Can I raise a point of order before we get down to business?
Non-Implementation of EU Directives: Statements.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It is not normal.
I want to refer to procedure. I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dan Wallace, to the House. I want to preface my remarks by saying that anything adverse or critical I have to say is not personal. I thank him for his time and attention here this afternoon. As the Minister's representative, will he be gracious enough to accept a few questions at the end of our statements in the event that he is not in a position to answer the points I will make in my opening address in his contribution?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I am sure the Minister of State will reply to your points as well as those raised by other Senators.
On a point of procedural order, will the Minister of State be agreeable to answer questions when Members have finished their contributions if there are any outstanding matters that he has been unable to address in his speech? This is important for the relevance of this House and will tease out issues that are of major concern to all sides of the House.
On the Order of Business it was suggested that we have a question and answer session. The Minister of State will not answer questions on that basis but if the Senator so wishes she can speak first and in that way most of what she will ask will be answered by the Minister of State in his reply. It would be out of the ordinary to introduce a question and answers session and it is not a matter for discussion.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It is normal practice, even on matters on the Adjournment, for the Minister to come back to take up points. He will note anything extra that is said if it is not covered in the statement he has been given or if he cannot answer a question. It is often the case that Ministers take over other Ministers' Departments for statements.
I have been consistent in asking for this format when we have a statement session. It is nothing new. There are precedents. Other Ministers have done it in the House and I request that this be the case today.
When I was a Minister of State I was wheeled into the Seanad—
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator can either begin her statement or else—
Or else what?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Or else I will call someone else.
I will have a quorum before I start.
Notice taken that 12 Members were not present; House counted and 12 Members being present,
A Chathaoirligh, I thank you for scheduling this item for this afternoon's business. I am sure you and the Minister of State will agree it is a major embarrassment that, four times since September, the European Commission has issued press releases condemning Ireland for being in breach of various aspects of EU law, mainly environmental, but also including health and safety directives and the Birds Directive which is technically the responsibility of the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Deputy de Valera. However, most of the directives concern what the layman would consider environmental issues, even though they are not all specifically the responsibility of the Minister of State's Department.
Commission rules provide for the systematic registration and examination by the Commission of complaints concerning possible breaches of European Union law. Environmental complaints represent a large share of the total number of complaints received annually by the Commission. Dealing with complaints requires the active co-operation of member states, particularly to clarify facts and state official positions. Such co-operation is provided for in Article 10 of the EC Treaty, formerly Article 5. The Commission's decision takes the form of a letter of formal notice which is a first warning letter sent to member states. The letter focuses solely on the general issue of co-operation and does not address the substantive issues concerned with the complaints. The letter of formal notice is followed by a reasoned opinion which is a letter from the Commission to a national government outlining why it considers the member state to be in violation of EU law. The Commission usually gives the member state two months to comply with the reasoned opinion. The next stage, in the absence of compliance by the member state, is to take it to the Court of Justice.
Generally there has been a review of the co-operation of all member states. The Commission considers co-operation is globally satisfactory among member states. However, there are some problems. Embarrassingly – I hope the Minister will address this issue specifically – in a press release of 29 October, IP99/812 Brussels, the Commission stated that in the case of Ireland, "delays in answering have been a more regular feature". I know the directives are not entirely the responsibility of the Minister's Department but they largely concern environmental matters. We stand indicted by the Commission for not co-operating by not responding to the letters of formal notice and the reasoned opinions within the allotted two months. I would like an explanation of why we failed to co-operate with the Commission and Article 10 of the EC Treaty. Why have we not co-operated with the complaints procedure? What do we have to hide? Are we so embarrassed by our record of transposing EU law that we do not even reply to letters from the Commission? I am embarrassed by our performance. I am not saying it is the fault of this Government. I have no doubt there is a track record in a lack of manners. However, I would like to know why we do not even reply to the correspondence, be they letters of formal notice or reasoned opinions. What we say in our response is secondary but all parties must agree we should reply within the requisite time. That is the problem underlying the issues I am raising.
I have asked the Seanad to take note of the delays in the implementation of the Health and Safety Directive and a range of environmental directives – the Habitats Directive, the Birds Directive, the Pollution of Drinking Water Directive, the Dangerous Substances Directive, the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and the Major Accident Hazards Directive. These are just a sample of the directives of which we are in breach, either in part or in whole, in terms of the requirements to transpose EU law into national law. I would like the Minister to indicate our position on each directive – when the reasoned opinion was received and when we replied to it, if we did so. I would like to know on which directives we are out of order in terms of the complaints procedure. Perhaps the Minister will then deal with some of the directives I mentioned, including Directive 92-43, the Habitats Directive, which involves nature conservation legislation and is part of the EU's Natura 2000 network. The Commission decided to take this issue to the Court of Justice in February 1999. The Irish authorities are following this procedure in the usual way.
This directive concerns the designation of certain sites for nature conservation. We have not completed the designation process, which should have been done by 1997. Less than half of the sites have been designated. I do not want the Minister to tell me this is the responsibility of the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands – only one Minister at a time can reply. I would like all of these directives to be addressed. It is important that we get our act together in relation to this directive. I know there are difficulties in certain areas. However, Ireland has the most westerly reaches of European habitats and it is not the only country who should be concerned with their proper conservation and management. Europe and the rest of the world consider us the custodians of these habitats. We are not only letting down the Irish electorate but we are neglecting a wonderful natural resource which should be conserved and managed for all to enjoy.
Ireland is the second worst member state in terms of progress made in putting forward sites for protection. Our only comfort is that Germany is worse. This is in contrast to the reply of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, to Dáil questions on 16 November when he gave the impression we had no problems regarding the transposition of environmental directives and regulations. He stated we are 98 per cent compliant with European directives. I contest that. The Commission contests that. We would need a great deal of evidence to support the Minister's contention that we are 98 per cent compliant. Those responsible for monitoring the implementation of national legislation in Europe would not believe it. Perhaps the Minister will elaborate. On 19 November, replying to a Dáil question on our non-compliance, the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, said that Ireland had been notified by the European Commission of infringement proceedings by way of reasoned opinion in respect of five environmental directives, which he listed.
