Other Questions.
7 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the information available to his Department regarding the reported investigation by the EU into whether many quarries in this country are being worked illegally due to lack of planning permission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16521/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraIn 2002 the European Commission wrote to my Department about two specific quarries. Ireland provided a detailed response in both cases in early 2003 and there has been no further communication from the Commission in either case. There has been no correspondence from the Commission on a wider investigation by the EU into quarrying activity in Ireland, as was recently reported in the media.
My Department recently provided the Commission with details of the new statutory provisions relating to quarries which came into effect with the commencement of section 261 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 on 28 April 2004. That section is intended to address concerns about the need for all in the quarrying industry to conform with modern environmental standards.
Section 261 introduces a once-off system of registration for all quarries. It applies equally to quarries that have been operating before the planning system came into operation in 1964 and those operations begun since. Only quarries for which planning permission was granted in the past five years are excluded.
Under the registration system, quarry operators must supply full details of their operations to the planning authority. Following registration, a planning authority can impose conditions on the operation of a pre-October 1964 quarry or may require such a quarry to apply for planning permission and submit an environmental impact statement in certain circumstances. Authorities will also be able to restate, modify or add to conditions on the operation of a quarry which has received planning permission more than five years ago. Any quarry which is obliged to comply with section 261 and fails to do so within the appropriate period will become an unauthorised development, regardless of its previous status and, as such, may be subject to enforcement proceedings by the planning authority.
The enactment of section 261 is intended to enable planning authorities to better regulate the operation of quarries in their area both by providing them with comprehensive information on such quarries and increasing their powers of control over quarrying operations as they expand. In parallel, my Department has issued comprehensive guidelines to planning authorities on quarrying and ancillary activities. They offer guidance to planning authorities on planning for the quarrying industry through the development plan and determining applications for planning permission. They also include a practical guide to the implementation of section 261. I am confident these guidelines will help ensure that quarrying in Ireland operates to the highest planning and environmental standards.
Why did it take four years to bring section 261 of the Planning and Development Act into effect? How many quarries have been registered since it came into effect on 28 April? The Minister stated the EU Commission is not conducting any investigation into quarrying in Ireland, which contradicts the newspaper reports to that effect. Is his Department conducting any investigation into the illegal operation of quarries in Ireland? Can he supply the House with an estimate of the number of quarries operating without appropriate planning permission?
Under the new registration system, as provided for in section 261, the detailed information required by relevant quarry operators was to be supplied by 27 April of next year. Therefore, we are well placed to meet the deadline. I dealt with this issue the minute I entered the Department. Quarrying is a huge business. It might surprise people that it is worth approximately €20 billion to the Irish economy per year.
We should have a balanced approach, ensure that we meet the environmental standards and give some of the industries a lead-in time to change their ways, as many did, to be able to conform to the new and much stricter regime. We must send a clear message to those who do not conform that they will be out of business; it is as simple as that. The industry will now be subjected to a quite sophisticated planning and enforcement regime. We have even approached quarries that came into being before 1964 and imposed conditions upon them, thus causing considerable angst.
This problem has arisen only recently. I am aware of the point Deputy Allen made — I did not see the programme in question but I heard about it. The behaviour in question is obviously unacceptable. We have dealt with the two cases the Commission raised. It has not come back to on them so I take it that it is satisfied. The Commission has not corresponded with us in any way about any EU investigation into quarrying in Ireland.
I do not have the answers to some of the Deputy's questions on the numbers involved, but if the figures are available I will obtain them for him. Given the timeframe for putting all the details together, I suspect they are not fully compiled by all the local authorities at this stage. We should deal with this issue.
I am surprised that information is not available to the Minister.
I do not have it here.
I am only asking for an estimate. Since the Minister was in a position to give us an estimate on the economic value of quarrying, I presume he made some inquiries into the extent of non-compliance with planning regulations before he brought section 261 into operation. I am only asking that the Minister share this estimate with the House.
I do not have the information with me but I will get it for the Deputy. If I had it I would be quite happy to make it available to him. I had available to me the estimate of the total value of quarrying to the economy last year. I presume we do not have the one the Deputy requires because we probably have not received all the figures from the local authorities. As he knows, section 261 of the Planning and Development Act came into effect on 28 April, which is only a matter of weeks ago. As soon as I have the desired information, I will be quite happy to make it available to the House.
