Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT debate -
Tuesday, 3 Jul 2001

Vol. 4 No. 8

Waste Management (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2001 [Seanad]: Committee Stage.

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Molloy, to the meeting. I also welcome the members of the committee and hope we can have a constructive debate on this important Bill which has come to the select committee for consideration. I also welcome the officials from the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Mr. Liam Whelan, Mr. Maurice Coughlan, Mr. Jason Kearney and Ms Úna Buckley. I hope we can conclude our business today as agreed. It is proposed to sit until 10 p.m. tonight. If consideration of the Bill is not concluded we will resume at 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

NEW SECTION.

Amendments Nos. 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 are related and will be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, before section 1, to insert the following new section:

1.-In this Act-

'elected members' means the elected and co-opted members of the Council; and

'reserved function' means any function which is not an executive function.".

These amendments deal with the core of what is fundamentally wrong with this Bill. The Bill proposes to transfer from the elected members of local authorities to the appointed county managers the power to make waste management plans. As I said on Second Stage, this is being done because the Government is pursuing a private agenda to enforce a waste management regime based on incineration. Having found that a number of local authorities either did not roll over and do the Minister's bidding or wished to make variations or insert some qualifications in the waste management plans which they were making, the Government now proposes to remove from the local authorities the power to make waste management plans. This is the same Government that on its election to office declared that the cornerstone of its policy would be the restoration of power to the elected members of local authorities and that it would remove the democratic deficit in local government. It is the same Government that has, coincidentally, a Local Government Bill before the Oireachtas to be considered on Report Stage tomorrow afternoon.

The stated purpose of that Bill is to revitalise local democracy and to give powers to elected members. In this Bill the Government, having found that three local authorities have not adopted waste management plans or not adopted them to the satisfaction of the Government, wants to take the power from them. That stands democracy on its head. It is unconstitutional. If the provision which was inserted in the Constitution last year means anything, this Bill will be found to be unconstitutional. You cannot on the one hand, as in last June, put into the Constitution a provision which gives constitutional guarantee and protection to local government and then introduce legislation which removes from the democratic tier of local government the powers to make decisions on issues that affect local communities throughout the country. Irrespective of what one thinks of the merits or otherwise of groups which are opposed to incineration or to the establishment of landfill dumps, they are entitled to hold those views. A parent who is concerned about the health or environmental implications of incineration is perfectly entitled to hold that view, to have that view vindicated and to expect that his or her public representatives, if they agree with him or her, would reflect that in the decisions on making waste management plans.

The immediate amendment we are dealing with is to define the elected members of the council and the reserved functions of local authorities, as is done in the Local Government Bill and, second, where the Government's legislation proposes that the making of a waste management plan be carried out by a manager, this Bill reiterates the existing law, that the waste management plans will be made by the elected members of the local authority. That is what is at issue in this Bill. These amendments are the first to be discussed here this evening and they go straight to the point. There is nothing ambiguous about them and I recommend them to the committee.

I made the point on Second Stage that the Chairman and his colleagues made an issue of their wish to remain as members of local authorities and their view that Members of the Oireachtas should continue to serve on local authorities. I took a different view on that when we were debating that issue on Committee Stage. I respect the view they have taken but, if they are to be consistent in their view that they wish to continue to represent their communities on local authorities, it makes no sense to support a measure which removes from those very same local authorities the powers of elected members. Why one week would one want to continue to be members of local authorities and the next week support the removal of critical powers from those local authorities? I say that, Chairman, not to put you in any spot but rather I am reiterating a view I expressed on Second Stage. I appeal to every member of this committee, including Fianna Fáil members, many of whom had views on the dual mandate, not to strip local government of its powers, of the last vestiges of democracy, and not to transfer to appointed officials functions that properly belong to those who are elected and accountable to the people.

One of my amendments is in this grouping and I am glad we have reached the main point. This Bill proposes to transfer from local authority members to the manager power to make waste management plans. My amendments would change the Minister's proposal that section 22 of the original Bill would stand and local authority members would have the powers to make waste management plans. This is a very blunt instrument, using unnecessary power to force through waste management plans that have been prepared by consultants, admittedly appointed by the local authorities. In many cases, there was very little consultation on the process and there are objections throughout the country to elements of waste management plans.

The people who are objecting to those plans have a right to have their voices heard. We live in a democracy and people should be consulted and their views should be heard. We should aim to appease people's concerns. The answer to objections to the implementation of waste management plans is a Bill such as this which proposes to take the powers away from the elected representatives of the people. It is a very dangerous road to travel. It is an undemocratic measure, it has a very narrow focus and it does not propose a national waste plan or the development of national infrastructures. It is completely focused on pushing through the present plans at all costs. I am opposed to section 4 in principle and I hope that my amendments will return the position to the status quo whereby local authority elected members are consulted about waste management plans for their local authority areas.

I spoke on this proposal on Second Stage. The Minister is well aware of my party's views in opposing this measure. Many people throughout the country have spoken from their own perspectives. The objections to the proposed waste management plan show that incineration or thermal treatment are of concern. These are genuine concerns that relate to health issues. Incineration of waste will do nothing to encourage recycling or reduce waste. There has been no economic assessment of the five or six thermal treatment plants proposed. I do not believe that it is economically viable to have these plants. If we get to the stage where we have all these plants it will eliminate recycling because we will need to feed these incinerators.

The principle of this Bill is objectionable. The words "to remove obstacles" are in the Title of the Bill. I object to the idea that the "obstacles" are the people and their elected representatives. It is an undemocratic decision and regardless of the delays we have experienced in our waste management plans, local authorities should be facilitated in making their own decisions. This blunt instrument should not be used. I proposed the amendments so that section 22 of the original Bill would stand unamended.

I thank Deputy Timmins for allowing me to substitute for him. My amendment proposes to delete section 4 and, therefore, remove the need for executive functions and involvement by the manager. If a Bill were introduced to help the Government pass the Nice treaty, it would not be long before we would be in the High Court and it certainly would be unconstitutional. A number of people will question if this is the way to remove so-called obstacles. Is the Government clear on its advice on the constitutionality of the Bill before we use up any more valuable Oireachtas time? Should the Bill be withdrawn to allow consultation on how to resolve the problem of waste management rather than simply trying to do away with democracy? Essentially, the Bill is an admission of failure.

The 1996 Act sets out a modus operandi and has not worked to the satisfaction of anybody, including the Government although some measures have been taken. We are now creating a united kingdom of a number of counties to set up a region under the 1996 Act. That is wrong. The London and Dublin Governments are not trying to copperfasten the United Kingdom, they are putting in place cross-Border institutions to ensure there are the necessary powers and interaction appropriate to a region such as these islands. In this case, the Government seems intent not to devolve by making people more accountable and responsible, but by copperfastening the regions and being anti-democratic, considering the input of the consultants. That will make the problem worse and give oxygen to the opposition in PR terms. Not only are we dealing with bad management and waste management practices that rely on investment in thermal treatment and landfill, but we are also being anti-democratic.

The Government should think twice before ramming through this Bill.

I join my colleagues in expressing grave concern at this highly contentious method of dealing with waste in society. It is a naked anti-democratic act. It is incomprehensible that this measure is being introduced within two years of the Minister and the Government sponsoring a critical amendment to the Constitution in 1999 that enshrined local government. Article 28(a) reads:

The State recognises the role of local government in providing a forum for the democratic representation of local communities in exercising and performing, at local level, powers and functions conferred by law and in promoting, by its initiative, the interests of such communities.

Other colleagues have questioned the constitutionality of this proposal. This merits urgent and immediate address. It is beyond the comprehension of objective thinking that we could turn a constitutional amendment on its head within two years to facilitate a particular interest, lobby or intent.

The draft waste management plans that were presented in the main by M.C. O'Sullivan in the different regions met with mixed reaction. My elected Sinn Féin colleagues and I in the north east region of Louth, Monaghan, Cavan and Meath prepared a comprehensive response to the draft plan as presented.

In our local authority we successfully had eight amendments adopted. We often talk about poverty proofing; one of our amendments dealt with the question of rural proofing because the main thrust of the M.C. O'Sullivan document was to cater for segregated waste collection for those in urban areas of greater than 500 households. That facility would not be available to the majority of people in rural Ireland. In County Cavan only 17% of the population would be catered for under the draft plan as presented. We went through that in a careful concerted way.

Eight of our ten amendments were adopted and the two that failed were subsequently reflected in a cross party reaction to the draft plan for the north east region. Louth is one of the counties where rejection was not only recorded but also had to be affirmed in the High Court, when colleagues of the Minister sought to overturn a decision and falsely declared a two thirds majority when that had clearly not been recorded in the council chamber. It took a High Court action by my party colleague, Councillor Arthur Morgan, to affirm that and soon afterwards we see the Minister's response.

This Bill fails to address waste reduction and reuse, two of the most important elements in any serious attempt to address the waste problems we face today. There is no political will to confront the main producers of waste. I strongly object to the definition of the consumer as the polluter when one says: "the polluter pays". This phrase is frequently offered in argument for the imposition of additional charges on people and portrays the notion that as consumers we are polluters. The polluters of course are those who create the waste and fail to introduce proper and responsible management in the production of goods and services. This is where the critical focus must be and not on the consumer.

Although health is a critical concern, it is not the only concern people have about incineration. We do not live in isolation of Europe and the rest of the world, irrespective of our views of Nice. People take cognisance of developments in other developed economies and there is an emerging realisation that the technologies being proposed here are ones from which other advanced economies are turning away. Through trial and error they have established that what is proposed here is not a response to the mountain of waste but a formula for an ever mounting waste mountain because the raw material for what is proposed is the creation of more waste.

The three r's - reduce, reuse and recycle - are clearly not reflected in the thinking and thrust of the Government's position in this regard and certainly not in the M.C. O'Sullivan documents as presented to local authorities. As an elected member of a local authority, I can find no word to express the disquiet and anger which is being caused by turning on its head the democratic decision of local councillors. We had no choice in the matter. It was the Minister's choice or no choice. If local authorities did not rubber-stamp what the Minister wanted, it was clear the power would be taken away from the democratically elected and accountable local councillors and vested in the unaccountable city and county managers. The people will not ignore what is at the core of this proposition, which is far from being in the interest of waste management, nor is it in the interest of this Government at a critical time in its term of office.

Four speakers have spoken already, representing four different parties, all advocating a similar position and pleading with the Minister of State on this matter. Unless either the Minister of State or our Chairman have been listening carefully and intend to make some response to address this issue, we are simply going through a charade by spending time putting our views on the record. I have been a member of a local authority for 27 years. This is the most serious imposition I have experienced, in terms of doing away with the power of local elected representatives and handing it over to county and city managers. That is anti-democratic. I sympathise with the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, who finds himself standing in for the Minister for the Environment and local Government, Deputy Dempsey. Like me, the Minister of State has been a member of two local authorities in Galway. He obviously liked that role, which he retained even while he was a Minister in a previous Government, and understands the functions, duties and responsibilities of members of local authorities. Our chairman has that same gut feeling for the position of elected local councillors. I compliment him on his success in convincing the Government, including the Minister of State's party which was completely opposed to the retention of the dual mandate, to reverse its position in that regard. It would fly in the face of all logic if we now simply vote to follow the Minister's lead on this issue.

I do not understand why the Minister is so adamant in pursuing the incineration line. Is there some vested interest pushing that line? It is all very fine for consultants to say that incineration, within regions, is the solution to the problem. It is not a solution. Galway County Council and city Corporation, representing that entire city and county, voted by a collective 38 votes to eight to adopt a different waste management plan from the Connacht waste management plan proposed by consultants. It is easy for counties not directly affected by incineration, such as Mayo, Sligo or Leitrim, to vote acceptance of a waste management plan based on incineration in Galway city. Only the Fianna Fáil and PD members of Galway Corporation, who are in a majority there, voted for that plan. County councillors of both those parties rejected the Connacht waste management plan. It was then decided to take the power from the local authorities and give it to the Minister. The two councils were willing to adopt a waste management plan for Galway city and county. The Fine Gael members of each council met and agreed on a waste management plan whereby each authority, city and county, would play its part, in a similar manner to the Cork solution. The county councillors agreed to accept landfill facilities in the county, but the site they identified was not looked at by the manager or the consultants. The city councillors agreed to accept recycling and composting facilities.

