Senator McCarthy was in possession and has 14 minutes remaining.
Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I did not expect to be called so soon. I had to sprint back up to the Chamber and I am a little caught for breath as a result.
As is the Minister, but fair play to the Senator and all those who are here.
I understand what the Minister is attempting to do in the Bill. Waste management is not what it should be in many respects. Responsibility for the protection of the environment comes under a number of areas. Obviously the statutory responsibility lies with local authorities, but the unusual High Court case which ruled that a local authority was legally obliged to collect waste caused its own difficulties.
My division of Cork County Council has introduced a successful wheeled bin system and we recently opened a state-of-the-art civic amenity site, the cost of which was almost €3 million. It is expected that, as part of our waste management plan, we will have civic amenity sites in all towns in west Cork.
In terms of the county in general, the landfill site which is proposed to be located at Bottle Hill will cost in the region of €50 to €60 million. The materials recovery facility, originally due to be located at Kinsale Road in Cork city as a joint venture between Cork County Council and Cork City Council, will now be located at Carrigtwohill and will cost in the region of €40 million. The crux of the issue, therefore, is finance, which has much to do with the entire scheme.
I object to the part of the Bill which proposes to make the reserve function, which deals with setting the price for waste collection, an executive function. That is not a good move because the role of a member of the council is fairly restricted and powerless in many respects. The executive function involves deciding on applications for planning permission and council houses. They make 90% of the decisions, which leaves councillors with few opportunities to exercise authority and make difficult decisions. We enjoy doing that and one of those decisions is setting the price for waste collection.
In Cork recently, as in Waterford and Dublin, there were divisions in parties over the issue of waste collection – this became a point of controversy – and we saw what happened in that regard. As a result, no council was abolished. The new waste collection fee in Cork is now €390, but we opposed that at council level because of a number of events which occurred on the day. The Fine Gael members walked out of the meeting, which left a clear majority because the Government side intended to support the charge. Regardless of what side is taken on the issue, however, if we do not have the power to make that decision ourselves, it further denigrates the role of elected members of county councils. We are elected by the people, who have a vested interest in local government. They vested their faith in us to make those decisions and I cannot agree with a situation whereby one of our few functions is being taken from us and passed on to the managers. If this Bill is passed, the county and city managers will have the sole responsibility for making this particular decision, and that is not the way to go forward.
Local government needs many far-reaching reforms, but the reform of local government goes much further than the abolition of the dual mandate. Abolishing the dual mandate will remove a certain number of Oireachtas Members from those councils along with all their wisdom, knowledge and the conduit between national and local government. I enthusiastically support the abolition of the mandate. It is a consequential of an overall package of real reform of local government, but if this Bill is passed into law, those members who remain on the councils will have their role further denigrated. That is a very bad decision.
The benchmarking process has been responsible for the massive hike in refuse collection charges throughout the country. My understanding is that the figure this year will be 25% and that next year it will be 75%. The managers have levied this charge, therefore, to get all possible moneys in to pay for benchmarking. The woman who pays her service charges is indirectly funding the recruitment of new engineers, architectural staff or whatever under benchmarking.
Local authorities are the only organs of the public service which have to fund benchmarking themselves, which is not fair. I realise that the local authority service is self-sufficient and can accrue many revenues, but a clear example of the way it has to fund benchmarking is the exorbitant increase in service charges. That is not fair because the people who are disposing of the waste are indirectly funding benchmarking. The Minister is aware of this because last November the mayor of our council, the financial controller and the manager met him as part of a deputation.
The common perception is that finances are tight and that we have to cut down on expenses, but the reality is that there is a budget surplus of €5.4 billion. The Department of the Environment and Local Government and the Minister should fund benchmarking, which would create fewer difficulties on the ground in terms of waste collection. The entire waste collection system is being complicated by the issue of benchmarking and that is not a true reflection of the cost of the waste management strategies in individual local authorities.
On the previous occasion we debated the Bill a number of Members had a certain perception of the section dealing with advertising on cars, but I believe the Minister subsequently clarified the matter. The perception was that any form of advertising on cars was illegal. In other words, it would be illegal to place advertisements on cars four or five weeks before a general election. The Minister subsequently clarified the issue by saying it was an interpretation of the Litter Act and that there will not be an all-out ban at election time or a ban on stickers on cars indicating who sold the cars and when they were sold. I thank the Minister for clarifying that matter.
I was referring to flyers that are put under people's windscreen wipers and material of that sort.
My understanding is that would be the case, but it may not be enforced.
To pursue successfully the spirit of any legislation which endeavours to clean up the country, local authorities should have adequate resources to enforce it when it is enacted. They should have the resources and the personnel in place to ensure that these regulations and rules are enforced because it would not be worthwhile for us to go this far only to discover that we do not have the resources to police or enforce it. We should put the horse before the cart in that respect and ensure that all local authorities have adequate resources.
Waste collection is a contentious and divisive issue. I believe in the polluter pays principle because it can deliver dividends and it works well. However, I do not believe that Joe or Mary Soap should have to fund the implementation of the benchmarking report. I have referred to this already but there is a serious anomaly here. The Minister is confusing the issues of waste management and protection of the environment with benchmarking. I presume commands on this issue are coming from the Minister for Finance. Why will that Minister not fund benchmarking for local authorities? Why not allocate money to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government for that purpose?
The indirect consequence is taxation by stealth and we have seen enough of that. Since the Book of Estimates in November and the budget we have had weekly analyses of the country's finances. There has been a slow drip-feed from various sources regarding spending cuts and adjustments across the spectrum. People are becoming very sceptical and they are now being told to pay a 105% increase in their service charges, which is taxation by stealth. The issues under discussion have come together as a consequence of the refusal by the Minister for Finance to fund benchmarking.
It is undemocratic and unfair to remove the one power that members of local authorities have – fixing the price of waste collection charges. It is a power many councillors relish and it will be discussed at many councillors' conferences in coming months. I have not met one member of a local authority who is in favour of this section of the Act. None of them wants to see their roles being denigrated further through council executives being given the power to make decisions of this magnitude. It is not in the interests of local government, of elected members of local authorities or of those who elect those members.
The system that was in place was fair and workable. If the local authority was deficient in its duty in making such decisions the Minister could abolish that authority. That happened in Dublin in 1969, when the council, under the late Frank Cluskey, was abolished until 1973. We could have had a similar situation in Cork if Fine Gael members of the local authority had come on board with the Labour Party and Independent members; we could have been staring abolition in the face. If the Lord Mayor of Dublin had not acted as he did then the city council might have been abolished. Nobody wants to see a local authority abolished but that is the situation. It is the recourse the Minister has and it is democracy. Whether we like it or not, that system was workable and successful.
I do not believe in an increase of any magnitude, though an increase of €30 to €40 would realistically reflect the cost of collecting waste. However, there was a huge increase in our council of 105%, going from €190 to €390. It is a hell of a lot of money to part with and some people do not have it.
The waiver system has been used to defend the massive increase but by its nature that system is restrictive. It will not apply in many cases where families are on low incomes or if there are a number of units in a household. The waiver system will not apply in those cases and the authorities will be sceptical about exercising their power to grant waivers, as it will have a negative effect on the money that will accrue. People may not receive a waiver from some local authorities.
It is a poor reflection on the Minister for Finance that he expects an organ of public service, the local authorities, to fund benchmarking. It is a consequence of the Minister for Finance's Machiavellian style, telling the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, to do as he likes. The direct consequence is that ordinary people are being asked by the Minister for Finance to pay the benchmarking bill. That is not good enough.
I cannot be forceful enough on this aspect of the Bill, which seeks to take functions from those of us who are local authority members. We do not know how much longer we will have that role, though perhaps the Minister will inform us later. Making this power a solely executive function is an affront and Senators on all sides share that view. I do not agree with this move, as it is not good for local government, for the people or for those with a vested interest in local government. Why has the Minister for Finance refused to fund benchmarking for local authorities? Why have the colleagues of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government in the Departments of Health and Children, Justice, Equality and Law Reform or other Departments been asked to fund the benchmarking report? Does the Minister for the Environment and Local Government feel it is reasonable for ordinary individuals to have to fund benchmarking by paying a 105% increase in service charges? That increase will be paid to councils and then shovelled back into the Department of the Environment and Local Government. The Minister for Finance can then give us two fingers and say: "I told you so and I will get away with this."
Next year benchmarking will cost the local authorities more than it cost this year. If we have increases of 105% this year those increases will be out of all proportion next year. I hope the Minister answers my questions.
I am delighted the Minister is present and I agree with him that the Bill is an important part of the agenda for environmental excellence, which is something everyone in Ireland believes in. I accept we must have a framework of regulation and control. If we do not have that framework we will be unable to achieve the types of changes we must make in our culture. We must change the landscape of Ireland and get rid of cars abandoned in fields, mattresses thrown over hedges and rubbish dumped on the side of the street. That is done by people who do not think about what they are doing. We must put a framework in place to support a change from the way we have done things for many years to how we want to see Ireland in the future.
