Deputy Michael Moynihan was in possession and he is sharing time with Deputy Michael Collins. There are 15 minutes remaining.
Waste Management (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2001 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I will allow Deputy Collins speak in five minutes.
As I said yesterday, the Government, as outlined in the statement Waste Management: Changing our Ways, is committed to a dramatic reduction of the reliance on landfill as a means of waste management. The overall policy is grounded in an internationally recognised hierarchy of options. These include prevention, minimisation, re-use, recycling, energy recovery and the environmentally sustainable disposal of waste, which cannot be prevented or recovered. The policy statement commits the Government to a reduction in the reliance on the use of landfills in favour of an integrated waste management infrastructure, which will have ambitious waste recycling and recovery targets over the next 15 years.
Local authorities have a legal obligation to make waste management plans since the commencement of the Waste Management Act in July 1996. There has been considerable effort and expense at local, regional and national levels to delivering effective plans. From the outset, local authorities were encouraged to adopt a regional approach to the planning process with a view to a more efficient and cost-effective provision of services and infrastructure.
The waste management plan was developed in accordance with all the relevant provisions of the Waste Management Act, 1996, including an extensive two-stage consultation process on the proposed plans. As the strategy and draft proposal state regional plans are about better integrated waste management services for the regions. The strategy provides for maximum achievable recycling and only then will thermal treatment or landfill be considered. The plans address issues such as waste minimisation, prevention, education and awareness. Targets in a typical waste management plan include recycling 40% to 60% of waste, incineration of 25% and land disposal of 14% to 20% of it. Certain local authority areas aim to provide two or three bins for recycling of different types of waste, which is welcome. Although it is a labour-intensive way of dealing with rubbish we must ensure that recycling is used to minimise the amount of waste we dispose of.
Three of the 15 local authority regional groups have refused to adopt the proposed regional plans. Two of the regional groups that accepted the plans only did so with potentially serious qualifications. The problematic nature of waste management is recognised, as is the controversy associated with virtually all proposals for new waste infrastructure. An example of the latter is thermal treatment, a small element of the waste management plan that has attracted considerable attention. I thank Members for allowing me to speak and I commend the Bill to the House.
I thank Deputy Moynihan for sharing his time with me. This Government's waste management policy framework is set out in a 1998 policy statement, Changing our Ways. The thrust of the statement is the need for a dramatic reduction in the reliance on landfill sites in favour of a more integrated waste management approach. Such a new approach will utilise a range of waste treatment options which could deliver on ambitious recycling and recovery targets.
The policy statement contends that adequate infrastructure is required to facilitate the achievement of targets in the next 15 years. The targets include a diversion of 50% of household waste away from landfill sites, a minimum reduction of 65% of biodegradable waste consigned to landfill, the development of waste recovery facilities employing environmentally beneficial technologies as an alternative to landfill including the development of composting and other feasible biological treatment facilities capable of treating up to 300,000 tonnes of biodegradable waste per annum, the recycling of 35% of municipal waste and the renationalising of municipal landfills leading to an integrated network of 20 state of the art facilities.
Under the Waste Management Act, 1996, local authorities are required to prepare waste management plans. Comprehensive planning is under way at local and regional levels to identify the necessary infrastructure and investment requirements. Most local authorities are or have been engaged in the preparation of regional waste management plans based in many cases on regional strategy studies which address the scope for the provision of new integrated waste management infrastructures. It is estimated that a minimum of £650 million will be needed to give effect to the requirements identified, such as the provision of new infrastructure. Appropriate facilities are vital in areas such as environmental protection and industrial development, where the lack of appropriate infrastructure hinders development. Recent economic growth has placed a strain on existing waste management infrastructure and extensive investment is required as a result. If the investment does not take place in a timely fashion, our economic development may be jeopardised.
The protection of our environment is a key national and EU priority. Management of water resources and the treatment of waste are key elements of any environmental protection programme. The provision of effective water and waste water infrastructure is essential to meet social, public health and environmental protection needs. It will allow the development of new houses and the industrial and services sectors, help to attract foreign investment and strengthen the food and tourism industries by allowing us to market Ireland as a clean country. I welcome the allocation in the national development plan of £3.6 billion for environmental investment between 2000 and 2006. This covers a range of important economic programmes, such as improvement in water supplies, the provision of better treatment facilities for waste water and the promotion of better waste management. Tourism plays an important role in our economy. Strong environmental programmes will be needed if we are to ensure we retain and increase the numbers of tourists coming here each year.
Economic and social development should not take place to the detriment of environmental quality. The national development plan takes into account the need for balance between various issues of environmental development embodied in the notion of sustainable development. The integration of environmental considerations in other policies is a key way of securing this balance. Environmental considerations associated with economic development are also being addressed in the national development plan. The national spatial strategy is being prepared to secure sustainable spatial development in the long-term. While we have retained good environmental and economic growth, changing lifestyles place great pressure on the environment. Investment has resulted in many improvements, however, including a better quality of drinking water, improvements in sewerage treatment facilities, reductions in lead emissions from vehicles, more recycling of packaging waste, less use of chemical fertilisers and a growth in participation in the REP scheme.
It is clear that environmental protection is central to an ambit of Government policies. All new proposals and policy programmes put forward for enactment are being eco-audited. It is important we ensure environmental considerations are taken on board at every opportunity. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government takes environmental issues seriously. With a growing population, smaller household sizes and a doubling in industrial production between 1991 and 1998, there is increased demand for housing, services, infrastructure and energy. Greater consumption is placing pressure on resources and increasing waste generation. New waste infrastructure has to be put in place if we are to ensure that waste is dealt with in an environmentally friendly manner.
The principal objective of this Bill is to provide a mechanism to allow the completion of the current waste management planning process. Other central aims of the Bill are to provide that the making and adopting of waste management plans becomes an executive function of local authorities, establish an environmental fund from revenue raised from new levies and put in place technical amendments to the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992 and the Litter Pollution Act, 1997. The drawing up of waste management plans will now become an executive function, which is an amendment to the Waste Management Act, 1996. To vary or replace a waste management plan will require the consent of a county manager within four years of its making. In the event of failure to do so within the specified time the function will revert to the manager of the authority.
The Bill also allows for the intensification of the use of waste disposal facilities operated by urban district councils. An environmental fund managed and controlled by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government and audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General will be established. The Bill also provides that the Minister for the Environment and Local Government may use money from the fund for a range of measures including programmes or schemes to prevent or reduce waste as well as provide money for waste recovery activities, litter prevention, environment partnership projects and environmental awareness education and training initiatives. Money will be paid into the fund through environmental levies which will be imposed following the enactment of the legislation.
The Bill clarifies the licensing requirements for certain waste recovery and disposal facilities by eliminating a duplication of requirements under the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992, and the Waste Management Act, 1996. Waste recovery and disposal facilities will be licensed by the EPA under the 1996 Act except where the facilities are connected or associated with an activity which is, or will be, licensed by the agency under the 1992 Act.
The legislation also amends the Litter Pollution Act, 1997, in regard to on-the-stop fines for litter offences. The relevant section provides for an increase of the fine to £100 from a future date to be set by ministerial order.
We all agree we must promote environmental awareness at every opportunity and in this regard I congratulate the Government on its campaign to promote environmental issues in our schools. Ireland's green schools campaign is going from strength to strength with more than 820 schools registered. The schools participating in the campaign are focusing on the environmental problems created by waste and litter. It is important that similar programmes are developed now and into the future.
