Before we start, may I inquire what the time schedule is?
Waste Management (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2001 [Seanad]: Committee Stage.
SECTION 4.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 10:
In page 4, line 20, after "paragraph (c)” to insert “and limited to the conditions set out in paragraph (b)”.
-(Deputy Sargent).
Chairman
We will sit until 1.30 p.m.
Is that 1.30 p.m. today?
Chairman
It will be mentioned on the Order of Business in the House. Is the Deputy withdrawing the amendment?
No, I am not withdrawing it.
(Interruptions.)
If it would help I will withdraw it and resubmit it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 4, line 23, to delete "manager" and substitute "members".
Sitting suspended at 10.10 a.m. and resumed at 10.15 a.m.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 4, line 23, to delete "manager" and substitute "elected members".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Chairman
Amendment No. 13 was discussed with amendment No. 1.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 4, line 24, to delete "an executive" and substitute "a reserved".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 4, to delete lines 34 to 48 and in page 5, to delete lines 1 to 12.
We had a long discussion on this issue yesterday. It highlights the objections to this Bill which proposes to transfer to managers the powers of elected representatives to implement waste management plans. I am aware of the Minister's views but I will press the amendment.
As Deputy Clune said, the principle was debated yesterday so there is no point in repeating it. The variation here is to give the manager power to decide whether a waste management plan is invalid because of conditions attached to it, which is an extraordinary power to give a manager. Many local authorities have made qualified plans which managers could now declare invalid. The manager in these circumstances is prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. It turns the system of local government into Nankee Poo land, which is regrettable. The public rightly questions why it should elect councillors if all power is to be vested in the manager. The turnout was less than 30% in some areas during the last local government elections, and this Bill will worsen that. What is the purpose of a councillor now? Managers already exercise most of their powers as executive functions and now councillors will not even be able to make decisions about waste. The public should be told that those they elect will have no say in the work of the local authority. This section, which we want removed, allows the manager to declare a plan invalid if even a sentence is added.
It has not been said before that a local authority is entitled under European law to introduce a condition excluding incineration from its waste management plan. There is no requirement to include it, although some countries do. Therefore, although the Government may not appreciate it, this amendment may save it from a court challenge. As the Bill stands, the manager and the consultants will make the decision and it is unacceptable for a council to exclude incineration, even temporarily. That has been declared completely unacceptable and it goes against European law, not to mention basic democratic principles. It seems increasingly likely that this debate will take place in court.
Instead of improving, matters are getting worse. It is obvious from the attitude of the Government and particularly the Minister of State, who is only carrying out the wishes of the Administration, that there is no possibility the point will be conceded. This was shown on the vote last evening when the Government parties voted to remove from councillors the powers relating to the drawing up of plans and give them to county and city managers. It is now proposed to go further. Amendment No. 16 states that a plan, even after it has been drawn up and adopted with the full co-operation of council members, can be changed or altered by the manager or consultants at any stage. That is ridiculous.
As Deputy Gilmore stated, there has been a great deal of discussion about low turnouts at elections and the difficulty of encouraging people to stand as candidates at local elections. We should make a clean fist of it and state that councils are mere talking shops. The committee is becoming a talking shop because it is obvious that, for whatever reason, the Government is determined to force the Bill through in the dying days of this session which, perhaps, are also the final days of the current Dáil.
I understand why we are under pressure to discuss the future ethos of local government and the right of local elected representatives to have a say in matters concerning the areas they represent. Given that managers act either on the word of the Minister or the advice of consultants, it is clear that consultants will be doing the work of councillors. Some of these consultants are from abroad while others do not reside in the areas in which they are working which means that they are not responsible for or answerable in respect of their actions in drawing up waste management plans. However, local councillors who will no longer have a say, but who should have one, will be obliged to face the people. That is the craziest item of legislation I have seen since I entered the House.
I have no intention of repeating everything that was stated last evening or what colleagues have said this morning. However, I wish to reaffirm the point in relation to the 1999 amendment to the Constitution. The European position apart, what we are being presented with here is unconstitutional. The Government may believe it has won the day when, with the Chairman's support, the Bill is passed on Friday. However, I have no doubt that this is not the end of the matter.
Let us consider the other critical aspect of this matter, namely, the already at times fractious balance between managers, executives and elected representatives in local government. The equilibrium in this area, seriously flawed though it has been, has not been aided by the fact that the Local Government Bill failed to address the need to vest greater powers in the elected and accountable members. In that context, we will witness the creation of a further and new interface between managers and elected members. What we are doing is sowing the seeds for extremely difficult times ahead. This will be reflected in local government chambers throughout the country where members will realise the true intent and purpose of the Bill and will recognise what will be its net effect. They will react acutely to the passage of the Bill.
Management and elected members will again be at loggerheads in respect of this area. However, if the matter had been allowed to develop and local government had been properly empowered to address it, I do not doubt that we would have arrived at a partnership approach through which amicable conclusions and workable solutions would have been reached, but that is no longer a prospect, and that is extremely regrettable.
We have discussed these issues at length and each of us is anxious to avoid repetition. We are here because plans were not adopted by a small number of local authorities and no progress has been made, even though it has been agreed that the best way to proceed is to adopt waste management plans on a regional basis.
The Government is committed to a planned and integrated approach to waste management based firmly on the internationally recognised hierarchy. The proposed plans focus on prevention and minimisation and place high emphasis on waste segregation, reuse and recovery and advocate a range of technologies designed to deliver a more sustainable and effective recycling and recovery performance and significantly reduce our reliance on landfill. My Department and I strongly support a regional approach and members, with the exception of Deputy Sargent, appear to agree with us in that regard.
The majority of local authorities committed to the making of joint or regional plans in line with our policy statement Changing Our Ways, which was published in October 1998. Considerable financial and human resources, including European Union grant assistance towards dedicated strategic studies, have been allocated to this process, which entailed significant public consultation throughout. However, as stated, we have encountered ongoing problems and delays in the formal adoption of regional plans. Three out of the 15 local authorities in three regional groups have refused to adopt the proposed regional plans before them. These authorities are in effect obstructing any prospect of progress on the part of the majority and have severely impeded the overall planning process. Even in the two regions where all the local authorities concerned decided to adopt regional plans, some did so subject to potentially significant qualifications.
My Department has received clear legal advice on this issue. A proposed regional waste management plan must be adopted on the same substantive basis by all the authorities concerned or none can be considered to be valid. We, therefore, cannot allow the current drift to continue because we must meet national and European Union targets for waste recovery and the diversion of waste away from landfill. More immediately, a number of pressing waste management problems have arisen in Counties Galway and Clare and members yesterday referred to a number of other counties where difficulties exist. The European Commission has taken a case against Ireland at the European Court of Justice because of the ongoing failure to respect waste planning obligations. A judgment against Ireland may be unavoidable, particularly if authorities persist in their refusal to adopt the balanced and comprehensive plans which are before them.
