Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 1 Jul 2003

Vol. 570 No. 2

Protection of the Environment Bill 2003 [ Seanad ] : Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages.

Debate resumed on 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;".

–(Deputy Sargent).

Mr. Gilmore:

What is being done here tonight is typical of what the Government does with potentially controversial legislation. It runs the legislation through at high speed in the last few days before a Dáil recess, usually with a guillotine so that most of the issues cannot be debated or aired, sparing Government Deputies the embarrassment of having to vote on specific contentious issues.

There should be no mistake about this Bill, which is going to haunt the Government and the Deputies who support it in the vote at 9.30 p.m. tonight. In the course of the next 18 months, when the average householder gets a bill of maybe €700 for refuse collection, this is the Bill that gives county managers the power to set that charge. Next December and January, when local authorities consider their estimates, county managers will go into those meetings and tell the elected members that this is the charge they are imposing. Councillors and the wider community can object but this is the Bill which gives county managers the power to do that. I invite the Minister to tell us when these measures will commence. Sometime in the next two years individual householders may find their bins uncollected if they have not paid their charges – or they may find their neighbours have not paid the charges and their bins are not collected, to the detriment of the environment and health of the neighbourhood. This is the Bill which gives local authorities the power to act in that way.

When a community has difficulties with a proposal such as the decision to locate an incinerator or landfill in its neighbourhood, it may ask Government Deputies at some public meeting who made the decision. Those Deputies will say the county manager made the decision but let there be no mistake that the decision is being made tonight. This is the Bill which gives county managers the power to make waste management plans and to determine where to put incinerators or superdumps and to include them in the waste management plans without being second guessed.

As I indicated earlier, two Government amendments make this Bill even more unacceptable than it was on Committee Stage. In effect a new Bill has been tacked on to the legislation which deals with end-of-life vehicles. We should remind people of what they are heading into as a result, though in the next year or two the penny will drop for many people in the motor trade, particularly those in the second hand motor trade. Lest the Minister make accusations, I am broadly in favour of implementing the EU directive on end-of-life vehicles but I would like some opportunity to tease it out and debate it properly. There are many people working in the motor trade in every constituency and when the penny drops regarding the provisions of the Bill they are in for a shock and a rude awakening. When those people approach Government Deputies those Deputies should not say they did not know what was going on. Those Deputies will come in tonight at 9.30 p.m. and vote for measures which will provoke hard questions from workers in the motor trade over the next 18 months.

However, my biggest concern is with amendment No. 112. This is the most significant change in Irish planning law in living memory. Precedence is being given to waste management plans made by county managers over the development plans made by elected members of local authorities.

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. Cullen):

The Deputy knows why.

Mr. Gilmore:

We know why, do we? This is no way to make law, with the Minister muttering under his breath that he knows why and that there is something on which he needs to take action. If so, he should have put those reasons up front on day one and we could have dealt with them. What this means—

Mr. Cullen:

I did so on Committee Stage. I referred to the specific cases.

Mr. Gilmore:

The Minister did not do it on Committee Stage. This is a new amendment, the effect of which is to empower the county manager to decide where an incinerator may go and what will be in the waste management plan. That plan will be adopted lock, stock and barrel, which is bad enough, but the county manager's waste management plan will take precedence over the county development plan. If, for example, a county manager decides to put a dump or incinerator in an area of high amenity, under this legislation nobody can challenge that on the grounds that it contravenes the county development plan because the waste management plan takes precedence. Not only that, but the person who makes the waste management plan in the first place is the very officer who will ultimately make the planning decision as to whether those developments go ahead.

This is standing down local democracy. It takes rights away from elected members that they have always had and gives those rights to unelected officials with a statutory authority and power of law that is unprecedented. This is a very bad evening for democracy in this country.

Mr. Allen:

I protest strongly at the way the Opposition is being treated regarding this Bill. I got a call yesterday to the effect that the Minister was introducing amendments and I asked for them to be sent to me in Cork. When I received them I could not believe what I was reading. We had ten pages of amendments on Report Stage after discussing the Bill for many hours on Committee Stage. The Minister can come in with a troop of advisers and support staff but Opposition spokespersons are expected to assess the merits and demerits of those amendments. Consultation was out of the question.

What we have is a jackboot Government introducing controversial legislation in the dying days of this session. In the last session, the controversial sections of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill were pushed through against the wishes of the Opposition. This Bill, which has been described by many as a Trojan horse, is supposed to be a Protection of the Environment Bill but under that guise, it proposes the most fundamental undermining of local democracy I have experienced. Last night I spoke at a convention in Cork to select somebody to succeed me as I will have to surrender my council seat under the dual mandate rule. I said I was getting out at a sad time for local democracy because the councillor position has been totally undermined by the proposals in this legislation. The manager will raise and impose the charges. As we said, Fianna Fáil councillors will be able to wash their hands, do a Pontius Pilate act and say, "It is not us, it is the manager." Amendment No. 112 overrides—

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

We are not on amendment No. 112.