Interestingly, some few weeks before, on 5 October, in reply to parliamentary questions on the number of cases being taken against Ireland by the EU Commission arising from non-implementation of EU directives, the Minister replied, "Infringement proceedings by way of reasoned opinion under Article 169 of the Treaty of the European Union have been notified to Ireland by the European Commission in the case of nine cases in respect .". He lost four cases between October and November. I do not know whether he is right. Someone is telling whoppers to Deputies. I would like to know the facts. If the Minister contradicts himself in terms of the number of reasoned opinions from the Commission in transposing environmental directives, how can he be believed when he says this country is 98 per cent compliant? Does the 98 per cent include nine or five cases? This is a serious matter because it shows a lack of concern for a range of environmental issues.
I mentioned the Habitats and Birds Directive. This includes the question of sheep over-grazing in the west of Ireland. I am sympathetic to the sheep over-grazing issue but the Commission is not. It appears that economic factors are overriding scientific advice in this regard. I am aware of the problems of farmers in the west who have commonage grazing. I believe they will be paid before Christmas, if not this week. The Commission does not want to know about Ireland's problems. "Reasoned opinion" means we are in violation of the Treaty in relation to the Birds Directive. We must take seriously the Pollution of Drinking Water Directive given recent reports of the Environmental Protection Agency in relation to ground water schemes generally and the huge increase in pollution in this area. The EU is likely to take us to court because of the quality of our water. The edition of The Irish Times of 25 November reads, “. 8 per cent of public supplies are considered unacceptable .. there is a significant deterioration of supplies in group schemes, which supply 20 per cent of Irish households.”. Where is the Government's policy on this?
The Dangerous Substances Directive is a serious issue. This relates to dangerous substances getting into the water supply. What is Government policy on that? We are violating the Treaty as far as the Commission is concerned. How long have we been waiting for the national waste management plan to be implemented? This Government alone does not stand indicted on this issue; this has been going on for far too long. We all know the problems of waste in our constituencies. This problem has not arisen overnight. The Commission has decided to take Ireland to the Court of Justice on this issue. I have a problem with what the Minister said recently. When replying to a parliamentary question by Deputy Ferris on 5 October he said, "Proceedings have been initiated before the European Court of Justice on failure to implement Directive 97/68/EC concerning emissions of pollutants from engines in non-road mobile machinery." He forgot to mention that under the waste directive the Commission has decided to take Ireland to the Court of Justice. He forgot to mention the court's decision on our incorrect implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. The Commission issued a press release on 22 September that the Court of Justice issued findings in relation to our non-application of EIAs to sites below 70 hectares. These would be considered small sites which were excluded from EIAs. The Commission found against Ireland in relation to this issue. What has since been done about this issue? The Commission has stated it has heard nothing from Ireland in relation to the outcome of the hearing of the Court of Justice. The Department of the Environment and Local Government has ignored the formal letters, reasoned opinions and court judgments on this issue.
This is embarrassing. I am not a Fine Gael or EPP MEP; I am just an Irish MEP as far as everyone is concerned. Likewise with other MEPs from all sides. I represent Leinster and Ireland, not a political party. There is no difference in Europe. It is embarrassing to see Ireland publicly humiliated, this nation which should be proud of its environmental record. I believe it could be proud of its environmental record. There have been four press releases indicting Ireland on violation of treaties since September. Underlying all of this is a lack of co-operation on the part of the Government and the Department of the Environment and Local Government with the measures put in place by the Commission. We do not even reply to its letters within a couple of months. It is sheer bad manners. I am sure the Minister of State will agree that this sort of behaviour is not acceptable.
The Health and Safety Directive concerns minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers. Ireland failed to communicate to the Commission national measures transposing the directive. Under Article 2.1 of the directive, member states were obliged to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this directive before 5 December 1998. This was ignored. I presume we have not explained to the Commission why this directive has been ignored. The Major Accidents Hazard Directive 96/82 concerns the prevention of major accidents involving dangerous substances and the consequences of such accidents for man and the environment. Ireland has failed to adopt and send to the Commission all the necessary implementing legislation relating to this directive. We ignored the deadline of 3 February 1999 for adopting and sending to the Commission the necessary national legislation in relation to this directive. The Commission's reasoned opinion in relation to the Asbestos Directive 87/217 is that Irish legislation needs fine tuning in this area. Draft legislation has been sent to the Commission by the Government in relation to this but the legislation still remains to be adopted which is the point the Commission is trying to make.
Where does the Government stand in relation to the environmental audit of the national development plan? The Government will be questioned by the Commission during the Structural Fund negotiations on the environmental sustainability of the national plan. I would like the Minister of State to advise me of the Government's programme in order to ensure that each aspect of the plan is environmentally sustainable as required by the Commission. Does he believe there is a risk to Structural Funds under any heading because of environmental non-sustainability or because an environmental audit of our proposals in any area of the national plan will not stand up to scrutiny? There have been recent press releases and statements in this regard. I would like the Minister of State to be straight with me and tell me whether we are at risk of losing money because of proposals in the national development plan not standing up to environmental scrutiny. There is a list of non-transposition of EU legislation, including the area of driving licences and emissions from non-mobile road machines. These are not the only areas but they are important.
The first condemnation in an environmental case against Ireland in relation to the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 85/337 took place in September of this year. This should not have happened. I recall discussing at length in this House the EPA legislation and the whole area of environmental impact assessment. There was never a question that we might not be complying fully with the letter and spirit of this directive. This and our failure to reply within the time required to queries in relation to environmental complaints are two very serious issues. I would like to hear the Minister of State's comments on the implications of the decision handed down by the Court of Justice on 22 September. What are the Government's views on its implications?
I thank the Cathaoirleach for his patience. I understand that, because of the system which operates in the House, the Minister of State cannot know the nature of the questions I am likely to ask and he may or may not have replies to such questions available to him. However, in the interests of ensuring the relevance of the Seanad – an issue on which I have strong beliefs – I ask the Minister of State to answer a number of questions at the end of the debate if there are any matters that require clarification. I would appreciate his co-operation in this regard.
Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government (
Mr. D. Wallace): I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on Ireland's record in implementing EU legislation. The directives listed cover a wide range of issues and come within the remit of a number of Departments. This is an indication of the range and complexity of environmental legislation. I wish to make it clear that Ireland's record in the implementation of environmentally related directives is very positive. The most recent European Commission report on the monitoring of Community legislation confirmed that we had, on 31 December 1998, implemented 98 per cent of such directives.
