Ba mhaith liom ar dtús mo bhuíochas a chur in iúl do na Seanadóirí uilig a ghlac páirt san díospóireacht agus an t-ábhar fíor-thábhachtach atá i gceist againn anseo agus ba mhaith liom beagáin a rá faoin diíospóireacht sin.
The production of waste is an inescapable feature of modern Irish life and life generally and the volume and complexity of waste directly reflect the kind of society in which we live and the living standards we enjoy. Experience has shown that in Ireland, as in other countries, industrialisation and economic growth give rise to accelerated generation of waste of all types. This trend requires action by the private and public sectors as well as increased awareness on the part of the general public if economic growth is to be sustainable in terms of protection of the environment. To put it very simply, we cannot go on producing ever-increasing amounts of waste and close our eyes to the environmental consequences. Traditionally, waste was viewed as something with a negative economic value. Its holders no longer wanted it at a given time and place because it has no market value, but the modern view of waste is more discerning. On the one hand, waste is a potential source of pollution and, on the other hand, waste can represent a real natural resource as a secondary raw material.
I am pleased the motion before us emphasises this potential of waste as a natural resource in its reference to recycling. Putting down the motion at this time was opportune and timely. To appreciate the problems associated with waste we need to understand the different forms under which it arises: municipal waste, industrial waste, agricultural waste, miscellaneous waste and hazardous waste. They all present distinct characteristics and they require quite different management strategies. Production of industrial waste in Ireland exceeds 1.5 million tonnes per year. A significant amount of this — some 40 to 50 per cent of it — is recovered or recycled and the balance is disposed of on private sites, local authority sites or dumped at sea. I should point out that under the Government's environmental action programme marine dumping of industrial waste will be terminated finally by the end of 1995.
Agricultural wastes are a very significant part of total waste produced in Ireland as one would expect in view of the importance and size of the agricultural sector. Over 20 million tonnes of these wastes are produced each year and virtually all agricultural wastes are disposed of by land spreading. While it is gratifying that this is a form of recycling, the whole management of agricultural wastes is, of course, vital so as to prevent problems of water pollution. Miscellaneous wastes include mining and peat wastes, construction rubble and metal wastes such as scrap vehicles, tyres and waste oils. With regard to the latter, there is a significant degree of recycling. Hazardous wastes are produced mainly from industrial sources and, on a broad definition, some 52,500 tonnes of this waste arise in Ireland each year. Of course, this would be classified as toxic and dangerous waste for all the purposes that are relevant to the EC directives.
Municipal waste includes household refuse, street sweepings and sludge from waste waters. Statistics show that we produce over one million tonnes of this waste each year or about one-third of a tonne per person. This figure has been increasing steadily. Local authority refuse collections systems serve about three-quarters of the national population and collect the bulk of municipal wastes. In all, local authorities will spend over £50 million in 1990 on waste disposal activities. Most wastes in Ireland are disposed of by landfill, although other methods such as incineration are likely to increase in the future.
I should say here that the landfill disposal option is fully acceptable from an environmental point of view, given a suitable location and proper management. When used up, landfill sites can often be reclaimed to provide parks and other amenities. About 1.5 million tonnes of waste is deposited annually on approximately 160 local authority tip sites while at least 175,000 tonnes is deposited on some 40 private tip sites. While landfill is usually cheaper than other disposal options, it still entails significant collection of transport and management costs. Worthwhile savings could be realised if waste production was minimised or if a greater proportion of waste was recycled or recovered.
I have listened with considerable interest to the contributions of Senators and there seems to be a general agreemnt that the actual disposal of waste should be the last — not the first — item on the waste agenda. Enlightened waste management strategies should focus in the first instance on waste minmimisation and this can involve a number of considerations. First, minimisation of waste can be achieved at production stage by the use of clean technologies in the production process itself. There is an economic incentive for industry to do just this in view of the cost of disposal of industrial waste and this incentive will increase in the future as the standards for final disposal become even higher. Secondly, minimisation at source will also depend increasingly on the manufacture of clean and environmentally friendly end products.
The next method of reducing the amount of waste for final disposal is, of course, recycling. This is central to the motion we are discussing this evening. Recycling can conserve natural resources, extend the life of existing disposal facilities and it offers significant opportunities for productive economic activity and employment. The Environment Action Programme acknowledges that by international standards the amount of municipal waste recycled in Ireland is low and it proposes a number of initiatives to encourage greater activity in this area. At the same time, Senators should bear in mind that the quantities of municiple waste produced per capita in Ireland are still low by international standards. Indeed, most of the countries who can claim to be advanced in the recycling of municipal waste still produce more net waste per capita than we do. Nevertheless, I am determined to improve the level of recycling in Ireland and, in line with the action programme, a number of important measures have already been taken.
