Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 20 Jun 2006

Vol. 621 No. 7

Private Members’ Business.

Waste Management: Motion.

Mr. Sargent

I move:

"That Dáil Éireann,

—recognising the continued record levels of waste generated per head, as highlighted by the recent Forfás report and the low levels of recycling in Ireland;

—condemning the Government's failure to bring forward regulations under the Waste Management Act 1996 to give effect to producer responsibility obligations to promote the placing on the market of reusable, recyclable and biodegradable products;

—acknowledging the civic mindedness of people, who are recycling;

—condemning the practice of local authorities which charge for community level civic recycling facilities;

—condemning the Government's failure to divert waste away from landfill as legally required under EU directives and the Government's plans to seek a derogation from the landfill directive requiring a reduction of biodegradable waste going to landfill by 2009;

—recognising that an independent expert has stated that incineration costs are significantly higher than that estimated by the Government;

—acknowledging that many local authorities have excluded incinerators from their waste management plans;

—recognising specifically that Dublin City Council has excluded incineration from its development plan; and

—recognising that the planning inspector's report on the hazardous waste facility in Ringaskiddy, which gave 14 reasons this development should not proceed, was overruled by An Bord Pleanála on the basis that incineration was "Government policy";

calls on the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to ensure:

—that the Canadian Guelph waste management model of separate collection of wet (organic) and dry (inorganic) wastes from all waste outlets including households, be instituted by a given date;

—the provision of proper "civic amenity" infrastructure for both wet and dry waste at disposal depots in all local authorities, open to the public at no charge, and provide that collection services for all domestic recyclables are free of charge;

—the introduction of waste production regulations under section 29(4) and 29(5) of the Waste Management Act 1996, setting down producer responsibility obligations and targets for the composition, design, use and placing on the market of recyclable, reusable and biodegradable packaging and setting down specified limits on the use of virgin material in primary production of packaging;

—the establishment of a waste deposit regulations under section 29(4)(f) of the Waste Management Act 1996, to require producers, distributors or retailers to operate deposit refund schemes;

—the establishment of a waste reuse research and development programme and enterprise supports under section 28(2) of the Waste Management Act 1996, for innovative projects and business start-ups, for the reuse of waste packaging, and in particular for projects for the curing of contaminated food waste containers;

—that legislation is introduced to return powers to local authorities so that the making of a waste management plan is a reserved function by repealing sections 4 and 5 of the Waste Management (Amendment) Act 2001; and

—that the Minister uses his powers under section 24(c) of the Waste Management Act 1996 to require local authorities in Dublin County to vary the replacement waste management plan for the Dublin region made by them on 11 November 2005, by the deletion of paragraph 18.8 to exclude the siting of an incinerator on the Poolbeg peninsula in south County Dublin.”

Tá mé ag roinnt mo chuid ama leis an Teachta Gormley agus an Teachta Boyle. Tá a fhios agam go bhfuil an Teachta Morgan agus na Teachtaí Neamhspleácha ag iarraidh labhairt chomh maith.

I acknowledge the presence of residents of many communities such as Ringsend and Sandymount in the Visitors Gallery. Waste management is a key issue in many areas and it will inform people in making their decision on who to vote for in the next general election. The Green Party has tabled the motion to outline a better way to manage waste and to highlight a blind spot in Government thinking which has made Ireland the dirty old man of Europe. The EU Environment Agency again this month found Ireland to be the worst state in the EU 25 for generating municipal waste, creating 735 kg per capita in 2003. The Government’s amendment refers to its record as remarkable progress but people will have to judge that for themselves.

When debating the terrible death toll on our roads, no Minister would dare say that even one death is acceptable, yet the growing mountain of waste foisted on householders has resulted in no useful response from Government. Instead of adopting a strategy to reduce waste, Ireland has a policy of increasing waste. The growing amount of junk mail landing on our doormats every day without Government sanction is an example in this regard. I have witnessed in Canada how a strategy focused on reducing waste year by year to achieve zero waste in due course can work if political will and community empowerment are strong enough. People want to recycle and compost. The green schools programme is better supported by Irish schools than those of any other EU member state.

Under section 29(4) and 29(5) of the Waste Management Act 1996, producers can be required to generate less waste, segregation of materials and diversion from landfill can be mandatory and local communities can be empowered to play their part in a zero waste strategy. Such a strategy would not require incinerators and hiding waste in huge landfills would also not be necessary.

Lives are being ruined in my constituency by the Government's laissez-faire attitude to the growing waste crisis. In the Tooman-Nevitt area of Lusk where the current major dump for Dublin is located at Balleyally, eight more families will be evicted if the Government is permitted to build a new dump and further destroy lives, communities and the wider environment. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has said nobody wants to live near a landfill, yet he is prepared to sentence 13 families to live on the periphery of this new monument to Government failure to tackle the mounting waste crisis. However, a geological fault line has been discovered beneath the proposed 10 million tonne landfill site, which means groundwater from this part of Lusk feeds the Bog of the Ring underground reservoir on which many people in County Dublin depend for drinking water. This is also the Minister’s responsibility.

No landfill liner membrane is guaranteed never to leak or to be punctured and, because of this, the EPA recommends that a minimum of 10 metres of clay be present on top of the bedrock to act as a filter for leakage from the dump. The Tooman-Nevitt site has as little as 4.5 metres of soil above bedrock in places and much less than 10 metres in others. Valuable archaeology on the site has also meant that, so far, 3 million tonnes, approximately one third of the dump's proposed capacity, has been forfeited by Fingal County Council. Unsurprisingly, 21 reports on this proposed landfill have been sent to the European Commission so far.

The Green Party will make a logical case to deal with post-consumer materials as a resource rather than as waste to be thrown away. There is no such place as away. The Government has the legislation to minimise the waste problem but it must be instrumental in minimising the crisis. However, as my colleagues, Deputy Gormley, Green Party health spokesperson, and Deputy Boyle, Green Party finance spokesperson, will make clear, there are proven ways to reduce and tackle this avoidable problem and they do not involve a false choice between incineration and landfill. Waste reduction is where the solution lies, and it is for this reason we seek support for our motion.

Mr. Gormley

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. At a public meeting in Ringsend a number of weeks ago, I gave an undertaking on behalf of the Green Party that we would use our Private Members' time to table a motion calling on the Government to reassess its decision to grant approval for a public private partnership for an incinerator on the Poolbeg peninsula. Our motion goes further than that. It is a comprehensive motion which details the problems and difficulties with the Government's approach to waste management and offers a number of solutions. I convey my thanks and appreciation to residents groups in my constituency who have worked so hard on this issue and I express the hope that we will continue to work together on this campaign and bring it to a successful conclusion. I also thank the Opposition parties that have signalled their intention to support the Green Party Private Members' motion.

Those who are genuinely opposed to the siting of an incinerator on the Poolbeg peninsula will support this motion. Deputy McDowell, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, has issued quite a number of statements and newsletters to our constituents on this matter, insisting that he is opposed to the siting of an incinerator on the peninsula. This is his moment of truth and he has a number of options. He can choose to amend this motion as he sees fit but in a way which will ensure that no incinerator can be located on the Poolbeg peninsula. If he decides to toe the Government line, he will renege on a solemn promise given at the previous general election.

Nobody should be mistaken that the Minister made the issue of the incinerator the central plank of his election campaign and we have all of the election literature to prove it. As befits a man who does not usually mince his words, he told the electorate that he would stop the incinerator. He also told us that Fianna Fáil could not be trusted to govern on its own and that he would use his influence at the Cabinet table to stop the incinerator. However, we are still waiting for this man of action to deliver and we have seen precious little action.

If the Minister was so opposed to this incinerator, why did he do nothing to stop the granting of approval by this Government for the incinerator contract on the Poolbeg peninsula? It is untrue to claim that the public private partnership deal, which was granted to Elsam Limited, had nothing to do with the peninsula proposal. Replies to parliamentary questions I tabled demonstrate the PPP is directly linked to the Poolbeg peninsula. During this debate, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will have an opportunity to make amends. I sincerely hope he will do so when the votes are cast at the end of this debate because I am tired of his posturing and the disingenuous nonsense in his newsletters to constituents. Reading these newsletters, one gets the impression, as only the Progressive Democrats can give, that somehow the Minister is a bystander in Government or, even better, a member of the Opposition.