I support many of the measures in the Bill. I am delighted to see a provision for revoking or suspending licences where there are serious breaches of the fit and proper person requirements. I support the increase in fines for breaches of licence provisions and the explicit power given to local authorities to discontinue the collection of domestic waste in the event of non-payment of charges. That is vitally important. One cannot have a situation where one individual in a street, for whatever excuse, does not pay charges yet their refuse is collected in the same way as that of everyone else. If one pays one's charges one gets the service one pays for. A private company would soon stop collecting waste if it had not been paid and local authorities must be able to do this also. It is a huge change in some areas to have to pay refuse charges, though not in Galway.
I have difficulty with the waste management plan and the setting of charges for the provision of waste services becoming executive functions. The Minister should accept comments on this issue by various Senators. I support the new powers for by-laws covering the provision and use of supermarket trolleys, as well as the obligation on business to wash the public areas outside their premises. Galway City Council has passed by-laws covering these areas already. We put the onus on premises to keep the areas outside their shops free of litter.
People say councillors cannot and will not take on this responsibility but that is not the case. How many councils were disbanded for not adopting an estimate? When Galway City Council adopted its estimate, the argument was not about waste charges or the cost of the polluter pays principle but about commercial rates which we did not increase in order that we could keep waste charges down. Every councillor, with the exception of two Labour Party councillors, was happy to look at how we were doing business and the cost of the service. Almost everyone will pay for it, although for those who cannot there will be a waiver scheme.
We are testing the polluter pays principle on a pilot basis. There will be a rental charge for the bin to cover big costs but we will charge those who use landfill more because it is the most expensive way to dispose of waste. We will charge those using kerbside recycling less. We will encourage people to recycle.
The problem is that this legislation removes power from local councillors elected by the people. We are taking away a sense of ownership of the solution from those involved in the problem. If those paying for the service believe they have some influence on the setting of the charge or the policy around it through their elected representatives, then they will feel they are part of solving the problem. If we are to change the culture of waste disposal, we must do it by involving those who are part of the issue. This change cannot be imposed by the Government or the local authority, certainly not by unelected city managers, most of whom are very able but they are not elected. Democracy is about electing people.
Galway City Council has adopted one of the first kerbside recycling projects in the State which has been highly successful. We have achieved our 15 year targets for diversion from landfill in less than two years. People said it could not be done when we had the arguments about the waste management plan. Officials of the Department of the Environment and Local Government, managers from other county councils, sanitary officials and environmental engineers told us it could not be done, that Ireland was different from Nova Scotia. We are doing it in Galway and everyone is involved, from children in schools to pensioners of 95 years. It gives them something to talk to about after Mass in the morning. They ask each other about the green bins and other changes.
The change of culture in the city has been a success and many councils are examining and learning from it. The model is working because we are determined that we will not have any commercial need for thermal treatment. We do not want incineration in the region. The message from the people of Galway participating on a daily basis is clear. My children, when they finish a yoghurt, put the carton in the dishwasher. We wash it for the green bin to make sure it is recycled. We choose what we are going to buy in the shops by the amount of packaging, thus producing less waste. We never use plastic bags, the tax on which was a great innovation. When we travel to other countries on our holidays, we get excited when we get a plastic bag. We take it home in our suitcase to keep it. That is a measure of the change that has taken place and we should be proud of it.
This is what we can do with broad initiatives. Instead of imposing ideas from the top down, we should examine solutions that come from the bottom up. We must recognise that people are not all bad, we do not need to crack the nut with a sledgehammer. There are different ways of solving the problem. We have diverted from landfill and do not want to see thermal treatment. I plead with the Minister to rethink that strategy as we do not need it. The Minister for Health and Children has announced a ban on smoking in public places from January 2004. Why is he doing this? The answer is that smoking produces carcinogenic emissions and causes cancer. We could argue that thermal treatment in its very best form emits carcinogens. There are those who believe it does but not to the extent that they cause cancer.
In a controlled environment emissions are less than 2%.
We do not have it at the moment and do not need it. We should create an Ireland that is different from other countries in Europe. Our vision should be for our country, not the European Union.
The Senator is missing the point. With 100% of dioxins coming into the air we are killing each other. There is no controlled environment.
We need a controlled environment but, first, we should deal with what we have. The successful model is in place. It has been achieved in Galway. We closed a landfill site two years ago. There was a problem with the site in Ballinasloe.
Ours will be closed 20 years before its time.
Galway is an example but, being realistic, only 12% is being recycled. What is happening with the other 88%?
No, we have diverted 55% from landfill.
I am talking about the total figure. I admire and acknowledge what is being done in Galway but we should not be over the top.
In Ballinasloe at the last elections some anti-dump councillors were elected because landfill was a huge issue. I visited the site two years ago and it was disgusting. It was incredible that it was happening in this day and age. The people of Galway were dumping rubbish in a landfill site that was not lined and it was being crushed. The rubbish was dumped, covered and squeezed down until it seeped out at the sides.
The problem was, however, that the elected councillors were fighting. They were asking how this would be changed and how they would generate enough money to put the necessary protections in place. Eventually the elected representatives, even those elected on an anti-dump platform, worked through the problem, applied to the EPA and identified ways where the local community could benefit. They solved the problem, applied for and have been granted an extension and are now making enough money to install the remedial works to change the dump from one that no one was proud of into a civic amenity site that people will visit in order that they can see how things are done. At the front of the site there is a recycling centre to which people from throughout County Galway bring material.
While I support the broad thrust of the Bill and some of its very fine provisions, I believe that, in making the setting of waste service charges an executive function, giving managers the responsibility for variation or replacement of waste management plans and moving all that responsibility away from the elected councillors, we are taking away one of the supports of democracy.
I have great admiration for councillors, as I know the Minister also has. At the end of the day, I believe most of them will "bite the bullet" unless there are any political manoeuvres. While I am not fully aware of what took place in Dublin City Council, I believe it was a question of politics at play. If the politics are taken out of the situation, councillors will stand up and be counted. When they understand the reasons and their responsibilities and authority, they will not be afraid to do the business. Perhaps I am naive or have not been in politics long enough but that is what I believe.
As a result of the changes we have made in local government, the power we are giving through the strategic policy groups, the Better Local Government initiative and the training and development being provided, councillors are changing and new people are coming into local government. Many more new people will do so when the dual mandate is removed. Let us give them a chance. We should not take powers away from them. Who would want to be a member of a council whose only function is to collect dog fines? If the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform considers local councillors capable of setting licensing laws in an area, we should not deprive them of powers as proposed in this Bill.
I thank the Minister for his attention. He has always listened carefully to what I have to say, even if he has never changed his mind. However, I continue to live in hope.
I welcome the Minister to the House. I compliment Senator Cox on the candour and honesty of her comments on better local government. Without being political, she has given an honest view of what is happening on the ground.
In my own short experience of three years in local government, there have been considerable changes through the Better Local Government initiative and work carried out on various plans. I was involved in the county development plan in County Donegal and the waste management plan. We had our ups and downs, including tensions between the elected councillors and the executive. With regard to the provisions of this Bill, I believe that giving additional executive powers to managers will ultimately erode local democracy and result in a decrease in confidence on the part of the general public. Civic duties and responsibilities will also be undermined.
It is the function of local authorities to maintain a strong and effective working relationship between the executive and local authority members. This Bill places all the ongoing work of the last three years in jeopardy. A fundamental principle of better local government is to give citizens more rights and greater confidence in local authority members. It also involves giving people an influence in policy at a local level through the SPCs.
When we were involved in the waste management plan in Donegal, we were faced with many obstacles and problems. In sorting out tensions between the executive function and the role of elected members, we had to negotiate and reach accommodation on various matters. Ultimately, we endorsed a waste management plan after due negotiation and deliberation. That was accepted by the public on the basis of a decision by the councillors rather than a reserved function of the county manager.
We opted for a three tier approach in our waste management plan rather than giving the public just one option. In relation to landfill, we looked at the possibility of six or seven local sites being identified and explored in terms of their acceptability. We also considered a regional approach involving Northern Ireland and a further regional approach involving Sligo and Leitrim. All the options were assessed in conjunction with the executive board and we decided not to impose any plan on the public.
If we now decide to give increased executive power to managers, that will send out the wrong signals. People will take the message that there is no point in voting for local authority members who have no real say or function in decision making. That is a dangerous situation. The county development plan which Donegal County Council passed a few years ago is now up for review. Where do elected councillors stand in that regard? Have they the necessary confidence in their role to come up with a completely new county development plan?
Senators have suggested we should discuss one-off housing and other housing possibilities for rural areas. When we in Donegal put a county development plan on the table in two or three years' time, we will be faced with the possibility that the manager may overrule the wishes of councillors. I believe managers do not actually want this particular role. They want to maintain an effective working relationship with the council members, even though there may be serious tension and conflict around estimates time.
