Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT, CULTURE AND THE GAELTACHT debate -
Tuesday, 14 Feb 2012

Scrutiny of EU Legislative Proposals

There are a number of EU legislative proposals before us for consideration today. The first item is COM (2011) 144, which is a White Paper road map to a single European transport area towards competitive and resource efficient transport systems. The lead Department is the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport.

The White Paper sets out a comprehensive strategy for transport in the EU area for the period up to 2050, focusing on the need to increase mobility, drive economic growth and thus employment while at the same time introduce measures to dramatically reduce oil dependency and cut carbon emissions. It outlines a vision and a strategy for a competitive and sustainable transport system. A list of anticipated initiatives to implement the strategy is provided at Appendix I of the Paper. There will be direct implications for Ireland in terms of the upgrading necessity to meet the targets. There are also considerable opportunities to Ireland in terms of competitiveness and accessibility to and from European markets that could result if many of the targets are realised. The reduction of 60% in transport emissions may have direct implications for the airline industry given Ireland's peripheral location. Setting demanding targets that rely heavily on new vehicle technologies can be supported by Ireland, albeit, recognising that Ireland does not have a vehicle manufacturing industry. Important freight and road transport proposals contained in the list of initiatives are developing the inter-modality of the freight chain and the need for technology improvements in freight transport vehicles to match those in passenger areas.

It is proposed that this proposal warrants further scrutiny. It is proposed to write to the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport seeking its views on the White Paper with regard to specific challenges it anticipates for Ireland's airline industry in terms of the proposal to reduce transport emissions by 60% by 2050, whether it has had any consultations with relevant stakeholders or interested parties on the White Paper and the initial feedback from each stakeholder-party, and that this committee be kept informed of all developments as they arise. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2011) 411 is a decision establishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union with regard to the interpretation of paragraph 5 of Article 17 of the Basel Convention at the 10th Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention, COP 10, on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal. The convention has acted as a control procedure for the export and import of hazardous waste between parties since 1992. Ireland signed the convention in 1990 and ratified it in 1994, the same date as the European Union. In 1995 the parties agreed to the amendment to ban hazardous waste exports for final disposal and recycling from parties that were members of the OECD and-or from the European Union or Liechtenstein. Both Ireland and the European Union have ratified the amendment which has not entered into force internationally as the required number of parties have not ratified it. There has been an ongoing dispute about the number of countries that must agree to it before it enters into force. A recommendation has been made that a figure 75% of parties present at the time of adoption or when the amendment was adopted be required to allow it enter into force. At the next convention meeting the European Union will support the adoption of the recommendation-decision, given its ratification of the amendment, and the proposal supports this stance. There are no specific implications for Ireland. However, there are matters arising.

I seek clarification on how waste from incinerators would be dealt with under this measure.

Does this mean toxic and hazardous waste facilities could pop up all over the country? Is that the implication of this proposal?

The implication of the directive is that any waste produced within the boundaries of the State must be processed within the State. It will not be exported. Ireland takes responsibility for its own waste. Deputy Kevin Humphreys is seeking clarification.

I agree with him.

COM (2011) 435 is a proposal for a Council decision on the position of the European Union on the draft regulation of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, UNECE, concerning pedestrian safety and the draft regulation of UNECE concerning light emitting diode, LED, light sources, together with its corrigenda. The lead Department is the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. To remove technical barriers to trade in the motor industry and ensure high levels of safety, the European Commission proposes to incorporate the draft UNECE regulations on provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to pedestrian safety and LED light sources into the EU system of approval for types of motor vehicles. The decision to adopt the regulation on pedestrian protection is primarily to simplify the legislative process. The decision to accede to the draft UNECE regulation on LEDs is intended to harmonise technical standards in their manufacture. There are no specific issues for Ireland. In the circumstances it is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2011) 442 is a proposal for a Council decision on the accession of the European Union to regulation No. 29 of UNECE on uniform provisions for the approval of vehicles with regard to the protection of the occupants of the cab of a commercial vehicle. The standardised requirements of the regulation for the approval of vehicles are intended to remove technical barriers to the trade in motor vehicles and ensure a high level of safety and protection for the vehicle occupants. The proposal seeks to ensure, therefore, that the regulation is formally recognised as part of the EU type approval system for motor vehicles. There are no specific issues for Ireland. As there is no indigenous industry manufacturing the cabs of goods vehicles, there are no direct implications for Irish industry. In the circumstances, it is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2011) 827 is a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on common rules for the allocation of slots at EU airports. Council Regulation (EEC) No. 95/93 lays down the common rules for slot allocation at EU airports. Slot regulation has been successful and made a significant contribution to the creation of the internal market in aviation. The market has, however, changed considerably since the original regulation came into force and nowadays there is far more competition on routes and more flights. In this context, the existing slot regulation needs to be reviewed and the proposal seeks to ensure optimal allocation and use of airport slots in congested airports

