The first item on the agenda is a discussion with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche. I welcome the Minister and his officials to the meeting. This is the second occasion on which the joint committee has been briefed by the Minister in advance of his attendance at the Environment Council. I am aware this has been a regular practice and a useful part of the committee's agenda. The committee views it as an important part of the EU scrutiny process introduced by the Government to enhance the role of the Oireachtas. I propose that the Minister's presentation be followed by a question-and-answer session.
Environment Council: Ministerial Presentation.
I am pleased to be here with my officials, Ms Renne Ní Fhlanghaile, who deals with the UN commission on sustainable development; Mr. Owen Ryan, who deals with the Stockholm Convention and the issue of climate change; Mr. Ian Keating, who deals with the Lisbon Agenda, the Aarhus Convention and Cartagena Protocol, and Mr. Tom O'Mahoney, who is in attendance because of his attractiveness and personality and because he is the one who keeps us all in order. He certainly keeps me between the rails.
I thank the joint committee for the invitation to attend to discuss the agenda for the first Environment Council in 2005. I also believe this to be a valuable process. While the agenda about which we will speak is hardly the most exciting, it is nevertheless a process we should continue. On the last occasion we met we agreed that we would endeavour to have our next meeting nearer the time of the Council debate. We could not be any closer than we are today.
Luxembourg is the current holder of the EU Presidency. This will be the first Environment Council chaired by Lucien Lux as the Minister responsible in the Luxembourg Government. Luxembourg is supported by the Netherlands, whose term ended in December and the United Kingdom, which will assume the Presidency in mid-2005. This is the normal process in the case of Luxembourg, which has a small administration.
The Luxembourg Presidency did not chose a motto for its Presidency deliberately. Its stated objective is to ensure not so much the success of the Luxembourg Presidency but the success of the European Union under its Presidency.
I found our last meeting useful in terms of our preparations for the Council. I took the opportunity to have regard to the big picture in terms of what we were hoping to achieve at national and European Union level so as to place the more detailed agenda of the Environment Council in context. It is not my intention to repeat that exercise today.
Two strategic items dominate the agenda for this month's Environment Council: the contribution of the Council to the spring European Council and the issue of climate change. There are six substantive items on the Council agenda followed by other business. The so-called A items under item 2 of the agenda are unlikely to be available to us until the morning of the Council. That is the norm. By way of explanation, although I know most members will be familiar with the process, the A items are automatic items which are brought forward having been through COREPER and, effectively, agreed upon. What is required tomorrow is technical agreement only.
The first substantive item is the preparations for the spring European Council. We will have an exchange of views on a number of communications from the European Commission with the intention of adopting the contribution of the Environment Council to the Council of Heads of State and Government which will meet in Brussels on 22 and 23 March. The communications from the Commission cover: a new start for the Lisbon strategy; the 2004 environmental policy review; the implementation of the environment technologies action plan in 2004; and the 2005 review of the EU sustainable development programme.
Members will be aware that the Lisbon strategy has been flagging in recent years. Attempts to ensure it is more focused commenced during the Irish Presidency, were continued throughout the Dutch Presidency and are now a feature of the Luxembourg Presidency. Any debate on the Environment Council's contribution to the spring European Council is likely to focus largely on the overall position of the Lisbon strategy and how environmental issues will figure in the mid-term review being undertaken. Issues to be addressed are global warming, the response to the Kyoto Protocol and trading arrangements entered into by the European Union, all of which have a clear economic impact in terms of the Lisbon Agenda.
The current debate on the Lisbon strategy is strongly influenced by the November 2004 Kok report, which states progress on the strategy has been disappointing due to an overloaded agenda, poor co-ordination, conflicting priorities and a lack of determined political action. I remind members that the view of the Irish Presidency was that the agenda should focus on a small number of strategic and attainable objectives. The Kok report viewed the second and third pillars of the agenda — social cohesion and respect for the environment — as secondary to and dependant on the success of the first pillar — economic growth and increased employment. It acknowledged, however, that each element of the agenda was needed for success as a whole.
