Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 13 Jun 2003

Vol. 568 No. 4

Protection of the Environment Bill 2003 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Deputy Peter Kelly was in possession. He has four minutes remaining.

It is now proposed to allow local authorities to respond in the most direct manner to those who will not pay for services provided and who expect their neighbours to subsidise them for the collection of their waste. The strengthened provisions in waste and IPPC law contained in the Bill underpin a tough approach to polluting activity. Alongside the legislation, an intensified enforcement drive will be put in place through the planned office of environmental enforcement.

The final substantive part of the Bill, Part 4, gives effect to commitments in the Government's litter action plan to strengthen the law on litter. Section 38 requires that articles or advertisements exhibited in public places include the name and address of the person on whose behalf they are being exhibited. It also abolishes advertising by means of placing items such as fliers behind vehicle windscreen wipers. Section 39 allows local authorities to make general anti-litter by-laws for their areas. Under existing litter legislation, local authorities can make by-laws only to prohibit or regulate the distribution of advertising material to the public. The Bill brings national legislation fully into line with one of the important EU instruments for environmental policy, the IPPC directive.

The legislation also takes the opportunity to make significant progress in a range of critical areas across the environmental agenda. It modernises the law governing EPA licensing, generally provides an enhanced focus for the EPA to secure energy efficiency from licensable activities, and empowers it to regulate greenhouse gas emissions which cause climate change. The Bill also gives public authorities important new powers for the implementation and enforcement of environmental legislation, making important changes to the legislative codes covering litter, particularly waste management.

I wish to acknowledge the good work done by the Longford tidy towns committee, which continues on a daily and weekly basis, with a major community effort to tidy up our town. This committee is doing a great service to the community. I congratulate Longford County Council on its sanitary services and environmental policies which will make the town and county a better, environment friendly, place in which to live. If everyone plays his or her part, together we will succeed.

Everyone accepts that waste is a major problem that must be tackled. It is up to everyone, not just a few people, to reduce waste. It is up to everybody to take pride in our towns, cities, counties and country. I commend the Bill to the House.

I compliment Deputy Kelly on mentioning Longford's tidy town committee. There is a greater awareness now of the environment than ever before, not alone in tidy towns committees but in communities everywhere. On Saturday mornings in my community I see people out taking pride in keeping their area neat and tidy and doing a great deal of voluntary work. There is much goodwill in the country now, particularly in urban districts for people to look after the environment in their own areas. However, the problem of insurance must be overcome as some people are afraid to do this work in case injuries are sustained.

The purpose of this Bill is to transpose the EU Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive into Irish law and to make amendments to the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 and the Waste Management Act 1996. It also proposes to change the term "IPC licensing" to "IPPC licensing", as well as other provisions to bring about changes in licensing conditions.

The Minister, Deputy Cullen, said in his contribution on Second Stage that the Bill had been well received in the Seanad. I do not think that is strictly accurate because I have read the Seanad debates since and most Senators who are members of local authorities were very critical of section 35 of the Bill, something the previous speaker did not mention. That section gives council managers the power to fix refuse collection charges, taking that right from elected members. I will say more about that later. The section was severely criticised in the Seanad and the Dáil by members of local authorities.

If there is one example of the removal of the dual mandate being a backward step, this is it because if Oireachtas Members are also members of local authorities, they will naturally take a keener interest in legislation relevant to what is happening in their local authority. Unfortunately, that will not be the case after June 2006 if the Bill is not challenged. This Chamber and the Seanad will be made up of people who are no longer members of local authorities and will therefore have less interest in the affairs of local authorities. That was obvious from the contributions on this Bill. If, for example, the Bill was introduced this time next year, it would skate through both Houses because there would be no opposition to it. There are many good measures in this Bill, and we must recognise that.

I note the positive response from IBEC. It states:

IBEC welcomes those provisions of the Bill, which directly transpose the provisions of the IPPC Directive. Section 86(4) of the Bill implements Article 9(8) of the IPPC Directive on "Generally Binding Rules". This provision enables the Minister to] make regulations regarding generally binding rules and accurately reflects Article 9(8) of the Directive. Although the relationship between Article 9(8) and other requirements of the Directive [is] still subject to debate, IBEC strongly believes that section 86(4) of the Bill should be enacted.

That is a strong recommendation. Later in the submission, IBEC is critical of another section. It states:

IBEC is seriously concerned that the Protection of the Environment Bill has intentionally expanded the definition of an emission in the Bill to encompass greenhouse gases (GHGs) and thus provides the EPA the discretion to regulate GHGs, including the placing of emissions limit values (ELV's) from IPPC licensed companies. IBEC strongly opposes this provision and believes that the EPA should be specifically excluded from setting conditions relating to greenhouse gas emissions in licences unless such conditions are required to protect local air quality, which is consistent with the recently agreed Common Position on the EU Emissions Trading Directive.

The explanatory and financial memorandum accompanying the Bill clearly states the intention to allow the agency the discretion to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from licensable activities.

In IBEC's view, allowing the EPA discretion to control greenhouse gases from licensed activities and in the manner proposed is not appropriate or warranted, nor is it consistent with forthcoming EU legislation.

It is not appropriate to transfer control of an issue, which is fundamentally a matter for national policy decision-making, to an executive agency. In addition, there is no guidance provided in respect of how this discretion should be exercised by the agency.

IBEC believes that is necessary for large industry and that it might put Ireland at an unfair competitive disadvantage. It states:

Ireland is recognised as having particularly strict liability and licensing regimes in place, with certain licensing thresholds well below levels in the IPPC Directive. IBEC is concerned that the definition of BAT is implemented in a consistent manner across the EU, in order that Irish industry is not put at a further competitive disadvantage to industry subject to the IPPC regime in other EU member states.

Those are real concerns as expressed by IBEC. The Minister, Deputy Cullen, said many things with which we would agree. He said:

Care for our environment is a key responsibility. It is sufficiently important to deserve to transcend party political divisions. This is not just for the sake of environmental excellence – a vital and laudable end in itself – but care for our environment is also inextricably linked to the objective of sustainable development. I refer to the idea that we need to achieve the right balance between economic, social and environmental issues so that we can take a comprehensive approach to human welfare and we can work for a better quality of life in all its dimensions.

Of course we all agree with that, but there is a difficulty with the Minister's statement in regard to what I consider as the nub of the Bill. If anyone wishes to study the disadvantages of the legislation they should reread several times the Minister's contribution on Second Stage. This is a very serious matter for the whole future of local government. He justifies his actions, and while we all agree with him on the earlier matter of the environment, we disagree strongly with the following statement: "Despite the obligation under the 1996 Act to make waste management plans, it was not until the Waste Management (Amendment) Act 2001 was enacted that proposed regional waste management plans were finally adopted." That is not true. In the case of the local authority of which I am a member, we had a waste management plan adopted before 2001. It has not been advanced much since. Despite the fact that we had it adopted before the Minister made that regulation in the 2001 Act in case we did no do it right, our manager adopted the Connacht waste management plan as dictated by the Minister and provided for in the Waste Management (Amendment) Act 2001.

The Minister continues with a very serious implication, which many people have missed, saying that the 2001 Act "provided that making such plans would be an executive function and that the variation and replacement of plans would remain a reserved function", meaning that members still had authority to alter or replace the plan. However, in this Bill, the Minister is proposing to take that authority from elected members. He states:

While I accept that plans need to be kept up to date, I remain strongly of the view that there is no merit in revisiting the foundations on which the plans are based. They have already been fully debated and decided upon. In order to safeguard and build on the progress to date, I propose to provide that the review, variation and replacement of a waste management plan shall also be an executive function for local authority management.

That is a very serious matter. There are many good measures in the Bill. Section 38 requires that articles or advertisements exhibited in public places include the name and address of the person on whose behalf they are being exhibited. Provision is made in regard to leaflets and for the introduction of a producer responsibility initiative relating to end-of-life vehicles. All those provisions in the Bill are laudable, and I certainly welcome them. However, I very strongly disagree with and oppose everything the Minister said in the section of his speech to which I have referred.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Lenihan, though I am sorry the Minister is not here. I referred to the Minister's Second Stage speech because after he gave his speech he excused himself, saying he had to attend a very important meeting with city and county managers. I would have advised him to bring those managers into the public gallery to listen to this debate as it might be their last chance to hear Deputies address an issue relevant to them while they are still members of local authorities.

He brought them into the bar instead.

I do not know where he brought them. That is a typical example of the direction in which local government is going. The Minister's meeting was prearranged but it said more about his attitude to local government than his 30-minute speech. It showed that matters are decided between the managers and the Minister – councillors are only there to draw their expenses or to go to the odd conference. They will no longer have any say in the real issues of local government, which is being downgraded at every opportunity. I regret that the Minister did not bring the managers in as they might have learned something from Members who are interested in local government.

The Minister is trying to justify the stripping of functions such as fixing waste collection charges from elected members. In his speech he said the issue of local authority waste charges again became a contentious issue during the local authority estimates process. Seeking short-term political advantage, he said some Opposition parties – I would add some Government parties – purported to oppose household waste charges – in some cases they did not adopt estimates and were threatened with the abolition of local authorities. That will occur again. It will not occur in my local authority because we have always adopted a waste management charge and we did not wait for the Minister to bring in a directive giving that authority to the manager. However, this will lead to serious trouble in places like Dublin, and the Minister will have to face up to abolishing local authorities or threatening to do so. There will be serious opposition to this because if the estimates are short of money the manager will balance the books by increasing the service charges. Councillors will have no function other than to oppose the estimates and that will lead to the threat of abolition or abolition itself.

I remind the Minister that there is a great change of mindset between being a local authority member and being a Minister. We should be careful of what we say as members of local authorities as we never know when we will become Ministers. The Minister, Deputy Cullen, ran into trouble when he was a councillor with Waterford Corporation. That local authority was threatened with abolition in June 1991 and there was an article at that time in the Munster Express headed “Service Charges To Force Dissolution Of Waterford Corporation.” Deputy Morgan gave me a quote of Deputy Cullen's from the Munster Express of 14 June 1991 when he was a councillor. He stated:

I don't believe it will come to that. It would be a question of nerve and I have no intention of losing my nerve to Padraig Flynn [the then Minister for the Environment] and his Department. I dare him to appoint a commissioner to replace Waterford's democratically elected representatives.

I have checked this and it is accurate. I do not know whether the Minister said that at a council meeting or in bravado to the newspaper, but I hope those words do not come back to haunt him. In a year or so councils all over the country may say to him, "This is what you think now, but what you thought then was entirely different."

There will be no problem striking service charges at local authority level if the Bill goes through, and it will pass because of the Government's majority. The manager will have full authority and this is dangerous as some managers, though not all, may be like the Minister. Managers now have the right to fix a service charge at any level they like and members have no say in the matter. If the council is short by a certain amount at the estimates meeting all he or she needs to do is fix the water and refuse charges at an exorbitant rate to meet the shortfall.

I have no problem with people paying for services – I believe in that principle – however, the principle should be enacted by elected members and if they dodge that responsibility, the electorate can deal with them in the following election. I have grave difficulty with the Minister allowing managers a free hand to make up the shortfall in the rate support grant by hiking charges by 500 or 600%. That is very serious.

The noose is slowly but surely tightening around the neck of local democracy. The Minister is choking local democracy to death rather than strengthening it. That is the reality. He is using this Bill as a vehicle to introduce new penalties and taxes on the people through his agents, the managers. The reality is that people will pay more for a lesser service.

I am sorry the Minister is using this Bill to do so as it has many good points and we all agree with protection of the environment. I would have liked a debate that separated the good points of the Bill, which we all support, from the provision which takes away the rights of democratically elected councillors. Slipping that provision into a Bill which would generally be welcomed by those seeking to enhance or improve the environment is sleight of hand.

Transferring the right to adopt waste management plans from elected members to the manager, with the right to fix collection charges, sounds the death knell for local government. I regret we could not have separate debates as I welcome the provisions of the Bill which enhance the environment. I regret the way local authorities will be run, with behind the scenes meetings between managers and the Minister of the day. I am not blaming the Minister, Deputy Cullen. It will be difficult to sustain local government as we have known it and as it has worked over many years, if we continue to strip rights from democratically-elected people. The people cannot remove the manager but they can remove the democratically-elected representative at any time.

We all acknowledge that legislation plays an important role in the area of environmental protection. This Bill, inter alia, updates and amends sections of the 1997 Litter Pollution Act. It is fair to say that the Litter Pollution Act has enjoyed some success, especially in areas where policing has become more proactive. To be fair to many local authorities, it must be said that, in general, the litter warden and environmental control service has been developed from a situation where there was little to a stage where some impact is being made by the service.

We must, however, face up to the fact that there is a disappointing attitude to litter, in particular. The first piece of evidence I cite is the state of the streets in many villages and towns early in the morning. The local authorities incur considerable cost providing manual or other street sweeping equipment and people to deal with litter. In most towns, the mess has been cleared up before most people see it. It is a significant difficulty and it reflects poorly on us as a people. One of the changes in this legislation is the increased litter fine. I hope that will be accompanied by a proactive approach regarding litter policing.

Members of the House and others who engage in public debate on this issue frequently call on the education system and schools to inculcate an attitude to litter which would lead to an improvement in the situation. Coming from a teaching background, I am frequently annoyed at the extent to which we are prepared to dump all our problems and the resolution of them on the school system. We have begun to realise that education is a life-long process from the cradle to the grave and it is an area we need to address more proactively and effectively than we have done heretofore.

The issue of litter is brought to public attention because it has a dramatic negative visual impact but it is generally less damaging than many of the other less visual forms of pollution which are also addressed in the Bill, mainly through the integrated pollution prevention and control licensing system. The Bill provides for the revocation or suspension of licences for serious breaches. It is a strong provision and it increases fines for breaches of the licence provisions.

Over several months dating back to last autumn, there has been a problem with an odour in the Shannon town area of County Clare and over a widespread area of the county at times. The Environmental Protection Agency has made tremendous efforts to trace the source of the smell and to try to address the causes. I had many dealings with the agency in that regard. It explained that it was trying to draw on best international experience but the reality was that it was sometimes extremely difficult to pinpoint the cause of a problem such as this. This difficulty illustrated how hard it is for the EPA and the county council, which had a role through its executive chemist, to get to the root of a problem such as this. It caused immense discomfort and there were genuine fears that it might be damaging to people's health. It is only fair to commend the chief medical officer of the Mid-Western Health Board on the thorough manner in which he checked every possible lead relating to any medical side effects.

Nobody can guarantee anything regarding the connection between environmental factors and health. There are huge tracts of the country in which natural forces, particularly radon, pose a substantial risk to the health of people exposed to them. Likewise, there is no doubt that environmental factors, which are caused by industry and other sources, are damaging to people's health. This Bill provides part of the legislative framework and for better policing measures. It also goes some way towards attempting to change public behaviour. There has been some confusion heretofore about the roles of the EPA and the local authorities regarding difficulties in this area. There have also been complaints that, on occasion, the EPA may have been unduly heavy-handed, particularly with small family-run operations which might not have had the resources to deal with the problems besetting them as quickly as they should have done. In many instances, they were much smaller problems than those which appear to be created by large industries.

We consider all environmental factors and environmental legislation in the context of the Kyoto Agreement. The agreement reached in 1996 imposes grossly unfair standards on this country relative to its historic non-development, particularly in the industrial area. The recent attitude of the United States means that the Kyoto Agreement is, effectively, dead in the water. We, as a nation, need to take strong measures to extricate ourselves from the unreasonable provisions relating to this country.

I was in the United States recently and had the opportunity to see some of the functions and operations of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Initially, it was in the business of providing electricity through hydro dams and of controlling flooding in the Tennessee Valley but it now has approximately 30 electricity generating stations. Many of these are fossil-fuel generating stations and recently the authority was forced to fit scrubbers at a cost to date of in excess of $2 billion. It also has a few nuclear power stations and it has been experimenting with power generation through wind energy, although quite unsuccessfully because it does not have the consistency of wind we have in some parts of this country.

There is a good case for wind power in this country on the basis of the availability of the resource. One invariably finds that people believe we should have wind generated power but not close to where they live. In some senses, that is all the more surprising since the effect of wind power turbines is almost entirely visual and, undoubtedly, less environmentally damaging than some of the other options.

The proposal to change Moneypoint generating station to a gas-powered one, or to change it in any way from a coal-burning station, is absolutely daft. It is hugely important strategically for this country to have the maximum number of different sources of power for electricity. Coal is readily available and is extremely cheap. The resource is available long into the future and past the projected availability of natural gas, for example. The technology is now available to ensure the type of damage which was being done by generating stations, including by some of the Tennessee Valley fossil-fuel stations, can be minimised. That is the way we should go in relation to Moneypoint. There is an urgent need to address our capacity to generate electricity.

The aspect of the Bill which has caused the most difficulty is the provision which gives local authority managers, as an executive function, the right to impose charges for the provision of a waste service. Under the legislation managers will have the power of variation or replacement of a waste management plan. I acknowledge that has become necessary, but I regret it. I support the Minister in this decision and I salute those councillors who have been prepared heretofore to take tough decisions, to adopt waste plans and to address the difficulty in providing for waste disposal. Section 55 is regrettable, but necessary. We also need to face up to the fact that waste disposal costs very substantial amounts of money. It is clear that, in environmental and taxation terms, all the advantages lie with the polluter pays principle. There is no excuse for taking any other approach. If we are to decide that some other principle applies, the option available to the Government is to increase taxation on employment, which would obviously have a hugely detrimental effect. Alternatively, there is the option to have people pay for the service. I would like to see a system introduced whereby people would pay for the service either by volume or weight. That is one of the policy decisions that would inevitably lead to more recycling of materials.

In most parts of the country, including County Clare, the waste collection service has been privatised and many of the contractors have already fitted their lorries with waste measurement devices. This is the direction in which we must go. Otherwise, we will encourage people to produce more and more waste in the assumption that they can leave it out on the roadside in a sack with a tag or in a wheelie bin and that it has nothing to do with them. The fact that standard payment is in place for those with a private service does not go as far as we need to go in addressing this problem.