It is important that all local authorities maintain landfill dumps to a high standard of environmental protection. There is a landfill site in my constituency which left a great deal to be desired when it first opened and there was great concern among those living adjacent to it. Some residents living near landfills have suffered adversely in terms of their quality of life and it is incumbent on all local authorities, both morally and legally, to ensure that it is not diminished in any shape or form.
I wish the Minister for the Environment and Local Government a speedy recovery. I would prefer if he were present and, as a near neighbour, I look forward to him returning to his office as soon as possible.
This so-called waste management Bill is a panic measure which seriously damages local democracy. The amendment of section 4 of the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955, is an absolute disaster. County managers have sought its abolition over the past decade because it is the only power that elected members can invoke. The amendment of the section is the thin edge of the wedge as it has not been completely repealed. For example, Meath County Council was about to invoke section 4(4) in regard to the proposed incinerator but that will not be possible following the enactment of this legislation because the subsection is being deleted.
The proposal to give county managers the exclusive power to make waste management plans is undemocratic. The Bill removes all power from elected councillors for the making of such plans. This extraordinary, dictatorial measure is designed to facilitate the Minister's agenda to construct five regional incinerators. As the recently published Labour Party strategy on waste management stated, this is the wrong approach. Investment in waste infrastructure should be concentrated on recycling, not incineration, and that is what the Minister's constituents are saying loudly and clearly to him.
The Minister's proposal for a levy on plastic bags is so tentative that it will be inoperable. He proposes to introduce a levy by regulation. The regulations will have a series of conditions and qualifications which will make the scheme unworkable and I base that assertion on my 25 years experience as a county and urban district councillor. It would make more sense if the Minister banned plastic bags altogether. The legislation does not refer to other major sources of litter such as bottles, cans, cartons or to businesses such as chippers, which open late at night and contribute to the pollution of the streets in our towns and cities. The Labour Party will strongly oppose the proposal to remove the decision-making power from elected members of local authorities. We will seek a ban on plastic bags rather than the unworkable levy proposed by the Minister.
Ireland has a waste crisis and most people do not realise how serious is it. More than 90% of non-agricultural waste is dumped in landfill sites but the number of dumps is declining. For example, a major dump recently closed in my town. EU regulations will strictly limit the types of waste which can be sent to landfill dumps but, meanwhile, the volume of municipal waste is increasing by 11% per annum. Unless radical action is taken soon householders will wake up some morning, like the people of Ballinasloe did some time ago, to find their refuse still on the streets. This will happen more frequently.
During the past four years in office the Minister has refused to take responsibility for the crisis or devise a national strategy to address it. He has left it to local and regional authorities who are transfixed by the problem and confronted with local opposition to proposals for both landfill sites and incinerators. Government policy on waste is two-faced. Publicly, the Minister claims to be committed to waste minimisation, reuse and recycling but, privately, he is planning the con struction of five regional incinerators. His approach is leading to a worsening of the problem while opposition to his real plans continues to be mobilised.
The Minister's failure to act decisively on waste has turned a serious problem into a major crisis. The Labour Party believes there is an alternative strategy. It is not good enough to criticise the Minister for his failure or to oppose his legislation when one is in Opposition. An Opposition party must produce a coherent alternative strategy. The document published by my colleague, Deputy Gilmore, is the product of many months of work by the Labour Party analysing the nature of our waste crisis and devising an integrated and sustainable way of minimising and managing waste over the next 25 years. The document shows in practice how to provide an integrated waste management strategy based on the hierarchy of minimisation, reuse, recycling, recovery, treatment and landfill. Every opponent of an incinerator or landfill will respond that their solution is to produce less waste and maximise reuse, recovery and recycling.
The Government's document, "Changing Our Ways", sets a 35% target for recycling. Some regional waste management plans set a higher target of 60% but nobody spelled out a strategy for achieving these targets until the Labour Party published its strategy, which will be successful when implemented. Over the next decade Ireland must move from the Stone Age of waste disposal to high technology waste minimisation, recycling and treatment. A modern, sustainable waste infrastructure must be built here to convert recycling from a nice idea to reality. Recycling plants need to be built to provide separated collection systems and develop markets for recycled materials. All this will cost money but because we are starting almost from scratch we have an opportunity to develop the most modern and sustainable waste infrastructure in the world.
This means we can skip the waste solutions based on the old style incinerators and move to the next generation of waste management technology which treats waste as a raw material for reconversion and useful products.
The Labour Party will engage in discussions with interested parties on our document which was produced by Deputy Gilmore. We call on the Government to change its disastrous approach to the waste crisis and to adopt a comprehensive policy, as outlined in the Labour Party document. If the Government refuses to change to our approach, we will put this policy before the people at the next general election and commit ourselves to implement it in Government.
I thank Deputy Bell for sharing his time with me. I also want to convey my best wishes to the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, and I hope he will be back shortly. I am disappointed he is not here as I have a number of hard questions to ask him. This is not a personal issue, but I am one of the Deputies in the eye of the storm as far as waste management is concerned.
The Minister will go down in history as the man who set out to enhance local government and then disenfranchised the councillors. He has taken the players off the pitch and allowed the referee to finish the game. This will go down in history as one of the saddest occasions for local democracy in a long time. This legislation is draconian. It does not take any notice of the elected councillors, the local committees or the many different ways to dispose of waste which have been pioneered across the world, but it takes notice of the consultants who, at colossal expense to the Exchequer, draw up plans to dispose of waste through incineration and landfill sites which are placed in areas that families must leave.
To illustrate this to the House, I will refer to the Connacht waste management plan. The consultants, M.C. O'Sullivan, hatched that plan. It covers the Connacht counties of Galway, Mayo, Roscommon and Leitrim. It suggests that an incinerator should be put in Galway city and it identifies the need for a landfill site in County Galway. Three sites are under observation at present and another one is being considered somewhere in north Connacht. It also refers to reuse, recycling and waste minimisation which is being implemented across the world. However, this plan is riddled with inconsistencies. The other five local authorities did not have a problem agreeing to this plan. Why would they have difficulty doing so, given that their waste is going to County Galway? We will burn their waste and place it in landfill sites. Can one imagine what the councillors in Roscommon and Sligo thought? It was like manna from Heaven for them. We were taking the brunt of the force.
The landfill site in north Connacht, which M.C. O'Sullivan mentioned, has not been identified three years later because it was not intended to be included. The landfill site in Galway would take all the waste for County Galway. Galway county councillors could not agree to that plan. I am one of the dual mandate brigade which we have heard a lot about in recent weeks. History was made twice in our council when 29 colleagues and I voted unanimously against that plan. The councillors who did that were from every party and none. They came from Clifden and Glenamaddy, which is a distance of 100 miles. Between the 30 of us, we got 50,000 votes at the last election. We decided, on behalf of the communities we represent, this was not the way forward. However, the Government decided it knew better than we did, although many of its members have not stood in Galway. That is what is wrong with this legislation. People are fed up with what the Government is doing on this issue.
It is important to say something about incineration. I am not able to evaluate the health risks associated with it, although there are reasons to believe it can be dangerous. The central tenet of this plan was that if an incinerator was built, a waste industry would develop because it must be filled every day with raw product. The only raw product is waste and there is money in waste. Does anyone believe that if an incinerator is built, which costs millions of pounds and involves private business, people will want to minimise the amount of waste? That is not likely to happen. That is where the concept of recycling comes into play. However, the Government has not done anything about recycling. I do not have time to go into details, but I have studied this issue over the past two years and I know more about it now than when I first started.