Does the Minister agree there is considerable concern among communities, particularly on the perimeter of Dublin, over illegal quarrying? A cumbersome system applies in the making of applications for quarrying whereby the operators have to apply for a waste permit to the EPA or the local authority, depending on the tonnage. In addition, they must apply to the local authority for planning permission. Communities are unaware of how to obtain information or make a submission. Will the Minister examine ways of streamlining the system?
Does the Minister agree that many quarries, which may have been quarrying illegally, were also used for illegal dumping? We have a difficulty in Wicklow in that respect. The Minister made some glowing comments at the launch of the EPA annual report. However, does he agree the Department has not assisted local authorities in seeking to address the serious issue of illegal dumping in Wicklow and surrounding counties?
If the Minister gave an answer to Deputy Gilmore's question on the reason for the delay, I did not hear it.
By implication he blamed his predecessor.
I did not. I do not operate that way.
It was expected that section 261 would be included and I would like some more detail on the matter. What would the Minister say to local authorities that have benefited from materials coming from unauthorised quarries? Is a particularly bad example not being given when material is coming from unauthorised quarries for local authority use? What has the Minister done, said or threatened in that regard?
I do not disagree with the points being made by the Opposition spokespersons. Like them, I want the issue resolved. Rightly or wrongly, quarries have operated for many years in a largely unregulated fashion. I did not seek to blame my predecessor for the delay in introducing this. I simply said that when I found this issue, it was very complex and difficult to deal with. I was determined that section 261 would be implemented one way or another. As often happens with groups that represent sectional interests in society, some might have thought the regime was too hard and people would be put out of business. Ultimately this needed to be done and has been done. We had up to April 2005 and the section was only implemented in the past six weeks. I expect changes in this area will be quite rapid.
Deputies Timmins and Sargent are right in saying public consultations on these matters are important. We have assisted local authorities by giving good guidelines as to how to deal with the matter. Both through regulation and the law, we pointed out that it is incumbent on those operating quarries to have a good neighbourly policy and engage with the community. They must be open and explain to those living in proximity to quarries what is going on. The local authorities have an obligation in that regard.
Now that the section has been implemented, I have no doubt that new incoming councillors will make themselves familiar with these regulations and will use the guidelines to ask their officials to advise them of the arrangements for registration, local consultation, the number of quarries registered, the assessment of illegal activities or those who have sought to stay outside the system and refuse to take part. A range of issues needs to be addressed.
On Deputy Timmins's point about the County Wicklow scenario, I have made €7 million available to local authorities for enforcement this year to curb the illegal dumping of waste. I have also made substantial funds available to the Environmental Protection Agency and have established the new Office of Environmental Enforcement. We hope to see a substantial change and I hope the days of illegally burying waste are over.
I call Question No. 8.
I have a very important supplementary question.
We have spent 13 minutes on a six-minute question. It is ridiculous. I cannot take the Deputy's question and I must call Question No. 8.
I would like the Minister to consider introducing legislation to ensure that illegal acts are not rewarded by allowing illegal operations afterwards.
It is unfair on Members, whose other questions cannot be taken. I call Question No. 8.
This is a serious issue. Illegally used quarries should not be legitimised afterwards as landfills.
We will proceed to Question No. 8 and I ask the Minister to reply to that question. We cannot spend 14 minutes on a six-minute question.
I had a question on this matter.
Standing Orders state no more than six minutes and I have allowed 14 minutes on this question.
My question will only take about ten seconds.
We will proceed to Question No. 8.
Could I please ask my question?
If I were to allow the Deputy, I would have to allow other Deputies.
It will be October before I get a chance to ask questions again. I am not being awkward.
8 Ms B. Moynihan-Cronin asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the progress made to date in the review of the retail planning guidelines relating to floor space cap on retail warehouses; when he expects the process to be completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16511/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe retail planning guidelines prescribe a maximum floor area of 6,000 sq.m. gross retail floor-space for large-scale single retail warehouse development. This aspect of the guidelines has been under review, taking account of the need to ensure proper planning and sustainable development, while also supporting effective competition in this sector of retailing in the context of ongoing developments in retail formats. To assist in carrying out the review, I invited interested parties to make submissions to my Department. Some 71 submissions were received and have been assessed. The submissions received raised many complex issues and these will be fully taken into account in considering further whether any changes are needed in the guidelines. I expect the process to be completed shortly at which point I will announce the outcome of the review.