The Bill also transposes into Irish law the EU Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control. This complements the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992, which went some way in this direction. Quite frequently, we blame Europe for changes in our legislation that bring some discomfort to people. This is unfair because, in general, the laws which have been introduced here arising from European pressures have been beneficial both environmentally and socially. We should implement such measures even if we were not members of the EU.

We have also come to believe that the EU imposes unreasonable restrictions and requirements. One of the issues that frequently arises in this regard concerns the EU Habitats Directive, which requires states to establish a network of conservation sites. It is fair to say that this has been done in this country in quite a heavy-handed fashion. I welcome the Minister's reversal of the role of Dúchas and his changes in respect of the provision of special areas of conservation and designated natural heritage areas. We were told for years that nothing could be done about this, that the EU had imposed a strict regime to which we had to adhere and that there was no room for common-sense or appeals systems.

One of the great advantages of taking the route the Minister has taken, for which I commend him, is that we now have far better relations with landowners and rural dwellers. Ultimately, they are the people who live in the areas in question and whose lifestyles have the most impact on the environment. They are the people who, for generations, have preserved the kinds of areas implicated in the directive.

In recent years in the United States, monitoring stations were in operation in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park to measure the impact of various factors on the environment. The park attracts nine million visitors annually, an extraordinarily high number. When the monitoring began, it was thought that any detrimental effect would be on the visitors. However, when the monitoring was completed it was found that they had virtually no impact – no negative impact in any event. The principal negative impact on air quality came from the fossil fuel stations in the Tennessee Valley, which is relatively close by. Massive improvements have been recorded due to the new equipment that has been installed by the Tennessee Valley Authority in its generating stations. At one stage, the level of air pollution in the higher parts of the Great Smoky Mountains had reduced visibility by 80%. This level has decreased to approximately 20% because of the use of scrubbers. There have been very dramatic improvements.

The second most significant cause of environmental pollution in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park was the eight-wheel trucks that raced by on one of the inter-state highways that runs along the edge of the park. There was much surprise that this was the case. In Ireland, we have made more progress, with some prompting from Europe in respect of vehicle emissions, than has been made in the US. I live on the edge of the Burren National Park and was therefore very interested in the figures and experience of the US national parks. Until about ten years ago, Clare County Council paid for a study of lichen growth in the Burren. I understand that it is an extremely sensitive organism which is likely to react to environmental changes very quickly. Unfortunately, when finances became tighter, the council discontinued its involvement with the study. However, the baseline findings are still available. It would be wonderful to resurrect the study, return to the sites in question, which are relatively easily found, and recommence monitoring.

The only monitoring station in the Burren is operated by the ESB at Creevagh. I have argued over many years that this station should be monitored independently. I do not believe the generation station at Moneypoint and the industry in the region have adverse effects on the Burren. However, we can only know this when we monitor independently and publish the results. This is worth doing. It would not be hugely expensive and would ascertain, in a scientific manner, what the problems are – one cannot begin to address problems until one knows what they are.

The Bill introduces several changes to the IPPC licensing regime. There is greater emphasis on pollution prevention in the regime, which is a huge step forward because we have not been very proactive in this area in the past. Furthermore, there is greater emphasis on minimising environmental problems at source. The Bill proposes to change the technical basis of the licensing system from best available technology not entailing excessive costs to best available techniques. This will cause difficulties for some industries. This proposal was sought by many people with environmental concerns and represents one of the really positive aspects of the Bill. There is also a requirement for the inclusion of omission limit values in licences and increased emphasis on energy efficiency in the carrying out of industrial activities. There is a provision to monitor and regulate greenhouse gas emission in respect of IPPC licences. It is clear that some of these powers will place considerable strain on the resources of the EPA and those charged with regulation in this area.

There is a requirement, which I welcome, that an applicant be a fit and proper person, as defined in the Bill. This includes being free from conviction under either the IPPC or waste management codes and possessing the technical and financial capacity to carry on the business to which the licence relates. This seems to be a very basic requirement and many would be surprised that it has not been in place heretofore. There is provision to suspend a licence if there are serious breaches of the requirements for a fit and proper person. An interesting new power enables a person to seek a High Court order where an activity is being carried out in contravention of licensing requirements, with substantial increases in fines for breaches. The Minister is clearly committed to ensuring that Ireland maximises its environmental advantage and position and this considerably strengthens the provisions of the 1992 Act. I commend the Minister for introducing this Bill which is an improvement on the legislative situation heretofore. I welcome the Bill.

I wish to share time with Deputy Murphy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Killeen lives beside the Burren National Park. Perhaps in a couple of years he will give the county manager the power to build a nice big incinerator beside it. Hopefully, that will not happen because it would spoil the view. However, this is exactly what could happen under this Bill. Deputy Killeen will give the county manager the power to do and introduce what he wants and will take the power out of the hands of the council.

I was never a member of a local authority as I came straight to the Dáil, which was nice.

Well done. I did likewise.

Congratulations. If I were elected on to any local authority, I would like to be brought in to make the decisions. This Bill takes decisions out of the hands of the elected representatives. When I vote for a person, it is in order that the person can make decisions, carry out duties, and speak on my behalf, his own and the electorate's. I cannot see the reason the county manager should be allowed to carry out all of these duties. Is it because the Minister wants county managers to do what he tells them to? I think that is the reason.

This Bill will put an end to local representatives' power to make decisions and the county manager will have the full say. The county manager will decide on what waste management plan to introduce and what waste charges to impose. Is it fair that the person on the street should have to pay again for the Government's mismanagement of finances and that the Minister can say "We will charge X for waste management" and everyone will have to pay?

There is no doubt that the country has a waste management problem. If we want people to minimise waste and recycle we must start with the schools. This Government has neglected this. It may say it has not but it has. I come from a small rural parish in County Wexford and a few years ago Wexford County Council tried to introduce a recycling programme. It did a fair job but because it did not have the resources to educate young people on recycling, it has not been a huge success. One of the first things it did was to bring in five recycling bins to serve a population of 1,500 people. Every time I went to any of them they were full. How in the name of God can people be educated on recycling if anytime they go to a recycling bin it is full? Naturally, people will just throw the stuff into their own bin for the truck to take to the landfill. If I want to recycle newspapers, I must drive 13.5 miles to bring them to Wexford town. The same is true for plastic bottles and tin cans. Would that encourage anybody to try to recycle?

The Minister, however, has a great plan. He will put an incinerator in Wexford and everything will be solved, forgetting that Wexford is an agricultural area about which people care. It is surprising that the Minister wants to put the incinerator in Campile. I hope he shows some common sense and does not introduce any incinerator into the country.

Deputy Allen spoke previously and went through the figures and percentages for waste management minimisation in various European countries. However, the Minister said the Deputy was totally wrong and that he had different figures in his own Department. I do not know how his Department had time to do any research on the matter because the Bill was brought straight into the Seanad to get it over and done with in order to give the Minister and county manager the power to introduce incineration and forget about everything else.

The five main challenges facing Ireland are to reduce the pollution of our inland waters; to protect the urban environment; to control greenhouse gas emissions; to protect our natural resources; and to manage waste production. Many suggestions for recycling can be made but some counties, such as Galway, show a good example which could be followed throughout the country. I compliment the Galway plan which works extremely well for a large city. If every county had the proper resources, it could do the same but people must be educated on the reuse and recycling of materials.

Medical reports from other European countries reveal a total opposition to incineration. It is believed incineration is involved in the development of spina bifida and other health issues. The introduction of incineration to a place such as Campile would destroy the heartland of a good agricultural area. Agriculture is important in this county which produces some of our best food. It would be a disaster and disgrace to introduce incineration into the county. I hope the Minister shows some sense and decides not to introduce incineration anywhere in the country. We must look after our environment.

There are many welcome aspects to this Bill. Legislation is necessary from time to time to incorporate EU directives into Irish law. The strengthening of the anti-litter laws, the strengthening of the role of the EPA and the clarification of the position for local authorities which refuse to collect rubbish from those who refuse to pay are also welcome developments. The ban on fliers is also welcome as well as the granting of more powers to local authorities to introduce by-laws to deal with posters and unwanted advertising boards. These points cover a substantial part of the Bill, are not controversial and must be welcomed.

The one aspect of the Bill which should be strongly opposed is the granting to city and county managers of new powers which would allow them to review, vary or replace the waste management plans. This flies in the face of local democracy. After years of paying lip service to local government, the Minister is now depriving members of their only real power, the power to decide the level of local taxation. Without local democracy and accountability, there should not be an arbitrary local tax. If the Government wants to pursue this line, the tax should be centralised and the Dáil and the Minister for Finance should be accountable to the people for such a tax.

Over the past two years, vast amounts of ratepayers' money were spent on the introduction of Better Local Government, a Government policy aimed at improving local services. The reality is that Better Local Government turned out to be little more than a regrading system for staff of local authorities and it put €6 million extra on wage and salary bills for Cork County Council alone, with no compensation from central Government funding, putting further pressure on the resources of local authorities.

Due to cutbacks, most county council services will grind to a halt this autumn, yet the Minister wonders why local authority members will not make the hard decisions. They are being backed into a corner in every direction by Government. They are not given the necessary funding while the tax base allowed by Government makes their job almost impossible. The Minister had the cheek to criticise hamstrung local authority members when it was his party, Fianna Fáil, which with wild election promises in 1977 first destroyed the funding base for local authorities. Not only have the councils insufficient funding for environmental protection, but the entire infrastructure of local councils deteriorated because of Fianna Fáil's recklessness.

That was the final blow to local democracy. Since then, no remedial action has been taken. The Minister and the two parties in government – I will call them Fianna Fáil mór and Fianna Fáil beag because I no longer see a difference between them – have been in power for six years and for 15 out of the past 17 years, yet all of a sudden the waste management crisis is the fault of members of local government for not making the hard decisions.

Why did the Government not take advantage of the boom days to put local government on a sound financial footing? Everyone accepts that the closer one brings the workings of Government to the people, the better they work. This is particularly true of environmental issues. The first principle of waste management is to reduce, recycle and reuse, and the right incentives and facilities would have greatly reduced our problems if the Government had acted with local authorities. Local authorities are now in an impossible position because action was not taken sooner and because local government was so boxed in, financially and otherwise. The volumes of waste have increased to inordinate proportions and the cost of disposal is beyond the reach of most local authorities.

There is no point in blaming local authorities – Fianna Fáil policies deprived them of funding. Local authorities are now faced with the problem that when applying the polluter pays principle, many households cannot afford the cost of disposal. Householders cannot reduce, recycle and reuse because the funding was not made available for Bring sites and civic amenity sites. We have reached an impossible situation and there is no party to blame except Fianna Fáil. The facts are straight forward, that party caused the problem and now a Fianna Fáil Minister is trying to shift the blame to local authority members.

In County Cork, a waste management strategy was put in place by the local authority members, a landfill site and a site for a waste separation plant were identified, and the new charges to a large extent reflect the polluter pays principle, yet the Government has left County Cork short of funding for civic amenity sites and Bring sites. Nobody knows from where funding will come for landfill sites and the waste separation plant.

There is no point blaming local authority members because the fault is totally with Fianna Fáil and the Government, particularly the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The Minister said recently that the issue of local authority waste charges again became contentious and that in seeking short-term political advantage, some Opposition parties purported to oppose household waste charges. One wonders if the Minister lives in the real world. In many instances, Fianna Fáil backbenchers and councillors took exactly the same approach as the Opposition parties. That is no surprise because the situation is not the fault of councillors or Fianna Fáil backbenchers but of the Government over a number of years.

In County Cork, the waste management plan is at implementation stage. A state-of-the-art civic amenity site was recently built in Macroom with absolutely no funding from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. With no definite commitment by the Department to funding for further civic amenity sites, the process has been delayed. The Cork waste management strategy demands 25 civic amenity sites that will cost in the region of €70 million, and a landfill site and a MRF which will cost in the region of €200 million. The charges for waste collection and disposal are as near as makes no difference to the polluter pays principle. All that the Minister demands is in place and the only problem is funding. This is not only in regard to specific waste management projects but also to the state of the council's general finances. Nobody is to blame for this situation except the Government, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and his ministerial colleagues in the last Government, particularly Fianna Fáil for its mishandling and manipulation of local government funding since 1977.

Section 35 of this Bill is not acceptable because it introduces taxation without democracy. There has to be democratic accountability when local taxation is being pursued. The Fianna Fáil Member, Senator Mansergh, expressed this view very strongly in the Seanad. He clearly stated that it is totally against the spirit of local democracy and accountability to introduce taxation at local level where nobody is directly accountable to the people. If the Government wants to pursue this, it should impose a tax at national level whereby this House and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government would be accountable to the electorate. In a democracy, there should be no taxation without democratic accountability.

It is extremely important that we oppose this Bill. The current situation is a typical example of what has been happening for the past 12 months on the Government benches. The Government constantly introduces legislation while Fianna Fáil backbenchers, councillors and activists try to act as an Opposition party while in government. It is about time they realised that, ultimately, the electorate will not fall for this disingenuous attitude towards government and will eventually see through the charade.

In such circumstances and despite their misgivings, Fianna Fáil Senators voted for the Bill. I am confident the same thing will happen in this House and that Fianna Fáil backbenchers will vote for the Bill despite the fact that they know it is a serious infringement of local democracy and despite the fact – Deputy McCormack referred to this point – that the situation has become more serious because backbenchers will no longer be members of county councils, which will further cut the link. There will not be the same interest among Members of the Dáil in regard to local authority affairs.

The question of local democracy is a serious one. This country has had a problem for many years with over-centralisation. Nonetheless, the Government seems determined to increase the power of Ministers. In this Bill, the Minister is giving power to county managers, whom he can directly control and instruct. This step is extremely serious for local democracy and should be opposed at all levels. I am confident that the public favours stronger local democracy and will see this as a cynical exercise. When the taxes are imposed, the people will know exactly who should be blamed, namely, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Fianna Fáil-led Administration.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important Bill. I have acted as chairperson of my local authority's waste management committee for a number of years and, therefore, understand the importance of the control of waste management. County Laois at one stage had seven landfill sites, which have now been reduced to one. I have seen the budget required to administer the landfill site escalate over the years. Some ten years ago, the cost of controlling that site was in the region of £30,000 to £40,000 but now it is close to €1 million. I am aware that, as a condition of the EPA licence of the landfill site, we must ensure we never increase the intake by more than a maximum of 31,000 tonnes. It is in County Laois's best interest for the local authority to provide ways and means of reducing the levels of waste into the landfill and we support any such proposals. The day will arrive when we will run out of landfills and the real problems will begin. Therefore, the importance of reuse and recycling must be brought to the public's attention. Such proposals may appear difficult at the outset but, as soon as the public becomes aware of the huge costs and difficulties involved in providing waste management proposals and land to dispose of waste, they will understand their logic.

This Bill is important for many reasons that do not seem apparent on a day to day basis. While we continue to say we are worried about the environment, we do little in a practical manner to protect it. The Minister and his Department have recognised this flaw in the Irish psyche. I am particularly pleased to see the many strides that have been taken to combat this problem. While the Bill will not resolve all of the problems, it will play a key role. On its election, the Government committed itself to implementing an ambitious action plan across the wide scope of the environment agenda.

Like others, I recognise that legislation alone will never be enough to combat the various dangers we, as a society, pose to the environment. It has taken many years for people to recognise those dangers. Recent school programmes have brought the need to protect the environment to bear on the minds of young people. Children then begin life with a knowledge that the abuse of waste is counter to the protection of the environment. It is an essential first step along that path.

Without legislation to back up policy and laws to protect the environment, we cannot expect people to act off their own bat. In Laoighis-Offaly, it took some years to make the public realise we were dealing with just one landfill site. It was in the interests of all in County Laois to ensure we protected the environment and realised that, by over-polluting the landfill, we were reaching a point at which we would have to look for a new one. The reality is that if we do not have laws to protect the environment, it will not be protected.

The Bill strengthens aspects of law dealing with industrial and other activities that have the potential to do serious damage to the environment. It gives enhanced powers and scope to the EPA to secure efficiency and regulate gas emissions which can cause climate change. It is also a key and substantial addition to Ireland's environmental legislation and should help to give the environment the level of importance and protection it deserves. It will also put into Irish law the provisions contained in the 1996 EU directive on integrated pollution prevention and control. It is also worth noting that Ireland was one of the first EU states to implement integrated, as opposed to single medium licensing and we did so before the introduction of the IPPC directive. However, if we are to maintain such high standards, legislation such as this is essential to our environmental well-being.

IPPC licensing has been implemented on a phased basis since 1994. Approximately 550 licences have been granted during that period. The licensing system, which is in force across 13 economic sectors, is acknowledged to have helped the economic performance of industry and other activities have secured a substantial improvement. For example, we have seen a reduction in air and water emissions, energy savings through the introduction of more environmentally-friendly processes and lower noise levels. Completing the adoption of the directive should further enhance this process and we will move from integrated pollution control to integrated pollution prevention and control. This is a subtle but important change of wording. It will place greater emphasis on prevention of environmental problems and minimise the levels at which they arise, rather than simply deal with them after they occur. Prevention is always better than cure.

In recent years, we have seen a considerable decrease in the quality and safety of drinking water around the country. This can be put down to many factors but, undoubtedly, the increased levels of pollution found in wells has played a significant part. This is probably the most invisible aspect of the pollution problem. If we cannot drink water from our local wells without becoming ill, what does that say about how clean our environment is? We pride ourselves on the mineral water brands we produce, such as Tipperary and Ballygowan, which are world renowned as an example of purity. How long can this image be maintained if we do not do all in our power to reduce the level of pollution in our springs and wells? Maintaining the quality of the water supply has caused some problems, many examples of which I have experienced in County Laois. A number of planning applications have been rejected on the basis that they could affect the quality of the water supply. Such decisions can obviously be disappointing to those concerned, but the most important consideration is that the water supply is protected. I wish to compliment Laois County Council for its actions in this regard. We all recognise that water is the basis of all life and, if we want to enjoy a comfortable and safe society, it must be protected regardless of other considerations.

