Amendments Nos. 1, 10, 11, 109 to 111, inclusive, and 113 are related and may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Protection of the Environment Bill 2003 [ Seanad ] : Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, line 5, after "ACT" to insert "TO PROVIDE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A POLICY OF WASTE STABILISATION IN IRELAND BY 2010 AND ZERO WASTE BY 2020;".
This is quite a compilation of amendments the Ceann Comhairle has read out for us and, as I think he might agree, they are quite diverse. They deal with everything from reserved functions of local authorities in dealing with waste plans to incineration and the need to have waste plans that do not include incineration.
Following the last debate we had on the additions to the Bill due to the Minister's belated realisation that the amendment on end of life vehicles must be included in the Bill, we are dealing with very diverse issues. The amount of time being given for Report Stage is nothing more than derisory, given the complexity of many of the issues we are being asked to discuss and vote on.
The Minister owes us an explanation as to why on Report Stage, when we are supposed to be wrapping up, consolidating and making cogent changes arising from Committee Stage proceedings, we have been landed with this political bombshell by way of belated amendments. For the Minister to suggest that if we were to do away with all of the other amendments, he would then find the time to explain to us why he is including so belatedly the end of life vehicles amendment is, again, adding insult to injury. It is as if to suggest that the amendments that have been tabled—
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:
Is the Deputy talking about the particular amendments under discussion?
I am indeed, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. The Minister is suggesting that an amendment such as my one to provide for the implementation of a policy of waste stabilisation in Ireland by 2010 and zero waste by 2020 can simply be dismissed. The reality is that other countries around the world have found a way and, indeed, consider it important to find a way, to develop a national waste policy which encapsulates the principle of gradual progress towards a zero waste objective. Let nobody think this can be done quickly or overnight or that it can be done by way of regional waste plans, particularly given that they are designed to include incineration and a large landfill component – we know that from the waste plans in place – as if they are a given and it is impossible to contemplate any other option. That has been made impossible by the taking of the reserved function aspect of waste plans from members – the county manager will now consider whether there is any other option. Unfortunately, history has taught us that county managers are not generally the most radical people to consider changes. They are managers and they keep a steady course in whatever direction the Minister points.
That is unfair to managers – some of them are very good.
They are servants of the council. They are not innovators in the way they ought to be in dealing with matters of waste.
Some of them are.
They need to be far more innovative to deserve that title. There is a need for a national waste policy which would give a clear message that the Government has not only an idea about how zero waste operates but has sufficient interest to make the necessary radical changes.
It does not work anywhere.
It has not been given a chance and the Minister is not prepared to even talk about it.
We have a crisis.
The Minister will not even let me finish a sentence.
I have been listening to the Deputy for ten minutes and I have heard all this before.
The Minister is determined to close down debate on issues that have been—
The Deputy should talk to the Greens in Europe.
The Minister should talk to the Greens in New Zealand and he can do so next Monday.
They have abandoned it. It was not working.
The Minister is trying to engage in banter rather than in a debate.
They knew it was a lot of hot air and nonsense.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:
Deputy Sargent without interruption.
In regard to this amendment, I ask the Minister to contemplate a national waste policy, one that specifies clear targets which would allow consumers to leave excess packaging behind at the shop, the point of purchase. In that way the retailer would get a clear message that stocking excess packaging is a mug's game and not to be encouraged.
The Deputy should read the packaging regulations.
Retailers would send that message to wholesalers who would send it to the producers who generally engage in producing packaging without much disincentive in spite of packaging directives. They are encouraged to produce packaging. As long as they sign up to Repak and recycle a percentage of excess packaging they satisfy the packaging directive.
The Deputy should read the other directives.
We are talking about a percentage of a growing mountain of waste, for the disposal of which the consumer must pay.
That is not true.
The consumer is put upon to pay for packaging.
There are packaging directives.
The Deputy is Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and he has a responsibility to reduce waste.
It is not a zero waste problem.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:
Order please, the Minister will have an opportunity to reply.
The Minister has failed again and again. He has a responsibility to come up with a national waste policy which would result in a reduction of waste. He has failed at every turn to do that and not only is he failing but he is congratulating himself on his failure by saying he is coping with a growing problem. It is a growing problem that needs to be reduced. The way to do that is to have a national waste policy which puts an onus on preventing the creation of waste in the first place.