We are committed to full co-operation with the European Commission in dealing with issues raised in relation to environmental legislation. Where infringements are notified, it is my Department's policy to respond as promptly as practicable to the Commission. It must, however, be appreciated that responses to complaints may involve a number of bodies outside the remit of my Department, for example, other Departments and local authorities. Response material may be extensive, including, where necessary, background legislative and technical documentation. An adequate response to a complex query could, for example, involve issues relating to nature protection, planning, environmental impact assessment and water/waste management. On occasion, time consuming and resource intensive inquiries can impact on the Commission's standard response deadlines.
I wish to address the individual directives listed in the motion and deal with them in turn. I will begin with the issues which fall within the remit of my Department. A reasoned opinion in respect of the rural drinking water directive issued on 14 July 1999 and was replied to on 11 November 1999. The Commission is concerned that the monitoring programme for drinking water has indicated a persistent and relatively high level of microbiological contamination of private group water schemes. In addition, the Commission points to the fact that Irish law, as set out in the Drinking Water Regulations, 1988, did not require private group water supplies to meet the quality standards prescribed in Directive 80/778/EEC.
The Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, and I share the Commission's concerns about the unsatisfactory condition of many privately sourced group water schemes. The recently published 1998 report on drinking water quality confirmed that the overall quality of public water supplies is very satisfactory. This assessment is based on a number of considerations. First, compliance levels of in excess of 98 per cent were recorded for all supplies, public and private, in the case of key health related parameters, such as heavy metals, ammonium nitrates and nitrites. In addition, 92 per cent of public water supply samples were free of coliforms, the parameters of greatest public health concern. In the latter context, it should be noted that 3 per cent of samples within the non-compliance category contained coliforms of the non-faecal type only. In other words, the threat to public health was considerably less than if faecal coliforms had been present.
As already stated, there is a major problem with the quality of water supplied from group schemes which use private sources such as boreholes, springs and lakes. While not wishing to understate the problem, it should be recorded that some 5 per cent of households receive their water supply in this way. The fact that many of these schemes do not provide any form of treatment or disinfection prior to distribution is central to the problem. We have no interest in concealing or playing down the extent of quality deficiency in rural water supplies. On the contrary, it is essential to openly identify the nature and scale of the problem so that it can be tackled head-on, in a properly planned and resourced way.
We have embarked on a new approach to resolving the quality, capacity and reliability of rural water supply systems. A national rural water monitoring committee was established to advise on policy and monitor the implementation of capital support measures under the expanded rural water programme. The committee, which is representative of local authorities, the National Federation of Group Water Schemes, rural organisations and the Department, prepared a model strategic rural water plan which will be used by local authorities in drawing up, in a properly structured and uniform way, a rural water plan for each county. These plans will set out an agreed strategy for supplying all rural areas with a quality water supply.
The priority being accorded to good quality rural water can be seen from the huge allocation of £420 million in the National Development Plan, 2000-2006, for the upgrading and renewal of rural water supply systems. Just three years ago, annual expenditure on rural water amounted to £8.5 million. This year capital investment will be over £33 million, with a further £5 million being provided to assist with current costs. This is a very clear commitment by the Government to address the problems of poor water quality in rural areas.
The record levels of capital investment are being backed up by a comprehensive range of organisational, research, legislative and training initiatives which will ensure that funding is targeted at areas of greatest need and where the return on that investment can be optimised. Evidence of this can be found in recent decisions to examine new treatment technologies for use in small scale supplies and to install these, as a pilot research project, in 30 group water schemes throughout the country. I am confident that these innovative technologies will be highly effective and, when given more widespread application, will have a positive impact on compliance levels with the standards for drinking water.
I referred earlier to the Commission's concern that group schemes did not come within the remit of the Drinking Water Regulations, 1988. Last month, in response to this concern, I strengthened the legal basis for tackling quality deficiencies in the larger group schemes. In an amendment to the 1988 regulations, those responsible for a quality deficient scheme are now obliged to draw up an action programme for the improvement of the supply. The improvement required will be by reference to the drinking water standards set out in the 1988 regulations. Preparation of the action programme will be undertaken in consultation with the relevant local authority and within the overall participative framework of the rural water programme.
The strategic approach I have outlined, the investment proposed under the NDP and the strengthening of the legislation on water quality comprise a substantial and proactive response to the quality problems faced by the private group water scheme sector. I am satisfied this response will deliver on the Government's commitment to ensuring that all group water supplies are brought up to the standards required under the drinking water directive.
A reasoned opinion dated 12 June 1997 on the dangerous substances directive relates to a number of issues arising from Ireland's implementation of measures to prevent pollution of waters by dangerous substances. A further letter was issued by the Commission on 3 March 1998. Replies were issued from my Department on the 3 June 1998, 28 May 1999, 31 May 1999 and 12 November 1999.
It took two months to reply.
The directive specifies two categories of substances which, depending on their toxicity, persistence and bio-accumulation, pose certain threats to the aquatic environment. These substances are broken down into two groups known as list I and list II substances. The primary objective of the directive is to eliminate pollution of waters by list I substances and to reduce pollution by list II substances.
In the case of list I substances, Ireland has adopted regulations for all substances in respect of which emission limit values have been set by the EU under what are commonly known as "daughter" directives. The limit values established under these regulations govern the determination by local authorities and the EPA of applications for all relevant industrial discharges under the Local Government (Water Pollution) Acts, 1977 to 1990, and the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992.
One of the key requirements of the directive in terms of list II substances is that member states must draw up pollution reduction programmes for these substances. This has been the primary focus of the Commission's concern with regard to implementation of the directive in Ireland. More particularly, this concern has concentrated on the increasing levels of eutrophication in Irish rivers and lakes due to excess inputs of phosphorus. I very much share his concern and fully accept that eutrophication is the biggest issue in terms of water quality. Consequently, I have pursued a comprehensive and integrated strategy to tackle all sources of phosphorous inputs to waters. The main sources are agriculture, sewage and industry.
Ireland's pollution reduction programme for phosphorous, as required under the terms of the directive, is detailed in the strategy document, Managing Ireland's Rivers and Lakes – a Catchment-Based Strategy Against Eutrophication. It identifies a long-term target of improving all unsatisfactory waters in rivers and lakes to a satisfactory level consistent with the potential beneficial uses of the waters. Interim quality standards for phosphorus are also identified, to be achieved generally over ten years, in keeping with the requirements of the directive. I gave statutory effect to these quality standards when I made the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act 1977 (Water Quality Standards for Phosphorous) Regulations, 1998, in order to provide a statutory basis for implementation of the overall strategy.