It is incumbent on the Government to act in the overall national interest and to take steps to facilitate the satisfactory completion of the planning process. This is the basis for addressing all aspects of the waste hierarchy and advancing the provision of a vital element of our infrastructure. The various legal options have been considered and we have concluded that the existing regulatory powers under the 1996 Act are not, in themselves, adequate to ensure a decisive and satisfactory outcome. Accordingly, the Government decided that the power to make waste management plans should be transferred from elected members to the relevant managers. It also proposes to make other supporting legislative amendments. This will allow local authority management to conclude the planning process and remove any perceived obstacles to the effective implementation of regional plans. I reiterate that this will clear the way in terms of allowing us to deliver on all aspects of waste modernisation, which include segregation of collection services, a higher recycling recovery performance and a dramatic reduction in disposal to landfill.
I have repeated some of what I said yesterday but that is necessary, given the insistence of Opposition Members in seeking to get the Government to change its mind, even when it is obvious we have legal obligations to fulfil as well as other matters. I cannot accept the amendment.
Has the Minister of State considered the potential of the Bill to create a crisis in local government? Deputy Ó Caoláin concurred with me that the Bill is unconstitutional. Once the legislation is passed, the only power elected members will have in regard to waste management is to levy a charge on householders for the collection of waste. I do not know how up to speed the Minister of State is with the frustration felt by local authority members about the extent to which their powers and functions are being whittled away and that when there is a dirty job to be done, they are handed the task by central Government. At the same time, their normal powers and functions are being taken away.
I do not know how local authority members will react to this legislation if it is passed. However, I will draw an analogy. If the Minister of State were an employer and local authority members were the employees and he said to them he was changing their functions to this extent, there would be a picket and the members would refuse to co-operate. What would happen if, for example, local authority members collectively decided they would not play ball with this legislation, that they would not do the dirty work for the Government and levy the charges? There would be a serious crisis in local government. I do not predict that is what will happen but enormous frustration and disappointment is being felt by members of local authorities across the country about what is being done to them. Some day the Government will push local authority members too far. I do not know whether this is the issue that will cause that.
The Minister of State said the Government must press ahead with the legislation because three out of 15 local authorities did not adopt waste management plans. I dispute that because many local authorities, including the three mentioned, wanted to adopt plans but were not permitted. They were told consultants had outlined the most suitable plan for their areas and they had to adopt that or nothing. That is not democracy. Local authorities, including mine, were willing to adopt the plan that would have resolved the waste management problem in their areas. There was no problem with that but we on Galway County Council were not allowed to do that because the county manager said the Connacht regional plan was before us and we had to adopt it. There was no choice in the matter.
This issue is similar to the deregulation of the taxi industry. When there was a problem in Dublin, the Minister of State solved it by deregulating the industry in every town and city. He is aware of the problems that has created. I am sure there are people calling to his constituency office, as they do to mine, telling him of the problems deregulation caused in Galway. We have learned nothing from the mistakes of the past. Why did he not introduce regulations to deal with the local authority he alleges did not adopt waste management plans?
It is a little rich of the EU to crack the whip against national governments now. The EU agrees many regulations which it breaches. The Union adopted a regulation a number of years ago whereby by 2000 all seaside towns with a population of more than 10,000 would be prosecuted if they continued to pump raw sewage into the sea, yet in Galway, which has a population of 75,000, raw sewage is still being pumped into the sea. The Minister of State is well aware the Mutton Island sewerage scheme was planned in Galway ten years ago but EU regulations frustrated us at every opportunity. This is an example of the EU adopting one position when it suits it and another later. It stopped us, frustrated us and eventually did not provided finance for the scheme. We are now going ahead with the scheme but it is being financed by the Exchequer, but raw sewage will be pumped into the sea for another two years. The EU did not nothing but frustrate plans.
It is a little rich for the EU to tell the Government to adopt waste management plans and transfer power from elected members to local authority managers irrespective of what the public wants. The EU will not get away with this and the people sent a message in the Nice referendum to the Union and the Government that they have had enough. We should not bend our knees every time the EU cracks the whip because it is responsible for frustrating local authorities in trying to implement directives. The Minister of State should not try to put one over us. He should have a meeting with representatives of the local authorities he alleges are not adopting waste management plans to ascertain what is the problem. He will discover they are willing to adopt such plans. There is no problem with that anywhere. We will never deal with waste on a regional basis until local communities are involved in dealing with waste management in their own areas. We will never have responsible methods to deal with waste management.
I rest my case.
The Minister of State has no case.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Chairman
Amendment Nos. 16 and 17 are alternatives to amendment No. 18 and they may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 5, to delete lines 16 to 20 and substitute the following:
"(e) if an area or areas support a waste management plan, that plan should be included in the regional waste plan.”.
This is a reasonable amendment but I anticipate it will fall on deaf ears similar to every other amendment, although I hope that is not the case. It is frustrating to continually make the best case and to come up against a stone wall every time. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure if a local authority draws up a thorough and efficient waste management plan it should be adopted. Each local authority should be able to adopt its own plan. The Minister of State could join them together to form a regional plan and say waste management has been addressed in the region because each authority has drawn up a plan to deal with its own waste. There is no logical reason to prevent each authority drawing up an effective and thorough plan so it is responsible for waste management in its area. We are not serious about waste management. The Government seems to be serious only about incineration and burning our rubbish. If we are serious about reduction and recycling, we will start in the communities before expanding to the local authority areas where people are responsible for waste creation and management. I appeal to the Minister of State to allow local authorities to draw up their own waste management plans. The plans should be recognised as a means of dealing with waste within a local authority area.
This amendment raises an important point. If responsibility is taken from local authorities and distributed on a regional basis, the reduction and recycling of waste and other effective means of dealing with this problem will not be encouraged. It is important that individual areas within regions are given responsibility for producing their own waste management plans, which should then be reflected in the regional plan. If this does not happen, it will be easy to pass the waste on to a regional facility, such as an incinerator or a landfill. This amendment will give local authorities the responsibility to prepare their own waste management plans, an important consideration that should be included in this Bill.
Chairman
I am sorry, but we will have to take a break as there is a vote in the Dáil. We will resume at 11 a.m.
Sitting suspended at 10.45 a.m. and resumed at 11.35 a.m.
Deputy Killeen took the chair.
The points made by Deputies Clune and McCormack are the nub of the issue. The 1996 Act provides that there can be either a local or a regional plan. The plan is either made by the authority or jointly by the authority and another local authority. The provision should have been changed then, which I tried to do, so that there could be a local and a regional plan, in other words, one would not exclude the other. There is merit in removing the restriction as written. Authorities interpret it as saying that if there is a regional plan, a local plan is neither necessary nor allowed. I seek clarification on this issue from the Minister.
This is an example of the type of nanny council into which the Government will transform local authorities. To state that a local authority shall not, without the consent of the manager, vary or replace, under subsection (4), a waste management plan for four years strips the elected members not only of powers but of any respect the electorate might have for them. In my constituency, under the Dublin waste management plan, Ballyman is identified for landfill and there are proposals for an incinerator in the Cabinteely-Loughlinstown area. Until now the people there could expect that their elected councillors would draw up a waste management plan, vary it if necessary and, under a planning application, vary the county development plan. Under this Bill the elected councillors will have no say and the county manager will decide the plan, locations and other matters. Under the Bill's planning provisions, the manager will decide on a material contravention of the development plan or an application to site an incinerator in a high amenity or agriculturally zoned area. He or she will decide whether it is such a contravention and if it will be so advertised. Public submissions will also be considered by the manager.