We have all the policies, what we need is action.
The Minister does not have that in place. He does not have the interest, the policies, the cop on or the integrity to listen to anybody with another view.
More discussion – that is typical of the Greens. The Deputy will not bite the bullet in terms of reality.
The Minister should take on board some of the policies that work in other countries in regard to deposits on bottles, cans, newspapers or PET bottles, for the introduction of which he is not fighting, instead of sticking with the levy on plastic bags.
As the Deputy is aware, there is a serious difficulty in that regard in the European Commission.
As Minister with responsibility for the environment, the Minister has a responsibility to push forward in terms of policy. I am aware that whichever way he proceeds he is thwarted by vested interests—
Vested interests never bothered me.
—but he must face them down.
That is what I am doing. Business was pretty sick over some decisions I made.
The Minister is facing down any view that conflicts with the vested interests, the people proposing incinerators or landfills, which in regard to one proposed dump is causing consternation and in respect of which I call for an investigation. Allegations were made in regard to a proposed dump in east Galway which are worrying. This is a matter I tried to raise previously in the House. An offer of €50,000 was made to an anti-dump group to withdraw its opposition. For the Minister to countenance the type of behaviour that implies—
I am not countenancing that type of behaviour.
I ask the Minister to investigate this matter. There are serious issues to be addressed in east Galway. An anti-dump group in Kilconnell is facing such intimidation by a private company seeking to locate a landfill that it calls for ministerial intervention. If the Minister is going to play ball with some of these large vested interests in terms of incineration and landfill, private operators that are clearly there for profit, pure and simple—
Waste is a business.
—he must ensure they are not engaging in behaviour which involves bribery or intimidation.
That is a serious allegation.
It is and I stand over it.
The Deputy should report that matter to the appropriate authority.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:
Order please.
I ask you to uphold the integrity of communities.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:
I would appreciate if the Deputy would address his remarks through the Chair.
If the Deputy has proof of that, he knows what to do with it.
I am endeavouring to address my comments through the Chair, but I am getting a barrage in my right ear from the Minister who will have many opportunities to put forward whatever view he has, although we have generally heard it previously. I ask him to countenance, listen and consider an alternative to his view. Report Stage is the last opportunity we have for that. I ask him to consider the merits of striving for – I am not saying they have achieved it yet – the zero waste of other countries. We should also be doing that.
They are exporting it.
There is some merit in Deputy Sargent's amendment, which the Minister should not dismiss lightly. All it seeks is the drawing up of a programme or plan. There is nothing wrong with that. Nearly all the regional waste management plans have been adopted. Under this Bill leave will be given to managers to alter them down the line. Instead of having a plan as proposed by Deputy Sargent, managers will have the right to alter adopted waste management plans. They are nearly all adopted as a result of earlier legislation, which allowed the managers to do that. Do all the regional waste management plans adopted include incineration? If that is the reality, I would like the Minister to point that out. The only person who can now alter those is the manager, as nobody else has any authority to alter or amend waste management plans. I ask the Minister to consider what Deputy Sargent is proposing, that there would be an overall plan which would allow members of local authorities which achieve targets set in terms of reduction of refuse, waste and recycling—
We have a national plan. One was produced in 1998 and another one was produced in 2002.
—the Minister will have an opportunity to reply – an opportunity to adapt their plan according to the targets they achieve rather having waste management plans, as now adopted, the law with only the manager having the right to alter or amend them.
I will address amendment No. 113 in particular, which deals specifically with the issues of dumping and incineration in terms of waste management plans. Its central thrust is that we should avoid having a line of incinerators across the State that will require a constant feed of waste, thus providing no incentive for people to produce less waste. The incineration industry, as I have already outlined, is a dirty one. It is harmful to health and, more importantly, it is totally unnecessary. The Minister knows that communities and councils across the State recognise the futility of incineration and are opposed to it.
A recent report demonstrated to the Minister that the worries about the safety of incineration have not been fully addressed. The jury is very much still out on that issue. The report does not even consider the US Environmental Protection Agency's findings in this regard.
There is a need for an all-Ireland strategy to deal with waste issues and for a single agency on the island to deal with environmental protection. The Minister is moving ahead of himself considerably by forcing his incineration policy on the people without having first considered the other safe options. It is unfortunate that he intervened continually in the contributions of the preceding two speakers because we would all like an opportunity to deal with the issue at hand more comprehensively.