The regulations underpin the wide range of measures which are being taken to reduce phosphorous inputs. These include my Department's ongoing substantial investment and the planned record £2.5 billion programme under the national development plan for water services infrastructure. This programme makes substantial provision for phosphorus reduction facilities to be provided in many towns. In addition, comprehensive monitoring and management initiatives are under way in the catchments of Loughs Derg, Ree and Leane and the Rivers Boyne, Liffey and Suir. Some £1.5 billion is also provided for in the NDP for the rural environment protection scheme, while £147 million is included for the control of farm pollution scheme.
Within the framework of the overall strategy, I have instructed local authorities to put in place the measures necessary to address all sources of phosphorus inputs to waters on the basis of a catchment-management approach and to involve all the main players and all relevant interests in the development and implementation of agreed measures. All of this is done under the supervision of the EPA to which regular progress reports will be submitted by local authorities. The Commission will be updated regularly on progress in regard to delivery of the ambitious targets set out in the strategy and regulations. My overall objective is to return all waters to an unpolluted state.
While phosphorus is the substance of greatest concern in terms of water quality in Ireland, I am conscious of the need to ensure that measures are put in place to address the pollution threat from other substances. My Department is currently in the process of finalising regulations for this purpose which will establish water quality standards for an additional 15 substances. The substances involved are list II substances and include metals and industrial and agricultural pesticides. They incorporate a good mix in terms of substances, sectoral use and characteristics. I expect to make the regulations shortly. The European Commission was advised of these proposals earlier this year and has recently been updated on progress. In addition, it has been advised that proposals for water quality standards for other substances will be considered on foot of comprehensive recommendations currently being developed by the EPA which are due to be submitted to the Department in early 2000.
I am satisfied that we are well advanced in terms of meeting our obligations under the dangerous substances directive. This is demonstrated by the comprehensive strategy which is being pursued to tackle eutrophication in rivers and lakes and by the substantial progress in bringing forward proposals to address the pollution threat from substances other than phosphorous. These measures are clear evidence of our commitment to full implementation of the directive in Ireland.
The European Commission issued a reasoned opinion against Ireland in July 1998, on the grounds that local authority waste and special waste plans made in accordance with 1979 and 1982 regulations did not fully reflect the requirements of EU legislation introduced in 1991 and 1994. We issued detailed replies on 11 February and 26 May 1999.
Twelve months.
The Commission has been advised of measures undertaken to substantially develop and improve the waste management planning system in Ireland, under and in accordance with the Waste Management Act, 1996, and subsequent regulations. The Act requires local authorities, jointly or otherwise, to devise waste management plans in respect of their functional areas, while the EPA is required to formulate a national hazardous waste management plan. The Waste Management (Planning) Regulations, 1997, specify in considerable detail those matters which are to be addressed in local authority waste management plans. Indeed, waste authorities in Ireland are currently subject to legal obligations that significantly exceed those imposed under relevant EU directives. Reflecting the EU waste hierarchy, the statutory objective of these plans is to prevent and minimise the production of waste and its harmful effects; encourage and support the recovery of waste; and ensure that such waste as cannot be prevented or recovered is safely disposed of.
The October 1998 policy statement on waste management, Changing our Ways, emphasised the importance which the Government attaches to the waste management planning process. It strongly endorsed meaningful strategic planning, on a regionalised basis, and a dramatic reduction in reliance on landfill in favour of an integrated waste management infrastructure which will deliver effective and efficient waste services with ambitious recycling and recovery targets. It is evident that local authorities have been guided by the statement and that emerging regional waste management plans seek to give effect to the policy objectives and targets outlined in it. In particular, they provide clearly for the development of an integrated waste management infrastructure, incorporating a range of treatment options and technologies.
The formal adoption of statutory waste management plans should be substantively completed by spring 2000, and the Commission is kept informed of ongoing developments. Indeed, my Department was invited by the Commission to make a formal presentation at an EU conference some months ago on the Irish approach to waste management planning. A proposal for the national hazardous waste management plan was published by the EPA in September 1999 to facilitate public participation and input over a two month consultation period. The cornerstone of the proposed plan is prevention in order to benefit industry and minimise hazardous waste costs. It recommends the adoption of an ambitious prevention programme, aimed at ensuring no increase in the quantity of hazardous waste subject to disposal operations over 1996 levels. The EPA is currently considering the outcome of the public consultation process. Overall, I expect shortly to formally notify the Commission that Ireland is and will remain fully compliant with all requirements of EU legislation relating to waste management planning.
The first EU directive on environmental impact assessment, Directive 85/337/EEC, was transposed into Irish law in 1990. Since then, EIA has become the most widely used mechanism for ensuring that decision-making on major projects takes full account of their likely impact on the environment. It is particularly widely used in infrastructural and urban development projects. The number of ElAs carried out in Ireland has grown steadily to approximately 120 per annum. Proportionately, this is among the highest of all EU member states.
In September 1999, the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment on legal proceedings taken by the European Commission in relation to alleged non-compliance by Ireland with the first directive.
Alleged?
The case related principally to the application by Ireland of thresholds in respect of three of the almost 100 project classes covered by the directive. Those classes were peat extraction, afforestation and intensive agriculture in semi-natural areas, including sheep overgrazing in the west. The court found that the system of thresholds put in place by Ireland in regard to peat extraction and afforestation did not comply with the directive. However, it also found that the Commission had not proven its case in terms of intensive agriculture in semi-natural areas. It further found that Ireland had not complied with the directive on a number of technical grounds. These related to the legal provisions that Ireland had put in place relating to the exemption of certain projects from the need to undergo EIA, the information to be contained in an environmental impact statement, and the environmental impact assessment of projects affecting more than one state. However, Ireland had already accepted that it did not fully comply with the directive on these matters and amending regulations to bring our laws into line were introduced in 1998.
The Department of the Environment and Local Government and the Office of the Attorney General are carefully studying the judgment and will bring forward proposals to make the necessary changes to the law as soon as possible. The 1999 Planning Bill, which has completed its passage through the Seanad, removes the general exemption from the need to obtain planning permission for peat extraction and afforestation. The Commission's most recent letter seeking information on how we propose to respond to the court's judgment is dated 15 November and it will be answered within the set deadline.