Like my colleagues, I acknowledge we have a horrendous problem. Deputy Bell mentioned Ballinasloe in my county. That landfill site will soon reach full capacity, but there is nowhere else to go. I cannot understand that areas in the county have been taken as a county unit. The population of Galway city is increasing more rapidly than the populations of all small cities in Europe. However, it was not allowed to be taken as one unit. It has to carry the waste of Connacht on its back. We know there must be landfill sites. The dump in Kerry, for example, which we visited two or three years ago, is in a Coillte forest. We have approximately 5,000 acres of Coillte forest in south Galway, but it has not been used. M.C. O'Sullivan believes the landfill sites should be situated beside three small communities in Kilrickle, New Inn and Newbridge. These three communities did not get a single shilling from the tiger economy, but they will get a landfill site before this year is over. That is a poor return for their skills and efforts over the years.
However, there is an alternative. The Minister should allow County Galway and Galway city to act as one unit and he should not build an incinerator. We have place for a landfill site, but we should start recycling our waste. The Minister knows more than our councillors and he believes that councillors should be listened to but not heeded. Some 6,000 people in my home parish of Newbridge voluntarily signed a petition in two weeks. They know what this landfill site will mean in a small area. The county manager in Galway, and I am sure in other counties, does not want that authority because he will have to deal with 30 elected councillors who do not want to adopt the plan.
The Deputy is only too delighted the Government is putting it through.
No. You will see what the people in your constituency think of you when you go through the lobbies at 1.30 p.m. You are talking out of the side of your mouth when you are in the constituency, but you say something else when you are here. Some of the Fianna Fáil backbenchers are sitting uneasy in their offices today.
The Deputy should address his remarks through the Chair.
I apologise.
The Chair should tell the Deputy to use the word "democracy".
It will be very democratic when 30 elected councillors have no say in what happens in regard to our waste management plan. Regardless of how the Deputy twists it, that is the bottom line. Fianna Fáil Deputies are squirming in their offices because they do not know what way to turn.
I want to turn now to the four horsemen, the four Independents who almost brought down the Government two weeks ago on a local democracy issue, the dual mandate. These are the people who said that local democracy was so important an issue they would bring down the Government. They did not want to bring it down. They wanted to ensure their own well-being. They will have an opportunity at 1.30 p.m. today to go into the lobby and show their sincerity in the way that they do business for the communities they represent. If they believe what they said two weeks ago was right – apparently they convinced the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government that they were right – let them stick to that today and stand for local democracy. They should send another signal to the Government, one of the nine or ten currently being sent to it; it will get another on Saturday. This Bill will be seen as the most draconian legislation to go through the House in a long time and I ask everybody who has the slightest idea about local democracy to vote against it.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Michael Ahern and Cooper-Flynn.
Acting Chairman:
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the Waste Management (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill. While I do not intend to go out of my way to welcome the change in managerial powers, I fully appreciate and understand them. For 15 years in my county I acted as chairperson of the waste management committee. It is worth remembering, for those who might have had a similar experience in their counties, that we started off in County Laois some 15 years ago with six landfills throughout the county. Over time, our local authority took the view that one properly managed landfill could meet the needs of the county, if properly controlled, for a 25 year period. Evidence and history have proved that our aspiration of a 25 year period has now been reduced to a 15 year period.
I welcome the Bill and understand the ministerial thinking behind it. I also understand the reasoning behind the change in managerial power and council responsibilities. It is fair to suggest that councils which properly recognise their responsibilities move to adopt a waste management plan. Unfortunately, those councillors who felt that the fear of the response from the electorate should have a bearing on their attitude towards adopting the plan created the scenario whereby the Minister had no other avenue open to him except to change this particular regulation. I welcome that and understand the reason for it.
I should make the point that the responsibility is also on the citizens to recognise their responsibility and not just expect public representatives to have responsibility to dispose of waste. The point was made that the role of public representative is to reflect the views of the public, but the public can put forward the view that the Government and the local authority also have a responsibility to dispose of waste. In that regard, if the option of a combination of recycling, reuse and incineration presents itself, as a public representative, I have to accept that we must dispose of that waste.
Time has moved on in regard to this issue. The issues that were important 20 years ago are somewhat different. Waste management 20 years ago consisted of filling a hole at the nearest location to the biggest town in the county. Water treatment involved running a pipe into the local river or bay, and recycling often meant somebody going around collecting batteries, used tyres, etc. In the past ten years – I recognise the legitimacy of this – local environmental groups have been established to protect the environment. The point is often made to public representatives that it is our duty to ensure the protection of the environment for future generations. For that reason I understand the thinking behind the Bill.
Care of the environment is now paramount. Waste management is becoming an increasingly sophisticated system of reduction, collection, recycling and disposal. Landfill, incineration, composting, COf8>2 emissions and separation are now common parlance. It is a regular theme at community group meetings where the responses from public representatives are often greeted with some dismay because it is seen we are not working quick enough to meet the targets in this area.
I welcome also the document from the Department, Changing our Ways, which contains specific targets in this area. It is not enough to suggest that the public representative is the only party who has a role to play in this game. We must also encourage the public to become involved by way of reducing and recycling waste and meeting those targets.
On the issue of managerial power, I understand the reasons for the complaints. A sad aspect of the Bill is that the making of a waste management plan will now become an executive function. The fact remains, however, that a small number of local authorities fail to adopt such plans in a local or regional context and have brought about this situation. Councillors regularly look for more powers, but with additional powers come more responsibilities. Councillors must show that we can also make the difficult decisions. Waste management plans have brought out the worst in people in terms of "NIMBYism". Many are against dumping waste but they are not so enthusiastic about reducing and recycling waste.
I also recognise the importance of the levy on plastic bags, an initiative I welcome. It is estimated that each person in the State uses 325 bags per annum, allowing for holidays and sick leave. That means we all use one bag per day per person, at a huge cost to the environment. I understand the thinking behind that initiative. Shops offer bags freely without care for the consequences or the effect on the environment, and people accept them. That measure reflects some positive thinking.
Successive Governments and local authorities have sought to reduce the amount of plastic in circulation, with little effect. The main reason is that plastic is cheap and available, and costs are hidden or negligible.
I welcome the Bill. The most criticised element of it is the managerial function area. I do not regard it as draconian. It is a direct response by the Minister to local authorities which, unfortunately, cannot see their way to adopt a plan which, ultimately, is the only way forward to reduce the ever increasing level of waste that confronts each local authority.
One of the most serious problems facing the country is how to deal with the ever growing amount of waste. Our affluent society is producing more rubbish every year and the controversy about waste disposal is high on the political agenda in every community.
Waste management is a problem we all have to address. Recycling, incineration and landfill prompt hot debate, rumour and myth. We are considering new legislation to deal with the growing mountain of rubbish we all produce and which threatens to tarnish our green image and communities.
I live one mile from one of the largest landfill sites in the county of Cork and I am well aware of the growing amount of rubbish dumped there every day. Much of that rubbish could be recycled or used in a more constructive way. I commend the Cork County Council workers who are responsible for the management of the dump in Rossmore, Carrigtwohill, which is kept in pristine condition. In a few years, the amount of rubbish has transformed a vast quarry into a small mountain and in the not too distant future, if landfill is the only disposal vehicle for rubbish, the council will be faced again with the problem of finding a new site. Those of us from Cork – Deputy Bradford will support this – appreciate the furore that took place in the recent past over where to locate a new landfill site, be it Bottlehill, where it eventually was located, Watergrasshill or Grenagh.
I won the star prize.
We all recognise the problem with finding landfill sites and everyone agrees with the need to find alternatives. The Minister of State, Deputy Dan Wallace, identified what must be done when he stated that the proposed plans will first focus on prevention and minimisation, and place great emphasis on waste segregation, reuse and recovery. Our waste recycling rate is among the lowest in the European Union – up to 90% of our waste goes to landfill. There is almost no biological treatment of waste and no means of recovering energy from it.