The locally elected councillors are written out of the script and, consequently, the people's voice is also written out. The public can complain and make submissions but in the end the decision on proceeding will be taken by the manager who made the initial plan and proposals. It is a travesty of democracy. If the Government pushes this through, it will cause a crisis in the relationship between the local electorate, councillors and central Government and a democratic crisis as people realise that their voice and democratic rights are being suppressed. This is about more than the waste issue, it is the most serious political decision taken by any Government in the history of the State. It is standing down of democracy by depriving local communities of a democratic voice.
On hearing Deputy Gilmore's exaggerations, I remind him that the principle applied here was applied by his party in government.
It is different.
It is exactly the same principle. Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 propose to remove subsection (10)(e) which provides that a local authority may not, without the consent of the manager, vary or replace a waste management plan within four years of it being made. I consider it necessary to retain this provision to safeguard waste management plans, as adopted, and to allow a reasonable period of stability during which management can bed down plans, focus on implementation and bring forward the necessary improvement to waste management services and infrastructure. Accordingly, amendment No. 18 is unacceptable as it seeks to prevent any possible disruption of the implementation process, such as a local authority seeking to opt out of a regional plan and replace it with a new stand-alone city or county plan. Any agreed variation of a plan would still be possible and the power to vary or replace a plan will revert substantially to the elected members after the four year period specified. Under section 22(4) of the 1996 Act, local authorities must review waste management plans at least once every five years after they have been made. The proposed four-year constraint facilitates the review of a plan in accordance with this requirement. I regret I am unable to accept these amendments.
Deputy Sargent indicated he wanted to speak on amendment No. 18. Would Deputy Clune or Deputy Gilmore like to add anything in the meantime?
The thrust of the amendment I proposed, which is important and has been discussed before, is that local waste management plans should be reflected in the regional plan. I understand the Minister is unwilling to accept these amendments, but the Bill is a blunt instrument to force through waste management plans. I do not intend to press my amendment, but I will raise the matter again on Report Stage.
I ask the Minister to look at this in the context of the widespread understanding that the four-year provision is not there to ensure stability but to ensure that incineration and landfill operators have enough time to plan, build and get licences for their facilities. This will mean that after four years everything will be so set in stone that consideration of the matter will be nothing more than academic. It comes down to letting people come to terms with what is happening and make decisions to improve the matter. I ask that 12 months, rather than four years, be inserted in section 4.
It is intended that the four-year period would give sufficient time for plans to be adopted and implementation to proceed. It is unlikely that if incinerators were to be provided, they would be provided within four years, so the Deputy is reaching an incorrect conclusion. It is obvious that time is needed for this to settle down, for the implementation process to get under way and progress to be made on the implementation of proposals on the waste management plan. The five-year review means that four years is considered a reasonable period of time. It gives local authorities a year to prepare for the review process. This section of the Bill has nothing to do with companies involved in incineration, but is concerned with giving time for the process to be initiated.
The point is to match that, as it does not have to be a five-year review.
The review takes place after five years.
It does not have to be after five years. Can it take place earlier?
There must be at least one review every five years.
Is that the minimum?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 5, to delete lines 16 to 20.
Amendment put and declared lost
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 5, line 19, to delete "4 years" and substitute "12 months".
Amendment put and declared lost
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 5, to delete lines 21 to 34.
This amendment proposes to delete certain lines in page 5 of the Bill. We have been told that the proposal in the Bill to transfer power to managers is a temporary measure, but it is proposed that the return of power will only last for three months. When the time period has elapsed, local authorities will have three months to prepare a plan. If they cannot do so within the three month period, the manager will once more be able to implement his own waste plan. We will return to the same situation. By putting this measure in the Bill, the Minister is ensuring that the situation will continue. I know he will tell me that local authorities will have three months to make a waste management plan, but three months is a short period of time. Many speakers have said that consultation is important in this process, but members of local authorities will not have time to inform themselves and to develop a plan in three months. The period of time is much too short and is merely a sop to local authority members. I have put down this amendment for the reasons I have outlined.
The amendment seeks to remove the proposed section 4(10)(f), which provides that a local authority, having given notice in accordance with section 23 of this Bill of an intention to vary or replace a plan, cannot do so within three months of the end of the public consultation period, which must be a minimum of two months. The relevant manager shall, within a further period of two months, vary or replace a plan in the terms originally proposed or with the amendments the manager sees fit. If we are to give the function proposed to the manager we will have to make sure he can carry it out.
We were told that this is simply a temporary measure regarding plans that have not been implemented, but this proposal will apply if the next tranche of plans is not implemented. We will carry on with the same attitude and the same proposals, as power will still be given to managers. It will not be a temporary measure as managers will still be empowered to adopt the plan within two months. It is the same story.
The special role given to the manager will last four years.
Yes, but the proposal is that when the four years have elapsed a new plan must be put in place. Am I right in saying that the same situation will apply after two months?
The Deputy has made the point that the manager will be given the power again after four years and two months or four years and five months has elapsed. The provision in regard to the manager's powers will recur.
That is my understanding of the proposal. When the plans have expired in four years local authority members will have two months to approve a plan presented to them by consultants. If they do not, we return to the same scenario with which we are faced now. Is that what is intended in 2005?
This provision is essential to ensure the next phase of waste management planning, under which all plans will have to be reviewed and possibly varied within five years, will not be delayed or held up as has been the case to date. The power to vary or replace plans will remain with the elected members but if they fail to carry out their duties it will revert to the Executive.
Therefore, the proposal is to be introduced permanently apart from the two months the local authority has to adopt the new plan.
The maxim is: "What we have, we hold".
The manager will only become involved if the members fail to formally adopt a proposed variation of the plan.
Vary or replace a plan.
The existing plan will be varied. That could be called a new plan but it would be a variation of the existing plan.
The proposal includes the term "or replace the plan". The members will again be presented with a waste management plan prepared by the manager and consultants. The Minister of State is adopting the same principle. We were told this would be a temporary measure but now we are being told it will be permanent. Why can we not just deal with the plans which must be adopted now and delete a rider regarding how the Government intends to continue?
We have a legal responsibility to ensure waste management plans are in place and the Government is anxious to ensure that is the case.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 5, to delete lines 35 to 49.
The amendment proposes that the local authority shall not by resolution under sections 3 and 4 of the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1995, give a direction that work should not be proceeded with. The amendment is an attempt to cover every loophole and to be one step ahead of the enterprising council referred to by the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, in the Seanad. Local authority members will seek to control waste management proposals in their areas but the Minister is attempting to thwart that. I propose that these subsections be deleted.
Credit must be given where it is due and the drafters of the legislation have gone to great pains to identify every possible way members of a local authority might seek to assert their democratic rights. They have discovered, in case there is any doubt about what the intention is, that the powers of local authority members under sections 3 and 4 of the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1995, and section 179 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, under which they can give a direction to carry out work, will also be removed from them.