SPCs have enjoyed a honeymoon period over the past few years. Quite frankly, the members of local authorities are becoming frustrated with the rather ineffective operation of SPCs, which are supposed to influence policy at local level as a form of decentralisation function. However, if the dual mandate no longer applies, much local authority legislation will be implemented by executive powers. While I originally had confidence in the proposal with regard to the dual mandate some months ago, I am now quite worried about its abolition in the context of this Bill. In a situation where council members lack confidence in SPCs and are concerned about policy being dictated at their level, where do we stand as Oireachtas Members representing our various regions? We find ourselves in a very difficult situation.
Ministers may find themselves in difficulties where decisions have to be made at local level. The NIMBY – not in my back yard – argument comes into it. They are faced with a very difficult situation where they have to step in and overrule the managers, but that is an isolated instance.
We are negating all the good work and all the positive developments in local authority best practice in the majority areas. It must be remembered that local authority members play an active role. For example, six of the members of Donegal County Council work full-time on local authority business and they do not have any other jobs. They are confident that things have changed under Better Local Government. If something like this is put on the table, however, and if they feel that their power or jurisdiction in terms of representing their constituents will be overruled, the work of local authorities will be set back three to four years. That is the danger about which I am concerned.
Perhaps the following is a strong statement to make, but is it a case of direct rule being instituted? I do not mean the type of direct rule – Senator White might know from where I am coming on this matter – we have always experienced. Are we returning to that type of direct rule from managers where we are just dealing with the psychology of having the freedom of living under a jurisdiction where we do not have direct rule? Perhaps Irish people, in particular, are just coming to terms with the psychology of the anti-establishment, anti-authority mentality. If members of the public discover that county managers will have power to overrule members in respect of decisions affecting waste management or the environment, it will do nothing to instil in them further confidence in the system even in terms of agreeing with local authority rules or guidelines.
What we are discussing here is a larger argument about the nature of the psyche. A view exists that perhaps Irish people are, in psychological terms, anti-establishment and anti-authority as a result of many years of direct or colonial rule. That is a philosophical argument and perhaps the Leader will facilitate a debate on it in the future.
If the citizens of Donegal were told that power was being taken away from the members of the local authority, it would do nothing to instil in them confidence about the democratic process. We have a devolved government at local level. Donegal County Council has opened up four decentralised district offices. It is amazing what is happening in Donegal because people no longer rely on their councillors. They do not need to ring up the councillor or Deputy asking to be sent a form for a DPG or ERG grant, they can actually walk into a civic office and request what they need. They are now in a position to say, "Hold on a minute, I am entitled to this. This is my democratic right. I do not need the services of a Deputy or county councillor."
I accept that cynicism exists. It has always been evident in the democratic process and the type of parochial politics practised in Ireland. Perhaps we – I include myself in this – are to blame because we might give the impression that it is we who are delivering and who are giving the people that to which they are already entitled.
Returning to Donegal County Council, the decentralised programme under Better Local Government is an example of how we have moved forward. We are moving forward because we are continually devolving power to local authority members and to ordinary citizens. The latter are becoming more active and involved as a result. They are involved in different fora, they are becoming involved through their membership of community groups and they are represented on the county development board. There is no point in us talking the jargon of Better Local Government if we are not going to follow it up with principles and guidelines through which the 29 councillors on Donegal County Council will eventually have the ultimate power for that region.
I find this contradictory. When Europe is moving towards more devolved regional government systems and is seeking active participation from its citizens, why are we considering a system of more direct rule? I hope I am not using the term "direct rule" out of context – I accept it has many connotations – but it is direct rule by a manager to overrule members without due deliberation. Our waste management plan and our county development plan were not immediately accepted by the councillors; they were discussed and were the subject of negotiation. It takes time for plans to be accepted because they must be trawled through.
I do not mean to be negative, but perhaps I have come across as such. We still have an opportunity – there is cross-party support on this – to reconsider this and re-examine the authority of county managers. If we asked the citizens, they would say they are not happy with it. Local authority members, who are democratically elected, are not happy with it. The main persons on the executive boards, the county managers, are not happy with it either.
At times Opposition Members can play politics with an issue. We will not do so today, but we will look for a little common sense because, as Senator Cox stated, the people in Galway are not satisfied with the Bill either. That is the message we want to put forward here.
On the dual mandate, I will be less comfortable giving up my seat on the local authority if this legislation is enacted. I intend to stay on. I will serve my mandate until 2004, irrespective of any calls or demands placed upon me. I feel it is my duty to do that because I have been part of a system for three to four years in which we have moved forward. We are actually gaining the respect of the public. This would be two steps backwards. The message for the Minister today is that I am not happy with this legislation, my colleagues in Donegal County Council are not happy and, ultimately, the citizens will not be happy.
I did not intend to speak, but I decided to do so having listened carefully last week, when the debate sparked a good deal of interest and many Members contributed. Having listened this morning to Senators McCarthy, Cox and McHugh, I can see that there are many varying points of view.
The Bill is about the waste management issue. Everybody is entitled to raise the issue of the dual mandate and, because I always encourage it, I am glad to see Senators express their point of view on the broader issues which may underline a particular item of legislation.
Senator Cox painted an idyllic picture of all the Galwegians tripping along with their little green bags, filling them with washed yoghurt cartons and making sure these were recycled. That sounds lovely. Senator Cox has a strong track record of having regard for the environment and related matters. She was particularly vocal when plans for Mutton Island in Galway were the subject of an explosive debate. However, I would say to her and others that the waste dump in Athlone has taken the overflow from Galway, Ballinasloe and other areas. That tiphead site was to last another 20 years, but it will be full in only four years. That is because when other counties had not made arrangements for themselves, it was left to Westmeath to take their leftover waste.
Recycling sounds good in theory. It is a properly thought out and imaginative way of dealing with waste. However, it started too late in Ireland. That is the sad situation. Regardless of what Government was in power, the efforts made in individual counties to deal with the problem of waste were timid and tentative.
One hates comparing one's country with other European countries but we have been to Germany and other countries which recycle waste. There are four or five separate containers outside the door of each dwelling and these are collected and dealt with separately. These countries have been doing this for up to 40 years. We are only starting. It is laudable that we are doing so. The Department of the Environment and Local Government has various schemes and grants for encouraging community organisations as well as individuals to use recycling in their waste management schemes. That is an excellent way of encouraging it.
We are arriving at this type of activity late in the day. I hope we will continue to work at it and make inroads. If not, we will be submerged. It might sound like something from a horror movie but it will happen. If towns like Athlone find their tipheads filling 15 years ahead of schedule, what will the rest of the country do? It is a modern, state of the art tiphead, correctly lined and layered, and everybody praised it when it opened. I do not know what the seepage will be from that tiphead and how it will affect water, drainage and other aspects of the environment. Questions are already being asked in the county in an effort to find out the ill effects.
The purpose of the Bill is to deal with waste management. My colleague, Senator Cox, has a strong mandate in this area and has exercised her right to campaign on it. Members have spoken about local government and subsidiarity. There is much complaining about SPCs. All that is wrong is that they are overweighed with bureaucracy.
I agree.
One cannot arrange to meet a county manager these days. One will see the person down the line. The managers are protecting themselves with a wall of advisers who supposedly deal with matters at local level.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
A wall of managers.
There is a wall of under managers and then more under managers. At first, people were pleased that there were these various elements. They thought they would be chairmen of the bodies and do plenty of work. It has not worked out that way. It is just a huge increase in bureaucracy.
I am a great supporter of local government and decision making at local level. That is what people are elected to do. However, councillors will not take some decisions. If we are honest, and it is often non-PC to be honest, councillors do not want to take the decisions that will hugely increase bin collection charges. I have spoken to councillors from both my party and others and they say they are glad the county manager will be the bête noire on this issue. The burden falls on his shoulders.
I am not aware of too many councillors who want power transferred to managers.
I am making my point; the Senator will have plenty of time to make his. There are some councillors who do not want to take decisions on matters that will affect their electoral prospects. They like to have somebody they can put in the stocks and at whom they can throw rotten turnips. In this case, it is the county manager.
The Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, is welcome to the debate. I understand that he was wondering last week how the Seanad was being run. It is being run excellently. We have good debates here, which I will tell the Minister about at another time. He had wondered why there were no speakers present for an Adjournment debate. During Adjournment debates in the Dáil there are two speakers present, the Minister and the Member who seeks the Adjournment debate.
The councillors do not want to take difficult decisions. This legislation should be implemented as a temporary measure until the waste management plan for each county is enhanced, used more effectively and contains a far greater element of recycling. The incidence of recycling is patchy throughout the counties. I have seen the comparative studies on it. There are some good counties, as Senator Cox mentioned, and I have no doubt Galway people are doing the job well. However, in other counties it is only beginning while in others some progress is being made. We should have started this 30 or 40 years ago. Europe started it after the last World War and has made amazing progress. Councillors who have travelled to Vienna have told me about an incinerator there which is housed in a huge structure with a pearl studded exterior in the middle of the city.
I am certainly not making a case for incineration but until recycling is implemented on a proper basis, with a uniform level of advancement throughout the country and sufficient financial backing to enable community groups to adopt it in a big way, we need managers to take the decisions to ensure the issue is addressed properly. Senator Bannon will tell us how wonderful Longford is in its waste management, tipheads, recycling and so forth.
