Our draft report deals with two proposed Community measures on this subject. They are instruments of some importance for this country both for environmental and economic reasons. Most of you are familiar with the contents of these proposals. I shall be pleased to answer any questions which any Members who have not participated in the work of the sub-committee concerned with this draft report would like to ask.

Briefly, the Community is anxious to ensure that we all live in a cleaner and more healthy atmosphere. I am sure we all agree with that laudable objective. In this context we are reasonably fortunate in this country in that we have not a very high level of pollution from sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere. Therefore, in so far as the provisions of the draft Directive are concerned in regard to monitoring and so on, we are quite happy about the situation and they do not present any major problems. However, the aspect of the second draft Directive which proposes that certain institutions must use low sulphur oils causes problems for us. As the draft report points out, the people mainly concerned in Ireland are the ESB. They are resisting very strongly the proposals in the draft Directive because they say it would increase their costs very heavily. It is for the Committee to decide whether to recommend that the draft Directive be fully implemented in which case the consumer would have to face up to very considerable increases in electricity charges. That is really the crunch of the draft Directive. Air pollution in this country is much less acute than it is in other member states and therefore from our point of view the need to adopt the draft Directive is quite minimal.

Will the difficulties likely to be encountered in relation to desulphurisation apply to any other installation besides White-gate?

To comply with the draft Directive you either have to buy low-sulphur oil, which is much more expensive, or else you will have to treat the sulphur in the oil that you buy; this treatment is also expensive. Our understanding is that the White-gate refinery would not find it economic to set up the necessary plant to deal with the extraction of the sulphur from the oil at the appropriate level. If the draft Directive were to go through and become fully operative, it would present us with an economic problem. It would involve us in dearer electricity.

In effect is our view that we have a greater tolerance in this country for the position which we are not contesting would emanate from this draft Directive and that we do not need to incur the cost to protect the environment?

Yes. Our view is summed up on page 5 of the draft report where it says:

The problem of air pollution in Ireland is much less acute than in other Member States and the Joint Committee believes that the adoption of the proposed article 6 would be of minimal benefit to us. It is not satisfied that the considerable cost involved would be justified.

Is that acceptable?

Yes.

Can I take that report as adopted?

As a member of the sub-committee I would like to acknowledge the help we got in arriving at our conclusions from the Department of Local Government and also from the Department of Transport and Power. In relation to page 5 where we say: " It is not satisfied that the considerable cost involved would be justified", we might enter the caveat“ at this point in time ”. I am somewhat concerned here because——

Before the Deputy goes on with that point, there are some acknowledgments on page 5. We do not formally acknowledge the assistance we receive from the Public Service.

I agree with the Chairman and with Deputy Desmond, but at this juncture we should, after full, frank and free discussions, maintain a low profile.

Is it that Deputy Desmond is not satisfied that the considerable cost involved would be justified at present?

Yes, because at this stage of our economic development we do not know the future supply basis of fuel oil for the ESB.

The North Sea oil is relatively sulphur-free. When we discover our own oil we will not have this problem.

Quite so.

The current sources of fuel oil to the ESB may not necessarily last. They may not have to avail of sulphur-laden fuel oil in the future.

I am just back from a visit to Iraq and I am fairly expert on all international oils. I suggest we amend the sentence to read "It is not satisfied that the considerable cost involved would be justified at present."

I have one other point which is in the public interest. There has not been a great deal of publicity in relation to it at national level. It has been pointed out that a monitoring network does exist in Dublin and other main urban areas. Perhaps it should be fleshed out a little bit more because there is public unawareness as to what constitutes the monitoring network for pollution at present. It is referred to at the top of page 4. I know we are proposing an amendment.

The point is that Deputy Desmond wants to direct public attention to the fact that these monitoring networks are in existence.

They are and they are stretched throughout the greater Dublin area. We get some information in relation to them. One would be interested to know to what extent they exist in Cork City where there is a major new natural gas field about to be used by the ESB and the extent to which there is a monitoring system, for example, in Cork city in relation to the ESB power station which is in a very low-lying river bed, where it is felt pollution could arise also.

On that point the recent reports of the Department of Local Government give a very good outline of the location of pollution monitoring networks.

Perhaps if we had a reference?

We could insert a footnote.

Section 3 amended by the insertion of " *see Reports of Department of Local Government 1972/73-1974 (Prl. 4821) and 1975 (Prl. 5534) " as a footnote to the second sentence of the final paragraph.