That reply is almost verbatim the reply I received to the same question I asked on 27 April and 4 March. The review of the retail planning guidelines was announced in August 2003 and the 71 submissions to which the Minister referred have been with him for some time. Is it not the case that the Minister intends to lift the 6,000 sq. m. cap on gross retail floor space to facilitate in particular IKEA, which has made no secret of its wish to develop in the State, and he is delaying the announcement of this decision until after the local and European elections for fear of the outrage it will cause in the retail sector generally?
The Deputy would be entirely wrong if he thought that was my view.
We will see. Time will tell.
This matter has nothing to do with the local elections. Having reviewed the submissions, as many organisations would like to see the cap lifted as would like to see it retained. There is no consensus. Two large bodies of opinion represent the views which are in conflict. Many issues feed into this matter, as the Deputy will be aware. It is not simply about expanding floor space. In addition, there are issues of location and traffic. The Deputy referred to one company whose operation I have seen abroad. The volume of car movements going into and out of some of its developments is incredible.
I have not read any of the submissions yet as I am waiting for the assessments to be completed so that, along with my officials, I can read them. The Deputy's assessment of my view on this matter is wrong and I cannot allow that perception to prevail. I have an open mind on many matters and I will be interested to see the assessments. I do not come to this debate with any fixed position, especially the one the Deputy suggests.
The matter is complex and will take some time to tease out in this House. We will wait and see. While it may be implicit in the way the Deputy posed the question, from being around the country more than most Deputies, it would appear to me that, by and large, these guidelines are working well. While I do not base that view on any scientific assessment, it is my sense that the very large stores, which would be substantially larger and probably would have made the arguments that they could not function under the constraints of the cap, seem to be functioning well within the guidelines and the scale seems to be appropriate. I will wait to see what arises over the summer. I am sure we will have a good debate in the autumn.
The Minister said the submissions have been received in favour of and against lifting the cap on retail floor space. In his role, as Minister, does he feel he has any remit or responsibility to adjudicate on the basis of sustainability in this matter? Will increasing car dependency, to which he referred regarding other countries, be a factor in his decision? Outside the lobbying and submissions, does the Minister have a view rather than just adjudicating as to which is the heavier basket, that for or that against?
Time will tell just how right or wrong my suppositions are. Will the Minister indicate to the House when a decision is likely to be made on this matter? Given that we have been receiving similar replies on this issue for a number of months, is there a particular reason references to the national spatial strategy which appeared in the March version of the reply no longer appear in the April and June versions?
There certainly is not. The submission has not come to me and I do not have unlimited officials. Staff have been dealing with a range of issues in this area and it has been difficult to complete this process. There is no mystery. I am as anxious as the Deputy given that I initiated the process and would like to reach a conclusion.
I agree absolutely with Deputy Sargent. It comes back to the spatial strategy point which I have made on a number of issues in this debate. There are many issues which feed into sustainability, one of which I have just enunciated while replying to Deputy Gilmore. Sustainability is clearly an issue when making decisions on traffic, for example. It is not a simple question of moving a cap from one figure to another. There could be very significant consequences of doing that. I have questioned publicly whether one should take initiatives in Dublin or try to encourage development in other parts of the country in a different way. There are many different avenues to explore under the spatial strategy and sustainability and I very much intend to take them into account in trying to come to a conclusion.
9 Mr. Morgan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his views on the findings of the EPA report entitled Ireland’s Environment 2004 which found that greenhouse gas emissions for this State are 29% above 1990 levels; if the Government believes this State will be able to reduce levels to 13% above 1990 levels by 2008 to comply with the Kyoto Protocol; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16571/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra12 Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he will report on the progress of the implementation of the national climate change strategy. [16572/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 12 together.
Among the positive signals for the environment, the EPA report, Ireland's Environment 2004, outlined a modest reduction in the emission of greenhouse gases. Emissions are down from 31% above 1990 levels in 2001 to 29% above in 2002, which is the first reduction in a decade. Ireland is pursuing a challenging programme to limit the growth in greenhouse gas emissions through the vigorous implementation of the Government's national climate change strategy. The strategy sets out a systematic programme to meet our Kyoto obligations by 2012. I initiated a review of the implementation of the strategy to ensure more focused and intensive implementation. This process is ongoing and incorporates an update of greenhouse gas emissions projections with a particular emphasis on cross-cutting economic instruments to achieve Ireland's Kyoto targets. These instruments include emissions trading and other flexible mechanisms which have continued to be developed at national, EU and international levels since the strategy was formulated.