Is the Senator sharing her time with me so I can tell her about it?
No, I will use all my time. I hope the Minister when dealing with amendments on Committee Stage will, in an amendment, position the Bill as a temporary measure and set a benchmark for waste disposal, through various means, for the counties. It is easy to take the decision now to provide a new landfill site that will be modern and properly lined and layered. However, there will be seepage from any landfill site. Everybody knows that. Where is the seepage going? It is going into water and eventually returning to the people who use the water. There has been a distinct reluctance to face reality on waste disposal.
The levy on plastic bags was a marvellous measure. If Deputy Noel Dempsey had done nothing else in his five years in the Department of the Environment and Local Government, he would have done a good job. Nobody goes to a shop now without a bag of some description in their hand. They do not use plastic bags. According to the BBC, the UK authorities are examining the measure for the UK. We are ahead of them in that regard.
We have to do something about waste disposal and that is the objective of this Bill. I would love councillors to be strong, resolute and determined in the way they deal with waste management. However, the nature of human beings is such that when councillors are canvassing for votes, they do not want to be the ones to say waste management costings rose in the previous year and that they voted in favour of it.
The thrust of the Bill suggests that councillors cannot be trusted.
The Leas-Chathaoirleach will have to control the Senator.
I support the Bill, but I do not support the devolution of power to managers. If we do not devolve those powers, however, we will face great difficulties in the future unless a ray of light suddenly shines on every councillor in the land and they decide to deal in a forceful and courageous way with waste management and take it upon themselves to educate the public and be held responsible. No local authority has reached unanimity among its members on this matter. The Lord Mayor of Dublin, who was in the Visitors Gallery earlier, is a man of courage who decided to—
The big obstacle is the lack of funding from the Department of the Environment and Local Government. Every local authority has a development plan in place with a waste management section in it.
I know all about the development plans and the arguments pursued on their variations. I have spent years on local authorities, but the Senator suggests I know nothing about them. If he can find a county which adopted waste management charges with the unanimity and delight of all its members, he will have found a county in Tír na n-Óg. I have not come across a single county where unanimity has been achieved.
I could talk forever about this matter, but the Leas-Cathaoirleach wishes me to stop. I commend the Bill to the House, but I ask the Minister to view its measures as temporary, to be used as a threat against councillors, and that they be removed when local authorities reach a 50% or 60% level of recycling, at which point power will be taken back from the manager. I am not for managers – although individually they are good and nice people – I am for citizens and for elected representatives taking responsibility. However, this is not happening and those who pretend it is are wrong.
I have read various local newspapers when local authority estimates are being introduced to ascertain who is voting for what, only to find that there are divisions between and within parties and that the people heralded as heroes and heroines are those who opposed any increases in charges. These people are now writing manifestos for the local elections which will declare that they were against charges.
I blame successive Governments for not dealing with this matter, but, until recycling gains ground, this should be seen as a temporary measure. The granting of power to the people, through their elected representatives, is proper if they know all the facts and are engaged to deal with it. I will be watching and listening to Senator Bannon with great delight.
Who adopted the estimates for Longford County Council when Fianna Fáil abstained?
They were wrong.
Hear, hear. I will give them that message.
I am disappointed the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, is unavailable to remain in the House for the full debate because I want to ask him why he is introducing the section of the Bill which relates to waste management charges. As of today, almost every local authority has passed its own estimate for the financial year and has adopted a waste management plan.
I take a great interest in waste management. I have managed to obtain the star prize in Cork because the county's landfill site will be situated in my parish. It concerns me that, during the term of office of the previous Minister, there was a national waste management strategy in place, but now each different local authority appears to be adopting its own different plan. If Cork County Council has the correct type of waste management plan, which involves the development of a materials recovery facility to reduce and recycle some of the waste with a landfill site at the end of the system, surely the different systems in Waterford – in conjunction with south Tipperary – or in Kerry is incorrect.
While I am in favour of power to the local authorities there should be a single national strategy and system for waste management. I do not believe that councillors are unwilling to bite the bullet; the problem is that they are biting different bullets in different authorities. If what we are doing in County Cork is so right, why is it not being done the same way in Kerry, Clare and Donegal? I am disappointed the Minister is not taking a tighter grip on the situation. I raised the matter with him during my term in the Lower House and his argument was that a process of reduction, reuse and recycling was at the core of his policy.
The previous Minister said – the current Minister has not indicated otherwise – that the possibility of incineration must be considered. However, we cannot consider incineration if we also claim to be in favour of reduction, reuse and recycling. There are many proponents of incineration, for which there is a valid scientific argument. Many European countries have incineration systems and many cities have incinerators in the middle of urban areas. However, if incineration is to work safely and effectively, huge volumes of waste are required. If one is in favour of it, one cannot promote the other method.
The Oireachtas should make a final decision on what waste management system it wants and I would like to see that system implemented from Cork to Donegal. Ireland is not similar in size to the United States, China or India, it is a small island. We need to make a final and firm decision about the type of waste management strategy that should be implemented in every town and townland. It should be based on reduction, reuse and recycling, but if that is not the correct system, let us choose the correct option and implement it. I find it amusing that there are so many waste management plans in operation throughout the country. This system is highly ineffective. Every local authority is struggling to move from one option to another. Landfill sites are now full and, therefore, we are looking at new methods, but nothing is being implemented.
For the past three to four years, Cork County Council signed up all the parties and councillors to take the hard decisions and choose a particular system. However, getting that system up and running is proving difficult. In particular, our efforts at providing recycling facilities have been almost useless. I take some consolation from the fact that recycling centres such as bottle and newspaper banks are being developed in conjunction with groups such as Repak. This is to be welcomed. One regulation stated local recycling and bottle banks should be situated only in areas with a population of at least 1,000. We have attempted to change that regulation to refer to centres with a population of 1,000 to communities with the same population. This would allow facilities to be put in place in every rural parish, whether outside a community centre, church or school.
If we are serious about dealing with waste management, we must make tough decisions at national level. I do not buy into the line that local councils are unwilling to make tough decisions. Everyone must recognise that waste management does not come cheaply. I find it pathetic to be lectured to by a minority of councillors on how green and pro-environment they are, yet when it comes to a waste management debate, they believe there should not be a charge and that waste will collect or recycle itself. That does not add up. We must send a strong message that waste management is about responsibility, which comes at a price.
I am disappointed with the section of the Bill which appears to provide for the Minister to remove powers from local councils. I have faith in the attitude of the majority of local councillors who have drawn up waste management plans and taken tough decisions on waste management charges. My crib is that we are not giving central leadership or making a final and defiant decision as to what types of waste management systems should be put in place.
I am sure the Minister is aware of what is happening in this area in Waterford. It is a particularly attractive, yet simple, system, on which Members have seen some of the recent television programmes. Like many good ideas, it is so simple that one would ask oneself why has every other local authority not thought of it. Under this system, every rural house in County Waterford is given two plastic bags every fortnight, a black plastic bag for non-recyclable waste and a clear plastic bag for recyclable waste. They are collected on a fortnightly basis. The clear plastic bags are taken to a purpose built unit where they are separated by hand. While it might appear old-fashioned, this system is effective. Under such a system, a premium charge can be imposed on the collection of non-recyclable waste while recyclable waste can be collected at an advantageous rate. People can be given an incentive to use recycling options while a harsher charge or penalty can be imposed on the collection of non-recyclable waste. That is road we must go down. We cannot accept the maintenance of the status quo where every landfill site is full and people are not acting responsibly in regard to waste disposal.
While the Bill may have been necessary a number of years ago, it is not necessary now from the point of view of waste management charges. Is there any local authority which has not adopted a waste management strategy? I do not believe there is. Is there any local authority which has not passed its estimate? I do not believe there is. The majority of councillors are responsible.
We will shortly instigate a debate on local government. The Minister made interesting comments at various conferences about granting additional powers to local councillors who would also have to take on additional responsibilities. He publicly mooted the idea of giving them the power to introduce some degree of local taxation. Some might be frightened about such a prospect but if we want to make local government strong, real and meaningful and give those with an interest in public life an option of serving at local level and being real leaders of their communities, we will need meaningful reform of local government, something about which we have been talking for 20 years. However, we have gone into reverse in this regard. It is disappointing to consider that local councillors in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s had more power than local councillors under the current system. Therefore, it needs urgent reform.
The Minister is willing to go down the right road and we must support him. However, if we want to go down that road, we must recognise that our local representatives are willing to take on not only extra powers but also extra responsibilities. I am disappointed with this legislation because it claws back on the concept of giving them responsibility as well as power. I ask the Minister to reflect on this. I also ask him to give a lead on the waste management issue. We have a national waste management document, strategies and policies but need central leadership. While that may go against the grain in regard to what I said about giving local councillors powers, a decision must be taken on waste management systems to ensure we have a central system and single strategy which we can implement. We should begin that process as soon as possible.