Mr. Allen:

We will not reach it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

We must discuss the amendments before the House.

Mr. Allen:

I sat here for an hour and a quarter before Private Members' Business and since the debate on the Bill resumed and this is the first opportunity I have had to say anything.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Deputy, we are on Report Stage. Amendment No. 112 is not under discussion at the moment.

Mr. McCormack:

It will never be under discussion.

Mr. Allen:

It will never be under discussion because the jackboot approach of this Government will push it through by means of a guillotine.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

It is not in order to discuss an amendment which is not before the House.

Mr. Allen:

Everybody else referred to amendment No. 112.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Very briefly.

Mr. Allen:

It provides for the most fundamental undermining of the planning Act which I have come across. As I said, the role of the councillor is now meaningless. The manager has the supreme power and Fianna Fáil councillors can do a Pontius Pilate act and say, "It is not us, it is the manager". We face the local election campaign in the coming months but many people will not vote because they will see the writing on the wall for local authorities. This Government, which set out with pious platitudes about reform of local government, did many U-turns in its first couple of months in office and is now sounding the death knell of local democracy. People of calibre will be reluctant to run for office because they will see the role of the councillor as meaningless. I object strenuously to the arrogant way this Government has tabled fundamental and important amendments. As the Leas-Cheann Comhairle said, I cannot discuss them and, therefore, they will go through without discussion and that is bad for democracy.

Mr. Cullen:

I listened carefully to what Deputies opposite had to say and I will try to deal with their comments in order. First, I will deal with the amendments before us. The purpose of amendments Nos. 109 and 110 is to reserve the proposal to transfer the power to review and replace the waste management plan from the elected members of local authorities to the manager. This aspect of the Bill was the subject of much discussion in the Seanad and during Second and Committee Stages in this House. It is important to bear in mind that the waste management planning process was only brought to a conclusion after many years by the introduction, as a last resort, of legislation which made the making of a plan an executive function. This was necessary not only in order that we could move on to implement the plan, but also because of a real threat of legal action against Ireland by the EU Commission for failure to adopt such plans. It is clear that what is needed now is full implementation of the plans.

Thankfully, the implementation process is gathering pace and local authorities are now busy actively developing recycling and recovery facilities around the country. Now that progress is being made, I cannot allow for the possibility that backdoor attempts will be made to scupper these plans. The provisions of section 26(2)(b) will remove uncertainty going forward. I will ensure further progress is secured and, therefore, I cannot accept amendments Nos. 109 and 110.

Turning to amendments Nos. 1, 10, 11 and 111, Deputies will recall that we had a lengthy discussion on waste stabilisation and zero waste on Committee Stage. The amendments seek to introduce into law the concepts of waste stabilisation and zero waste. The amendments aim to achieve this by an amendment of the Long Title of the Bill to refer to both concepts and an amendment of section 5 to include a definition of each. Many of the policies, objectives and actions promoted under so-called "zero waste" strategies have a lot of merit. We must tackle current production and consumption patterns, minimise waste generation and maximise recycling and recovery, all key elements in the waste hierarchy with which the Irish policy is wholly consistent. However, we must be honest in promoting zero waste targets for 20 or more years ahead.

The concept of eliminating all waste that cannot be recycled remains to be validated by a single country. Proponents of zero waste strategies routinely promote existing initiatives as if they had achieved their stated targets. However, the cases of Ontario and Canberra, which we discussed on Committee Stage, give a flavour of the realities surrounding the concept of zero waste. Again, I emphasise that I cited those examples not for the purposes of being gratuitously disparaging towards the zero waste philosophy itself, but to illustrate that the concept remains a highly aspirational one. In these circumstances, I do not regard it as a realistic basis on which to develop waste policy, less still do I regard it as a concept appropriate to include in legislation.

As for the issue of waste stabilisation, this is not a well defined or widely recognised concept. It is an aspirational objective, which is not appropriate to include in legislation. On the other hand, the integrated approach underpinning the Government's waste management planning is based on the internationally recognised hierarchy of waste prevention, namely, minimisation, reuse, recycle, energy recovery and residual landfill. There is little more I can add at this stage other than to reiterate my difficulties regarding these concepts and to repeat that I do not believe legislation is the appropriate place to set out aspirational objectives of the kind outlined. For these reasons and those outlined previously, I am not in a position to accept these amendments.

As for amendment No. 113, I am not in a position to accept this as the prohibition on thermal treatment, which it would introduce, would undermine the respect for the waste hierarchy in the integrated approach to waste management that forms the key principles on which Irish waste management planning is based.

As I said earlier in response to Deputy Sargent, who said there was no national strategy, I am surprised he is unaware of the 1998 report, "Changing our Ways", and the 2000 report on recycling, etc. There are clear national strategies in place.

