Yesterday in Dublin, 52,000 homes were not provided with the refuse service for which they have paid. In the last three weeks in south Dublin, people have paid over €2 million in refuse charges, while €6 million has been paid in that area since the beginning of the year. Everyone has rights and responsibilities. It is perfectly fair to say that everyone has the right to legitimate protest, but not the right to prevent a service being provided for those who have paid a legitimate charge. Does the Taoiseach agree that people who pay for a refuse service, particularly in Dublin city, have a right to have that service provided? Has the Taoiseach asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, to consult with the Garda Commissioner to ensure that a service for which people have paid and which they expect to be provided, will be provided? In recognising that people have a right to legitimate protest, does the Taoiseach agree that this entitlement does not extend to the prevention of a service for which a charge has been legitimately paid?
Leaders' Question.
I agree with Deputy Kenny. Direct dues or charges for household waste collection, which arose from legislation passed in this House and an EU directive of 1996, are widely applied not only in this country but throughout Europe. They give effect to the polluter pays principle which is the requirement of that EU directive and the legislation. The provision was set out in the Waste Management Act 1996 so it is the law of the land.
The great majority of householders pay waste collection and disposal charges. Many others in various categories have waivers, and being entitled to waivers they also comply with the law. I have no doubt those people would readily agree that it is unjust for the majority of householders who comply with the law and pay their fees, or who are entitled not to do so, to effectively subsidise others who enjoy the service but refuse to pay for it and are in default. The power to allow local authorities to discontinue collection of waste from householders who have not paid the charges was introduced against that background over a period. The legislation is the law of the land and has passed through the democratic process. It must be respected equally by all citizens. These issues were debated over a long period.
Deputy Kenny noted yesterday's disruption in Fingal, Dublin city and south Dublin. I have the details. Small numbers of protesters were involved. Nobody likes to see anyone injured as a result of these issues but people cannot take the law into their own hands. There have been discussions within Government on the matter and between the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, and the Garda, and the matter is being monitored closely this morning because there are further protests taking place at the four Dublin bases.
I understand that up to 80% of people in the Dublin City Council area have paid the charges. This is not an industrial dispute. The situation has resulted in council workers being left to confront protesters, with disturbing consequences which were evident last night. If the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has spoken to the Garda Commissioner or the Garda authorities about ensuring that the service is provided, can the Taoiseach confirm that the Minister will report to the House today on the monitoring of the situation, so that those who have paid for and expect a refuse collection service can have it provided, and so that we do not descend into the situation referred to yesterday by the Tánaiste, where anarchy might prevail? It is very important that the Taoiseach, as Head of Government, should assert that in a democracy we recognise the right to legitimate protest, but that it does not extend to the prevention of a service being provided for those who have paid for it. I would like the Taoiseach to reassure the House and those who have paid for the service that it will be provided today.
I reaffirm what I said regarding the Waste Management Act 1996 and the subsequent legislative changes asserting the right of local authorities in more recent times not to collect waste when people will not pay. That is the law of the land.
I would not like to give the impression that there are vast numbers of people involved in anarchy or protest. Yesterday there were 20 protesters in Fingal. From the information I have received, there were in total about 60 people involved in protests at depots in Rathmines, Collins Avenue, Grangegorman and Davitt Road. I am not sure if there are other locations.
Some 37,000 people have not paid the charges.
The Deputy should have the courage to tell them to pay.
In south Dublin there were 20 protesters.
Joe Mooney has rights as well.
Deputy McGrath is being disorderly.
There were about 40 protesters involved in Dún Laoghaire. In all, there were about 150 protesters involved. The Garda is in situ in all these locations this morning and intends to deal with the situation as responsibly as it can. Nobody wishes people to be injured or to impose hardship on protesters. Neither do we wish drivers to suffer stress as it is not easy to confront protesters. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is taking questions this afternoon and I am sure he will have an appropriate reply in this regard.
Notwithstanding what the Taoiseach has already said, is he now saying this matter is to be left to the Garda and the courts? Is that the only solution we are offering in a situation where waste is being piled high on the streets causing a public health hazard, where political activists are being imprisoned and where conflict is being fomented between residents? One of the more important recent developments is that council workers are being taken off the payroll. Does the Taoiseach agree that an initiative is required that would involve the organisers calling off the blockade and the Minister terminating the order for non-collection which triggered these extreme protests? Does he agree that any regime of charges ought to have regard to ability to pay, they ought to be waste or volume related, that each local authority ought to have a reasonable and fair waiver system and that increases should be limited to indexation?
Does the Taoiseach agree that householders and families cannot be left in circumstances where their bins are uncollected and that it will take some initiative other than merely leaving it to the Garda – this is a difficult area to police – and the courts to resolve this matter? Will he say if section 30 of the Act which has triggered this situation can be put into abeyance on condition that the blockade is called off and that there is no industrial dimension to this dispute whereby workers continue to be suspended and taken off the payroll?