An initial pilot scheme involving 600 houses was undertaken in Renmore, where waste disposal was reduced by between 60% and 70%. That pilot scheme has now been extended to more than 8,000 houses in Galway city and will include up to 25,000 houses within a short time. It is a simple system, although it entails considerably more work for the householders in separating disposable waste from composting waste and sorting plastic, milk cartons, paper and cardboard separately. People have responded enthusiastically to this initiative by the local authority. However, the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, wishes to impose an incineration plant on the people of Galway city, whom the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, and I represent. If there are effective solutions other than incineration, why give the power to a county manager to overrule the elected local representatives? The local councillors are even more in touch with local reality and the views of the people than we Deputies are - I speak as a member of a local authority.

If this group of amendments is voted down - I hope that will not be the case and I look forward to the Minister of State's response - the imposition of incineration in Galway will eliminate any initiative for waste reduction in the other Connacht counties. The simple solution will be to lorry all the waste into Galway for incineration. The people of Galway city have shown their willingness to pay a higher charge for a proper refuse collection and separation system. That incentive will disappear as soon as there is an incinerator on the edge of the city, despite the reputed health implications of the incineration option. What on earth is the Minister doing? What will the Minister of State say in his reply? I can think of no explanation for the Government's approach, unless their is some hidden agenda. People will assume that somebody, somewhere, has a vested interest in pushing the incineration line. I have no evidence of that, but it appears it is the case.

If the Minister can provide me with a logical explanation as to why the Government is adopting waste management plans that include incineration, I would like to hear it. It beats me how any such explanation can be given, although I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. It is incredible that the Minister and the Minister of State, whose backgrounds are in local authorities, promote a Bill that will remove from councillors the right to decide what is best for the people they represent. I would have some sympathy for the Government if local authorities were failing to adopt waste management plans, but that is not the case. Local authorities have not failed to adopt waste management plans, but have sometimes refused to adopt the plans of consultants. Council officials, backed up by the Minister's promise to give them power, will be able to take action if a full plan is not adopted.

I am interested in the fact that Deputy Ó Caoláin has succeeded in making amendments to his region's waste management plan, as in my region no amendments were accepted and we had to adopt or reject the plan put before us. We proposed an alternative waste management plan for the city and county. Those living in an area are best placed to meet the requirements of a waste management plan, but it is far more difficult to ask people to provide dumps or incineration facilities for local authorities from another county, which may be 70 or 80 miles away. Such an approach should not be taken, as each county and city should have a waste management plan so there would be no need for incineration. The only reason regions were proposed by consultants and adopted by the Minister was that there would be enough material for incinerators to keep them going. As Deputy Ó Caoláin said, more and more raw material will be produced to keep incinerators going.

I ask the Minister of State to give a positive reply so that we can bring a message of hope to the people of Galway, whom we both represent. I would like an assurance that power will not be taken from elected officials to insist on incineration in Galway. I do not understand why the Bill is being rushed through in the last week of the session, at a time when one would think we would be looking forward to getting out of the House. The Minister will not get away with such an attitude as this is the most serious divesting of responsibility and power from local elected members I have seen in my political life.

Deputies are aware that I cannot accept the amendments as they seek to overturn the main provision of the Bill. The amendments seek to frustrate the Bill's key objective, to provide a mechanism by which the current process of planning waste management can be satisfactorily concluded as soon as possible. The first Bill I inherited following the 1997 election contained a similar principle as is enshrined in this one. The heads of the Bill had been agreed by the previous Government, to which most of the Deputies who propose these amendments were attached. I understand Monaghan County Council has adopted a plan and I know Galway Corporation has adopted the plan.

With respect, the plans were adopted following amendment.

Galway Corporation did not amend the plan. Section 4 of the Bill amends section 22 of the Waste Management Act, 1996, providing that the power to make a waste management plan is transferred from the elected members of a local authority to the relevant manager. This proposed change will have effect only in respect of the small number of local authorities who have so far failed to make a waste management plan or whose plan is invalid by virtue of qualifications imposed. Local authority managers will be allowed to conclude the planning process and to move to the implementation of regional waste plans which provide for greatly improved waste services and infrastructure.

The waste management planning process has been under way for more than four years. Three of the 15 local authority regional groups have refused to adopt the regional plan proposed to them. The decisions of a small number of authorities have obstructed any prospect of progress by the majority and have thrown the planning process into disarray. In the two regions where all local authorities decided to adopt the regional plan, some did so subject to potentially significant qualifications. The legal advice available to the Government is clear. If the proposed regional waste management plan is not adopted on the same substantive basis by all authorities, we cannot be considered to have a valid plan. I am acutely conscious of the need to meet national and EU targets for waste recovery and the diversion of waste from landfill.

Our ongoing failure to respect our waste planning obligations has led to legal proceedings against Ireland in the European Court of Justice. An oral hearing before the court is scheduled for 12 July. We have to act now to establish a modern and efficient waste management infrastructure and improved waste services. The Minister has to act in the national interest by taking steps that will facilitate the satisfactory completion of the planning process. He has considered the various legal options open to him and has concluded that existing regulatory powers under the 1996 Act are not enough to ensure a decisive and satisfactory outcome. He is satisfied that the proposed measure is necessary and, in the circumstances, reasonable. The Bill will clear the way for delivery on all aspects of waste modernisation, including segregated collection services, higher recycling and recovery performance and a dramatic reduction in landfill disposal. I cannot accept the amendments.

It is a good principle of government that sanctions should be applied where power exists. If it is the case that up to now the power to make waste management plans has rested with county councils, but the sanction to be imposed in the event of a failure to make a plan under EU legislation has to be imposed by the Government, a clear asymmetry exists which is not compatible with good administration.

I would like the Minister of State to explain why local authorities were not the subject of EU proceedings for failing to make waste management plans. If the power hitherto rested with local authorities, why were they not pursued by the EU? The Government has accepted the directives that apply these sanctions, meaning that sanctions fall on the Government and not on local authorities. Why did the Government accept that? If the Government is only on the steps of the court, it should not have accepted the directives in their original form with an asymmetry between sanction and responsibility, or sanction and power. The Minister of State should explain why the Bill is being rushed through, given that his Department and his Government or one of its predecessors, agreed to an imposition of a requirement of waste management plans as something that had to be done. It is entirely shameful for the country to be pursued through the European courts for not having a waste management plan. We should be thoroughly ashamed of ourselves. All of us in the Dáil should be thoroughly ashamed of ourselves, not just the Minister and the Minister of State. It is a great blot on this country's reputation that we have to be dragged through the courts to put a plan for waste management in place.

I had the opportunity not very long ago to visit the EU Commission offices to consider the environment because the issue of waste disposal, notably incinerators and landfills, is a matter of huge concern in my constituency. I learned a lot. There were about six officials across the table from me showing barely concealed contempt for the Irish administration. It was concealed only by the minimum politeness that one would expect from officials dealing with someone from a member state. Their feeling about the record of the Department of the Environment and Local Government and its successive Ministers regarding the non-implementation of EU directives was nothing short of sufferance. They were furious with this country and I had no answer to offer them as to why we had failed so miserably to implement basic environmental directives. This is supposed to be a clean country.

The same day I received a newspaper through the post informing me that Ireland was deemed the least compliant country in protecting wildlife by the World Wildlife Fund. I received in the same post heart-warming publicity entitled Ireland of the Welcomes. Much of it was about the Chairman’s constituency, which seems to get disproportionate notice in such publications because of its natural beauty. These contrasting images of the country were presented in the same post. One item was an objective study stating we are very bad at protecting the environment and the other our own commercial blurb telling us and our American cousins what a clean and wonderful country this is.

I ask the Minister to consider a study on the health impact of incineration before pressing local authorities to proceed with plans. Most of these regional plans propose incinerators. There is a sense among the public that the Department of the Environment and Local Government is not expert in medical matters and that neither is the Environmental Protection Agency, which is a reputable and hard working body.

Concerns have been expressed strongly about the health effects of dioxins and other residues of incineration. Obviously those who can reassure the public or alternatively tell them there is cause for concern about incineration should be under the aegis of the Minster for Health and Children. Does the Minister for the Environment and Local Government not consider it prudent to assure people that an independent health study will be done under the aegis of the Health Research Board before pressing for legislation which will have the effect of forcing through incinerators? That is what this legislation is about. It is the forcing incinerators on the people Bill. A body exists with the reputation and the medical know-how to conduct such a study. It is a study that could probably be done within six months, a desk study assembling all relevant medical research. The board members could give a considered medical judgment as to whether there is a health risk from modern incinerators. At present we are asking county managers - as the job has been taken from county councillors - to make decisions of incalculable health consequence without giving them researched evidence which has been validated by Irish authorities to say there is no health risk.

If we believe in the precautionary principle, about which I have no doubt the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, and the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Molloy, make laudatory speeches, we should apply it to the legislation. To press ahead with forcing incinerators on the people Bill without first commissioning a health study through the Health Research Board is imprudent to say the least. For these reasons I support the amendments put down while sharing the impatience the Minister has with the fact that we are being sued for failure to introduce waste management plans.

This point may not be in order, Chairman, and I will not trespass much longer on your time. I am concerned about what is happening to closed dumps. In my constituency there are seven or eight closed dumps. Nobody inspects them and nobody knows what is leeching from them into the surrounding water. One is right beside the Nanny river as it enters the sea at Laytown. They are to be found all over County Meath, there being another at Clonee beside the Navan Road and the Tolka river. What is leeching from these closed dumps into the rivers? Local authorities do not have the time, the resources or probably even the technology to monitor what is happening in closed dumps. The controversy is about new dumps but I have less worries about new dumps than I have about old ones. New dumps will annoy many residents who think their property values will fall, but they will not cause much pollution. Old dumps are causing pollution.

We have a capacity to shut our eyes to the things we do not want to see, even though they may be horrendous, and get very obsessed about things of the future that may be of less concern. What is the policy of the Department of the Environment and Local Government with regard to closed dumps? I am very concerned about the effect they have on aquifers.

The committee and the Minister in particular should be very conscious of what happened in Walkerton, Ontario. There is a tribunal similar to the Flood tribunal here, which the Prime Minister has had to appear before this week, investigating coliforms which escaped into the public water supply. As a result of e.coli 0157 seven people died and 2,500 became critically ill in a rural community of only 5,000. Half the population became critically ill. That could happen in Ireland. All that is needed is a flooding incident, an escape from one of the dumps or a mixing of water from a slurry pit that has not been properly maintained with water that is ultimately used for a well in a private house, a group scheme or a public scheme, and there would be similar fatalities. At present no inspections of value are taking place at group schemes or private wells and we cannot be entirely satisfied about the other sources either. Dumps, closed and otherwise, with animal disposal, represent a serious health risk and I hope the Minister will address the subject.

As the first of these amendments is in my name, I want to reply to some of the things the Minister has said. I also want to pick up on some of the things said by Deputy John Bruton. The Deputy is right about the contempt in which this country is held by the institutions of the European Union. I know, for example, that there has been correspondence between the Environment Commissioner of the EU and the Minister for Foreign Affairs in relation to the Department of Environment and Local Government, in which very strong criticism was made about the Minister's failure to reply to questions arising from some of the cases being taken by the European Commission against this country. The Minister told us today that an oral hearing on one case is to be held on, I believe, 12 July. Where will this lead us? This country is facing the prospect of being fined very substantial sums, perhaps running into millions of pounds, on a daily basis for failing to comply with the environmental standards required as a result of our membership of the European Union, which begs the question of how we got ourselves into this fix.

Deputy John Bruton is correct in saying that, as a country, we have been very slow to wake up to the need to deal with waste management in an integrated and planned way. Denmark adopted waste management legislation in the early 1970s. We did not enact waste management legislation until 1996. In the meantime we have been disposing of waste by finding a field somewhere, putting a fence around it and dumping on it. These disused old dumps have turned into areas of compacted poison and have become a huge problem.

There is a more immediate issue to be addressed. It is now more than four years since the Waste Management Act, 1996, was enacted. We have lost four years because the Government, instead of taking the Waste Management Act it inherited as a basis for providing some leadership, allowed the Minister for Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, effectively to pass the buck to the local authorities. Leadership was not provided, nor has there been a sense of national co-ordination on the issue.

A policy was produced in 1999 with the publication of the Changing our Ways document. We got a twin track approach, however, with the Government producing a policy document which pushed all the right buttons on minimising waste, recycling and re-use, while pursuing a private agenda. The waste management plans were for public consumption. By sounding green and environmental, they constituted the public relations part of the exercise. Meanwhile the hard nosed approach was to gather up the waste and burn it. The Waste Management Act established a framework for waste management plans on a county rather than regional basis. The reason the Government constructed the regions was to provide an institutional framework for the incinerators. The decision to locate an incinerator in each of those regions had already been taken.

