubt the EU has traditionally been very good for Ireland from an environmental point of view in that it obliged us to implement much legislation that, let us face it, we would never have got around to, and it is the same in regard to social policy and so on. We must absolutely give the environment and sustainable development top priority in any discussion on the future of Europe.

I thank the witnesses for the clear and precise way in which they have presented their arguments. There is a lesson in that for all of us. I have one question. There seems to be a contradiction between promoting the economy and promoting the environment and sustainable development. That comes through in the Commission's papers and in what the witnesses have said. Does economic growth and development come at the expense of environmental protection and sustainable development? Are they mutually exclusive or is there some balance to be struck between the two?

Senator Terry Leyden

I thank the witnesses for attending and for the detailed work they have put in. The attendance today is rather unusual, and we have to accept that the attendance at meetings is not great this week. Nonetheless, the input from both groups will be included in the committee's report and the detailed work presented here will very much have an input into our report on the future of Europe.

One point the witnesses made is that Brexit has serious repercussions in that, if the UK lowers its environmental standards, it will have a direct effect on the Republic of Ireland. If the British reach a stage where it would be to their benefit cost-wise and culture-wise to bring in toxic environmental methods and so on, this would have a direct effect on the Republic. This is a small island and we have to bear that in mind.

In a few minutes I will attend briefings on the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act by the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Deputy Naughten, the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Creed, who must give a report on the Act to Parliament every year. Ireland is not doing well at all. In fact, it is way down the list and one of the worst, which is surprising because, generally, we are environmentally conscious. We did not go for the nuclear option in regard to nuclear power stations, which we feel is the right way to go, but we are very reliant on fuel. In County Clare, Moneypoint alone is causing major emissions due to the Colombian coal that is being burned.

Overall, we must be conscious of the effect on our climate and the EU has a role to play in this regard. Some 50.2 million people have been affected by drought in eastern and southern Africa alone, according to a UN estimate. In 2015, Malawi experienced its worst flooding in decades. A third of the country was declared a disaster zone, with 63,000 ha submerged and 250,000 people displaced from their homes. Climate change is here; it is not something we are expecting. That is why it is important today's submissions are brought to the attention of the Commission in a report in order to alert it again to the situation. The EU is sticking with the Paris accord, although the US is pulling out, which is a major blow to the environment. We owe the witnesses a debt of gratitude for attending today and for spending time in preparing papers, which makes it very easy for us to put that information into a report and submit it to the EU. That work will not be in vain and will be read by people at EU level, as well as being seen by committee members. I again thank the witnesses.

Chairman

I thank our guests for attending. As a person who has to comply with the nitrates directive and all the other farming schemes, I know that, in recent years, farmers have been encouraged to provide bat boxes, bird boxes, places for bees, and so on. These are very worthwhile initiatives that any person who is interested in the rural landscape would like to be involved in because it further enhances our environment.

I often ask who are the people best placed to protect our environment and it is the people who own their own little part of the environment, that is, farmers. Farmers never, ever look on their farm as an asset or a possession. They look on it only as something they were given in order to, hopefully, make a full-time living or part-time living, and then pass it on to the next generation. It is not up for sale. We can study the statistics and see how much of our agricultural land ever sells or changes hands, and it literally does not happen. Even if a farmer does not have children of his or her own, the land passes on to nieces or nephews - perhaps that is the only way we would have a bit of slippage in that they sell as they might not be as attached to it as the more direct family member.

As a rule, agricultural land in Ireland is held for those in the family. Our farmers are the custodians of our land and environment. Following on from that, there are a number of worthwhile schemes. I, too, would be of the opinion that certain rules and regulations are nonsensical. One instance of that is the talk of not cutting hedges at a certain time of the year in order to protect our bird life. That would be true if it involved cutting the inside of hedges bordering farmland. However, when I hear people say that the reason hedges on the sides of our main roads cannot be cut is to protect birds and birds nesting, that is a nonsense. Is there anywhere I could be brought in Ireland at this minute where on the side of a busy public road, with cars, lorries and buses whizzing by and rubbing off ditches, a bird would be so stupid as to build her nest? It just does not happen. My practical common sense, from having been involved in this type of work, tells me that it just does not happen. Why would a bird build a nest on the side of a road when it could build one among the thousands of acres of land, in a quite nice location down by a river or in a secluded area where it would have proper shelter? Some of what we hear said about this is nonsense and more of what is said is perfectly sensible. Farming by calendar is nonsense because anybody who knows about farming will know that we could have a June, July or August, the summer months, when it could be horribly wet and one might not be able to travel the land while at the height of the winter we might have a cold snap of weather where one could travel to spread slurry. That is why I will never support the idea of farming by calendar. On a practical basis, it does not make sense.