I have often wondered why in the US when prisoners are taken from jail to court it is necessary not just to handcuff them but to also shackle their feet. This is the legislative equivalent of shackling local authority members in every way to make sure they cannot exercise any function in the area of waste management. I give full credit to the drafters of the Bill for recognising every possible way around the intent of the legislation.
However, this legislation will be a time bomb in local government. It removes democratic rights from the people and their institutions, which will result in them asserting their democratic rights on the streets. The legislation will lead to a scenario whereby people cannot assert their democratic wishes to democratically elected institutions. The lessons of history teach us that when that option is taken from people, they will assert their democratic rights in other ways. The legislation will lead to protests because people cannot assert their rights through democratic institutions.
There is not much point in introducing a Bill and ignoring numerous loopholes. The legislation must ensure what is proposed will be carried out. The amendments seek to delete section 4(10)(g), which precludes a local authority from taking action under sections 3 or 4 of the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1995, or section 179 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, which could limit or restrict the proper implementation of the provisions of a waste management plan. This provision is essential to facilitate the proper implementation of local and regional waste management plans, as adopted.
The overall purpose of the section is to put in place a mechanism to allow local authority management to conclude the planning process and move to the effective implementation of regional waste plans which provide for greatly improved waste services and infrastructure. Aspects of these plans are considered problematic by some elected members. In any event the provision of a waste management structure of any type, including the humble bottle bank, is routinely controversial and is often unpopular. There clearly would be a risk that local authority members responding to local pressure could seek a resolution under the provisions specified to frustrate the implementation of a waste plan depending on the relevant circumstances.
I am expected to be realistic and pragmatic and to ensure the prevention of such action being taken in the interest of the proper implementation of these plans. It would not be possible to achieve that if one were not to include this section and, therefore, I cannot accept an amendment which seeks to remove it.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 are related to amendment No. 21 and all may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 5, to delete lines 50 to 54.
The inclusion of section 4(10)(b) is a step too far in the process. It is proposed that if a waste management plan or a proposal in it materially contravenes a development plan the manager has the power to overrule the contravention and impose the waste management plan. Local authorities prepare development plans for a reason. They put in a great deal of work and it takes a long time to produce the draft plan, undertake consultation and finally adopt it. All that work has gone into it, including various zonings and accommodations within the plan. We now have a situation whereby a waste management plan can overrule such a development plan and any facility proposed in it, without the members being consulted. It gives additional powers to the manager who not alone has power to dictate the authority’s waste plan but can also locate it where he wants or where the consultants believe such a facility should be. It is another step too far in the process. The various amendments deal with different aspects of this matter, whether the plan is in place or planning permission is about to be granted for a facility. The Bill reflects clever thinking and it is an effort to thwart enterprising councillors who may try to reflect the views of the people they represent concerning waste management facilities. That is why I have proposed these amendments.
The section represents a step too far in providing managers with additional powers. It is an insult to local authority members who have put much time and effort into preparing a development plan. They are now being told that they can have their plan but the manger can superimpose a waste management plan and will make it fit.
This is by far the worst measure that is proposed in the Bill. Much focus has been placed on the shift from elected members to county managers in the power to make waste management plans. The Minister's rationale is that because a number of local authorities did not do it, regional plans could not be made. Whatever case there was for that - I have argued against it for the past two days as well as on Second Stage and after the Bill was published - there is no justification for this measure which is by far the worst feature of the Bill. This proposal stands down the normal planning procedures for waste facilities.
Under subsection (10)(a), when the manager makes his waste management plan, including an incinerator or a dump, the objectives in the plan automatically become part of the county development plan. If, for example, there is a proposal in the waste management plan that there should be an incinerator or a number of landfill dumps, under the terms of the Bill they will automatically become part of the county development plan, even though they have never been subjected to public consultation or scrutiny and approval by members of a local authority as is normal with a development plan.
Another problem arises when we come to the planning application stage. A waste management plan is now made by the manager and contains a proposal for an incinerator that, for example, will be developed under a public-private partnership. A planning application has to be made. If it is proposed to put the incinerator in an area which is currently zoned as agricultural, that would normally require a material contravention or variation of the county development plan. In normal circumstances, if somebody is looking for a material contravention of the county development plan it is advertised. The members first decide to advertise it. It then goes out to public consultation and when it comes back the members of the local authority decide the issue. Under the terms of the Bill, however, the manager will decide whether there is a material contravention of the development plan and will decide whether to advertise it. We will then go through a so-called process of public consultation but the manager, not members of the local authority, will consider the submissions made by the public. The manager will also decide the issue of material contravention to the development plan.
The section states that following consideration of submissions and observations received in accordance with the subsection, the manager, notwithstanding that the proposed development would materially contravene the development plan, decides to proceed with the proposed development and may grant planning permission. In this situation, the manager decides what will be in the waste management plan. Neither the elected members nor the public has a say in this process. Whatever the manager puts into his waste management plan automatically becomes part of the county development plan. When a planning application comes in, the same manager decides whether it is a material contravention of the development plan and the same manager will decide whether to advertise it. When it is advertised and the public writes letters to express concerns, saying that it disagrees with it, the same manager will consider the submissions. At the end of the process, the manager will decide the issue of material contravention and grant planning permission.
This proposal inserts in local government legislation a form of dictatorship the like of which we have not seen before. I sound this warning, if we are to stand down the normal planning process for a waste facility, on what issue will the Minister next propose that we should stand down the normal planning process? The Bill has come from the Minister who tried to build interpretative centres at Mullaghmore and Luggala without planning permission and cases had to be brought to the Supreme Court to stop him. It is not the Minister of State who is present, but the Minister for the Environment and Local Government who in a previous portfolio showed great enthusiasm for building things without planning permission and he had to be stopped from doing so through the courts. Now he has brought legislation before us which states that an incinerator can be built, effectively without planning permission. This is a joke. What does the Minister think will happen? Does he think a county manager who puts such a proposal in the waste management plan will refuse planning permission for an incinerator?
This is the worst proposal I have ever seen regarding planning procedures. It completely sets aside planning for waste facilities. I will reiterate where this will lead us. The lessons of history, here or anywhere else, show that when one deprives people of their democratic rights and when one takes away their political institutions or removes the power of those institutions, they may be suppressed with the accompanying democratic rights but one cannot suppress their spirit. If this legislation is passed it will lead to people turning to protest activity to assert their rights because they will be deprived of the normal means of protest through their democratic institutions. If their democratic rights are removed, one cannot blame people if they turn to other means to assert their rights. I appeal to the Minister on this issue.
We had an interesting discussion yesterday evening about how waste might be dealt with and we may differ on that matter. This proposal is about more than waste, however. It is an assault on the democratic rights of people, which we have not seen before. This is happening in a highly sensitive, charged area where people have strong views. I appeal to the Minister not to proceed with this because as a State we will suffer. It will result in levels of unrest and dissension that I do not want to see but which I believe will happen.