The Minister for Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, signalled some time ago he would introduce legislation to deal with local authorities which were not adopting waste management plans or, as someone else put it, not adopting the blueprint for the waste management plan produced by the consultants. I expected legislation along the lines of the legislation on the settlement of travellers. I believe the Minister of State referred to this earlier. This legislation is quite different from that introduced on the settlement of travellers. The latter arose from a public consultation process, which proceeded for several years before a consensus on a particular approach was arrived at, which gave local authorities a timeframe within which to adopt a plan. Failure to adopt a plan means responsibility, by default, falls to the county manager. I expected a similar approach would be taken to waste management plans, but that is not what the Minister has given us. His legislation is explicit on this point - the making of a waste management plan shall be carried out by the manager of the authority. There is no question of a period of time after which local authorities are deemed to be in default. This is a straight transfer of a function from elected members of a local authority to the county manager. I have no doubt this is about railroading incineration and nothing else. Incineration is the pre-determined favoured option of this Government for dealing with the accumulated waste problem. It is both undemocratic and wrong from an environmental point of view, and it must be stopped. It is not an issue that should bring down the Government. Therefore, I appeal to the members on the Government side and the Independents who support the Government——

The serried ranks of Tuscany.

——to vote down this proposal. Otherwise, they will find themselves in six or nine months time having to deal with the fact that a decision on whether to accept a proposal for an incinerator or a landfill dump in their own constituency is taken by a county manager. The planning process will be by-passed - a subject we will address later - and Deputies, including Independents, will stand at public meetings and wash their hands of the matter claiming that the county manager not they, the elected members of the local authorities, has the powers. They would have the powers if they refused to relinquish them now. We are deciding today whether elected members of local authorities will retain this function or give it to the county manager who will pursue the predetermined line that appears to have evolvedat Government level on waste, that is, incineration.

I wish to respond to the Minister of State's reply, which is no less than I expected. Will he address the point I made on economic assessments? Has there been an economic assessment of the possibility of providing five or six thermal treatment plants across the country? Do we need that number of facilities? Who is in control of the national waste management strategy? Five or six incinerators are definitely not necessary. They will contribute towards reducing recycling rates which are already minimal. The lack of a single proposal for a paper mill is a matter of serious concern. My information suggests it would cost £80 million for a recycling mill that would manage the paper recycling needs of the whole country, yet five thermal treatment plants are proposed. If the Minister forces through this Bill today, which seems to be his intention, will we end up with planning permission being given for these plants in 12 months' time? I ask the Minister of State to undertake an immediate economic assessment of these plants.

I support Deputy John Bruton's proposal for independent research to be carried out into the health impact of these proposed incinerators. When we get the EPA report on dioxin levels we will have a baseline from which to work. What will the increased levels of dioxins be and what will be the health implications? People are entitled to this information and it should be provided by an independent group. There are consultants prepared to address public meetings but it seems that one can get consultants to argue both sides of a case. Independent health research on the impact of incinerators is necessary. People's concerns need to be addressed and this has not happened so far. There are serious implications in forcing through waste management plans which would not be the choice of public representatives.

The Minister did not lead us to understand that there is any great change in mind as to the current policy. It was simply business as usual, and that business was as vague as usual. A set of words is being bandied about with regard to waste management - two of these are "waste management", which are so vague as to be open to misinterpretation. The Minister referred to recovery targets, but the word "recovery" has been interpreted in ways in which we probably would not all agree. Incineration is seen as a recovery technology if it is used with the word "energy" - even then one is essentially wasting energy on a scientific level as is evidenced if one speaks to some of the recycling companies which have done energy audits on the effectiveness of incineration, and that is before we get into the long-term health implications, negative effects on local economies and environmental effects. These vague terms will create difficulties.

As has been mentioned by other Deputies, we are already at the bottom of the league when it comes to compliance, or even good ideas in regard to waste. In Greece they know that the European Commission is not making empty threats of taking action on this issue. There is a daily fine there for badly-run landfill sites, which is draining money out of their Exchequer just like the leachate draining out of landfill. We are facing similar punitive measures. Until we get the message that mixed waste should not be created, we will continue not to manage but to hide waste because it is impossible to deal with. The most experienced waste management experts agree that while everything cannot be separated at source at least compostable wet waste can be separated from dry waste. This is being done in Canada, Australia and New Zealand - as I said on Second Stage, there are many people in these countries who like to call themselves Irish by extraction, who left this country for a better life——

They are fresh-thinking at least.

Recovered.

They managed to throw off the worst sides of their Irish heritage that we are seeing from this Government. Their strategy is to approach waste in a way that results in zero waste. By 2010 in parts of Australia and 2015 in parts of New Zealand they will be able to call their strategy a zero waste one. That is the type of enlightened thinking and positive action that is lacking here. Until we grasp the challenges that are very attainable, as has been proven elsewhere, we will be bogged down in legal wrangles and health and environmental problems.

I urge the Minister to break free from a dependency on vested interests who make money from our problems in terms of incineration, thermal treatment technologies and large public-private partnership landfills. Otherwise we will ultimately find ourselves in more trouble than we could have imagined. The Independent Deputies will be looking at a very uncertain future if they buy into this strategy which does not warrant being called a strategy.

I reject the Minister's view that this Bill is a response to the failure by members of local authorities to adopt waste management plans. It is a total misrepresentation of the truth. The need to have innovative measures adopted to address the accumulation of waste has been tackled by the members of local authorities and we have sought, in some cases successfully, to have amendments made to the plans presented by consultants. With regard to County Monaghan the plan was regrettably adopted. I did not support it but was the author of the eight amendments made to it, out of ten I presented.

The waste disposal needs of a rural community are not the same as those of larger urban areas. A critical focus for us is the large amount of agricultural waste, spent mushroom compost - SMC - and poultry and pig litter. As a county that is the major force in the mushroom industry, SMC is a growing problem. We devised a biological response to SMCs and poultry and pig litter in the alternative plan that we presented. Some 80% of the poultry industry is located in our county, so it is a hugely important issue. The traditional disposal of much of this agricultural waste, given the topography of a county whose name means the place of drumlins, meant that there was eutrophication of the water courses due to the spread of the waste on land and the resultant pollution with which we are sadly all too familiar.

We came up with an answer that none of the consultants came up with and has not been reflected anywhere else.

There is a biological answer to this and I made a copy available to the Minister. The effort and energy we employed at the time showed the seriousness of many council members in addressing this major issue. It is clear that we have not adopted plans that included incineration as a key element, which was the multi-transferable template the Minster sought, through the consultant group, to apply universally. It is not a multi-transferable template. It is not acceptable, nor does it apply in our area.

Councils, individually or in collective co-operation, were not given the opportunity to devise a response to waste accumulation. This was farmed out to a team of consultants and it was left at that. As information started to emerge and the first initial draft was taken in, alarmed people became active in a serious effort to address the deficiencies in the approach.

I have been an elected member of a county authority for 16 years, but there was no proper consultation, either with the elected members or, more importantly, with the public. It is unacceptable to produce a flyer and request that the questions be answered. The flyers were distributed on a random basis. Questions can be devised to suit any range of purposes. Look how abysmally the public responded to the questionnaire put out by the consultant firm. Yet it served as a form of public consultation. There was no consultation, only a charade, a misrepresentation and a gross abuse.

What we are being presented with is a so-called quick fix, a disastrous one because we are only substituting a new form of pollution - air pollution with associated toxic ash - for the monstrous landfill sites, which we have tolerated for much too long. Neither of these is an acceptable option. There is scope for innovation and an imaginative approach. It is not a politically divisive issue. All elected people should be able to put their heads together and create plans by agreement. There should be no disagreement in this committee on this issue. It is absurd and unacceptable that there is a gulf that cannot be bridged between the Government parties and holders of other opinions on this issue.

One innovative approach recognises that inthe development of segregated waste collection there should be rural proofing. In my constituency one of the four component parts, County Cavan, had a participation of 17% in the proposed plan for segregated waste collection and exclusion of 83%. I regard that plan as a total failure to address the needs of those I represent in this House. The figure for County Monaghan was marginally better at 20%. In Deputy John Bruton's county of Meath, which is part of the same region and where there are greater concentrations of population, there was a higher take-up. County Louth had the highest as a proportion of the overall population of the region, given the critical population areas of Dundalk, Drogheda and Ardee. I do not think anywhere else would have qualified under the criteria adopted byM. C. O'Sullivan.

The proposed measures do not comprise a solution. I appeal to the Minister to do something about it. I join my colleagues in questioning the Chairman's intervention concerning the importance of local government and the primacy of local democracy in the recent past. I may not agree with his position but he has a particular motivation in that regard. I can give assurance that the Chairman and his Independent colleagues, in supporting the imposition of this Bill on the people, are setting themselves up for a lot of criticism. Those whom the Chairman currently supports will have no difficulty in isolating him when the blame game starts in this regard. I appeal to him to consider his position. It is not an issue that will bring down the Government, but having taken on board the concerns at this committee, to the exclusion of the Minister, I have no doubt that he will deservedly win the applause and acclaim of the majority of the public.

I will allow Deputy John Bruton to make a contribution before me.

I thank Deputy McCormack for allowing me to contribute. I missed the first part of the debate and I hope members will forgive me if I introduce a topic that has already been discussed. One of the concerns many people have is that, while we may ultimately need an incinerator in Ireland and given that we have certain wastes requiring disposal that are incinerated elsewhere, by adopting the regional approach we will have more incinerators than we need.

Under the proposed imposition, we will have an incinerator in each or most of the regions. Once there are that many incinerators, recycling will be discouraged because incinerators, to be economical, require a minimum throughput. If we have, say, six incinerators, they will require so much waste that incentives will not exist for recycling. To ensure that the incinerators survive, people will have to channel waste into them. Has the Minister addressed this point in his introduction to this section? If he is adopting the approach of imposing a plan, I cannot understand why he is not imposing a national waste plan. Why is the Minister continuing with the regional approach? From the point of those who oppose incineration, it would be better to have a national approach, in which case we might have only one incinerator. One incinerator is one too many, but it is not as bad as six. Why has this approach not been adopted?

Will the Minster give assurance regarding the minimum throughput required for incinerators? If we proceed with a regional plan, will there be so many incinerators that we will have to disincentivise other forms of waste disposal, such as recycling.

I will be brief. The Minister's response was inadequate. He confirmed my worst fears when he said he is not accepting the amendment. That was the best response he was capable of making. If he is not taking Committee Stage of the Bill seriously, there is no point in us bothering at all. One cannot have five or six responsible Deputies trying to convince the Minister to see the light while he does not give an inch. Some pressure has been put on the Chairman by members and we know he is able to take it, otherwise we would not give it. If we discuss this on another day and the Chairman goes outside this room, given his work rate and his previous successes in lobbying, we might see a breakthrough on this. Can we postpone dealing with these amendments until tomorrow evening? It would give everybody a chance to have a say and would give the Minister time to reflect on the matter. I do not take excessive pleasure in having to go back to our constituents and tell them what is happening. I do not want that to happen. I will praise the Minister - that would be new for me - if he gives some leeway on this very important matter.

Hear, hear.

Deputy John Bruton and other speakers have covered this, but what is the Government doing about recycling? We all know that a lot of recycling, such as paper recycling, is uneconomic. The Government should establish subsidies and tax-free incentives to help establish recycling businesses. We know what happened in Dublin a few years ago when some groups were engaged in recycling and one night it was landfilled. That was not recycling, it was a way to try to fool the people. The Government has done nothing since this debate on waste management began. The Minister has only threatened to introduce a tax on plastic bags, but I promoted that idea long before he thought of it.

If we do not postpone this debate until tomorrow we had better cancel the trip this committee has organised to Nova Scotia next week. We are going there to be educated about the recycling measures that have been introduced in Nova Scotia, which has a similar population to ours. If we take these decisions now it will be a waste of time going. Why not postpone this until we come back? We can meet in committee then if we need to. We can bring the information back to the Minister.

The Minister of State knows how serious this issue is and does not need me to point it out to him. It is a very serious issue in Galway. Let us see some light at the end of the tunnel. I suggest that we postpone a vote on this amendment until tomorrow to give everybody a chance to reflect on it and to give the Chairman a chance to do some of his renowned homework in trying to get a solution to this.

