Waste Disposal.

Mr. Boyle

I appreciate the opportunity to raise this issue which has consequences for national policy and more particularly for my constituents. The Government has stated a policy of introducing several incinerators around the country and the use of mass burn incineration to dispose of large-scale waste. In articulating this policy the Government seems to forget other policy positions which are compromised by this stance on incineration. There are two particular policies on which I would like the Minister of State at the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gallagher, to respond as the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has left the Chamber.

First, under our commitment to the Kyoto Protocol we are obliged to restrict our greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels and no more than 13% above those. Today we are at a level 37% higher than those levels. The likely cost per tonne of exceeding our commitment under the protocol will be €20 per tonne for 13 million tonnes, amounting to €260 million a year for a five-year period which will cost the State €1.3 billion. To construct incinerators and use incineration as a waste technology will add to this problem rather than solve it.

Second, there are moves afoot to reduce the creation of persistent organic pollutants. The environment committee of the European Parliament voted on this in the past week and member governments will be obliged to decide on it in the coming months. When the trend exists to seek to reduce, prevent and eliminate the production of pollutants such as dioxins and furans which are the by-products of the incineration process, and the Government insists on producing those pollutants on a large scale where they have not existed previously, questions must be asked about these contradictory policy positions. The public might hope that the Government would face those contradictions on its own but unfortunately the decision-making process on these incinerators is compromised because the independent entities responsible, such as An Bord Pleanála and the Environmental Protection Agency, are not given the opportunity to act independently.

In my constituency An Bord Pleanála made a decision that overrode the recommendations of its own senior planning inspector on a national toxic waste incinerator. This report by its senior inspector outlined 14 reasons an incinerator should not be built. Many outlined Government policy positions and noted that it was too soon to consider the construction of an incinerator when the Government had not put in place measures to reduce the amount of waste created — toxic waste in this case. There were strong planning grounds in terms of proximity to facilities such as the National Maritime College, the presence of a residential area and location at the end of a peninsula with only one road in and out of the area. There were no planning reasons to grant permission for such a facility. Nevertheless, An Bord Pleanála felt obliged to grant the decision, not on planning grounds but because of stated Government policy. It is a cause for concern in this House when stated Government policy seems to override common sense and good planning principles. Members of the public have cause for concern. Many of my constituents are amazed and angry that decisions of this type are made in this way.

On the Ringaskiddy incinerator, as will be the process with all other incinerators proposed in the country, it will be required that a waste licence be supplied by the Environmental Protection Agency. Despite this, the director general of the Environmental Protection Agency has already gone on record as saying that she is in favour of incineration, having previously been a representative of IBEC which promotes incineration as part of its policy.

How can the public have faith in a system where decisions are overturned on the basis of strong reports indicating otherwise and decisions are pre-empted not just by the director general of the Environmental Protection Agency but by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government who said that incinerators in Cork and Dublin will happen regardless of any public planning process? This is unacceptable and I would like the Minister to respond.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. Gallagher)

I thank Deputy Boyle for raising the issue. At the outset, I will set out the facts. Current waste management practices in Ireland are unsustainable from a broad environmental perspective. We must radically reduce our reliance on landfill and, to that end, we have adopted an integrated approach to waste management which respects the waste hierarchy. This approach has been widely adopted in other countries and has been a basis for the results achieved by the best waste management performers in Europe.

Instead of regarding waste as a problem to be dealt with, this approach turns that sort of traditional thinking on its head. Instead, it requires us to look at the extent to which waste can be prevented in the first place and then to exploit the resource potential of waste, either by way of re-using or recycling materials or through the production of energy.

In response to the assertion made by Deputy Boyle, I make it clear that mass burn incineration is not and never has been a part of the Government's waste management policy. Thermal treatment in our policy framework is one element in an integrated approach which also involves the achievement of ambitious recycling targets. It must operate under strict licensing conditions and, crucially, must involve the recovery of energy. This will minimise the amount of residual waste which ultimately must be disposed of in landfill.