Mr. Sargent:

Vague guidelines.

Mr. Cullen:

Furthermore, what I find interesting in that supposition when the Deputy and other Deputies talk about a negation of local democracy is that they complain about the regional waste management plans. According to the Green Party, we should not have them and should only have a national strategy.

Mr. Sargent:

The Minister is not listening.

Mr. Cullen:

I have a double lock on this. We have a national strategy and empowerment at local level. We now have regional waste management strategies which have their own specific targets. We have the national strategies. We know those targets are ambitious, but realistic. These are enhanced by the regional waste management plans. Some regional authorities have set tough targets for themselves and I am delighted to see that. They want to drive this agenda forward, which I welcome.

It is important to state that any proposal for a particular project would have to be approved by An Bord Pleanála in the case of a local authority development or by the relevant planning authority or the board in the case of a private development. Listening to Deputies, it is as if there will be no consultation, public involvement or planning engagement but, of course, that will happen. All the procedures are in place in regard to these issues and they will be brought into the public arena and there will be objections. Whether I change this Bill will not change any of that. All the changes will be discussed by the councils and the managers. The manager is free to listen to the council. I cannot direct him not to do so, nor am I directing any manager in the country. This Bill does not give an absolute direction to somebody to charge for waste when people do not pay their charges, but it gives that right. It is up to them at local level to take a view, and I think that is important—

Mr. Gilmore:

Section 30 obliges them to do that.

Mr. Cullen:

No, they may come to different conclusions in different local authorities. They may use other funding and deprive the community of other facilities if they want to, but my view is quite clear on this. Neighbours should not be subsidising neighbours for the collection of waste at a time when the vast majority of people are paying their charges.

I suppose I will regret it for many years to come when I am trying to be helpful at a Dáil committee, but I have enunciated a particular reference as to the real cost of collection of waste. Of course, what nobody will go on to outline is the second half of my statement, that the whole purpose of re-use and recycling and the integrated segregated waste approach is very simple. We can substantially reduce our waste from what we were doing previously, which was to simply dump everything into one bin and dump it all in a landfill. As we move towards the basing of waste collection on weight, this will afford a real opportunity for all families around the country to substantially reduce their waste.

I know from many different experiences of local authorities around the country that people have been able to substantially reduce their waste charges and costs because they have got into recycling. This is a fact of life. Some people may be better at it than others, but it depends on whether one is committed to this sort of idea or not. I hope that the whole of our society will be committed to it because the benefit is not just to the individual or parent but to all of us in society, and the communities we live in are clear about this.

This is the direction in which we have to go, but if Deputies want to continue to be disingenuous about what I said, there is probably little I can do about it. In reality, however, we have strong evidence to show that already, waste costs of €200 or even €300 for individuals are being substantially reduced because they have gone into recycling and segregating their waste. They are only putting out a bin once every three or even four weeks, in some cases, where they used to put a bin out every week.

Deputies are right that there are real choices for individuals and, I should say to Deputy Joe Higgins, for communities. A community can see itself in either a positive or negative light. I do not understand the argument being made that rubbish is going to pile up in people's gardens or outside gates. Over half the waste in this country is already being collected by private collectors and there is no difficulty. There is no waste piling up in any house or garden that I know of in any of these areas.

If Deputy Joe Higgins wants to lead certain communities in this city in a particular direction that is his choice. It would deeply sadden me that this would happen, and I would say to the people living in these areas that they should think seriously before they are led in a misdirected way by what Deputy Joe Higgins is saying. People are legally obliged under both EU and Irish law to pay their waste charges. My point all along is that if everybody pays a small bit, the overall cost to everybody is substantially reduced.

I know that other issues have been raised, and I want to refer specifically to other amendments. I want to be clear on one issue referred to by Deputies. They have questioned why a further amendment would be necessary with regard to where a waste management and development plan lies. I have done this for the specific reason that we already have a case of one local authority which uses its own development plan to sunder and shred the waste management plans that were in place. It did this against the advice of its officials who were present at the meeting and who told them that this was contrary to good planning, in the first place, and was a disastrous approach to take. Of course, however, the local authority members went off and did it. They did not care about good planning or anything else and just thought it was a clever rouse to undermine and shred the regional waste management plans. That is why I am doing it. If I needed any vindication—

Mr. Gilmore:

That is not democracy—

Mr. Cullen:

I am not playing cat and mouse anymore. I am just not—

(Interruptions).

Mr. Cullen:

Deputy Gilmore accepts, on one level, that we have a crisis in this country on waste. A crisis, to me, is a crisis. It is not something to be talked up. Either we have a real, serious problem that has to be dealt with urgently and immediately, or we have not. I take the view that the former is the case, and the day for playing politics with these issues is long past.