I welcome the Minister of State and his officials and note the Minister, Deputy Cullen, was present earlier. The protection of the environment is important. When a person applies to the EPA for a licence for a proposed development, he or she must place a notice in one of the national newspapers and at the headquarters but not the site of the proposed development. We cannot allow this Bill to go through without ensuring that in respect of such proposed development it provides for a requirement similar to that which applies to a person building a house or developing a property in a private capacity who is obliged to place a notice in one of the newspapers and at the proposed site.
There has been talk about the control and management of tip heads, of which a large number have been closed, which will have to be examined because the material dumped in them is dangerous. It will cost local authorities substantial moneys to make them safe. We do not yet know what material has been dumped in them. Some were closed and covered over, perhaps with grass. There is an obligation on all local authorities to make them safe and the Department of the Environment and Local Government will have to make moneys available to them for this purpose. There are probably half a dozen disused landfill sites in each county and a decision may have to be taken to incinerate much of the material dumped in order to make it safe, although this will involve a major cost.
We have not taken proper steps to ensure our sewerage systems are working properly and not polluting rivers and streams adjacent to towns and villages. In many areas the systems in place are old and antiquated, on which substantial moneys have been spent in recent years. However, many are not working, or are not being maintained and managed properly. That leaves much to be desired. One need only talk to fishermen to learn about the state of some of the rivers and streams adjacent to towns and villages. Some of those towns and villages spent substantial sums of money on new schemes that were planned ten or 15 years ago. However, by the time they were up and running, the towns had expanded to such an extent that the new developments had become irrelevant and incapable of doing the job for which they were intended.
We all know that we must recycle more and, as other speakers noted earlier, reduce the amount of waste we produce in the first instance. I have been a member of a local authority for a number of years. In the past, the elected representatives on the authority took the decisions necessary, but, over the past ten to 12 years, people have become somewhat reluctant to take the hard decisions that impact upon charges. Small pressure groups often approach elected representatives and urge them to make a particular decision or, in most cases, not to make any decision. That is why the Bill involves granting more power to county managers. Up to a point, local authority members have only themselves to blame for that. However, these powers should not be vested with the county managers but with local authority members. If local authority members do not take the decisions they should take, then it is up to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to step in, but not in a way that accords him total control.
We had a battle in my county when we set a waste charge. Two months later, the collectors increased their charges as a result of the county manager increasing the tiphead charge. The local authority members had no say whatever in this. The manager simply increased the tiphead charge and the collectors passed it on. This service seems to be a money-making enterprise for the collectors, who appear to be doing very well. Recently, the collectors in my county refused to give people an annual ticket on the grounds that there would be further increases in charges. Then a new collector entered the picture, and instead of the charge going up, we had a reduction of €5. We need this type of extra competition in refuse collection.
Another issue concerns people who are building houses in towns or rural areas and want to bring landfill on to a site. A licence must be obtained to do this. The application to obtain such a licence for a quarter acre site is similar to that required to introduce a huge landfill. We must change this; we must consider it in the context of the area and the type of material involved. In most cases, this material takes the form of subsoil that has been removed from one site and transferred to another in order to raise the ground level. It is a simple enough procedure that happens everywhere, but the licence required for a small landfill is similar to that required for a large one. Consideration must be given to this matter.
I welcome the increase in the fines. Nothing is more effective in terms of stopping people from dumping and disposing of refuse where they should not do so than hitting them with a large fine. When people are fined at present, there is no publicity involved. Local authorities must publicise and highlight the fining of individuals. Others who see and hear of this will then be deterred from disposing of waste in bogs, on the side of roadways and plantations or in other areas where so much dumping has taken place.
Whether it be the responsibility of local authorities or the Department of the Environment and Local Government, we must ensure that some type of waiver scheme for the collection of refuse is in place for the benefit of old age pensioners and social welfare recipients. Such a scheme is sometimes in place in areas where the local authority is responsible for collecting waste, but not in areas where the service is contracted out to private collectors. Whether households leave refuse out every week or just every second or third week, they must still buy a monthly ticket.
Most households currently generate over a tonne of refuse annually. That situation has to be tackled and the amount of waste reduced substantially through recycling. In the ordinary household where the wheelie bin is left out every week, the attitude of people is that they are paying a certain amount and will, therefore, make sure to fill the bin with whatever will go into it. That attitude must change. People must be given an incentive to reduce their waste output by introducing a system of payment on a weight basis, rather than on a weekly basis. Under the current system, the charge remains the same regardless of the amount of waste disposed of. If people pay by weight, on the other hand, they will go about recycling and ensuring that the minimum amount goes to tipheads at the end of the week.
I welcome the Bill, which is good, and I compliment the Minister and his officials in drawing it up. We will explore it further on later Stages, but I wish the Minister well with it.
One of the benefits of other speakers having preceded me last week is that I have had an opportunity to assess what they said and make my contribution accordingly. What has come across very strongly, even before the Bill reaches the other House, is the concern of many of those who are members of local authorities – I have been a member of an authority since 1979 – about the role of county managers, not only with regard to waste management plans but also in setting charges for waste. There have been many instances over the past 20 years of various Ministers stating their intention to reform and improve local government. I recall one such document produced by the former Deputy, Liam Kavanagh, when he was Minister for the Environment.
When it comes to estimates time on local authorities, we will discuss refuse charges, increased water charges and increased rates, but the focal point of debate in most council chambers will be refuse charges. It tends to be a contentious issue because charges are continuing to increase. Many councils have washed their hands of it already because private operators have taken over the service in certain counties. My county is still trying to retain the service. It is regrettable that the Minister would take the power to set charges away from councillors. It is a retrograde step and does not gel with talk of better local government.
A plethora of SPCs have been established in recent times, the objective of which is to frame and influence policy within council chambers. I ask those who have attended such SPCs to place their hands on their hearts and assess what influence they have had on policy within councils on the basis of the SPCs' deliberations. Unless we get serious about the context of the SPCs, people from outside bodies or interests will stop attending these strategic policy committees. The introduction of the SPCs was seen as a worthwhile innovation, but I have yet to be convinced that this is the case.
In my county – Senator Brennan sits on the council with me and is aware of the situation – there has been a great deal of discussion at council meetings about the long-term future of refuse charges. Discussions about the future of refuse charges are still ongoing. Even though I was a member of the environmental committee, I do not remember deliberating on any aspect of the charges. If committees are to function effectively, they should deliberate on these issues far in advance of council meetings. The wider council could then be guided by the SPCs.
It is an advantage that SPC meetings are held in private whereas council meetings are held in public. With the time constraints on councillors and the presence of media, matters can get out of control in the heated atmosphere of a council chamber. There is a role for councillors in deciding what waste management plan operates in their area and what the refuse charges should be. At least the council represents the public. After refuse charges are set, councillors receive telephone calls from people annoyed over the increases but at least they have someone to contact and air such grievances. The post of manager is not an elected position. It is not right to reduce the responsibility and role of councillors.
In the near future we will discuss the abolition of the dual mandate. If the right calibre of person is to be encouraged to join a council, we should consider expanding the role of councillors; local government must be re-energised to attract new blood. Many Fianna Fáil Members agree with what I am saying. At one time we spoke about devolving the power of deciding upon new housing grants to councils but new house grants are no longer available. What additional powers can be granted to a council?
If a council is not performing its role in introducing new charges, the Minister can intervene. Is it necessary to take away the responsibility in the first place? The Minister's power to intervene has been threatened in certain cases. If SPCs were properly run, constructive debate would follow in council chambers and charges would be introduced. The ratepayer will be saddled with a 7% increase this year, even though very little discussion takes place on the cost of rates.
It is a contradiction that domestic consumers in urban areas receive free water supplies, yet when the council supplies water to a group scheme – as is the case in the scheme in which I am involved – it will charge for it. That is not a just system. Nor does it offer an incentive to a group water scheme which wants to remain independent to continue its service. Is it any wonder that many group water schemes eventually beg to be taken over by the council? It is becoming more difficult to collect money from those involved in such schemes. In many cases farmers sink their own wells because the council is increasing its charges.
Raw sewage is discharged into rivers and streams in every county. Community employment schemes have done great work in rural areas but people continue to move away because proper sewage schemes are not in place. If adequate schemes were in place, other projects such as landscaping, dry stone walling and pavement repair could then go ahead. If schemes are not put in place, the drift from rural Ireland will continue. I welcome the improvements Limerick County Council have made in reviving villages. It now favours public private partnerships.
Senator O'Rourke is right to say we are coming to recycling too late. "Recycling" may be the current buzzword but it is happening on a very small scale. There is an ongoing controversy in Limerick over Gortnadromma dump. The local community is aggrieved that it has become a super-dump for Limerick city and county. It was badly run which, I am sure, is typical of landfill sites around the country, although, admittedly, there has been a dramatic improvement in the way it has been run over the past 18 months. Unfortunately, if one starts off on the wrong foot and the local community has to put up with associated hazards such as extra traffic, rats and flies etc., good work done at a later stage is not appreciated. Members of the local community took a case against the council and were awarded over £250,000 in the High Court. They proved in the information they presented that the dump was a hazard they could have done without.
