Vol. 394 No. 8
7 Mr. J. Higgins asked the asked the Taoiseach, given the numerous recent examples of excesses of permitted EC smog levels in the Dublin area and the hospitalisation of Dubliners with resultant respiratory problems, whether his remarks on an RTÉ radio programme that the smog problem in Dublin is a lot of rubbish is an accurate reflection of the problem; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
8 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the basis on which he described concern about smog levels in Dublin as a lot of rubbish (details supplied); if he accepts that many citizens of Dublin are seriously concerned about the level of pollution in their city; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 8 together. In a radio interview, I sought to dismiss some of the more widely exaggerated comments about the situation in Dublin which sought to suggest that Dublin city's pollution problems were in some way unique or that the problem in Dublin this winter was more than anything previously experienced.
The facts are that a significant number of European Community cities are in breach of the Community's smoke limits and in Dublin this winter to date has not been worse than previous winters as regards the problem of smog.
I also stated categorically that the problem would be dealt with and the Government have now decided to secure an immediate end to the smog problem in Dublin by directly tackling its source which is the burning of bituminous coal. Accordingly the marketing, sale and distribution of bituminous coal in the builtup area of Dublin will be prohibited with effect from 1 October 1990. The Government are confident that this prohibition will have widespread public support and will end the smog problems experienced in Dublin. This measure is part of a comprehensive environmental action programme to give effect to my pledge of a `Green Presidency' which has, I am glad to say, been widely welcomed.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that his remarks were insensitive in view of the spectacle during two weeks in November and one week in December when thousands of the citizens of our capital city had to wear scarves over their mouths and masks and that they were particularly insensitive and hurtful to those people who had to be hospitalised and to the relatives of the people who died as a result of the level of smog in this city?
What I said was that the widely exaggerated claims were a load of rubbish. In fact, for some years Dublin has not been particularly bad in terms of the major cities around Europe.
Once again the Taoiseach is not aware of the depth of public feeling.
I suppose it would be too much to ask the Fine Gael Party——
When was the Taoiseach last in Ballyfermot?
Please, Deputy.
I was there at a funeral over Christmas.
The Taoiseach is only there at election time.
Deputy Mitchell should desist from interrupting.
In fact, I am very popular in Ballyfermot. Would it be too much for me to ask the Fine Gael Party at least to have manners if they cannot have responsibility?
We had to listen to the Taoiseach for four and a half years when he was on these benches.
In reply to the Fine Gael Chief Whip, I want to say that what I was criticising at that time were the exaggerated claims being made about the smog in Dublin city. I do not like my capital city of Dublin to be unnecessarily denigrated by anybody and that is what I was rebutting. In the same interview I stated categorically that we would deal with the smog problem, and we are dealing with it.
I am calling Deputy Proinsias De Rossa whose Question No. 8 relates to this subject matter.
Will the Taoiseach now say he was wrong in stating in his interview that those claims were a load of rubbish particularly in view of the decision by his Government to ban the use of bituminous coal, which is a clear admission that there is a serious smog problem in Dublin city? Would he not agree that simply banning the use of bituminous coal on its own will not eliminate the smoke problem and that other fuels and items can be burned in fireplaces which also create smoke?
I can assure the Deputy that the problem of smog in Dublin will be dealt with effectively by this Government, as I promised it would.
I do not think it will.
I wonder if the Deputy's party would consider adopting the practice adopted by most of their fellow-traveller parties in eastern Europe and consider dissolving themselves?
Deputy Jim Mitchell.
I do not wish to risk the ire of the Taoiseach but may I ask him if he would elaborate on the so-called solution announced by the Minister for the Environment and his Minister of State last week? Will he assure this House that no person on social welfare or on low pay will be left carrying the can for increased fuel costs arising as a result of the Government's decision?
That is not the intention.
The Deputy is injecting new matter. I am calling Deputy Quinn.
Arising from the Taoiseach's reply and his affirmation for the first time in this House that the Government are going to ban bituminous coal from October 1990, can he give the House an assurance, having regard to his conversion to this position, that the Government will not be brow-beaten by CDL into reversing that decision notwithstanding the close ties which perhaps exist between some members of CDL and the Fianna Fáil Party?
When this Government give an indication that they are not going to be brow-beaten by the bully-boy tactics of the Fine Gael Party, the Deputy can take it that they are not going to be brow-beaten by some commercial firm.
In the light of the statement made by the Taoiseach, would he not agree that the banning of coal is a cynical exercise in saving money by avoiding the payment of conversion grants to nearly 30,000 homes in areas A, B and C in Crumlin and areas A and B in Neilstown? These areas have already been declared smoke control zones by the relevant local authorities but the Minister will not now ratify them, thereby avoiding the payment of conversion grants. This represents the most cynical aspect of the whole debate.
The Deputy is going into a lot of detail which is worthy of separate questions.
I am very sorry that the Deputy regards a major effort by this Government to deal with the real problem as cynical. The Government are determined to take the only ultimately effective step available to them and that is to ban bituminous coal. We are doing this in spite of all the political and commercial pressures which may be exerted on us and we are going to solve this problem no matter what anybody in this House may suggest.
Deputy Garland.
Would the Taoiseach assure the House——
Order, Deputy Garland has been called.
May I ask the Taoiseach——
Deputy Byrne will resume his seat. Deputy Garland, please respond.
As a result of the proposed ban on bituminous coal in October, will the Taoiseach say to what extent the contributions to Fianna Fáil Party funds by Coal Distributors will be reduced in the coming year?
That is a separate question, Deputy. Deputy Alan Shatter.
The smog came down suddenly on that question.
For a new, young and innocent Deputy in this House he is learning the bad tricks very quickly.
Could the Taoiseach indicate to the House whether it was before or after the appointment of his special environmental adviser that he finally recognised the reality of the smog problem in Dublin and would he not accept that a long-term resolution of the problems of smog requires not only the banning of bituminous coal but also the application and extension of the conversion grants scheme to those other parts of Dublin which have suffered major smog problems in recent winters?
That is not my information, but let me suggest that I took these questions because they related to remarks I made and I think detailed questions on this environmental programme should be more properly addressed to the Minister for the Environment.
Pass the buck.
Having intimated that feeling to the House, Question No. 9 in the name of Deputy Taylor.