This general approach has been endorsed by the European Commission. The Lisbon strategy has always been directed primarily towards the economy. It was designed for a specific purpose, which I do not necessarily see as bad but as a good thing. Clearly, we need growth and competitiveness. We simply cannot watch a growth gap emerge and continue to widen between Europe and North America and Asia. That would serve no one's interests, including those of us who are committed to protecting and enhancing the environment. I am looking forward to an interesting debate on climate change.
It is the ambition of the Luxembourg Presidency to have conclusions adopted on medium and longer-term indicative emissions reduction targets for industrialised countries as a basis for discussions with those countries on future action for the period after 2012, the post-Kyoto Protocol period. The conclusions will also address a cost-benefit analysis which was undertaken by the European Commission at the behest of the European Council and which was published in February. We touched on this issue at the last discussion at this committee. There was a feeling in the Council that it was necessary to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of where we were in terms of emissions. This has been produced and will be a discussion item.
The draft conclusions include targets for the medium term to 2020 and for the longer term to 2050. Indications from the working party and COREPER meetings in Brussels are that agreement on these will not be easily reached, that is an understatement because, frankly, there is a diversity of views and a polarity in the views taken. A number of countries are not anxious to place targets in the arena for discussion when we have major industrial players on the world stage not signed up for the Kyoto Protocol; others, including Ireland, argue that it is necessary to have indicative figures if we are to have a meaningful discussion.
There is no agreement yet as to whether such figures should be mentioned now or after discussions with countries outside the European Union in the context of ongoing discussions and negotiations under the UN framework convention on climate change. This is a key issue for discussion and I take the view that, as environment Ministers, we must put the facts as we understand them before the European Council. Therefore, I favour the inclusion in the conclusions of indicative targets in terms of aggregated emission reductions that will be required for industrialised countries for 2020 and 2050. As I said, it is very difficult to have a meaningful discussion at European Council level as to what the strategies will be if we insist simply on talking in terms of broad generalities.
There is still uncertainty around the subject of our discussion for lunch time on Thursday. Usually there is a set theme for the Presidency which focuses the discussion at the lunch-time meeting. It certainly helps to have a theme to guide the discussion but that has not yet come forward. There is a possibility that the theme will be the environmental impact of natural disaster relating, in particular, to the impact of the Asian tsunami at the end of December. The UN environment programme has been very active in the field since. The European Union and individual member states have also been active and supportive of the peoples and governments of the affected countries with the focus to date on humanitarian aid, which must have priority.
Under item 5 on the agenda, we will have an exchange of views on EU preparations for the 13th session of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development scheduled for New York next month. The Department was represented in New York recently at the preparatory work. The intergovernmental preparatory meeting was held in UN headquarters last week. The chairman of the UN commission, Mr. John Ashe of Antigua Barbuda, will report to us on proceedings last week and will outline his ambitions for the meeting in April. The thematic strategies for the UN commission meeting this year are water, sanitation and human settlements. These were also the themes in the review for 2004, when the commission considered the obstacles and constraints to achieving the millennium development goals and the targets of the Johannesburg plan of implementation in these areas.
The following three items relate to the preparations for meetings on multilateral environment agreements. We will adopt negotiating directives for the second meeting of the parties to the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters. The meeting will be held at the end of May in Almaty, Kazakhstan. Discussion at Council on the convention will focus on agreeing negotiating directives for the conduct by the European Union of business on the possibility of introducing a legally binding framework on public participation in respect of GMO releases in Article 6 of the convention.
We will adopt negotiating directives for the second meeting of the parties to the Cartagena Protocol on biosafety. The meeting will be held in Montreal, Canada at the end of May. Ireland ratified the protocol with effect from 12 February 2004. Discussion at Council will focus on agreeing negotiating directives for the conduct by the European Union of business in Montreal.
We will adopt Council conclusions on preparations for the first conference of the parties to the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants. The meeting will be held in Punta del Este, Uruguay in May. The overall aim of the European Union is to guarantee decisions taken at the conference ensure effective implementation and further development of the convention consistent with EU environmental and development policy objectives and legislation.