I am concerned with an aspect of the Bill regarding the changing of the technical basis of the licensing system from best available technology without entailing excessive costs to the use of best available techniques. I know the changes will not be too extensive, but I am concerned that small farmers may be greatly affected. Perhaps something can be done to compensate them for any hardships they suffer in adapting to this new system. If anything, such measures will only help to grease the wheels of progress. With a wider range of activities being brought into the licensing regime such as poultry rearing, the processing of milk, slaughtering of cattle, production of food from animal or vegetable raw materials, together with the measures we already have in place, this will have an important impact on farm life.

I welcome the extension of the power to fine those found guilty of causing pollution. The fines on summary conviction will be increased from €1,900 to €3,000. I also welcome the change of presumption for the purpose of prosecutions so the carrying out of unauthorised waste activity shall be deemed likely to cause environmental pollution unless the contrary can be shown. This approach will remove the burden of proof from those hoping to enforce environmental standards and put pressure on those who will damage the environment, a move everyone would support.

There are a number of provisions in the Bill that deal with waste management by local government. Some of these measures have attracted controversy but under EU legislation, households and other waste producers are required to pay for the costs of disposing of their waste. Whether we agree or not is immaterial because we are required by the European Union to introduce such a measure.

There are, however, provisions that will be welcomed at local government level. Allowing local authorities to make general anti-litter laws for their areas will have a real effect and we should see some imaginative and efficient solutions to local problems, some of which could lead to initiatives on a national basis.

The implications of the Kyoto Protocol are reflected in the Bill. With America turning its back on this vital issue which will have global consequences for decades to come, it is even more important that all other countries do their utmost to protect the world in which we live. With this in mind, I welcome the inclusion of greenhouse gases in the definition of emissions. It will enable the EPA to regulate the matter more readily and will ensure that we meet our Kyoto obligations regardless of the actions of other nations.

It is a cliché but it is still true that when we hurt the environment, we hurt ourselves. All the damage we do now will come back to haunt us and our children. We cannot afford to leave our mess to be cleared up by future generations and that is why it is vital to have the necessary legislation in place to protect the environment and why this Bill is so important. I commend the Bill to the House.

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on the Protection of the Environment Bill 2003 and that the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, is here to listen to the points I have to raise on behalf of the Labour Party.

This Bill is typical of the legislation that has emanated from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in the past six years. The bulk of the legislation, which seeks to improve the best available techniques for the licensing, monitoring, storing and disposal of waste, is welcome but there should have been refinement of the 1992 and 1996 Acts in 1997 at the latest.

Instead we had six years of a Government during which the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Noel Dempsey, spent his time pontificating about electoral systems, the roles of Deputies and councillors and electronic voting, a disastrous move for this democracy. At the same time issues were crying out for attention, above all the housing situation. The Minister of State has responsibility for housing and he knows, because he has cut the social housing budget by 20% this year and will cut it by more next year, housing and waste management were crying out to be dealt with during the long era of Deputy Noel Dempsey's time as Minister but they were ignored.

The improvements in this Bill are belated while the issues that needed urgent attention, homelessness above all, are getting worse, with thousands in this city effectively living on the streets or in substandard accommodation. The Department should be dealing with them but it is not.

The key improvements the Bill could have made were not dealt with. The improvements, and I give credit to them, in waste management are accompanied by one of the most savage attacks on local government seen in the history of this State. The latter part of this Bill, as my colleague Deputy Gilmore has pointed out, includes a savage number of prescriptions for local government that will remove some of the essential powers we have had. It takes the heart out of the fund-raising and budgetary power of local government by giving control of waste charges to managers. It removes a key role from local councillors – planning for waste management for their area. As the Minister of State knows, because he is a long-term colleague of mine on Dublin City Council, it was the Labour Party and the Green Party in the early 1990s which drafted the first waste management plan for this city.

Why is the Labour Party running away from it now?

We are not running away from it. Fianna Fáil is running away, it is not prepared to face up to the difficulties involved in democracy and refuses to consult people. Most people do not believe in the NIMBY creed, they are prepared to be reasonable and rational on waste plans but they are not consulted. The Government is creating a situation similar to the French ancien regime. Mr. John Fitzgerald or Mr. William Soffe in the two counties I represent have this vital power, not people who will be elected next summer by an electorate of up to 50,000 people, nearly as good a mandate as for this House. The Minister is taking that power away and is eviscerating local democracy in this State by doing so.

It is because the Minister is not prepared to make local government democratic.

Some people, like the Deputy, will not accept their responsibilities.

On a previous Bill, the previous Minister agreed with me that the Scandinavian countries and every other country in the EU have real local government – democratically elected, strong executives with real mayors, not people who spend a year opening little functions, going in and out of the Mansion House or County Hall in Swords like Buggins' turn. I hope the Minister of State does not mind me mentioning that his older brother, the leader of Fianna Fáil and my opposite on Dublin City Council, had an ambition to be the directly-elected Lord Mayor of this city from next summer but, unfortunately, his other brother and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government refused to let him fulfil his ambition.

This Bill is fatally flawed in a few brief pages. It eviscerates local government and prepares the way for full privatisation of the waste management function. My party is gravely concerned about that. I welcome the arrival of the green bins in the city but they are being provided by a company that has no trade union representation for its workers, who work long and hard hours. That is the future the Minister of State and the Minister will inflict on us.

Deputy Haughey has just come into the Chamber – he knows that the city manager, John Fitzgerald, and the other three county managers have drawn up a list of sites for an incinerator under this fundamentally flawed, undemocratic legislation. I have the report on the siting and environmental issues of the incinerator and one of the sites chosen was Belcamp on the borders of our constituencies. No one asked us or gave us the slightest consideration. The people of Ringsend and the Poolbeg Peninsula will have an incinerator inflicted on them and those of us on the north side of Dublin Bay will be downwind of it.

My experience of democracy as an elected representative for 12 years in this House and on the council, where I am coming to the end of my term under the Minister's other legislation, is that people are reasonable if they are asked. Fingal County Council ran a programme called SEMPA to involve local communities, such as Malahide, Howth, Baldoyle, Sutton, Kilbarrack and Donaghmede, in the planning of their districts. People sat down and said what they wanted in terms of housing density, commercial activity sites and the level of density for shopping areas and so on. They were quite prepared to do so but now the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is refusing to give them that choice.

The bulk of this legislation, in a lethargic way, brings forward some welcome improvements on best available technology and techniques. We, on this side of the House, support most of the initiatives taken in the first part of the Bill. However, it is the undemocratic and savage attack on local government in its last sections with which we have a fundamental difficulty. If we are returned to government – the Department officials should be aware of this – we will overturn these sections. They try to pull the heart out of local government and refuse to give the people an input into the administration of their areas.

There is a fashion, in almost a masochistic way, to lambast individuals, householders and even rural dwellers about waste management. They are told it is something terrible with which we have not got to grips but now they will have to pay for disposal. That is the mantra we hear from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, and his predecessor, Deputy Noel Dempsey. However, for what is most of the Bill intended when we examine it? It is intended for the building industry which creates – departmental officials can correct me if I am wrong – 85% of the waste stream. It creates 80% to 85% of waste products and never pays for their proper disposal.

If one looks at our beautiful sister county in the eastern region, the valleys of County Wicklow, around north Kildare and the north Dublin region, place after place has been destroyed by commercial enterprises, especially by the building industry dumping its waste. It is ongoing and should be one of the issues the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, takes up. All across the northern fringe of Dublin city, from his constituency in Finglas across to mine in Baldoyle, we have illegal dumps, one after the other. In recent days the dumping has become so outrageous and appalling with trucks dumping waste in the middle of the night along the M50 and the N32. The Minister and the Minister of State are doing nothing about this, except coming up, belatedly, six years later with pieces of legislation. The true cost of disposing building industry waste, and that of other industries also, was never taken into account during the years with the result that they got away with murder. Unfortunately, the building industry has a very close connection with the Minister of State's party.

If we look at new areas such as the northern fringe in Dublin city, the amount of waste that will be produced while we build 30,000 to 40,000 housing units and associated commercial units will have to be paid for. However, the charge will be pushed onto the ordinary individual consumer. It was not the customer who asked for vegetables to be wrapped in six types of packaging. Neither was it the customer who asked for his or her white goods to be placed in environmentally damaging packages. Business – IBEC and the companies it represents – did it and has never paid the cost of disposal. With all the initiatives in the first three parts of the Bill I can easily empathise. They are trying, at long last, to bring the waste disposal of the companies concerned under control.

It is a pity that legislation was not put in place six years ago in order that we could have avoided a number of key issues which have debased part of our region. I draw the attention of the House to St. Anne's Park, Raheny, which was established by my great predecessor, "Big" Jim Larkin, during his chairmanship of the local authority housing committee. He bought this valuable amenity which is now the number one park in the city. Deputies may not know it but the Phoenix Park and St. Stephen's Green are not administered by local government. St. Anne's Park is one of the most valuable amenities in Dublin city where we all played Gaelic football, hurling and association football.

What did the city manager do to the park six or eight years ago? Under the pretence of starting a recycling centre for Christmas trees, he set up a major industrial waste management facility, not just for the county but also for the whole State with the result that trucks trundle through St. Anne's Estate bringing pallets from Galway. I am glad Deputy Haughey is present in the Chamber because in the campaign being waged by the St. Anne's Park residents he is the other public representative who has given support. We led the campaign when it was unfashionable – we were denounced by Sinn Féin, among others – to be "anti-environment". We are not anti-environment when we say this industrial process is unsuitable for the location.

Departmental officials might be interested to learn that it was done in defiance of planning permission regulations whereby an industrial process should not be placed in an amenity area. For two years the EPA has been trying to invigilate the site. This morning I received a letter from it stating monitors will be placed in residents' gardens. Often they have to sweep away wooddust from their window sills and cars. This is an outstanding example, under the Dublin city manager, Mr. Fitzgerald, with the support of county managers, of putting in place a necessary system of waste disposal in the wrong area. The Minister of State is aware of this.

He might say he was let down by councillors who were to take two or three other sites but I agree—

He should have placed it in an industrial estate. I have grave concerns for workers working in an environment without face masks and constant medical checks. It is a dangerous environment in what is a quiet area. We all used its amenities in recent times. Unfortunately, the Bill has not been enacted before now; if it had, the city manager could not have done what he has.

I want to refer to the famous dump found in Clonshaugh two and a half years ago which also illustrates the reason we badly need this legislation. As the county and city authorities were working together on the northern drainage system, they discovered a massive trench of waste, including hospital and commercial waste from Dublin Airport. They simply cut their way through it, moved the waste aside, laid the piping and covered it in. It cut its way through the pitches of the famous GAA club, Craobh Chiarain, in Donnycarney. It is an ongoing issue with Fingal County Council, the Garda and the European Commission and there will have to be some resolution. It is appalling that it could have occurred near households.

Did anyone see any of this occurring?

They did and reported it in 1981 and 1982, before my time, but absolutely nothing was done about it.

I welcome the references to littering, on which we have a bad reputation as a country. While Dublin city is probably the worst in the State, I am glad to see that initiatives have been taken in recent times to come to grips with the problem, for which I blame business as the worst littering occurs outside late night hostelries and food purveyors. This strengthens the hands of local authorities. My own local authority published recently the names of litterers which is a development I welcome. I welcome also section 12 of the Bill and its transboundary provisions. The British are implementing similar legislation under EU directives. The Attorney General has been in metaphorical battle in taking our case against the British Government, but if we are prepared to implement the provisions on transboundary emissions made in this Bill, perhaps our British colleagues will do the same. It is incredible that radionuclides are still being released into the Irish Sea.

The Minister of State will remember that I was one of those who appeared in the Inns of Court with future MEP Bernie Malone in London in my first years in this House to make a strong case against the THORP reactor. Unfortunately, we lost the case, but there has been an ongoing battle. All of us who represent the east coast and fishing harbours like Howth are deeply concerned. While our monitors have told us that the levels of radiation from the Sellafield complex have been declining recently, it is upsetting that long-life radionuclides continue to be emitted into our sea. It is unacceptable and I wish the Attorney General, Mr. Brady, the Taoiseach, the Minister of State, Deputy Tim O'Malley, and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government success in this area. Their help is sorely needed.

In the half minute remaining to me, I reiterate my bitter disappointment that the people and city of Dublin will not have an opportunity to decide whether they want incineration after reading the voluminous reports which I admit the staff of the three Dublin local authorities have produced. If it is decided to accept incineration, we should have a chance to decide where the incinerator should be placed. We have to treat electors as adults. People can be adult about such issues. I am personally opposed.

To everything.

I did not get a chance to express it. Despite the hype about what the Austrians or the Danes have done, I was worried by the points about incineration and human health made on the basis of 20 years' experience in Greenpeace submissions. I would go without incineration. In the first waste plan drafted by the Labour Party and the Green Party there was no proposal for incineration.

Of about 160,000 householders, 40,000, or one quarter, have not paid a penny of the waste management charge of Mr. John Fitzgerald in Dublin City Council. They are prepared to go to court and some are prepared to go to prison. As some journalists have pointed out, this is one of the biggest rebellions that has ever taken place in local government and it will come to a crisis. It will be one of the issues which devastates Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats at next year's local and European elections. Having served with the Minister of State for so long, I urge him—

People are more intelligent that Deputy Broughan thinks. If we only had a bit of intelligence in our public representatives.

The Minister of State should allow the Deputy to conclude.

The Minister of State may be asked to go to court to support some of his constituents. I welcome the bulk of the legislation which will improve waste disposal conditions and management, but I regret that the heart of the Bill is a savage attack on democracy.

The Deputy is delighted. It takes responsibility away from him.

I had to blink when I came into the Chamber and listened to the contributions of Deputy Broughan and the interjections of the Minister of State. I thought I was at a meeting of Dublin City Council. It is obviously important to raise local issues in the context of a national debate. Deputy Broughan is wasted as spokesman for communications, marine and natural resources. If he would like me to, I will have a word with Deputy Rabbitte and Deputy Broughan could be transferred to the environment and local government or social and family affairs portfolio. He would be better off with a portfolio like that.

What about finance?

The Deputy could probably do something there, though the market might get a shock if he were made Minister for Finance.

He is a dinosaur of the past.

Reference was made recently by a group opposed to the ban on smoking in public houses which mentioned the joyless agenda of the nanny state. Perhaps this group is on to something. In recent years, Governments have displayed a tendency to ban all sorts of activities and to curtail individual freedoms. They have sought to introduce more and more laws generally. Against this background has been the proposition that every problem has to be solved through the introduction of more legislation and by throwing more money at it. Money has been handed out without putting in place systems to ensure ongoing assessment and monitoring of the way in which it is spent. In these difficult financial times money is not as readily available and there is a danger that Government will rely even more on new legislation to solve every problem. Ministers who want to make a name for themselves and wish to be seen taking action will have to rely solely on legislation to deal with all sorts of problems. Very often, all that is required is the enforcement of existing legislation, education and the development of a more civic-minded spirit through the good, old-fashioned concept of leadership.

Despite what I have said, many of the provisions of this Bill are useful and necessary. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, stated in his press release on the Bill that legislation alone will not improve the environment. Without a strong framework of rules and regulations, we can be sure we will not achieve the environmental quality to which we aspire and to which the Government is committed. I accept that there is an obvious need for more rules, more regulations and more law generally regarding the protection of the environment.

Section 19 of the Bill provides that the review, variation or replacement of a waste management plan shall be executive functions. I agree reluctantly with this section. I supported the initial Bill in this House which made the drawing up of a waste management plan an executive function in certain circumstances. The Minister accepted the reality that in terms of our environmental legislation we were far behind other EU member states and EU directives on these matters. It was obvious that local authorities were not prepared to bite the bullet on these controversial issues by bringing forward appropriate waste management plans. Some local authorities were better than others and agreed to the waste management plan, but others would not subscribe. The situation was getting out of control and the Minister was duty bound to intervene to deal with it. Section 19 is an extension of that.

Waste management plans are soon to be reviewed in the context of local elections and politics would be seen to be taking over. People would refuse to accept their responsibilities and deal with the situation effectively. I reluctantly support section 19. The Minister is dealing with the political realities and facing up to his overall responsibilities in relation to waste management.

Section 22 provides that a local authority shall be under no duty to collect household waste from a person who fails to pay the relevant waste charge. A silent majority of people would support this section. The people who oppose paying the environmental waste charges are vocal, politically active and aggressive in their campaign for the abolition of these charges. Other people, however, who constitute the majority, are paying the charges and they are not unhappy to do so. In some cases, they believe it is necessary to deal with waste disposal in this manner. Others pay them reluctantly but accept that it is the law. However, people who pay the environmental waste charges are furious that a minority are not paying even if they do not hold public meetings about it. I believe that more people will support section 22 than will oppose it. People are annoyed that they are paying and carrying the can while others are getting off scot free. I go to public meetings and hear criticism of this section but, on balance, a majority of people will support it.

Section 30 provides that a landfill operator shall levy landfill charges to ensure recovery of the full cost of the facility over its lifetime, including projected after-care costs. It is a good measure but the section should be amended to ensure that householders will not be required to meet the full economic cost of the disposal of household waste in this context. I look forward to hearing the Minister's views in that regard.

Section 35 provides that the making of a household waste charge shall be an executive function. I am not sure that I wholeheartedly agree with this section. Obviously, I will not vote against the Government because of it but I wonder what is the reason for including this measure. I have been a member of a local authority for many years and, by and large, it has had no difficulty passing estimates. Occasionally, making the decision involves midnight sittings and so forth, and environmental waste charges are always the main issue under discussion. This year Dublin City Council really went to the wire before it agreed the estimates but generally councillors rise to the occasion, fulfil their responsibilities and pass the estimates. I am not sure that any other local authority has failed to pass its estimates, despite the inclusion of such charges.