The Government is ensuring that Irish industry and the power generation sector can participate fully in EU emissions trading starting in January 2005. In this context, the EPA has submitted the national allocation plan to the European Commission for approval. The installations included in emissions trading produce approximately one third of Irish greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions trading will enable these sectors to meet their reduction obligations in the most economically efficient manner through access to least-cost emissions reduction opportunities across the EU and more widely.
The study underpinning the development of the national allocation plan identified the overall national distance to target in the Kyoto period 2008 to 2012 at 9.2 million tonnes CO2 equivalent per annum. Achieving reductions of 4.3 million tonnes CO2 equivalent will be the responsibility of the emissions trading sector leaving reductions of 4.9 million tonnes CO2 equivalent to be achieved within the rest of the economy. I am satisfied that 1.2 million tonnes CO2 equivalent can be achieved within the sector of the economy outside emissions trading at or below a cost of €10 per tonne of CO2. The Government has indicated its intention to purchase 3.7 million allowances on the international market.
I am currently advancing the review of the overall national climate change strategy to take account of the foregoing decisions and I intend to publish the outcome in due course. I am satisfied that full implementation of the revised strategy over the remainder of the decade will ensure that our Kyoto obligations will be fully met in the 2008 to 2012 period. This will occur in the context of the arrangements for emissions trading together with any additional measures which may be identified in the review.
According to the Government's calculations in drawing up the national climate change strategy published in 2000, greenhouse gas emissions would be 23% above the 1990 level in 2004 if none of the recommended actions was taken. As greenhouse gas emissions are 29% above the 1990 level, does the Minister agree that the national climate change strategy is in tatters? It is worthless. The figures are completely askew and the situation is much worse than the Government projected even if the "do nothing" approach had been adopted. Is the Minister saying the State will simply buy its way out of compliance with the Kyoto Protocol while not even attempting to reduce emissions? Does the Minister agree that this irresponsible approach amounts to the State failing to play its part in the global fight to prevent climate change?
I thank the Deputy for putting down his question as this is an important albeit complex issue. I do not accept the Deputy's summation. He fails to say that the level of economic activity is way beyond what was anticipated when the figures were originally put in place. If one factors in the level of economic activity on which the 23% figure was based and compares it to the activity which is causing emission levels of 29% above the 1990 level, one will see that there is not an obvious correlation. The figure should be much higher. We are doing a great deal.
What are we doing?
We are doing an enormous amount. If the Deputy wishes me to spell it out for him, I will.
We are doing nothing.
The energy efficiency methodologies being used in the building trade are at the top end in European terms and will deliver substantial reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. The emissions trading regime which is legitimate for Ireland and other countries to participate in is another mechanism which can be used.
It is dumping responsibility on poorer countries.
Equally, our movement away from an over-dependency on heavy fossil fuels is crucial. Changes are being made by businesses in all areas of the economy not simply by companies in the energy sector which are switching from heavy fuel oils to gas. While this is not the perfect scenario, it represents a significant improvement. The targeted number of wind energy systems has been exceeded in terms of planning system approvals. We will get them in place.
They are not allowed to connect to the grid.
Denmark produces over 30% of its energy needs from wind which means we can and should do the same. This should not be an adversarial issue. It is something we are all trying to grapple with sensibly.
We have to be adversarial.
Ireland would not have been invited to chair the OECD forum in Paris on this issue, in which all countries participated, if we did not have credibility. We have credibility and we have a challenge. The figures are not hidden internationally and everyone knows what Ireland's challenges are. We must face them. We do not have a nuclear industry, which is what masks the issue in other countries that benefit from very low carbon emissions. I do not want nuclear energy and I am sure nobody else in this House does either.
Some of the Minister's colleagues appear to.
We should balance that against the serious challenges on the other side. I am not trying to minimise the seriousness of what we face. A strategy has been put in place which is fully operational in Ireland. For the first time the figures show that we are seeing the decoupling of economic activity and emissions. We must ensure that between 2008 to 2012 we hit our target of 13% above the 1990 levels. If everybody does what he or she is supposed to, we will.