This matter was widely debated in the Dáil. There are many concerns on a number of fronts. There is the concern that local authorities have not dealt with this in time. Local public representatives in some areas have been disingenuous in their statements regarding waste management. If it was left to local authorities, many of them would shy from it and seek to pass the responsibility elsewhere. If we were to look at it on a regional level, members of certain local authorities would hope that the problem would be sorted in another county. That is something about which I have grave concerns.

The issue of a national waste management strategy is something which has been spoken about for a long period. Cork Corporation and Cork County Council have a joint strategy which they are trying to adopt. There are difficulties in finding a place to situate a materials recovery unit. There are also objections to the landfill site. I have always been a supporter of local democracy and would probably have had no difficulty in having the dual mandate removed. This should be looked at in the same context as we look on the National Roads Authority. If it was left to local authorities to find routes for motorways, we would never build a motorway again. That is widely accepted.

Rather than be civic leaders, local public representatives at times try to judge which way the wind is blowing and follow the mob. That is something which is happening in waste management and in other areas, and it must be addressed. If we do not proceed with this Bill we will be sitting here dealing with it next year. It is fine for public representatives to sit in this House and say that local democracy is being undermined, but local democracy has not taken this issue seriously. That they follow the views of lobby groups is something public representatives should be ashamed of, especially with regard to incineration. There is a need to at least look at that option and explain it. Has a programme ever been put in place to look at incineration in tandem with the ESB? Have consultants even thought of the possibility that generating stations would have the capability to burn such refuse? Have they thought that it might be a practical solution? It is something that should be considered. I am concerned that incineration may be self-propagating in creating further demand and we could see more incinerators introduced at the expense of recycling. If consultants are to be appointed to local or regional authorities I hope they take this idea on board.

I listened intently to the debate on this matter on Second Stage because we have had this difficulty in Cork - I imagine it is replicated across the country. Public representatives have, in general, shied away from our responsibilities, for example, regarding the provision of halting sites for Travellers. It is an issue which becomes a political football and is one which we have not addressed seriously. That issue was taken away from us because we did not tackle it. The position is similar with the National Roads Authority. Is there any difference between building a large apartment block or providing a landfill site? Most planning matters have been taken away from public representatives for some time and I see this as another part of that process. We would not get around to addressing any of the serious issues regarding waste management, roads and so on if it was left up to public representatives whohave the habit of being followers rather than leaders.

These programmes have been under discussion for four years. We do not have the plans in place. Local authorities made the arrangements to choose a regional approach and then did not adopt the plans. Fine Gael criticises the Minister for not having a waste management Bill in place and on the other hand it is blocking implementation of the plans. It cannot have it both ways. I have Fine Gael's Plan for the Nation which was launched last November. It states that it has been repeatedly demonstrated that properly located, operated and monitored high temperature incineration can be consistently operated over very long periods with no significant pollution. It also states that an open, forward looking society must never say "never". It states that only encourages illegality and evasion so we must open our minds to a future which involves incineration as an integral part of our waste management strategy. This is Fine Gael policy. It also states that we can safely avail of the benefits of well managed and monitored waste incineration without incurring the inherent risks.

I am surprised the Deputy's former Leader, who was leading the party when that policy was adopted, would have made the statements he made here. He asked one or two questions to which I would like to refer. He asked why the European Union was not prosecuting the local authorities rather than the Minister. The legal obligation under European Union law is on the member state to ensure that competent authorities in the member state make the necessary plans and under our system we have devolved certain functions. Local authorities have traditionally had this function. I do not think anybody here is suggesting it should be taken away from them in the sense of services at a local level. What we are talking about is the disposal of waste that is collected locally.

Deputy Bruton mentioned leeching. Section 22, which will come into operation when this Bill is passed, will deal with leeching of closed dumps or sites.

Deputy Bruton also said there was no inspection of group schemes. The Government has introduced a new regime in regard to the quality of public water supplies and, in particular, the problem that arose with the group schemes. It has invested substantial sums, about £150 million so far, in ensuring that group schemes which are not up to the required standard are brought up to standard as quickly as possible. A good deal of work is under way to modernise some of the group schemes, to improve the treatment of water and to ensure water quality is brought up to standard as soon as possible. The Deputy was not correct in what he said about that.

Deputy Ó Caoláin said that local authorities have failed. If some of them had not failed, we would not be here today. These plans would be operational. It is because they balked that these measure are being taken. Everyone knows why this Bill is before us. All this was debated when the 1996 Bill was going through the House.

Deputy Gilmore referred to the Traveller Accommodation Act. I piloted through that Bill, having picked it up from his colleague, Deputy McManus, when she was a junior minister in the Department of the Environment and Local Government. I ran with that Bill without changing any of the proposals that had been previously agreed.

That is very different.

This is the same principle.

It is different.

In the event of local authorities not fulfilling the requirement to draw up plans for the provision of accommodation for Traveller families by a certain date, the manager would be obliged to draw up the plan for the Department.

That is not what this Bill proposes.

This is the same principle.

It is taking power from the elected members and giving it to the manger.

This is the same principle.

No, it is different. The Minister of State is not comparing like with like.

Any reasonable person would agree it is the same principle.

It is not the same principle.

Without going back into the 1996 debate and the debate on Committee Stage of this Bill, I want to say that incineration and high recycling levels are not mutually exclusive. This was pointed out before. I accept it could be if incineration was prioritised and insufficient effort was put into composting and materials recycling. The regional plans, however, do the reverse to that. They provide for maximum achievable recycling with targets of up to 50% and only then do they give consideration to thermal treatment and landfill of the remaining waste. Under these plans the proportion of waste which may be disposed of by proposed thermal treatment is deliberately limited. The argument that the provision of thermal treatment means incinerators would have to be fed, thereby reducing efforts to recycle, is not valid. We are committed to and must meet specific EU and national recycling targets. It is scaremongering to suggest that if there is incineration all these other aspects of the recycling programme would not be put in place.

That is only a theory.

Has research being done on that?

If we could get to the stage of the delivery of the plans, that false argument could easily be disproved.

We would be a long way down the bad road then.

Studies were carried out on the best way to tackle this from an Irish point of view. Based on the work done by the O'Sullivan company and its Danish partner, a decision was made on the proposal for regionalisation, which was considered the best economic way to achieve this under Irish circumstances bearing in mind the volume that would be expected in the various regions.

Was a study done initially by O'Sullivans that found that regionalisation would be the best way forward?

Yes, it was part of each plan they undertook.

Was an overall study done or was a study done on the summation of the regional plans?

These factors were taken into account in drawing up the plans.

We do not have an overall view on how they all fit together and whether they are compatible.

If one puts the sum of the total together, one gets the overall view.

Which is five or six incinerators. That was the point I was making.

What is the Minister of State's response to Deputy Bruton's suggestion that the Department of Health and Children should carry out a health assessment study?

One cannot build an incineration plant without getting a licence from the EPA. The EPA's requirements will be based on studies on the best practice available.

Would it not relieve tension if such an assessment were carried out in advance of a decision to hand over power to managers to impose incineration on communities?

It is for the EPA to lay down its requirements and it will be required to set the highest possible standards. The history of incineration has shown that in the past certain pollutants were emitted from these plants, but as technology has been developed, such emissions have been reduced to minuscule levels. A modern incineration plant is much safer than some of those that were quoted as an example. In 1998 an EU funded feasibility study was carried out on the technical, economic and environmental aspects of thermal treatment in a Dublin urban area and two rural areas, one in the north-east and the other in the mid-west.

I am not talking about an environment impact but a health impact. The health impact is what concerns people most.

That would be part of the EPA's licensing requirements.

If we were serious about this, we would ensure an independent health study was carried out perhaps by the Department of Health and Children rather than by the Minister of State's Department and that the findings of it were presented to the people. We could then consider how to proceed.

The EPA has a responsibility in that area, but we have not got that far yet in regard to individual licences.

M.C. O'Sullivan's Danish partner was Cowi.

It also has an interest in incineration construction. I think its credentials were acceptable.

I have stated the reason the Bill is before us. The Government has not changed its mind about it and that is why we are here.

Before the Chairman puts the question, will he consider postponing doing that until tomorrow to allow everyone interested an opportunity——

They have had four years.

We will come back at 8 o'clock.

You might do a lot of work in that hour, Chairman. I have every confidence in you and I agree to the adjournment.

There is not much scope.

Do not write yourself off.

We will suspend the sitting until 8 p.m.

Sitting suspended at 7 p.m. and resumed at8 p.m.

We shall resume our proceedings and I will put the question on amendmentNo. 1.

Before we take the vote, will the Chairman indicate whether he had any success during the break in terms of this extremely reasonable amendment?

Unfortunately, I could make no progress.

I am disappointed. I had placed all my hopes in the Chairm an because there is no hope that the Minister will change his position.

I am sorry about that, Deputy.

We must be close to an election because this is the first occasion on which this has happened.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 7; Níl, 8.

  • Clune, Deirdre.
  • Gilmore, Éamon.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Sargent, Trevor.

Níl

  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Healy-Rae, Jackie.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
NEW SECTIONS.

Amendment No. 5 is related to amendment No. 2 and both may be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.-A waste management plan shall not contain a provision for the imposition of a flat charge on an individual householder in connection with the collection of waste, having due regard for the polluter pays principle.".

This amendment recognises that much of the debate on waste has revolved around the issue of charges, something which has been made more controversial by the fact that people who make an effort to reduce their waste are penalised more than those who do not, and that includes businesses. Members of Repak complain that those who are not members are not prosecuted. It adds up to a feeling of injustice. Given that there is no adequate way of reducing central taxation where charges have been imposed, there is also a feeling and a clear and correct understanding that there is a double taxation question to be answered.

I approach this from the Green Party point of view where we favour a reduction in central taxation and taxation in general being more locally based. However, we are not prepared to tolerate the injustices of waste charges as they have been imposed because in all cases they have been flat charges. Not only does that cause people to resent waste management proposals coming from councils or the Government, it does nothing to implement the waste hierarchy which gives prominence to reduction of waste. It could be argued it does the opposite because when people are forced to pay a flat charge, be they in business or householders, they will want to get value. Waste is piled into bins and probably more so than might otherwise be the case.

The point about paying a charge based on waste is that people can legally avoid paying their tax if there is a free minimum amount which would be considered a reasonable amount per person. Beyond that, people who are vigilant and careful and give sufficient thought to the issue can avoid paying. That should be the bottom line and I would like it included in the Bill so that under the principle of good waste management people who do not create waste - I understand householders are unavoidably presented with waste - and who make choices, such as not including compostable waste with other rubbish, are rewarded by not having to pay. If that system existed, we would be able to encourage people to comply.

Unless people are with us on this, we are wasting our time. All the rules in the world will be no more than aspirations if people are not with us. The polluter pays principle should operate, especially for businesses. I disagree with some members that householders, although they are much smaller in their contribution to the overall waste stream, must take decisions, some of which require forethought, such as separating wet and dry waste. An example will have to be given by the Government on this.

Ultimately, I am in favour of people not having to pay if they are careful. The technology exists to weigh bins and the scandal is that it is not implemented so that we can reward people for being careful and compliant. At present they are penalised for being such because they pay exactly the same where flat charges exist. As long as flat charges are imposed, people who are careful are penalised. That is why I oppose them and have tabled this amendment.

Deputy S. Haughey took the Chair.

I support the amendment proposed by Deputy Sargent. My amendment, which is being discussed with his, would have the same effect and is almost identical. Private operators operating by contract with local authorities have imposed refuse collection charges which are collectable from householders. The Labour Party's waste policy document takes a very clear position on those charges, which are unfair. They make no distinction on the basis of ability to pay and when one takes account of the additional charges the Government proposes in the form of reintroducing rates under the Local Government Bill, householders who thought they were getting a reduction in tax because of changes made by the Minister for Finance, will find they will be paying with the other hand in the form of refuse collection charges, community rates and various other charges.

This follows exactly what happened in Britain under the former Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, when big play was made of reducing income tax, but the local authority system was used to collect what became known as the poll tax, which probably contributed in large measure to the defeat of her party and her Government. Here, charges are being introduced by local authorities, varying from £100 to in excess of £200. No distinction is made on the basis of ability to pay. People on low incomes are expected to pay the same as those on high incomes. No distinction is made on the basis of the amount of waste generated. A householder who generates a large amount of waste will pay the same as one who generates a small amount. For example, a pensioner living on her own is expected to pay the same charge as a household where there are six or seven adults.

No distinction is made between people who make an effort to recycle their materials or reduce their amount of waste and those who make no such effort. In my local authority area I have met several householders who have said they were taking bottles to the bottle bank and bringing paper for recycling, but that they will have to pay the charge anyway and, therefore, might as well put everything in the bin. The introduction of these charges is having the opposite effect to that intended.