I wonder if this section goes too far. I am a supporter of local government although I accept that some measures in the Bill reduce the powers of local authorities. This section also reduces their power. Why is the Minister proposing this measure? There does not appear to be a problem with local authorities introducing charges. To the best of my knowledge, Dublin local authorities are always the most reluctant. Local authorities outside Dublin are better at imposing charges in their estimates. Perhaps, given that local elections are due to be held, it is aimed at relieving councillors of their responsibilities but councillors are generally responsible, always have been and always will be. There is no need for this measure.

Another issue of concern for cities is the disposal of chewing gum. The Dublin city manager has said that the cost of removing chewing gum is approximately €5 per square metre. He said in a report which he presented to the council that, based on experience, it is estimated that the likely cost of removing chewing gum from Henry Street and maintaining the roadway in a reasonable condition would be approximately €60,000 this year. This level of expenditure would have to be repeated in subsequent years to produce and maintain visible results.

Chewing gum is a major and ongoing problem. The chewing gum is deposited as quickly as it is removed and the city manager has called for a more civic-minded approach and responsible attitude on the part of individuals. I do not propose that the Minister ban the substance as that would fly in the face of my opening remarks but this is an issue that requires leadership and the development of a civic-minded spirit. People simply discard chewing gum on the streets and pavements and it is extremely expensive to remove so something has to be done about it. Can any of the provisions in the Bill be utilised to deal with it? Perhaps the Minister will consider bringing forward special initiatives.

There is mention in the Bill in relation to by-laws concerning the provision and use of supermarket trolleys. The supermarket trolley is part of our urban landscape. Often shoppers use the trolley and bring it home with them when the house is not particularly far from the shopping centre. Presumably, that is the reason for the measure in the Bill. Supermarket trolleys regularly end up in canals, rivers and parks. What does the Minister have in mind in this regard? We have to balance the needs of the shopper with the needs of the environment. If it falls to the local authority to draw up by-laws, I hope the authority will be conscious of the conflicting demands that arise. I am not sure we should stop the housewife or person doing the household shopping from bringing supermarket trolleys back home. Obviously, they would then have responsibilities beyond that. I would be interested to know what information the Minister of State has available to him in this regard.

There is a proposal in the Bill to increase litter fines. This may be a case of bringing forward new legislation for the sake of it. Would we not solve the litter problem by enforcing existing laws? I wonder where the demand is for increasing litter fines. Perhaps it is related to inflation or whatever, but I would like to think that there is a real reason for increasing litter fines and that it is not being done just so that the Government is seen to be doing something regarding litter. I would be interested to hear the Minister of State's response as to whether there is a real reason for increasing fines. Another measure in the Bill places an obligation on businesses to wash the public area outside their premises. That is obviously a good move and will not inflict too much hardship on businesses. In fact, the measure will be good for the individual businesses which have to implement it.

Deputy Broughan mentioned in passing the problems regarding the green waste depot in St. Anne's Park, and I support him in that regard. This facility is operated by Dublin City Council and has expanded way beyond what was originally envisaged. It is now an industrial operation in a city council park and has caused untold problems for local residents. I know the Environmental Protection Agency is aware of this application for a licence but I still wish to highlight the issue. Unfortunately, it is unfashionable to point this out because the term "green waste depot" sounds environmentally friendly and critics, in opposing such a facility, are seen to be hostile to the notion of recycling. However, it is situated in the wrong location and has developed into an industrial operation. I will support the residents in their campaign to have this facility relocated.

I wish local authorities well in their endeavours to deal with the litter situation. I have a programme here, for example, from Dublin City Council which outlines plans for early morning cleansing initiatives, special cleaning initiatives, a rapid response unit, additional litter wardens, additional litter bins, junk collections, additional street cleaning machinery and so forth. There is a plan in place but it is a constant battle, and I am not sure we are winning it. Things may have improved a little, but as I said at the outset, we have a major responsibility in developing a civic spirit. If we could achieve that through genuine leadership, it would go a long way to solving the litter problem and many other problems. In general, I support the provisions of the Bill and wish it a speedy passage through the House.

While there are positive aspects to this Bill which I welcome, the overall thrust of the legislation will have negative consequences, particularly in terms of the ability of local authorities to make decisions regarding environmental measures in the areas under their normal jurisdiction. The positive aspects of the Bill concern the measures to strengthen the anti-litter laws. These are contained in section 38, which amends the Litter Pollution Act 1997 with regard to the use of advertising and attempts to tighten the procedures for identifying individuals, businesses and other organisations whose advertisements cause offence.

Section 39 allows local authorities to extend local by-laws on litter to include public events, the creation of litter by mobile outlets and the general maintenance of business premises in good order. Many Deputies, I am sure, are well acquainted with these problems, particularly regarding the maintenance of businesses in their respective towns and communities. This is a positive step because when business premises are shabby and downgrade the entire community, by-laws introduced by local authorities can only benefit the community overall. It is somewhat ironic, however, that while this part of the Bill proposes to give enhanced powers to local authorities, the overall impact of the legislation, if passed, will be to severely curtail those powers. Nevertheless, I welcome the anti-litter provisions in the Bill and commend those responsible for their inclusion.

The other positive aspects of the Bill concern the extension of the powers of the EPA regarding greenhouse gas emissions. As Deputies will be aware, this is an increasingly important issue that extends far beyond any national jurisdiction. Attempts have been made at various international fora to tackle the levels of greenhouse gas emissions, and this State is subject to a range of EU directives on the issue. Many of these EU directives are commendable and are brought forward by the EU in order to compel states to live up to their responsibilities, which is welcome. Global warming will have to be addressed in particular by ensuring that business enterprises are made responsible for what they release into the atmosphere. There is also an obligation on states to take measures within their own jurisdictions, and to the extent that this proposal regarding the EPA is a step in that direction, it must be welcomed.

Having referred to the positive aspects of the Bill, I must now move on to those proposals within it that will not benefit the general public. Indeed, they may possibly undermine both the quality of life of people and their rights to democratic representation. The negative aspects all relate to the general fact that the powers of local authorities to make decisions on local waste management policy will be severely curtailed. There is little wonder in this, given the previous assertion of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, that local democracy in this State is over-democratised. What does he mean by this? Those elected to local authorities are elected by the people to address issues of concern to them. In doing that, Deputy Cullen asserts, the system has become over-democratised. That is my reading of Deputy Cullen's assertions.

If these provisions are carried the system would be scarcely democratic at all as local authorities would have reduced powers to make important decisions affecting the daily lives of the electorate. Removing those powers from local authorities is a serious breach of the democratic link between local electors and the people who place them on county councils and other local elected bodies. Many Members of this Chamber are also elected county or town councillors. They are elected to represent the public, the grassroots, but in doing so they will be penalised. Many of them who sit on the other side of the House will vote for provisions in the Bill that will remove their democratic mandate on local authorities. It is an affront to democracy and the Minister's proposals are a violation of the democratic process.

The Bill provides that certain powers available to county councils will be removed and placed in the hands of unelected county managers. The overriding of the democratic rights of local authorities is already having this effect in parts of the State. An example is the controversy in the south-east over the wish of the Waterford Port Authority to allow Herhoff Environmental Limited to build an incinerator at Bellevue, south Kilkenny. The port authority is unelected and has no mandate from anyone to make such an important decision. By contrast, Waterford County Council, whose members were elected by the people of the county, has voted against the incineration project. That apparently means nothing as the council's democratic decision has been overridden by the county manager, an unelected official. There was a similar development in County Wexford, where the county council voted against incineration but the county manager thought otherwise. If these provisions are enacted and are supported by county managers they will amount to a violation of the democratic rights of the people of Kilkenny, Waterford and elsewhere.

If the Bill becomes law the right of county and city managers to overrule elected councils will become the norm for dealing with every aspect of waste management. That is the clear intention of section 19, where it is proposed to amend the 1996 Act by providing that the review, variation or replacement of a waste management plan shall be an executive function to be exercised by the county or city manager. I was elected to represent the people on these issues and I am sure my views on this proposal are shared by councillors from every party and Independents, many of whom are Members of this House. It is totally unacceptable. If local councillors cannot decide on issues like this what are they supposed to do?

One of the main functions of any local authority is to regularise waste management, yet this will be removed from the elected representatives and the electorate. Are councils to become ceremonial bodies whose purpose is to meet visiting dignitaries from distant centres of power, hold civic receptions, or, in the case of my local authority, host a civic reception to the victorious team in next September's football championship final? That happens on frequent occasions in County Kerry.

Why is the Dublin team going to Kerry?

It seldom happens in Dublin but is very frequent in Kerry – indeed it might satisfy some councillors if it happened in Dublin because we are doing it so often. However, that is not what we were elected to do. We were elected to represent all of the people and that is not being taken into consideration in these provisions. Those who elect us accept that we will have real power to decide on crucial issues of the kind that will be removed from us and given to unelected managers.

This trend is further strengthened by section 35, which deals with the introduction of domestic service charges. Subsections (1) to (7) of the proposed amendment to the 1996 Act contain references to local authorities and their power to introduce and set charges etc. However, this is negated by subsection (8) which states: "Notwithstanding the provisions of any order made under any other enactment, the making of a charge in respect of the provision of a waste service and any exercise of the power of waiver under subsection (3) shall each be an executive function." In other words, local councils can determine and vote as they wish, but if they ultimately decide, as they are entitled and as many of them are mandated, not to introduce service charges, the county or city manager will overrule the decision and introduce them regardless. Councils will be reduced to the status of rubber-stamp parliaments of the kind found in totalitarian states, which have the right, and are expected, to approve decisions from on high but are ignored or abolished if they oppose them. That is all councillors will be able to do and this trend has already become apparent over recent months. Either councillors ignore the wishes of those who elected them and vote to introduce service charges or the council will be abolished. That is some form of democracy.

It is Sinn Féin's belief that people are entitled to oppose service charges and to elect those who are mandated to oppose them. Many people who are opposed to service charges have been elected to county councils, yet their mandate is ignored by those in power. Surely that is not what democracy is meant to be.

People are also entitled to campaign against service charges if they are introduced and to take part in protest action, including refusal to pay them.

That is not very democratic.

Heretofore, local authorities have been unable to refuse to collect waste from people taking part in such protests. This was upheld by a Supreme Court decision in 2001. However, section 22 proposes to amend the 1996 Act to ensure that in future local authorities will be under no such obligation.

Apart from the injustice of introducing such charges and the implications it may have with regard to the rights of local representatives, the imposition of a charge on households for the disposal of waste is an abuse of the polluter pays principle, which is cited whenever this issue arises. Household waste is not the main source of the problem in the State. It has been estimated that it accounts for less than 10% of all solid wastes. The main sources of such wastes are commercial enterprise and the focus of attention should be placed on their activities. Manufactures, not householders, are the polluters. They produce the packaging that is the source of a huge proportion of solid waste. Therefore, Government attention should be focused on getting them to produce environmentally friendly packaging rather than charging households for their collection.

I am also concerned that the Bill will increase the prospect of the full-scale privatisation of waste collection and disposal. Right-wing ideologues and supporters of unbridled private enterprise will argue that there is no reason a local authority or the State should be involved in the provision of such services. Some of them apply that logic to transport, housing and even health. I have no doubt there are advocates of this position within the Progressive Democrats, as there are in its sister parties of the extreme right, such as the British Conservative Party, the Ulster Unionist parties and President Bush's Republicans. My response to that argument is to ask why it was considered necessary to bring such services under public or municipal control in the first instance. They will no doubt be aware that this generally occurred in western Europe in the last quarter of the 19th century, long before there was any notion of socialist or left-wing governments being elected. Why did parties such as the British Liberal Party and the German parties under Bismarck decide that local sanitation and so on could not be left under private control? The answer is simple. It was because private enterprise was either uninterested or unable to provide them as they did not believe they could make money out of them.

However, now that public and municipal services have been built up, private enterprises want to take them over and cherry-pick the parts that will make them the maximum profit. They have done this in other countries with less than beneficial results. It also will be the consequence of privatising waste management. There are many ways of making money without opening the public services which have ensured the types of endemic disease and general ill-health typical of the days of unbridled capitalism have disappeared in developing countries.

Apart from welcoming aspects of this Bill and opposing others, Sinn Féin has proposals on protection of the environment which we have outlined in our policy documents and promoted wherever we have elected councillors, as well as in the Northern Ireland Assembly before it was closed down by other opponents of democracy. Sinn Féin's policy includes strong opposition to the building of waste incinerators which we believe are an ineffectual and harmful means of waste disposal. Our party is to the forefront in campaigns to stop the building of incinerators throughout the country and we fully support all elected representatives and communities in their campaigns to prevent such facilities being built. We also want to see steps taken to ensure large industrial and commercial producers of waste are obliged to take steps to reduce the level of waste which they create. The principle of the polluter must pay ought to be applied rigorously to these operators, not householders. Everyone has a responsibility to ensure our shared environment is protected but surely the large producers of commercial waste and the sources of commercial packaging that comprises most domestic waste must bear the greatest burden.

We also want to see an improved system for dealing with agricultural waste which continues to create problems in many parts of rural Ireland and which is increasingly coming under restrictions in EU directives. There has been progress in this area in recent years which we hope will continue. However, more can be done. Future steps ought to be taken in closer consultation with farmers and rural communities. Part of this consultation must include incentives that are necessary to ensure progress, including compensation and financial help for farmers being compelled under EU directives to bring forward procedures that will greatly reduce the environmental problems that they create. Sinn Féin also supports the establishment of local recycling and refuse centres. This can be both an effective way to deal with waste management at community level, as well as a source of employment.

We are all acquainted with the problems of landfill sites. In my county, in Mweennalaa just outside Tralee, the local population and environment have been let down by the local authorities, particularly their management, which has neglected the procedures applicable to landfill sites under the EPA. This must be dealt with. As local representatives, it is incumbent upon us to ensure the rights of communities, which have sites imposed upon them against their will, are protected. Their health and safety are part of that protection.

We remain totally opposed to the introduction of local refuse charges. The continued increase in such charges, in my county and other rural counties, places an extra burden on housewives and lower income families. We are also opposed to the move towards privatisation of waste collection. Local communities must be helped and encouraged to promote recycling, in respect of which there is an obligation on local authorities to proactively contribute to encourage within their communities.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate which is a good use of time. There is controversy about the Dáil sitting on Fridays but it gives us an opportunity to discuss legislation in detail. I hope in time we will have more Friday sessions. If that is an unpopular thing to say, I am sorry but I hope the Houses of the Oireachtas will use their resources to ensure the promotion of these sitting days and that, as on other days when the Dáil is sitting, we will see groups of schoolchildren and young people visiting to see the Dáil at work.

I am not ignoring Deputy Ferris's connections with County Kerry but I want to talk about Dublin. For the previous 40 minutes our two colleagues, Deputy Broughan and my party colleague, Deputy Haughey, talked about the northside of the city as if there was only one side of Dublin. We might all now close our eyes and imagine ourselves crossing the River Liffey, coming past Leinster House and heading for Tallaght. As we head up the Greenhills Road, we pass the Ballymount baling station, a positive development for the city and county but which has an impact on the local community. Residents in Greenpark often ask me to make representations to the council and the EPA.

As we proceed towards Tallaght, through Tallaght village, we move into Botharnabreena, which for 25 years housed the Friarstown dump or landfill site. My point about a local community and waste applies equally to counties Kerry, Monaghan and Dublin. Friarstown dump was a major challenge for the greater Tallaght community, particularly the community in Glenasmole, Bohernabreena and surrounding areas. While it has been closed for several years, its use has still not been settled and it is an enormous blight on the local community. Five miles beyond Bohernabreena and Tallaght we come to Brittas. I spent last evening at a large public meeting, convened by Brittas Community Association in its local mass centre, to talk about waste management and the effect some attitudes to waste management have on the community.

Brittas is a picturesque village in County Dublin; there is also a seaside village by that name in County Wicklow but I am talking about the one in County Dublin, on the border with County Wicklow. I share the electoral area to the Brittas border with the neighbouring Wicklow constituency. Brittas is a picturesque village, with a small community and potential for development but last night I heard terrible stories of people coming from other parts of Dublin, probably Tallaght also, dumping car loads of waste at the edges of fields, even in gardens and hedges. It was amazing to hear people talk at first hand about the problems of litter and waste. This is a village which wants to do what is right for its community and is blighted by the fact that people living close by are using their environment and amenity lands as dumps.

The meeting put me in the mood – if that is the right phrase – for this discussion because it highlighted the challenge of waste management. I was interested in what the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, had to say when he was debating this issue. I would like to congratulate him and his Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, who I am glad to see here today. The Minister said solutions, not "auction politics" were required. That is the challenge of waste management. I heard plenty of stories last night about the challenges in this regard. On the more serious business of dumping indiustrial and other kinds of waste, one man from Brittas made the point that if earth was removed from a hole or other place, somebody must have a licence to put it somewhere else. That summed up the mood of the meeting and the challenges public representatives and communities have to face.

The challenge of waste management is that we are all generating waste. There are tonnes of files in my car and office, as well as in every office in Leinster House, although some of us are more orderly than others. My home has tonnes of files. Every morning I get many letters. That is true despite the evolution of communications and the progress shown in the development of e-mail. There was a time when, like others of my generation, I thought I would never get used to e-mail and computers, but of course we have. However, there are still tonnes of paper. Even if one looks around this Chamber, there seems a great deal. It crystallises the challenge and the difficulty. In fairness, we are all guilty of it, and I wonder about our future and that of coming generations. When we discuss this Bill, we must do so in that context.