Five items are listed under the heading "Other Business" and there may be more. I do not expect that we will have a debate on them, as items under the headings "Any Other Business" and "Other Business" tend to be noted during the course of Council meetings. The first is information from the Presidency on the state of discussions on the proposal for a regulation on REACH — Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals. REACH is a major initiative with a very high environmental and economic relevance. It is being examined both in the Environment Council and the Competitiveness Council, which is taking the lead. We had a policy debate on it at the December Council. Members of the joint committee will be aware that there has been tension between the various Councils on the issue.
The second item is a request by the Belgian delegation to amend legislation on the importation of wild birds into the European Union. The third is a request by the German delegation to raise the environmental aspects of the proposal for a directive on services in the internal market. We await their paper. The fourth is a request by the Belgian delegation to present to Council the executive summary of a study commissioned on legislative options to prevent the importation of illegally harvested timber. The fifth is a request by the Czech delegation to signal the holding of the seventh international conference on acid deposition in Prague in June this year.
I have given an outline of the agenda for the Council meeting on 10 March. I thank the joint committee for the opportunity to brief members. The next Council meeting will be held on 24 June in Luxembourg and will be followed by a Council meeting in London on 12 September. That will be an informal Council meeting and the indications are that it will be on the theme of agriculture and the environment. The first formal UK Environment Council will be held in October.
I thank the Minister for his presentation. I have two questions. How do environment issues relate to the Lisbon strategy in which the Minister, then Minister of State with responsibility for European Affairs, was very involved and which is aiming to promote growth and competitiveness in the European Union? Surely there is growth and competitiveness at the expense of environmental protection. The Minister also said it is important the gap between the European Union and North American and Asia does not continue to widen. Presumably, the emphasis which the European Union places on the environment will place Ireland at a disadvantage. Perhaps the Minister will expand on this dilemma.
I understand the national greenhouse gas abatement strategy is being reviewed. Will the Minister say how the review is proceeding, when it will be completed and how it fits into the EU discussion process?
What will Ireland say on the important issue of climate change when thus far we have not put our own house in order? Where will we be in 2008 and hope to be in 2012? Is the Minister engaged in reviewing our climate change strategy, in which many of the targets set have fallen by the wayside? It is imperative that we try to improve our performance, not merely in contributing to saving the world from the devastating effects of climate change but also in ensuring our economic competitiveness. This is one of the most energy dependent economies in Europe and the Minister is in a key position to determine whether Ireland will improve its rather stained record in terms the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol.
I want to focus on the two main items to be discussed at the Environment Council, which in a way are related. The first is the contribution that will be made to the spring European Council. I hope the Environment Council will indicate where it sees the environment positioned, particularly in the context of the Lisbon Agenda. It is clear — the Minister's contribution in which he refers to the Kok report underlines this — that there is a view that issues relating to social cohesion and the environment are secondary to the economic objectives of the Lisbon Agenda. While we can all agree the economic objectives have to be achieved to underpin and provide for social cohesion and generate the resources to allow for the protection of the environment, the idea of separating social cohesion and the environment and placing them in a secondary position needs to be challenged.
Many of the new member states of the European Union, in particular, increasingly remind us that they look to Ireland in the hope they will achieve the same economic success for which many would like to claim the credit. One of its main features was social partnership. It just did not happen. Social and economic objectives were not divorced. That was the basis of our economic success.
I was concerned at the recent speech of President Barroso in which he seemed to say the economy came first and the environment second. I ask the Minister to reassure the joint committee that it will be his position at the Environment Council that environment issues are not secondary to economic objectives. A clear message should be sent from the Environment Council to the spring European Council that the environment is important.
The test is what the Environmental Council will say about the issue of climate change. As I understand it, new post-2012 targets have been proposed. Will the Minister, please, comment on this? I understand, for example, there has been a discussion as regards reductions of the order of 60% to 80% in greenhouse gas emissions being achieved by 2050. There is to be a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by about 30% by 2020. I would specifically like to know if the Minister intends to support such a position. I realise this may be somewhat rich, given Ireland's lack of achievement as regards reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, but if that is the nub of the issue to be considered by the Environment Council, I would like to know the Minister's position.