He claims the proposed incinerator is a mass burn incinerator not in line with Government policy. Well done to the Minister for spotting that. I am sure that took a lot of detective work. We have been saying it is a mass burn incinerator for years and, if it is not in line with Government policy and Fianna Fáil has managed to pull the wool over the Minister's eyes, as he implies in his newsletters, why did he give his assent to the public private partnership? Why did he not raise an objection? If, as he claims, Dublin City Council is not dealing properly with the ash problem, which is also something the Green Party has stated repeatedly, why has he allowed this process to continue?

I have no intention of allowing the Minister to get away with such cute hoor politics where he pretends to the local electorate to be one thing and then acts differently in Government. It used to be called talking out of both sides of one's mouth and if the Minister were in Opposition, he would be the first to attack such politics.

Mr. Quinn

Absolutely.

Mr. Gormley

Deputy McDowell is in Government and he is failing to deliver on his commitments. He has betrayed the electorate to whom he made these solemn promises. Unless the Minister persuades his party to accept the thrust of the motion, it is clear that both Government parties are in favour not only of this incinerator but of all incinerators.

The main reason the hazardous waste incinerator was given the go-ahead in Cork, was that it was Government policy. The planning inspector may have given 14 reasons it should not go ahead, but all these were overruled because of the Government's commitment to incineration. I fear that the proposal for one of the largest mass burn incinerators in Europe on the Poolbeg peninsula could go before An Bord Pleanála and that, although I could provide the best of reasons for opposing it, and there are many such reasons, which I will outline later, all could be ignored because of the Government's commitment to incineration.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, also claims that he used his influence to stop this proposal from being taken under the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill. There are a number of points to be made about this claim. First, there is no evidence to suggest that the Minister did so. Replies to questions I have asked in this regard in no way indicate that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, could put a stop to this project. If the Minister's claims are correct, I ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, who is present in the Chamber, to say if it is true. A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

Mr. Quinn

The Minister should tell the House the full story.

Mr. Gormley

Yes, he should give Members the full story.

Mr. Roche

The Deputies should stick around.

Mr. Gormley

Possibly more importantly, the processes for a public private partnership for a waste facility do not differ markedly from those which will operate under the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill. Hence, it is not a big deal that this project will not be developed under the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill. There is nothing to prevent Dublin City Council from using the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill for this proposal if it so wishes. If the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government wishes to rebut or clarify any of these points, I would like to hear him so do.

The Minister knows only too well that the last major infrastructural project on the Poolbeg peninsula has not gone as planned. The Taoiseach, the Minister and other dignitaries opened the waste water treatment plant — again the largest in Europe — with great fanfare. Since then, residents from the locality and beyond have been subjected to the foulest of odours from this plant which is running at capacity. One wonders how Dublin City Council and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, who signed off on it, could have got it so badly wrong. However, they did so.

The Minister appears to believe that big is beautiful because he has authorised the construction beside the sewage treatment plant of what will possibly be the largest mass burn incinerator in Europe. The building, and not merely its chimney stacks, will be the height of Liberty Hall and the length of Croke Park. The chimney stacks will be approximately half the height of the red and white chimneys on the Poolbeg peninsula. This will be a monstrosity, even in visual and planning terms. Moreover, this monster will require feeding for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year for 30 years. For 30 years, Ireland's waste management strategy will be committed to incineration, during which hundreds of trucks will trundle through Sandymount and Ringsend daily and the costs of incineration will spiral beyond the original estimates.

Although the Minister has made a mess of the sewage treatment plant, no one has been held accountable. No one has lost his or her job or has held up his or her hand and admitted guilt. This is a prime example of incompetence and a lack of transparency and accountability.

Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats now want to repeat the trick. An independent expert, to whom reference was made in the motion, has stated that the costs given by Dublin City Council are inaccurate. The expert in question is Mr. Joe McCarthy, with whom officials in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will be very familiar because he exposed the debacle of electronic voting and showed it could not work properly.

Mr. Quinn

Along with others.

Mr. Gormley

Will the Government ignore Mr. McCarthy on this issue? Will the Government plough ahead in the knowledge that Dublin City Council has not properly addressed ash disposal and CO2 emissions, to mention just two issues? Will the Government turn a blind eye? For every three tonnes put into the incinerator, one tonne, which must be disposed of in a landfill, will be returned. Therefore, landfill will always be part of the equation.

The kind of landfill which the Green Party supports would contain no compostibles and would be very different. It would be so different that Professor Paul Connett, a waste management expert, refers to it as "clean fill". This is a landfill in which one sees no rats or seagulls and in which there are next to no leachates or methane emissions. Moreover, if the political will exists, this can be achieved. However, it is quite clear that the political will does not exist because not even the delivery of brown bins has been implemented. Where are the brown bins of which the Minister and others continually speak?

As our knowledge of waste management techniques improve, it is becoming clearer that incineration is not a sustainable technology. How could it be sustainable to use energy to create products and then burn those products, thus wasting energy and creating CO2 emissions? We now have a unique opportunity to avoid making that mistake. It will mean changing the direction of society and the manner in which we conduct our affairs. Built-in obsolescence and the throwaway society must come to an end and industry will be obliged to clean up its act and assume responsibility for the products it makes. Many industries have realised that clean technology, as it has become known, can save money. It makes economic sense not to be wasteful. The argument is often used by proponents of incineration that environmentally friendly countries use it as a means of waste management. However, the same arguments have been used by those who support the nuclear industry.

I refer to another problem of which the Minister has not taken account and to which a "Prime Time" television programme alluded. New evidence has emerged about emissions from incinerators which deal with particulate matter or very small particles. The particulates in question are much smaller than PM10s or PM2.5s. Dr. Staines, who was commissioned by the Government to perform its health studies, has stated that he has reassessed the evidence and now has a different opinion in respect of incineration. He now states that he would oppose incinerators, which is very significant.

It is up to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, and the Progressive Democrats, to put their money where their mouths are. I ask them to vote for this motion, which I commend to the House.

Mr. Boyle

I represent a constituency in which the process of introducing two incinerators has become well advanced as a direct result of Government interference and policy making. My constituency is being asked to take the national toxic waste incinerator as well as a domestic waster incinerator on the same site for the Cork city and county area. It has been opposed throughout a Bord Pleanála process and an Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, licence process and is being challenged in the courts.

However, as a representative for the area, I take issue with the processes that have taken place, especially the Bord Pleanála and EPA licence hearings. My colleague, Deputy Gormley, alluded to the unsatisfactory and inherently undemocratic nature of the Bord Pleanála hearing. Although a well respected planning inspector could itemise 14 grounds why a proposal should not proceed on sound planning principles, the board of An Bord Pleanála overruled him solely on the basis that it is Government policy to construct incinerators, regardless of the planning considerations. When such decisions tend to be made in a planning process which is meant to be participative and democratic, it is no wonder that public confidence in the decision-making process is undermined.

I question the Cabinet's stance in this respect. My colleague, Deputy Gormley, has already spoken of the double standards applied by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. My constituency colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, exhibits a similar need to limbo dance on this issue. He appears to state that such incinerators may be opposed in one's own constituencies although they remain Government policy. However, even the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has indicated in public that he would not wish to see an incinerator in his constituency.

Where stands collective responsibility on this issue? Has the Cabinet even voted on the matter? Has a decision been recorded, which Members can be shown, as to how and why this decision was made? I suspect it was a process of osmosis whereby the Government collectively decided on something which it thought would provide a quick-fix solution to a matter with which it would prefer not to deal.

The Government's amendment is very interesting in that, for the first time, I note the admission, to which my colleague alluded in his contribution, that incineration does not get rid of landfill. In the past, I have never seen that as a plain statement of Government policy.

Mr. Roche

The Deputy must not have been listening.