As on other occasions, I remind myself and other Members that I bring to this House the experience of my local authority. I was elected to Dublin County Council in 1991 and became a member of the newly formed South Dublin County Council in 1994. When I leave the council this summer, I will be sorry, but we must move on, and the colleagues that will take my place will face the same challenges. It is important that we say in this House that the work of local authorities is meaningful. I have enjoyed my time on South Dublin County Council and will miss it, but one must find a different way of working. The challenges of waste management will remain for that council as for every other in the country.

As we continue the rapid development of what is clearly a consumer society and the consequent demands and effects on the environment, good practice and creating public acceptance that we all have a responsibility to protect the environment are no longer an aspiration, but a real and present need. Daily the news media have stories of how our environment is changing and how changes in our living standards are having an impact on environmental needs. We are constantly reminded – or, perhaps, bombarded – with danger signals from experts world-wide and encouraged to take personal responsibility to correct our behaviour. We all see the impact in our day-to-day lives, be it in the weather, litter on the streets, abandoned vehicles in the countryside or the sheer magnitude of our household waste. However, we all seem to resent the fact that something must be done about it and that the buck does not stop with our neighbours but with each of us.

It must be stated that the success of the plastic bag tax in reducing the volume of plastic bags used in the country has been a turning point in making us all more aware and responsible. When I go into shops now, I do not accept the bag. Someone should tell people in shops. I went in this morning to get some birthday cards and exam congratulation cards and was offered a bag. We must be disciplined about such things. There is a large quantity of envelopes and packaging in my bin this morning, and we must understand that that is a problem.

I welcome the Protection of the Environment Bill as a further step on the road to addressing the lapses of the past and, I hope, contributing to the rebuilding of the environment to levels that we took for granted less than 30 years ago. The polluter pays principle is probably the only way forward. In keeping with the commitments to the EU, I note that we are effecting substantial compliance with the community-wide directive system of integrated pollution prevention and control. While our development may be lagging behind that of some fellow members in certain areas of environmental protection, we must catch up fast, even if that requires some short-term pain, either in financial cost or personal practices. This country can benefit from best-practice policies from Europe and further afield – for example, Australia – without having to rewrite or reinvent them. The adoption of such policies as performance targets will be a clear signal that we care as a community and that, despite massive changes over the last six years or so, we have not forgotten our responsibility to future generations. Previous generations worked hard and long to provide us with what we have today, and we must not squander the environment for those in the future.

I commend the work of the Environmental Protection Agency, which, since its establishment in 1992, has played a serious role in protecting the environment. On occasions it gets undeserved stick – it is providing an excellent service within the resources available to it. I trust that the amendments to this Bill regarding licences and the vital area of impact studies will strengthen its enforcement position. I also acknowledge the impact of the national recycling strategy and the extensive physical resources expended to date in making that happen. From the early difficulties, we in Dublin at least are aware of our green bins and making use of them. In the South Dublin County Council area, 68,750 will have now been delivered to households by the end of June 2003. The remainder will be delivered and in place before the end of the year.

I hope that the cost of recycled paper – for example, the photocopying paper of which we in this House appear to use so much and for which we pay a 16% premium over the cost of standard paper – will be reduced when the volumes recycled increase or the equipment used advances. Like every other colleague, I sometimes marvel at what is expected of us regarding copying and distribution. We have all become aware of it, and I try to be conscious of it. When I go about my business in Tallaght, Firhouse, Templeogue and Greenhills, people say to me that I have forgotten to send a letter or that, while I had telephoned them, they would have preferred a letter. It is an interesting phenomenon. I have already made the point that every day, like everyone else, I get a large quantity of mail at home, at my council office and at my full-time office in Tallaght. Then I come here to find another load. One wonders about it. Every piece of mail is important, and I take the view that I should open everything and have a look at it. I wonder where the paper is going and what we are doing. They say that the job is not finished until the paperwork is done.

As a Member, I welcome the facilitation of recycling industrial and heavy product packaging by industry for its customers. On a recent visit to an electrical superstore in Tallaght – I suppose that I am not allowed to mention it, but everyone knows where it is and who the people are – there were large posters indicating the store's willingness to recycle the more than ample packaging in which its products are sold. I look forward to the day when all consumer goods, such as furniture, fridges, cookers and electrical goods, will be disposed of and recycled by the suppliers of the new replacements.

As I said, I have been a member of South Dublin County Council or its predecessor for a total of 12 years, and during that time I have seen the implementation of the local and regional waste management plans. I have seen where the kerbside collection of the green bins is widespread. The brilliant facilities of bottle banks are of course widely utilised, and the setting up of the baling station near the Greenhills Road in my constituency was also an important part of those developments. All those achievements have had their detractors over the years, and we have all made representations ensuring that the needs and concerns of our constituents are addressed. While we are still trying to overcome local difficulties, it is important that we understand their needs in this modern world.

Waste charges are a sort of "damned if you do and damned if you don't" issue, and I was amused to hear Deputy Broughan making the point – he did not include my friends from the Progressive Democrats, but I am sure that he meant them – that the local elections will be a bloodbath next year. I do not take that view, for people throughout the country and certainly in my constituency will vote for Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats candidates on the basis of—

Is the Deputy afraid of the Progressive Democrats candidates?

There is no strong person in Tallaght, so I can speak with confidence. I am sorry about that.

It is important that people can vote for politicians who will be brave and take decisions rather than shirk responsibility. Such politicians will stand by their communities. It is fine to make outrageous demands and promises, as some colleagues do, if one does not get the job done. Those of us who are more responsible always get the job done.

The politically charged debates on waste charges and the lack of uniformity in declaring charges around the country only serve to underline the real message: if we had less waste we would have lower charges. On a future occasion I will seek to influence the direction of the waste charges fixed against present targets. We are reducing targets for waste over the following three years with a corresponding reduction in the waste charge. The message should be loud and clear on charges. This is not a tax but a charge for the disposal of our waste and the level of that charge is directly related to the level of activity necessary to dispose of our waste. The publication of revenues and exact expenditures of this charge will be an essential part of the communication and education process.

Likewise, each council should have a three-year plan outlining its strategic approach and targets, showing costs in advance as well as the charges, including the most important provision – if targets are met, the charge will go down. Such a plan would be a clear indication of where we, as consumers, and the council, as a facilitator of waste disposal, need to meet our aims and targets for those reductions to take effect.

The Bill touches on many other important areas and on later occasions we will have the opportunity to discuss them. As I said at a meeting the other night, I do seven advice clinics per week and people talk to me about the many issues that are important to them and which they need to impact on Government. I am happy to play my role in that regard but my calls and mail are about people's bins going missing, being vandalised or being gobbled up by machinery. Those of us who want to be serious politicians, talking here about the economy, world peace and so on, are brought back to basics every time by our consumers, our constituents. They want to talk about their environment, why their bins are not collected on time, the bin lorry being unable to come up the road because someone's car is in its way or the need for young people to be told not to throw their lollipops on the street. It is brought home to us that as politicians we are public servants who must respond to the needs of our constituents.

The rest of the country is like Tallaght – people want to talk about keeping their area tidy. It pleases them to see the roads swept and litter cleared, as that conveys a positive message. The Bill deals with this and it is important to support it. I commend it to the House and I wish the Minister and Minister of State well. I hope colleagues pass this Bill, which is good legislation.

This important legislation is quite detailed and it will take some time to go through the regulations it will impose. I welcome many of the regulations but I am very anxious about others, particularly the withdrawal of power from local government. The Bill gives a lot of power to executives and while I have great faith in the majority of them, it is a retrograde step to give so much power for decisions and charges to those executives. It is an effort by the Government to use a backdoor method to raise funds it is unable to provide. This is not a party view but my own opinion, though I intend to discuss it within my party.

We have had a litany of additional charges recently in different ways. Has the Government looked at how much those increases yield? Would a 1% increase in taxation for those with incomes do the same? Waste charges, for example, are imposed on everyone – widows, the handicapped and so on – and in the majority of cases there is no proper means of redress for them. In our county only €25,000 is allocated per year for refunds and that is for desperate cases.

It is great to be able to say taxes have been lowered to a certain level. I see one of my Progressive Democrats colleagues here and they will say they led the way on that, though the Minister for Finance will say the same. However, in the past 12 months many indirect taxes have been imposed and those affect people who find it hard to pay them.

I hear what the Deputy is saying but we are targeting those people—

We can argue this at another stage. An ESB or television licence increase hits everyone, regardless of whether they have an income.

I do not expect an answer now, but how much has it cost the Government and taxpayers to deal with the export of our waste for the past 12 months or five years? While some Members, no matter what side of the House they are on, oppose everything, they do not take into account what it costs us as taxpayers to deal with some issues.

In 1977 votes were purchased by abolishing rates on houses and now the Government must raise other funds. When speakers compare our waste management systems to those of other countries, they forget to inform us that those countries have rates or other household charges.

I welcome some provisions in the Bill. Fines are increased and powers widened. However, regarding the EPA's fees, I warn the Minister that many intensive farm units, raising pigs and so on, will go out of business if the charges I am hearing about are actually imposed. It is the same for small industries. We need to be very careful in this regard.

The Bill provides for a new variation or replacement of a waste management plan to become an executive function rather than a reserved function, which is the position at present. Again, this means powers are being handed over. I appreciate the difficulties involved but I visited the Isle of Man recently, where waste has been dealt with in a constructive way by elected representatives and they accepted the need for a positive and structured approach. Removing power from elected members may be a short-term gain for the Minister but it will provoke an unnecessary reaction.

If elected representatives are not answerable, they can easily take a different view to the one they might otherwise have taken. New powers are being given to local authorities to impose charges, something about which I am worried. As we have seen, sometimes local authorities are not economical and not the best administrators. If they can increase charges based on books they produce, those charges may become very high. I would like to see some political control.

I mentioned the need for a rebate for those who could not afford to pay. The Bill removes any obligation on local authorities to collect household waste from a person if he or she fails to pay a relevant waste charge. I would not stand behind anyone who can afford to pay a waste charge but an out-clause is needed for those who are genuinely hard up and have difficulty meeting this requirement.

I mentioned lack of efficiency where county councils and local authorities are in charge of waste collection. Efficiency structures are needed to ensure waste is collected at minimal cost. If, as the Bill states, we are to make sure the polluter pays, we need to ensure the polluter only pays for what is justified, not wasteful management.

I mention the situation in my county where I am still a county councillor. I was involved in organising the present landfill site at a time when it was quite difficult for the county council to acquire such facilities. I pay tribute to the farmers and neighbours who facilitated it in acquiring the site, which was difficult. It is now one of the best in the country and operated in a proper manner.

County Monaghan material recovery facility and civic amenity centre has led to a reduction in annual tonnage because it utilises as much as possible of what can be recycled. This new facility was built by Monaghan County Council and is leased out. This is the way forward. This year the council introduced kerbside collections for dry material and has increased the number of bring banks. It has also sold 400 compost units, which figure will increase dramatically at this time of year. The introduction of packaging laws has also had a marked effect.

One of our local contractors, McElvaney Waste and Recycling, was the first in Ireland to charge by weight. In spite of what others have said, this is a step forward. The contractor supplies two bins – a blue one for papers, etc., which is collected once a month, and a green one, which is weighed and collected each week. After six months this has led to a reduction of 30% in what the contractors places in landfill. Some 70% of customers will see a reduction in what is forecast on their bills this year. This is a positive move and shows what can be done. It is the way forward.

I compare the above contractor to one which does not have a weighing facility and charged an aged couple €133 in 2002 and is looking for €280 this year. That sort of increase is untenable and unrealistic and the reason I said I am not happy with some of the provisions of the Bill. It shows what can be forced on those who cannot afford to pay.

Grants have been paid to the new material recovery unit for further machines, which I welcome. However, it will still cost a lot of money because there is little return on most recycled products. We must realise recycling will have to be paid for. Anyone who says recycling will cut costs is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. I question the Government charge of €15 per tonne in landfill sites because no grant is available to contractors to update their equipment and minimise costs. We have to look at the overall picture and make sure the system works at minimum cost.

I return to the issue of managers being given so much control. When we dealt with this year's estimates at the county council, the two issues which caused the most difficulty were the possible removal of disability grants and a massive increase in landfill charges. Following discussions and negotiations over two days, essential funding for the disability grant, which many counties do not offer, was agreed as was a realistic pricing structure for waste and household charges. That is an example of democracy at work and the reason the Bill is flawed in that it removes power from local elected representatives who are answerable to the people. While I am not against waste charges, I am against setting them at a level the ordinary punter cannot afford and which, in many cases, is totally unjustified.

The number objecting to once-off houses and small housing developments is a major problem. Last week we talked about the amount of paper we receive but I received a nine page planning document relating to small housing units in regard to which the requirements being imposed are extraordinary. There are 20 different requirements and a charge of over €100,000. These indirect and hidden charges are in place. There seems to be a trend of trying to stop once-off housing. While the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, has made good speeches about this issue, it is time to walk the walk and make regulations to ensure once-off housing is a right, not something to be blocked.

The CLÁR programme was introduced to try to improve the lot of areas seriously depopulated over the last 100 years or since the foundation of the State, 80 odd years ago. If regulations are not introduced to ensure farmers' sons or daughters or those brought up in a small house at the bottom of a field who want to live in their area have that right, we face a serious problem. By chance I spoke to somebody from County Leitrim this morning. They advised me of one person who was constantly objecting to once-off houses. This person came from abroad to live in our country. While we welcome everybody with open arms provided they behave, this person does not want anyone living near him. I do not believe we should allow this to continue and we must make sure that people who want to live in rural areas, especially those who have been born and reared in them, are allowed to do so. There should not be a single law applying to counties surrounding Dublin, such as Wicklow, Kildare and Meath, and counties such as Cavan, Monaghan, Leitrim, etc. Circumstances are different in the latter counties.

Sometimes people are told that they have to sign an order if they get two houses while somebody else can get nine or ten. This issue must be examined as well. I will be following up on this legislation to try make sure that the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, and his Government colleagues bring about a workable system.

I am a farmer and the issue of farm waste is close to my heart. There is a need for considerable consultation and for co-operation between my county council and the farmers in the area. Farmers want to be as helpful as possible if they can afford to be. They are the last people who would want to create problems. One of our best-known farmers in the country was brought to court recently by the fisheries board and fined €25. The judge told him he was sorry he had to do this but that he had no choice under law and that he felt the farmer had done everything he possibly could have done. Then the farmer was made pay a further €3,500, approximately, in costs. The most frightening thing of all is that he may lose his REPS payments and other grants as well. Compare the case of this farmer to that of the drug addicts being ignored by the gardaí in Dublin city, as shown in the papers and on television recently.

We need to have a responsible attitude. It is well and good to increase fines but if we are to have a meaningful role, we must ensure that proper grant aid is made available. An application form based on the present system was issued recently. It has about 30 pages and no farmer can fill it in to apply for a grant without first employing a consultant. This is unacceptable. We must simplify this form, ensure that there is co-operation between the farmers, the councils and the fisheries board and make a genuine effort. Something serious will have to be done to address the issues concerning the amount of money being paid out on farm waste management and the drop in farmers' incomes.

I checked the figures and noticed that just 2% of our energy resources are renewable. We have to meet a 10% deadline by 2010. Since I became a Member of this House I have been involved, in conjunction with former Deputy Andrew Boylan and Deputy O'Hanlon, in trying to establish a biomass plant in County Monaghan to deal with farmyard waste. This issue has become a major emotional problem. We need to consider all the issues properly and deal with them on a case-by-case basis and not get them mixed up with others that may cause problems.

I am not involved in planning permission in any way. The structures exist to deal with it but I hope that we will examine it in a more realistic way in the not too distant future. Fine Gael policy is very clear. The party demands that everything possible be done to make sure that recycling, etc., is used to the full and that incineration of the type of waste in question is a final measure. The EU is trying to encourage the use of biomass plants. It is giving 7.5 cent per kilowatt in grant aid in this respect. I do not believe it would do so if it thought this would cause any problem. If we are to deal with the waste problem at farm and local levels, we should address the issues in a proper and constructive way, even if we are not doing so today.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Fiona O'Malley.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I am not sure who is responsible for the titles of Bills but the political slant given to some of them can be misleading. I felt the Freedom of Information Bill should have been called the "access to information Bill". The same applies to the Ethics in Public Office Act, which should have been called the "registration of interests Act". The Protection of the Environment Bill 2003 should be called the "environmental licensing Bill 2003". The names of the Bills make it difficult for people to oppose them because it could appear in the media that they are against, for example, the protection of the environment, freedom of information or ethics in public office. Inappropriate titles can put an unfortunate and unnecessary slant on debates. I criticised those who initiated the Freedom of Information Bill on these grounds.

Consider the country-wide campaigns associated with bin charges. It is grossly irresponsible for people to encourage the non-payment of bin tax because there are, as Deputies will be aware, many people who allow themselves to get into considerable debt. In many cases, they are not fully aware of the implications of their debts. For example, accumulated arrears could restrict them in the transfer of ownership or in respect of new tenancies. The people who are leading the campaigns against bin charges are not communicating responsibly with the people they purport to represent.

A number of posters with my name on them went up about two or three years ago in my constituency and they referred to me as "Barry Bin Tax Andrews". I am not sure what the thinking behind this was but I was being blamed for the bin tax in the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown area although it had European origins and was based on national legislation.

The Bill originated from the polluter pays principle, the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 and the Waste Management Act 1996. One of its more controversial aspects concerns the county managers' powers to fix charges, a point to which many of the Members have referred. The Waste Management Act 1996 was introduced by the then Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Howlin, of the Labour Party. The Act brought into law the principle that the polluter must pay for such waste as he or she produces. That was noble and laudable and won the support of many Members. When it became law, I am sure he thought that some of the Labour Party county councillors might agree to support waste charges at a local level. My experience in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, since I became a public representative in 1999, is that none of them has had the courage to support at local level what the party introduced at national level. The same applies in Dublin City Council. Difficult political decisions must be made and it is our duty to ensure there is a fair charge and that this principle is introduced locally as well as nationally.

