Bernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)

The March European Council made a number of key recommendations in the environmental sphere. In particular, European leaders agreed that the European Union would make commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that negotiations concerning global, post-2012 climate change issues would be launched at the UN international climate conference beginning at the end of 2007, to be concluded by 2009.

Progress in terms of the European response to global warming and greenhouse gas emissions is positive. However, the European face of this Government stands in sharp contrast to its national face. We have failed in the following areas: we missed all our Kyoto targets and Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions are twice the set target; Ireland is ranked 22nd out of the 27 EU countries when it comes to wind, wave and biomass energy generation, despite having the best potential energy generation in these sectors; some 83% of Ireland's recyclable waste is exported according to the EPA; the European Commission took Ireland to the Court of Justice over the appalling state of waste treatment facilities in the country; and under the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government, Ireland has consistently come bottom of EU league tables on recycling. I welcome moves at European Council level to take action on the environment, but the record of this Government tells a different story. Without national action, European initiatives will not result in the type of improvements that our environment so badly needs.

Yesterday I received responses to questions about compliance with EU directives. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has not complied with seven directives and the Department of Transport has failed to transpose, or is partially transposing, 51 directives. That is a dismal record.

Fine Gael supports the EU constitutional treaty in its present form. Any document of this size, which impacts on so many member state citizens, must contain compromises and finely balance the wishes of individual member states with the needs of all countries choosing to work together in the Union. For this reason, it is difficult to see a way forward for the constitution which involves making selective change to the document. Making any changes to a document agreed by so many countries — post agreement — is fraught with difficulty.

The German Presidency hopes to have a roadmap for action on the constitution by the end of June. This will mark the third anniversary of the hammering out of an agreement on the document under the Irish Presidency. It is not clear how extensive the changes to the text will be. While it has been suggested that a "mini treaty" may be the way forward, I caution against rushing to agree a less ambitious text than the current one.

Changes to the text will be extremely difficult to agree outside the type of process which led to the agreement in the first place. Eighteen member states have ratified the text, including two by public referendum, Spain and Luxembourg. Changes to the text may undermine the support of key groups for the current draft of the constitution. For example, positive elements of the document in the realm of social policy are important in selling the real need for this document, and removing some of the pillars of the current draft could risk pulling the whole structure down.

I was disappointed that the European Council did not consider the question of global nuclear armament. In the context of developments in Iran and North Korea, it is neither advisable nor wise of the European Union not to keep this issue close to the top of the political and diplomatic agenda. The United Nations report of the high-level panel on threats, challenges and change, published in 2004, warned that "we are approaching a point at which the erosion of the non-proliferation regime could become irreversible and result in a cascade of proliferation". The European Council should also have considered ongoing negotiations with Iran, and the recent deal with North Korea about disarmament.

In addition, it was a grave error by the international community to defer the review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty until 2010. Ireland was a key player in the negotiation of the treaty in the 1960s, and our position then should inform our approach now. The treaty can be strengthened and its scope widened to include the various threats and challenges posed in the 21st century. This must be done urgently because the current vacuum is dangerous and the double standards and hypocrisy about this issue are despicable. I urge that this matter be addressed soon and discussed at the next European Council meeting.

See this speech in context