Vol. 411 No. 5
11 Mr. Shatter asked the Minister for the Environment if he will outline the Government's current plans in relation to the disposal of toxic waste and the provision of a toxic waste incinerator; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
22 Mr. Harte asked the Minister for the Environment if he will outline the Government's position on the proposal to construct a toxic waste incinerator at Maydown, County Derry; and if he will allay the deep fears of the general public on both sides of the Border by clarifying whether the Government are to invest substantial funds in the project.
48 Mr. Garland asked the Minister for the Environment the routes which are proposed to be used to transport toxic waste to the proposed toxic waste incinerator at Maydown, Derry; and if he will outline the safeguards he intends to put in place concerning the transportation of the waste.
55 Mr. Garland asked the Minister for the Environment if he will outline the stage his negotiations are at concerning the location of the national toxic waste incinerator at Maydown, Derry; and if he will give details of the amount it is proposed to contribute to the construction and running of the incinerator.
71 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for the Environment if the Irish Government has given any commitment to Du Pont that it will partly fund the provision or operation of a toxic waste incinerator at Maydown, Derry; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11, 22, 48, 55 and 71 together.
The environment action programme stated that the Government proposed to ensure the provision of a central hazardous waste incinerator and had decided, in principle, to make grants available towards the capital cost. My Department has received proposals for such a facility from a number of qualified companies or consortia when a proposal was independently advanced by Du Pont (UK) Limited to locate an incinerator, with capacity to serve all of Ireland, at their Maydown Works, County Derry.
I have already acknowledged that the Du Pont proposal may be relevant to the Government's objectives for hazardous waste incineration and, following receipt of a summary of the feasibility study on the Du Pont proposal, I am now considering this question in detail.
The environmental implications of the proposal would require full examination within the environmental impact assessment process which will be necessary if a planning application is to be made to the Northern Ireland authorities. This EIA would involve consultation with the Irish authorities. I do not, therefore, propose to comment on any environmental aspect of this proposal until a formal planning application is made and these consultative procedures are activated.
Has the Minister now abandoned the idea of a waste incinerator within the Republic of Ireland? Has any communication been made by the Minister — or his Department — to the different companies which replied to the Minister's advertisement in relation to tendering over two years ago when he was considering the provision of a waste incinerator within the Republic?
No, we have not abandoned the objective set out in the environment action programme announced by me in January 1990. We had a competition and a number of interested parties and consortia submitted their plans and suggestions. We made a choice and then Du Pont advanced a proposal. That is the position at present. Of course we have an interest because we have a certain amount of hazardous toxic waste which must be disposed of which, fortunately, we are able to dispose of now by exporting — at least we hope it is all being exported. Two principles have to be established so far as dealing with hazardous toxic waste is concerned——
It is a cop out.
One is the principle of proximity and these matters are discussed at some length at EC level on a continuing basis. It was agreed by all, in so far as the disposal of toxic waste is concerned, that the closer the site is to the source of the waste the easier it is to dispose of. The second principle which has to be considered at all times is the question of self-sufficiency. That is increasingly becoming the situation in Europe where member states will have to provide facilities for dealing with their own hazardous toxic waste instead of exporting it to other countries. With that in mind we need such a facility in this country; one would wish that the need was not there but, inevitably and eventually, irrespective of what new arrangements for recycling are put in place, new technology, new waste streams and no matter what we do, there will be a residual amount of hazardous toxic waste. We want to know where it is going, from where it is coming and how it is disposed of. Such a facility will be required in due course and that is why we have a particular interest in Du Pont.
A number of Deputies have tabled questions on this subject and I am anxious to facilitate them. I observe that Deputy Garland is offering.
Deputy Shatter rose.
I will call Deputy Shatter again.
I should like to point out that the Minister did not answer Question No. 48 in my name dealing with the proposals for the transportation of our toxic waste to Maydown if this project ever goes ahead. The Minister, in his response to Deputy Shatter, mentioned, for example, it was very important that waste be disposed of close to the site. Will the Minister agree that a proposal to site an incinerator in Maydown means it is very far from where most of our chemical plants are? Will the Minister also agree that the time has come to change the Government policy on the need for a national incinerator bearing in mind that taxpayers' money will be used to subsidise industry of this nature coming into this country? Will he reconsider the matter?