There is considerable resentment in Limerick West, which I represent, because there is a feeling that the brunt of responsibility for the management of the waste of Limerick city, a large conurbation, and associated parts of east Limerick, especially in terms of landfill, has been borne by one specific community. A local school proved that there was a decline in its enrolment because of people leaving the area and it made representations to the Minister for Education and Science for a special concession to retain a teacher. Landfill has a bad name, but in many cases this is due to the fact that these sites have not been run properly. Some Members will have visited England to find out more about landfill and will have seen places where one would hardly have known landfill existed.
As a local authority member since 1985 who is likely to forgo that membership soon, I appeal to the Minister not to proceed with his plans to remove the power from councillors to decide on local authority charges. If he does, it will denigrate the functions of councillors and local government in the long term. That aside, there are positive aspects to the Bill. However, the Minister should ask himself how many councils he has had to threaten with dissolution to get them to raise charges. There are very few and the ultimate sanction always lies with the Minister.
I welcome the Minister to the debate on this important Bill which deals specifically with waste management, an issue of serious concern to local authorities and councillors. I join other Members who have spoken out against the position the Minister has taken of withdrawing the rights of councillors to control waste management in their areas and giving the responsibility to county managers.
Many of us have travelled to Europe to meet other councillors on local authorities and the extent of the responsibilities of local authorities in Europe never ceases to amaze us. These include health, education and policing. We have few responsibilities and are losing another. Instead of trying to catch up with European local authorities, we are denied further responsibility for our communities. I appeal to the Minister to rethink this issue, as many on both sides of the House have asked him to do.
Waste management is not being tackled adequately. We are not reducing, recycling and composting. Unless facilities in this regard are provided for people, we will not achieve our targets. I represent the Fingal area which has a system that works as well as it can but it needs to be expanded. People want it improved and it should be extended to the rest of the country. People pay only for what they throw away. A tag is put on each bin for collection and it is up to each householder to decide how often to put out the bin. This encourages people to recycle. If a flat charge applies, as is the case in some parts of the country, there is no incentive to recycle. People will fill up their bins and put them out every week. In Fingal, and I believe some other areas, one becomes much more careful about how often one puts out one's bin. One is obliged to recycle and compost.
We need more recycling centres and composting facilities. Many people would compost if awareness was raised and facilities provided. We should have central recycling centres such as in Dundalk, which we hope to have in Fingal in a few years.
At present, people are storing rubbish in their garages and back gardens and they do not know what to do with it. Until a few years ago, they could take it to their local dump but they cannot do that anymore. That is why so much illegal dumping takes place. There should be centres where people can bring the old bed, fridge or whatever. They do not have a place to dispose of such items at present. The Minister should use some incentive to encourage people to recycle and not fill their bins or black sacks every week.
We should also give waivers across the board to old age pensioners. I am aware of an 82 year old woman seeking a waiver, but because she has a small private pension she will not receive it. She lives on her own. It is unfair that we should charge such people for disposing of their waste. They would have very little in any event. Will the Minister review that? I am unsure if it is a matter for local authorities. At the moment the waiver applies only to old age pensioners on a social welfare pension. I would like to see it reviewed.
In my area, and this would be relevant to other parts of the country, irresponsible people burn rubbish, sometimes on a major scale. Unfortunately, the local authorities and Garda are unable to tackle it adequately. The Minister's Department must come down strongly on people who burn rubbish, especially given that so much illegal dumping is taking place. Certain people are responsible for this, but local authority staff and the Garda are afraid to tackle these people. They must be dealt with. Rubbish is being burnt beside residential estates which must endure this pollution on a daily basis while nothing is done about it.
I would also like to see the Department coming down strongly on noise pollution, especially where pubs hold discos into the late hours adjacent to residential areas where residents are unable to sleep as a result. This is extremely problematic for these people and they appear unable to achieve progress. I want stronger powers given to local authorities to impose fines on the offending establishments, but we also need to reduce the permissible noise limits. They appear to be too high and we cannot make any progress in getting some of these establishments to reduce their noise levels.
Another area where noise is a problem is adjacent to major motorways. We raised this issue at council level and tests will be carried out, but we are not always sure they are carried out accurately. Residents adjacent to motorways must live with the noise problem all the time.
Another problem that needs to be tackled is the growing number of house alarms that are accidentally activated, especially in new areas where almost every house has an alarm but no one is at home because they are out working. Three or four could be activated all day. For the few at home it is extremely annoying. Those with alarms in their houses must be held responsible and should ensure measures are in place to have the alarm switched off. It is a growing problem, one which should be addressed in the Bill.
Construction development also creates significant noise. This particularly affects residential developments but could apply to any development. Workers seem to work until late in the evening. I am not sure whether the Department of the Environment and Local Government or the local authority should define the finishing time, which should be no later than 7.30 p.m. when children are trying to get to sleep. We do not realise how much noise is made and how it affects us. I am getting more complaints about this type of pollution which needs to be tackled urgently. If the Minister addressed these issues, I would be very happy. However, I do not agree with him taking away our powers. We have too few already. I ask him to reconsider.
I welcome the Minister. There are some very good provisions in this Bill. I agree with some of the sections but not all. When some pay, all should pay. There should be a generous waiver system in place for those who cannot afford to do so. The Bill should make it an offence to walk dogs in built-up areas without a poop-scoop. Too often we see dog excrement on the streets. It is not too much to ask that people carry a poop-scoop when taking their dog for a walk. This should be spelt out in the Bill.
There are some sections about which I have grave reservations. Most are on page 3 and relate to giving more powers to county managers and varying or replacing a waste management plan and making it an executive function of a county manager. Another requires a landfill operator – either a private operator or a local authority – to levy landfill charges so as to ensure full recovery of the costs of the facility concerned. I intend addressing these sections in detail on Committee Stage.
The Minister spoke on national radio before he introduced the Bill to the House when he gave the impression that incineration was the way to go. He stated there were 16 or 17 incinerators in a country like Denmark which has a population of much the same size. The Bill seems to be all about incineration. When Senator O'Rourke spoke, she said it all. She said landfill would not work and that she was not for incineration but what will we do? She said we were coming too late as a nation to recycling but it is never too late. Her comments lead me to believe the Bill is totally about incineration.
What more can we do as public representatives about recycling? I have been a member of a local authority for a number of years and cannot see what more we can do unless we get funding from the Department of the Environment and Local Government. If anybody has failed in this regard, it is the Minister for the Environment and Local Government and his Department. Little, if any, funding has been channelled to the local authorities to introduce a proper recycling system. Senator Bradford spoke of one system in Cork and different systems in other counties.
The Department has put a number of regional authorities together and instructed them to define waste management plans which were drafted by a number of consultants and put in place. In the majority of cases they have been agreed by the relevant local authorities but where do we go from there unless funding is provided? I have been led to believe that by 2005 recycling subsidies will be withdrawn. The biggest problem is what to do with recyclable materials.
Mayo County Council is one of the few local authorities to have two landfill sites that are completely modernised following investment of £30 million. Both have recycling facilities. The biggest problem is transporting the recyclable material from County Mayo to wherever it will be processed. The Government should fund schemes to deal with this rather than handing over power to county managers. What will happen if we hand more power to them? Will the Mayo county manager have a different system to the one in place in Galway? Will different systems be in place in Cork and Waterford? They cannot. The Department will tell all county managers they will have incineration and that they can do what they like after that to operate the system. That instruction will come from the Minister and his Department. That is what seems to be happening in the Bill.
How will all of this operate? In County Mayo there are a number of private operators which, with the local authority, collect waste, some of which is recycled. From the two facilities in the county the following material was recycled: 100 tonnes of paper; 40 tonnes of glass; seven tonnes of plastic; three tonnes of tetrapak; 800 batteries; one tonne of household batteries; 5,000 litres of motor oil; seven tonnes of clothing; one tonne of aluminium cans; one tonne of steel food cans; 32 tonnes of timber; 60 tonnes of scrap metal; 44 tonnes of white goods; 800 fluorescent lamps; three tonnes of window glass; and three tonnes of paint. The Minister's proposals suggest all of this will be incinerated in future.
Not at all. There is no reference to that.
As the Minister knows, in time only a few operators will collect waste and eventually multinationals will take over collection and disposal systems and channel everything towards incineration. To run an incinerator efficiently one requires 200,000 tonnes of material per year.
I recently visited a 70,000 tonne unit.
The minimum figure for viability is 200,000 tonnes.
I have just explained to the Senator—
Acting Chairman (Mr. J. Walsh): The Senator, without interruption.
Perhaps the Minister has more information available to him than I. It is estimated that 200,000 tonnes of waste is required to run an incinerator efficiently.
The Minister's intentions are clearly spelt out in the stipulation that landfill operators will be required to levy landfill charges to ensure that their full costs are recovered. In most cases, the county manager will take this decision and he will hype these charges to ensure it becomes cheaper to use incineration facilities.
We will have multinational companies building incinerators here under public private partnerships. Eventually, they will work their way into waste collection which will give them control of the entire waste management chain, from collection to incineration. We know who ran waste management in the United States – the Mafia. This Bill brings us down that road because it will ensure there is no local accountability. I cannot understand the reason for this.