Good.
In May this year, the second directive on EIA, Directive 97/11, was brought into effect in Ireland. The new directive increased the number of project classes which require EIA, made special provision for areas of environmental importance, such as special areas of conservation – SACs – and special protection areas – SPAs – and a number of technical changes. The implementation by Ireland of this directive was ahead of practically all other EU member states.
On the basis of the foregoing, Ireland's record on EIA is good. As I pointed out, Ireland compares favourably to other member states in relation to the number of EIAs carried out and in our early transposition of the second directive. The Government is committed to ensuring that all major developments should be subject to the most stringent environmental standards and that EIA should have a central role in this regard. To this end, my Department is at present making preparations for a full review of our EIA system. The review will focus on the system of thresholds for EIA currently in operation, the number of EIAs being carried out, the quality of EIAs and the effectiveness of the process in ensuring the best environmental standards. I expect that the review will commence early in the new year.
Under the rural environmental protection scheme – REPS – administered by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, a package of measures was approved by the European Commission to address the problem of over-grazing on commonage land. Implementation of the new provision has only recently commenced and will be monitored on an ongoing basis. The revised REP scheme requires that framework plans be drawn up for all commonage land which will set out the level of destocking required to achieve regeneration of over-grazed lands. It will take some time before framework plans will be available for all commonages. These plans will quantify the position in relation to the over-grazing on commonages.
Pending the availability of commonage framework plans, the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands have put an interim national commonage framework plan in place. The interim plan involves a destocking equivalent to 30 per cent of mountain ewes for flock holders who use commonage in six counties – Donegal, Leitrim, Sligo, Mayo, Galway and Kerry, that is, those counties identified as having over-grazed commonages. The revision of the scheme under Council Regulation 1257/1999 will include the measures already in place to address the problem of over-grazing.
The remaining four directives fall within the remit of Ministers other than the Minister for the Environment and Local Government and I wish to outline the action being taken in the range of areas involved. I again emphasise that substantial progress is being made in the transposition and implementation of complex directives.
The EU Habitats Directive was adopted in June 1992 and it is acknowledged that there has been some delay in respect of the formal transmission to the European Commission of sites designated under the directive. The aim of the EU Habitats Directive is to contribute towards ensuring bio-diversity through the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora in the European territory of EU member states. All measures taken by my colleague, the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Deputy de Valera, and her Department to pursue the aims of the directive must be designed to maintain or restore at favourable conservation status natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora of Community interest. These measures must take account of economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics.
The aims of the directive are being met through the establishment of the Natura 2000 Network. This is an inter-EU network of wildlife sites consisting of special areas of conservation, established under the Birds Directive. Under the Habitats Directive each member state will contribute special areas of conservation to the network in proportion to the representation within its territory of the natural habitat types and the habitats of species listed in it. Member states were to transmit sites to the Commission by June 1995 and the network was to be established by June 1998.
The EU Habitats Directive, which was adopted in 1992, was transposed into national law in March 1997. The transposing regulations provide powers to protect special areas of conservation from their date of public advertisement and to ensure that the conservation status of these lands was protected even before the Commission adopted the sites. Legal proceedings were instituted against the State over the non-transmission of sites to the European Commission on 30 March 1999. We submitted a defence to the case on 2 July 1999. The European Commission's reply was submitted on 6 October 1999 and we transmitted a rejoinder on 11 November 1999.
When we came into Government we discovered that no sites had been formally notified to the European Commission. We decided that there had been insufficient consultation with landowners and land users of the lands affected by the proposals. Accordingly, my colleague, the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Deputy de Valera, arranged for the establishment of an independent appeals advisory board to examine appeals submitted in respect of lands included or excluded from these important wildlife areas. To ensure openness and transparency, the board is made up of representatives of the developers/farm organisations, conservation organisations and local interests. It is chaired by the former Ombudsman, Mr. Michael Mills. The Minister, correctly in my view, directed that sites under appeal should not be transmitted to the Commission until after all relevant appeals were dealt with. The Government also decided to ensure the protection of the areas in question through powers included in the regulations.
A number of sites were formally notified to the Commission by the end of 1998 and an additional 107 sites were notified this year; 42 sites remain under appeal. I am pleased to inform the House that an additional 128 sites were advertised this year. These will be formally transmitted as soon as any appeals have been decided. We also propose to publicise marine special areas of conservation in January 2000 and these sites will be formally transmitted once all appeals relating to them have been dealt with.
The Minister, Deputy de Valera, has met the Commission and explained the Government's view that the long-term aims of the directive may only be met by securing the co-operation of landowners and land users. Particularly in view of our land history, it is imperative that this co-operation is secured. If this means that the formal completion of the task is somewhat delayed, then so be it. The Minister is ensuring that the aims of the directive are met by rigidly protecting the sites while they are under appeal. It is obvious that the Government is correct in this matter and that we have not ridden roughshod over landowners and land users. Accordingly, I am pleased to note that the landowners and land users concerned are being enabled to appoint liaison committees through which those directly affected by the proposed designations can be consulted about the implementation of the directive at individual sites. The Government has agreed that all income losses arising from the designations will be fully compensated. This will assist us in securing the necessary co-operation on the land.
Figures published in the current issue of Natura, the European Commission's nature newsletter, show that Ireland, based on the 138 sites notified by September 1999 rather than the 150 now notified, had provided the Commission with sites covering 2.9 per cent of the national territory. Germany also had transmitted 2.9 per cent of its territory while Belgium was listed at 3 per cent, France at 4.9 per cent, the UK at 7.3 per cent and all other member states above 10 per cent. The newsletter also indicated that no member state had provided a complete national list with fully coherent information and that Ireland, France and Germany had made significant recent progress.
Recent progress.
The Minister, Deputy de Valera, the Minister of State, Deputy Ó Cuív, and officials of the Department met the Director General of the Environment Directorate of the Commission and explained the Government's position on this matter. The Commission has indicated that when all the sites we propose to include in the network are formally notified, Ireland should be in full compliance with the directive.