An integrated approach to waste management is imperative if we are to bring about a change to this appalling situation. However, despite the policy statement of October 1999 – Changing Our Ways – which outlined the necessity for a regional approach, three out of 15 local authorities have refused to adopt the proposed regional plan. This plan is supported by the majority, but its progress is being held up by a minority.
It was incumbent on the Government to take action to complete the planning process in the nation's interest. To do so it found it necessary to give powers to county managers to draw up waste management plans which is what the majority wish. Some members of the Opposition complain about what they view as a removal of democracy from local authorities. Twelve out of 15 councils have voted to put in place a waste management plan. The majority voted for this course of action. Does the majority or the minority rule? Fears were expressed that people would not be listened to and that there would be dictators. This will not happen as people are well able to express their views in many courts of appeal if they are not listened to at local level.
I would prefer that councils make the decisions themselves. However, if they refuse to do so, the Government must take action for the common good. We cannot wait until there is nowhere left to put rubbish before taking action. The Government wanted local authorities to make decisions. They have failed to do so and the Minister had no option but to take action.
The Minister has made it clear that the Bill's primary objective is not to facilitate incineration, but to allow for the preparation of waste management plans to meet the nation's needs. The plan has a number of aims. First, prevention – we must do as much as we can to prevent the creation of waste. Second, minimisation – we must endeavour to keep to a minimum the amount of waste which cannot be prevented. Third, recycling and reuse – after prevention and minimisation methods have been implemented as much as is possible, our next priority is to divert as much waste as possible to other uses. Fourth, energy recovery – the next most environmentally sustainable step is to use as much of our remaining waste as possible to produce energy. Fifth, land disposal – we must ensure any remaining waste can be disposed of in as environmentally friendly a manner as possible.
It can be seen from the above that energy recovery and landfill come fourth and fifth, respectively, in the plan. However, there are health and other environmental concerns regarding incineration. It is incumbent on the Govern ment and local authorities to listen to people's concerns and explain the reality of the situation.
I welcome the move to impose a levy on plastic bags. Travelling through the country one can see plastic bags blowing in the wind and caught in bushes. This litter is destroying the countryside and a slap on the wrist will help to reduce such abuse.
Litter wardens are doing tremendous work. Their activities have cost some people money, but the message is getting through. Tables are published each week in east Cork regarding the cleanliness of villages and towns in the area and the situation has improved immeasurably in recent years.
I welcome the Bill. I would prefer if section 4 was not included, but it is necessary due to the inaction of some local authorities. We must put in place an effective and safe waste management structure.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I am speaking as a member of a local authority which has adopted a waste management plan with the provision that it will be reviewed annually. However, I am also speaking as someone who has lived within five miles of a landfill site for most of my life.
The debate on waste management at local authority level was one of the most contentious I have witnessed in the council chamber. There is no doubt that we have a serious problem regarding waste and our waste recycling track record is atrocious. We are well behind all other EU countries in this regard and must get serious about dealing with waste. I support the concept of dealing with it on a regional basis. Such an approach is more efficient and regional waste plans need to be adopted.
The landfill site near which I live has been in operation for 30 years and would not meet many of the controls and regulations set down for new sites. I became a member of a local authority in 1996. However, many environmentally sensitive citizens – I like to consider myself as one – who see themselves as greener than me never raised a problem regarding the landfill site near which I live, despite the fact that it was not meeting the controls and regulations.
No one wants to live near an incinerator or a landfill site, yet we all want a door-to-door refuse collection service. If we want such a service, local authority members must be prepared to take responsibility for dealing with waste. There has been much discussion regarding section 4 of the Bill to which I will return. Some have suggested that county managers may not welcome the idea of having to deal with this problem. County managers do not want to deal with it. They would prefer if the responsibility for dealing with waste rested on the shoulders of local authority members who are accountable to the electorate every five years. When it comes to making tough and difficult decisions, it is handier if those decisions are made by local authority members.
I agree with the general thrust of the policy on waste management which is grounded in the internationally recognised options of prevention, minimisation, recycling, energy recovery and the environmentally sustainable disposal of waste which cannot be prevented or recovered. It is important that we reduce our reliance on landfill. If we follow the options laid down in the waste management plans, we will have the basis for a sustainable and acceptable system. I welcome the targets in the waste management plan whereby 40% to 60% of our waste will be recycled, incineration will account for between 25% and 45%, and landfill disposal will be in the region of 14% to 20%. I also welcome the door-to-door waste collection service in urban areas which is both desirable and important. We must focus seriously on the recycling issue. While most of the debate on waste management seems to be centering on incineration, it represents only step four in the waste management plan. We must place a greater emphasis on other areas, such as recycling, minimisation and prevention in order to deal effectively with waste before we consider incineration.
There is an element of fear of the unknown when we talk about incinerators. I do not consider myself an expert in that area so I tend to draw upon the expertise of others. There is so much misinformation that the public can, understandably, become cautious. I listened to some Members of the Opposition comment on how they feel when councillors rejected waste management plans. They said that is undemocratic.
As regards section 4, local authority members should have as much power as possible. Most local authorities, however, accept the waste plan and we will have to deal with the problem unless some other viable option is brought forward. I have not heard of such an alternative, however. We cannot hold up progress on a matter as serious as waste management just because a number of local authorities have refused to deal with it and do not have any viable alternative. Because of that, I must reluctantly conclude that section 4 appears to be necessary.
I would like to comment on other sections, if time permitted. As an EU member state, Ireland is not in compliance with its obligations under EU waste directives. We must become serious and bite the bullet on waste.
I wish to share time with Deputy McGinley and Deputy Joe Higgins.
Acting Chairman:
Is that agreed? Agreed.
This legislation interests me greatly, not least because my parish is due to receive the proposed new super dump for County Cork. Obviously, therefore, waste management is a subject which has occupied my mind and my time to a great degree in recent months. The Bill is a major error and the decision to remove responsibility and power from elected local authority members is a disgrace.
I wish the Minister for the Environment and Local Government a speedy recovery from his illness. I do not like making personal attacks on Ministers. However, he took charge of his portfolio four years ago with a large list of promises. He indicated that he would be a good Minister and there were high expectations but, unfortunately, he has failed across a broad range of issues for which he has responsibility, and none more so than in waste management.
The Minister spoke about waste management on so many occasions and at so many conferences that a collection of his speeches on this subject would create a volume of waste. He has not delivered, however. What is being proposed in the main component of the Bill is basically passing the buck.
Currently, 90% of waste is disposed of by landfill. The concepts of reduction, re-use and recycling should be at the core of any waste legislation but at the core of this Bill is the undemocratic decision to remove power and responsibility from elected councillors. I know how difficult it is to be involved in the local government decision-making process when a landfill site or similar waste disposal facility is being placed on your doorstep. We are in politics to make difficult decisions as well as popular ones. The least we should expect at national level from the Minister and the Government is leadership but we are not getting any direction concerning waste management.
I concede that the Minister of State, Deputy Wallace, is doing excellent work to combat litter but I am amazed that in the budget and the Finance Bill no provision was made to encourage recycling. No tax breaks were introduced to encourage reduction, re-use or recycling of waste. Hopefully, those matters will be examined now. We know that recycling is not commercial at present. In the vast majority of towns and villages there are no recycling facilities. Surely we should encourage the recycling, reduction and re-use of waste by all possible methods, including tax breaks. If we can give people tax incentives for residential and commercial properties, we can surely do the same to deal with the waste management crisis.