We spent years talking about it and did nothing. Sadly, it was not until the changes were made in previous laws in the last few years that we got the integrated regional waste management plans in place. That is the sad tragedy. Councillors and everybody else could have faced up to the issues ten years ago. I include myself in this criticism. I was a member of a local authority and was as guilty as anybody else. I should not excuse myself from the games that were played in local authorities, when people would not bite the bullet on this. However—

Mr. Morgan:

The Minister had nerve. I remember him saying that in Waterford.

Mr. Cullen:

The record will probably show, however, that I was very much to the fore in supporting the charges, supporting those issues and supporting a move in the development of how we service the whole area of waste. I did not see it at the time as an issue that could be handled entirely within the public sector. I saw it as requiring a mixture of the public and private sectors, but I saw it as a right of any local authority to make those choices having full regard to its own circumstances, its own financial base and the direction in which it wanted to go, such as whether it wanted to put an emphasis on community development, roads, water or whatever. Local authorities should have that right. Equally, the regional waste management strategy was a matter for local authorities, and many of them have made that choice with great and resounding success in many different areas.

I have the choice, standing before the Dáil, to see to all of this and to put waste management back ten or 15 years. We know we are significantly short of landfill capacity. We are effectively on our last legs at present, bar one or two exceptions, and we desperately need to get that situation resolved. As I have already enunciated, we are making tremendous progress now – there is no question of that on the basis of any independent assessment – on recycling, re-use and composting, but we have a long way to go.

The targets we have set for ourselves are quite stiff. They are serious targets but are realistic and in the interests of this country and its people, as well as those who might care to visit us now and again. Tourism is a very important part of our economy, and the country should be presented in a very positive light. This all feeds into that. It feeds into many industries such as fishing, which is equally important to us, by providing clean rivers and waters. A whole range of issues are being addressed.

Yesterday in Dublin we opened what is effectively the latest and most modern waste water facility in the world, according to the engineers. It is the first time that a combination of all of these elements, which were really only being piloted up to now, have been brought together in a fully operational sense in a city the size of Dublin. It is the first capital city to have this facility in place which is at the cutting edge of everything that is happening throughout the world.

We have strands of lots of things happening. Somebody else in my position may in the future – and I hope it is long into the future – want to reverse all of this, but I doubt it. I doubt it because the waste management situation will have been resolved and we will have a quality of environment that is equal to the best in Europe. We will have done that on the basis of clear, specific targets set out in national development and regional plans, which are in place. The targets are there if anybody wants to read them.

For anybody to come into this House and suggest that there is no overall national strategy is a nonsense. Deputies are well aware of what we have done with construction and demolition waste and the way the building industry has responded positively. It has seen the hard line I have taken on packaging waste. It has also seen what Repak is achieving and what each of their individual councils are achieving. All of these things are happening. The danger is that we allow more games to be played and have all of this sundered. I am simply not prepared to accept that.

On the other issue of end-of-life vehicles, I had signalled on Second Stage that I would bring in this directive. Deputy Gilmore correctly pointed out that the directive has been around for the last few years. It is important that we get it passed into law as we have a judgment against us in Europe. I have simply transposed the EU directive into Irish law. Deputies could have read that for the last three years, so there are no surprises. The amendment simply transposes the directive directly into the Bill, so there is no mystery there. It is not something that fell out of the sky yesterday or tonight. It is not an amendment I have brought in that was never heard of before. It has long been out there.

Deputies have been on their feet during questions to the Taoiseach, Leaders' Questions and so no asking about this issue and about when the Government was going to deal with it. I was faced with the task of dealing with this issue and this Bill is the vehicle that provides me with the opportunity to do so.

All these elements are part of an overall package or strategy, a way of dealing with these issues. All local authorities brought in the best experts to design their plans. Everyone throughout the European Union and beyond who is familiar with this area accepts that minimisation, reuse-recycling, landfill and thermal treatment are the four key elements of any decent acceptable waste hierarchy. Such people recognise that there are elements in waste, of which we are all aware, which cannot be recycled or removed entirely out of the system by minimisation such as plastic bags whereby we would not need landfill. We need certain elements of landfill and thermal treatment. That is the way to go. By getting the capacities and figures right and accepting what is a reality, we could move forward together.

At a personal level, I am well used to the politics of this issue. I have been a Member of this House for a long time. We can all fight our corner and I respect that Members want to do that. However, I am genuinely disappointed that we cannot seem to collectively come to some conclusion and realisation that this is the way forward in dealing with these issues. We know what is stated to be the best international practice. I have spoken to councillors throughout the country who have been members of delegations who travelled to observe incinerators and thermal treatment plants throughout Europe and they have been amazed. They said they were fantastic and there is no problem with them, but they returned to their councils and voted against their introduction. That is laughable but it is the truth.

Mr. Gilmore:

They get excited sometimes when they go abroad.

Mr. Morgan:

It is laughable.