On the interrelationship between waste management policy and policies on climate change and persistent organic pollutants, I do not agree with the Deputy's claim that they are contradictory. In so far as climate change is concerned, the implementation of the integrated approach underpinning our waste management policies will have a beneficial greenhouse gas impact. Energy recovered from waste, which might otherwise result in methane emissions from landfill, will displace fossil fuels elsewhere in the national energy mix. This has two climate benefits: preventing the creation of methane — a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 — and the reduction of total national CO2 emissions. These benefits are recognised in the national climate change strategy.

The application of the strict controls provided for in the EU directive on incineration, now transposed into Irish law, will ensure that the operation of thermal treatment facilities will not conflict with the achievement of our obligations under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe POPs Protocol or the Stockholm POPs Convention in so far as the reduction and minimisation of dioxins and furans is concerned.

The most recent EPA inventory of dioxins indicated that the hazardous waste incinerators in operation in Ireland in 2000 accounted for just 0.02% of total dioxin emissions to air. In addition, the report estimated that, even if one million tonnes of municipal waste were to be incinerated in 2010, the dioxin emissions to air attributable to incineration would amount to just 1.8% of the total. By comparison, uncontrolled burning processes accounted for nearly 4,000 times more dioxins in 2000 and are predicted to continue to be by far the biggest contributor to dioxin emissions in 2010.

There is no inconsistency between the respective areas of Government policy to which I have referred. We have adopted the integrated approach to waste management in line with best international practice. The new initiatives being introduced will be positive from a climate change point of view and, through strict controls, will still leave incineration contributing just a small fraction to overall dioxin emissions in Ireland. My attention has been and will continue to be focused on moving ahead with the crucial work of implementing our policies and providing Ireland with the sort of modern waste management infrastructure we require, while at the same time meeting our international environmental obligations. We are committed to the Kyoto Protocol.

Roads Projects.

Ms O. Mitchell

I welcome the opportunity to raise the issue of the Supreme Court decision of today and yesterday and speak about it so soon after the decision. I want to convey to the Minister of State the need for an urgent Government response to the decision.

I hardly need tell the Minister of State that this is an eventuality which has catastrophic consequences for my constituency and the neighbouring constituency of Dún Laoghaire. There has been a long line of setbacks for the M50. I recall going to my first public meeting on the issue in 1972. What is especially depressing this time that there appears to be no end in sight, no obvious solution and no certainty that the motorway will be completed.

The issue this time was the Minister's right to sanction the removal of a national monument. I do not wish to use this valuable opportunity to make political points. However, the issue highlights the need for extreme vigilance in the use of ministerial orders and the need for the Attorney General in particular to pay heed to measures which will have the force of law but which will not have the scrutiny of the Dáil.

Having said that, from the point of view of the objectors in this case, if it was not this point of law, it would be another one, and if we overcome this there will always be another issue. They will keep going just to frustrate the public will until they get their own way. Nevertheless, on behalf of those people who need the road, which is almost the whole country, and on behalf of taxpayers, we have an obligation to try to overcome each objection that arises.

I do not think it is a question of how to deal with the issue now. The question is the longer and broader one it raised. There is no point trying to fight the judicial review. I believe we should lose it because it is wrong that the Minister should be the person to adjudicate on decisions he has made himself. We are leaving ourselves wide open. It would be possible to move quickly to allow Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council to apply for consent again if the Government were to transfer to a different Minister the functions required under the National Monuments Act when seeking the consent of the Minister. The nub of the problem is the fact that the same Minister is giving the consent and the approval to the consent.

There is also the broader question of how we can bring some degree of certainty, if not speed, to the planning and implementation of vital strategic infrastructural projects. The M50 is not just of interest in my constituency. It is part of a national route affecting Dublin and the country. It is a major Euro route. The question is often asked in the media as to why projects take longer and cost more in Ireland. This is the answer. There is no certainty in the planning process. We allow challenges to take place, even after contracts have been signed. There may be challenges in other countries but they do not bring projects to a halt. To allow this protest to go on is to sign away millions of taxpayers' euro and ensure that future tenders for public projects will build into it the price of possible disruption and delay.