I listened to my colleagues' comments on what these amendments address and redress. This Bill represents an act of naked totalitarianism. Its thrust and detail undermines the critical areas of elected representatives' responsibility. Since my colleague spoke of the lessons of history, I remind the Minister of State and the chairman of what day it is. Deputy Gilmore is right. This is ostensibly about waste but the Bill undermines the fundamental tenets of the democratic process. It is 4 July, when citizens of the United States everywhere celebrate their independence. A key demand and catch cry of those who pursued the cause of American independence was "No taxation without representation." We witness the re-establishment in our democracy of the objectionable element that led to the American War of Independence. At local authority level, people are given the responsibility to levy the charge for refuse tax, but under this Bill they will lose the opportunity to represent effectively those on whom the charge is imposed. History is repeating itself. This is not a march forward but a retrograde adventure by the Government which is ill-fated from the start because it is fundamentally flawed at its core. It will flounder as surely as the efforts of George III to maintain his hold on the so-called American colonies. "No taxation without representation" is a fundamental tenet of any democracy. I put the Minister of State on notice that I will oppose section 4 and the Government's proposals.
I cannot accept these amendments because they would delete the very important subsections (10)(a), (10)(b) and (10)(c). The first provides that the development in force in relation to the functional area of a local authority shall be deemed to include the objectives, for the time being, contained in the waste management plan in force in that area. The purpose of this, and the related subsections, is to curtail obstruction of waste management plans by means of the development plan variation procedure under the Planning and Development Act, 2000. It is logical, necessary and consistent with the preceding subsection (10)(g) which provides that section 3 or 4 of the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955, or section 179 of the Planning and Development Act, cannot be used to prevent implementation of the waste management plans. Most of these plans are not site specific for recovery and disposal facilities, development of which must be consistent with zoning specific objectives in local development plans under the Planning and Development Act, 2000. Implementation of the waste management plans, in the provision of the requisite waste management infrastructure, could require the local development plan to be varied under section 13 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, which is a reserved function, following public consultation.
Subsection 10(a) provides that the development plan in force in an area shall be deemed to include the objectives for the time being of the waste management plan in force for that area. This is an essential provision and I cannot accept its removal. Subsection 10(b) provides for a notification and consultation procedure modelled on the standard material contravention provisions for situations where a planning authority proposes to grant planning permission for a development consistent with a waste management plan which would materially contravene any other objective of the development plan. Following consideration of any submissions or observations, the final decision of whether to grant planning permission rests with the manager, which has always been the position.
The following subsection provides for a notification and consultation procedure on any proposed development to be undertaken by, or on behalf of, a local authority consistent with a waste management plan, but which, in the manager's opinion, would materially contravene any other objective in a development plan. Following consideration of any submissions or observations, the final decision of whether to proceed with the procedure set out in the planning acts to allow for the development rests with the manager. As I stated, the purpose of this provision and related subsections is to curtail obstruction of implementation of waste management plans by means of the development plan variation procedure. I do not agree to their deletion.
We are discussing decisions made democratically after consultation in development plans and planning applications, overruling planning decisions and disregarding existing planning arrangements. It is undemocratic and a step too far. I am opposed to these provisions. Is there a role for An Bord Pleanála? Can a decision be appealed to it?
I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. It amounts to saying that no matter what happens the Government's predetermined grand plan for waste management will be forced through irrespective of whether people like it or whether members of local authorities have difficulties with it. It rips apart the normal planning procedures. As I stated previously, it is unconstitutional and flies in the face of the Constitution's basic principles of democracy, participation and, until recently, guarantees of local democracy and government.
That is something the third house of the Oireachtas will have to consider. It is obvious that it may exercise the courts at some point in the future.
I want the Minister of State to picture the scene. There is a proposal for an incinerator in an agricultural area and a public meeting is arranged. There is considerable concern in the area about the health implications of the incinerator. There is concern in the area which is zoned for agriculture about the impact of dioxins on milk and agricultural produce. As happens at such public meetings, the public representatives and, perhaps, even the Minister of State, if it is in his constituency, are lined up at the top table to explain to the people what is happening. The public representatives have to address the people on the plan, the councillors will have to tell the people they do not have any say in it, that it is the county manager who devises the plan and that they can express a view on it as can anybody else. They have no so say in the matter. Somebody at the meeting may say the councillors are the people who have been elected and may ask that the manager be instructed to do this. The councillors will say that under paragraph (g) of this legislation their powers in that regard have been taken from them. Somebody else may say the county development plan has been adopted, the area is zoned for agriculture and that at public meetings a year or two ago submissions were made to the county council about the zoning of the area and protecting the agricultural character of the area to which the county council agreed. The county councillor will have to say, “sorry, under subsection (10)(a) the waste plan which the Minister makes has gone into the county development plan”. Those at the meeting will ask who voted for this and will be informed that nobody votes for it any more, that it automatically goes into the waste management plan as provided for in the legislation. They may want to object to the planning application and ask councillors to vote against it given that it is an agricultural area. However, the councillors will say that under the provisions of subsection (10)(b) they cannot do that any more and that one can write a letter to the county manager, the person who proposed it should be located there. Councillors will tell the people they can write a letter to the county manager and that he will decide whether it is to be located there. This is not going to work because the people are not supine nor are local communities.
We have had previous examples of Governments attempting to force through legislation. The Minister of State will recall the famous rod licence and there are other examples of where Governments attempted to force through legislation which the public found unacceptable. There is a fundamental principle in democracy. Democracy is government by the people and for the public. It is also government with the consent of the people. This legislation will not have the consent of the people. The institutions of the State and local government are being walked into conflict with the public. Whatever we may think about incinerators, landfill dumps or storage of waste, this will cause a bigger problem. If this legislation is forced through, we may have to face four or five years of conflict between managements of local authorities and the Government and local communities. I do not want that to happen. It is not healthy for democracy and it is not the way to resolve difficulties concerning waste management.
Before becoming a Member I worked as a trade union official where on a day to day basis my work was conflict resolution. No matter how intractable the problem, the solution can be found around the table, not by somebody taking away people's rights and forcing them into conflict. This is madness.
Deputy Gilmore seeks to convey the impression that all the normal procedures are set aside in every case. Where a planning application is required for a facility it will still go to An Bord Pleanála if people wish. In the case of developments where an EIA is required, under the planning Acts and the normal procedures, the manager decides on the planning application when it is lodged. It is not the members of the elected local authority who decide the case. It is not correct to say all the normal procedures are being set aside.
If the recommendation from a planning official was that a facility was not suitable, is the Minister of State saying the manager can disregard it?
Well——
He has that call all the time but he takes his recommendation from his planning officials.
The final decision in any planning application is made by the manager. He considers the recommendations made to him by the planning officer, submitted by the senior planning officer to him directly. He can accept the recommendation. If not, he has to give his reasons.
His reasons will be that he needs to implement waste management plans.
Yes, but they have to comply with proper procedures.
If an appeal is brought to An Bord Pleanála is it not possible that it would overturn a decision?
Yes.
Will there be another Bill to overcome——
That applies to any case where an appeal is brought to An Bord Pleanála. There is no guarantee, one has to go through the procedures and one will get permission. An Bord Pleanála will exercise its own independent view in regard to whether it considers it is in the interests of proper planning and development of the area, as it is required to do under the planning Acts.