Mr. Cullen:

We all know that. I find that astonishing. I have travelled with these councillors, as have others, and observed facilities abroad. When they see fantastic swimming pools, indoor and outdoor tennis and badminton courts and football pitches, even in small towns in many European countries, they ask why we cannot have such facilities in Ireland. The answer to that question is simple. These countries have a substantial level of local taxation and that is how they fund these and many more facilities. No member state of the European Union has as low a tax rate as we have.

Mr. J. Higgins:

We have a far lower corporation tax than they have.

Mr. Cullen:

Yes, which has created at least 200,000 jobs, never mind further spin-off jobs. The amount of funding that level of employment contributes to the Exchequer every year is enormous.

Mr. J. Higgins:

The Minister should ask the people who are being made unemployed every week about that.

Mr. Cullen:

It has proven itself.

Mr. J. Higgins:

That is nonsense.

Mr. Cullen:

It has proved the Government's tactic in terms of what it set out to do when one considers that unemployment was at the level of 18%. Since 1987, Fianna Fáil-led Governments have reduced tax from 36% to its lowest level at 20%.

Mr. Morgan:

To which amendment is the Minister speaking?

Mr. Cullen:

Some 15 of those 16 percentage points were delivered by Fianna Fáil-led Governments. By doing that we transformed the economy. We got 600,000 people back to work.

Mr. Morgan:

Is this the budget debate?

Mr. Cullen:

Unemployment is running at just over 4% at a time when the world economy is in great difficulty. What we have is precious to us and what we have we hold.

In regard to waste management, I have said to Members that it is vital to continue to attract foreign direct investment and that we must have proper substantial waste management systems in place if we are to continue to do so. Foreign companies will not invest here if we do not have proper facilities in place to deal with waste. Members understand the strategies and they buy into all the EU directives, but they will lose out if they do not address this issue. I have said to people in different regions that those regions which implement their strategies in full and put the necessary facilities in place will have a unique selling point in terms of IDA Ireland and internationally by making such facilities part of what they will be able to deliver to any international organisation of note considering investing here. Waste management facilities and the strategies laid out to deliver and put in place the facilities will be crucial to the future development of many aspects of the well-being of the economy.

Members wonder why I take tough decisions. I would prefer if it was different, but when I consider what recently happened where a local authority deliberately—

Mr. Gilmore:

What local authority was that?

Mr. Cullen:

Galway County Council, as I pointed out to the Deputy on Committee Stage. The councillors deliberately adopted their own development plan and were told by the officials during that debate that this was contrary to good planning, never mind anything else. They beamed ahead against all the advice given for one reason, so that they could walk out the door and say they would get rid of that waste management strategy, they would have no landfill and no thermal treatment facilities. They would pretend to people that there are other simple solutions and that waste could be swept under the carpet or exported, that they would not deal with it. That is the sort of nonsense that has vindicated – if I needed vindication – what I have done. If I had a doubt in my mind about this and where we were going with it, that, without question, brought home to me the necessity to go through with this Bill in the way that I have.

There are some new and important amendments to the Bill. It is sad that after 20 hours of debate on Committee Stage the Deputies almost to a man resubmitted all the amendments we discussed at length and made it impossible to discuss new amendments. I recall that when I was newly elected to this House, Report Stage was different. It was not merely a case of recommitting all the Committee Stage amendments, we moved on and came up with new ideas, although one or two amendments might have been recommitted. Recommitting all the amendments makes a mockery of the seriousness of people trying to deal—

Mr. Gilmore:

The Minister did not accept anything on Committee Stage.

Mr. Cullen:

I did, including proposals put forward by the Deputy, and I have also accepted some ideas put forward by Members tonight, which they can note from the amendments.

Mr. McCormack:

The Minister covered a good deal of ground, but he made great play of the 20 hours debate on Committee Stage, for most of which I was present. However, I might as well have been at home because Committee Stage was dealt with in a room in the other building. Nobody reports it, nobody does—

An Ceann Comhairle:

If would be preferable if the Deputy dealt with the amendments before the House.

Mr. McCormack:

I have no problem dealing with them, but this is the Chamber, the House to which we were elected—

An Ceann Comhairle:

That is why I am particular about Members adhering to Standing Orders. We are on Report Stage of the Bill.

Mr. McCormack:

I will not delay on this because it is obvious that the Minister wants to talk this out until 9.30 p.m. That is obvious following his contribution.

An Ceann Comhairle:

Each Member has two minutes and I would like Members to speak strictly to the amendments before the House. There are a number of amendments and I would like each Member offering to have an opportunity to speak on them and that the Minister can then reply.

Mr. McCormack:

Given that Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats have a majority on Galway County Council, I do not know what the Minister was talking about. I was a member of that authority for 27 years, but I am no longer a member of it.

An Ceann Comhairle:

I am not sure to which amendment the Deputy is speaking.