Mr. Boyle

I listen to much of what the Minister has to say, even if it is nauseating at the best of times. However, landfill will not be replaced. While it may be altered, my constituency will have a three-headed monster.

Mr. Roche

This is in all the Government's published literature. I will send some to the Deputy for reference purposes.

Mr. Boyle

The reality is that, in my constituency, the Minister's Government wants us to have a national toxic waste incinerator, a domestic incinerator and landfill sites for domestic waste and toxic ash. That has not been stated in any Government policy and it will be the reality for any incinerator likely to be built in this country in the coming years.

Our motion outlines several areas in which the Minister can and should act but in which he has not. Legislation is available to him which would at least help to tackle the problem we face. This motion calls for the introduction of waste production regulations under sections 29(4) and 29(5) of the Waste Management Act, the establishment of waste deposit regulations under section 29(4)(f) of the same Act, the establishment of a waste reuse research and development programme under section 28(2) of the Act, and for legislation to be introduced regarding local authorities and waste management plans which the Government of which the Minister is a member sought to remove.

I can anticipate what the Minister is likely to state in his contribution in that smug, supercilious way in which he usually lectures this side of the House. The reality is that his policies have failed——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should be more temperate in his description.

Mr. O’Dowd

He is only telling the truth.

Mr. Quinn

I think he is being remarkably restrained.

Mr. Boyle

The Ceann Comhairle does not realise what I could state.

Mr. Roche

I could make statements about Deputy Boyle's rancid hypocrisy but I will not.

Mr. Boyle

The Government and the Minister have failed on a policy which sees more waste being produced. The insistence in the Government amendment on spurious statistics and the transport of huge volumes of waste to countries such as China being called recycling is something we need to examine through our political system. A huge confidence trick is being played on the people of this country. They need to see paper, cans, sheets of plastic and glass bottles recycled here in terms of future value added. The fact that this Government has not done so and shows no inclination to do so means that, until we get a change of Government and Minister with responsibility for the environment, we will add to this unnecessary waste mountain.

Mr. Morgan

It is a pity we do not have more time to debate this important issue but, unfortunately, that is how the cards are stacked in this House at present. I welcome the opportunity to address the waste management issue. I and my party fully support the motion.

Many of the proposals in the motion reflect the demands of Sinn Féin in recent years. Greater provision of recycling opportunities, dealing with excessive packaging and returning power for making waste management plans to local authority members are very important. The last matter is what democracy should be all about because local authority members are the closest to the communities. They represent those communities and should have the power to make waste management plans.

The Minister has an opportunity to deal with that specific issue. In 2003, I moved the Waste Management (Amendment) Bill which is on the Order Paper. Will the Minister take it, move it or provide time for me to move it? It will reinstate the power for making waste management plans with locally elected democratic representatives of the community. I am sure they will not introduce incineration.

It is high time that sustainable waste management strategies which meet the needs of the population based on the logic of reduce, reuse and recycle were implemented. They need to make sense economically, socially and environmentally. We cannot simply bury or burn this problem any longer.

I remember being a member of a local authority in 1999 and 2000 when consultants were wheeled out to wag the finger at local authority members and tell us we could no longer simply dig a hole in the ground and bury waste. What are we told now by those same consultants and experts when it comes to legacy waste from the nuclear industry? There is one safe option to deal with it and we need not worry because it will be safe. They will dig a hole and bury it under the ground because, as of now, they do not know how to deal with it. It will remain radioactive for thousands of years so a hole will be dug and it will be buried. Is that not hypocrisy?

My party has been active on the issue of waste management for many years and supported courageous communities throughout the country, such as in Carranstown, Ringaskiddy and the Poolbeg peninsula. These people represent future generations. They are big-minded, unlike this Government. Some local authorities have demonstrated a positive approach to the issue of waste management. Galway is a glowing example. It now achieves approximately 54% recycling rates. This demonstrates what can be achieved if there is a will, leadership is given and people are provided with the infrastructure.

The Government had ample opportunities to address the situation but the Minister and his predecessor failed to do so. The answer is not to dump waste in landfills or incinerators but to develop an all-island sustainable strategy based on the principle of reduction, reuse and recycle.

Danger to our health and environment from incinerating is significant due to dioxins and carcinogenic emissions. The Minister knows all about it because we debated this many times before. However, he chooses to ignore it. He has not addressed the issue of residue waste from incineration. The rates for bottom waste and fly ash are 25% and 5% to 7% respectively. How this hazardous waste will be dealt with has not been outlined in any detail. However, more communities are driven into this tunnel.

The public's concerns are real. This is not a shallow not-in-my-back-yard notion that people do not want ugly incinerators in their communities. Their concern is for the health and well-being of their communities and, in particular, their children. It is a scandal and an indictment not only of the Government but also of the State that the two issues of greatest concern to people, health and environment, cannot be considered by the planning authorities at planning application stage. What could be more important to any community or state? However, Government policy does not allow those two issues to be considered. It is obscene and should be changed urgently.

The Government again displayed a skewed logic with the introduction of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006. We will debate Committee Stage tomorrow and I look forward to it because it will be interesting. The Bill is a device to allow for the construction of incinerators and it will have a major impact on communities throughout the land. However, it is not only about incineration. It is also intended to use the Bill to trample on the rights of communities such as Rossport which will not now have an option under law of objecting to the threat to it from the pipeline.

The Government heeds the financial interests of the financiers and speculators ahead of the fears and wishes of real people. We do not wonder about that. The real people of this State do not queue up outside the Fianna Fáil tent at the Galway Races every summer. We see from the list that the financiers and speculators do so.

Generally, communities are not provided with infrastructure. Separated waste collection, as previous speakers stated, is not provided in the way it should be. Where civic amenity centres are in place, they work brilliantly. In my county town of Dundalk, in excess of 48 items can be recycled to the extent that one does not need to have a bin. Ample opportunity is provided for significant recycling. Drogheda has a new civic amenity centre and I have no doubt that the people of that town will choose to use it wisely.

Mr. O’Dowd

They will put Deputy Morgan in it some day.

Mr. Morgan

The facility will work.

Mr. O’Dowd

That was a joke.

Mr. Morgan

The Government has misread "the polluter pays" principle. We must ask who the polluter is. The Government tells us it is the person shopping, but I maintain he or she is not a polluter. The polluter is the person producing the excessive packaging in the first instance. The concept of incineration requires constant feeding. The idea of recycling will be lost. Local authorities will face financial penalties if they do not meet the huge demands of these incinerators. There will be a threshold and if that level of waste is not received, the local authority will be penalised financially. Is that logical? I hope the Minister replies to this.

The Minister has powers under the Waste Management Act 1996 to ensure the prevention and minimisation of waste and to deal with exactly the type of packaging to which I refer. He has not chosen to use these powers, nor do I expect him to, even though it is only ten or 11 months until the general election.

It is most unfortunate that we do not have more time to deal with this very important issue but I welcome the opportunity I have had to do so. I thank the Green Party for tabling the motion, which Sinn Féin supports.

Mr. Gregory

I support the Green Party's motion, particularly the demand for the exclusion of an incinerator from Poolbeg in the south-side of Dublin city. I cannot think of a more inappropriate location for an incinerator. It is near the middle of the city, the most populated area in the country. The incinerator would produce toxic emissions, not to mention traffic congestion.

The location of the incinerator has not been sanctioned in the Dublin City Development Plan. Although Dublin City Council opposes the project and while the Government amendment states the Poolbeg proposal will be the subject of an independent determination process by An Bord Pleanála and the EPA, the council's management has spent more than €10 million on the project, almost all on private consultants to promote it. It seems like a fait accompli to me, yet the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, postures and claims to oppose it totally.

Communities across Dublin, including those in Ringsend, East Wall, North Wall, North Strand and Clontarf, are strongly opposed to the incinerator but they are denied any real say in the decision-making process. This is a classic example of the death of local democracy.

On other aspects of the motion, I support the Green Party's view that legislation should be introduced to return powers to local authorities so waste management planning would be a reserved function of the elected councillors. I trust this will have the support of any future coalition in which the Green Party Coalition might participate.