The proposal may have implications for slot allocation at Dublin Airport, but it is too early to be specific. It is unlikely to have significant implications for other Irish airports. A consultation process has begun with the relevant stakeholders such as airports, airlines and the Commission for Aviation Regulation to establish the implications for Ireland. The initial view is that Ireland will support the measures outlined in the proposal which is at an early stage. The consultation process in this country has only commenced. It is, therefore, suggested that the best course of action is to ask the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport to keep the committee informed of all developments in this regard. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny at this stage. Is that agreed?

I read a newspaper report last weekend on the potential sale of slots at Dusseldorf Airport to cover the pension deficit at Aer Lingus. It would be useful to know what slots were available. Given that this is an island nation, the proposal may impact on the value of our airlines. I would, therefore, like to know more about it. If one was starting from scratch, this might be a good idea, but, in a vacuum, one cannot say the proposal will not have an impact. It is easy to assess what might be the impact at Dublin Airport and, for example, the value of the slots at Heathrow Airport to the country has been discussed on a number of occasions. We need to be a little careful about this proposal.

Negotiations are only beginning under the Danish Presidency, but there is a need to put down an early marker. Foreign direct investment and connectivity are important to the State. The proposals will affect more than the Dublin Airport slots. Aer Lingus also has legacy slots at Heathrow, Berlin and Copenhagen airports and so on and we must maintain this connectivity. I am concerned about whether slots will be returned to the pool under this proposal. Previously, airlines retained the slots, although I acknowledge the negotiations are at an early stage. Penalties for not using slots and the allocation of slots to new airlines are also issues. Strategic partnerships are referred to in the proposal. If an airline forms a strategic partnership, what will happen to the number of slots allocated to the airlines involved? Aer Lingus, for example, could develop strategic partnerships. Could the State lose slots not only at Dublin Airport but also at Heathrow Airport as a result?

I echo Deputy Catherine Murphy's remarks. The committee needs to maintain a watching brief on the negotiations. While everything looks okay at this stage, as the negotiations progress, different agendas may come to the fore. I ask that the issue be revisited by the committee on a regular basis to examine what direction we are taking. Perhaps the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport might attend the committee later this year to outline his position and that of his Department on the long-term plans for slots Ireland holds at a number of important airports.

I note whenever somebody here from Cork states that this does not affect any other airport but Dublin it sends off all sorts of flak. There is an issue in that the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, is talking about restructuring the entire Aer Rianta set up. Shannon Airport will control travel in a particular direction, so to speak. There will be a restructuring of the board and a greater degree of independence for Cork Airport, and the overall co-ordination of these slots will move from a Dublin base. There may be a secondary difficulty in terms of how the structure is processed. I will ask the Clerk to keep this committee informed but the concerns raised today will be fed into the Department of Transport's examination of what will be carried out. Is that agreed?

Can we also find out what slots we have and where they are located? Some of these are historic and it would be useful from a practical point of view to consider their impact.

We will find out. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The last item is COM (2011) 934, decision of the European Parliament on a union of civil protection mechanism. The two legal instruments currently govern civil protection co-operation at EU level. They are Council decision 2007/779/EC establishing a community civil protection mechanism and Council decision 2007/162/EC establishing a civil protection financial instrument. This proposal merges the two into a single legal instrument and in addition aligns it with the legal basis set out at TFEU regarding civil protection policy. There are no significant implications for Ireland. Ireland supports the existing mechanism and financial instrument and it therefore supports the proposal and its intent.

I am curious to know if there is a report from the Department of Defence on the demands this will put on the Defence Forces and the possible implications in terms of cost.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Top
Share