I do not suffer from the NIMBY syndrome. I am as prepared to accept tough decisions as the next person but I want to see better leadership from the Government on the waste management issue. All we have heard from the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, since he assumed office in July 1997 is talk, and talk is proving to be cheap. The waste mountains have increased and if this Bill is the Minister's answer it is a pathetic response.
The Minister's inability to deal with waste management is his greatest failure. No Minister is in a better position to deal with the problem than the current holder of the office. The public is now tuned into the crisis in waste disposal. Ten years ago, politicians trying to impress upon their con stituents the need for the recycling, reduction and re-use of waste would have been sneered at. We would have been seen as presenting a minority viewpoint. However, every citizen is now fully aware that there is a waste management crisis. Any Government presenting reasonable, structured proposals to deal with the problem would find such measures were fully supported by the public. However, the only proposal in this Bill is to hand over the final decision-making powers to county managers, which is not a serious proposition. It will cause serious problems rather than solving waste management issues.
A 15p tax on plastic bags and levies on landfill will play a small part but until we can provide each household with a system of waste separation to encourage recycling and waste reduction, we will continue to create mountains of waste rather than deal with the problem.
I wish I had more time but I accept that my two colleagues want to contribute to the debate. I put on the record my disappointment at the Minister's failure to deal with this subject. I am not trying to make political capital out of this failure but the record speaks for itself. I hope the next Government will do a better job and that the next Minister will deal with the problem rather than pass the buck as the current Minister has done.
Tá áthas orm deis a bheith agam cúpla focal a rá faoin mBille tábhachtach seo atá os comhair an Tí i láthair na huaire. It is generally agreed that we have a major problem with waste management. The country is swamped with a mountain of waste which completely contradicts our belief that we are a green and clean island that attracts tourists by the million and produces green food. This is no more than empty rhetoric.
Like all Members of the House, I often meet visitors to our shores. They enjoy the scenery, the warm welcome, hospitality and friendliness of the people. The only negative comments one is likely to hear are about the litter-strewn streets, roads, fields and beaches. How often do we read of such comments in the letters pages of our newspapers when visitors return home stating that they had an enjoyable time in Ireland but that we should clean up our countryside?
Last summer, I spent a number of days in Scotland, a country not unlike our own. As the Chair well knows we have similar terrain and scenery. The lasting impression I have is of the absence of litter, the cleanliness of the streets and countryside. If they can do it surely it should not be impossible for us. We can learn much from our visitors, particularly those from Europe, to our country. When they vacate their holiday homes or chalets they leave very little waste behind, usually one bag with glass, another containing papers and perhaps a third containing cans. This is how they segregate their waste in their own homes. We need to educate our young people to do the same.
The fact that the Minister has had to introduce such a Bill indicates what a massive job we have to do. We passed the Waste Management Act, 1996, but after five years in operation it is obvious that it has not solved our waste management problems. It is very difficult to change habits that have become ingrained over the years. The process of change must commence in our schools with our young people.
Thankfully, this process has already started and we see in provincial newspapers the excellent work carried out by schools in different parts of the country in keeping their own areas litter free. These initiatives must be intensified and supported. There are also voluntary committees and tidy towns committees doing excellent work in this area. Last Saturday morning as I drove along the M50 there were several groups of men collecting debris along that route. I asked myself how did that route become so littered? The obvious answer is that the litter was discarded by passing vehicles. Our attitudes to litter are highly irresponsible.
While it is plainly obvious that something has to be done I do not think this Bill will solve the problem. The central aims of the Bill are threefold. It aims to remove the powers from local authority elected representatives and pass it to the executive, provide for the introduction of an environmental levy on plastic shopping bags and on the landfill of waste, and establish an environmental fund.
The proposal to transfer responsibility to executives of local authorities goes to the very heart and core of local democracy. It is an attack on the primacy of the elected representative. Does the Minister seriously believe that by doing this the problem can be solved overnight? We have already handed over responsibility for Traveller resettlement but the success has been extremely limited. Surely in the aftermath of the Nice referendum the Government should understand that it cannot ride roughshod over the wishes of the people. Fine Gael has produced a waste management plan advocating a national waste management authority. This authority would implement a national programme of recycling in conjunction with local authorities and would be fully accountable to Dáil Éireann.
The second proposal in this Bill advocates the introduction of a levy on plastic bags. It is estimated that the cost of a plastic bag to a supermarket is about half a penny. A levy of 15p per bag would have a major impact on their use. There is general agreement that there is a proliferation of discarded bags throughout the countryside and that something must be done. It may be wise to differentiate between different types of such bags. There is the high density bag that we get at every supermarket checkout which is usually discarded as soon as one goes home with the groceries. However, there is another type of plastic bag known as the low density patch handle carrier bag, a high quality bag used mainly by depart ment stores and boutiques. The patch handle bag offers strength and high quality printing and consequently they are often re-used several times. In the consultancy study on plastic bags commissioned by the Department of the Environment and Local Government prepared by Fehily, Timoney & Company the annual consumption of plastic bags in Ireland is estimated at 1.26 billion, an astronomical number. The low density patch handle carrier bags represent only between 5% to 6% of overall market volume. The majority of these low density quality bags in Ireland are manufactured by Earraí Pacála Idirnáisiúnta Teoranta at Gaoth Dobhair in the Donegal Gaeltacht where some 30 people are employed. The proposed tax would be devastating for this industry and its workers. Perhaps the Minister would consider equal treatment for low density patch handle carrier bags and paper bags. Paper bags, as outlined in the Fehily Timoney & Company report, are even less environmentally friendly than low density plastic bags. The Minister should carefully evaluate the proposal to have both types treated equally. I ask the Minister and the officials to consider this proposal sympathetically.
Tá fadhb mhór againn ar fud na tíre maidir le bruscar. Tá dualgas orainn uilig an timpeallacht a choinneáil glan. Níl a fhios agam an bhfuil fuascailt na ceiste le fáil ins an mBille seo.
(Dublin West): This Bill is an outrageous attack on local democracy. It constitutes a very serious perversion of local democracy arising from the Government's disastrous failure on waste management. Less than 10% of waste in the State is dealt with by re-use or recycling programmes. This inevitably puts huge pressure on landfills and, naturally, local communities voice opposition to burgeoning landfill sites. The only answer the Government has offered is to set aside a crucial aspect of local democracy and introduce the monster of incineration.
This Government has not lifted a finger to have an effective reduction of waste at source or to introduce meaningful and comprehensive programmes of re-use and recycling. Packaging to excess seems to be the norm in the State. When one goes into a supermarket every couple of sausages or cut of black pudding has a foam tray under it and plastic wrapping around it. All this ends up as waste which is sent to landfill dumps. This is because the Government is not prepared to stand up to the commercial interests that wrap produce in excessive packaging for the sake of their sales and profits. The Government will not stand up to the vested interests who fund the major political parties through political donations.
Construction waste constitutes a large part of waste which goes to landfill. Much of it could be recycled into materials useful for road building, etc. There are no meaningful attempts to force this to happen. The Minister is as much a failure in this area as he is with water conservation. A few changes to planning laws and construction by-laws to modify new and existing homes could result in saving billions of gallons of treated water annually.
While they may use fancy names such as thermal treatment, the only solution the Government has is incineration. That is disastrous and is not a solution to the problem. It destroys valuable resources that can be recycled. It will take on a life of its own when the undoubtedly privatised companies that will be given a franchise should this Bill be passed need more and more waste in order to make their business profitable. It is an incentive to increase the amount of waste rather than reduce it, not to mention the effects on health.
