Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Fitzmaurice for his opening contribution. The Government is not opposing this motion because I think we need to clear the air a bit. There is a lot of confusion, fear and misinformation on this issue. I will summarise what I see as some of the key issues.

This goes back to the late 1980s and early 1990s when Dublin had a particular problem with smoky coal. I think Mary Harney as Minister of State introduced regulations to restrict those smoky coals. It had a profound effect. The situation in Dublin at the time was desperate. Anyone of a certain age will remember it. The evidence is really clear that we saved something like 350 lives per year that were being lost at the time because of bronchial asthma and heart conditions that came with breathing in foul air. Over the years since, we extended that smoky coal ban to other areas, cities and towns because coal is a particular issue. This has been quoted a lot but it bears repeating. The European Environment Agency's assessment was carried out two years ago. Its assessment was that there were something like 1,400 premature mortalities from air pollution, the majority of which were primarily attributable to particulate matter - the small bits of soot you would hardly see. I think the scientific description is less than 2.5 microns wide. At that small level, they get into your lungs and bloodstream, which is why it is such an issue. It has been recognised going back about seven or eight years.

Various Governments have been looking to go further to reduce those deaths and to initially introduce a smoky coal ban across the country. This is so much easier because then you cannot get illegal imports and stuff coming across the Border. You never have anything but smokeless coal in the country. There was clear legal advice that was subject to legal challenge for fairly rational reasons because the people who were selling that product would say that the Government was addressing one element of it but was not addressing the other elements because the burning of wet wood or peat has a similar effect. Under European law, it seems categorical that you cannot discriminate between products but must regulate across. That was clear advice. A series of Ministers recognised that this was not easy because when you get into the area of turf in particular, it is conflicting for a range of reasons against other public policy people who have customary rights - let us use those words. There is a range of different aspects in this, including arrangements that have been put, such as turf compensation schemes. It is complicated. A variety of people have traditionally relied on their own bogs or access to a bog to be able to provide for their heating and the regulation of that is incredibly difficult. In many ways, you would say this is not the core of the regulation we want. The key problem is in towns, villages and cities. Those within a house in a country area are at risk. In particular, an open fire creates health problems for those in the house, which is something about which we must be clear, up-front and honest. However, neighbours and others are less likely to be affected because of the greater distance between houses in the country. However, it is a real problem in towns. I met the EPA earlier this year to discuss another issue but it told me we have a real problem and cited Ennis. I think there were 40 days this winter when it was above the WHO limit for a 24-hour period. That is killing people. Deputy McNamara would be aware that this was a real issue in his constituency. It is not just Ennis. There are towns and villages across the country where that applies.

In the programme for Government, we committed to extending the smoky coal ban nationwide. Everyone knows this also meant we would have to address the issue of wet wood and turf. We started that process a year and a half ago. In fairness to Deputy Fitzmaurice, there has been ongoing communication throughout that process. This discussion did not start in the past two weeks. In the public consultation that happened in September last year and before that, we made it very clear that we were willing to take certain legal risks because there are legal risks. The best and most legally watertight way is just to say that not a single sod of turf can be burnt. We said that what we were going to do was regulate it at the retail level - at the commercial distribution level rather than for those who are taking turf from their own bogs or sharing with neighbours in that kind of rural tradition. We said this was not the kind of ban we are talking about. We are looking to regulate the commercial retail aspect of this and the Government and I are still committed to that. There is real concern and we have listened. We listened to Opposition Members last week in the various debates and to the Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Green parliamentary parties. I believe we can and will introduce something that protects the lives of those 1,300 people and is manageable in terms of those who have that traditional use of and access to a bog but regulates it at the retail level. We cannot ignore towns because it is there where we have the real problem. We need to work with the likes of Irish Rural Link, which I met last week, and use its boots-on-the ground capability to identify those who may have a problem in switching over and help them in every way we can to make sure this switch is made.

The Taoiseach was correct last week. A lot of people said "Oh God, he's weakening the regulations." He was not. He made the obvious point that we said last September, and we had to give notice to the suppliers as well as to the customers, that from next autumn, they should not buy in or do contracts for that smoky coal because it will not be allowed and that we will introduce these regulations that address wet wood and turf in particular. We gave a clear signal that we would do it. The truth is that by doing it this autumn, in respect of turf, the Deputy knows more than anyone that most of the turf is in, saved and sold by the end of August. People are saying this is the wrong time. There is never a right time. There is never a right time when 1,300 lives are being lost. We are conscious that next winter will be tough but for the majority of people, particularly those relying on turf, be they out in the country and have access to a bog or an arrangement with a neighbour whereby they can get it, it will be an issue for the following year. However, we do need to introduce regulations in the autumn for smoky coal in particular because we do not want to go through another winter, particularly if it is cold, where people die unnecessarily because of that.

We listened to the various voices. The draft regulations were very much draft ones. We are in the middle of a consultation process with the European Commission, which we must do. We may have to go back and talk to it again. We will do so because we are going to amend them listening to some of the voices and views here. We will get that right and will introduce it in the autumn in a way that allows us to get that balance right.

It is a balance, but I believe it is one that legally, we cannot ignore or walk away from.

Lastly, I would say I agree with the majority of the motion, as set out. We hear different views on the issue. Friends and colleagues who burn a lot of turf say that very dry turf burns quickly. It is one of the characteristics of it. Yes, it has a very high efficiency, but it burns up quite quickly. People are not burning wet turf. It does not make sense. It does not work. We have to go with the science. I will be perfectly honest. Even on the peat briquettes, I will be looking at the science to ensure that those briquettes, because of the way they are processed and burn, are below the 10 micrograms of pollution that is put out into the atmosphere. We have to be straight about that and ensure that is the case. I do not believe it will open up a future where we find that it is possible to burn turf. No matter how seasoned it is, it brings difficulties. That is a point of difference, but we will discuss it. We will sit down, listen and engage. That is what this debate is about. It is why I appreciate it and why the Government is not opposing the motion.

See this speech in context