Does the Minister agree that while Ireland is incurring a great deal of pain for very little gain on this issue, the United States of America is giving us two fingers in failing to adhere to the Kyoto Protocol? What discussions has the Minister had with US authorities in his capacity as President of the Council of Environment Ministers in Europe to convince them to discontinue their role as environmental vandals and to adhere to the Kyoto Protocol?
I met and had discussions in Paris with Michael Leavitt, the newly appointed director of the EPA in the US who was appointed by President Bush. I also met the EPA representatives in the UN following on from that meeting. I agree with the Deputy that it would be better for the world and all of us if America were to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, but sadly under the present Administration that is unlikely to happen.
It would be foolish, however, for Ireland on that basis to do nothing because it is quite clear that more and more American states are now looking to the future and setting targets more difficult than Kyoto. We should ask ourselves why. I have been trying to say to Irish agricultural interests, to unions and to IBEC that we must end this debate quickly. We are trying to negotiate on the impact next week. We should be much cleverer in this country in looking at the potential opportunities in the medium to longer term. There are enormous opportunities in employment and in research and development with potentially huge benefits to the environment.
As the Deputy has previously acknowledged, Ireland's reputation environmentally is far better than that of many countries which are trying to rise to a certain level. That does not mean we should be complacent. We need a much wider debate in this country which is less adversarial in the immediate impact. We need to look to our serious medium to longer-term opportunities, and see where the opportunities lie for Ireland. There are enormous opportunities for agriculture and industry in this country, and for the creation and sustaining of very many jobs, if we handle this correctly.
Pursuing the question raised by Deputy Allen, an EU-United States summit will take place at the end of this month in Ireland. Will the Minister say if the failure of the United States to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol is on the agenda for that summit?
The Irish Presidency has got great recognition for being the first Presidency to put the environmental pillar on the agenda at Heads of State level.
The answer is "No".
Is it?
When the Taoiseach was speaking very recently from Guadalajara, he——
What is the answer?
I have not got the agenda in order to give the answer.
The Minister should know the answer.
Ireland's position on the environment, in leading the EU in its Presidency, is clear. The environmental issue has been and remains on the agenda. It is very much part of the Irish EU Presidency agenda. On that basis it will certainly form part of the discussion.
As the sitting President of the Council of Environment Ministers, the Minister must be in a position to tell us if this important issue of Kyoto will be discussed when the current President of the EU and the President of the United States meet in one of the Irish castles at the end of this month. If the Minister does not know, then clearly that will not happen. This meeting is one of the great billed events of the coming summer, and one would have thought that if it is to have any meaning, an issue of this importance, with the United States so much out of line with the rest of the world regarding climate change and the Kyoto commitment, should be discussed. I find it astonishing that it is not even on the agenda for the meeting.
I hope the Minister will say it is on the agenda. We will wait and see. Does the Minister realise that his utterance about economic growth being the reason we could not comply with Kyoto is itself an admission of Government failure in decoupling economic growth from greenhouse gas emissions, which are generally worse in Ireland than in other European countries? Since the Minister has indicated that we need to move to a leaner economic activity base, one which is much more energy efficient, would his Department and Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, help pursue that by bringing up housing insulation standards to end-1997 standards, as advocated by Energy Action, which would result in a saving of 7% of total national energy consumption, according to Energy Action? Would the Minister agree that this should be done with existing housing stock, whatever about the new 70,000 houses being built annually, and that since the existing housing stock is in need of serious attention, he should lead on that matter?
The Green Party clearly does not want economic growth and creation in this country.
The Minister has no basis for saying that.
I am sick and tired of listening to the Green Party constantly undermining investment in this country, which has increased the numbers in employment from almost 1.1 million people to 1.8 million. That is what has the Irish economy where it is today.
The Minister is embarrassed by his failures.
It is the worst in Europe.
That is why we are able to achieve what we are achieving. At the same time we know we have economic decoupling from emissions taking place. We are no worse or better than many other countries grappling with this very serious issue. We do not deny that.
The Minister is embarrassed by his failure. He should stick with the question.
The Green Party approaches the debate in a simplistic, almost immature way. The Deputy bears no resemblance to his colleague with whom I sit in European Council meetings and who represents the Green movement in Europe, which has a philosophy fundamentally different from that of the Deputy. I do not know how the party in Ireland calls itself a Green party.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