I appreciate what the witnesses have said today. I am worried about what is happening in England. If farmers in England will not be covered by the nitrates and other directives after Brexit, will that impact negatively on our farmers here? It possibly could have the potential to do that. Do the witnesses have a sense that farmers in England would see standards dropping or not being as restrictive on them post-Brexit? Are they seeking to have an advantage when it comes to their agricultural practices because of not being under the umbrella or Europe?

I wish to ask about one statistic. I like statistics but I also like to understand them. I refer to the figure of 1,400 people dying every year as a result of air pollution. Could the witnesses expand on that? Are those people dying as a result of respiratory problems? In order words, could they have had lung problems and their deaths not be related to the environment? Could those deaths be related to hereditary conditions, smoking or other issues? I would like to tie down that statistic. I am not questioning the figure for Europe and, in particular, for Ireland of 1,400, but I would like the witnesses to expand on that in order that I can understand it. Who wishes to respond first? Is it Dr. O'Neill?

Dr. Eoin O'Neill

On the first question regarding whether there is a contradiction between promoting the economy and promoting sustainable development and if they are mutually exclusive or in any way compatible, competition policy is related to concern for the environment and the harmonisation of standards. Environmental policy is the level or threshold of the standard itself. The evidence suggests that environmental regulations have been generally positive throughout Europe and the furthering of the standards have not had an impact on economic performance, therefore, there is not a mutually exclusive element. Some of the evidence suggests that it has had a minor impact on productivity initially. In the long run, on average, I would say the impact has been generally positive. There have been some minor short-term effects in terms of employment. There may be certain industries that have been impacted more than others. The important thing is to provide support. This may arise in the future in terms of a low carbon transition. There may be certain sectors that need to be supported as certain areas are restricted and other areas are being promoted through eco-innovation where new technologies and opportunities are emerging. On the one hand, there are some downsides in the short term, but in the long run it is usually positive. Therefore, they are not mutually exclusive, and they can be complementary. Dr. Brereton and Mr. Ewing may have something further to add on that issue.

Senator Leyden raised the issue of the UK potentially lowering standards, and the Chairman also mentioned that point. I do not necessarily have any greater knowledge than the members on this matter. Some of the Brexit research has identified this as a potential problem, as an issue and a potential scenario that could emerge. Presumably, it depends on the nature of the future trade relationship that is established with the European Union. If there is a hard Brexit and a trade relationship is not firmly established, we could potentially see a lowering of standards. Presumably, they would then seek to achieve competitive advantages through means whereby they would be no longer subject to European regulation where regulatory divergence would emerge. That would be a concern. It would affect the competitiveness of any industry in Ireland presumably, including farming, and presumably industry-wide across Europe, if the UK sought to achieve competitive advantage through lowering its environmental standards. I presume that would result in them achieving an advantage through that means, which would be a negative outcome in terms of competition for us and potentially in terms of the environment where there are transboundary effects that are unique to Ireland as well. That would be an additional concern. Does Dr. Brereton have anything further to add?

Dr. Finbarr Brereton

I thank Deputy Haughey for his questions on sustainable development. It tends to be a very contested issue in that the goals change depending on who is talking about sustainable development, be one socially orientated, economically orientated or environmentally orientated. As Mr. Michael Ewing has already pointed out, it changes if the economy is in recession or doing well. Research shows that when economies are doing well, people demand higher environmental standards. Therefore, the two go together - a well-functioning economy goes hand in hand with high environmental standards. They are not mutually exclusive.

On the issue of protecting the environment, research shows that, in terms of a cost, protecting the environment is a benefit to the economy. In terms of decoupling economic growth from environmental pressures, the European Union emissions trading scheme is an example of that, in that where our GDP has gone up, our emissions have gone down hand in hand. It is possible to decouple environmental issues from economic growth.

Senator Leyden mentioned the issue of climate change and the US potentially pulling out of the Paris Agreement. This is exactly where the European Union is so important. We may have a short-term political change but the European Union has minimum environmental standards that cannot be abandoned when a regime changes across the Union. It is very strong on that. For example, the United States would not be able to pull out of such an agreement if it was in a union like ours. Therefore, it is essential, in terms of environmental protection, for us to be in the Union.