Major local authorities were asked to prepare recycling schemes for their areas which would identify recycling possibilities and measures to facilitate them. I am pleased to inform Senators that most local authorities have now responded to this request and their recycling plans are now being evaluated in the Department of the Environment. Grant assistance from my Department for recycling projects have been increased to £500,000 this year — that is a 100 per cent increase on last year's allocation. IDA feasibility studies are being carried out in relation to the potential for new recycling industries and I await the results from that source with some interest. Finally, two important studies have been commissioned in relation to tax incentives for recycling and the use of biodegradable forms of containers and packaging. Again, I am expecting the results from these matters shortly.
A number of important advances were made in waste policy during our Presidency of the European Communities earlier this year. As President of the Environment Council, I guided through the adoption of a comprehensive resolution on waste which established modern principles for future EC waste management purposes. Under my Presidency, the Council also agreed an important framework directive on waste. Finally, a specific directive was agreed concerning reduction and safe disposal of waste from batteries.
Before I speak about waste legislation in Ireland, which is central to the motion, I want to respond to a number of issues raised by Senators. The first concerns eco-labelling. The Government fully supports this concept which should serve to promote environmentally friendly products. Work on eco-labelling is continuing at the European Community level. I am however, including a general power in the Environmental Protection Agency Bill for the promotion of an eco-labelling scheme.
The Environmental Protection Agency Bill has been referred to by every single contributor I have listened to. It is now virtually complete and will be published and introduced very shortly. I take it that when it is being discussed here it will give Senators a further opportunity at some length to consider legislation which, I believe, will introduce new measures, new structures and new powers that have been eagerly awaited by all concerned with the environment for quiite some time. It will be a good Bill. More about that anon.
I would also remind Senators that the Environment Action Programme promised a nationwide attitudes survey to the established baseline data, in relation to individuals and the corporate sector, to assist in planning environment awareness campaigns and other programmes in the years ahead. Results of the survey, which I am sure will also be applicable to waste management, will be available early in the New Year.
Senator Foley spoke about the achievements of the Kerry Recycling Group. I am pleased to acknowledge the contribution of small recycling operators throughout the country. Kerry Recycling Group and some 20 other operators have had the assistance of recycling grants from the Department in order to try to expand their operations, as they do very good work. The Senator was quite justified in supporting them in the way he did.
A number of Senators raised the problems of pollution of the sources of group water schemes. Waste has to be acknowledged as a potential source of pollution. This is why in rural situations we must put a premium on improved farm management and on proper waste water disposal facilities. Action is being taken on two fronts to combat this threat to rural water supplies and to smaller group schemes in particular. First, grants are available to groups to undertake the necessary works to connect to public water supply schemes and an ever-increasing number of group schemes will receive their supply direct from public schemes in the future. In cases where a connection to a public scheme is not practicable, grants are payable for the installation of suitable water treatment facilities.
I think that perhaps a statistic or two about that is worth keeping in mind. About 40 per cent of group schemes use private sources of supply and as many as 60,000 households in the country are supplied from private sources. There are about 5,000 group schemes in the country — something in excess of 5,000 schemes — and they serve 139,000 homes. You can get some idea of the importance of the group scheme system to the community at large. It applies particularly to rural Ireland. It is important that these rural communities be supported, first of all, in providing water supplies for their homes and, secondly, we must seek to try to have the best quality water possible made available through those group schemes. The only sure safe way to have that quality maintained on a continuous basis is for as many as possible of those group water schemes to be connected to public water supply. We would hope in the future that as many as possible of the new group schemes that are grant-aided would, if at all possible, be connected to public water supply schemes that are treated in a proper fashion because there is some concern in regard to ground water that, of course, agricultural wastes and disposal like that can affect the quality. We have to be conscious of that and monitor it very carefully indeed.
I readily acknowledge that the cause as well as the symptoms must be treated. The powers available to local authorities to require measures to be taken to prevent pollution or to regulate activities, such as the storage and disposal or wastes which may pose a threat to water quality, have been significantly strengthened by the Local Government Water Pollution (Amendment) Act, 1990. This Act introduces civil liability for injury, loss or damage to persons or property resulting from the pollution of waters. These legislative measures, together with the grant scheme operated by the Department of Agriculture and Food to improve waste storage facilities on farms are designed to reduce the incidence of water pollution generally. This, of course, benefits group water schemes.
Enormous amounts of money had been provided by the Department of Agriculture and Food to help the farming community who now fully recognise their responsibility to reduce the levels of pollution emanating from their operations. They have been given this grant assistance to enable them to provide better storage facilities, better holding facilities for their wastes and to do all in accordance with the strictest standards as laid down by that Department. We are happy to co-operate in that regard.