I support the establishment of a waste research and development programme to support innovative projects. An example of such a project arises in the Stoneybatter area in my constituency. Residents on Sitric Road have, without any State support, set up a marvellous, innovative composting and greening neighbourhood information project on a pilot basis. The goal is to cultivate an organic garden in a small railed-in space at the gable wall at the end of the road. Neighbours take their organic waste to the composting unit and vegetables, fruit bushes and trees are cultivated organically in a tiny urban space. The project has never been vandalised.

This type of community effort could be replicated throughout the city as an informative, educational and environmentally sound measure, yet various State bodies, including the Minister's Department, the EPA, OPW and even Dublin City Council appeared not to be interested and were unwilling to assist when contacted.

I support the Green Party's proposal that collection services for all domestic recyclables be free of charge. It is simply counterproductive to charge people for making the effort to recycle. This is one reason I opposed the bin tax and I believe the Green Party councillors who supported the Fianna Fáil proposal to introduce the bin tax at Dublin City Council were not acting in the interest of the policies they espouse. Deputy Gormley probably agrees with this.

The bin tax is nothing more or less than a stealth tax and it has alienated a significant section of the community from the process of proper waste disposal. It has not worked in Dublin city, it is resented by many and should be abandoned.

Ms C. Murphy

I welcome the opportunity to speak to this very important motion. There is a problem in my constituency with practical implications. Kildare County Council's civic amenity centre in Athy in south Kildare was not opened for well over a year after its construction because the resources did not exist to run it. This year the council has set aside €620,000 to run the centre and it anticipates a grant of €100,000 from the Government. The running cost will therefore be somewhere in the region of €500,000. The scheme cannot be run on the cheap and none of us expects that it can. If one takes a long-term view on the running of landfill sites, even closed ones, one will realise that recycling makes sense.

There is no civic amenity site in the entire constituency of Kildare North. Surveys conducted last year show some of the more enthusiastic proponents of recycling live in that constituency. The limited number of bottle, can and clothes banks were used extensively. Even if the council could cover the capital cost of a civic amenity site, it would not be in a position to run a second facility because it could not meet the cost. This is the reality.

The combined population of the towns of Leixlip, Celbridge, Maynooth and Kilcock, which form only part of the constituency, greatly exceeds the population of Waterford city. The cluster of Naas, Sallins, Kill and Clane, which have a combined population of approximately 35,000, warrants such a facility, yet there is none available. There is no point in driving 20 or 30 miles to such a facility because this defeats the entire purpose.

Kildare County Council had to postpone the introduction of the brown bin facility because it does not have the finances to run it. The will exists but the infrastructure is woefully inadequate. Despite the impression that Kildare is a well-off county, it receives one of the lowest transfers from the local government fund per capita and it is the largest contributor per capita from the motor tax fund. Some 36% of all motor tax collected in Kildare is spent elsewhere. The council obviously cannot afford basic facilities.

Some years ago, Kilcock was identified as a location for a hazardous municipal waste incinerator. The €65 million proposal was to burn 150,000 tonnes of waste per year at a site 500 yards from the local primary school. I am thankful that An Bord Pleanála rejected the proposal in this case in 2000. Two positive results of the proposal were that people got together and adopted a more progressive approach to recycling and they informed themselves regarding the difficulties associated with incineration. These were the only positive outcomes of the proposal.

Ms Harkin

I refer to two points outlined in the Green Party's motion on waste management, namely, the setting down of obligations and targets for businesses and industry to produce recyclable, reusable and biodegradable packaging, and the establishment of a waste reuse research and development programme.

The most favourable waste management option is waste prevention. If we do not generate waste in the first place, we do not have to deal with it. Therefore, if we invest in waste prevention and waste minimisation and ensure that packaging is recyclable, reusable or biodegradable, we will not create a major problem in the first place. This is simply good and common sense. However, it is not sufficient just to say it is common sense because we need to set down targets and obligations for producers, businesses and industry to ensure that they minimise the problem. As Deputy Gormley stated, this makes economic sense for them.

Given that Ireland has one of the highest levels of municipal waste per capita, it is extremely important to concentrate on waste prevention and minimisation. Right now, however, we must deal with the waste we produce.

Forfás produced a report this month on waste management in Ireland. It has benchmarked Ireland with nine other countries or areas and our performance is poor by comparison. We send 67% of our municipal waste to landfill. Only Scotland has a higher rate, at 86%, whereas Austria has a rate of 36%, Massachusetts a rate of 29%, Sweden a rate of 10% and Denmark a rate of 5%. While our recycling rate has improved since 2001, we still have a long way to go. Despite what is in the Government's amendment, we will have major difficulties in meeting the targets of the EU landfill directive.

Let me refer to the role of local authorities in waste management. They are being starved of central Government funds. Indecon Consultants recently indicated a funding gap of €415 million for local authorities, which could rise to €1.6 billion within four years. Already, local authority charges are too high. Rates on business are increasing at a rate that is particularly punitive for the smaller indigenous business, which we rely on for sustainable jobs. The cost of waste collection is escalating, both for business and home owners, and will escalate increasingly unless central Government is prepared to meet its financial responsibilities to local authorities.

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

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

—noting the very significant investment which has been made by the Government in developing modern integrated waste management infrastructure and services;

—noting also the remarkable progress reflected in the municipal waste recycling rate of 34% in 2004 (compared to the national target of 35% which was to be achieved by 2013) and the packaging waste recycling rate of 56% in 2004 (compared to the EU target of 50% to be achieved by 2005);

—welcoming in particular the significant funding made available by the Government to co-fund the dramatic expansion in recycling infrastructure which has facilitated the achievement of recycling targets;

—acknowledging the ambitious target of the national strategy on biodegradable waste to achieve the diversion of 80% of biodegradable waste from landfill by 2016;

—recognising the essential contribution which the diversion of residual waste from landfill to energy recovery will make to achieving national and EU waste management objectives;

—recognising also the very important contribution which producer responsibility initiatives in areas such as packaging and electrical equipment are making to the achievement of policy goals;

—reaffirms national policy on the integrated approach to waste management which places greatest emphasis on the prevention, reuse and recycling of waste while recognising the indispensable part which incineration with energy recovery will make to achieving the maximum diversion of waste from landfill; and

—reaffirms that any decision on the proposal for an incinerator at Poolbeg will be the subject of independent determination processes by An Bord Pleanála and the Environmental Protection Agency through the normal planning and licensing processes.

With the agreement of the House I will share time with Deputy McGuinness.

If there was ever an example in this House of the Green Party's willingness to stand truth on its head, this motion is that example. The contributions made by the tittering Member opposite is a particularly high example of that.

The motion before the House in the name of the Green Party is a poor effort by any standard and the contributions have been poorer still.

Mr. Boyle

The first line.

Mr. Quinn

That is even before the Minister has heard it.

Mr. Roche

It has one positive aspect, however, in that it offers the opportunity——

Mr. Gormley

The Minister wrote that before.

Mr. Boyle

It is the same speech.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mr. Roche

The Deputies should give me the same respect I gave them. It has one positive aspect in that, despite the attempts to shout me down, it shows that we have a very good story to tell in this country.

We might have reasonably expected the Green Party, a party which claims copyright on environmental issues, to mount a well argued and well constructed case, but instead we got a sorry shopping list of misplaced ideas, misinformation, disinformation, distortion and half-baked ideas. Why bother with the real issues when one can indulge in fantasies ranging from the now well worn zero waste concept to whatever the latest hip idea is — the Canadian Guelph system being just the latest to prove irresistibly alluring to the Green Party? It did not deal with the system. There is a Canadian rock group known as the Tragically Hip. That would be a good description for the Green Party.

(Interruptions).

Mr. F. McGrath

Who wrote this?

Mr. Roche

Since coming to office in 1997, the Government and its immediate predecessor have been engaged in modernising Ireland's waste management policies with some considerable success. We have well and truly set out our stall in a suite of policy documents starting with the seminal document, Changing Our Ways, and culminating in the recently published national strategy on biodegradable waste, which clearly was not read by those opposite who made contributions.