I understand some type of border taxes on energy intensive products have been suggested. Has this been considered? If so, what is the Minister's view?
I am not sure what the position is on border taxes because there is nothing on the agenda for Monday's meeting in this regard. Taxation issues have been discussed over a considerable period in other Councils. If there is a specific issue, I will certainly come back to the Deputy on it.
The Chairman and Deputy Gilmore touched on the Lisbon strategy, which is primarily focused on growth, development and economics and is a stool with more than one leg. There are three specific pillars. I agree absolutely with the concept that social partnership is fundamental. If we were to identify one factor that has altered matters fundamentally in Ireland, it would be social partnership, which represents one of the most important changes made. Throughout the course of the Convention on the Future of Europe one of the issues raised time and again in the Irish contribution, particularly in the social Europe working group, was that of social partnership, which is seen as an essential ingredient, not just of economic growth but in the challenges to be faced on the environment front. During its Presidency Ireland made the point that the European Union should look upon its economic progress, particularly in the area of environmental technologies, as positive.
Deputy Gilmore is correct. Ireland is particularly vulnerable because it is so energy-dependent. It is important, therefore, that policies focused on energy efficiency are looked at. Deputy Cuffe touched on a similar point. However, I have to take exception to his assertion that Ireland has a stained record. We are not perfect but to suggest our record is stained is disingenuous and an exaggeration. For example, figures published by the Environmental Protection Agency show that in 2003 emissions were approximately 25% above 1990 levels. However, that is down from a figure of 29% in 2002 and 31% in 2001. Therefore, we are moving in the right direction, although, obviously, we would like to be further along the way.
I beg to differ. We are twice over the target.
I am simply reading from the record.
We had a derogation.
Neither the Deputy nor I should second-guess the EPA. It would be better if we were further along the line but we are certainly moving in the right direction. We should not continually knock the progress made.
Deputies Gilmore and Cuffe asked about our position. The Presidency text is not precise but we are not opposed to it and could support the concept of indicative targets, the key point of Deputy Gilmore's question. They follow on logically from the agreed EU objective of limiting increases in global temperature to 2°C above pre-industrial levels and the stabilisation of greenhouse gas emissions to a level consistent with the target of 2°C, equivalent to well below 550 parts per million volumes of CO2.
The European Union is right to discuss targets but we must also discuss whether we will bind ourselves. In economic terms, the theory of second best must be considered. Is it better to go for something that is less than perfect, or does one place oneself at an economic disadvantage? The big players such as the United States, as well as countries in the developing world such as India and China, have not yet signed up. However, we should still be talking about targets because it gives a clear indication to Heads of Government of the levels of emission reductions they must consider. It will also give a firm political message to those countries which have not signed up. Whatever else it is accused of, the European Union is in the lead worldwide in this area. There is a certain economic advantage in being to the fore in the development of environmental technologies. If we set targets and talk about them in those terms, it will help industrial focus.
This is an extremely complex area. Like Deputy Gilmore, I represent a constituency which borders the sea. Last night I read the chilling fact that a one-inch increase in sea level, particularly in low-lying areas such as our east coast, could result in a loss of 8m of coastline within a finite period of one or two years. Therefore, it is an issue of which the European Union must take account and on which it must show leadership. It is not just a fanciful notion. We could and should support the Presidency programme, which is predicated on identifying indicative targets which would be advantageous for the reasons outlined.
Does the Minister support a particular indicative target?
Yes, we have indicated broad support. We will have to see what comes from the Council meeting because this is the first shot. However, we are encouraging the debate on the establishment of specific targets.
I have touched on the Kok report and agree with Deputy Gilmore. I mentioned social cohesion and Ireland's view on social partnership. Proinsias De Rossa and I got a bit of stick during the course of the proceedings of the social Europe working group. Bizarrely, some who would be more left-wing were very opposed to the Irish model of social partnership. They are allergic to it for some reason, although I cannot see the logic.