I emphasise again to the House that on coming into office we discovered that insufficient account had been taken of the landowners and land users involved and that no site whatsoever had been transmitted to the Commission. We, through our policy of inclusiveness, have discussed the whole programme with representatives of farmers and other landowners and with the conservation organisations. We are rigorously protecting these important habitats and species and are ensuring the long-term aims of the directive are met. We are also securing the acceptance of these sites by the owners concerned. The delay in transmission is a technical defect. However, this delay is necessary for the reasons already stated.
I now wish to move the EU Birds Directive. This directive of 1979 sought to conserve wild bird species and their habitats, particularly wetlands, through the establishment of special protection areas. The Habitats Directive included these areas as part of the Natura 2000 Network and replaced the aspirations of the directive with legal requirements. Designation of these sites proceeded slowly in Ireland up to 1995 and proceedings were instituted for insufficient implementation of the directive. Ireland has now designated 111 of these sites and is in the process of extending some of them. Consideration is also being given to the designation of approximately 30 additional sites. The delineation of appropriate boundaries is a time consuming task requiring accurate bird count figures. As soon as the data are compiled appropriate additional designations will be made. I am pleased to inform the House that currently there are no legal proceedings against Ireland under this directive.
The implementation of the directives on health and safety of workers and major accident hazards is the responsibility of the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and her Department.
Council Directive 89/655 is transposed into Irish law through the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations, 1993, (S.I. No. 44 of 1993).
Council Directive 95/63/EC of 5 December 1995, which amends Council Directive 89/655/EEC, concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of equipment by workers at work was due to be implemented by 5 December 1998. In October 1999 the European Commission issued a reasoned opinion against Ireland for failure to comply with this deadline. A response is due to be sent to the Commission by 18 December 1999. This will advise the Commission that regulations to transpose the directive into Irish law are currently being examined by the Office of the Attorney General.
While the delay in transposing Council Directive 95/63/EC is regretted, I emphasise that this delay in no way diminishes the safety, health or welfare protection afforded to workers under workplace, health and safety legislation. The principal legislation in this area remains the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 1989. It sets out in clear terms the responsibilities which both employers and employees have in relation to providing and maintaining a safe working environment. The 1989 Act is comprehensive in its application – it applies to all places of work and to all sectors of employment, in addition to covering all employers, employees and the self-employed. While regulations to implement Council Directive 95/63/EC would be a welcome supplement to the provisions of the 1989 Act, it is important to stress that the existing broad-based obligations on employers continue to apply in their entirety.
Initially two sets of draft regulations and associated codes of practice were developed to transpose the provisions of Council Directive 95/63/EC, comprising (a) draft Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (Use of Work Equipment) Regulations designed to implement the general provisions of Directive 95/63/EC, which amends Council Directive 89/655/EEC concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work, already transposed through the General Application Regulations, 1993; and (b) draft Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment) Regulations designed to implement the lifting provisions of Directive 95/63/EC, which would build on the requirements of the new Use of Work Equipment Regulations, replace most of the existing sectoral domestic Irish law relating to the use of lifting equipment, and would amend certain other domestic regulations.
However, noting that the transposition of the directive was already overdue since December 1998, the authority this year decided that a simpler set of regulations should be used at this stage to transpose the minimum requirements of the directive, through an amendment of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations, 1993, and that the broader issues relating specifically to lifting equipment be dealt with at a later date. Following further examination of the terms of the directive, the board of the Health and Safety Authority, at a meeting in July 1999, approved proposed draft Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) (Amendment) (Use of Work Equipment) Regulations, 1999, the purpose of which is to implement Council Directive 95/63/EC. The examination of those draft regulations by the parliamentary draftsman is nearing completion and it is hoped to have the regulations made as soon as possible. It is proposed that the authority's programme of work for 2000, which is currently being developed, will include a commitment to the development of new proposals relating to the regulation of the use of lifting equipment generally.
The European Commission issued a reasoned opinion to Ireland on 27 October 1999 concerning the failure to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances. Regulations to transpose the directive are currently being examined by the Attorney General's office and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment will respond to the Commission to this effect within the response deadline.
The National Authority for Occupational Safety and Health – HSA – under the aegis of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is responsible for implementing Council Directive 96/82 on the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances, also known as the Seveso II Directive. This directive came into force on 3 February 1997. National implementation legislation was required to be in place by February 1999.
The directive was adopted following a review of the previous directive, Council Directive 82/501/EEC (Seveso I), which followed a series of accidents involving dangerous substances in the 1970s. It revises the previous directive on the basis of experience during implementation, with the aim of preventing such major accidents, limiting their consequences where they occur, and ensuring a high level of protection throughout the European Union in a consistent and effective manner. The directive covers all establishments having dangerous substances above specific application thresholds; it places a stronger emphasis on environmental protection and provides for the appointment of competent authorities. Some of the stringent obligations placed on establishments holding dangerous substances include the provision of information to the public authorities, the preparation of a major accident prevention policy, a safety report and emergency plans. The directive also sets requirements for land-use planning and public information, as well as requirements to be respected when an accident occurs.
The Seveso I Directive (82/501) was implemented in Ireland by the European Communities (Major Accident Hazards of Certain Industrial Activities) Regulations, 1986. These regulations were amended twice as a result of amendments to the directive and they represent the main legislation in Ireland dealing specifically with the control of major hazards. The Health and Safety Authority acts as the Central Competent Authority in respect of enforcement and overview of implementation of the regulations with the local authorities, the Garda and the health boards designated to draw up off-site emergency plans and implement these as necessary. The primary emphasis of the HSA in enforcing the regulations is on the protection of persons.
The Seveso II Directive retains the basic principles of major accident hazard control which underpinned the original Seveso directive but it also addresses the weaknesses and omissions which have become apparent over the period of its implementation. The new legislation covers all establishments using dangerous substances, including not alone the chemicals sector but also power generation plants, petroleum products and many others. It will also extend the scope of current legislation to cover substances dangerous to the environment and introduce the requirement to test emergency plans and land-use planning obligations in respect of affected establishments and developments around them.
The requirements of Seveso II are complex and implementation requires the involvement and co-operation of a number of Departments and public bodies. An interdepartmental group which examined the draft regulations identified a number of difficulties regarding land-use planning obligations and the identification of a competent authority. However, following intensive discussions, the Health and Safety Authority will be designated as Central Competent Authority for the purpose of the directive. Draft implementing legislation is currently being examined by the Attorney General's office. My Department's direct involvement in regard to the land-use planning aspects under article 12 of the directive will be addressed through amendments of planning legislation and regulations now under way.