It is said the charges are based on the idea that the polluter pays, but they are nothing of the kind. They stand that principle on its head. About 80% of waste is agricultural, for which no charged is levied. Of non-agricultural waste, the biggest quantity going to local authority landfills comes from the construction industry. The Government has introduced some sort of voluntary scheme for the industry rather than a mandatory regime for recycling and reuse of construction materials. We know what is happening industrial and commercial waste - even the packaging regulations are not being effectively enforced.

The burden of paying for the collection and disposal of waste is falling on householders, the smallest component in terms of producing waste. It is a bit like what was done in relation to tax, where the PAYE worker was burdened in terms of paying. The burden of paying for waste services is now being pinned on domestic householders, who are being flogged to pay domestic refuse charges which effectively subsidise the continuing bad practice of other sectors which are producing the greater amount of waste. The Labour Party has proposed a regime which would provide for a separate collection service with householders being encouraged to participate. It would involve a public service with householders separating waste in a way which lent itself to collection for recycling or reuse, with the minimisation of waste. I have no difficulty with penalties applying where householders do not participate in such a regime or where they are unwilling to separate waste. We must distinguish between offering a public service where householders are encouraged to use good environmental practice and where they are encouraged to separate waste.

There is a soft touch revenue collection effort by local authorities. This is a household tax and the fact that it is being charged for refuse collection is an excuse. The Chairman, from his experience on Dublin City Council, knows that the introduction of the charge in Dublin city had nothing to do with waste, but with the fact that the council was down a number of millions of pounds. It was the same in my local authority. The deficit was established and a charge was introduced to meet it. It is then called the polluter pays principle and it is dressed up as some kind of effort to deal with waste when it is nothing of the kind. The council simply collects money from households to pay for its general services. It is a device whereby the householder is effectively asked to pay for and subsidise the rest of the waste services of the local authority. We should be clear about this. These amendments effectively propose the abolition of those charges and their deletion from waste management plans.

I support the sentiments expressed in the amendments. I support the principle of service charges - I have no difficulty with them - but the amendments are an attempt to address the serious anomaly in service charges whereby an old age pensioner, who might have a minimum amount of waste every month never mind every week, is charged the same as a large household which has a packed bin every week. The local authority in my area will adopt the principle in next year's Estimates of charging per weight, with a chip in the bin allowing this to be done.

I am a little alarmed to discover from the two previous speakers that Dublin seems to be a little behind the rest of the country. In Galway city there is no such thing as disposing of bottles, cardboard, plastic etc. in the domestic refuse bin. If they are in the bin, a note will be put on it saying it will not be collected as it has not been presented correctly. Deputy Sargent suggested a solution to the problem. In my local authority area an old age pensioner living alone is given a waiver, but instead of having that system, if there was a minimum weight allowed before charges were introduced for such a person, there would be no need for a waiver system. The person with a lot of waste would be charged according to weight. This would provide an incentive to accelerate the attempts to reduce and recycle and not bring home such things as excess packaging. For example, if one buys an electric kettle one will get it packaged in plastic, a cardboard box and a plastic bag in which to take it home. There is no need for a shopper to take that packaging. If a shopper insisted on the shop keeping the waste, the shop would not be long starting a campaign to get producers of such goods to package them differently. It is all about education and the householder standing up and refusing to collect large amounts of waste which has to be recycled.

There is a strong case for uniformity throughout local authorities. Deputy Gilmore put his finger on it when he said that rather than just making up a deficit by levying a charge on refuse collection, there should be a uniform charge throughout local authorities based on the weight of the bins. That would mean that people in Dublin could not compare themselves with people in Galway or in some other city or county. A uniform charge would be much fairer and people would be much more willing to co-operate with it. A chip could be inserted in bins which would determine the weight of the material being disposed of each week and a charge could be levied accordingly. I presume the Minister will accept this amendment which proposes a reasonable means of charging for the disposal of domestic waste.

The amendments indicate the problems associated with the earlier amendment whereby politics are brought to bear in regard to waste management. The abolition of service charges has been used as a political football for a long time. Cork has been to the fore in trying to address the waste management problem where service charges have been in existence for many years. The 1999 local elections prove that people, by and large, support a fair and equitable system of service charges. They appreciate efforts are being made and that it is a good service. Therefore, they have no difficulty paying for the service. None of the anti-service charges candidates or people of that ilk who stood in wards in the 1999 local elections was elected to Cork Corporation. Service charges are a positive aspect, even though a lot could be done in regard to the weighting of bins and so on.

I have a problem in regard to Deputy Sargent's amendment because it could militate against large families, particularly families with many young children. This issue needs to be addressed because young children generate a lot of waste which is not easily recycled. When other issues are resolved, Cork Corporation proposes introducing a system whereby a chip will be inserted in bins and people will pay on a weight basis. This will be an incentive to recycling. However, people cannot recycle waste unless a system is put in place, which is why there was a lengthy debate on section 1.

Deputy Gilmore must accept that for a long time political parties have been using service charges as a political football. By and large, people do not mind paying these charges if there is a reasonable service whereby their rubbish is collected from outside their house on a weekly basis.

The two amendments are totally different. Deputy Sargent's amendment opposes a flat charge while the Labour Party amendment opposes any charge. I have sympathy with Deputy Sargent's amendment, the principle of which is fair if it could be administered. The local authority in my area had many battles recently when the Green Party was head and shoulders above the other smaller parties in accepting responsibility. Since then I have listened to much from that quarter, particularly in regard to this issue. The Labour Party amendment, which is typical, is cheap political point-scoring. It resembles the language of those who try to stir up civic strife rather than being serious.

Has the Deputy read our document?

Documents are pulled off top shelves to suit the party depending on whether it is in government or opposition. We all have a history and baggage behind us either individually or at party level. Looking back over the years, the Labour Party has always been against charges. It has one policy when in opposition and another when in government.

On a point of information, if Deputy Ahern wishes to go down a particular road he should at least do it accurately. The Labour Party in government abolished what were then water charges. If he wants to make political charges, they should be accurate. Our position has been consistent both in and out of government.

Deputy Ahern, without interruption. The Deputy should try to be less provocative. I have some sympathy with amendment No. 2. Does any local authority currently operate this chip system, which sounds fine?

On a point of information, the Oxigen company which deals with Dublin's waste operates a weight system but this is not enforced by the administrative authority.

We must see this system in operation but the theory of individuals, whether young or old, being allowed to dispose of a certain amount of waste free of charge and paying for the rest is a fair principle if it could operate in practice.

It is being done.

If the problem is landfill space, the question is not just about weight but bulk. If the chip system was introduced, one could drop cement blocks into the bins of neighbours one did not like. How can this system be operated? One could slip the lid off the bin on a wet night and let the water in. Objects weigh heavier when wet than when dry.

There would be less volume.

The theory is fine but how to administer the system is the problem. There would have to be a ratio of weight to bulk. The principle of allowing each individual to dispose of a certain amount of waste free of charge, with any additional waste being paid for, is a good one if it can be administered. Would a chip determine whether there are three people in one house and ten in another? Would it slow down the truck, or how would the chip reading be done? How would it determine whether waste is wet or dry or whether a cement block is in the bin? It is a sound principle if it can be operated, therefore, I have some sympathy with the amendment.

For some reason disadvantaged areas seem to produce much more waste. Those who request a second bin seem to live in the more disadvantaged areas and this is not just because people who live in those areas have ten children while people who live in middle class areas have only three children. Poorer people seem to produce more waste. If people are allowed to dispose of a certain amount of waste free of charge, one could not increase the allowance for people living in disadvantaged areas. I accept that if people are unemployed they do not pay for waste disposal. However, it is more a middle class phenomenon to try to cut down on waste. That is my observation which I believe is correct. The principle of the Deputy's amendment is reasonable if it can be administered.

I have some sympathy for the underlying objective of amendment No. 2 which is totally different from amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 2 reflects the desirability of moving from flat charges for local authority waste disposal services to use-based charges. This is entirely consistent with Government policy. Changing our Ways recognises as fundamental to efficient waste management that all producers of waste pay fully for its collection, treatment and disposal. It specifically recommends that local authorities move rapidly towards full cost recoupment for the waste services they provide. As a matter of equity and as an incentive to waste reduction, local authorities should aim to vary the level of waste charges according to usage. This is clearly the direction in which we are moving.

All but two local authorities apply household waste charges. These charges are increasing to meet overall waste management costs and I hope authorities will move rapidly to use-based charges and, where segregated household collection services are provided, to charging systems that allow credit for segregated recyclable waste against a cost of charges for residual waste presented for disposal. However, amendment No. 2 is unnecessary in practical terms and will not contribute to this overall objective.

Current and proposed waste management plans do not entail specific provision regarding the nature, levels and application of waste charges. In any event local authorities are empowered to levy waste charges under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (No. 2) Act, 1983 and not the 1996 Act. Authorities have full discretion as to the nature and level of such charges. Accordingly, a statutory provision of the nature proposed does not preclude local authorities from continuing to impose a flat charge or compel them to apply variable use-based charges. In other words, they have a choice.

Amendment No. 5 would on the face of it be contrary to the "polluter pays" principle, to relevant European Union legislation and to sound waste management policy. Failure to properly apply the "polluter pays" principle would lead to the institution of formal infringement proceedings against Ireland and would militate against the availability of EU funding for the implementation of regional waste management plans. Therefore, I cannot accept either amendment.

I do not believe the Minister is correct in saying there is no need for amendment No. 2. To my knowledge, every local authority is currently operating a flat rate and seems intent on continuing to do so. Dublin Corporation is in no great hurry to change its practice of a flat rate notwithstanding the commitments it gave at the last Estimates meeting where a charge was agreed on the understanding that it would move to a weight-based system.

There is need for Government leadership because there is no move to change this on the part of the local authorities based on what they have been saying. Talking about full discretion is in effect slowly destroying whatever goodwill there is among the public for compliance with good waste management practice. This goodwill is being eroded because the flat rate is considered to be so inequitable and I agree with that view. That has to change and that will be critical in getting people to think before putting something in a bin, or purchasing an item.

Deputy Kelleher spoke about children creating a significant amount of waste, but I have found them to be the most diligent of family members in wanting to play their full part in the facilities provided. Where there is no incentive to reduce waste, naturally people will take the easy option. People on low incomes whose lives are difficult will not be inclined to think about waste reduction if they have so many other problems on their minds. Some kind of financial reward for making the effort is always an important incentive, so we really need this amendment.

The technology has to work for where we are at present. We did not make a good choice in going down the wheelie bin road. I downloaded a report from Gwelth City Council in Canada where they went through this debate over whether they would use wheelie bins with which it is possible to measure only the weight and not the bulk. They went for a tag-a-bag system. People buy a blue bag for dry recyclable waste and a green one for wet compostable waste. They are transparent so the refuse collector can see what is inside and, as Deputy McCormack said, they do not collect the one that is contaminated with the other waste. They put a note on it saying they will take it only when it is presented correctly. That is a very successful system and at 98% has almost total compliance. In Canada they decided not to go down the wheelie bin road and found it much more successful.

Although it is good business for people producing wheelie bins, it is bad news for most of us and particularly those of us who live in terraced houses. We need to give people the choice between bags and wheelie bins. Essentially it comes down to incentives and rewarding people for good practice. Flat charges are likely to continue unless the Minister gives some major push to local authorities to change it. The technology is there to do it. Oxigen is currently monitoring each wheelie bin it picks up around Dublin city and the only use it has for that monitoring is in the case where a householder complains that a bin was not collected. Because there are chips in the bins, Oxigen has computer records showing when each bin was collected. We should reward people for not putting out waste.

The Minister, in responding, suggested that this amendment is not necessary because local authorities have the freedom to effectively apply the principle of what is contained in this amendment if they so wish. With respect, that is not accurate. The amendment relates to the making of a waste management plan. On the bottom of page 4 of the Bill, it is clear that it is not open to a local authority to make a plan subject to one or more conditions or to reserve to itself the power to vary the plan, etc. Previously a local authority had the power to decide, for example, to adopt a pay by weight system. This legislation expressly prevents them from varying a plan.