The right of elected members to implement and utilise section 4 is being taken from us. It seems the whole intent and purpose of this is to marginalise and isolate the elected representative.
The reason we are here with this Bill is that the local authorities did not implement the plans.
A proposition——
The Government has a legal duty to provide waste management plans and to have them implemented. We are way behind. We should be implementing them. Previous Governments did not bring forward the plans. This Government brought forward the plans but they were rejected by a small number of local authorities and in the national interest a decision has to be made on how to implement waste management plans for Ireland. I have mentioned the case we have to answer on 12 July. The Deputy's mind may be elsewhere on 12 July but my officials will be attending the courts in Luxembourg and will have to state Ireland's case. If we do not have legislation in place and no action on the ground we will be in a vulnerable position. We have a duty here. The Government will examine the matter to ascertain how the plans can be implemented and the facilities put in place. A decision was made that the responsibility for adopting the plans would rest with the managers. When one decides to take that route one has to ensure there are no loopholes to frustrate that. Although the main proposal was defeated, these amendments seek to accommodate loopholes that would allow the same councils to do the same thing and reject what is going on. We would be no further down the road and would be left with our environment suffering and no action in regard to implementing the necessary recycling proposals.
I disagree fundamentally with the Minister of State's view which he articulated both today and yesterday. I believe local authorities and local authority members were presented with Hobson's choice. We had no opportunity to properly engage in the presentation. I believe that collectively we would have come up with appropriate solutions and means of address in each of the respective counties and regions. I would have faith in that. In some parts of the country an earnest effort was made by elected representatives and this has been blatantly ignored. That is regrettable.
At the end of a four year period there was no progress so we were faced with the reality. I am unable to accept the amendments.
The amendments were not tabled to provide loopholes. They were tabled to prevent the overriding of the democratic decision of the elected members who make and put in place development plans in consultation with members of the public. They were not put down for the purpose of providing loopholes as the Minister of State has stated but as a recognition of the democratic right of members to establish their own development plans and not by a manager who is not elected or accountable. I wish the amendments in my name to be pressed.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 6, to delete lines 1 to 58.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 7, to delete lines 1 to 41.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question put: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 8; Níl, 7.
Tá
- Ahern, Noel.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moynihan, Michael
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kenneally, Brendan
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
Níl
- Clune, Deirdre.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- McCormack, Padraic.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Sargent, Trevor.
Question declared carried.
Section 5 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 7, before section 6, to insert the following new section:
6.-Section 34 of the Act of 1996 is amended-
(a) by the substitution for paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of the following paragraphs:
'(a) Subject to paragraph (b), a person other than a local authority shall not, for the purposes of reward, with a view to profit or otherwise in the course of business, collect waste, on or after such date as may be prescribed, save under and in accordance with a permit (in this Act referred to as a “waste collection permit”) granted by-
(i) the local authority in whose functional area the waste is collected,
(ii) such other local authority as stands nominated for the purpose in accordance with paragraph (aa), or
(iii) such other body or bodies as may be prescribed.
(aa) Where two or more local authorities-
(i) have jointly made, or propose jointly to make, a waste management plan under section 22(3), or
(ii) are otherwise cooperating with one another to achieve common objectives with respect to waste management in their functional areas, the local authorities may or shall, if the Minister requires them to do so, decide that, for the purposes of the said plan or the achievement of the said objectives, one of them shall perform each of the functions under this section in relation to waste collection permits with respect to each of their functional areas and, accordingly, nominate that local authority for that purpose.',
(b) by the substitution for subsection (13) of the following subsection:
'(13)(a) The reference in subsection (1)(a) to a local authority, where it first occurs, shall be construed as including a reference to the corporation of a borough of any kind and the council of an urban district.
(b) Each other reference in this section (other than subsections (1)(aa) and (4)) to a local authority shall be construed as including a reference to a body standing prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1)(a)(iii).
(c) If a body stands prescribed for the purposes aforesaid, then this section shall have effect in so far as it relates to such a body, as if the following subsection were substituted for subsection (4):
"(4) A body standing prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) (iii) shall not grant a waste collection permit unless it is satisfied that the activity in question would not, if carried on in accordance with such conditions as may be attached to the permit, cause environmental pollution, and that the grant of the permit is in accordance with any relevant provisions of the waste management plan or plans that is or are in force in the functional area or areas of the local authority or authorities in which permit will have effect.”.’.”.
The purpose of this amendment is to facilitate the early and effective implementation of a system of permitting by local authorities of commercial waste collection activities under section 34 of the 1996 Act. As things stand, section 34 provides that after such date as may be prescribed the commercial waste collector would require a permit from each local authority in whose functional area waste was collected. Potentially where large waste collection businesses are operating in multiple local authority areas, this permitting system may give rise to a considerable administrative and cost burden. In drafting the 1996 Act, consideration was given to a system whereby only one collection permit would be issued by the local authority in whose functional area a collector was based. However, the view was taken that this could present implementation difficulties and ignore the legitimate concerns that individual local authorities may have in relation to the conduct of collection operations within their functional areas. It was further considered that the operation of a unified permit system by the Environmental Protection Agency would be an inappropriate diversion of the agency's expertise and resources.
It is proposed shortly to make regulations under section 34. However, following consultation with local authorities and the Waste Management Association which, under the aegis of IBEC, represents commercial waste collectors it is proposed to amend section 34 to provide for an alternative approach which compromises between the need for effective local authority oversight of waste collection activities and administrative simplicity. Essentially the proposed amendments would allow local authorities to adopt a colligate approach to waste collection permitting, particularly within the context of regional waste development plans. This amendment provides that where a group of local authorities have jointly made, or propose to make, a regional plan or otherwise co-operate with one another in relation to waste management they may nominate one authority to carry out waste permitting functions on behalf of the others. The opportunity is also being taken to provide powers whereby the Minister could, in the future, prescribe that waste collection permits would be granted by a specified body rather than by local authorities. It is purely an enabling provision as there are no proposals for such a measure at this time.
The proposed amendments under subsection (1)(a), as amended, provide that a waste collection permit may be granted by the local authority in whose functional area waste is collected to another local authority nominated for the purpose in accordance with paragraph (aa) or such other body or bodies as may be prescribed. Paragraph (aa) is new and provides that where two or more local authorities have jointly made, or propose jointly to make, a waste management plan or otherwise co-operate with one another to achieve common waste management objectives, they may or shall, if so required by the Minister, nominate one of their number to perform the permitting functions with respect to each of their functional areas.
The proposed substitution of subsection (13) is essentially a technical drafting amendment which follows from the amendment of subsection (1). Paragraph (a) is not changed. This provides that the exemption of a local authority under subsection (1) from the requirement to hold a waste permit also applies to borough corporations and urban district councils. The general definition of “local authority” in the 1996 Act relates to city corporations and county councils and not the smaller authorities. Paragraph (h) provides that, where appropriate, reference is to a local authority in section 34 shall also include a reference to anybody prescribed under subsection (1). Paragraph (c) provides that where a body is prescribed for the purpose of subsection (1)(a)(iii), as amended, the obligations imposed on a local authority under section 34(4) shall have effect in relation to such body. As it stands subsection (4) requires that before a local authority grants a waste collection permit, it must satisfy itself that the activity concerned will not cause environmental pollution and is consistent with the provisions of any relevant waste management plan as well as the EPA’s national hazardous waste management plan. Accordingly, it is proposed that a body prescribed under subsection (1) to grant waste collection permits should face a similar statutory obligation.