The Deputy is presuming that a toxic waste incinerator will be located at Maydown, but——
That is a fair presumption unless the Minister says he is not backing it.
——that has not been decided. All the processes have to be gone through before it is finalised.
Is the Minister saying he is opposed to it?
I will call Deputy Harte, who has a question tabled on this subject, shortly.
I have stated positively that this country needs the use of a national incinerator to dispose of toxic waste. It is preferable to site it where it can be controlled and monitored and where we know what is going into and coming out of it——
Outside the State?
——rather than having toxic hazardous waste disposal of in bog holes, dumped at sea or in other places where we do not have the facility to control it. We need such a facility. It was our intention, as stated publicly, to proceed to provide that facility until Du Pont put forward a similar proposal, but that has not been finalised. Finally, I would say to Deputy Garland that Du Pont have not made a direct application for financial assistance from the Irish Government.
Is the Minister aware that nothing in the history of this country, North or South of the Border, has united both communities as much as the opposition to the siting of a toxic waste incinerator at Maydown. Not alone does it unite both communities north of the Border but it unites the people of the entire country, North and South. Is the Minister aware that I shared a platform with an Ulster Unionist who spoke against this proposal at a meeting in County Derry a month ago? The attendance at that meeting was equally divided between Catholics and Protestants. Did the Minister consider that in the Government's pursuit to dump toxic waste away from their own doorstep they will be creating friction between North and South as well as bad public relations? Would the Minister not consider that the factories which generate toxic waste should have their own facilities for disposing of it rather than bringing it from the four corners of Ireland to Maydown, County Derry?
The Deputy has made his point.
Deputy Garland has been accused of making an assumption, but is it not a reasonable assumption to conclude that the Government are quietly supporting the development of an incinerator at Maydown? That is the public perception of what is happening.
The Deputy is making a speech and that is not good enough.
It is a long question about a very serious matter.
Deputy Harte has made his point.
I am asking the Minister to allay those fears and tell both communities on both sides of the Border that the Government are not supporting the siting of an incinerator at Maydown.
We must have finality on this question.
Will the Minister say that money will not be provided and that we will find our own ways of disposing of waste?
Deputy Harte will have to find another time to make a speech on the subject.
I am aware of the Deputy's interest in this matter. In fact there was a protest against it outside the House today. I received a deputation today.
That was very gracious of the Minister.
It was not gracious.
Does the Minister want us to bow and kiss the ground in front of him?
On the contrary, I offered to meet the people who were, as the Deputy said, from both divides in the community. They stated their case very reasonably and I responded to them. I think they will agree — I did not ask them but I am sure the Deputy will find the time to do so — that the Minister responded to them in a very fair and even-handed way. The Deputy is saying that he thinks it is preferable that every factory generating toxic hazardous waste should have its own facility to dispose of waste by incineration, but I do not share that view. Incineration is a well known method of disposing of waste here. There are many incinerators around the country, in factory sites, hospital sites and other facilities.
The Minister wants to push it all to County Derry.
It is preferable for the very special kind of waste we are talking about now, hazardous and toxic, that we have the use of a facility here to deal with it in a controlled way rather than leaving it to chance.
Why not do so?
All the Minister's Christmases came together when he heard that Du Pont were going to develop Maydown.
Du Pont are a private company who have a project they wish to pursue and——
It was not our business until the Minister supported it.
——they are going through the normal and proper channels in dealing with it. An environmental impact assessment will be put in place and everybody will have an opportunity to see precisely what are the implications.
Castlebar would be the obvious site.
The Minister should stop waffling and tell the truth. He should admit that Du Pont are taking him out of a hole.
If we are not going to have order I will pass on to another question.
As the Deputy's colleague from Cork has said, we need such a facility. It was the stated policy of this Government to proceed to build such a facility as soon as possible.
The Minister has said that the issue has not been decided. May I ask him if, when he advertised for tenders for the building of a toxic waste incinerator, he was just trying to fool the people? Secondly, will the Minister accept that, in the light of the delegation he met today, there is widespread concern about the siting of a toxic waste incinerator in Maydown, that it is not acceptable that it be sited there? Would the Minister agree that the reason there is widespread public concern as to where all our toxic waste will be dumped is due to his failure to make a decision on the issue for over two years? The Du Pont proposal the Minister is now supporting is a classic example, from Fianna Fáil, the Republican Party, of what could best be described as environmental partitionism. The Minister is trying to pass the buck——
Brevity please.
