Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Nov 2001

Vol. 168 No. 10

Adjournment Matters. - Air Pollution.

Mrs. Jackman

I am making a request on behalf of various coal distributors, particularly those in the mid-west area who are known to the Chair. Those in the industry are looking for a three-month stay to make a case, which is very important given the chronology of events.

On 25 September the Solid Fuel Industry Association met the Department, at which time there was no reference to the proposed ban on bituminous coal and other alternatives, such as petroleum and coke. The next the industry heard was a telephone call on the evening of 16 October, and on 16 November, a month from that date, the Minister and the Department expect those affected to have their submissions together. That is not a viable timeframe. My simple request is that the Minister give the industry an extension of time.

I am not saying I want environmental pollution. Everyone is in favour of good air quality but we have been subjected to mandatory limit levels since 1987 and we are doing well. That does not mean we stop at that but I am concerned by the effect of this on coal distributors as there may be 1,500 jobs at risk. There are 150 jobs, if not more, at risk in the Foynes and Shannon estuary area. One coal distributor who contacted me has 29 people working for him, sales representatives, administration and baggers. He has a large number of bank loans. He believes that his business will collapse totally if the proposed ban is enforced. All he and others are asking for is that the Minister look again at the proposal.

In the context of actual emissions to the atmosphere, only a tiny percentage of emissions come from heating. The biggest percentage of emissions come from transport, as we know, and power production. Moneypoint has received an extension of time to 2008, although it is a major contributor to environmental problems.

Small fuel distributors do not have replacement solid fuels. Those needing heat would have to depend on gas and electricity but if one has problems in that regard, there will be no heat. The fuel distributor who delivers fuel to elderly people in remote areas will no longer call to the door. When there is an expensive alternative, prices rise, and it is estimated in this case that prices will rise by approximately 25%.

To recap, elderly consumers, the lower income group, cannot afford central heating. In the council of which I am a member, Deputy Neville asked what is the number of people in local authority housing who have central heating, but he has not received the figure yet. I am inclined to think it will be a very small number. There is no choice for such people.

The lasting benefit to the environment, which we all want, is very little in comparison with the levels of emission into the atmosphere from the production of energy and the transport sector. I am surprised the Minister has not emphasised those issues but has left it to a small group of people with no alternative jobs. The Minister should look at a number of areas in relation to this matter, how we fare in comparison with Northern Ireland, the licensing of fuels, who will check that banned substances are not present and regulation of the situation. In the 1999 and 2000 EPA reports air quality was satisfactory and suppliers and users of bituminous coal and petroleum were not singled out.

I have not even touched on the issue of Bord na Móna. This is a major national issue. It is certainly a major issue in the mid-west. The Minister should give the industry three months to make submissions. I know the Department of the Environment and Local Government will do its bit to ensure proper air quality. However, it is the wrong time of the year for this. I presume steam trains which are used in rallies like that in Stradbally are exempted from this.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government (Mr. D. Wallace)

I thank the Senator for raising this matter. On 17 October I launched a one-month consultation period in the form of a paper on the potential national ban on bituminous coal and petcoke. The consultation paper can be obtained free of charge by contacting my Department. Alternatively, copies can be downloaded from the Department's website. The official closing date for the receipt of responses is Friday, 16 November 2001.

There has been widespread coverage of the proposals on the radio – I have been interviewed several times around the country – and in the print media. Advertisements were placed in the newspapers and the widespread media coverage alone is proof that this issue is being aired far and wide.

The consultation paper allows the public and all interested parties to consider the issues concerned and to respond to my Department. All the feedback received will be fully evaluated by Government before any decision on proceeding with a national ban is taken. In keeping with the Government's commitment in An Action Programme for the Millennium I was pleased to make regulations extending the ban on the marketing, sale and distribution of bituminous coal to ten additional urban areas since coming into office. The time is now right to consider whether the ban should apply on a national basis. The localised bans have proven beneficial to all persons but particularly to the more vulnerable sections of the community such as the young, the elderly and those suffering from respiratory illnesses. Everyone should receive the benefits of improved air quality, reduced polluting emissions and an enhanced quality of life. We are also facing challenging targets on the reduction of overall national emissions of sulphur dioxide by the end of this decade. We must reduce these emissions by 76% below 1990 levels under the Gothenburg Protocol and a directive on national emissions ceilings recently agreed between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.

These are the reasons we must intensify our efforts to reduce the pollution from solid fuel use. My Department has issued nearly 1,000 copies of the consultation paper. Sections of the solid fuel trade have reacted strongly to a perceived threat to their industry. However, our proposals are not intended to undermine this industry. In fact, action of the kind outlined in the paper would strengthen it against those who are eroding business by trading in illegal fuels such as high sulphur petcoke. Nor am I singling out the solid fuel trade. The Government is seeking and will continue to seek to reduce national emissions of sulphur dioxide across a range of sectors. Already I have made regulations reducing the sulphur content of both petrol and road diesel by between 30% and 70% in the past two years and placed for the first time a mandatory cap on the amount of sulphur in heavy fuel oil used in industry and for power generation.

I recognise that the consultation paper puts forward proposals which are challenging for the trade. However, l am confident on the strength of responses to date, including a meeting of the Solid Fuel Industry Association with my officials on 31 October, that we are making progress.

As regards extending the consultation period as requested by Senator Jackman, I am willing to do so for some weeks to help the trade and other interest groups to continue to engage constructively with us and to finalise their own views. However, I do not think it necessary to extend the consultation period by three months. This would prolong uncertainty in the industry, which has already made clear to me that it wants maximum certainty as soon as possible. I will be reasonable regarding an extension of a few weeks to allow the trade finalise its views, and in this spirit I expect the industry to respond to the consultation paper as soon as possible.