I recommend the amendment to the House.
I do not wish to delay proceedings, I merely wish to state that this will have a serious effect because it will lead to the intensified use of landfill sites throughout the country. As a result, communities that believed they were coming to the end of the long life sentence they had been forced to endure will be demoralised.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 8, line 30, after "facility" to insert "in order to prevent environmental pollution arising from the recovery or disposal of such waste".
This amendment proposes to insert into section 7, which, as it stands, will allow the Minister to prohibit, or limit to a specified extent, the recovery or disposal of a specified class or classes of waste in a specified manner etc, the term "in order to prevent environmental pollution arising from the recovery or disposal of such waste". I tabled the amendment because of the vagueness of the language used in relation to waste and the fact that the word "recovery" is often used as a euphemism for incineration.
I concur with the comments of Deputy Sargent and I await the Minister of State's reply.
The amendment does not add to the enabling power in the proposed section 39(6)(d) in any meaningful way. In the event, it could have an unintended retrograde effect in that it could be held to constrain the use of the proposed power only to cases where the purpose is to prevent or limit environmental pollution arising from recovery or disposal activities. As it stands, this provision could have a wider application. Council Directive 1999/31/EEC on landfill waste, which must be brought into force by member states shortly, will require member states to take measures in order that specified wastes are not accepted in a landfill and the proposed power will facilitate the implementation of such bans as well as the possible achievement of downstream targets for the diversion of biodegradable waste from landfill in the period 2006 to 2016. However, the proposed powers could also be used to restrict the landfilling of recyclable wastes to facilitate better recycling performance. For example, there have been proposals to restrict the landfill of commercial glass, namely, glass from pubs and clubs for which there is a recycling market. The proposed amendment might be held to impede such measures which are not directly related to the issue of prevention of environmental pollution and, therefore, I am not in a position to accept it.
I want to expedite matters and I realise that the Minister of State has no intention of accepting the amendment. However, I contend that restricting the landfilling of glass would help to prevent environmental pollution because this would decrease the amount of energy used in producing virgin glass. In my opinion, my argument will stand up to scrutiny.
This amendment was mooted by An Taisce and was jointly tabled by Deputy Sargent and I. Its purpose and intent is to ensure the removal, by regulation, of all wastes likely to cause environmental pollution when recovered for incineration. I refer here to municipal solid wastes, particularly metals, plastics, hazardous wastes, used batteries etc. The amendment is straightforward and merely clarifies that the purpose of the prohibition is to prevent environmental pollution. That term is defined under the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992. I am not satisfied by the Minister of State's reply and I believe we are again faced with a conflict of interpretation, which is regrettable.
There is no conflict in the interpretation I provided.
This will give powers to managers to prohibit the disposal of products. The Minister of State referred to commercial glass and another example would probably be construction waste. Am I correct in stating that the section is granting the power to enable such a provision to be put in place? In my view that would be a good development because it would force the producers of waste to find an alternative rather than merely dumping their waste in landfill.
We are pressing the amendment.
Is that what the Minister of State is proposing?
These powers are given to the Minister, not to local authorities.
Will local authorities be able to take the kind of action to which I refer at their own facilities?
Yes.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 8, line 40, after "a bag" to insert "supplied for the purposes of a waste management plan or".
I move this amendment in the name of Deputy Gilmore to allow him to table it again on Report Stage if he so wishes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 9, line 4, to delete "with the consent of the Government," and substitute "after consultation with any member of the Government concerned".
This amendment highlights an inconsistency in the Bill which it should be possible to address. I put it to the Minister of State that when a proposal is made to introduce a levy on plastic bags, each member of the Government should be consulted. As framed, the Bill insists that the consent of the Government is required to introduce this levy. Basically, therefore, if any member of the Government opposes the levy it cannot be introduced. That is strange. Introduction of a landfill levy, which one would consider to be far more significant in terms of its impact on all sectors, requires only consultation with any member of the Government, whereas the fairly minor matter of introducing a levy on plastic bags will require total agreement from the Government.
The Minister is writing himself out of playing a primary role in respect of this development and transferring responsibility for it to the Government. Ignoring whether this is intended to serve as an excuse for not introducing the levy or as a delaying tactic, questions will continue to be asked about whether the Government is serious about introducing the levy or whether it is merely putting up a smokescreen because its members have made a collective decision not to introduce it. Will the Minister of State accept this amendment, which merely provides for consistency in the text of the Bill by suggesting that there be consultation with the Government rather than requiring the latter's consent?
The landfill levy is clear. It is provided for under section 10 and that has already been approved by the Cabinet. It is, therefore, not necessary to provide approval in the legislation. The difference between this and the environmental levy is that it can be extended to include other materials which have not yet been determined. This is an enabling provision to levy materials other than plastic bags and it is appropriate that any such proposal should be approved by the Government rather than introduce a new levy on certain materials merely through consultation between Ministers. It is an issue which should be returned to Government.
It is strange that we are giving enormous powers to county managers to take actions without consultation, which could have a far-reaching effect on people's lives, while at the same time the Minister is downgrading his role by saying he cannot introduce a levy unless the Government agrees it. If this legislation and the 1996 Act, which referred to requiring certain designs of products and various strong powers, are to mean anything, the Minister should have the power to say that such a levy is for the benefit of the environment and long-term sustainability. Members of the Government for various constituency and sectoral reasons can block this levy unless the legislation is amended. I do not agree with that and I cannot understand why the Minister would allow himself to be backed into a corner where he can say it is important but the Government will not support him.
Any new levy will require Oireachtas approval and, therefore, before it comes before the Oireachtas the Government must agree it. Government consent followed by Oireachtas consent will be required under section 8(13).
Oireachtas consent might not be simply academic by the time the Government, behind closed doors, has nailed it.
If these provisions were not included, I am sure amendments would have been tabled demanding them.
It is inconsistent and people feel the plastic bag levy will never be introduced in the way it is framed in the legislation. We will see.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Chairman
Amendment No. 29 is consequential on amendment No. 28 and both may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 9, line 9, after "bags," to insert "or otherwise".
These are technical amendments to correct an error in the text of section 72(2). The purpose of the words "or otherwise" is to provide that the proposed environmental levy can apply to the supply of plastic bags to a customer anywhere on a retail premises. It was intended that the leviable event would be the supply to the customer at the point of sale of goods or products to be placed in the bags, that is, the traditional supply of free plastic bags at check-outs or sales. However, the possibility exists of retailers attempting to avoid the levy by providing the purchase or supply of plastic bags on the shop floor which a customer could then open and use to pack his or her purchases. It was considered prudent to safeguard against such an eventuality and provide that the supply of plastic bags anywhere on a retail premises is a leviable event.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 9, line 10, to delete "or otherwise".
Amendment agreed to
Amendments Nos. 30 to 32, inclusive, not moved.