In reply to an earlier amendment, the Minister told us that he had legal advice that a regional waste management plan could not be valid unless all the local authorities in that region adopted exactly the same plan. Based on what the Minister said earlier and on what is in the Bill, it is not open to a local authority to vary the plan to provide, for example, a pay by weight system or any other variation. Therefore, the amendment is necessary to make express provision in the legislation to allow for this. There was much sympathy for Deputy Sargent's amendment. Deputies Kelleher and Ahern and the Minister of State indicated that they are sympathetic to the amendment.

I would not read anything into that.

I want to put them to the test in that regard. I am willing to withdraw my amendment in favour of that tabled by Deputy Sargent if everyone weighs in behind the latter. I invite the Minister of State to accept the amendment which is necessary and which I am willing to support. If Deputy Ahern or other Members have difficulty with my amendment, I will solve the problem by withdrawing the amendment and placing my support behind that of Deputy Sargent. I invite the Minister of State and other Members to agree to Deputy Sargent's amendment to allow us to make progress.

The local authority of which I am a member - Dublin Corporation - intends to introduce the chip system in the coming years. I accept that this is somewhat of a "live horse and get grass" situation, but if we can believe the officials it is intended to introduce the system. Dublin Corporation made a mistake in imposing the same flat charges on large wheelie bins and small wheelie bins. I do not know whether all local authorities have various sizes of wheelie bins, but perhaps they should be encouraged to do so. If separate charges were imposed on different sized bins, would that satisfy Deputy Sargent? As already stated, Dublin Corporation made a mistake when introducing wheelie bins by imposing the same flat charge in respect of both sizes. People should always be given an incentive to try to reduce the amount of waste they produce. If they produce less waste, they should be given credit for it.

People who live in Dublin will agree that the problem of cats and dogs raiding rubbish bags has lessened considerably since the introduction of wheelie bins. Cats or dogs usually find it easy to rip open the transparent refuse sacks to which Deputy Sargent referred. When considered in terms of litter management plans and the health and safety of those involved in rubbish collection - who are no longer obliged to lift heavy refuse sacks - the introduction of wheelie bins has been a good development.

Deputy Sargent's amendment would have a welcome ripple effect if it were accepted. Many local authority householders try to reduce the number of people who, on paper, are living in their homes. Everyone knows that there are often more people living in a house than there are supposed to be. The amendment would——

That is somewhat Machiavellian.

——encourage local authority householders to be honest by declaring the actual number of people who live in a given house. This is extremely important in terms of the housing points system.

That is not relevant to the Bill.

No, but——

The Deputy is straying from the Bill.

Does the Acting Chairman not believe it is a good point? I still believe the basis of Deputy Sargent's argument is good. Would the introduction of different levels of charges by local authorities be an acceptable compromise?

The technology is already available, so let us not talk about bows and arrows.

The amendments that are proposed are not necessary.

There is only one amendment.

There are two amendments. The power in the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (No. 2) Act, 1983, enables local authorities to decide to levy waste charges in whatever form they wish. If they want to introduce weighted charges or flat charges they may do so. The Government would like people to be given incentives to segregate their waste and to be rewarded for doing so. Ultimately, we would like to see the introduction of a weighted charge for residual waste or waste that required treatment or disposal. In such circumstances, the charge would apply only to the residual waste. This option is available to local authorities under their waste management plans and we are anxious to encourage them to introduce an incentivised system, such as that proposed for Galway next year. As Deputy Sargent suggested, it is not rocket science and it appears it is easy to operate such a system. However, the Deputy's amendment is unnecessary.

I wish the Minister of State was right.

Perhaps the Minister of the day - Deputy Spring - who introduced the 1983 Act had great foresight and identified the future possibilities that would emerge. I do not know whether that is the case, but the Act is proving extremely useful in terms of meeting modern requirements.

Is the Minister of State agreeing to the amendment?

No, it is not necessary.

The Minister of State is saying that the amendment is good and will do no harm but he also indicated it is not necessary because he believes the local authorities will decide, overnight, to change their minds. There is no evidence of that.

We should issue a directive to county managers in respect of this matter.

The managers need some guidance from the Government on this matter because few, if any, of them are experts on waste management. I am pressing the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.-A waste management plan shall contain comprehensive provisions for reduction, re-use, separation, composting and recycling of all waste with due regard to the objectives and time frames within a zero-waste strategy.".

Waste management plans are, in almost every instance, based on regional plans. The latter are, as already stated, designed to create the critical mass in favour of the establishment of incinerators, thermal treatment plants and large landfill sites. We need to re-establish the waste hierarchy and to ensure the introduction of local waste management plans before we move to regional plans. However, that matter is more proper to another amendment.

Amendment No. 3 is aimed at ensuring that plans contain comprehensive provisions and not only aspirations or proposed targets. Waste management plans must address, in comprehensive terms, the need for reduction, re-use, separation, composting and recycling of all waste. This is different from the objectives outlined in the waste management plans produced to date. However, as the Minister of State said in respect of the previous amendment, it is not rocket science. The amendment is merely designed to take account of best practice in other countries. For example, Canberra intends to realise a zero waste strategy by 2010. The city is working towards its goal and, while it is not all plain sailing, it is beginning to achieve results because the various stakeholders are working in co-operation with each other. At the last count in New Zealand, a total of 74 local authorities had signed up to a strategy aimed at achieving zero waste by 2015. In this instance, step by step progress is being made towards the attainment of this goal.

A Fianna Fáil councillor from Galway - Deputy McCormack and the Minister of State are probably more familiar than I am with this person - who visited Australia for the Olympic Games gave a number of interviews on his return in which he endorsed the zero waste strategy adopted by Canberra. This is a cross-party issue and it should not be dealt with in terms of political positioning. Zero waste strategies are scientifically and politically manageable in other countries. At present, waste management plans do not contain sufficient information to allow such strategies to be put in place. The Minister is still talking about residual waste and unavoidable and proportionate waste that cannot be recycled. We must move on. The amendment would help us to do so and it can sow the seed in people's minds that a zero waste strategy can be implemented, towards which they can work. Targets can be set on that basis and that is why I ask the Minister of State to accept the amendment.

The primary purpose of the Bill is to provide a legal mechanism to exploit the current long running waste management planning process in respect of which proceedings have been taken against Ireland by the European Commission. The legislation is not intended as a vehicle to completely rewrite the provisions of Part 2 of the 1996 Act which deal with waste management planning or to revisit issues which were fully explored when that Bill was being enacted. This amendment is largely redundant and is drafted in part in a manner which is not legally meaningful.

Local authority waste management plans are already required under the 1996 Act to contain objectives to prevent or minimise production of harmful waste; to encourage and support the recovery of waste, which includes reuse, composting and recycling; and to ensure waste that cannot be prevented or recovered is disposed of without causing environmental pollution.

Local and regional waste management plans provide generally for the introduction of source segregation and separate collection of waste, reuse, biological treatment and materials recycling as well as other recovery measures. The text, "with due regard to the objectives and timeframes within a zero waste strategy", is not legally meaningful. Aspirational concepts such as this are not appropriate for incorporation in primary legislation. I regret I cannot accept the amendment.

It is sad to hear the Minister of State say the objectives and timeframes of the zero waste strategy are aspirational. If aspirations are not incorporated in legislation, we will not move from where we are to where we want to be. The Minister of State said there are already objectives for reduction, reuse and so forth, but the amendment proposes comprehensive provisions and does more than just set targets and objectives because we need to know how to get to that point. The managers and elected representatives of local authorities do not have sufficient training to take us from where we are to meet these objectives, which might be limited. Ultimately, we are stuck and our waste management plans are essentially about hiding waste in landfills or incinerators and hoping it is transformed into invisible emissions and ash. Sadly, we are not in the business of doing what the amendment seeks.

If the Minister of State accepted the principle of a zero waste strategy, which has been adopted in other countries, he would provide leadership to local authorities which are currently faced with a false choice between landfill and incineration. Other countries have moved far beyond such choices and are implementing strategies which will result in zero waste. That is where we should be headed. As the Minister of State said, this is not rocket science. I ask him to reconsider.

We carried out an assessment of the Canberra waste disposal system which, on Second Stage, was referred to as zero rated.

That system refers to zero waste by 2010, not now.

The assessment states:

On the basis of the most recent data released by the ACT Government it is difficult to see how the 2010 target of zero waste is to be achieved with no new landfills proposed for the state. The ACT may have to export its waste to neighbouring states. The progress so far in achieving the zero waste aspiration has been less than striking and it is unclear now how the authorities propose to make further progress. This level of achievement in the smaller, localised situation such as Canberra underlines how aspirational the concept of zero waste is in a national context.

Does the Minister of State have information from New Zealand?

ACT may have zero waste but it will have to be exported somewhere else.

That is obviously not working and, therefore, it must be made to work. However, the Minister of State will not relate any information about the position in New Zealand.

I do not have any documentation relating to New Zealand. The Deputy mentioned Canberra.

I also mentioned New Zealand.

I have not heard anything about New Zealand.

It is typical that the Minister of State quoted the worst example——

We carried out assessments because it was mentioned on Second Stage.

New Zealand was also mentioned on Second Stage.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.-In exercising his or her functions under the Waste Management Acts, 1996 and 2001, the Minister shall have due regard to the polluter pays principle which shall include the requirement of ensuring that the manufacturer or retailer of packaging waste shall contribute to the cost of waste treatment.".

The amendment addresses the central point of the polluter pays principle, which is how waste is created. Unless the manufacturer and the retailer are made to contribute to the greater cost of dealing with their waste, the resentment among householders will build when they see that those who generate waste in the first place do not meet their responsibilities. Repak is an example of an industry initiative championed by the rainbow Government as a voluntary means of dealing with commercial waste, particularly packaging. It is difficult to ascertain the membership of Repak but there are major gaps in terms of companies which have not signed up to it. No successful prosecution has been secured to date.

A number of non-compliant companies are able to evade the law. That sends a message that the Waste Management Act, 1996, is not being enforced. We should try to make the Act work before we introduce draconian powers to strip local authorities of their responsibilities under this legislation. I urge the Minister of State to consider the need to make producers of waste pay and to go further than my amendment and make them pay a greater cost for treating waste they create.

The principle of the amendment is important. The producers of packaging, distributors, retailers and consumers must bear some responsibility for its disposal or reuse. Deputy Sargent referred to Repak. The Minister, Deputy Dempsey, said it had a rocky start over the first three years in addressing packaging waste and particularly in regard to the number of companies which are not registered with local authorities. Packaging must be policed. Legislation is in place; it is a matter of enforcing it. Many people believe local authorities are not in a position to enforce regulations to ensure companies are registered with Repak.

The amendment is unnecessary as current measures ensure those involved in the production and distribution of packaging support, financially and otherwise, the recovery of packaging waste. The amendment also seeks to insert into primary legislation a selective, limited and inappropriate interpretation of the EU polluter pays principle. Repak was established by Irish industry in 1997 as a voluntary compliant scheme to promote, co-ordinate and finance the collection and recovery of packaging waste from domestic and commercial sources. This was done to enable Ireland achieve its targets under EU Directive 94/62 which deals with packaging and packaging waste.

Under 1997 waste management packaging regulations, introduced to support the initiative I mentioned and to combat the problem of free riders, all producers of packaging waste are required to take certain steps to recover waste. Particular obligations are imposed on major producers, such as businesses which have an annual turnover in excess of £1 million and place more than 25 tonnes of packaging waste on the Irish market. Producers can either comply with their regulatory obligations or apply for an exemption by becoming a member of Repak's waste recovery scheme. A total of 392 major producers and 373 independent retailers are members of Repak, representing 2,182 individual sites. Some 39 associate members are also affiliated to Repak.

Fees from member businesses finance Repak's activities. Industry contributed £8,574,000 to the recovery and recycling of packaging waste through membership of Repak in 2000. It is estimated that membership fees will increase to about £9 million this year, reflecting the polluter pays principle. Manufacturers and retailers of packaging waste contribute significantly to the collection and recycling of this waste. Repak has recently amended its fee structure and now imposes annual charges based on the quantity and type of packaging placed on the market by its members. Since its establishment, significant funding has been provided by Repak to support the collection and recovery of packaging from the domestic waste stream. Funding has been provided to support segregated household waste collection initiatives in Dublin and in many companies engaged in waste recovery activities. Repak is prepared to make funding available to assist other local authorities in the establishment of segregated collection services similar to those in Dublin.

The latest available information indicates that Repak funded or contributed funding in respect of the collection and recovery of 146,000 tonnes of packaging waste last year. Increased tonnage of packaging waste will have to be recovered if we are to meet our 2001 recovery target under the packaging directive. Accordingly, Repak recently initiated a new payment subsidy scheme to incentivise the recovery of additional volumes of packaging waste from the commercial sector by waste contractors nationally. Under the scheme, which effectively subsidises the market for recycling contractors, contractors are paid varying amounts of subsidy per tonne collected and recycled, depending on the material in question.