Deputy Gilmore has mentioned that environmental issues have been secondary in the overall debate on the Kok report, which is true. The report has recognised that the European Union, which is economically strong, can show leadership on social and environmental policies. However, the three pillars are very much part and parcel of the agenda.
I think I have covered all the points raised.
Is there a date for completion of the review of the national greenhouse gas abatement strategy?
We are in the process of examining the national climate strategy, which we propose to complete by the summer of this year. In rebutting Deputy Cuffe's point, I was put off the point.
I apologise.
I would do the same if I was in the Deputy's position. We are trying to put our house in order. The rate of emissions is moving in the right direction, although perhaps not as rapidly as some would hope. We are determined to maintain this downward trend and there are alternative ways. I made the point in the Department that if we could be imaginative, there were a number of things we could do that would have an positive impact in this regard. There are new technologies all the time. For example, green cement is something in which Deputy Cuffe and I have an interest. The issue of saving water was discussed during the course of the debate on the Water Services Bill. We can make up for deficiencies by using a menu of relatively small measures which do not necessarily disadvantage us economically and may, in some cases, have economic advantages.
We speak of sustainability and protecting the environment. Europe is one of the most energy-dependent trading blocks in the world, while Ireland is one of the most fossil fuel-dependent countries in the world. There is little emphasis in any documentation on the provision of clean energy sources such as wind, hydroelectric and wave power. The issues of sustainability and competitiveness go hand in hand. High-cost fuel dependency leads to a lack of competitiveness. Why is there not more emphasis on clean energy sources to replace the fossils fuels on which we are so dependent?
The strides we have made in recent years in the provision of clean energy supplies have been poor. Any hydroelectric power facilities were built early in the last century. We are slow in taking advantage of what we should be doing in order to move forward. The commitment to the environment of the United States, China and other Asian countries is questionable. One need only visit Asia to see this with regard to labour laws, etc. While there are many positive aspects, we must return to the issue of competitiveness. Clean energy sources could be of benefit to everybody and an area in which we could make strides. Ireland and the European Union have failed to exploit it.
Just because the issue has not been included in the agenda for this Council does not mean the European Union is blind or oblivious to it. A large proportion of the Netherlands is below water level. Therefore, it has an interest in the issue. Eco-innovation was a key issue during the course of the Dutch Presidency. There is a focus within the European Union on wind and wave energy. In fact, this is one of the areas in which the Union has a lead role.
Returning to Deputy Gilmore's question, people focus excessively on negative aspects. They believe we will disadvantage ourselves if we impose emission targets. However, I do not regard it as such. If we impose emission targets, we are more likely to evolve energy-friendly technologies which will put us in a win-win situation. It would mean the European Union would be in pole position in technological innovation.
Although in their infancy, the European Union's emissions trading arrangements have proven to be attractive. I spoke at a meeting which I attended earlier this year with the New Zealand Minister for the Environment, who was interested in New Zealand becoming part of the European Union's emissions trading arrangement. We have created a new commodity. The environmental technologies action plan and eco-innovation are part and parcel of the programme, the hard end of which is well bedded in environmental and economic policies. My Department is involved in the relevant working group. If the joint committee wishes, we can arrange a more focused debate on the policies involved. I am sure officials from my Department would be willing to meet it to discuss them in more detail.
The point made by Deputy Kelleher is interesting and correct. The core point is that the European Union should not see itself as disadvantaged if it is placed in an environmental leadership role. There is a strategic advantage in being to the fore in the development of new technologies. That is the issue on which we should be focusing in the debate.
Eco-innovation was a significant issue on the Dutch agenda. Though not on this one, it does not mean it is off the agenda.
I would still argue the toss with the Minister on the graph for our emissions. I am not sure if he is familiar with the Nike swoosh mark but Ireland's graph on climate change emissions during the past seven or eight years has been an upside-down Nike swoosh mark in that its emissions have increased dramatically, with an improvement recorded in only one year. I do not share the Minister's optimism that emissions will be reduced in the run-in to 2008 and 2012. I look forward to him telling us more about his unbridled optimism that matters are improving.