Regarding my amendment and those of Deputy Sargent there is an opportunity for the Minister to realise, at this late stage, that there is no need to poison the people through mismanagement or to be so narrow-minded as to have an environmental protection agency with responsibility for a little more than half of the island and another one with responsibility for the rest. There are waste streams and pollution crossing the Border. I dealt with an incident in this respect in Louth County Council last Saturday morning and I mentioned another incident to the Minister –to which I will return in due course – on the issue of waste pouring across the Border into County Fermanagh. If there was one agency, this issue could be dealt with very comprehensively. Most reluctantly, I will allow other Members to speak because I would have liked to raise many issues. I am extremely disappointed that the Minister could not facilitate us so we could debate this issue to the extent to which it deserves to be debated.
Amendment No. 110 is in my name. I will be brief because extremely little time has been allowed to me. If the group of amendments under discussion were accepted by the Minister it would go some way towards ensuring that the Bill would be worthy of its title – the Protection of the Environment Bill. As it stands, key sections are anti-environment and are nothing short of a method to try bludgeon compliant taxpayers into accepting a bin tax that could rise quickly to €700 per annum, in addition to further taxes such as water charges. This means every family and household could face local taxes of up to €1,000 in a relatively short period. Instead of protecting the environment, the proposal to give the councils power to attempt to leave bins uncollected will destroy it.
The Minister failed to answer the points that were put to him on Committee Stage regarding a case in which six local authorities in his part of the country found that 37% of households burn their refuse, thus releasing into the environment, in an uncontrolled fashion, emissions containing dioxins and other dangerous material. The reality is that there are tens of thousands of householders in the greater Dublin area who are opposing the proposal by the Minister to try bludgeon them into accepting a parallel tier of taxation by giving councils the right to refuse to collect their bins. The Fianna Fáil backbenchers should be in the House tonight representing the views of hundreds of thousands of taxpayers in Dublin.
How many were at the Deputy's meeting?
The Fianna Fáil councillors in Dublin are absolutely gutless and cowardly or waiting for preferment before opposing the attempt to bludgeon their constituents into accepting this unjust tax. It is also an attack on local democracy because it gives unwarranted powers to the county managers. The Minister may pass this legislation tonight but his troubles are only beginning. He will face outright opposition and the mobilisation of people power in the community if county managers do not collect bins.
How many were at the Deputy's meeting?
There is a very strong campaign, supported by tens of thousands of people, as is borne out clearly by the non-payment or boycott figures. The Minister will face massive opposition and democratic people power on the streets. It will not be possible to implement the legislation and the people will not accept being bludgeoned by him into having thousands of bins left uncollected on the sides of the streets. He will pay for it coming up to the local and European elections.
The Deputy is against his own community, which is very sad.
I support the amendments, particularly the ones in my name, which relate to the transfer of functions in respect of making charges and waste management plans from elected councils to city and county managers.
The Bill will have far-reaching effects and will hit the individual householder hard in the pocket. It is introducing taxation by the back door and will result in unprecedented levels of charges for the collection of refuse. We have estimated these to amount to about €700 per household per year, but this figure could be higher because, to date, we do not know the full implications of section 30 of the Bill. Section 30 states that the operators of waste facilities will be obliged – without discretion – to charge the full economic cost of running those facilities, including the cost of the design, operation, management and subsequent rehabilitation of those sites.
On Second Stage, I asked the Minister what these costs would amount to and, to be fair to him, he sent me a note on the matter before Report Stage. However, it only provides us with part of the picture, but it is an interesting part nevertheless. It provides details on loans his Department approved in respect of landfill facilities in 2002: in north Tipperary, almost €4 million was loaned to carry out infrastructural and rehabilitation work at a landfill site; in south Dublin, €10 million was loaned for the Arthurstown site; in Mayo, almost €12 .5 million for the upgrading of two landfill sites; in Clare, €2.5 million; in Waterford, more than €4 million; in Cork, almost €3 million; and Fingal County Council, €20 million. These allocations, totalling more than €50 million, pertain to only seven local authorities. The significance of section 30 is that all this money will have to be recovered.
Debate adjourned.