Unlike the eco-mysticism of the Green Party, our policies are grounded in the principle of integrated waste management. This focuses on waste prevention, a feature of our recent policy document, and minimisation as the main priority followed by reuse, recycling, energy recovery and utilising landfill as a last resort for residual waste. It is astonishing that any Deputy who wishes to be taken seriously in environmental issues would suggest that we have not mentioned that whole range in previous documents.

Mr. Gormley

The Minister mentioned it but he does not intend to do anything.

Mr. Roche

The uncomfortable reality for the Green Party is that the policies are working——

Mr. Gormley

They are not working.

Mr. Roche

——and, as we saw tonight, the Green Party has no workable alternative.

Turning first to waste prevention, the EPA is implementing a multi-faceted, multi-annual national programme led by a dedicated core prevention agency. That is the start to prevention. Second, we have established a market development group — the issue of how we deal with recyclables was raised — aimed at developing a market development strategy for waste, although that was ignored by the Opposition.

The Green Party states that Ireland has low recycling rates. That is a distortion of the facts. The claim either demonstrates simple ignorance of the facts that are in the public domain or it is a malign attempt to mislead.

Mr. Quinn

Will the Minister turn off his phone?

Mr. Roche

It is typical of the tenor of this motion that the Green Party seeks to commend the public on recycling while at the same time pouring scorn on the efforts that have been made.

Mr. Quinn

On a point of order and to facilitate the House, some type of electronic interference is making it extremely difficult for Members to hear the Minister.

Mr. Roche

If it is not too uncomfortable for the Members opposite, I will recall the facts. When Fianna Fáil got back into government in 1997, the general level of recycling here was a pathetic 9%. When parties opposite were in government it was 9%, with 166,000 tonnes recovered. They almost reached 34% by 2004. That is 920,000 tonnes.

Mr. Gormley

We are not in government.

Mr. Roche

The national target set for 2013 was 35%. We have effectively met the target eight years ahead of schedule. I challenge the Green Party Members to name any country that has done better than Ireland.

Mr. Boyle

The EU 15.

Mr. Roche

They are not in a position to do so. Construction and demolition waste recycled in 2004 reached 84%, just short of the target for 2013.

Mr. Gormley

Resign.

Mr. Roche

We are introducing a new system of waste management planning for individual construction projects that will push up that figure further.

I was heavily criticised in this House for the electrical waste recycling scheme which was introduced. The Labour Party suggested we go back to the drawing board. To its credit, the Green Party supported me. It was the only party to do so. We were just one of three member states in the European Union that implemented the directive on time last August. It has defied the doomsayers and is working spectacularly well. In the period to the end of February, 15,000 tonnes of this waste was recovered for recycling and was recycled in this country. That works out at 6.7 kilos per person whereas the European target for 2008 is 4 kilos per person. At a minimum, they should have the courage to admit we have achieved incredible results in that area.

In the area of farm plastics, my Department is funding a pilot open day scheme to allow farmers clear the backlog of uncollected plastic. That scheme is operating in a number of counties and will be expanded further later this year. It is phenomenally successful.

In 1997, when Fianna Fáil returned to Government, 14% of packaging waste, or 93,000 tonnes, was recycled. In 2004, 56% or 479,000 was recycled. Preliminary figures from Repak indicate there has been a huge increase to the end of 2005, with an overall recovery figure of 64%, which is phenomenal by any standards. The figure means we are already exceeding the new targets in the amended packaging and packaging waste directive, which is set for 2011. Will the Green Party tell us how many other EU member states have come as far as fast as has Ireland.

Mr. Quinn

I am reluctant to rise again. I do not know what the Minister is reading from but it has no relevance to the script that has been circulated. There is a convention in this House that a Minister circulates the script he or she reads from to facilitate Deputies who do not have back-up resources.

Mr. Roche

The script has been circulated.

Mr. Gormley

It is not the same script.

Mr. Quinn

This is not the script the Minister is reading from. That is outrageous. The Minister is breaching a convention of the House.

Mr. Roche

This is wasting time.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister should be allowed to continue without interruption.

Mr. Quinn

We do not have the script.

Mr. McCormack

What page is the Minister on?

Mr. Roche

I have written some additional comments. Deputy Quinn accused me of not making specific comments but I have written them now.

Mr. Quinn

Courtesy to the House is all——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mr. Roche

It will be interesting to see where the Green Party stands if and when a proposed planning permission for a paper mill in this country is sought.

The suggestions made regarding the implementation of producer responsibility initiatives under the Waste Management Act are equally off the mark. Irish regulations require that packaging be designed and produced to permit reuse or recovery and to minimise impacts on the environment upon disposal of the packaging.

It is worth reminding the House that the position on packaging in Ireland is aggravated by the reality that 75% of the packaging placed here is imported. I have asked Repak to bring forward further waste prevention and reduction proposals in its strategy covering the period 2006 to 2011. If Deputies paid attention to real recycling issues they would know that only last week Repak indicated in a series of documents circulated what could be and is being done, particularly by Irish firms in this area.

Mr. Gormley

They got off scot free.

Mr. Roche

It demonstrated how effective Irish based firms have been in this area in recent times.

Mr. Gormley

It is a scandal.

Mr. Roche

I note that the Green Party motion makes typically uninformed reference to the recently published Forfás study on waste management. Deputy Harkin, who left the House immediately after making her contribution, made equally ill-informed commentary. The study is interesting because it is a culmination of months of research into international waste management services. The report acknowledges that it is difficult to obtain up-to-date and readily comparable statistics in the area of waste management. It demonstrates that fact in the report. Deputy Quinn should note these are additional comments in my script which I make to illustrate the point about the inaccuracy of the comments made. The report further demonstrates that fact by making comparisons between 2005 figures for Ireland and 1995 figures for New Zealand. It is not to fault Forfás but to make the point that comparable data on waste management are incredibly difficult to get. Not only does Forfás recognise this, the European Environmental Agency, EEA, has also mentioned that reality. One of the major problems is that Ireland defines waste in a way different from other member states. One of the things that arises when we talk about a per capita figure is the inclusion of certain types of municipal and other waste as well as domestic waste in our statistics.

The report acknowledges at several points — there are disclaimers on pages 8 and 9, if I remember rightly — that data from different countries are not always strictly comparable. The problem is accepted at EU level where efforts are being made to improve the consistency and the quality of waste generation data. It is important to make this point because the arguments that have been made in this House are facetious in that they are based on a poor reading, to say the least, of the Forfás report. What exactly does the Forfás study tell us?

Mr. Gormley

The Minister should read our motion.

Mr. Roche

I have read some of the Deputy's motions, which he says are circulated on recycled paper. Will we have a test of the paper to determine if it is recycled? We shall come back to him on that. It would not be the first time. We shall check that out. If the Green Party is telling a fib in that regard, what is it telling elsewhere?

(Interruptions).

Mr. Boyle

The Minister said the same about my car.

Mr. Roche

What exactly does the Forfás study, necessarily limited as it is, tell us? It confirms that although we are still lagging slightly behind other countries in some areas of water management, we have been making significant progress in catching up under the policies introduced by this Government. Deputy Harkin mentioned member states who do better than Ireland. She listed a number of member states and she is right, but she forgot to tell the House that all of them have incineration — combined heat and power — as part of their waste policy.

Mr. Gormley

Are we going to have CHP?

Mr. Roche

All of them have CHP as part of their policy.

Mr. Boyle

Who is misrepresenting the truth now?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order in the House. Let the Minister continue.

Mr. Roche

The Green Party does not want to accept the truth, but that is the reality.

Mr. Boyle

Not true, either. What about Holland?

Mr. Roche

Forfás also found that Ireland has a high waste generation per capita. However, high waste generation can generally be expected in a country with a booming economy. The study also demonstrates that other countries are able to achieve higher recovery rates and lower waste treatment costs than is possible in Ireland because they use waste in energy plants to reduce their reliance on landfill. The Green Party likes to indulge in selective quotations and ignore what is inconvenient. This includes the generally accepted view that our lack of incinerators is a major infrastructural deficit. That point has been made time and again by a variety of sources. It is one of the issues we must address, not dodge. What we have seen in this debate is an exercise in public deceit on this issue.