Those who criticise waste charges refer to them as double taxation. This is misleading. Taxation, income tax or indirect tax is designed to ensure there is provision in society for infrastructural development and to ensure social welfare is sufficient for those who cannot afford to look after themselves. This taxation is different from the taxation envisaged in the Act introduced by the Labour Party, the Waste Management Act. Its core principle is that it will discourage the creation of waste. It is different from income tax and indirect taxation. People are being misled and it is unfair that those misleading them should get away with it.

One aspect of the Bill is the effort to control litter management. The people who campaigned vigorously against bin charges are putting up cardboard or paper posters without a licence and without complying with legislation. On the few occasions I have organised public meetings I have ensured I have a licence to put up posters and have complied with the terms of that licence, including the requirement that no public meeting poster should be erected near traffic junctions. These requirements are blatantly ignored by people campaigning, purportedly, to protect the environment and abolish bin charges. Ironically they are creating the litter these provisions are designed to eradicate.

In regard to the county manager's control of waste charges I refer to the experience in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown where every year we expend a lot of energy on debate over the waste charge. Initially the charge was £150 and it has now gone up to €275, a year on year increase of 16%. It has been difficult to sell this to the public but we have managed to roll out an exciting environmental programme and there is large scale compliance with that system. The polluter pays principle, on which there has been wide consultation, is widely accepted. Unfortunately, it has not won support from members of the Labour Party in the area and the difficulties this poses every year have made it difficult for the county council to introduce the charges at a fair level. The charge of €275 is hard to stomach but it is lower than in many areas. It is likely that the charge will increase over the years because the cost of waste management in our area is huge. We have 56,000 green bins in the county, each costing €80 to deliver. It is important we acknowledge these huge charges.

Deputy Crawford mentioned the provision whereby a local authority does not have to extend services to those who fail to pay. I agree that we need to incorporate into the legislation a provision that will cater for hardship cases and hope sensible provisions in that regard are proposed by Government on Committee Stage. Some people have genuine problems in paying and they need to be protected by way of legislation. As some local authorities might take it upon themselves to apply the legislation strictly we must ensure that there is some flexibility to alleviate difficulties.

One of the interesting aspects of the Bill is the provision relating to trans-boundary emissions. This is significant in regard to Sellafield because the EPA is entitled to submit to competent authorities in other EU member states comments it may have about emissions from activities that may affect Ireland. I hope the Government will continue its strong campaign against the continued use of Sellafield and that the Environmental Protection Agency will use this new device to make clear to the British authorities that the radioactive limits applying in the Irish Sea are being breached by the activities of Sellafield. It is also important that we pursue our various cases under the OSPAR agreement and at The Hague.

The aspect of the Bill concerning oral hearings is welcome. It broadens the Bill's democratic basis and allows members of the public to challenge any issuing of a licence or conditions of the issuing of a licence. The availability of an oral hearing and the extension of time in which to apply for it are welcome.

I have not had an opportunity to listen to much of the debate on the Bill. My main concern is the development that the best available techniques are to be an acceptable basis for the granting of a licence rather than the best available technology not entailing excessive costs. We have had numerous debates in the House about rights extended to people that may involve great cost. We have been able to find a way forward by accepting that sometimes there are excessive costs attached to a licence. In this case we have decided to go hell for leather to protect the environment. This is laudable but I am concerned by how it will impact generally in the State.

Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown is possibly the most densely populated county in Ireland. It has brilliant natural amenities, with the Dublin mountains on one side and the sea on the other. However it is very much a suburban county. I am encouraged that Part 4 of the Bill increases powers granted to the local authority in regard to the Litter Pollution Act, including to increase fines.

Last week the OECD produced a report favourable to Ireland's performance in relation to environmental protection and particularly waste management. Unfortunately, this report did not receive public attention. However, it was encouraging. In the few years I have been involved in politics great improvements have been made in the roll-out of the green bin system, our green business network in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, the school programmes and various other provisions. There is no quick fix. We hope to leave the environment as we found it and this Bill goes some way towards encouraging that.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. At last we have before us a Bill which is bold and courageous in terms of how it will deal with the problems of environmental damage. Waste management has been allowed to develop into a particularly political problem, more so than in any of our European neighbours. Most other European countries have a sense of responsibility in this area, have embraced waste management strategies and have worked on waste minimisation, which is the key to such strategies. They have also put in place sophisticated waste recycling systems which we can only envy. All that we have to offer is landfill.

The European experience shows us that the waste management crisis can be dealt with in a sane and sensible way and this Bill will help us to enter the European mainstream. However, the issue has been dogged by political opportunism to the detriment of all. The tendency has been to play on people's fears and there has been too great a willingness to follow rather than lead on this issue.

We have a serious problem and must recognise that. We currently export much waste in addition to putting it into landfill. We landfill greater quantities than any of our EU counterparts, have a disgraceful record in terms of waste reduction and recycling – we must make efforts to increase this – and have not secured public support for viable alternatives to landfill, the greatest failure of the political class in Irish society. Waste volumes are growing, largely due to economic expansion. Even taking into account possible slower growth over the next few years, significant volumes of waste will require treatment. How are we to dispose of it?

The polluter pays principle is fundamental to European waste management policy and to this Bill. It is a principle designed to ensure behavioural change, most clearly evidenced in the tax on plastic bags, and is one that I, my party and most other parties in the House support. Parties which have had the responsibility of governing over the past decade subscribe to this principle. Despite this, the debate demonstrates that there are parties willing to ditch the polluter pays principle when it suits them. The Labour Party's policy document states that it is past time we had a comprehensive and efficient waste management infrastructure, based on the principles of sustainable development and polluter pays. Deputy Andrews has just referred to how, at a local level, the Labour Party has failed to live up to this policy.

Historically, the issue of waste management has been fudged by politicians. Successive Administrations have failed to seize the initiative and take difficult decisions. I applaud the Government for bringing forward this Bill which will lead to the taking of such decisions. We need to recognise that landfill is poisoning our country and is no longer a solution. In any case, it is an option which is no longer available to us as a result of European directives.

Many Members who have served on local authorities appreciate the level of public disquiet in regard to waste issues. It is disingenuous of the Labour Party to attempt to exaggerate the disquiet with suggestions that this Bill would have incinerators in every back yard and would introduce waste charges of €700 per household. EU environmental policy requires us to implement the polluter pays principle. The Labour Party gives the impression that were it in power, it would abolish waste charges. While I challenge that party to indicate during this debate whether that is the case, the reality is that the Labour Party would not be entitled to do so. It is grossly unfair that the Opposition, particularly the Labour Party, is trying to suggest that the situation would be different under a different Administration – it is simply not the case.

Section 22 of the Bill gives local authorities explicit powers to discontinue the collection of domestic waste in the event of non-payment of a waste charge, a bold and courageous move. At present, householders who flout the law and refuse to pay charges continue to have their waste collected, which is unfair, especially for those who make the effort to segregate their waste.

The Bill will also reward householders who recycle by charging on a weight basis, a measure which cannot come in early enough. We need to provide incentives to behavioural change through measures such as charging, to ensure that people reduce the volume of waste produced, and I look forward to assessing the scheme currently being piloted by Cork County Council. My council, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, has been told that such measures are on the way, and the sooner the better.

Another scare tactic which has been used by the Opposition – the Labour Party in particular – is the suggestion that an old-age pensioner who only produces a single bag of waste will be faced with a €700 charge. That is not the case as the charge will be calculated by weight, and there will always be a waiver targeted specifically at those who are unable to pay. The Bill does not seek to bankrupt anybody but to halt the damage currently being done to the environment by the continued fudging of this issue.

The Opposition has also jumped on the "power to local government" bandwagon, claiming that this Bill is damaging to the democratic process in transferring powers from councillors to an executive function. While I have a certain sympathy with this, councillors are not being left out of decision making in regard to waste charges. Instead, the Bill requires councillors to rise to the challenge of setting a rate. It has been easy to play political football with regard to waste charges. As Deputy Andrews stated in regard to the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, the Labour Party has never supported a waste charge.

While councillors will always have an input into setting waste charges, they will be required to have a responsible attitude to this.

I wish to enter a caveat that the county manager must request of the local authority a reasonable charge. However, the Bill will deliver progress in an area which has been bedevilled by failure and inertia to date, and I applaud it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I call Deputy Burton.

She might answer some of the questions raised.

Why not?

I should be grateful that Deputy Fiona O'Malley has such an interest in the Labour Party. Perhaps it marks a political progression.

Know one's enemy.

It was interesting that she used the term "the political class". Both she and Deputy Andrews are distinguished members of the political class in that they are descended from distinguished politicians. Members such as the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, Deputy O'Dowd and I have made it on our own and do not have much class in that sense. However, I have views.

We have the power of the people.

We are the new generation.

While I am discussing aristocrats, I wish to remind Deputy Fiona O'Malley, before she gets carried away and I begin to think she resembles the Bourbons—

The Deputy should take it easy.

—-that the debacle in regard to local authority charges for services goes back to the unwise decisions made in 1977 by Fianna Fáil and, in particular, by the former Minister and subsequent member of her party, Mr. Martin O'Donoghue, to offer auction politics of the worst and lowest kind when a poor rates system was made the point of the auctioneering during that general election campaign. In many ways, local government has never recovered from what the Government did to it. People in every political party recognise and acknowledge that. While Deputy Fiona O'Malley looks at the Labour Party, she may as well look back to her own party's history and own up to some of the mistakes to which they were party.

Mistakes were made.

What about the Waste Management Act?

The Deputy and Deputy Fiona O' Malley saw fit to level charges against the Labour Party, which is their prerogative. However, I have a right to introduce the historical background to the introduction of charges. It relates to Fianna Fáil's decisions to have auction politics of the worst kind in 1977 and, at a stroke, abolish the financial basis of local government in Ireland. That is a historical fact.

In this year's budget the Government, in its sixth year in office, introduced a series of stealth taxes and charges. At the back of his budget document, the Minister for Finance introduced a couple called Duncan and Mary as examples of people who benefit from the budget. What the Government failed to tell Duncan and Mary was that, once the Government was back in harness, they would be hit with a series of swingeing taxes, ranging from increased registration fees for third level colleges, increased ESB and telephone charges, VAT increases, extra taxes on credit cards and, in particular, significant additional charges for refuse collection.

The Minister makes no secret of the fact that he is seeking to effectively restore the financial equivalent of rates by the back door. My colleague, Deputy Gilmore, has correctly estimated that, as a consequence of this Bill, we will have full-cost charges for waste for every household and landfill operators will be obliged to make full-cost charges for landfill. In counties where landfill services have been privatised, the charges are already well over €400. In Meath, the charges are over €400. Although the costs in Dublin are high, particularly for those on a lower income, compared to the rest of the country, the charges levied in the cities have been kept at about €200 to €300.

A regime is being set in place in this Bill, whereby, within a few years, the equivalent of the old rates charge will be back on every household and we will see the Government levying charges on households in regard to waste and other services of at least €600, and probably up to €1,000. That is the plan from the Custom House. If the Labour Party has made that plain to people, in the context of a Government which is devoted to deceit and subterfuge, we are doing people a democratic service. If people want to know what they will be asked to pay, it is good that the Labour Party tells them.

Why should waste collection and dealing with landfills and waste management be part of the public services? The one reason, above all else, is health and safety. Many people in Ireland do not have a particularly well-developed sense of civic responsibility. A minority of individuals and businesses are often completely unscrupulous in regard to implementing their civic and social responsibilities. The waste problem is one of those areas.

I will not go into all that has been revealed in he past few years in regard to private and illegal dumping in County Wicklow and the area on the border between Fingal County Council and Dublin City Council. Anyone who follows local authority matters must be concerned with how private operators have behaved in regard to waste. Wicklow is one of our premier tourism counties with a vastly important agricultural resource and an amenity for people on the east coast, including Dublin. The most dangerous practices have been carried on, including the dumping of highly dangerous material. One of the reasons the Labour Party feels it is appropriate that waste management and collection should remain a public service is that although people may from time to time be critical of services provided through the public service and that sometimes they might not be everything one would wish for, nonetheless, when it comes to safety and the public interest, it has an excellent record of ensuring that safety and public interest considerations are properly served.

Who does the Deputy suggest is taking it away?

The agenda is to privatise it.

It is not.

The Minister of State knows as well as I do that a huge number of local authorities outside Dublin have already privatised their waste management services.

By democratic decision of the local representatives.

It has been forced on the councillors in most instances.

By people who will not accept responsibility themselves.

The record of enforcement of regulations in the private sector is exceptionally poor. In my constituency, a lorry with a curtain-wall side was driven at speed through a built-up area with casks of nitric acid sitting on top of a pallet. Does anyone stop lorries to check what is happening? Only through divine providence was a major accident avoided. The barrels fell off beside a large primary school, a roundabout and a pedestrian crossing, which hundreds of children use when leaving the school. That is the record of enforcement in this State. Therefore, the argument for privatising waste, part of the Government's agenda, carries a real risk to the public.

The polluter pays principle in most of Europe focuses primarily on industry because it is the major generator of surplus packaging and needless waste. When I do my weekly shopping in a supermarket, I spend half an hour when I arrive home disposing of the surplus boxes and packaging, an experience common to every family in the State. What does the Government do about this? Absolutely nothing.

After calling for the measure for six years, the former Minister for the Environment and Local Government in the dying days before the general election introduced the levy on plastic bags. It was accepted and endorsed universally. We have asked consistently for a refundable charge on bottles and cans. Similarly, where fast food outlets use non-recyclable materials, there should be a specific additional charge like the tax on plastic bags that could be put to environmental use. That would be imaginative but imagination seems beyond the Government. The only creativity it displays is the changing of Departments' names and titles of Bills.

Deputy Fiona O'Malley is in denial about the impact of charges on old age pensioners. I received a letter on Wednesday from an old age pensioner with a small ESB pension who, as a consequence, is charged the full amount by the council, there is no waiver system.

It is up to the council to amend it.

That council's manager and its members have not chosen to do so.

In Dublin city people do not pay if they earn less than €30,000.

Contrary to Deputy O'Malley's assertion, old age pensioners are badly affected by this tax. In many councils the charge is a flat fee that bears no relationship to the waste a person produces or the number of times he or she puts a bin out. In Fingal we have a variation of this, whereby the green bin is free and tags are purchased for the black bin. That means that an old age pensioner might only put the bin out once every two weeks at most. Automatically, a pensioner who produces a limited amount of waste does not have to pay the full yearly charge. At least Fingal County Council has made some attempt to take usage into account and encourage people to recycle by giving the green bin for free. Many local authorities, including Dublin City Council, make no attempt to do anything like this.

Dublin City Council does. It charges a lower price for smaller bins – two sides to the one coin.

The systems in operation in many counties force people who live on their own or on low income, who generate a low amount of waste, to pay the full amount.

Why does the Government only apply the polluter pays principle to households which have limited control over the amount of waste they receive as consumers? In recent years some shops will allow the return of packaging from major white goods but it is a restricted service and a person needs to be aware of his or her rights to know it can be returned and must have transport to be able to bring it back. Some bring centres have been developed but they are on a very small scale and their establishment has been very slow.

I have looked at the structure of Repak and I am totally unimpressed. Large elements are window dressing on behalf of industry and do not constitute serious, continuous availability and encouragement of members to recycle and offer their customers the opportunity to reduce waste at the point of purchase, receipt or delivery. That is the critical issue.

There has been much debate on society's problems with drink but there is also a major problem with the packaging in which alcohol is served. There should be a charge on bottles and cans that should be refunded when they are returned for recycling, particularly aluminium cans, which are exceptionally expensive in environmental terms. Because of the power of the drinks lobby and the publicans, however, with the Government and Taoiseach, who is opening pubs continuously, there have been no moves to make the pub trade and the drinks industry face up to their responsibilities.

The Bill offers the green light to incineration. It is depressing that the Minister's attitude to incineration is formed by a commercial lobby – firms of consulting engineers and private investors who want to develop incineration as a commercial proposition. Their influence is out of all proportion to what incineration would do for the State. Incineration is old fashioned technology. We should be looking at the most up-to-date technology, as we did 20 years ago with the telephone system.

I welcome any legislation that will help to conserve our environment which is what this Bill will do. It was amusing to listen to Deputy Burton being so enthusiastic about non-existent charges that she says should be put on bottles and cans but so deeply opposed to charges that are in place and applied. If we follow the logic of the polluter pays, the approach adopted by the former Minister, Deputy Howlin, it would come down to the individual paying, but it does not suit the Labour Party to admit to that.

It is grossly misleading to suggest that the Repak effort has failed. Since the end of March, draconian laws have been introduced for industry and commercial outlets which use packaging. The threat of going to jail and paying a fine of over €1 million is a serious matter. We should not mislead the public.

On the question of health and safety, more has been done in safeguarding the environment over the past four years than in the previous 40. I agree with the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government when he said in his opening speech that without a strong framework of rules and regulations, we will not achieve the environment quality to which we aspire and the Government has been committed.

We have a beautiful country, but we must protect it. At times we undersell it and criticise ourselves too much. I am an amateur trout fisherman and have travelled to every valley with a bit of a stream in it throughout counties Cork and Kerry.

The Deputy should be careful not to wander too far into Kerry.

I have seen the best of our environment and I want it protected. However, I also want to ensure that criticisms of our environment are fair. We have an amazing topography and a variety of natural features in which other countries would dearly delight. It is important to work at protecting that natural environment and that there is legislation for licences to control river discharges and so on.

There is a danger – Deputy Boyle has criticised it at Cork City Council – in regard to the number of licences granted for discharging in the River Lee. Seven or eight years ago, there was no need for a licence. It is not helping the issue, when we put legislation in place with requirements, to criticise the fact that people apply for these licences. It is about controlling these activities. What we need to do is update the licences and the relevant fines and charges on a regular basis. We have been slow in the past in that regard.