I have a great deal of sympathy for the workers involved as the situation is not of their making. Household waste is not being collected and disposed of in the normal efficient way because a small group of protesters, yesterday fewer than 150 people were involved, in a city of 1.25 million people are blocking the council from doing so. That is the reason.
The easy thing to do when one is faced with difficulty is to find the easiest solution and to stand down the law. If Deputy Rabbitte is asking me if I agree with that, I do not. The law is the law. Deputy Rabbitte is suggesting we should stand down the law when it becomes inconvenient for people or when political activists do not like it and wish to flout it. I do not agree we should stand down the law. While the situation is a difficult one, consultation is ongoing. To avoid having to pursue the cumbersome approach arising in every case, legislation was introduced under the Protection of the Environment Act 2003 providing that local authorities are no longer obliged to collect waste from persons who fail to pay waste collection charges. Workers, officials and the Garda are trying to comply with that law. A high proportion of people are already paying their charges, some have been given waivers, and it is only fair that everyone is treated equally. One has to enforce the law to ensure everyone is treated equally. There is no easy solution to this problem.
On monitoring the position and trying to keep a cool head, of course I will do so. I do not wish the dispute to escalate into a hostile situation for all involved but that cannot mean putting aside the law.
I did not say any of the things the Taoiseach ascribes to me. Even if he is correct in saying that only 150 people are involved in the protest, is he proposing we wait until all 150 of them are incarcerated in Mountjoy? I never said the law should not take its course. I never said people should not pay the price for being in contempt of court nor that reasonable protest is not permissible. This blockade is unreasonable and ought to be called off, but it was triggered by a particular measure which the Minister signed into law by order providing for non-collection of bins. That is the problem.
What does the Taoiseach have to say to families and householders in south County Dublin? Gardaí have advised council workers that for them to take the course recommended by the Taoiseach they would need to drive the lorries to the gate and if stopped from egressing the normal course will follow. However, the drivers have refused to drive the lorries to the gate and the advice from gardaí is that no action may be taken against the bin drivers concerned. How do we deal with that situation? Sooner or later some initiative will have to be taken to break this stand-off. We cannot have householders who are entitled to have their bins collected having to endure the pile up of waste outside their doors. That is not acceptable.
I agree with Deputy Rabbitte on the latter point. I also agree that it is never good to allow a situation to develop into a difficult stand-off. I did not visit any of the depots yesterday so the figures are not mine. I am merely quoting from figures supplied by the Garda which state that there are approximately 150 people involved in the protest. I do not wish to get into a dispute in that regard.
Much of this started in Fingal where reasonable provisions were made and reasonable circumstances existed under the law. A group of people from the Fingal area have decided to use this issue as a means of flouting the law. I have no difficulty with people protesting as they did on the streets at the weekend. They have a right to do so. However, I do not think they have the right to protest in this particular manner. The difficulty is they are flouting the law and trying to prevent others from obtaining a service.
As regards removing the existing provision, if I do not pay my electricity or gas bill, my service is cut off. If I do not pay my television licence fee, I am fined. If I do not pay my water charges other difficulties arise. If a person does not pay refuse charges then his or her bins should not be collected.
There are no water charges.
There are many types of charges in different parts of the country.
The Deputy should visit rural areas.
Dublin is not Ireland.
Please allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.
People are paying water, refuse and other kinds of charges. If one does not pay one's telephone charges the service is cut off. When it comes to services one cannot break the law.
The Taoiseach should ask the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, for advice on that.
We have to try to deal with this matter in the calmest way possible. We simply cannot stand down a provision of legislation.
In a speech in Killarney the Taoiseach chose not to mention environmental sustainability, except in the context of how he might like to wreck it. Does the Taoiseach respect An Bord Pleanála? I have respect for the board, even when I do not agree with all of its decisions. I respect its role, expertise and objectivity. What role does the Taoiseach envisage for the board in the context of the proposed infrastructure board, especially in view of his commiseration with the man from Shell following the refusal of permission to build a terminal at Ballinaboy and Pollathomas? In that instance the board had to consider the effect of a dig-out of 600,000 tonnes of peat to be dumped in an unstable area with the threat of landslides and pollution to rivers. The recent landslide at Pollathomas illustrates the difficulties faced by the board.
Will the Taoiseach outline what he proposes to do with the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Fahey, who, as Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, issued a foreshore licence in advance of the inconvenience of waiting for a decision on the granting of planning permission? It amounted to a nod and a wink, a cute go ahead from Fianna Fáil that the applicants could proceed and not worry about permission from An Bord Pleanála. What role does the Taoiseach envisage for the board in relation to issues of this kind?