——to another Minister in a different jurisdiction so that he will not have to make the decision——
The Deputy is embarking upon a speech.
——that has to be made to tackle a major environmental problem.
I am sure the Deputy's objective has been achieved today in that he has coined a phrase that will make the headlines.
That is unfair. The Minister should have made a few decisions.
I have to deal in a responsible way with this matter and I am doing so. I stated in January 1990 that I wished to deal with this matter in the interests of proper control of the disposal of toxic hazardous waste.
The Minister has made no decision.
He has done nothing——
We had gone through quite a process as regards a preferred choice of operator.
Consultations and processes are not decisions.
We had gone some distance when a private organisation indicated that they were considering a project at their location. It was prudent for me——
Is that why the Minister discouraged the building of an incinerator in Mayo?
——in those circumstances to wait to see what that private concern were going to do. That has a relevance for me.
Will the Minister say how much money he has committed to Du Pont for this project and, specifically, will he confirm that he has committed the payment of £6 million of EC Structural Funds for this purpose? Can he square that with the EC position on the undesirability of transporting toxic waste across State boundaries? Can he state what controls he can exercise on a facility which will be located outside the jurisdiction of the State?
These are all matters to be considered in due course.
The Minister did not give answers to the question.
I answered one from Deputy Garland, but the Deputy obviously was not paying attention. I said I have committed no money to this project. I have not been asked in a direct way to contribute anything to any facility of this nature.
What about indirectly?
Has £6 million of Structural Funds been committed?
I do not know what the Deputy is talking about. No money has been committed, as I said, to help in the provision of a facility anywhere in so far as an incinerator is concerned.
Has the Minister been indirectly asked for money?
What was the indirect approach?
Was the Minister asked directly or indirectly about money?
I agree with Deputy Gilmore that one has to be very careful how one arranges for the transportation of waste, particularly hazardous waste. That is one of the reasons EC Ministers for the Environment are very concerned about the question of proximity. I coined the phrase that hazardous toxic waste is a poor tourist — it travels badly.
How far is it from Derry to Cork?
The Minister proposes to make toxic waste a permanent tourist to Derry.
One must try to dispose of it in an effective, efficient way using the best available technology——
Away from your departmental responsibility.
But not in Castlebar.
——that the world can provide to deal with it. Some Deputies are talking as if no toxic waste is being generated by some pharmaceutical and other high-tech industries here.
It is.
The Deputy is quite right.
We should try to reduce it.
A good point. A critical part of the environmental action programme is that we must try to introduce new technology to reduce the level of toxic waste. The other strand that has to be tackled is the recycling of all types of waste——
That is waffle. Will the Minister please stick with the point.
——so that we will have the minimum of waste. Inevitably we will have to deal with some tonnage of hazardous toxic waste. I am trying to put in place a facility to deal with it.
When will the Minister take a decision.
This is ongoing until the matter is disposed of by the operator we are talking about.
It will be ongoing until we have a different Minister.
We have dealt unduly long on this question and I have given Members, including Deputy Harte, much latitude. I will hear two brief questions from Deputies Garland and Allen.
In reply to one of my questions the Minister referred to the environmental impact assessment to be carried out by the Northern Ireland authorities. Will the Minister agree that it is essential also that we do our own environmental impact assessment in view of the fact that the plant is situated a few miles from Donegal? Does he agree we should not rely on a UK environmental impact assessment but should commission our own assessment because of the likelihood that the project will proceed with assistance from the Government?
I am quite sure there will be consultations with the Irish authorities concerning the environmental impact assessment.
What we have heard from the Minister is a lot of double talk, double think and a cowardly cop out. Does the Minister consider that locating a hazardous waste plant in Derry absolves us of our responsibilities? Does the Minister realise that this type of policy continues our dependency on Britain and compromises badly our attitude to British policy on waste disposal, especially of nuclear waste? Does the Minister accept that this indecision and lack of policy is hindering badly industrial development here?
The quick answer is that it might very well do exactly as the Deputy says and I hope the matter will be settled in as short a time as possible.
When will we have a decision?
It is a matter for the promoter.
That is outside our jurisdiction.
Please desist, Deputy.