If I was a farmer or working in an environmental-related area, I would find it difficult to keep up with all the legislation in this regard. It is time we had consolidation of a number of Acts. At times when an Act is appealed, there is reference to ten different Acts, some even going back to the 1890s such as with a railway Bill. We should constantly update and, as far as possible, amalgamate the legislation to allow people to comply with it and not spend time researching to see if they are within the rules and guidelines. I have discussed this in other areas, but in particular on environmental controls.

We get carried away with our criticisms of environmental policy. All of us refer back, particularly the older Members, to drinking at an open spring in a field and how great the environment was 40 years ago with the hot summers and so on. However, I venture to say that there was never a test for the quality of the water in any of those springs to see if they were contaminated or the cattle in the field paid a visit. After the fair, held in almost every town, there were far more dangerous residues left outside people's doors than is left now in litter. People still look back, however, and say things were far better then. Our new-found affluence has created problems which we can identify and measure. We do not have to do it in a historic fashion, but rather in a positive way and pay tribute to and recognise the changes that are taking place and the improved environment.

I refer to the clár of the environmental committee of Cork Corporation last week as one example. It is worth noting some of the issues contained in it. For the past 50 years or more, we simply discharged waste waters into the River Lee. It was criminal and I remember arguing with a former city manager on the condition of the Lee. He stated that the north and south channels of the river were dead. That was an indictment of us as public representatives. I worked with Ministers, battling for funding both here and in Europe, to redress that situation. We are now spending an approximate fund of €250 million, from central and European sources, to deal with waste discharges. As part of Cork City Council, I went abroad to see similar problems and their solutions. I saw, before treatment, the concentrated discharge for a city with the same population size as Cork. I remarked when I returned that if the people of Cork had seen that type of waste water discharged into the river at Ford's Dock, there would have been an immediate uproar.

In the committee report there is a list of completed contracts for interceptor sewers which have gone outside the greater Cork area. The treatment plant in Carrigrenan at Little Island is practically complete. All the final work on the drainage scheme will be done over the next ten or 12 months. If we did nothing else during my time in local government, at least this is the project that made my time on the city council worthwhile. For three years, the work was complicated, costly and highly disruptive when roads had to be dug up in the city centre. However, from an environmental viewpoint, we cannot measure the benefits it will bring. We would have to collect much more litter before we would compensate for the waste going into the river.

Another item on the agenda is the conservation of waste water. It appears 40% of the distributed water was being lost. That is now rectified and there is €8.3 million for an improvement scheme throughout Cork city. The matter of the low level rising mains and various others relating to water were to do with conservation, but all were funded from central funds while we complain that we have to raise a small amount of money locally by way of service charges. It is interesting to read in the report the improvements that are taking place. We do not often pay tribute to the achievements.

It is not long ago since the introduction of wheelie bins in Cork city. I remember people protesting that they would be awkward and could not be stored – all negative criticisms. From the litter control point of view, it was the single most important aspect of waste treatment that would happen in the city. Instead of having a team of sweepers following every collection truck around the city, we now have a positive situation where one would not even know that the refuse had been collected as the place is so clean afterwards.

These are important steps and I am happy that they have been taken.

We have only one landfill in Cork city which is on the Kinsale Road. A major report has indicated improvements and stated that contracts are 99% completed, but there are problems with leechiate lagoons and storm water collection points. A colleague recently stated to me that only 73% of leechiate is being collected while it is still being worked on. I had to make the simple point to him that a few years back nothing was collected and that 100% of the leechiate went into the Tramore River to be carried around the Douglas Estuary to pollute the whole area. This is costly. I was told ten years ago when I took over as chairman of the solid waste management committee of the then Cork Corporation that we would get no central funding for improvement works. We are now receiving between €15 million and €16 million. These are all positive steps and we should record them lest they be glossed over.

The issues of refuse collection and the separation of paper and cardboard are being dealt with. A number of bring sites have been established and a second new civic amenity site is being funded from central funds. I am receiving feedback from a number of European countries which were enthusiastic about recycling and whose modus operandi I have studied. Some of them are saying that difficulties are arising with mountains of recycled material which is not being reused. I am 100% committed to recycling and we must keep an eye on that.

There have been positive developments in street cleaning and litter management as we have been given funding to mechanise our facilities. There are 17 or 18 extra sweepers available in Cork city centre. Litter wardens are paying particular attention to chewing gum, dog fouling and cigarette butts which are a major component of litter and about which there is currently an advertising campaign regarding their disposal. I feel particularly strongly about fly posting which has been mentioned by several speakers here. In the historical Shandon area of Cork city outside contractors had to be employed recently at a cost of €10,000 to clear the pasted on fly posting which had taken place. I can think of a wide range of items I would prefer to spend that money on. The officials of Cork City Council do a magnificent job, but I am critical of the failure to pursue prosecutions regarding fly posters. It has been illegal to paste on posters for the past six or seven years, but some of the people involved are so arrogant that their recruiting station is mentioned on their posters. Despite this, no action has been taken. My party, Fianna Fáil, was fined for leaving up a poster in the county after a general election and a Fine Gael colleague on the city council was fined in a Waterford court for a poster relating to the European elections. It appears that it is the compliant political parties who are pursued and I worry that it is not a global rule. We must deal with the matter. It is not good enough to have to spend money every couple of months to clean up each city. The environmental public speaking competition run by Cork City Council was very positive.

I bring to the attention of the Minister the fact that over 700 cases of littering were brought under the Litter and Pollution Act, but 80% failed because the person's name or address was incorrect. The litterers had simply given a false name and address, which is something that must be looked at. There is a need to require positive identification or to involve the Garda in such cases. If the Minister needs to check the Cork records in this regard, I will facilitate him. Education of the public is significant in litter control as one must mix the carrot and the stick. The stick was mentioned when the levy on plastic bags which was introduced two years ago was alluded to. Deputy Burton was enthusiastic and said the measure was accepted globally, but there were criticisms of the provision. I was on a radio programme with the head of one of the grocery conglomerates which were critical two months before the legislation was introduced. There was a time restriction after that and the levy came in six months later. It was said that poor, old people would not be able to pay for the bags and would have to transfer goods from their baskets. I said that poor, old people had baskets before the supermarkets ever brought them in and that they had no time for plastic bags. It is now a great idea.

Out of the environmental fund for 2002 alone, €16 million was provided for the prevention of waste. Waste recovery activities have been established and education and environmental awareness have been funded. These measures are important and represent the perfect combination of ministerial strength and willingness to act and encourage.

Significant steps have been taken to improve the standard of drinking water. We have been rightly criticised in this regard by our European colleagues who keep an eye on us all of the time. Many water sources were polluted over and over again in the past, but we are now working toward rectifying the problem. I pay particular tribute to the National Federation of Group Water Schemes. The people involved worked with the former Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Noel Dempsey, and they are now working with Deputy Cullen. As they have put it, the Minister has set out his stall on the question of the bundling and merging of schemes which are essential to provide, control and treat drinking water of a high standard.

I am happy with the legislation. Regarding service charges, opportunistic politics has forced the Minister to make the decision to give powers to managers. I have been a councillor for 29 years and I can say that many councillors played the populist card by refusing to apply charges or do anything unpopular. I am glad to say that in most cases their term was short lived. We must provide leadership. I fought against service charges for two years and I came to this House in 1987 to be told to forget it and that neither Fianna Fáil nor anybody else would be able to pay national charges. Since then, I have voted for charges and I have managed to head the poll in elections to Cork City Council in every campaign. If people provide local and national leadership, the public will row in. They are more concerned about our environment in many cases than we may be.

I wish to share time with Deputy Sargent if that is in order.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

This legislation, like most environmental legislation the Government has produced in this and the previous Dáil, is something of a Trojan horse. On the surface there is the window dressing of things that need to be done and which, in fact, should have been done before now. However, the Trojan horse has a scorpion on its back, if the House will pardon the mixed metaphor, because that is not the real intent of the Bill.

The reason for the Bill is the implementation in Irish law of European Council Directive 96/61 which, like any other directive, has already, in effect, become Irish law. We are obliged to include these provisions in law. The Bill is not innovative but obligatory legislation and, as with every other environmental change introduced in this country, had to be dragged from the Government. Successive Governments have not taken environmental issues as seriously as they should have and have paid a price for this.

The directive is welcome in that it improves our law in several respects. The technical basis for the licensing system in what had been integrated pollution control now becomes integrated pollution prevention and control, something that has long been sought by those who argued for better environmental policy. The intent has always been not to prevent waste but to manage it better. This mindset not only affects the Government, other political parties and civil servants, it has also infected the Environmental Protection Agency since its inception. The EPA is not proactive, it is reactive at best. Its raison d'être is not to prevent abuses of the environment but to try to control the damage done by several sources. That is the reason there are integrated pollution control licences and it is the main focus of activity by the EPA.

That is a flaw not only in the EPA's ethos and philosophy but also in its structure, terms of its directors and the membership of its advisory board. This creature does not exist to progress proactive policies on the environment. In fact, the absence of representatives of environmental NGOs in its operations is striking. In the Bill the Government had an opportunity to adjust many of those balances but chose not to do so. It is appalling that the current director general of the EPA has a background in business and that the agenda of the EPA, which informs Government policy, has often been to benefit the business organisations and the complaints they have made about the incremental and slow changes in environmental policy. This can be seen in the submission made by IBEC on the Bill. IBEC considers it regrettable that emission limit values are now included in legislation and that they will be applied to greenhouse gases. The fact that Ireland is 31% above the 13% increase permitted under the Kyoto Protocol is the result of this attitude of IBEC and those who support it. The Government has been unprepared to challenge this vested interest.

There are other new powers which need to be questioned. The Bill gives a new power to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to amend the First Schedule with regard to activities that will be covered by the new IPPC licensing system. On the surface that means more areas might be brought within the licensing framework but it is also a power to remove other areas from being licensed. Given that the Minister is in love with the idea of incineration, who is to say that this or a subsequent Minister will not use such a power to ensure incinerators, which represent the utmost in technology in the Minister's view, will not come within the ambit of the licensing system and be allowed to pollute to the extent that they and their promoters see fit? The Green Party will challenge this power.

I also question the power of the EPA to review and amend licences without issuing a full new licence. I was a member of a local authority for 11 years before resigning from it and saw the Kinsale Road sanitary landfill site twice extended unnecessarily by EPA licensing. However, at least there was a process whereby members of the public could make submissions, question and try to alter the attempt to prolong a facility long past its sell by date. The Bill will give the EPA another opportunity to avoid public accountability.

The scope of this legislation is something of a rogue's charter for Fianna Fáil members in future controversies that will occur in local communities. At public meetings Fianna Fáil and Government representatives will shrug their shoulders and say: "It is not us, it is the city manager, the county manager or Brussels." However, Fianna Fáil is passing the legislation which confers these powers and we will not let its members forget it.

The scorpion on the back of this Trojan horse is the changes to the Waste Management Act. Three particular powers are odious in terms of any commitment to accountability to the public for environmental policy and the use of the public's elected public representatives to represent its interests in local government. Extending the power to review, vary or replace a waste management plan, an addition to the existing power to initiate such a plan, to a city or county manager emasculates public representatives in local government. The Government should be ashamed but since it does not believe in the concept of local government, it probably will not bat an eyelid.

Local government representatives have not avoided taking responsibility in these areas. They have made decisions. I was a member of a local authority which tried to make decisions. I tabled amendments to a waste management plan which was stalled until the city manager could introduce it. The Government is not arguing about whether local authority representatives are willing to make decisions but wants them to make particular decisions in a particular way. That is an affront to local democracy. The obligation on local authorities not to collect household waste will prove to be counterproductive. This is an example of the Government reacting to the court action taken by my local authority colleague, Alderman Con O'Connell. Ultimately, the natural environment will suffer.

The executive power given to city and council managers to set the rate of waste management charges undermines one of the few powers in local government, the power to make estimates as to how money can be raised and spent. Local charges, however charged, are one of few areas in which local authorities can raise money and decide how it can be spent independent of other factors or sources outside the local authority. While the Green Party has never opposed the concept of waste charges, we do not believe they are related to the polluter pays principle or that they have been introduced in a way that will generate public acceptance. The change in the legislation will not help to bring about such an acceptance.

A certain amount of waste is unavoidable and we should encourage people to reach that minimal level. How charges are levied now or how they are likely to be levied in the future means that people must pay regardless of how much waste they produce or how much effort they put into recycling waste. On these grounds, the Government still has not got the full picture. It thinks the environment is something that can be milked in terms of making money available to local government which it is not prepared to make available through the Exchequer. It does not understand public opinion on environmental matters. At the end of the day, the parties that make up this Government will never get the point regarding environmental issues. Who they represent and how they represent them is incompatible with the types of changes we need to make in a society that is far more willing to bring about environmental changes than this Government would ever be prepared to contemplate.

This is an important Bill from the Green Party's point of view. As Deputy Boyle said, it is largely about implementing the 1996 EU directive on integrated pollution prevention and control. However, we are late in implementing this but what is new? It is about time we got on with it because there are important principles that have to be integrated and transposed into Irish law. Once again it must be noted that this is not an Irish Government initiative in particular but simply a case of following the European lead, which is at least better than getting no lead at all—

We do have an input in Europe.

—from the Government. The Green Party has chosen to concentrate on certain aspects of this Bill in the time I have available. We want to see a principle introduced into this country that already exists in other progressive countries, many of which have a lot of Irish people living in them as many Irish people emigrated to them. I refer to the concept of zero waste.

There is no doubt that as society is currently organised, waste is actually increasing. I have made this comparison again and again, but we do not accept road casualties as an inevitability, and we work through the National Safety Council and other bodies to bring down the numbers of casualties on our roads. Likewise, the political will is needed to bring about a reduction of waste output. It will not be achieved simply through PR campaigns or platitudes. It will require targets. That is why the Green Party has produced legislation in that regard. It is possible, with the political will, for every local authority to comply with targets set for 2005, 2010 and 2020 bringing waste down to a minimum. This is the case in other countries where similar approaches are being followed.

Definitions of emissions are set out in this Bill, and we seek a definition of emissions that includes the release of genetically-modified organisms into the environment. They are a potential environmental pollutant. We have to recognise that and see them as emissions that do not occur in nature. We are broadening the definition of environmental protection in our amendments from the focus on damage limitation in the Bill to a more proactive and positive definition involving the pursuit of measures designed to enhance the sustainable ecological balance of the environment.

We are also proposing to strengthen and, in many cases, add provisions concerning public consultation procedures and public right of appeal. We have proposed a new provision concerning the right of a member of the public where a legitimate offence is being committed under this Bill to take a legal case to the High Court, with the guarantee that the State will cover the legal costs of the applicant because of the public interest nature of the case.

We have also proposed extending the period within which an individual may seek a judicial review of an EPA decisions from eight weeks to 12. We are also proposing that the High Court be given new powers to seize the assets of a person or company responsible for polluting activity where that activity has allowed the person in question to either make or save money. We are proposing also that where an individual or company is responsible for environmental pollution, whether deliberately or by accident, the individual must clean up any contamination of the site and restore it to a safe and clean state, or else face significantly increased fines. This has never been faced up to by any Government. Damage caused is not met by the fine imposed, and it is simply seen as a token slap on the wrist. Essentially, the damage is left to be cleaned up at a cost to taxpayers, who are not guilty in regard to the actual offence.

We have proposed that a local authority, like any other member of the public, must meet the criteria of a fit and proper person when its application for a licence is being considered by the EPA. It is important that local authorities are not seen to be above the law or absolved from the responsibilities that members of the public have. We are proposing that the review of a waste management plan remain a reserved function and that elected members shall have due regard to the advice of the executive with regard to all aspects of the plan. We are also proposing that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should have to consult with, rather than receive the consent of, the Ministers for Finance and Enterprise, Trade and Employment when considering introducing environment-related charges.

We are also proposing that members of the public should be entitled to appeal to An Bord Pleanála a decision of the EPA concerning the granting or refusal of a licence application. We will propose many amendments to this Bill, and I hope we will have time on Committee Stage to look at each one fully and examine them on their merits. What we have, essentially, in this Bill is a rowing back of democracy, and it is not to the benefit of the environment. It may protect the Government or the county managers but it must be recognised and fought for at every turn that the reserved function which currently exists needs to be worked at. Members need to be made part of workable waste management plans, rather than presenting a waste management plan that is essentially a contrived set of business proposals from consultants on how to make a profitable return on a non-essential problem. The problem is there because of bad planning, bad design and bad Government.

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is always talking about how we all have a role to play and all have to bite the bullet, grasp the nettle and so on. If we are to turn around then, however, and tell the public that the county manager will make a decision whether they like it or not, then we will lose whatever potential goodwill exists with the public. This Bill is an admission of defeat and will get the Government into further difficulty because it will not be accepted. If a Bill or law does not have the democratic consent of the people, then it essentially a bad law.

That is not—

The people elect the representatives, and if the Minister of State is going to complain about the people then we really are on a worrying road. As Deputy Boyle said, the concept of a waste charge has been badly handled by the Government and local authorities. There are a few exceptions, and Fingal is one of the better examples in that it has recognised that one cannot bring in a flat charge and expect people to sit back and take it. There is no incentive in a flat charge for minimising waste. There is no reward for composting waste, for example, in a person's back garden if they happen to have one, or communally if people organise that between each other. It essentially penalises initiative and good practice. This is unacceptable, and unfortunately this legislation does not address that.

The Bill imposes greater restrictions on advertising material in public places, and it is very important in this regard that we, in this House, take a proactive role when it comes to election posters, for example. I have given notice of a priority question on this to the Minister next week. We need to ensure that Members of this House reflect best practice in this regard and that we do not have Deputies, on the one hand, asking people not to litter while, on the other, we have election posters from certain candidates falling down on people and causing them injury—

The Deputy should go easy there.

I will not go into that in any great detail. I did not ask Deputy Durkan to intervene but if he wishes to make a statement to the House I will give him an opportunity—

The Deputy did not ask me but I took the opportunity in any case.