This Bill sets out to smash an important aspect of local democracy. It gives dictatorial powers to county managers in a most incredible way. It means giving power to consultants, like MC O'Sullivan Limited and the rest of them. They are the people who will now decide on waste management programmes rather than elected representatives. It is pathetic to see Fianna Fáil backbenchers and Independents being whipped in here to support this measure. They will rue this day. The sheep may go through the lobby today but they will face formidable and justifiable opposition from local communities on the question of incineration in particular. Communities will mobilise and through peaceful civil disobedience they will stop many of these things. I encourage them to do so because this is a disastrous route to take. We should instead be travelling the road of comprehensive programmes of reduction, reuse and recycling.
The taxation of plastic bags is an unimaginative proposal. If an extraterrestrial were to arrive here they would think plastic bags were part of our eco-system. On every bush and briar along every road, by-road and bóithrín there are strips of multi-coloured plastic bags flying permanently and with impunity. The State should set aside the tricolour and adopt the plastic bag as its national flag. There would be no need to run it up the poles on St. Patrick's Day and other days of renown as it would be flying permanently all over the country. We should have effective measures to reduce this scourge. I am not convinced that the tax the Minister suggests is the most effective action. It is inequitable. It will not create a major problem for those with cars but it will for others. We should have a programme to change from plastic to paper bags, where that is appropriate, and to more durable materials that can be used and reused. I agree with encouraging us to use durable bags when shopping to avoid this particular cause of major littering.
Lá náireach é an lá seo i stair an Rialtais. Tá an daonlathas curtha ar ceal ó thaobh údarás áitiúla de. Ba cheart cur go crua agus go tréan in aghaidh an Bhille. Ní hé seo an lá deireannach go mbeimid ag caint ar an mBille seo fiú amháin má théann sé tríd an Dáil inniu.
I am very glad of this opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Waste Management (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2001. As the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, has said to us via the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Wallace, the principal objective of this Bill is to allow completion of the waste management planning process. There is a very serious crisis in waste management. I compliment the Minister of State on what he has done to combat littering. There is a great awareness among young people, through our education system, that litter has to be tackled. I was very impressed last Tuesday morning, listening to the enforcement officer with Sligo County Council, Ms Aideen Feeney, speaking about her job. She tries to deal with people who dump litter throughout Sligo county and she has a very difficult job getting the evidence. She has to find the people and prosecute them. Dumping is a serious rural issue. Ms Feeney told us that she takes her wellingtons and gloves and goes around at the weekends. Now the local authority has given her a mobile phone she is more effective in catching those who are guilty of dumping. It is a 24 hour job for people like Ms Feeney and I pay tribute to her and to enforcement officers in every local authority.
I was very glad the Minister brought in the environmental levy on plastic shopping bags which is very welcome and long overdue. This levy and the environmental fund, to be funded from the revenues from the new levies, are the two most welcome aspects of the legislation. There is much emphasis on the fact that we are now making and adopting a waste management plan which will become a management function of the local authority. There has been criticism of that. Equally the Bill refers to a reserve function whereby, in specified circumstances, the variation or replacement of a waste management plan will be dealt with by the members. One of my concerns regards the way in which regional waste management plans have come about. While many Deputies have welcomed the regional strategy, I can see instances where a county strategy would be better. For example, Galway, the second largest county, is part of a regional plan and there is concern that the refuse of five counties will end up in one of three landfill sites in east Galway, the constituency I represent. The great mystery is the reference in the Connacht waste management plan to two landfill sites. There will be a site in east Galway but there is no reference as to where the second landfill site will be. Presumably it will be in north Connacht. The three landfill sites in east Galway were selected by consultants and there was no opportunity for public consultation in the process. In the past I strongly recommended that an advertisement be placed in the local papers to establish if a suitable landfill site could be provided and in that way there would be community involvement. Local councillors in Galway County Council have identified a site but we are told it cannot be investigated until a decision is made on the other three sites. Will the Minister tell us where the second landfill site under the Connacht waste management plan is to be located?
Questions arise in this Bill concerning the powers of the county manager. We spoke recently on the Local Government Bill, 2000, and many Deputies referred to the excessive powers of county managers. One Deputy referred to the manager as a tin god and many felt that managers had too much power. I will not go into that debate but one of the arguments advanced in support of directly elected cathaoirligh and mayors was that they would be able to stand up to county managers. When you have five committees or groups in County Galway concerned with waste management their concerns must be taken seriously. The small, rural communities in Newbridge, New Inn and Kilrikle in addition to the Clontuskert group near Ballinasloe and the Ballinasloe superdump committee have expressed strong reservations about landfill or thermal treatment sites being placed near them. The Minister mentioned the Ballinasloe landfill site and described it as unique and problematic that the only available landfill site is operated by Ballinasloe urban district council. This landfill is quickly filling up and at current intake levels will reach its authorised capacity next year. There are regional plans involving a number of counties such as the Connacht plan.
There are regional plans for the midlands, the north-east and the south-west. In addition, there are county plans for Carlow, Donegal, Kilkenny, Kildare, Wicklow, Waterford, Tipperary South Riding, Wexford and a Cork city and county plan. I mention those plans because a case could have been made for a county and city plan for Galway, it being the second largest county after Cork. It is a reasonable request. The county manager should be allowed to consider sites in Galway other than the three outlined in the plan. Perhaps the Minister could investigate whether there is some legal reason the manager cannot investigate other sites.
The Minister told us that we use landfills for approximately 90% of our municipal waste, which is often put in small, inadequate landfills. Our waste recycling rate is among the lowest in the EU, while building and demolition waste is still going into landfills at a time when we have huge investment in roads. The Galway-Ballinasloe section of the new road from Galway to Dublin is costed at £300 million, while the cost of the whole road is £1 billion. Obviously some of the building and demolition waste should be used for that development or in other developments around the country.
The Minister referred to the minority of local authorities where no waste management plans have been adopted and that is a fair point. Galway County Council has rejected the Connacht plan twice by 30 votes to zero. However, many local authorities have tried to adopt a plan on the basis of there being no thermal treatment or landfill disposal in their counties. This is happening in Connacht though I presume the Minister has rejected these plans. It is very easy to adopt a plan when there are so many qualifications that it will not work. Everyone says in the plans that they want recycling plants and the Connacht plan proposes 21 such centres in the region. One feature of the regional plans is the concentration on recycling. The Connacht plan proposes 48% recycling, while the Dublin figure is 59%. It makes sense to concentrate on recycling.
There is a feeling that public representatives should be helping local communities through providing water and sewerage schemes in villages. I know the Minister is making progress on that and I thank him for initiatives he has taken. I mentioned Newbridge, which is one area where a water supply has been sanctioned. It is also interesting that when I recently attended the opening of an extension to a primary school near Kilrickle, the parish priest said they could not open a school earlier because there was no water supply. We must concentrate on getting water and sewerage schemes to smaller towns and villages. The people in the third site I mentioned in east Galway, New Inn, are concerned there will be a motorway through the area as well as a superdump, given the huge road development in the county which I mentioned earlier.
The most positive aspect of the waste management plans is the interest students are taking in the environment. Recently I attended the celebration of an award to Creggs national school on the Galway-Roscommon border. It was awarded a European green flag and the principal, Mattie McDonagh, raised many green flags when he played for Galway. I compliment him and his staff on that great achievement. Not only does the school have a litter campaign, it has a composting project and takes away empty detergent bottles and hazardous waste, which is brought out of the region. Another encouraging sign is the appearance of bottle banks in every town and village. There are also centres for the collection of newspapers and clothes banks, which are welcome developments. We have also seen the introduction in our larger towns of two or three bin system where people can separate their waste, which is welcome. We hope that leads to a situation similar to that in other European cities, where there is multiple collection of waste, though it raises the question of higher costs for these types of services.