An example of the progress in this regard is that the Dublin authorities are now progressing with the idea of an energy plant at Poolbeg. As has been made clear time and again, it will go through the normal planning process.

Mr. Gormley

Fianna Fáil representatives in the constituency are opposed to it.

Mr. Roche

The contributions from the Deputies opposite on this have been especially dishonest and disingenuous. In fact, it is interesting that a motion which the Green Party——

Mr. Gormley

The Minister's candidates are the most disingenuous I have ever come across.

Mr. Roche

——tabled in this House, purporting to tell us how to deal with waste, turned out to be a single focus issue. The alternative is to provide very significant additional landfill capacity for Dublin. This prompts an interesting question for the leader of the Green Party, because the issue has been mentioned about dumps in parts of County Dublin. How many more landfills do Green Party Deputies want to see constructed, especially in north County Dublin? We must dispose of the waste somewhere.

Mr. Quinn

Is the Minister in favour of Poolbeg?

Mr. Roche

How much more agricultural land in the constituency Deputy Sargent represents does he wish to see turned into landfill?

Mr. Gormley

I represent Dublin South-East. Talk to the House about the incinerator.

Mr. Boyle

How much of it will be used for a prison?

Mr. Quinn

Is the Minister in favour of Poolbeg?

Mr. Roche

I shall answer Deputy Quinn later.

Mr. Quinn

That is all right.

Mr. Roche

Deputy Sargent should be honest with his constituents. If we do not have proper waste management infrastructure, we are going to impose landfill either on other parts of County Dublin or on the surrounding counties. Yes, I favour heat treatment and energy recovery.

Mr. Quinn

Are you in favour of Poolbeg?

Mr. Roche

I am not going to deal with an individual planning case, but I will deal with the issue of incineration.

Mr. Quinn

This is the most populated bay in the island.

Mr. Roche

The Deputy is being again dishonest because his party does not disagree with the point I make.

Mr. Quinn

It is the most populated bay in the island and they want to put an incinerator into it.

Mr. Roche

The Green Party's criticism of our approach on biodegradable waste in the resolution is equally nonsensical.

Mr. Quinn

The Minister has the Seventh Cavalry behind him.

Mr. Roche

The Deputy is quite correct. Ireland availed of a four-year derogation. What the Green Party ignores is that the targets set for Ireland in the biodegradable strategy are enormous and incredibly ambitious. They are targets which will be achieved. In Germany, on the issue of CHP, a Green Party environmental minister was happy to preside over a policy framework in which incineration with energy recovery was a key principle. Before leaving office, Mr. Jurgen Tritten courageously introduced severe restrictions on the use of landfill. It is a pity we could not do that here.

Mr. Gormley

He was recycling.

Mr. Roche

If he were a Green Party councillor or Minister in Ireland, he would have more courage than the Irish Green Party representatives have. The Green Party's only alternative to the integrated approach is to talk about some nirvana to do with zero waste when the dogs on the road know this is nonsense. The party leader has opined that zero waste strategy will become the conventional wisdom — perhaps on his particular planet, but not in the real world.

Zero waste became some sort of holy grail in the late 1990s and was about as credible as The Da Vinci Code in that a small number of British Commonwealth countries proposed that zero waste was an option. It is interesting now to examine the so-called zero waste domains. Canberra set targets to achieve zero waste by 2010. Municipalities in New Zealand followed with a target date of 2015. Nova Scotia was to lead the way in North America. Reality, an irritating concept that is foreign to the Green Party, soon intruded. Reality has a nasty habit of doing that. After some initial false dawns, the zero waste nirvana for those countries was never reached. We know that and the Green Party knows that.

Unlike the Irish Green Party, however, the people who promoted zero waste in Australia, New Zealand or Nova Scotia knew when to stop digging. If one looks at their websites, one will see precisely what I mean. On the surface, the one most commonly referenced, Nova Scotia, is an impressive study which the Green Party is fond of citing. It seemed to have a very good target, and it did. It got to the 50% point very quickly but, after that, it got stuck. It should be remembered that Nova Scotia still has a dozen or so landfills. It has an incinerator in a province half the size of County Dublin. It has an incinerator——

Mr. Gormley

They have one small incinerator. They have always had incineration. Professor Paul Connett dealt with the Minister on that issue on "Prime Time".

Mr. Roche

——and it has 12 landfills.

Mr. Gormley

Professor Paul Connett dealt on "Prime Time" with the Minister on that and he had no answer.

Mr. Roche

No, he did not. He dodged it. However, that is another issue. He is not here to defend himself, but Deputy Gormley is and he has admitted what Professor Connett sought to deny, that it has an incinerator. Countries such as Germany——

Mr. Gormley

I did not deny it.

Mr. Roche

——and the Netherlands have reduced their waste to landfill dramatically, down towards the 10% mark, but they depend on incineration. Likewise in Canberra, where there was an impressive start, the reality is that we do not hear much of the fuss today. There are no magic solutions or magic bullets. We must look elsewhere for solutions to the real problems. Instead of trawling for obscure experiments from the far side of the world, we should look closer to home. The world's most environmentally advanced countries are fellow member states of the European Union. They operate under the same regulatory regime as we do. They have succeeded in combining high rates of recycling with safe and effective us of thermal treatment. Why do we not follow their example? Why is political leadership in this country prepared to suggest falsely that there is an alternative?

Mr. Quinn

Is the Minister quoting the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell?

Mr. Roche

We must take responsibility for the waste we inevitably produce. I will speak to the Deputy about waste produced by laundering diesel later.

Mr. Morgan

The Minister can talk any time about it.

Mr. Roche

It is simply not acceptable that we dump our waste in other EU states.

Mr. Boyle

What about the waste going to China that is labelled as recycled waste?

Mr. Roche

Why would the Green Party argue that we have to dump the waste on future generations by dumping it in landfill in this country? Properly engineered landfill will continue to have a residual role, but it makes no sense to resort to it for all waste. I have yet to hear a coherent response from the Green Party. It is quite incredible that a party supposedly dedicated to the environment should pursue policies that are going nowhere.

Simple logic, which I know does not apply to the Green Party, tells us that operating state-of-the-art incinerators which produce electricity or district heating is infinitely preferable to burying our waste. We have no right to foist our waste on other countries or our children, which is what we do by depending on landfill. The waste to energy plants which are finally being advanced by the public and private sector will be subject to the most rigorous physical planning and environmental licensing regimes.

Mr. Quinn

Can the Minister tell us about Poolbeg now?

Mr. Roche

This is a process which will give the Green Party and their fellow travellers ample opportunity to do what they want, which is to hinder it.

There would be significant costs involved in establishing deposit and refund arrangements and it is dubious as to whether they would bring any greater benefit to the system. I would certainly be willing to examine it. One successful approach is based on the producer-funded Repak model which has worked incredibly well. Members should look at what the Repak model has done for this country, as well as the plastic bag levy. There were just 837 bring banks in 1997, when Deputy Quinn and Deputy O'Dowd's parties went out of power. There are now over 2,200 such facilities and the number is growing.

Mr. Quinn

There were hardly any when the Minister's party was last in power.

Mr. Roche

When the Deputy was in power and in a position of some influence——

Mr. Quinn

We doubled and tripled what was there by the time he came to power.

Mr. Roche

There were only 35 recycling centres.

Mr. Quinn

Exactly. There was none when his party was last in power.

Mr. Roche

We now have over 80. They did not spring up just like that, as Tommy Cooper used to say. They came out of practical solutions——

Mr. Quinn

Can the Minister tell us about Poolbeg? What will Senator Mary White and Councillor Chris Andrews say?

Mr. Roche

Maybe the Green Party should just dream on and maybe the Labour Party should try to shout me down.

Mr. Quinn

Will the Minister come back to Poolbeg?