Mr. Gilmore:

The Minister attacked Galway County Council.

Mr. Cullen:

I did not point out one political party when I made that comment.

Mr. Gilmore:

Any Galway man worth his salt would be entitled to reply to that.

An Ceann Comhairle:

I am trying to clarify to which amendment Deputy McCormack is speaking.

Mr. McCormack:

I am trying my best to put the Minister right.

Mr. Morgan:

Good man, he needs someone to do it.

Mr. McCormack:

This Bill should have been divided in terms of the good parts which are genuinely designed to promote the protection of the environment and the other parts dealing with the destruction of local government, which we should have discussed properly. There are effectively two parts to this Bill. Much of what is in it is good, but there are big sections stuck in here and there dealing with the destruction of the local authority system, the amendments to which we are discussing. No matter what the Minister says about his record as a member of a local authority, Deputy Morgan who quoted from The Munster Express– I wish he would do so again—

An Ceann Comhairle:

The Deputy's two minutes has concluded.

Mr. McCormack:

I regret that. I credit Deputy Morgan with quoting what the Minister said. He dared Padraig Flynn to abolish Waterford Corporation, of which he was a member at the time, when it would not fix charges. He can talk while wearing two hats any time he likes and I would like to have time to argue the point with him, but unfortunately I do not.

Mr. Sargent:

While listening carefully to the Minister, I had to ask myself whether he is a Fianna Fáil Minister because he wants policies to be validated in other countries before he tries them here. If he examined the foundations of his party and of the State he would realise that if we had waited for other people to validate our breaking away from the British empire we might not have had an opportunity to do so at all.

I wonder if there is any initiative left in Fianna Fáil that urges its members to be innovative enough to develop and design ideas to suit our needs—

Mr. Cullen:

It is all in the Bill.

Mr. Sargent:

—based on the type of innovation that led to the building of Ardnacrusha or the establishment of Bord na Móna or Siúcra Éireann. Such ideas were based on initiatives that were evident elsewhere, but they were sufficiently indigenous and were followed through and tailored to our needs. However, the agenda is being set by other countries and we are taking templates without examining them critically or developing a response according to our own best interests. Many of the countries from which we take templates have had more industrialisation than us and, as a result, they are trying to clean up after the mistakes of the past. Belgium serves as an example in this respect, where the state company Indaver NV is involved in the clean-up process.

When the Minister referred to the importance of other sectors such as the tourism industry – I agree with him on that point – I am not sure that he mentioned agriculture. It will be severely affected if municipal incineration is introduced. The marketability of agricultural produce will be affected and the work of Bord Glas is being undermined by amalgamation with another State agency. These issues have already been raised by buyers internationally.

The Minister should take on board wider interests rather than those of people who want to build incinerators. He should lead us forward without having to resort to incineration, as other countries are able to do.

Mr. Gilmore:

In the course of earlier contributions I mistakenly referred to section 30 instead of section 42, which deals with the charging regime.

I disagree with some of my colleagues on the Opposition benches who say that there is no national strategy on waste. It is clear that there is – it involves burning it and burying it. Whether anybody likes it or not, the Minister will establish a number of incinerators, incinerate as much waste as he can and bury the rest.

There is no ambiguity regarding what is intended. Unfortunately, there will be casualties, the first of which is local democracy. The Minister is introducing a new principle in the relationship between central and local government: if local government is not prepared to do what the Minister wants it to do, he will strip it of its powers. Local democracy, like democracy in all respects, is sometimes messy and does not always produce the result one wants. Decision making by the people and by their representatives sometimes gets complicated. If Galway County Council, or any other local authority, makes a decision, for whatever reason, that the Minister does not like, his approach is not to call councillors from his own party and talk to them about the issue but to abolish the power of every local authority.

Mr. McCormack:

That is because of the sins of councillors from his own party.

Mr. Gilmore:

We are returning to the principle of una duce, una voce.

Mr. Morgan:

I looked out the window to see if it was dark because I thought we were in the middle of the budget debate in December. This is what the Minister was referring to. The proposals in the Bill will not lead to waste reduction. The previous speaker was correct in stating that the cornerstone of the Bill was to burn and bury waste, and that is why I commend amendment No. 113 to Deputies. It proposes to delete references to thermal treatment and waste incineration in the waste management plan for the State.

Mr. Allen:

I missed the Minister's response because I had to take an urgent telephone call concerning parliamentary business. Local democracy has died tonight and we now have direct rule from central Government through the county manager, who will impose his or her will on the people of his or her functional area by bypassing councillors. Councillors from Government parties hope they can wash their hands of unpopular decisions that are to be made.