In fairness to the Minister's predecessor, at least he tried to reform local authorities by providing for directly elected mayors. By failing to give them sufficient powers, however, he did not go far enough. If he had gone the whole way and given directly elected mayors full powers for a statutory period of, say, five years, it would be possible to implement some of the provisions with a measure of local accountability. As matters stands, there will be no local accountability.
The Minister is putting 25 county managers in charge of collecting and incinerating waste, which will result in 25 different approaches to waste management. As the Department of the Environment and Local Government will not stand for this, the Minister will issue a diktat to the County and City Managers Association giving instructions on how waste is to be collected and informing them that, apart from a limited amount of recycling, it is to be incinerated.
Senator O'Rourke stated we were too late for recycling.
On a point of order, the Senator did not say that. As far as I remember, she said we started recycling too late.
That is much the same thing.
We started 30 years too late.
Recycling was started in some Canadian provinces in 1995, some of which have already achieved recycling rates of 85%. I see no reason the Minister should not take the recycling route before turning to incineration.
That is exactly what I am doing.
That does not appear to be the case from reading the Bill, which promotes incineration. The Minister expressed support for incineration several times today and previously on "Today with Pat Kenny".
I fail to see the reason the Minister cannot provide county managers with a certain amount of funding, to be matched by funding generated from rates or local collection, in return for which county councils would have to achieve recycling targets within a specified period. To date, no such steps have been taken and county managers have never received proper funding for recycling from central funds.
The Minister should note that the Government receives a sum of more than €1 million per annum which is collected from tipheads in County Mayo. If that money was left with the county council to assist in developing recycling facilities, it would be a positive step. The previous Minister – I will not blame the current Minister for this – imposed a levy of €25 on every tonne of waste dumped at a landfill site. This is then channelled into the national coffers. Surely this money should be left in the hands of local authorities to fund recycling programmes.
I ask the Minister to reconsider his proposals before Committee Stage. Everybody must take responsibility for our failure to recycle and the problems we face with waste collection and disposal. The Department bears overall responsibility, councillors are responsible for the lack of development while county managers can also take some of the heat. The Minister placed all the blame on councillors, who, he said, had failed in their duty to deal properly with waste. This is the message emanating from the Department. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I listened to Senators Cox, Walsh and Mansergh speak on incineration in other countries last week. If the Minister worked closely with local authority members in association with county managers and provided funding to those councils which are prepared to lead in the area of recycling, we could substantially raise the amount of waste which is recycled within 12 to 18 months.
I do not like the direction in which the Bill takes us. It will lead to public private partnerships for incinerators and multinationals taking control of waste management from collection through to incineration.
I welcome the Minister to the House again. I will try to be brief and avoid rehashing the words of other speakers. I would be in dereliction of my duty as a councillor and as a Senator elected by councillors were I not to voice my concern about and disapproval of the section of the Bill which transfers to managers powers in the area of waste management charges, which have been held by councillors until now. I am particularly disappointed that the Minister, who was a councillor and whose family has long been involved in local government in Waterford, is presiding over a proposal which seeks to dilute further the role councillors play in local democracy.
A few years ago the Minister's predecessor introduced a scheme entitled Better Local Government which promoted county council employees and paid them significant increases in salary, thus creating a new layer of bureaucracy and management at county council level. The scheme delivered the opposite of what it set out to do. Public representatives now find it difficult to contact county managers because they are increasingly delegating powers to directors of services. The Minister now proposes to transfer further powers to the county manager at a time when ordinary county councillors, such as myself and many others to whom I spoke recently, find it increasingly difficult to meet managers in order to discuss their concerns.
Senator Bradford made an interesting and thought provoking contribution, in which he described the waste collection system in operation in County Waterford. The system, which possibly operates in other counties, should be held up as a model for our local authorities. It operates on the basis of the separation of waste into two bags, one of which is used solely for recyclable materials while all other waste is placed in the second bag. The waste is then brought to a central location where the recyclables are separated. This model should be widely promoted.
I agree with Senator Paddy Burke that the Minister, in his speeches since taking office, has promoted incineration. So does this Bill. It a contradiction to appear to be in favour of incineration on the one hand while pushing for recycling on the other. As Senator Burke said, regardless of whether it takes 70,000 tonnes or 200,000 tonnes, if an incinerator is privately built – and private money will be involved in building incinerators, although I hope that will not happen – the waste will have to be found to keep that incinerator in operation and ensure that the private company involved gets the profit to which it is entitled. That is a contradictory position. If someone is pushing for recycling, how can they be in favour of building incinerators?
Engineers like big machines and solving seemingly impossible problems, and I do not deny that waste management is a major problem, but there is a view that if we put all the country's waste into a big oven and light a fire, the smoke will go up the chimney and all our problems will be solved. The reality is that the ash produced in an incinerator by the burning process is much more toxic than any domestic refuse that would go to landfill. The introduction of incinerators will result in fewer landfill sites, but those landfills will hold waste that is much more toxic than anything we have seen previously. Nobody appears to be highlighting that problem in the debate on incineration.
I spoke about Waterford earlier but shortly after I was elected to Kilkenny County Council three years ago we engaged in a fairly thorough process of drawing up a waste management plan for the county. Following months of negotiation between councillors and management we came up with a plan that was acceptable to everyone. I object to the principle that the Minister would remove the power to draft waste management plans from councillors. When given the responsibility, councillors have shown that they can make difficult decisions when necessary. This move is a backward step.
As far as I am aware, the Kilkenny waste management plan is completely different from those in County Laois or north or south Tipperary. Senator Bradford spoke earlier about the need for some degree of uniformity and some direction from the Department on what should be contained in waste management plans. The idea that a county manager can be summoned to Dublin and told what should be included in the waste management plan is not acceptable. That is a retrograde step for local government and local democracy at a time when we are trying to get people to contest local elections and be involved in their communities. They will not do that if they have no real input into an important issue such as waste management. It is also demoralising for those currently involved in local government.
Nobody could disagree with the polluter pays principle but, as Senator Terry said earlier, a blanket charge for a wheeled bin, as we have in Kilkenny, means there is no incentive for people to do any type of recycling. That has to be changed. It is ridiculous that a man who fills his wheeled bin only once a month has to pay the same charge as his neighbour who fills his bin every week and makes no effort to do any sort of recycling. If we are serious about the polluter pays principle, it has to be on the basis of the quantity of waste produced by the polluter.
A problem arose in Kilkenny with the introduction of a waiver system for those who cannot afford to pay waste charges. That is a very contentious issue in many local authorities, and Kilkenny is no different. People who are disadvantaged find it very difficult, where private operators are concerned with the collection of waste, as is the case in Kilkenny, to obtain waivers from those private operators. I am aware some tax measure has been put in place as regards waste charges, but if one does not have an income that is taxable such a measure is of no benefit.
Another area of particular concern to me, which was also raised by Senator Terry, is illegal dumping. The Minister will know the area I come from, which is south Kilkenny. I actually live ten miles from the city of Waterford and there are approximately 1,000 acres of State forestry half a mile from my house. On certain winter nights there is a parade of cars from Waterford or different parts of south Kilkenny – I have no doubt locals are involved also – whose drivers abandon items like fridges, other white goods, broken televisions, etc. They simply hurl them over the ditch and walk off scot free without any fear of punishment. That is a disgrace and it is a problem which is experienced throughout the country.
We are fortunate in Kilkenny to have a litter warden who is very good at his job and very conscientious. We have 80,000 people in the city and county and only one litter warden, which is not adequate. Litter is a problem in the context of addressing the whole waste issue. I look forward to the Minister and his Department providing funding for local authorities to hire more litter wardens who do a tough but important job, particularly in an environment where waste charges are increasing at a significant rate. People seek to avoid paying these charges by taking the easy option of discarding their waste by the side of the road on a dark night. That is an increasing problem and I hope the Minister does something to address it.
I hope the Minister takes on board some of the suggestions made because, contrary to the spirit of what his predecessor was trying to do in terms of better local government, what we are seeing is a further diminution of the role of county councillors. If we are serious about reform of local government and attracting people to become involved in local authorities, we have to give real powers to local authorities and councillors. This Bill is a retrograde step in that regard.
I thank all the Senators for their contributions to what was a detailed Second Stage debate, which I welcome. I listened to the issues raised by various Senators from their perspective as councillors, as I was myself, and I understand the system. Some of the issues, however, are not always somebody else's responsibility. We have to make decisions collectively.
There appears to be some misunderstanding. Local councillors have passed their full regional integrated waste management strategies. They are in place and councillors who refer here to what is contained in them should have done that when they were being passed.
The managers passed them.
Some did and some did not.
Ask Senator Walsh.
My predecessor changed the legislation in this regard after ten years. I put my hand on my heart and admit I am as guilty as anyone else. I was part of the system and I did not want to hear about dumps – I wanted people to talk about the things we were all interested in. We kept sweeping it under the carpet and we were all guilty of not doing enough. This has been a collective issue.
We have the plans in place and, having listened to the debate, I am more convinced than ever that they should not be overturned. If that happens we will have another ten years of debate. Rubbish will have covered this building by then and we will have a massive problem.