When the proposed implementing legislation comes into effect, the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, will by order appoint the local authorities to be local competent authorities for the purposes of the regulations. My Department is preparing guidance notes for the assistance of local authorities in relation to their roles under the Seveso II Directive. These will be issued in conjunction with the above mentioned order.
EU environmental legislation is extensive and complex. Every effort is made to ensure full implementation in an effective and timely manner. Occasionally, due for example to technical difficulties or substantial differences in national administrative structures and the new requirements involved in specific areas, adequate implementation arrangements may take somewhat longer than anticipated. It will be clear that in the cases I have addressed intensive and sustained efforts are being made to implement the directives involved. I can also assure the House that all complaints from the European Commission are thoroughly investigated and every effort is made to respond promptly and within the deadline specified.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit go dtí an Seanad. I compliment him on the forthright and comprehensive manner in which he dealt with the various directives raised by Senator Avril Doyle.
I used to worry that when the Nationalists from the North were elected and took their places in the House of Commons they would be affected by their contacts there and become more British and than the British themselves. I had not realised, until now, that when one becomes a member of the European Parliament one might become more European than Irish. Perhaps the procedures and modus operandi of the Houses led to the agitation and aggravation with which Senator Doyle, who may be suffering from jet lag, introduced this topic. We have a history of co-operation and the non-politicisation of such matters in this House.
Without being too facetious, I welcome the content of Senator Doyle's request to for a statement from the Minister of State on the various directives because they refer to very important issues in a Community and member state context. She rightly outlined the procedures in place which enable the Commission to ensure that member states comply and have mechanisms for pursuing the implementation of the directives. Having listened to the Minister of State's contribution, it struck me that the Senator may have overlooked that many of the directives are of a very long-standing nature and would have been put in place during her tenure as Minister of State in the previous Government. Any missiles of criticism could boomerang.
I was Minister of State at the Department of the Environment in 1986. I am not sure we are going back that far.
Senator Doyle was Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach in the previous Government.
That is right. I am not sure any of the directives apply to the Department of the Taoiseach, but I will stand corrected. Let us have the facts.
Senator Walsh must be allowed to make his contribution without interruption.
But not incorrectly. He must stick to the facts.
Thank you, a Chathaoirligh. I am glad to stick to the facts. This adversarial approach must be more in tune with the European Parliament than is customary in this House. I remind Senator Doyle that she should not alienate many of the allies we have in the European Parliament with such an approach because we will not get them to support us on various other issues of national interest from time to time.
For those who know Senator Walsh as I do through serving with him on Wexford County Council, that is amusing.
Senator Doyle's approach—
Good luck to you if you can get a response to—
Adversarial was the adjective created for Senator Walsh. My goodness, there is nothing so pure as a reformed—
We must have order, Senator Doyle. Senator Walsh must be allowed to make his contribution.
Let us not delay Senator Doyle, she has a plane to catch.
The Senators are wrong, I do not have a plane to catch. I will be here for the Order of Business tomorrow to annoy them.
The Senator has obviously transported some of her county council habits to the European Parliament and back to the Seanad. I welcome her to the Seanad and congratulate her on her election to the European Parliament. The people of County Wexford are very pleased to have a representative in the European Parliament. I am sure the House will be reminded of the important work taking place there when Senator Doyle makes her six monthly visits to the Seanad.
Suggestions were made in a debate in the Seanad last week that we might involve ourselves to a greater extent—
Check the Official Report in relation to my attendance in this House. Senator Walsh was obviously not here when I attended.
Senator Walsh should not refer to the attendance or non-attendance of any Member of the House.
Particularly when he is incorrect.
I would ask that Senator Walsh address the matters referred to.
I am addressing them as best as I can. Your protection would be useful, a Chathaoirligh, to avoid the interruptions which have littered my contribution so far.
Senator Walsh is a long way from addressing directives at this stage.
The Minister of State mentioned in his contribution that 98 per cent of our commitments to the various directives have already been implemented – Senator Doyle alluded to this also which makes me wonder why she raised this matter at all. While Senator Doyle threw some doubt on that—
That is untrue.
—in the manner in which she presented the matter, the statement from the Minister is clear. The most recent European Commission report on the monitoring of Community legislation confirmed that we had, at 31 December 1998 implemented 98 per cent of such directives.
I wish to deal with some of the issues highlighted and some of the more important directives. The pollution of rural drinking water directive is important. I note that the reasoned opinion on 14 July was replied to on 11 November. I agree with Senator Doyle in one regard. It is a feature of local government – and I hope it is not something that permeates the Civil Service – that there are long delays in responding to correspondence. Many complaints have been received from members in my local authority who have not received replies to queries raised. We must address that problem. The Minister has stated previously in the House that the quality service which will be expected from local government will address that issue. Obviously, that should happen at national level also.
It must be recognised that many of the directives are very complex and far-reaching. Failure to deal with many of them in the past has led to a position where the commitment and effort involved is far greater than would otherwise have been needed. The Minister of State was forthright when he said with regard to rural drinking water that he and the Minister share the Commission's concern about the unsatisfactory condition of many privately sourced group water schemes. That matter was the subject of debate in the House. Such schemes are now being addressed and funding and mechanisms are being put in place to deal with them. While they may only supply 5 per cent of households in the country, nonetheless, it is absolutely essential that we deal with them in a manner which ensures that quality and consumers' health interests are protected. I compliment the Minister on that. He further stated that he had no interest in concealing or playing down the extent of the quality deficiency. It is that type of response and acknowledgement which will lead to the action necessary to address it. Nowhere is that action more evident than in the national development plan, where £420 million has been provided for the upgrading and renewal of rural water supplies. Within that, we can look forward with confidence not only to the response to the correspondence but to the implementation of the directives from the EU. In many instances Ireland may even go beyond the standard which is required by the directive in the interests of the consumers and the environment.
Mention was made of the dangerous substances directive. This directive relates specifically to the prevention of pollution of waters by dangerous substances, a long-standing complaint which dates back even to the days when Senator Doyle was Minister of State. I remember much debate both nationally and in the media regarding the pollution of Lough Sheelin and other lakes. These are not issues which have come to pass since the Government came into office in 1997. They are long-standing issues, which are being addressed openly and on which we are now seeing action.