We are in danger of becoming a dumping ground in Europe for poor-quality technology. What is the take-up in Ireland of condensing boilers? What is the take-up of new building technologies? We continue to build new houses and apartments with breeze-block walls, at best a 20th-century technology. In my mind it is 19th century technology. We must improve our record on new home construction.
The Minister's colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, yesterday said we had built 77,000 new dwellings last year. It is imperative our building regulations are improved, given the significant contribution of the domestic sector. We should abolish the use of breeze-block walls, improve our building regulations and introduce a new climate change strategy. These and other matters such as insulation standards are under the control of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Ireland has the capacity to be a shining light in this regard but the evidence on the ground is poor. However, the Minister can effect change.
The Deputy is correct on one count but wrong in his premise that this is simply a blip on the inverted Nike swoosh mark. As I indicated, it has improved during the years. There was a significant improvement in 2003 over 2002 and in 2002 over 2001. However, I agree with the Deputy's general view that there is much more to do. I am interested in the points he made. He is correct in saying relatively simply technologies can save a great deal. I agree with that hypothesis — one I have put forward many times — that if one builds in higher levels of insulation, one will require less heating oil; if one provides for better insulation in roofs, one will use less heat.
Mention was made of dual-flush toilets by Deputy Gilmore's colleague during the course of the debate on the Water Services Bill. It is amazing how energy can be saved. Deputy Cuffe is correct in saying these issues could be addressed by the use of simple technologies; that it is not rocket science. An EU directive on efficiency performance is in place and we are examining building regulations. As I stated in a number of debates in the House, I am wide open to any suggestion. I will not adopt the ideological view that if a suggestion does not come from the Government side, it is not a good idea. I am conscious of the possibilities, including the use of new cement products and better standards of insulation.
A matter on which we may disagree is the installation of meters to measure water flows. Such a system would assist in preventing water waste. There is phenomenal proof of this from the National Federation of Group Water Schemes, which has had extraordinary on-the-ground experience in that regard. Meters assist in saving water and energy. I recently mentioned in the House that people in Cavan are saving up to 42% on their electricity bills by preventing water waste. I agree there is a great deal that can be done. However, it is a little unfair to suggest the Government is not doing anything, although it could do better.
The forthcoming Environment Council is important as it will set the tone for the spring European Council. There is a mood within the European Union that, because it needs to improve its competitiveness vis-á-vis the United States and some developing country economies, the high environmental standards it is seeking to achieve should be eased. The message coming through — this appeared to be the tone of Mr. Barroso’s contribution on the Lisbon Agenda — is that we should take the shoe off the pedal in so far as the environment is concerned because we need to ensure competitiveness, growth and so on.
The shape of where Europe will stand on environmental issues is now being drawn. The position taken on climate change will be critical in making that determination. When I asked the Minister whether he supported the setting of a reduction target of 30% in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, he told me he could support indicative targets. That is a little like saying to somebody who goes to the fair or mart to sell something, when the buyer does not agree to the price, that one should agree the beef should be sold. There is a subtle difference. As I understand it, there is a proposal on the table for a 30% reduction.
I will clarify the matter for the Deputy. The proposal is for a reduction of between 15% and 30%. The later target post-2005 is a reduction of 60% to 80%. The bands involved are very wide.
The 60% to 80% target relates to 2050.
Beyond 2050. The bands are very wide.
That makes the point for me. There is a big difference between 15% and 30%.
I do not disagree with the Deputy.
What will the Irish position be? I know to some extent it is handicapped by our performance in this area. I will not reopen the discussion the Minister had with Deputy Cuffe. Will the Minister be in favour of the upper or lower end of the band?
The issue under discussion is that of the general principle of establishing indicative targets. The Deputy will be aware that there is a wide range of views on the matter within the European Union. Some are of the view that we have already gone too far. I do not hold that view. Others are of the view that we must set indicative targets. We have adopted the position of being supportive of the concept of indicative targets. The final figures have yet to gel. There is no point in asking me about the point of the scale we will reach. The most important point is that we are supportive of the concept of indicative targets.