Regarding bottle banks, great credit is due to Galway Rehab for starting bottle banks in Galway in conjunction with the local authority. Poorer areas are often very interested in bottle banks and recycling, while farmers are also interested in protecting the environment; their participation in the rural environmental protection scheme is one example of that.
We have a number of regional waste management plans and individual county plans. The county plans may possibly work better, though it is not the Minister's fault that these strategies were adopted; they were adopted in the past. However, Galway had a number of dumps and landfill sites – up to 15 in the past – which were gradually closed down until we were left with one in Ballinasloe. We see a major change where we are going from one per county to one or two for a region and the Ballinasloe landfill is due to close by 2005. The idea that one can impose a landfill site on a small community is fundamentally wrong. One cannot have a landfill site where there are schools or where people live. These sites should be provided in isolated areas, away from schools and communities. Many local authority members have pointed out where these sites are available.
The Minister said the European Commission has taken a case against Ireland on the basis that we are not in compliance with our obligations under the EU waste directives. If the European Court finds against us, a timetable for full compliance will be imposed, as might a substantial levy. I know the Minister is very concerned about that. I congratulate him on much of the work he is doing, particularly with water and sewerage schemes but there are other questions on which he should provide answers, such as the powers of county managers and county plans as distinct from regional plans. I wish the Minister a speedy recovery from his illness and hope he can respond to some of the issues I have raised.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Ó Caoláin.
Carlow-Kilkenny): Is that agreed? Agreed.
I will address two aspects of the Bill, one of which is the removal of power from elected representatives. I appreciate the problems the Minister had and the fact that in the four years he has been in power very little has happened regarding the waste issue. We have failed to meet our commitments to Europe but that is not the only issue. The Bill proposes giving county managers full power, which is extremely serious.
Last week we saw the extraordinary powers of the Independent Members here and the emergency meeting of Fianna Fáil backbenchers regarding the dual mandate, remuneration of councillors and so on. We are supposed to have electoral reform and local government reform to make sure that local government has more power, but here again we see those powers being removed. There will be nobody at county level answerable to the electorate. County councillors must go before the people every five years now and Deputies may have to go any day now, so we are answerable to the people. Area plans were drawn up in Cavan, Monaghan, Louth and Meath and will now obviously be decided by the county managers rather than the councils concerned, if the Bill is passed.
Major change is needed. There needs to be further education on this issue and, while I welcome the commitment in the Bill towards education – the Minister saw the efforts of the local authority in Ardaghy last week to educate young people on the need for waste management and tidiness – this will not be the answer to it.
The proposal to impose a £15 per tonne charge will cost the people of County Monaghan close to £600,000. This means that the increase put off last year will be forced by the Minister's actions. However, it will not be the people of County Monaghan who will have the right to spend that money, but the Minister. Last year, the Minister for Finance imposed a new levy on cigarettes. The funds raised were supposed to be spent on health promotion but have disappeared into the overall kitty.
There is a major problem relating to agri-waste in County Monaghan. There has been much talk about incineration. Agri-waste is classified within the European Union as biomass. There is mushroom compost waste, poultry waste and other waste, all of which is doing enormous damage to the environment. If we are to increase production to allow farmers and the industry to stay in business, we must deal with this problem. There is a proposal that has been passed by Brussels. We want a commitment from the Minister to ensure that proposal is successful in order that power and heat can be produced in an economic fashion. The proposal will proceed to planning stage in the next few weeks and I urge the Minister to take this issue seriously and provide the necessary funding.
I am sorry that the Minister is not in the House. I wish him well and know that all Members wish to see him back, perhaps on the Opposition benches, but to full health and strength.
I must note that the guillotine is probably now in greater use in this House than in revolutionary France at the end of the 18th century.
Acting Chairman:
I will be using it on the Deputy's neck shortly.
I hope not too soon. To come forward a little in time, in 1999 the Government asked the electorate to endorse an amendment which for the first time placed local government in the Constitution. The amendment was duly endorsed in this jurisdiction on the same day that local elections were held. Article 28(a) of that amendment states that the State recognises the role of local government in providing a forum for the democratic representation of local communities in exercising and performing at local level powers and functions conferred by law, and in promoting by its initiative the interests of such communities.
In my view and that of my party, Sinn Féin, the Waste Management (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2000, makes a mockery of that constitutional amendment which the Government regarded at the time as the jewel in the crown of its reform and proposed reform of local government. Last week, the Local Government Bill, 2000, passed Committee Stage. It was and is inadequate regardless of any amendments that may be made on Report Stage. It was gutted when one of the few real reforms in the Bill, the ending of the dual mandate, was removed.
The Bill was to usher in a new era for local government but it does nothing of the sort. There is no empowerment and no enhancement of local democracy. The harsh reality of the Government's attitude to local democracy is contained in this Bill, the Waste Management (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2000. Some local authorities did not follow the wishes of the Minister of the Environment and Local Government – I join Deputy Crawford in sending my good wishes to the Minister regardless of what I am saying and thank the Deputy for sharing his time – and, because they did not accept the Minister's diktat, powers with regard to waste management are now to be taken away from elected members of local authorities and placed in the hands of the unelected city and county managers. On the day this Bill was published, the Government's commitment to local democracy was exposed as a complete sham.
The regionalisation of waste management planning has also been exposed as an elaborate hoax designed to fool the people and their public representatives into believing this is a democratic process. In the north east region, which includes my constituency of Cavan-Monaghan, the Sinn Féin councillors on Monaghan County Council succeeded in having adopted a series of amendments to the waste management plan. These include the following measures: a requirement that household waste collection be carried out in both rural and urban areas; a definite target for waste reduction by industry to be met within the lifetime of the plan; and support for innovative schemes to recycle agricultural waste.
We soon found that, in the supposed regional model of planning adopted by the Government, there was no provision for such amendments to be made. Each local authority was expected to simply rubber-stamp the regional plan. Colleagues in my group voted against the plan because of the inclusion of incineration but regrettably it was passed on the collective vote of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael members – a pattern sadly repeated throughout the State, although not in all cases.
I thank Deputies for their contributions to the debate. The main purpose of the Bill is to ensure all waste management plans are made as soon as possible. The waste management planning process has been under way, in some cases, for over four years now. We need to move quickly to implementation of the plans to free up the delivery of a modern waste management infrastructure and improved services. Our waste arising continues to grow at a conservatively estimated rate of 3% to 4% each year. At the same time, there is an increasing scarcity of disposal options as landfill facilities throughout the country are closed as they reach the end of their lifespan. The Government is facing up to its responsibilities in bringing forward this legislation which allows us to move forward with implementation of the waste plans.
Deputy Clune, Deputy Gilmore and others suggested that these proposals are an attack on local democracy. I do not accept this. The Government proposes to make the least number of possible changes necessary to bring the current planning waste management process to a satisfactory conclusion. The proposed changes will have effect only in respect of the small number of local authorities; those who have so far failed to make a waste management plan, or those who have purported to make a plan but whose decisions would be invalid because of qualifications imposed. It is also logical and necessary to ensure the implementation of the plans cannot be obstructed during the planning and development process, and the Bill provides for this.
The subsequent variation or replacement of a waste management plan remains a reserved function, and will in the first instance revert wholly to the elected members after four years, allowing them to review their plans as required every five years. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, has worked continually in the past three years to drive forward a major programme of local renewal, including the current Local Government Bill, 2000. I share his belief that local democracy is as strong as ever. However, the role of the modern local council must be one of leadership. Sometimes, it is necessary to look beyond the horizons of the parish and make decisions for the benefit of the broader community. Similarly, the Minister, with ultimate responsibility, must take the tough decision to ensure there are no further delays in the provision of a modern waste management infrastructure. This is essential if we are to meet our national and EU commitments in relation to waste management.