Local authorities will experience even greater shortfalls in funding in the coming year and the manager will make up for it by penalising the population of his or her area by imposing higher service charges. Service charges will rise to between €600 to €700 within a short time and they will be imposed directly by county and city managers. Our local elections will be held next June, but they will be effectively meaningless because councillors' most important powers and responsibilities – to decide to impose and to impose charges – will be taken from them. There are tough times ahead for local government and people will not accept the changes because there is now another layer of local taxes to supplement the wide range of stealth taxes we have experienced since the general election. Today, in the area of health, people have been penalised because of the lack of courageous decisions by a Minister who should have been dealing with manpower policies associated with the health brief rather than fiddling around with structures.

Mr. J. Higgins:

I am sorry that the Minister continually misses the point. In communities there is a great willingness to be environmentally conscious. Before any charges were introduced, in Fingal for example, people were separating their refuse and were very anxious to co-operate. What will not be accepted is the introduction, under the guise of environmental policy, of a separate tier of local taxation. The Minister cannot understand that. However, given that he is giving the county manager the right to set the level of taxation, householders know that pressure is being applied in certain quarters to impose further charges, such as water charges. Every household could face charges of over €1,000 in the space of a few years. Householders cannot afford this because the costs of everything else are also rising.

The Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, after consultation with the Minister's officials on the first day of Committee Stage, during which the Minister was ill, stated that section 49 of the Bill, which was giving the county manager the power to levy the charge, would be implemented for this year's council estimates. Will the Minister confirm that he will implement this section in time for this year's estimates?

Having consulted the Minister's officials, the Minister of State also stated that section 26, providing that the variation of the waste plan be the responsibility of the county manager, would be implemented in the autumn and that the section now called section 29, which gives the councils the power – though not an interdiction – not to collect bins, would be implemented as and from September. Can the Minister confirm this?

Mr. Gregory:

I listened intently to the Minister and I am sure he said something to the effect that it is not the intention under the Bill to oblige managers to charge for waste collection. He is not denying this, so I presume that is what he said. I presume the intention, therefore, is to bring in radical legislation that takes the powers away from local elected representatives, gives those powers to the manager to levy charges and starves the council of necessary funds, as has been happening with Dublin City Council for years. Considering all of this, are we seriously to believe it is not the intention to charge for waste collection?

If the Minister is being honest and serious about the issues he addresses, he should withdraw his statement on charges. There is no doubt that the whole intent of this legislation is to force local authorities to charge and to introduce a new level of taxation, not only to force local authorities to charge for waste collection but to force them to massively increase the charges already in existence.

The Minister will accept that this is an attempt to remove, the issue of local charges as a political issue to give the impression that councillors or people standing for local elections in the coming year will not have to deal with these issues, to imply that they will all be on a level playing pitch. The idea is that the Fianna Fáil councillors and others who have voted for minimal charges, but who would not tolerate the huge increases which it is intended to introduce, will no longer have to face the people on the issue of local charges. I presume this is occurring in the context of accepting the inevitable, namely that the obvious swing against the Government and Fianna Fáil on a whole range of issues will result, in the elections next year, in a majority of councillors who will oppose this Government and who will certainly oppose these charges.

I want to refer to the Minister's attempt to suggest–

An Ceann Comhairle:

The Chair would prefer if the Deputy would refer to the amendments. We seem to be wandering away from them.

Mr. Gregory:

I am referring to the Minister's comments in the Dáil a few minutes ago.

An Ceann Comhairle:

We have nine amendments before us. I would like the Deputy to refer to any one of them.

Mr. McCormack:

The Minister was genuinely disappointed with us. We are very genuinely disappointed with the Minister.

Mr. Gregory:

I am referring in general to the amendments and specifically to what the Minister stated when he was dealing with them. I want to put on record my opposition to this legislation in that it gives the lie to the Minister's previous legislation on the dual mandate. During the introduction of that legislation he claimed to be attempting to strengthen local democracy, when he is in fact taking away one of the few powers local elected representatives have, and handing it over to the city manager.

There is also an attempt to introduce a new level of taxation. There is no point in blaming Deputy Joe Higgins for the people's opposition that will undoubtedly be widespread, particularly in Dublin. I can speak only for Dublin, and I know from the numbers of people who have already refused to pay these charges that there will be huge opposition to the tactics employed in this Bill, the anti-democratic tactics employed in the legislation, and the inevitable massive increases in charges that will result from starving local authorities of funds and handing the powers over to the manager to increase these charges. For these reasons, I am strongly opposed to this legislation.

Mr. Cullen:

Commencement will happen as soon as possible. It will certainly be before the autumn, if that gives the Deputies any comfort.

Mr. J. Higgins:

The Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher said –

Mr. Cullen:

I am giving the Deputy my answer. I am the Minister responsible for bringing in the legislation. If the Deputies do not want me to answer the question, I will not. They asked me a question. I am saying that commencement will occur as soon as possible and the legislation be in place in the autumn.

Mr. McCormack:

The Minister should ensure he does it before the Fianna Fáil convention in order that people will know where they stand. They do not stand at all.