There has been an enormous improvement in the whole area of management of farm operations this year. Generally, farmers, often maligned, should be at least congratulated on the efforts they have made in trying to improve their own situations. Thousands of them have attended symposia, lectures and seminars over the last number of winters to learn how to better use the facilities they have and how to improve upon them and they have been encouraged to do quite a lot in so far as improving the environment is concerned over the past few years. I am happy to support them in their efforts.
Senators also referred to toxic and dangerous wastes. Quite a lot of comment was made on these matters. As I have already indicated to the House, we produce about 52,500 tonnes of waste which is regarded as toxic and dangerous in the context of the relevant EC directives. We also produce a further 55,000 tonnes of chemicals, metal and oil wastes which can be broadly regarded as hazardous as well. While minimisation and recovery methods should be applied as fully as possible to these wastes, we must have a proper disposal facility for the smaller quantity, say, 5,000 to 10,000 tonnes which require specialised incineration. That is the matter referred to by Senator O'Keeffe. This facility of a national incinerator must be carefully planned, managed, monitored to the highest environmental standards. The thing that has to be said is that we must have it.
We have had the opportunity for a number of years now of disposing of these toxic and highly dangerous wastes by relying on our friends abroad. We utilise incinerator facilities in the UK, France and Finland. It is becoming increasingly obvious to me, as Minister for the Environment attending Environment Council meetings in Europe, that the policy of proximity and the policy of self-sufficiency will be the order of the day in a very short time. Proximity simply means that you should dispose of these dangerous substances and wastes as near as possible to where they are created.
The self-sufficiency principle applies in that it is expected that each country will provide the necessary facilities to dispose of its own dangerous waste. Taking that seriously and acting responsibly in that matter, we must plan to have in place a facility to deal with our own waste in a proper way, properly controlled, monitored in a safe way long in advance of the door being closed by other countries who will eventually refuse to take that waste from us. It is infinitely more suitable to know what is happening to our wastes, to have it controlled and monitored, to know precisely where it is going rather than to have it disposed of in bogs, ditches, drains, dumped at sea or in any other location.
Waste is a necessary by-product of industry. Whether it is processing, chemical, agricultural or whatever, we produce the waste and we will continue to do so in increasingly large volumes. We should do whatever we can by improving the production processes and reducing the amount of waste generated at source — this must be an essential as well — and whatever we can do on the other matter referred to by Senator Foley, the question of recycling of waste. We have not a good reputation or record in this question of recycling. We are the worst in Europe. We are improving a little bit but we have still got a long way to go.
Whatever we do in the production processes or in the recycling area we will still have a sizeable volume of dangerous toxic and harardous waste that has to be got rid of. If we are told in a short time: "Keep it yourself, Minister; it is not coming into our country because the self-sufficiency principle will become established in law" then we will end up with it and will have to store it, bury it or dump it where it could be a very serious hazard to the lives and health of all our people. That nettle has to be grasped. That is what the national incinerator proposal is all about. One will have to be provided and we must plan for it and we must do it carefully. I believe if we do that we then can have a facility and we will be the authors of our own destiny in so far as the disposal of that waste is concerned.
I will deal with the question of improving legislation on national waste. Our existing legislation falls under two main headings. First, there are a number of provisions scattered throughout the various statutes dating back to the last century. The most important of these are the Public Health and Sanitary Services Acts. These Acts enable us, but they do not compel sanitary authorities to collect household and trade refuse. More recently, a series of regulations have been made under the European Communities Act, 1972, which give effect to various European Community directives pertaining to waste. These regulations implement directives on a general framework for waste disposal, toxic and dangerous waste, waste oils, PCBs, transfrontier shipment of hazardous wastes and, finally, disposal of asbestos.
Senators will see that existing legislation on waste is either very old, last Century stuff, or derives totally from the EC directives I have referred to. This is unsatisfactory. In particular, Senators will be aware that secondary legislation, under the European Communities Act, 1972, must be restricted to the measures necessary to implement the provisions of the EC directives concerned. We cannot, for example, cater for further provisions notwithstanding their desirability in terms of particular national circumstances. This factor, along with the growing importance of waste control as a central component in promoting a cleaner environment, suggests the need for a modern statutory framework to underpin all aspects of waste control. My intention is that a comprehensive Bill should be prepared which will provide for all activities associated with waste. The movement is in that direction. The Community is now taking up the whole question of this legislation by way of directive following the framework which was put in place under my Presidency. From that will flow all the legislation needed to deal with this waste business. It is starting now and I believe it is necessary. I include storage, collection, transportation and treatment as well as all types of waste from the simple domestic refuse along the scale to hazardous waste which are separate but still related in all the activities associated with waste. There were a lot of comments made about particular issues. I do not think it is necessary for me to deal with them in an individual way this evening. There will be opportunities shortly, particularly in the discussion on the Environmental Protection Agency Bill quite a voluminous piece of legislation. It is a major matter which is about to descend upon you——