In reply to an earlier comment, Dublin Corporation has taken several successful prosecutions under packaging regulations and more prosecutions are in the pipeline. It was not possible to take such prosecutions until recently. No figures are available concerning the number of companies not compliant with packaging regulations.

We need that information and I would appreciate if the Minister of State would try to get it, as I would like to know the names of the companies that are non-compliant and how many companies are involved. Companies have a choice regarding compliance, as they can be involved in the Repak scheme or try to be self-compliant, but there are many non-compliant companies. Why was Dublin Corporation unable to take cases against the companies before now? Repak has been around for a considerable time.

We are tinkering with the problem, which is why this amendment is comprehensive enough to ensure all companies pay their way. The scheme is voluntary at present. We have been taught the lesson that a voluntary scheme is not sufficient to deal with the waste crisis. The State makes the rules in other countries and others are employed to enforce them, but in Ireland, it looks like the private sector makes the rules and the State hopes everything will work out. We have not been prosecuted, but I am afraid we will have to pay the cost. Will private companies pay a fee disproportionate to the rest of us when the European Commission comes knocking on the door to fine us for non-compliance with packaging legislation? I appreciate we are going around in circles and that there are many more amendments.

I understand prosecutions were unable to proceed as a result of a particular planning case involving TDI Metro, which eventually went to the Supreme Court where it was resolved. The decision in that case meant that prosecutions in the pipeline could proceed and there are more to follow.

Can I have the information regarding non-compliant companies?

It will be difficult to establish an exact figure.

Surely the Minister of State needs the information.

The exact number of companies is difficult to ascertain. I will see what my Department can dig out for the Deputy.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 3, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.-The Minister shall by regulations make provision for the conditions of a national waiver scheme applying to the collection and recovery of waste by or on behalf of local authorities including by contractors appointed by such local authorities.".

I want the Bill to provide that the Minister will make regulations to set down conditions for a national waiver scheme, applicable irrespective of whether the collection service is operated by a local authority or a private contractor. If there are charges for refuse collection carried out by a local authority, the local authority can operate a waiver scheme. The scheme varies from area to area and is related to the type of charging arrangement in place. The biggest problem arises in local authorities where the service is privatised and where the private contractor imposes the charge, as no automatic waiver system is available. Considerable hardship is experienced by householders in areas where the service is private. The same waiver scheme should not operate in every local authority, as levels of charges differ, but in the interests of consistency and fairness there should be national standard conditions for a waiver scheme, set down in regulations to apply irrespective of whether public authorities or private companies are the collectors.

I note that Deputy Gilmore's amendment calls for regulations to make provision for a national waiver scheme, applying to the collection and recovery of waste by or on behalf of local authorities, including by contractors appointed by such authorities. His remarks seem to expand on his amendment to include private contractors operating irrespective of a local authority, not under contract to a local authority. As I explained earlier, local authorities are empowered to charge for the provision of services, including waste collection, under section 3 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (No. 2) Act, 1983, as amended. This Act provides that a local authority may, if it is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so on grounds of personal hardship, waive all or a portion of a charge that is due to it. Such waivers are a normal feature of charging systems for waste services provided by or on behalf of a local authority. Any question of amending the provisions of this Act should properly be dealt with in a considered manner under appropriate separate legislation. Therefore, it really applies to the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (No. 2) Act, 1983, and not to this Bill.

Does the Minister of State accept that where a refuse collection service is privatised, a waiver scheme should apply? Would he agree with that?

If the local authority has entered into a contract with a private contractor to do the refuse collection in its area, then it has the right to introduce a waiver scheme and I agree that there should be a waiver scheme.

Does the Minister of State believe they should be standardised? We have different levels of charges in different parts of the country for what is essentially the same service. Some have waiver schemes and some do not. As I understand it, the general practice where private contractors are carrying out the service on behalf of a local authority, is that they do not have a waiver scheme. This amendment simply seeks that the Minister would make regulations providing for a consistent approach by local authorities There is an issue of equity involved if a pensioner in one town can obtain a waiver and a pensioner in another town cannot.

There was a time when everything was decided centrally and to strengthen local government——

Let us keep the discussion serious.

It is a matter for the local authority to decide. It has the power to do so, in the same way as letting schemes and differential rent schemes are decided locally by the local authority. They are not decided centrally as was done some years ago. The Deputy is suggesting that we should step back from that and have central diktat with regard to these matters, but these matters should not be decided centrally.

Motor tax has a central pricing system, yet local authorities are involved.

Plenty of matters are still dealt with centrally where it is appropriate.

In fairness, even the Minister of State must see the pathetic irony in his reply, considering the legislative measure we are debating. I am making a reasonable case and it deserves a reasonable response. There are people in poor circumstances in towns where the refuse collection service has been privatised and where there is no waiver scheme. Yet, if the service was still being provided by the local authority, or if those people were living in the next town, they would have a waiver. It is not an unreasonable proposal that the Government should have some ground rules for this. This is something to which the Minster could agree.

I support the point Deputy Gilmore is making about the waiver scheme. Currently, local authorities have engaged private operators in many towns to undertake refuse collections. It is unfair not to have waiver schemes available for people who qualify in such areas. In Cork, we have a waiver scheme which seems to work well. It is accommodating and there is some leeway.

Is the Deputy talking about the local authority entering into a contract with a private developer to take up the refuse collection in certain areas?

That is my thinking.

Has it negotiated a charge with the contractor?

Yes, that is what happens.

If it has, it can build the waiver scheme into that contract, and local authorities do.

That is not happening.

They are not doing it.

We are trying to make this a workable waste management strategy and, whatever else one may call it, it should work. If we do not have a waiver scheme, whether it is privately or publicly operated, it sends out the message that it is a heartless and thoughtless waste strategy. In fairness to Deputy Gilmore, it is important that we should recognise the need for a national waiver scheme. Local authorities should realise that. The Minister of State should, perhaps, be busier dealing with the type of inequity that arises from private operators having different ways of operating with local authorities than trying to strip local authorities of their powers, but that is a matter for another amendment. This one would reflect well on the Minister of State if he were more sympathetic to it.

I have a good memory of some things and a bad memory of others, but I can remember clearly when the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (No. 2) Act, 1983, was being debated. My interest in fairness and equity was well illustrated by my persistent attempts to get the then Minister to remove a ridiculous clause whereby even when people opted not to have the refuse collected from their premises - or where they opted not to be connected to the town water system because they had a separate water supply - they still had to pay for it, even though they were not availing of the service. The Bill was passed with that ridiculous provision, which was changed in later years. My interest has always been to try to assist those who are economically weaker.

The Minister of State should be consistent and accept this amendment.

This is the wrong Bill in which to do it.

This Bill gives the Minister of State a chance to do it.

No, it does not. The charges are a matter for the 1983 Act.

There is nothing to prevent the Minister of State from including this provision.

One cannot hop around like that.

There is nothing to prevent the Minister of State from including this provision. It concerns waste and the Bill concerns waste management. There is no legal impediment preventing the Minister of State from accepting this amendment. This case is being made on behalf of poor people who, with their level of income and the circumstances in which they live, cannot afford to pay for waste collection. People have to be well below the poverty line to qualify for a waiver under these schemes.

I have no difficulty with that argument where the local authority has entered into a contract for waste collection. I agree with the Deputy on the principle that provision for a waiver system, in case of financial hardship, should be built into the contract. However, the contractor should know all about that before he or she signs the contract. The Deputy is suggesting that we should make a change here but it is not appropriate to do so in the Bill. I do not want to hold up the debate. I do not object to the principle, providing that we are not talking about trying to impose waiver schemes on private operators who have no contract with a local authority, because we cannot do that.

The amendment is clear on that matter. It states that this should apply where a contractor is appointed by local authorities.

That is fair enough, but the Deputy has expanded it in the discussion.

Will the Minister of State accept it then?

We do not have much time until Report Stage. I cannot accept it under this Bill because it is not appropriate. All the service charges are covered under a separate Act. I will have it examined to see if something can be done under the other Act, if there is an opportunity to do so.

Maybe there is a provision in the other Act that would allow the Minister of State to make regulations.

I will have a look at it.

The Minister of State has a great memory of the 1983 Act. I am surprised.

I can even remember who was Minister then. The Deputy should tell his leader afterwards.

The Minister of State cannot remember 1977 which is what led to the 1983 Act. His memory does not stretch back that far.

It stretches back a long way.

He completely undermined the finances of local government.

He had a big hand in it. He was on the team.

Amendment put and declared lost.
SECTION 3.

Amendment No. 7 was discussed with amendment No. 1.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 4, lines 3 to 15, to delete paragraphs (b) and (c).

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 8 was discussed with amendment No. 1.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 4, lines 3 to 6, to delete paragraph (b).

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 3 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 4, before section 4, to insert the following new section:

"4.-Section 22 of the Act of 1996 is amended by the substitution of the following for subsections (3), (4) and (5):

'(3) Each local authority shall make a waste management plan. The plan shall clearly indicate:

(a) the processes of import and export of all waste from the local authority’s functional area,

(b) where there is transfer of waste from one local authority area to another, this shall be clearly indicated in each local authority’s waste management plan,

(c) each local authority’s waste management plan shall clearly indicate quantities and types of waste produced, quantities and types of waste dealt with within its functional area and quantities and types of waste exported, and

(d) the waste management plan of the local authority exporting the waste shall clearly indicate how this waste is dealt with by the receiving local authority.

(4) A local authority shall not export waste unless it is satisfied that:

(a) it is necessary to do so,

(b) the local authority to which it is being exported is capable of dealing with the waste, and is using the best available technology to do so and has properly addressed this extra waste in its waste management plan.

(5) A local authority shall review a waste management plan made by it from time to time as occasion may require and at least once in each period of 5 years after the date of making the plan and may, consequent on such a review, make in accordance with section 23 any variations to the plan or replace it by a new waste management plan as it thinks fit or as the agency directs.

(5A) A waste management plan shall, in respect of non-hazardous waste contain such objectives, in line with the operation of the waste hierarchy, as seem to the local authority concerned to be reasonable and necessary:

(a) to prevent or minimise the production or harmful nature of waste,

(b) to encourage and support the recovery of waste,

(c) to ensure that such waste as cannot be prevented or recovered is treated or stored without causing environmental pollution,

(d) to ensure in the context of waste treatment or storage that regard is had to the need to give effect, in so far as it is practicable, to the polluter pays principle,

(e) to ensure where waste is exported to another local authority’s functional areas, the local authority area in which the waste is generated will remain responsible for any environmental damage caused by its transport, treatment, recovery or storage,

(f) to set targets and time frames to reduce waste arising in line with the objectives of a zero-waste strategy, and shall specify such measures or arrangements as are to be taken or entered into by the local authority, with a view to securing the objectives of the plan.’.”.

In an earlier amendment I said that the Bill was a manifestation that the 1996 Act had been tried and found wanting - "failure" was the word I used. While I recognise that, and the Government seems to recognise it also, we differ over what is to be done. I do not want to carry the analogy too far but it is important to recall that in a similar situation where a regional plan has been tried and has failed, the general approach is to see if it would work when devolved and if structures could be put in place to make it work with more accountability so that people are more involved in the devolved decision-making process.

In the Bill as presented, we are not devolving but instead taking away the existing democratic structure and giving power to the manager. This goes back to the 1996 Act when, under a different Government, I pleaded for us not to remove from local authorities the provision for a local development plan. I argued at the time that if local authorities wanted to be regional in their approach, let them be so but they would have to have a local plan as a bedrock provision for their own areas, after which they should be able to operate bilaterally or multilaterally with another local authority to take account of waste that could not be dealt with in that area or which for some economic reason would best be dealt with in a more centralised location for the category in question.

I would appreciate the Minister's comments on my proposal as well as his support for the principle. All I am seeking is that each local authority should make a waste management plan. Then we will start off from a point of knowing what is the waste arising in that area. As things stand, most local authorities do not have a clue what is their waste generation. They simply pool their waste and, as we have seen, focus their attention on trying to get rid of it. That is the ultimate in bad waste management practice. I am asking the Minister to re-examine the way in which we approach the problem. He should take on board the recommendation that each local authority makes a waste management plan. After that, they should indicate the import and export of all waste into their local functional areas. In that way, at least, we will start to see some patterns emerging.