Mr. Cullen:

Local authorities are obliged to charge for waste collection under the "polluter pays" principle. They have no choice under Irish or EU law. There is no doubt in that area. Regarding those who do not pay their waste charges, the point I made is that the collection of waste by authorities is not compulsory. However, I expect that managers all over the country will implement non-collection as a last resort. I presume there will be considerable consultation with people if they have difficulties in that area, but the mangers now have that power. Moreover, that was the way everyone understood the law to be. Nobody thought it was any different. It was only when it was tested in a Supreme Court case that it was found to be otherwise. That is why I am now correcting it in this Bill, as a result of the Supreme Court decision.

The implementation of the "polluter pays" principle is required under EU law. It is important to note that the EU has clearly indicated that this requires the levying of a charge on households. If we do not levy such charges, the EU will take us to court and fine this State, and the money of which we are currently short in the many areas to which the Deputies keep referring will be a lot more scarce. We understand the law. Moreover, as there were no charges in some parts of Dublin a few years ago, the EU Commission threatened to withdraw all EU funding for waste facilities on the basis of the absence of charges conflicting with the law in this area. Would the Deputies put Dublin in such a position? That is their choice.

Mr. Connolly:

I want to record my opposition to the Bill. The Minister is going for a quick-fix solution to problems that could be dealt with differently. I refer in particular to an incinerator in north Monaghan. Some 80% of its plume dioxins will go across to Northern Ireland, mirroring the situation we are opposing regarding Sellafield. We should re-think these things. We are talking about burning mushroom compost, which is viewed as a very valuable resource in areas like Denmark, where people cannot get enough of it. There are other ways of heat-treating it so that it becomes a very productive and fertile garden product. I ask those on the Government benches to reconsider.

Mr. McCormack:

Is it possible now to have a vote on this amendment and subsequently a vote on the Bill at 9.30 p.m.?

An Ceann Comhairle:

All things are possible.

Mr. Sargent:

To reply to the Minister would require a full sitting in July.

An Ceann Comhairle:

In reply to Deputy McCormack, the guillotine is due at 9.30 p.m.

Mr. McCormack:

We must vote now on the amendments, which are very important.

An Ceann Comhairle:

Deputy Sargent is in possession and he should be allowed to continue.

Mr. McCormack:

If he sat down, we might have a vote.

Mr. Sargent:

We are very close to the wire and the guillotine is about to fall on the heads of many people who have issue with this legislation. The Minister has made a good case for extending this Dáil session into July because he has raised so many issues that need to be debated but which cannot be debated due to lack of time. I ask the Minister to take on board the unanimous views expressed by members of different Opposition parties that incineration is unacceptable as an option in the waste management strategies and that we must have waste reduction policies that work. As we do not have such policies, I ask the Minister to reconsider the zero waste strategies by not looking at countries where incineration takes place but at countries where there is no need for incineration.

Mr. McCormack:

It is disgraceful.

An Ceann Comhairle:

As it is now 9.30 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and not disposed of, including those in respect of which recommittal would in the normal course be required, are hereby made to the Bill, that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."

Question put.

Tá

Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, Barry.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Browne, John.Callanan, Joe.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Carty, John.Cassidy, Donie.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Cowen, Brian.Cregan, John.Cullen, Martin.Curran, John.Davern, Noel.

Dempsey, Noel.Dempsey, Tony.Dennehy, John.Devins, Jimmy.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Finneran, Michael.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Fleming, Seán.Gallagher, Pat The Cope.Glennon, Jim.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Hoctor, Máire.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kelly, Peter.Killeen, Tony. Lenihan, Brian.

Tá–continued

Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McDowell, Michael.McEllistrim, Thomas.McGuinness, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Mulcahy, Michael.Nolan, M.J.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Connor, Charlie.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Flynn, Noel.

O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Malley, Fiona.O'Malley, Tim.Parlon, Tom.Power, Peter.Power, Seán.Ryan, Eoin.Sexton, Mae.Smith, Michael.Wallace, Dan.Walsh, Joe.Wilkinson, Ollie.Woods, Michael.Wright, G.V.

Níl

Allen, Bernard.Boyle, Dan.Breen, James.Broughan, Thomas P.Burton, Joan.Connolly, Paudge.Costello, Joe.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Crowe, Seán.Cuffe, Ciarán.Deasy, John.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard J.English, Damien.Enright, Olwyn.Gilmore, Eamon.Gormley, John.Gregory, Tony.Harkin, Marian.Hayes, Tom.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael D.Howlin, Brendan.Kehoe, Paul.McCormack, Padraic.McGinley, Dinny.

McGrath, Finian.McGrath, Paul.Mitchell, Olivia.Morgan, Arthur.Murphy, Gerard.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Pattison, Seamus.Penrose, Willie.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairi.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Eamon.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Sherlock, Joe.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Durkan and Stagg.

Question declared carried.