I made it clear when speaking about the national spatial strategy that councillors should realise their regions can gain an edge when trying to attract jobs and businesses. An integrated waste management strategy is at the top of the agenda of companies seeking to invest here. Companies will not invest in the country, let alone in the regions, if we do not have such strategies, as they would be unable to function under national and international laws without those strategies. It is bite the bullet time. The debate is over. We have the plans and it is a matter of implementing them.
No major power is being suddenly removed. The plans are being put in place and I am ensuring they cannot be varied now; otherwise it is obvious the "sexy" bits would be picked out and people would say they can live with some recycling but do not want to know about a dump in their area or about thermal treatment or combined heat and power. People do not want to know about those issues but the reality, as Senators and councillors know, is that one cannot deal with all the waste streams just with recycling or prevention. We cannot deal with them all through landfills or thermal treatment either. We will have to combine those four methods.
Someone mentioned Denmark, where there are 35 municipal waste treatment plants. However, those are not absorbing all Denmark's waste, even though the Danes are probably the best recyclers in the world. They recycle up to 50% of their waste and are trying to drive that figure higher. That is what we can do here. How do we do so in a way that ensures all our waste does not go into incinerators? We can use charging structures and incentivising. We must give people incentives to recycle and, as some Senators correctly said, we will charge by weight. Senators were right to say it is unacceptable and wrong for a person with a wheelie bin full to the brim to pay the same as a person next door who may have very little waste and is recycling.
Senators made a fair point about putting facilities in place. The point has been made that different authorities have different schemes and approaches to recycling. I have some concerns regarding this legitimate point but I also have all the regional plans before me and we are putting together a national strategy. The best way forward will emerge from that process but we cannot be prescriptive at a national level. One cannot have a mirror image of one scheme applying everywhere. The problem in a county like Clare, which has a dispersed population, is quite different from that in Dublin. Different nuances and structures will apply in different places.
Every councillor knows the four main principles as they are in the regional waste management strategies. Those include prevention and minimisation, such as the plastic bag levy, and recycling, which is the core approach to dealing with waste. We aim to reach a target of recycling 50% of waste. All areas are making an effort and some counties are trying very hard but the reality is that today we still recycle only approximately 12% of our waste, according to the latest figures from the EPA. In 1998, when we started this process and councillors had the right to make decisions – but did not do so – we were recycling 9%. In four years we have improved by only 3%.
The biggest problem is the lack of funding from the Minister.
The Minister, without interruption.
I acknowledge the substantial efforts being made but those are not enough. We all know we have a serious crisis and it is not just a matter of waste; it affects the economy also. We must have proper standards of waste management if we are to drive our economy forward. One potential major investor came to Ireland and asked about the national waste management strategy. We showed the investor our plans but when we were asked about the facilities we could only say we were getting there. The investor did not want to know and went somewhere else.
I have told the regions that if we are serious about the national spatial strategy, regional development and correcting regional imbalances in the west, south-west and south-east, then one of the obvious ways to get a serious edge is to put proper waste management plans in place. We then have a first-class selling point.
That covers the broad thrust of the debate. The plans have been passed and I am protecting them. I do not want another ten years of the same debate. That is out of the equation.
Regarding charges, I was a councillor myself and charges are discussed once a year in the estimates process. That is where councillors have the ultimate sanction and that has not changed. Councillors can still decide at the estimates meeting not to support the overall estimate for whatever reasons they have. The ultimate sanction of local authorities, and specifically the reserved function of councillors in dealing with the estimates, does not change.
It definitely does change.
There has been some misunderstanding but that is the case. I have included a provision in the Bill where, if a city or county manager discusses these matters with the council, he must come in with a charge which is realistic, represents the costs and which will be discussed by the councillors. If the councillors overturn the estimate that charge can then be implemented. Councillors can live with it or not.
I believe in local government but I accuse myself as much as anyone else of failure as a member of a local authority. We would not make the hard decisions and it is as simple as that. The consequences for us as a society are very serious. We have now had a debate and made the plans. We must implement those plans and I will not allow the debate to be started off all over again so that those plans can be overturned. That would be disastrous and unthinkable. We cannot go down that road. The waste management plan is a key instrument in ensuring the country gets the waste management infrastructure it needs. I have set out why we are putting waste charges in place and I am glad we are doing so.
I understand why people might say my position on local government is slightly contradictory – that I am removing a power on one side while saying I favour strong local government on the other. I have instigated a major review of the funding of what local government delivers with a view to strengthening the sector. The dual mandate provisions will force local authority members to have a clear view of their responsibilities and of how they will function in the future. I want the position of local councillor to be a full-time career opportunity. That is the way this is being driven, which is correct. We are putting new financial management, IT and human resources systems in place and there are enormous costs for local authorities. I accept the point regarding better local government. Many councillors have said that a lot of money has gone in at the top end but they are not seeing the delivery.
We should remember that there has been massive economic growth in the State. Planning departments in local authorities were simply unable to function and we had to introduce a whole new range of expertise into local government at all levels in order that it could cope with the completely changed Ireland of today. We have enabled the setting up of SPCs within local authorities and the establishment of county development boards. I sit on a Cabinet subcommittee with my colleagues, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs to look at operations run by quasi-State groups which are answerable to no one. It is wrong that should be the case. To me the ultimate arbiter is the elected representative and the local authority should be responsible for the distribution of the money. Those are the issues I am addressing.
Is the Minister going to abolish them?
Many councillors asked me to make it clear that we would no longer put up with one person paying for his waste while his neighbour did not. That is unfair. We all face responsibilities in that regard.
Senators Mansergh and Norris highlighted the importance of enforcement. An enforcement agency will be established under the Bill. I have changed substantially the fines and the structures to deal with them. It is a reflection on ourselves that we see our neighbours burning rubbish in their gardens. Do I need a Garda chief superintendent to come down and explain to them that is wrong? There must be a major change in our culture in order that we understand that responsibility for dealing with waste begins at the most individual level. It is not up to someone at Government level, we all have a role to play and, unless we all take on those responsibilities, we will not make any progress.
I was talking to the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources who explained to me that he did not use just one bin anymore. He recycles everything, leaving only a residue that once a month he brings—
To Cabinet.
—to a landfill site. He uses six different bins and has his own composting unit. He is an example to us all.
He must not be very busy.
I give that example because it makes the point. Are we waiting for someone else to do everything for us when we have the means to do it ourselves? There must be co-responsibility. I will provide financial resources for recycling. Within two or three weeks, the money from the levy, which is a substantial amount, will all be given to the local authorities. It will help to move forward the recycling plan of each of them.
Environmental law is being implemented. It was said during the debate that we followed the European route. That is not true. We participate in the making of European laws and directives and much of our legislation, like the original EPA directive on the IPC licensing laws, is ahead of the EU directives. We did not wait for the European Union to dictate, it followed us.
While the Bill is detailed and complicated, it is a huge step forward in establishing the framework we need to deliver on what we must do about waste. If councillors and Senators accept what I am doing on the fundamental point that has caused most publicity, copper-fastening the plans already in place, I will make sure they cannot be overturned.
Some Deputies who sit on councils have created space for themselves by saying they will challenge the original law in the High Court. What effect will that have? We will have to wait for another three years for a decision as the situation gets worse. I will not have that. Plans have been passed and this Bill will copper-fasten their legal basis. I will ensure charges are commensurate with what people should pay but there is not a single local authority coming anywhere near the reality.
While we must be fair and make the investment, we have a collective responsibility. There are no soft options, it is not someone else's responsibility but ours. That is the basis on which I will deal with waste. No councillor need have any fear because I will deliver on the empowerment of local government in the next few years.
Question put.
Tá
|
Brady, Cyprian.Brennan, Michael.Callanan, Peter.Daly, Brendan.Dooley, Timmy.Fitzgerald, Liam.Glynn, Camillus.Kenneally, Brendan.Kett, Tony.Kitt, Michael P.Leyden, Terry.Lydon, Don.MacSharry, Marc.Mansergh, Martin. |
Minihan, John.Mooney, Paschal C.Morrissey, Tom.Moylan, Pat.O'Brien, Francis.O'Rourke, Mary.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Ormonde, Ann.Phelan, Kieran.Scanlon, Eamon.Walsh, Jim.Walsh, Kate.White, Mary M.Wilson, Diarmuid. |
Níl
|
Bannon, James.Bradford, Paul.Browne, Fergal.Burke, Paddy.Burke, Ulick.Coghlan, Paul.Coonan, Noel.Cummins, Maurice.Feighan, Frank.Finucane, Michael. |
Hayes, Brian.Henry, Mary.McCarthy, Michael.McHugh, Joe.O'Meara, Kathleen.O'Toole, Joe.Phelan, John.Terry, Sheila.Tuffy, Joanna. |
Tellers: Tá, Senators Minihan and Moylan; Níl, Senators U. Burke and McCarthy.
Question declared carried.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 18 February 2003.
When is it proposed to sit again?
At 2.30 p.m. next Tuesday.