An indicative target has been set to reach a figure of 13% in the next five years. Will we reach this target? Currently, we are at the figure of 25%. When will we reach the target of 13%?
We are talking about 2012.
They aggregate over four-year periods.
The period is 2008 to 2012 and we are heading in the right direction. The figure has been reduced from 31% in 2001 to 25% and the trend is downwards. The Deputy is right; we have set ourselves a very ambitious target which will require ingenuity to reach. That is our aim.
Will we reach that target?
I hope so. The obvious answer is "yes" but the Deputy can raise this question with me again in 2012.
The Minister will not hold this office in 2012.
I am not sure if either of us will be here in 2012.
Do members have any other questions?
I expect to be in my second term by then.
We will come back in 2012 to continue the debate. We must try to reach the targets set; otherwise we will have to buy emission allowances, which is a costly exercise. There is a Government ambition and whoever sits in my seat in 2012 will be very anxious because he or she will have to answer to the Minister for Finance, who will be anxious that the targets are met. One of the benefits of the system adopted in Europe is that the targets have been set and there is a cost in not reaching them. We must realise that is the case and must work together to achieve the targets set.
When the emissions trading regime started, the point made in discussions was that it would not do the business. What is the position?
The general feeling is that it got off to a very good start. I have mentioned that I met my counterpart from New Zealand, who is very enthusiastic about the European model. In Europe people have been enthusiastic about the way the regime has operated in Ireland. It is early days yet and it would be rather boastful to claim that it has been an overall success. In so far as one can say, there have not been the glitches that one might have anticipated. It is always better to plan for the worst and hope for the best. What has happened so far has been good. There are sectors of industry which will make the case that they are hard done by. Every pressure group argues at some stage that it is particularly hard done by and is at the eve of Armageddon. However, so far, all the signs are that the trading system has worked and will work well. We must involve more and more economic units because as members know, the system is very focused.
In general, the view outside Europe is that what is happening in Europe is good, while Europeans view our system as robust. We must wait a little while before we can make a reasoned judgment on the matter.
If the Minister were asked by his European colleagues when he would implement the directive on energy labelling of buildings, what answer would he give?
That I am still thinking about it.
The clock is ticking. It must be implemented by 1 January 2006.
We are still working on it but the Deputy and I both know that it is a major issue. It is challenging to meet the requirements.
People have bought houses and do not yet know that if they sell them after 1 January 2006, they must——
No, the relevant year is 2009——
That is with the derogation.
That is only if people are not available to measure it.
If the Minister can obtain a derogation, but that is in doubt.
We will cross that particular bridge when we come to it.
On the question of insulating houses, has a cost analysis been undertaken on the improved building material that will be required to meet the insulation standards and the implications for the price of new houses? Are these materials more expensive, and will that impact on the initial purchase price of a house? I am aware of other groups examining and analysing the impact it will have on those in receipt of social welfare payments.
I take the point being made by Deputies Gilmore and Kelleher. Deputies may be aware of what Adam Smith had to say, that when a group of industrialists get together, they tend to conspire against the public interest. Those involved in industry will always argue that when one introduces new regulations or change, one is placing an intolerable and unbearable burden on them. I do not agree. The introduction of relatively simple technologies can improve matters. One cannot improve everything overnight. Now is the time, when one is building 79,000 houses per year, to build in the new standards. That is what is happening.
Will the Minister expand on this?
The standard of housing and the standard of insulation are far higher than in the past.
How many of the 79,000 houses built last year were built with 9" cavity blocks?
I do not have that detail to hand.
Too many.
I am not sure that is true.
We can return to the issue of building regulations later, when we can dwell on them in detail.
Houses are built to performance standards. The Deputy may be right but I do not see as many 9" cavity blocks as we did in the past. The number is significantly less.
Officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government fought vigorously for a derogation from thermal performance standards. We are falling behind the rest of Europe.
As an ardent supporter of the European Union, the Deputy knows full well that derogations are not exactly unusual. One cannot have it every way — on the one hand, being critical of it and, on the other, an advocate of everything that is seen to be positive.