Mr. Roche

I am always glad to have the opportunity to set out to the House the good results that have been achieved. We have made incredible progress in waste recycling in the last five years. We will achieve more.

Mr. Quinn

The people have achieved that.

Mr. Roche

The Deputy is quite right. The people have achieved it because the Government has put in place——

Mr. Gormley

Where are the brown bins?

Mr. Roche

——the infrastructure. The Deputy asked about brown bins. If he read a recent press release, he would know how much money I put into composting——

Mr. Quinn

At least they are better than brown envelopes.

Mr. Roche

——which is the first element. I look forward to support from the Green Party in the development of infrastructure for composting facilities.

Mr. Quinn

The Minister undertook to come back to me on the issue of Poolbeg. Let the House record that he evaded the question.

Mr. McGuinness

I support the Minister in the work he has undertaken within the Department. I compliment him on the various initiatives he has taken to develop the green agenda. The Minister has made substantial funding available to local authorities to assist them in the work they are undertaking.

The public response has been very positive and people are adapting to a green agenda. They are willing participants with the local authorities to achieve what is necessary within their own communities. The local authorities have responded quite well due to the money they have been given. We must increase the pace of change in local authorities to respond to public support for the green agenda. I compliment the public officials in every local authority who had to convince the general public there was a need to change the culture of waste management. That response is mainly due to the Government's campaign and to the effort of those officials who brought the public on board to ensure people deal with their waste at home and in the recycling centres. I have seen the officials in schools in my constituency who have got the message about dealing with waste across to students. Those students go back to their homes and try out the new methods of dealing with waste. They are making a great contribution to their communities and they encourage others to adopt that green agenda.

Local authorities will have to be encouraged to respond at a far faster pace to public demand in this area. The Minister has shown his commitment by making the funds available. There is no point setting out policy without providing funds to ensure it is put in place. We pass Bills and talk about policy, but often we forget about funding. It has not been forgotten in this case. Most local authorities have moved this agenda forward and are quite supportive.

The WEEE directive, which I have seen first hand in Kilkenny, has gone way beyond expectations. All the traders in the city and across the south east have responded very positively to it. It shows there is public support for this and that the Government is pushing an open door. Much more needs to be done in local authorities to respond to newer demands from the public. We must look at our bureaucratic structure and at how large-scale environmental projects are dealt with. The Purcellsinch treatment plant in Kilkenny is an example of this as pollution in the River Nore is an issue. A new, modern plant is absolutely necessary. It has been debated for the last ten years, yet it has not been delivered. A total of €6.2 million in Government funding was made available for the project between 2000 and 2002, but because of the method applied to deliver such plants, we have yet to see it constructed.

I would like private companies such as Diageo, which is a main player in this case, being up front with the required environmental impact study and admitting its particular stakeholding relative to all other stakeholders in that plant. It is unfair that such a company would hold the community to ransom just because it is not ready to provide its details in accordance with requirements, even when the local authority is ready to do so. This is a typical example of the civic support for such a development as the community is ready to drive it forward and to accept the plant. There is an onus on the private sector, as there was with the WEEE directive when those in business responded positively. As stakeholders, the company has a responsibility and it should respond quicker.

A related topic is how the EPA responds to issues like this. A group in that agency deals with local authority breaches of regulations or breaches of legislation. The public do not perceive that process as effective or transparent and believe it protects local authorities. We must change these perceptions if we are to bring the general public on board in terms of the green agenda. I would like the EPA to investigate that council and process to ascertain the reason that project, essential as it is to Kilkenny, is not being delivered. I would like local authorities to play a more proactive role in tackling the indiscriminate dumping of waste throughout the country by people who refuse to play their part in supporting the community.

I commend the Minister on what he is doing in this area. Much more work needs to be done but necessary funding is being invested by the Government and local authorities, as major stakeholders, should respond at local level.

Mr. O’Dowd

I wish to share time with Deputies McCormack and Twomey.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is agreed.

Mr. O’Dowd

This is an important debate to which members of a community faced with the prospect of an incineration plant in their area are listening, and in respect of which they have expressed serious concerned. I want to respond to issues covered in the Government's amendment, particularly the last part of it which refers to the system through which objections can be put forward.

I will reflect briefly on the regional waste management plans. A criticism of those plans is that while each county council in the regions discussed those plans separately, the authorities collectively did not discuss those plans. Effectively, it emerged that one county was told an incinerator plant would not be located in its area but that a landfill facility would be located there. Another facility was to be located in another county and the location of an incineration plant was to be decided based on a regional waste plan and a strategy by a consultant who would decide where it might be sited. In the north eastern region that process was not followed. It was a case of pass the buck in terms of a proposed incineration plant and it transpired that the plant was not located on the site identified in the regional waste management plan but where private enterprise decided it should be located, which is near where I live. I was concerned about its location there, particularly when that location was not included in the plan. What is wrong with the system is that the structure is not clear. It was not part of the regional waste management plan that the proposed incineration plant would be sited in Poolbeg. That is the problem and the reason people are up in arms and concerned about it.

A further issue is, namely, what were councillors told about proposed incineration plants. In County Louth at the request of our consultants P. J. Rudden, we visited incinerator plants in Denmark and in Germany. The plant in Germany was well known and it will remain in my mind. It was called Thermoselect and it was identified as a new modern process, well worth viewing and investigating. We went to Karlsruhe to view the plant. The incinerator looked fine but there did not seem to be anything moving though it. We were told there was a technical problem at the time and that everything was fine. We spoke to the manager and then went to listen to a briefing from the person representing the company. Councillors from County Louth and some of our officials were there when a Fianna Fáil councillor from Dundalk, the representative of Thermoselect, walked in the door. He told us why we should opt for the process used in this company in Germany. I wondered what was going on, what this councillor was doing there and what he knew about incineration. I did not know what was going on but I had no confidence in that company.

Mr. Quinn

Who sent him? Was it Frank Dunlop?

Mr. O’Dowd

No, it was not Frank. In fairness to this person, I am not suggesting he was corrupt. I am simply outlining what happened. On the day the county council was to vote on that issue, I took the liberty of telephoning the mayor of the city of Karlsruhe. I asked him about the Thermoselect incinerator and what, if anything, was happening there, to which he replied it was closed. I asked him the reason it was closed to which he replied it was in breach of regulations because it was discharging more than it should into the environment. Those of us in County Louth were concerned about that and we voted against the regional waste management on those grounds. In terms of the credibility and integrity of the process, it had none. That is the reason people are concerned. I can understand the reason Councillor Lucinda Creighton is upset and concerned, as is her community in Ringsend about the proposed incinerator. I know what is going on and members of the community there have not been consulted. They do not feel part of the process and the part of it that is left for them to go through is not as easy, obvious, transparent and fair as it might appear.

In terms of that issue, protests are good, all fine and well and I attended one last Sunday, but they are not the answer. Mobilising the community is part of the answer, but the other part of it is to get people who have professional, academic qualifications to attend the oral hearing of the EPA and who can match, in every respect, the people whom they will meet there. Without such people and the necessary funds and if the fight is not at that level, one cannot win in this process.

I make it clear that the health and environmental aspects of the proposed incinerator for Ringsend will be left to the tender mercies of the EPA not to An Bord Pleanála. When one goes to an An Bord Pleanála hearing, one will see 20 or 30 professional consultants, as we found, from Indaver. On our side we had a much smaller number but we did our best. The key concerns people have about incineration relate to the health aspects of the process, the discharges and dioxins. Those concerns were not addressed by the EPA because the EPA does not have and did not have on its staff any medically qualified person to deal with those issues and refute with certainty the arguments we made. The EPA said that the World Health Organisation's website states that this process is fine and therefore it is, and it can happen. I put it to the EPA that what it ought to do is to bring consultants into the process. It has the power to do this and the people in Ringsend should note this and request the EPA to bring into the process medical professionals they nominate or to seek internationally acknowledged knowledgeable consultants to be brought into the process to take part in the decision making process and advise on the process. The EPA was so arrogant that it would not do that. It did not do that, and that is part of the problem.