It is important we use the technology at our disposal to deal with environmental problems in ways that maximise public participation and minimise waste. This legislation will minimise public participation, with the result that waste will be maximised. That will help nobody, except the incineration companies who are here to make money, not to help anybody.

I welcome the Bill. It is a positive contribution to the question of pollution and waste management. We would all agree that Ireland has been a relatively late arrival to the whole area of environmentally friendly policies. Countries such as Denmark, Sweden, Finland and, latterly, Germany have been streets ahead of us. However, it would be unfair not to acknowledge that much progress has been made, certainly in terms of legislation and local authority activity. Measures taken include the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992, the Waste Management Act 1996, European legislation and this Bill.

There is a great willingness by members of the public to become involved in waste management. They want clean streets and a clean environment and are prepared to do their bit. They are prepared to engage in recycling and live with different types of bins and systems. Most of them are even prepared to pay for part of this improved service. In view of this, it behoves us as legislators to participate in, and encourage, this and to streamline all the processes by which all – the Government, local authorities, the EPA and citizens – can work together for a cleaner environment.

The Bill tightens the noose on polluters, increases fines and, where there has been pollution, shifts the burden of proof in certain circumstances. It may be divided into two main parts. The first deals with the role of the EPA, fines, licences, appeals and so on while the second comprises sections dealing with the role of local authorities.

As a member of a local authority for approximately 17 years, a position I will shortly vacate, I have dealt with the question of service charges from both sides of the fence. When I joined Dublin City Council in 1985, water charges were in place. In 1986, the city council abolished them. Our group leader at the time was the brother of the Minister of State and I am sure he will recall what happened. A few years ago the council introduced the new system of wheelie bins and a programme of recycling.

It is not enough that Dublin has the lowest waste charges in the country. Dublin City Council and other local authorities have not done enough to ensure that according to the polluter pays principle, people only pay a charge in proportion to the waste they create. The principle should not mean that charges are imposed regardless of the amount of waste generated. I pay tribute to all those who secured waivers or who have lawfully paid their charge. It is reckless in the extreme to put leaflets in letter boxes which frighten people, especially the elderly, and which encourage them to break the law. I hope nobody in this House would approve of that kind of activity.

It is called lobbying.

I have received many telephone calls from mostly elderly people who have been frightened and distraught by these scaremongering leaflets.

Members of the public want, and are entitled to get, further information on bin charges, including the scale of charges, the question of annual increases and the imposition of a cap. The charge in some local authorities in the country has escalated to several hundred euro. That would impose a large burden on many middle income families in my constituency. A scale of charges should be set out with a cap, perhaps linked to the consumer price index. This would provide certainty and would help to ensure that the charges would not greatly vary between local authorities.

People also seek reassurance, to which they are entitled, on the question of privatisation. I do not believe there is widespread support in Dublin city for the privatisation of the waste collection service. There is a continuing role for local authorities in essential services, such as waste, water, housing and parks. Other countries have had bad experiences in transferring such services to the private sector. I want to see the collection of waste in Dublin remaining firmly under the control of the local authority.

Some sections of the Bill will require careful attention and debate. Section 22 permits a local authority to discontinue the collection of refuse in circumstances where a charge levied has not been paid. There are arguments for and against that approach. I represent the views of many of my constituents when I say there is much disquiet about the section. If bins are not collected because, for example, somebody does not have the money and has not received a hardship waiver or because somebody is in principled opposition, I would have fears regarding public safety and hygiene. I understand the Minister's position and the ultimate need for this provision, despite its possible bad consequences.

It is necessary because certain local authorities and, more particularly, certain political parties have failed to live up to their responsibilities in terms of striking a rate. The performance of the Labour Party in Dublin City Council has been nothing short of disgraceful. The first duty of any member of a local authority is to strike a rate and pass the estimate so that a city or area can continue with its proper and orderly management and governance. In the past few years Labour Party councillors have engaged in the spectacle of proposing the abolition of a waste charge while refusing to cut services to keep within budget, thereby making it impossible to pass a rate. That is civic irresponsibility at its height.

What about the Government cutbacks?

It shows that the Labour Party is unfit for power, certainly at local authority level.

It is not the job of the Labour Party to bail out the Government.

The Labour Party is unfit for power—

According to Fianna Fáil nobody is fit for power only itself. It wants to be the permanent Government. Not even General Pinochet wanted that.

In its activities on Dublin City Council over the past few years, the Labour Party has proved it is unfit for power in local authority government. There was the ignominious spectacle of trying to embarrass Dermot Lacey, a member of the Labour Party and a very fine Lord Mayor of the city—

A very good Lord Mayor.

—threatening him with expulsion from the Labour Party if he did not do his civic duty and pass a rate. That was disgraceful. To try and spare their blushes the Labour Party group on Dublin City Council came forward with a series of resolutions which were ill-prepared, ill thought out, ultra vires and were immediately dismissed by the city manager. There is no serious attempt to balance the books and to pass an estimate, that is why the Minister has been forced to bring in section 22 of this Bill.

I do not like section 35.

Why does the Deputy not oppose it?

It is because he understands why it is necessary.

The Minister of State does not even know how many homeless people there are in Dublin. He said there were 79 when there are over 4,000.

I hope you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, are going to give me extra time for these interruptions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Mulcahy please without interruptions.

Section 35 transfers the responsibility for making and setting these charges from being a reserved function carried out by councillors, to an executive function carried out by the manager. This is a section that those of us who are committed to strong local government, as I am, do not like. I want to see a local government that has the ability to raise its own taxes and finances but the premise, the basic concept and underlying logic of such local government is that local government will act responsibly. When parties like the Labour Party demonstrate that they are irresponsible and unprepared to make the kind of decisions that are required to run local authorities, I can understand why this type of provision is necessary though regrettable. On an intellectual basis there is no argument. As I said recently at a public debate I want real local government. I want local authorities to be able to raise their own finances. I also want directly-elected lord mayors and chairmen of local authorities but that makes sense only when we develop our code of local authority and have strong local authorities.

According to soundings I have taken, some local authorities have failed in their obligations pursuant to the waste management strategy. It is not acceptable for any local authority to bury its head in the sand and say it will not deal with the serious issue of pollution because it must be dealt with in every local authority. Although it is not in my constituency, the siting of an incinerator in Ringsend is a mistake. I do not see the logic in putting an incinerator in one of the most densely populated parts of this island. It may be the case that such an incinerator will be safe but that is a different matter. On a point of logic it makes sense to place a major incinerator, with trucks and rubbish going to it as far away as possible from the most densely populated area.

Somewhere in Kildare probably.

I suspected as much, on the westerly side with a prevailing wind behind it.

Section 38 is a worthwhile section which indicates that where there are posters or publicity material for meetings the name and address of the person who has put up the poster and organised the meeting must be on that poster. It refers to certain prohibitions on advertisements on motor vehicles which is a worthwhile step.

I agree with those speakers who said that the large producers of consumer goods with everything from wrappings and cans to fast food should pay their fair share. The public has not seen this. Does the Minister know if these large companies are paying their fair share because the public wants them to do so? Many of these companies make significant profits and the public would like to see that they are seriously levied for all those waste projects. I remain to be convinced that they are paying and the public would like more visibility on that.

In general, I do not particularly agree that all the policing of the waste issue should be centralised through the EPA. Local authorities should have a stronger role both reactively and proactively in tackling the waste crisis.

The Deputy does not agree with much of this Bill.

He should join the Opposition.

I welcome the Bill, it is a step forward. We have not heard, and will not hear, anything positive from the Labour Party. It is going to knock as usual and to genuflect to every pressure group that comes along.

What is Fianna Fáil doing?

The Deputy is not doing too badly at that himself.

I would like to hear what they would do if they were in power in local government.

The Deputy can read our waste document. It is fully costed there.

Would they abolish all the waste charges around the country? How would they pay for it? They would raise taxes.

The Deputy has moved to the right.

People can play their part.

The Deputy wants an incinerator in Kildare. I will tell Deputy McCreevy about that.

People like Deputy Gilmore hark back to the old communist era when the State ran everything and the individual citizens took no responsibility, but the bottom line is that society has moved on from there. People are happy to play their part, they want to play their part in recycling and fighting pollution. The Labour Party wants to absolve them of all individual responsibility, increase taxation as much as it can and employ thousands more public servants to do everything, instead of trying to deal with this issue with a bit of common sense and tact. I look forward to the day – which I will probably never see – when there is a responsible Labour Party in City Hall imposing charges, balancing the books, bringing in the estimates, doing the job it is elected to do and not being childish and genuflecting before every pressure group. I would like to see it taking the kind of decisions I was prepared to take as Lord Mayor. I got my estimates through with my service charges in 40 minutes and that was not bad. It took some other Lord Mayors 40 days to do the same.

That shows thoughtful consideration of the estimates for the entire city.

Absolutely. Fast tracking.

That is after several hours of pre-council meetings.

The fact is that the first responsibility of people in power is to act responsibly, not to make false promises. It is to balance the books and to run a city efficiently. The Labour Party—

Will the Deputy give way?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the Deputy giving way?

Yes I will give way.

Could the Deputy give a further definition of the fast tracking of the estimates? That is an interesting process. Normally the estimates should be considered in detail, otherwise they are not passed legally. While Deputy Mulcahy is well versed in legal intricacies I would warn him that fast tracking the estimates might not have been a good idea.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Mulcahy has the floor.

I am quite prepared to answer that. I was referring to the final estimates meeting. The estimates of course had been considered for several weeks, not months, as the Deputy well knows. At the final estimates meeting I put it to the council that we had a city to run, we had to balance the books and do the honourable thing. I know this is like a crucifix to Dracula as far as the Labour Party is concerned but the fact is one has to run a city efficiently and balance the books. Until one is prepared to take that kind of responsibility this is the kind of Act we need because unfortunately the Labour Party is immature when it comes to taking decisions which sometimes are not easy but are to the benefit of the community. I commend this Bill to the House.

The Deputy knows a lot about immaturity.

I support wholeheartedly the anti-bin tax campaigns in the four Dublin local authority areas which have been working together for the last number of weeks, opposing the introduction of certain measures contained in the Protection of the Environment Bill 2003. I welcome the campaign and will be giving a view other than that outlined by Deputy Mulcahy earlier in the discussion.

While the Bill contains many measures to control pollution and the scandal of illegal dumping that emerged recently, it also savagely attacks all aspects of local democracy and sets out a blatant attempt to ruin the tax equity campaign in the Dublin area. Section 19 removes the power to review, vary or replace a waste management plan from elected councillors and gives it exclusively to city and county managers. Thus, for example, the rejection of a toxic waste incinerator voted on by Cork County Council recently could not happen if the Bill was passed. Section 35 removes the power for the setting of the bin tax from elected councillors and gives it exclusively to city and county managers. This will further propel councils' attempts to ratchet up refuse charges for householders. It could also be the prelude to an attempt to privatise – as mentioned by Deputy Mulcahy – household refuse collection services where this has not already happened.

It is people like the Deputy who do that.

It is an attempt to smash the whole campaign. Perhaps the Minister will look seriously at section 22 which proposes to give council management the right to leave bins uncollected where a charge has not been paid as demanded by the council. That is a blatant attempt to smash the major bin tax boycott campaign under way in the Dublin area. The Minister should look at section 22. Many feel it might not be constitutional and that there might be a strong legal case against it.

The Government is badly miscalculating on this issue. There is very strong opposition in this city, for householders, particularly PAYE workers, understand that, if accepted, the charge will rise relentlessly each year. They further understand that, if the bin tax is allowed to be introduced, it will shortly be followed by the reintroduction of water charges. The real agenda, in this guise and others, is the introduction of a local taxation system. That could mean demands of up to €1,000 per year per household or family. That would be simply unacceptable for working people.

If these Government measures are voted into law, they will be strongly resisted on the ground throughout the city through mass action and the mobilisation of peaceful but firm and disciplined people power. We will not accept an attempt by the Government to intimidate the backbone of the tax-paying public. Let us remember that we are talking about taxpayers, PAYE workers and pensioners. We believe there is still widespread support for a massive disobedience campaign against the plans. That will all be stronger because a huge majority believe the Government has lied to them since the general election. That is the reality. They have seen the welter of stealth taxes pushed onto them in the course of the last six months.

Let us examine the facts. Attempts by county councils to break the campaign will also be challenged strongly, as with their previous attempts to defeat the anti-water charges campaign. That campaign ended in the abolition of water charges in 1996. Let us look at the whole debate about waste management. I will ask for something I fully support – a real waste management policy, not a new tax in disguise. Charging for household refuse is not a waste policy but an attempt to raise new taxes.

The most recent EPA national survey found that the amount of refuse placed in landfill accounted for by householders was only 1.5%. The vast bulk was accounted for by large-scale agriculture, industry and construction. Many are not aware of that figure for household waste. Nevertheless, further measures can be taken to assist householders to cut down on the amount placed in landfill. It would need legislation requiring the mandatory reduction of unnecessary packaging which householders are forced to take home with them and which has to go into refuse bins.

In this sense, it is a nonsense to describe householders as polluters. They are receivers of others' waste. The four anti-bin tax campaigns in Dublin – I support them – also call for the resourcing from central taxation of a radical programme of measures to reduce waste at source and for reuse and recycling. Let us examine the reality. It is a pity that Deputy Mulcahy is not in the House when we look at the whole question of waste production and who the real polluters are.

He ran away.

He did. The following figures are from the national waste database, 1998. The total amount of waste produced in Ireland was 80 million tonnes. The breakdown was: agricultural sources, 64.6 million tonnes, 80%; industrial waste, 9.1 million tonnes,11.3%; construction and demolition waste, 2.7 million tonnes, 3.3%; household waste – wait for it – 1.2 million tonnes, 1.5%; other waste, 2.4 million tonnes, 3%. Essentially those figures speak for themselves. The real polluters come from industry, packaging, agriculture and demolition, yet the Government wants to hammer taxpayers. I urge the Government to think again.

Why does the Deputy not read it all instead of picking bits out?

The Minister of State should have some manners.

That gives the lie to the propaganda put out by the Minister, the European Union, the Government and county councils blaming householders as polluters. Let us examine packaging. The 1998 database shows that each household had to deal with 0.25 tonnes of packaging each year – about 300,000 tonnes nationally. Much of the packaging from supermarkets and shops which we are forced to handle could be eliminated if the Government compelled manufacturers to cut down at source. I am putting these constructive suggestions on the table. The truth is that successive Governments have failed abysmally to put in place a comprehensive policy for reduction at source and recycling.

When it comes to the question of money and funding, let us look at the real world, too. The Government is talking rubbish on this legislation. It seems to have no problem making people in Dublin pay €156 – a 29% increase on the 2002 charge. Ordinary people have already paid for their refuse collection through PAYE and indirect taxes such as VAT. This double taxation must be challenged. I am always amazed at the sheer brass neck of some Government speakers on the tax issue. I remind them of the recent figures from the Civil Service, those who do a great job trying to collect tax. Almost one fifth of the top 400 earners paid tax at less than 15%. A single PAYE worker on €17,000 paid 44%. One big Dublin business alone paid almost €7 million in a tax settlement. Published tax settlements amounted to €25.32 million. Unpublished settlements amounted to €123.63 million, enough to finance waste management services in Dublin, Cork and Galway. Those are the figures. It is not a simple question of making the polluter pay but making the law-abiding taxpayer cover for society's fat cats. I say to the Government that it should look at its figures and accounting and collect the money from those not paying to fund waste management services.

People talk about pollution in the context of this legislation, yet a shameful attempt is being made to fill in Dublin Bay, destroying 52 acres of it in my constituency. I remind the Minister and all those involved in the Dublin Port project that the bay belongs to the people of Dublin, not just the port company or any Minister. I urge people to think again on the issue. I pay tribute to Seán Dublin Bay Loftus for his work over 20 years. I intend to carry on that tradition by opposing the infill of 52 acres, which would destroy our beautiful bay. I also commend Dublin City Council for its work in cleaning up the bay. One group is trying to destroy the bay while Dublin City Council spends over €200 million trying to clean it up. I wish those involved well and thank them for their work.

Working people have already paid for their refuse collection through PAYE and indirect taxes such as VAT. When rates were abolished 20 years ago, the Government promised that local services would be funded by central government, which now has a record surplus. The money has come from our taxes. It is time to use some of it to pay for local services. If it needs more money, it should go and collect taxes from those in big business and society's super-wealthy who seem to have offshore accounts and are not short of money. They pay a fraction of tax compared to ordinary taxpayers. There is also what I call the green tax lie. The corporation claims the bin tax is a green tax to deal with the waste management crisis, but that is nonsense. The vast majority of waste in Ireland is produced by industry and large-scale agriculture, not householders. Taxing householders and building incinerators which poison the environment is not a solution.

If we were serious about dealing with the waste problem we would tax these big businesses and use the money to fund a proper recycling infrastructure. An example of this kind of policy was the plastic bag levy, which showed the creative spirit.

If these charges are imposed they will be increased every year, as happened elsewhere. In some parts of the country people are paying over €300 per year in local charges. The key to defeating this unjust tax is to support the campaigns of mass non-payment and to protest. That is how water charges were beaten in the past and I invite people to support the Dublin campaigns.

When dealing with the legislation, if the Minister is open to constructive proposals – I will support any constructive proposals regarding the legislation – he should consider scrapping sections 19, 22 and 35. Then we can all work together on the real issues of litter. None of us has a problem in protecting the environment and we all support the sections of the Bill which deal with litter. We must improve people's quality of life and I agree with the Bill's provisions regarding fines.

I welcome certain progressive sections of the Bill but when I look at sections 19 and 35 I have no option but to vote against the legislation.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members not being present,

On a point of order, before the House is important legislation, the Protection of the Environment Bill 2003.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

As there is not a quorum, we cannot have any business. We cannot even have a point of order.

The Dáil adjourned at 3.45 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 17 June 2003.

Top
Share