The zero waste strategy, aspirational as it may be, is still valid and should be at the centre of the plan. With a local plan we could measure the progress we are making towards that objective. I am asking the Minister to look favourably on this proposal as an alternative to what I believe is an ill-fated strategy and one which will ultimately end up in court, thus causing further delay and making it more difficult than it is to arrive at a plan in which everybody can be involved. The Minister should consider this alternative proposal.

I do not propose to provide a point-by-point response to the various provisions of the amendment. Suffice to say that the Deputy is seeking to turn back the clock on developments since 1996 and to revisit issues that were settled during the passage of the 1996 Act. Crucially, the amendment seeks to remove the basis for making joint or regional waste management plans under section 22 of the Act and, thereby, negates four years of work on the part of the majority of local authorities concerned. The proposed rigid focus on administrative city and county boundaries settled over 100 years ago is not an acceptable basis for sensible waste planning and waste management. It ignores the potential for greater efficiency, economies of scale and better environmental protection, which is possible for local authorities co-operating together within the context of a strategic regional planning approach.

The proposed amendment seeks to impose unnecessary or impracticable obligations upon local authorities regarding the content of plans and the management of waste generally. It seeks to introduce aspirational concepts, such as a zero waste strategy, which are not legally meaningful or appropriate for incorporation in primary legislation.

Various other provisions, especially those concerning the so-called export of waste across local authority boundaries, suggest an appreciation of the local authority waste management role which is totally at variance with legal and practical realities. There seems to be no appreciation of the growing significance of a private waste industry or the legal limitations that arise in respect of the control of movements of waste.

From a drafting perspective, the proposed subsection (5A) largely duplicates the existing section 22(6) of the 1996 Act, but with some key amendments. While seeming to reflect the provisions of the waste hierarchy, it makes no provision for final, environmentally sound disposal of waste. Instead, it refers to the treatment and storage of waste. This reflects an apparent refusal on the part of the Green Party, which put forward this amendment, to face the reality of landfill as the necessary means of disposal of residual waste. The Green Party's ten point waste plan provides for the curing, aerobically or anaerobically, of unavoidably mixed or contaminated waste prior to safe storage at locally based waste depots. In other words, it would entail storing untold thousands of tonnes of waste each year in unspecified facilities around the country, apparently for an indefinite period, and I do not think that is a realistic way forward.

Given his comments, I thought the Minister was describing landfill.

I am keen to tease out this idea a little more and I wish to look in particular at the situation in Dublin. At present, the administrative local authority for Dublin city does not have a landfill facility. The population within the administrative area of the city is about 500,000. If a local authority may not export its waste to another local authority area, that is, if the local authorities in surrounding areas have a means to refuse to receive the waste - in circumstances where such export of waste is permitted, it is effectively with the agreement of the receiving local authority - what happens, for example, in Dublin? I am talking about the immediate term and I have a lot of sympathy for the longer term view. Will we end up in a situation in which neither Deputy Sargent nor I would be happy, with Dublin city being backed into an incineration-only option? We know, for example, that existing landfills in the greater Dublin area are reaching the end of their lifetimes. I would argue that they have long since passed the point at which they should have been closed down. I refer specifically to the dumps at Ballyogan and Ballealy, with which Deputy Sargent will be familiar. If the short-term solution - of which I am not a great supporter - of bailing refuse and transporting it to Kildare and surrounding counties is effectively closed off, the Ballyogan and Ballealy sites will have to remain open.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the long-term aspirations in the amendment, but there is an immediate problem in the Dublin city area in particular. The landfill sites in Dublin county should have been closed down before now and there is no short-term relief - much less the realisation of a zero waste strategy - in sight for the capital. I would like more information on the short-term implications of this matter.

I could not disagree with anything Deputy Gilmore has stated. Our concerns about this matter are the same as those which relate to existing waste management plans. As Deputy Gilmore stated, Dublin city and other parts of the country are facing a serious crisis at present. We saw what happened in Wicklow and Galway when waste was not collected and with the way matters are progressing and in light of the level of bullying on the part of the Government, I predict we will see similar scenes in Dublin. A number of anti-landfill groups have already taken a number of court cases and one of them was successful in a case it brought before Balbriggan Circuit Court in preventing the local authority from entering lands it considered would be suitable for landfill. One of the judge's recommendations was that the county manager should have consulted more widely with interested groups. However, the Bill states that county managers can do as they please. In my opinion, we are going to encounter further difficulties as a result of this.

My amendment will not provide an immediate solution, but it allows for the continuation of the regional strategy currently in place. In addition, it will ensure that each local authority must put in place its own plan. This does not mean the regional approach will be ruled out; it simply means the transactions between the various administrative areas will be documented and set down in a way that can be clearly understood by all concerned. At present, all we have is a vague understanding that waste will somehow be dealt with in the context of overall regional plans. This has meant that a number of logjams have arisen in terms of where landfill sites should be opened and where incinerators should be constructed. We are seeking out of the way corners of regions where this can be done in as unobtrusive and as trouble-free way a way as possible. However, such places do not exist and people are beginning to realise that.

The Minister of State indicated that county and local authority functional areas have been in existence for 100 years or more. The reality is, however, that they are the only accountable administrative areas - in the sense that local representatives are elected to represent them - that exist. If the Minister of State believes regions offer a better model than these, he must accept that they are less accountable and that people will bicker and argue about where the ultimately responsibility lies for taking action. On a regional level, problems tend to be passed around and not dealt with. I am merely saying this system does not work.

The Minister of State quoted from the ten point plan produced by the Green Party. In that regard, my party was putting forward a number of reasoned points based on a progression from the point of separating waste to the point of dealing with it in the most responsible way possible. If one digs a hole in the ground, lines it, buries rubbish in it and covers it over again, there is no way to prevent nitrates from leaking out into ground water. Deputy Bruton previously indicated the problems this has caused in Canada. The Green Party is stating that where waste is separated, it should be reused or recycled. If this cannot be done either because the market is not sufficiently buoyant or there is no technology available to make use of the recycled product, the waste should be stored in its separated form. Such waste could later be disposed of by developing a technology of the kind to which I refer, creating a market for it or stopping production of the original material in the first instance. The latter option would stand as a monument to a company's inability to dispose of the waste it had created and would be a good way to send out the message that unacceptable waste by-products cannot be tolerated. That is the way to reduce waste and, ultimately, it must be our top priority.

The difference between what I am proposing and what is established practice is that it does not include hiding waste, which, ultimately, is what happens to most of our waste. Unfortunately, our behaviour in this regard will come back to haunt us and that is what the Green Party is seeking to avoid.

Deputy Sargent is asking us to accept this amendment and make it the law of the land. If the Oireachtas decides to do so, the transportation of all the waste generated by the 500,000 citizens living within the area of Dublin Corporation's remit to adjoining counties will be forbidden.

An agreement would have to be reached.

Yes. In that context, however, one need only consider what happened between Clare and Kerry when they tried to reach an agreement. Is Deputy Sargent saying that, until such time as a technology capable of rendering or converting the waste to which I refer, that Dublin Corporation would have to establish facilities within Dublin city to store its waste? Will it be obliged to build warehouses to store such waste until an alternative is found? According to the amendment, the corporation will not be able to export the waste.

It will be able to do so.

I was a member of Dublin County Council when the original proposal to transport waste to Kill, County Kildare, was first mooted.

I was also a member of the council at that stage.

That is correct, and the Deputy will recall the enthusiasm with which that proposal was greeted in County Kildare.

We are going to be faced with that problem again in the near future because the regional plans all revisit the matters which arose in respect of Kill. Let us face reality.

Plans must be put in place but agreement cannot be reached.

We should discuss how to arrive at an agreement.

We can argue about how we managed to do it, but we must face the fact that we are up to the wire on this issue. Even if we manage to agree an effective reduction strategy, it will take some time to put it in place. This issue is critical in Dublin because landfills are already full. I am interested in how this might be progressed, for example, in local communities. The current opposition to building incinerators or the location of landfills will be nothing compared to that which will be generated in local communities if it is decided that councils may establish a number of warehouses for the storage of waste in their communities.

It would not be mixed waste.

I am interested in teasing out this matter. I acknowledge the point made by the Deputies that local authorities should be responsible for their areas in trying to deal with their waste and they should have a plan to do so. I have tabled a similar amendment. However, at the end of the process there will be a by-product of waste which cannot be dealt with by the local authority.

Absolutely. I do not want this discussion to conclude with the Minister of State answering questions and then making his imprimatur. Separating waste at source is the first step forward from where we are now. No wet waste will go to landfill if we continue down that road or to a civic amenity centre in Navan. Those centres are located in areas where they do not cause problems similar to landfill because they take dry waste. If one visits St. Anne's Park, Raheny, there are no problems in that residential area because the wet waste is separated. Once the wet and dry waste is separated, the position is different. The Minister of State might say that people will give out because another landfill site is involved but if waste is separated and it is explained to people what this means, they will accept waste facilities. Waste facilities have a bad name because waste is mixed and they stink to high heaven. If the anaerobic breakdown which causes the stink is removed from the waste reduction process, waste must be separated.

I do not advocate warehouses around Dublin. Each local authority should have its own plan so that it knows where its waste is coming from, where it is going and how much there is in each waste stream. That is a good concept but it is not contained in current waste plans. They contain a general regional structure which does not mean each local authority knows where its waste is going or what is happening to it. It has general clues about waste. As long as that is the case, we will not get to grips with the challenge. The attitude will be to export the problem wherever one can. People must take more responsibility in as practicable a way as possible.

Deputy Gilmore is reflecting an enormous fear that the system will break down. However, it will do so anyway and I want to devise a way out of the problem. We are only compounding the problem at present.

The solution suggested by the Deputy will not work. The Government has proposed regional plans which place a responsibility on local authorities to work together in the provision of the facilities required to properly dispose of the waste generated within their combined areas. There is a problem in Dublin with non-availability of land for landfill. In a regional context Dublin city could probably provide the incinerator, with the landfill and composting facilities located in other local authority areas in which there is space. There is a much better opportunity to make progress on a regional basis than on an individual local authority basis, as suggested by the Deputy, where agreement must be reached.

We are here because local authorities failed to reach agreement in adopting regional plans and, to achieve our objectives and fulfil our obligations to ourselves and the EU, we are obliged to adopt plans. Everybody wants them in place quickly. We have spent four years working on them. It will be a waste of four years if we adopt unproven methods with various difficulties about storage. We do not have the alternative suggested by the Deputy because we will run into the same problems with local authorities trying to reach agreements. The more I hear from the Opposition the more I am convinced the Government is proceeding in the right direction.

Is the Deputy pressing his amendment?

No, but I would like the Minister of State to consider the merit of each local authority adopting a plan together with a regional plan.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 4.

Amendment No. 14 is related to amendment No. 10 and both may be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 4, line 20, after "paragraph (c)” to insert “and limited to the conditions set out in paragraph (b)”.

This is the fall-back position. The amendments propose that local authorities which have agreed their regional plans and are proceeding with them should be allowed to continue and the elected members should not be superseded by local authority managers. Can we take it managers will not become power crazy and decide to overturn the local members' wishes?

The amendments are not legally meaningful and their effect would be to permit individual local authorities to withdraw from a regional planning process in which they and the other local authorities concerned have invested considerable time and resources and to allow the current impasse in the waste management planning process to continue for at least a further year with no assurance of a satisfactory outcome at the end of that period. We have not made the progress we all accept is vitally necessary and long overdue in regard to the provision of effective and cost efficient waste services and infrastructure because of the delays in drawing up and implementing waste management plans. The problems associated with proper waste management continue to grow.

Action is required to address our current difficulties. Continued debate is not an option as we have already lost too much time. Accordingly, the Government decided that immediate legislative measures are necessary to ensure early completion of the planning process and rapid movement towards implementation of proposed waste management plans. The thrust of the section is to provide that the power to make a waste management plan should be transferred from the elected members of a local authority to the relevant manager and to make other supporting legislative amendments. This move will allow local authority management to conclude the planning process and remove any preconceived obstacles to the effective implementation of regional plans. It will clear the way to deliver on all aspects of waste modernisation, segregation, collection services, increased recycling and recovery performance and a dramatic reduction in disposal to landfill. Accordingly, I cannot agree to any diminution of the proposals and reject the amendments.

As agreed earlier, we will resume our deliberations at 10 a.m. tomorrow. I thank the Minister of State and his officials for their input into this meeting and I thank members for their contributions.

The Select Committee adjourned at 10 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 4 July 2001.
Top
Share