With respect to the Chairman's question, he knows much more about the day to day running of a farm than I would ever claim to know. Even though I am from County Offaly, I know very little about running a farm. However, I would say that policies should be evidenced-based, and the European Union is very good at this. Whatever policies are coming from the Union in that regard, they should be based on best available evidence. Common sense may tell us one thing, but the evidence may say something else. That would be my suggestion.

Mr. Michael Ewing

I thank Deputy Haughey for his question and his colleague, who has left the room, for his question. I will respond to both of those and then revert to the Chairman's points. The issue around the balance between productivity and the environment is, as has already been said, a complicated one but it is more to do with what we measure. We measure GDP as being the evidence of our success.

However, it does not measure success, rather the movement of money. Many factors included in the calculation of GDP, such as the drugs trade and ill health, should not be part of how we measure our success. Perhaps we need to think about what we measure in terms of the contradiction between environment and success.

If we properly follow the sustainable development goals I mentioned, all factors will rise together and there will be a more equal society. Those who currently suffer most from poor environment and ill health are usually economically poor. There is a direct link between the environment and societal and economic well-being. Those matters are closely related.

The impact of Brexit on the climate and environment in general is a very serious issue on which I wish to dwell. It was stated that there are 800 pieces of environmental legislation throughout Europe. The great repeal Bill going through the United Kingdom Parliament purports to transpose all European legislation into United Kingdom legislation with one stroke of a pen. However, as members are aware from their experience, half of the legislation in this country is enacted through statutory instruments, which can be changed at the stroke of a pen. Similarly, European legislation in the UK was often transposed through statutory instruments and, therefore, any legislation that now applies in the UK can easily be gotten rid of if that is so desired.

The Good Friday Agreement is an international agreement over and above EU treaties and cannot be ignored in the course of Brexit negotiations. It includes co-operation on several areas, including agriculture, tourism and the environment. As a result of that, our opinion, on which we urge members to follow through, is that it is essential that the legislation that currently operates North and South continue to apply, whether to the environment or other areas. That should be ensured in the ongoing phase one negotiations. There is now a deal on the so-called divorce bill but the issue of the free movement of people has not been resolved, nor has the Border issue which I am very afraid will be dealt with in terms of trade only rather than the Good Friday Agreement and the six institutions and six areas of competency that operate within it. There should be a level playing field on the island and it should operate in the same manner as pre-Brexit. I make that point because one island with the same set of endangered, invasive and other species North and South and with shared fisheries because fish move from one area to another should be ruled by one rule sheet as to do otherwise would be to go down a slippery slope.

As the Chairman and others mentioned, there is potential for people to seek economic gain by changing the legislation that applies to them and that is a very serious matter, in particular on this island and in regard to North-South arrangements, because if it is allowed to happen we predict that the trade agreements the UK will seek, initially with the United States which is probably its biggest trading partner while others such as Australia and New Zealand are comparably small economies, will have to consider implications in terms of legislation and the protection of the environment. I am very concerned in that regard. A colleague of mine yesterday addressed the European Parliament on that issue. We met Michel Barnier and his team in Brussels a month ago and they concurred with our views regarding the Good Friday Agreement being fundamental to Brexit arrangements and that it should not be diluted in any way. We ask members to support that.

On agriculture and the Chairman's points in that regard, I agree with Dr. O'Neill that it is evidence based. On the matter of hedgerows that was raised by the Chairman, birds would be mad to go to a very busy, noisy, dusty, polluted road but there are many byways and highways in Kerry, where the Chairman lives, and north Roscommon, where I live, on which a car or school bus might pass only every five minutes. The proposed rules being brought in would change the situation for many species of endangered birds. There is adequate capacity in the existing legislation and Road Traffic Acts to cut hedges when they become a danger to the public in terms of traffic but local authorities have not used those powers.

The Chairman asked about the statistics on air pollution. The Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Deputy Naughten, provided the figure of 1,400 deaths in Ireland as a result of air pollution while the figure of 400,000 resultant deaths in Europe was provided by the European Commission. A director of the European Commission this morning quoted that figure during a conference on environment and health. The figures come from the European Environment Agency in Brussels and the Department of Health, which are very solid sources.

Chairman

It was very important for the witnesses to attend today and particularly so in light of current circumstances. Members very much value the comments and statements of the witnesses, which are very important to have on the record. We appreciate their time and respect the valuable work they carry out in their roles. I thank them again on behalf of the committee and secretariat for their attendance.

I propose a brief suspension to allow the next witnesses to take their seats.

Sitting suspended at 2.47 p.m., resumed in private session at 2.51 p.m. and in public session at 3.01 p.m.