The Minister alluded to the increasing levels of eutrophication in rivers. That matter was raised previously in Private Members' time in this House. The Minister is making provision to pursue a comprehensive and integrated strategy to tackle all sources of phosphorous inputs to waters. There is provision in the national development plan to make substantial provision to reduce those levels and to provide the finance necessary to ensure that the pollution of rivers, both from phosphorous and from the towns, is corrected. Some £1.5 billion is provided in the national development plan for rural environment protection schemes, while £147 million is included for the control of farm pollution scheme. Undoubtedly, all these measures will lead to a significant improvement and compliance with the directive, which must be the most important objective of all of us. I welcome the Minister's comment that his overall objective is to return all waters to an unpolluted state. We in this House wish him well in his efforts to achieve that. I note that the EPA is preparing certain recommendations which are to be ready in the year 2000. Obviously a further step will be taken regarding Ireland's compliance and meeting the standards to which we aspire.
The waste directive relates to EU legislation introduced in 1991 and 1994 and requires the preparation of waste management plans. There has been some discussion on this here and Senator Doyle, who is still a member of Wexford County Council, should be aware of the discussion which has taken place there on the regional waste management plan. Controversial proposals on incineration have been put forward which are the cause of widespread concern among a large section of the community, particularly in the agricultural industry because of the implications which dioxins might have for their produce and for livelihoods. This is a major issue which will require considerable finance and planning. We are probably late in coming to the planning stage on it. I noted with interest the commitment of the Minister of State, Deputy Dan Wallace, and the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, to ensure that progress is made. I know they are urging the various regional authorities to bring forward their proposals so that they may be analysed by the Department and there will be a national strategy in this regard. Obviously difficult decisions must be taken in this area.
The Minister of State told the House that the waste authorities are currently subject to legal obligations that significantly exceed those imposed under relevant EU directives. He also pointed out that the cornerstone of the proposed plan is to benefit Irish industry and minimise hazardous waste costs. It is an area which undoubtedly will lead to considerable further debate before there is a modus operandi which will be satisfactory to all of us.
The directive on environmental impact assessment is one with which the State has complied over some years. Sometimes I wonder if we are going too far in seeking environmental impact assessments for certain activities. This is leading to the creation of a growth industry for consultants. There must be balance in this regard. At times EIAs are sought which subsequent analysis shows do not add much to the understanding and they might even be seen in retrospect to be unnecessary. Common sense must play its part also in accepting directives which come from Europe and our part is to ensure that when the directives are being agreed there is a logical reason behind them.
A judgment is a judgment.
I accept it is a judgment call but there is a danger that an institution, such as the European Commission, may become quite bureaucratic. One must balance that with the needs of people.
But if they take us to court and a judgment is found against us, what do we do?
Are we to have questions and answers, a Chathaoirligh, or will I carry on?
Senator Walsh without interruption, please.
The Minister made a comprehensive response on EIAs and I remind Senator Doyle that she was Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach when that directive was introduced.
Reference was made by Senator Doyle to the EU Habitats Directive and the Minister of State answered well. He acknowledged that there was some delay in responding but pointed out that when he came into office he discovered that no sites had been formally notified to the European Commission. He also had to decide that there had been insufficient consultation with landowners and users of the lands affected by the proposals. Senator Doyle overlooked mentioning this in her address. The Minister also gave the number of sites which were designated, 48 in 1998 and an additional 107 this year. I applaud the Minister on his approach. This matter must be addressed in a manner which secures the co-operation of landowners and land users. As he rightly points out, the history of Ireland, particularly with regard to land, is such that any other approach would be a recipe for failure. In addition, one needs to be conscious of the constitutional protection in regard to property.
Will it affect the drawing down of Structural Funds under the national development plan?
Senator Walsh without interruption, please.
The Minister comprehensively answered that. I agree with the Senator.
The Structural Funds are only in the ha'penny place.
It is a valid point that today the Structural Funds represent a very small part of overall capital expenditure. I think it is less than 10 per cent but I am open to correction. The vast majority of the funding under the national development plan will come from the resources of the Exchequer. The funding Ireland has received since its accession to the Europe Community has played a considerable part in the development of the economy and it should be acknowledged.
It is a fair question.
Yes, it is a fair question. The Minister of State highlighted the fact that the 2.9 per cent of national territory covered in providing transmitting sites compares favourably with other countries. Ireland is not alone in getting this first warning letter, as Senator Doyle referred to it. Other countries, such as France, Luxembourg, Greece, Portugal, Austria, Sweden and Italy, have all received similar correspondence in relation to other areas.
They replied to them, however.
I must be entitled to some injury time, a Chathaoirligh, in view of the interruptions.
There is no injury time, Senator Walsh. Please conclude.
I support his claim for injury time.
Order. Please allow Senator Walsh to conclude his contribution.
The Minister of State pointed out that legislation already exists to protect people in the workplace and to protect the environment. We are talking about complying with directives, some of which may not be as strenuous as the legislation we have. In some instances, however, they be more demanding than legislation which is already on the Statute Book.
It is the same in other countries.
It comes down to the commitment involved which can be measured by the progress we are making to address these issues. In his statement, the Minister of State clearly outlined that resources must be made available to implement that commitment. The national development plan speaks even more eloquently of our commitment towards ensuring compliance in that regard.
I would like to thank the Minister of State for his reply and I concur with Senator Walsh's comment that it was very comprehensive. Much effort went into meeting the specific points in the statement. Notwithstanding the fact that I am not allowed to ask questions and notwithstanding the fact that there were some aspects of the points I made earlier on, such as Structural Funds and the habitats directive, no mention was made of the fact that—
Senator Doyle, I am not going to allow you to make a second contribution in this debate.
It was a very comprehensive reply, notwithstanding the fact that—
Yes, it was. You have thanked the Minister of State, Senator Doyle, and I thank you now.
I thank the Minister and I very much appreciate his reply. We are only trying to make this House as relevant as possible, a Chathaoirligh. I am not sure what the agitation over a few questions is all about. I cannot understand what anyone is afraid of.
Nobody is.
There is a precedent. The Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney, came into the House recently and provided excellent responses. I do not know what the problem is.
Senator Doyle, please resume your seat.
I find it irrational.
When is it proposed to sit again?
At 10.30 tomorrow morning.
Is that agreed? Agreed.