It is not just a question of the direct cost to the taxpayer, which is huge, but of all the projects that cannot be carried out because the money is being wasted fighting these challenges. Consider the utter misery of those of us who have to live in the path of a half-built motorway indefinitely. Jobs are in jeopardy because of the intolerable congestion and enormous public and private investments are at risk every day, some of which have been lost as a result of these endless and futile challenges.

I do not know if, during the planning process, every "i" was dotted and every "t" was crossed or if more could have been done to discover if there were ruins of archaeological importance on the site. However, I do know that, after three years of excavation, the archaeologists never found any castle and still do not know precisely where it is. The site is no Wood Quay and is not a site on which one should make a stand about our heritage. If it were, I would be protesting with the objectors. I know there will always be tension between development and heritage preservation and that a balance must be struck, but the wrong balance has been struck in this case. The game is simply not worth the candle and we are all paying the price.

I realise the Minister has only had 24 hours to consider his response to this fiasco, but I cannot over-emphasise the urgency of whatever action is being contemplated. No matter how speedy the decision made will be, we are facing a legal quagmire that will be painfully slow.

The objectors are saying the motorway can go ahead if we drop the interchange. I ask the Minister of State not to succumb to this demand, however tempting it may be. It is a whimsy and the objectors know nothing about the design of roads. They presume to be experts in planning, etc., but the reality is that their proposal would have catastrophic consequences for those living in the area and for the efficacy of the motorway. The removal of the interchange would completely undermine the investment being made in the motorway.

Mr. Gallagher

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. As she is aware, work on the section of the south-eastern motorway in the vicinity of the Carrickmines Castle site was suspended last year on foot of an injunction granted by the Supreme Court in February 2003 restraining Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council from undertaking any works in the vicinity of the site, pending the granting of a consent under section 74 of the National Monuments Acts.

On 4 July 2003, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government approved a joint consent with Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council for specified works at Carrickmines to facilitate continuation of the south-eastern motorway. He also made an order approving the consent in accordance with the provisions of the National Monuments Acts, as amended. This was based on our overall assessment that, in allowing construction of the south-eastern motorway along its approved route, the public interest justified consenting to and approving the works impacting on archaeology at the site. The Minister also considered that it had been satisfactorily demonstrated that a systematic approach had been adopted by the county council to the archaeological resolution of the Carrickmines site. This had involved a major commitment of resources. These activities, coupled with further archaeological work to be completed, will preserve the main archaeological elements of the site either by record or in situ. The order and joint consent were then laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council successfully applied to the High Court on 8 December 2003 to have the injunction lifted to enable work to proceed in the vicinity of Carrickmines following the elapse of 21 sitting days without the order being annulled by either House of the Oireachtas.

On 3 December an application for a judicial review of the order was made and, following a hearing, this was refused by the High Court on 6 January 2004. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in a judgment of 27 January, decided to give leave for a judicial review regarding one issue only on the basis that the applicant had established an arguable ground of challenge to the order of 3 July 2003. This relates to the validity of a 1996 Transfer of Functions Order, S.I. No. 61 of 1996, transferring functions of the Commissioners of Public Works to the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. The Supreme Court did not find in favour of the applicant on the other grounds on which he sought a judicial review.

The judicial review will be heard by the High Court tomorrow. In the meantime, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council has undertaken not to damage or interfere with the national monument at Carrickmines. This does not mean that works on the motorway at Carrickmines are suspended, but works cannot take place that would have the effect of damaging the monument. I hope Deputy Olivia Mitchell agrees it would be prudent to await the outcome of the case before the High Court tomorrow before deciding on a course of action in this matter.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.45 p.m. until10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 29 January 2004.