Criticism was made of a perceived lack of recycling, lack of funding and the absence of segregated collection services which are commonplace elsewhere. However, ongoing delays in making and implementing these plans are holding up the delivery of recycling services, the development of recycling infrastructure and the investment advocated by Deputies on all sides of the House. We have proposed integrated waste management services for the regions which will deliver a much higher recycling performance, recovering energy from waste which cannot be recycled and using landfill as a last resort for residual waste which cannot otherwise be recovered. One cannot segregate and recycle all waste. There will always be residual waste, which must either be thermally treated or landfilled, and no amount of aspiration or pursuit of "zero waste" strategies will change this reality.
Incineration and high recycling levels are not incompatible. The regional plans give priority to achieving the highest recycling targets, typically between 40% and 50%. Only then do they give consideration to thermal treatment and landfill of the remaining waste. Under these plans, the capacity of the proposed thermal treatment facilities is deliberately limited.
Deputy Sargent referred to the Canberra zero waste policy and objectives. This policy is an aspiration and it has not been achieved. While Canberra succeeded in year one in diverting construction waste from landfill, which is relatively easy, the authorities have not succeeded in the same way in relation to municipal and domestic waste. Landfill of these wastes continues at more or less the same level as when the zero waste initiative began.
Deputy Fitzgerald suggested there is nothing in the Bill about recycling. This misses the point. The objective is to bring the waste planning process to a conclusion. Waste plans contain ambitious targets for waste recycling and recovery. That is why we must move forward as quickly as possible to implement those plans.
Deputies Deasy and Cosgrave raised the issue of funding for recycling infrastructure. Exchequer and EU funding worth £100 million is available to implement these aspects of the plans to give direct support to the development of the requisite recycling and composting infrastructure. The Minister will ask local authorities, in regional groups, to prioritise the elements of the plans which deal with the delivery of segregated collection services and waste recycling infrastructure. A clear programme of action to bring these aspects forward as soon as possible must be prepared.
Deputies on both sides of the House identified the need for greater environmental awareness and education. This need is recognised under waste management plans. Many local authorities have already taken positive steps in this direction with the appointment of full-time environmental
awareness officers to promote more sustainable action at local level.
Many Members' contributions centred on possible environmental and health concerns relating to thermal treatment. The EPA, which is statutorily independent in the performance of its functions, considers that municipal waste incineration, operating to the best modern standards and incorporating energy recovery, is preferable to landfill from an environmental viewpoint. The technology as well as the licensing and control arrangements have been substantially improved in recent years. The strict control regime which is provided for in the recently adopted European Council directive on the Incineration of Waste has been largely anticipated under the licensing system operated by the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA may not grant a licence unless it is satisfied that the activity concerned will not endanger human health or harm the environment. In addition to licensing, such facilities are also subject to development control under the planning system which provides a formal procedure for public input into the decision making process.
The European Commission estimates that the implementation of the new directive will result in a 99% reduction in emissions of dioxins from waste incineration, relative to 1993-95. In addition, the Commission expects the contribution of municipal and clinical waste incineration to overall emissions of dioxins in Europe would be reduced to 0.3%, assuming the output of other sources remains unchanged. This is an indication of the significant improvements that have been made in emission control technologies, compared with older generations of waste incinerators.
Deputy Ulick Burke raised the issue of the management of incinerator ash. This is relatively a straightforward process. Most incinerator ash is officially classified by the EU as a non-hazardous waste – metals can be extracted from it and the remaining material can be either used in, for example, road construction or it can be quite safely disposed of in an ordinary landfill. Fly ash amounts to about 5% of the waste incinerated and is a hazardous waste, which would be landfilled in an appropriate purpose-built hazardous waste facility. This is standard practice throughout the EU. This waste could also be solidified so as to immobilise any hazardous constituents before landfill.
Thermal treatment plays a significant part in the safe disposal of waste in many European countries including Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands, which are generally acknowledged as having enlightened and progressive environmental policies. Even where recycling is maximised, other methods of waste disposal are still necessary. For example, in Denmark in 1999, 64% of waste was recycled, 24% was incinerated and 12% was deposited in landfill. Approximately 60% of Danish dwellings obtain their heating and hot water from district heating plants – many of which are waste-to-energy plants. A significant environmental advantage of thermal treatment, in this context, is that the recovery of energy by generation of electricity results in the replacement of fossil fuels with the consequent benefit of a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. I am satisfied that emissions from any proposed new thermal treatment facilities employing modern technologies and subject to compliance with strict environmental standards should not have any appreciable negative environmental impact locally or nationally.
Fine Gael and the Labour Party published policy documents recently which recognise that thermal treatment or other new technologies have a role to play. The Green Party's counterparts elsewhere in Europe also recognise this. It is time for all sides here to face up to their responsibilities. If there is a credible alternative to the Govern ment's strategy, why has it not been put forward by one of the other political parties?
It has been put forward.
The reality is that the Government's waste management strategy sets out an ambitious but realistic agenda for turning a situation of almost exclusive reliance on landfill into one where landfill is a last resort. It is an integrated strategy which respects the internationally recognised hierarchy of prevention, minimisation, reuse-recycle energy recovery and safe disposal. It sets ambitious rates for reuse-recycling and recognises the role of stringently controlled incineration with energy recovery, which is widely used elsewhere in Europe and further afield. There is no credible alternative.
The Minister is pleased that there will be a statutory basis for further important waste management and anti-litter measures, including a new environmental levy of up to 15p on the supply by retailers of plastic shopping bags and potentially the extension of the levy to other problematic waste products. Deputies Haughey, Clune, Belton and Perry raised some questions on how the environment levy might operate in practice. The primary purpose of the proposed measure is to directly influence consumer behaviour to achieve a significant reduction in the consumption of plastic shopping bags at retail outlets. The levy is being targeted primarily at those bags dis pensed at point of sale in retail outlets rather than small in-store bags such as those used at fruit and vegetable counters. The detailed modalities relating to the implementation, collection and enforcement of the proposed levy will be addressed in regulations in consultations with the Revenue Commissioners and other interested parties.
The Minister also intends to introduce a levy, at an initial rate of not more than £15 per tonne, on disposal of waste into landfill. A new environmental fund will be established through which the proceeds of these levies will be disbursed to finance beneficial environment initiatives in a range of areas including waste management and environmental education and awareness. The Bill also provides for an increase in the on-the-spot litter fine to £100, for future changes in the level of the fine and for technical amendments to the Waste Management Act, 1996, to bring legal clarity to licensing by the Environmental Protection Agency of certain waste activities.
The Waste Management (Amendment) Bill will provide a legal mechanism to satisfactorily conclude the stalled waste management process and to facilitate the delivery of improved waste services and the development of an effective and safe waste infrastructure. It will also provide for a range of environmentally important and desirable initiatives to be undertaken in the near future. Accordingly, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put.
Tá
|
Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cullen, Martin.de Valera, Síle.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan. |
Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael P.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John J.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Wright, G. V. |
Níl
|
Barnes, Monica.Bell, Michael.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul. |
Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, Richard.Burke, Ulick. Carey, Donal. |
Níl–continued
|
Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Crawford, Seymour.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.De Rossa, Proinsias.Deasy, Austin.Durkan, Bernard.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Gilmore, Éamon.Gregory, Tony.Higgins, Joe.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz. |
Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Olivia.Naughten, Denis.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.Penrose, William.Perry, John.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies Stagg and Bradford.
Question declared carried.