I am passionately in favour of the European Union.
I beg the Deputy's pardon. I thought he was urging the people to vote "no" on previous occasions. Obviously, I got it wrong but we are straying a little.
To return to the core of the discussion and move away from the grand European project, the Chairman asked about reviving our national climate change strategy. When will we have a new strategy?
I thought I answered that question. The review of the national climate change strategy is under way. It is anticipated that it will be completed in the next few months.
Will there be a public consultation process?
The question was when the review of the climate change strategy would be completed and I answered that it would be completed in the next few months. We have made progress in implementing the strategy and are reviewing the position. My officials have told me there is no specific timeframe but the review will be completed within the next couple of months. In response to the Deputy's specific question, yes, it will be available for public consultation.
There are targets set down in the climate change strategy. For instance, the target for 2003 was that new leases should have an energy component and should be treated favourably under the tax code but at this stage that is out of date.
I would be the first to accept that not everything has happened but I would also be the first to make the point that it is not possible to achieve everything at once. I am not trying to avoid the question but perhaps if I had been given more notice, I could have given the Deputy more detail. The review is ongoing and will be completed by the summer. It will be available for public consultation and, no doubt, criticism.
I apologise for being late. I was present for the Order of Business in the Seanad.
I welcome the Minister. Perhaps he has dealt with this issue but what is the up-to-date position on bringing the Americans and Australians on board? We know they have not engaged. Are any attempts being made by the European Union to bring them on board? The success of the project depends on this. Otherwise, a large segment of the world would not be involved.
The Senator is correct. The point was made that without the participation of key players such as the United States, China, Australia and India, it would be very difficult. That is at the core of the debate taking place in Europe. Those who argue that we have gone far enough and should go no further stress that we could be economically disadvantaged. However, I have made the counter-argument that those countries which have not come on board which are heavy energy users will also pay an economic as well as an environmental cost in the long term.
The case of the United States is particularly interesting. A number of US states are trying to become involved in a unilateral trading arrangement with Canada, as opposed to federal government level. California is a case in point. There was also interest in Canada becoming involved with the European Union.
There is a growing realisation that this is a worldwide problem. In the case of the developing world, countries such as China and India which are experiencing such a rapid period of growth do not want to become involved in anything that might stymie this. They make the point, not unreasonably, that the crisis has been caused by the industrial revolution in other countries.
There is no point in pointing the finger but developed countries, in particular, must realise that there is a significant cost to be paid for not achieving the targets laid down. This point was forcefully made towards the end of the UN conference before Christmas when a representative from one of the small island states said that while other countries were worried about coastal erosion, temperature or climate change and the impact on crops, if the level of the sea rose by one metre, his country would disappear. Mali, in particular, has a problem. There are extraordinary photographs in the current edition of National Geographic which literally show the water lapping. Parts of the United States — Louisiana, for example — are experiencing very serious problems. While there will be a realisation, diplomacy will be required to change the mindsets of regimes to get them to come on board.
I welcome the Minister's address at today's meeting. Will he be in a position to bring forward guidelines on one-off houses in the near future? Will he provide clarification as regards the waste management systems needed?
That is not on the agenda for today's meeting, in which I am seeking to explore other issues. However, the Minister may want to answer.
It is not on the agenda. I have been reviewing the draft which has gone back and forth between my office and the Department. It is now close to finalisation. There are a couple of issues which are close to my heart, for example, the issue of returning emigrants, that I want to see dealt with in it. However, I do not want to sign guidelines that will be a charter for speculative building all over the countryside. I want to find the right balance, which is not easy. Even in urban areas such as Deputy Gilmore's constituency and areas at the northern end of my own, this is a major issue which I want to resolve. I made the point when I recently met the directors of planning services that when the guidelines emerged, I hoped the spirit as well as the letter would be observed.
I thank the Minister for being so forthcoming in his replies. We look forward to having him at future meetings in dealing with other Environment Council concerns. I also thank his officials.
The joint committee went into private session at 3.35 p.m. and adjourned at 3.45 p.m. sine die.