The Taoiseach has the gall to blame the presence of swans for creating the opposition to the bridge at the Malahide estuary. Does he not agree that his neck is much tougher than that of any swan, given that Ray Burke and his Fianna Fáil cronies rezoned the original road line for that development? The problem was not the swans but the rats in his party who have difficulty telling right from wrong and complying with the law.
The Deputy is engaging in unparliamentary language.
Does the Taoiseach accept that the construction of the new road required the demolition of several houses and the tearing apart of a community? There are no such delays in other European Union countries because they do not have Fianna Fáil to get involved in the corrupt practices that have caused such problems for An Bord Pleanála and those of us trying to uphold the law and maintain standards in public life and sustainability with regard to the environment.
The Deputy has gone well over his time.
Will the Taoiseach provide one example of what An Bord Pleanála has done that is so wrong that its role must be sidelined?
On the question of the Corrib gasfield, Deputy Sargent is trying to confuse two projects in his reference to the difficulties at Pollathomas.
That is where the pipeline was scheduled to come ashore.
The Corrib gasfield application has been through the planning process and has been rejected. I advised the company there is no other mechanism at its disposal but to repeat the process because the infrastructure legislation will not be in place. We will introduce an infrastructure Bill, but in a modern democracy and a country that is endeavouring to generate—
The Taoiseach is undermining democracy.
This is Leaders' Questions. Potential leaders will have to wait.
God help us.
I thought the Deputy was interrupting to say he supports the Ballincollig bypass. It is all right if the bypass is in the Deputy's constituency, but not if it is elsewhere.
And the Balbriggan bypass.
I will ignore Deputy Sargent's remarks about my party. He has the hardest neck of all as he and a small group of people were responsible for adding hundreds of million of euro to the cost of projects because of delays and protests. He should explain to the House why he behaved in that manner.
The Taoiseach has some cheek.
Despite the Deputy's efforts, the M1 motorway is one of the best of its kind in the country. Following the removal of heavy traffic in the area, people in Swords, which the Deputy should be privileged to represent, are living a good community life.
What about the role of Ray Burke?
The Deputy should ask a supplementary question.
It is fair enough that the Deputy is opposed to the use of cars, but he should acknowledge that his constituents can travel to and from the city in a short period of time. The Deputy is opposed to that.
What about the role of An Bord Pleanála?
An Bord Pleanála will continue, but it will not be involved in every project in the country. Some major projects incur costs of €1 billion or more. Running the country is also concerned with the creation of jobs. The Deputy may only be interested in his own job, but I am interested in the 1.8 million jobs in this country. We want to keep people in employment and maintain investment. However, unfortunately, as long as the Deputy continues to protest it will be harder to generate jobs because applications will incur greater costs. That is the Deputy's contribution in his role as objector to every development.
Deputy Sargent, have you asked your supplementary question?
I am waiting for an answer to my question regarding the role of An Bord Pleanála. Will the Taoiseach answer it? Will he indicate if there is anything that An Bord Pleanála has done that is so wrong that he considers it necessary to sideline it, which is effectively what will happen if the proposed infrastructure board is established? The Taoiseach wants to challenge decisions made by the board on projects such as the one at Ballincollig and the Shell project. Does he agree with newspaper reports that the proposed infrastructure board is more concerned with fast-tracking the building of incinerators and other such projects, which he knows local communities will not accept?
Does the Taoiseach also agree with the Forfás report which showed that between 1995 and 1998, waste generation in Ireland increased by 89% and Irish citizens produced far more waste than the European average, at 596 kilograms of municipal waste per person compared to the European average of 450 kilograms per person? The report also showed that almost 2.3 million tonnes of household and commercial waste was generated in Ireland, an increase of 62% in five years. The binmen are not responsible for the waste crisis, but does the Taoiseach accept that his Government is responsible for its failure to use the Waste Management Act, which gives plentiful powers to the Minister to reduce waste? When is the Taoiseach going to do his job and ensure there is a reduction in the creation of waste?
Leaders' Questions is confined to one topic only.
My questions related to the infrastructure Bill.
I hope the Deputy supports the excellent waste media campaign which starts today.
We started ten years ago.
The Government is considering proposals to create a new body which will take responsibility for examining proposals for infrastructure projects of strategic national importance. My difficulty with An Bord Pleanála is the inordinate amount of time it takes to make decisions on major projects because of its huge workload. This proposal will assist it in that regard. There is not a Deputy in the House who is not constantly pointing out the need for more resources and structures to enable the board to run more efficiently. Some major projects take up an enormous amount of the board's time, which is understandable. The hardworking staff in the board need assistance.
When does the Taoiseach propose to provide it?
The intention is to have a streamlined one stop shop procedure to obtain faster decision making while still ensuring that all environmental and other issues are fully examined. I have no doubt that An Bord Pleanála will then be able to deal more promptly with all of the other issues under its remit. This will not remove any environmental standards but it will help major infrastructure projects to proceed.