For the honesty and integrity in the process and for the community that will carry this burden for the next 20 to 30 years, there is no final solution in terms of knowledge or satisfaction in the process in the manner in which it is structured. That is the reason people are up in arms, are concerned and the reason this process will not wash. I do not know the position of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform who was mentioned, but he knows that people do not want the proposed plant. He is not here tonight to make his case against it, as he should if that is his view and if he represents his constituents. The reality is that until there is truth, integrity, openness and transparency about the process, it will not be acceptable.

We will debate the critical infrastructure Bill, some provisions of which I welcome. We tabled amendments to it which, I hope, will clarify many of these issues. However, if the community concerned is only to get grief as a result of engaging in this process and if it does not have its concerns addressed significantly and directly, it will never accept or be happy with this process. However, that is not to say that we should not deal with the waste issue. I accept that we must deal with it. We cannot forever bury our heads in the sand on that issue. However, if we deal with it, we must do so in an honest, open and fair way. Under this process, that is not happening.

In the case of the incinerator at Carranstown, the decision to site an incinerator there in an area that was zoned agricultural came out of the blue. It was not zoned for industrial development. Nobody could anticipate or expect that area would be a location in which one would find an incinerator. One would expect to find an incinerator in an major urban area or in the centre of an industrial zone, but that was not the case in this instance. In such waste management issues there must be certainty in terms of knowing where such plants will be sited and members of Government must accept responsibility for them. The Minister, Deputy McDowell, does not accept responsibility for this proposed incinerator yet he is part of the process. One cannot fool all one's constituents on issues such as this all the time. We need to have honesty in this matter. I am aware that Councillor Lucinda Creighton and members of her community are listening. The way to proceed is to protest, march and carry placards but if they do not have experts and expertise on the day and do not insist that the EPA does its job, they will not win this battle.

The motion is mischievous in giving credibility to a process that does not bring the health and environmental aspects to the front of the argument in a transparent and open way. The EPA has failed miserably in what it has done heretofore and will fail again. It is a sad case.

Mr. McCormack

It has almost become normal practice for the Minister to start his contribution in a negative and provocative manner. Perhaps he wants to get the debate going. I suggest that a person of such undoubted ability as the Minister should either use the speech he has been given or abandon it altogether. In my opinion he should abandon it because it is obvious it was prepared by somebody else and the Minister tried to adapt it to the debate taking place. The first few lines of his speech were obviously written in anticipation of what the Green Party, which proposed the motion, would say.

Mr. Roche

No, it was based on the motion. The Deputy should read the motion.

Mr. McCormack

I am going by what was in the Minister's speech.

Mr. Roche

The Deputy has not even read the motion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy McCormack, without interruption.

Mr. McCormack

Perhaps it would be better for the House, particularly on debates on Private Members' business or on the Adjournment, if the Minister came in without a prepared speech and dealt with the debate as it progressed. That would be far better. The Minister wasted his talents through the manner in which he started the debate tonight, unless it was done deliberately to start a debate or crossfire in the House.

Mr. Roche

That would cause Deputy Quinn to complain. He wanted a copy of my speech, but Deputy McCormack does not want any prepared speech.

Mr. McCormack

The public feels we should not take the route of incineration. I do not know exactly where the Minister stands on this as sometimes he is for it and other times against it, depending on where he is. However, the Government is hell-bent on taking that route.

Mr. Roche

What is Fine Gael policy on it?

Mr. O’Dowd

Our party policy is to get rid of Fianna Fáil. The people will do it and they will not need electronic boxes to do that.

Mr. Roche

The Deputy should be honest and say what his party policy is on incineration.

Mr. O’Dowd

What about the Government vote against the PET incinerator?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order, Deputy McCormack, without interruption.

Mr. McCormack

Once an incinerator is built, it must be fed and this will detract from the progress already made through the reduce, reuse and recycle programme. Once an incinerator is built in any of the country's eight regions, the incinerator must be fed and this will destroy much of the good work done by the recycling programme.

Mr. Roche

That is not what is happening in other countries like Germany and Denmark.

Mr. Quinn

They are different countries with larger populations.

Mr. McCormack

The adoption of waste management plans used to be a matter for members of local authorities. However, the Government introduced legislation which took the responsibility away from members of local authorities and gave it to city and county managers who, when the Minister tells them to jump, ask "How high?" They jump to do what the Minister wants and this happens throughout the country. Local authority members have been bypassed.

Further legislation was introduced to remove people like me, Deputy O'Dowd and others from local authorities. Now we can no longer liaise between the Dáil and the local authorities with regard to what the Minister says in the Dáil and what he says to city and county managers, assistant managers and everybody else he meets on a regular basis.

Mr. Roche

What was Fine Gael Party policy on that move? Fine Gael supported it.

Mr. O’Dowd

I was not spokesman.

Mr. Roche

The party supported it.

Mr. McCormack

The Connacht waste management plan was adopted by the managers in the region. Connacht may not have needed to adopt it because the consultants' proposed solution to the region's waste problem was for an incinerator in Galway city and a landfill site in Galway county. It was easy for Sligo, Roscommon, Mayo and Leitrim to vote and support that. Why would they not do so.

Each local authority and county should be responsible for the disposal of its own waste. That would be a greater encouragement to people to reuse, recycle and reduce the amount of waste going to landfill. I was a member of Galway City Council for a number of years and of Galway County Council. I am proud of my record on Galway City Council which has achieved a 60% reduction in what goes to landfill. It achieved this because the people were willing to do it.

Towards the end of the Minister's speech, he appeared to take credit and implied the Government was responsible for people reducing waste. The Government had nothing to do with it. It was local authorities that did it.

Mr. Roche

That is not so.

Mr. McCormack

The local authorities were badly supported by the Government on this matter.

Mr. Roche

That is not so.

Mr. McCormack

If the Minister keeps interrupting, I will have to say something I thought I would never say, "Come back Deputy Cullen, and welcome."

Mr. O’Dowd

Let him bring his boxes with him and his PR consultants.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order, please. Allow Deputy McCormack to make his contribution.

Mr. Roche

The Deputy will not tell us what Fine Gael policy is on this.

Mr. McCormack

In Galway city we started off by separating our waste into seven different categories. We succeeded so well that we have now reduced this to three bins per house, a composting bin, a small landfill bin which will be charged for by weight thereby providing people with an incentive to reduce their waste further, and a recycling and reusable bin. This, as I said, has reduced the amount going to landfill in Galway city by 60%. The same will be achieved in Galway county and in any county that wants to work this way. There is goodwill towards this system and the people respond to the lead which local government authorities give in this regard.

The Government is failing greatly with regard to the next step after areas achieve the 50% reduction in waste. The Minister said some countries have got that far and have not gone further. The solution to the next step lies with the Government. It is up to the Government to support facilities for the reuse and recycling of the other 50%.

Mr. Roche

That is what it is doing.

Mr. McCormack

The solution to our problem is not to export our waste, as we now do. We must put incentives in place to encourage facilities such as the recycling of plastics into new plastic products, rather than having to separate materials and then export them because there is no incentive from the Government to enable private enterprise or local authorities to set up such facilities so that people can reuse the materials recycled in the various areas.

The Minister asked in his speech where we should look now and pointed out that instead of trawling around the far side of the world, it made sense to look at what works. Of course it makes sense to look at what works. It is the Minister's duty to lead the way in supporting local authorities and people who are enthusiastically making an effort in this regard.

Mr. Roche

The Deputy did not give me much support on the WEE directive.

Mr. O’Dowd

We supported that directive.

Mr. Roche

Perhaps Deputy O'Dowd did, but Deputy McCormack did not.

Mr. McCormack

What is the current situation with regard to the regional waste management plans? These plans have been adopted in seven or eight regions throughout the country and a significant number of local authorities, including Galway city and county, have included the aspiration in their plan not to take the route of incineration. Where do these plans stand now? Have these been abandoned by the Government? Does the Government still insist on regional plans or is it just pretending they still exist? It is written into the county and city plans for Galway that there should not be an incinerator in Galway county. Where do the regional plans stand now?

Debate adjourned.