Chairman
Amendment No. 34 is related to amendment No. 33 and both may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 10, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
"(k) enabling a collection authority to enter into arrangements with one or more specified persons whereby that person or those persons, by means of a scheme carried out by the person or persons for the discharge of the liabilities of others participating in the scheme in respect of levy, collect amounts due in respect of levy and remit them to the collection authority in consideration of the payment of specified sums by the authority to that person or persons,”.
The purpose of the amendments is to provide an enabling power that might facilitate the effective collection of the proposed environmental levy on plastic bags. Section 8 provides for the introduction of an environmental levy to be imposed at the point of sale on the supply by retailers of plastic shopping bags to customers. Under proposed regulations retailers will be required to pass on the amount of the levy as a charge to customers at the check-out or counter. It is intended that the Revenue Commissioners acting on an agency basis for the Minister will collect the levy.
A total of 20,000 retail outlets are potentially liable and, therefore, this collection scheme will be administratively complex to implement. Following consultation with the Revenue Commissioners it is proposed to amend the proposed section 72 to provide as an enabling measure that in lieu of seeking to collect the measure directly from all the individual retailers concerned the Revenue could, if it is deemed practical and effective, enter into arrangements with manufacturers or distributors of plastic bags. Under such arrangements these distributors, acting on behalf of the retailers to whom they supply plastic bags, would collect the relevant levy and remit it to the Revenue.
This is an enabling provision. My Department is in ongoing consultation with the Revenue regarding the modalities of the necessary levy collection system and it remains to be seen whether such an arrangement is practical or necessary. Under amendment No. 33, section 8(6)(k) would enable a collection authority to enter into an arrangement with specified persons whereby under an agreed scheme they would discharge the liabilities of others participating in that scheme and remit the levy to the collection authority. Amendment No. 34 is consequential on section 72(9) dealing with offences and provides that failure to comply with any terms or conditions of a collection system would be an offence.
I raised this issue previously. There are so many retail outlets that it would be very difficult to collect the levy. However, those who use plastic bags will pay the levy. This enabling measure means manufacturers and distributors can enter into arrangements with the Revenue and, therefore, the consumer will not pay the levy. It will be absorbed in the cost of products in the retail outlets. Do I take it the consumer will not be made aware that the plastic bag costs 15p and he or she should not use it? Is it not the intention to discourage the use of plastic bags?
Retailers will be required to pass on the amount of the levy as a charge to the customers at the check-out or sales point.
How can that happen if the Revenue is not in contact with them?
The Revenue will collect through manufacturers and distributors and the retailer will have to pay the levy——
Is that not another layer of bureaucracy for the retailer?
It is provided to achieve a more efficient and cost effective way of collection.
What is happening here is that the Minister of State is almost removing the wider public from the reality by this displacement of the primacy of the retailer in terms of the collection of the levy. It will, therefore, be collected at the manufacturing base. Deputy Clune's point is valid because there is no prescriptiveness in terms of how it will be presented to the consumer at the check-out point - it can either be done by means of an additional charge or it could be incorporated in overall cost variations in terms of consumables. The purpose and intent of the levy is not to collect money, it is to dissuade people from using plastic bags. We want to end the culture of the disposable material and introduce a responsible approach to shopping, particularly in terms of the interface between consumers and the retail society. Deputy Clune has made a valid point and it should be reflected in the Bill.
It will be reflected. The owners of shops which use plastic bags will be obliged to charge a levy to customers and details of this charge will have to be included in the bills presented to those customers at check-outpoints.
Will owners be obliged to give the money collected to the manufacturer of the plastic bags?
The other mechanism is merely an enabling provision designed to see if an accommodation can be reached with the Revenue Commissioners to make it easier for them to collect the levy. We do not want them to be obliged to pursue every retailer .
I appreciate there might be difficulties, particularly when one considers the number of retailers involved. How will it be regulated and how will we ensure that the levy will be passed on? The easiest option would be for a retailer who purchases, for example, 1,000 bags in any given week to absorb——
No, there will be regulations requiring retailers to charge individual customers for the use of plastic bags.
So customers will know they are paying 15p for the use of a plastic bag?
Yes.
I would hate it if we lost that——
It will be an incentive to retailers to stop supplying plastic bags to their customers. The use of plastic bags will not continue for long when this provision comes into effect because retailers will be obliged to charge a levy on all their customers.
It will be cumbersome for retailers.
Customers will find other ways to carry home their purchases.
Do I understand that the levy will not apply to the plastic bags supplied at supermarket meat and vegetable counters, etc, and that it is only relevant to the larger bags into which people pack their shopping? The type of plastic bags to which I refer are necessary, particularly from the point of view of hygiene, because they keep cooked meats, vegetables and cheeses separate from other goods.
The levy is being targeted primarily at those bags dispensed at the point of sale in retail outlets rather than small in-store bags such as those used at fruit and vegetable, meat or confectionery counters. We have made provision in the legislation to allow for the exemption of bags by reference to size, composition or use or any combination of these. I will have further consultation with the trade regarding the precise scope of any such exemptions. The matter to which the Deputy refers will be dealt with in the regulations.
Will the regulations be made available to us?
The regulations will be made available.
Will there be a consultation period before they are published?
There will be consultation with the trade before they are drawn up.
RGDATA and other groups accept the principle behind this but are concerned about the details.
Obviously the details have yet to be worked out before we can proceed.
There will be consultation before——
Before the levy is introduced.
I was approached by a person from the Galway region who produces biodegradable bags which resemble plastic bags but are made of other materials.
We are dealing with a litter issue here. A bag may be biodegradable but that will not stop someone from throwing it away, from which point it would become litter if only for a short period.
I accept that, but we are also dealing with——
That issue has been dealt with and such bags are not being exempted.
We are also dealing with an environmental issue because plastic bags can cause untold damage in landfills and can be left there for many years. The biodegradable bags to which I refer are broken down when placed on compost heaps or when they come into contact with organic material. They cost 9p each, which is expensive, but if they were exempt from the regulations more people would use them because it would cost less to do so than to use plastic bags. I accept that there is a litter factor here but there is also an environmental factor.
This issue has been given careful consideration. The primary purpose of the proposed measure is to directly influence consumer behaviour and achieve a significant reduction in the consumption of plastic shopping bags dispensed at retail outlets because of their significance as highly visible components of litter. On this basis, there is not a strong case for exempting photo or biodegradable bags from the levy. To do so would be problematic from the point of view of providing suitable definitions and enforcing the necessary regulations. In any event, degradable plastic bags have the same short-term visual and nuisance effects as non-degradable bags and have a sufficient lifespan - sometimes up to six months - to impact negatively on the environment and to remain visible as unsightly litter for considerable periods. There will be no exemption for biodegradable bags.
I take the Minister of State's point. What about bags for life and high density bags?
They are the acceptable alternative.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 11, line 2, after "subsection," to insert the following:
"or
(c) comply with any term or condition of a scheme referred to in subsection (6)(k) carried out by him or her or in which he or she has assented to participate in (and which assent has not, by notice in writing given to the person carrying out the scheme before the failure occurs, been withdrawn),”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."
Will the Minister of State explain the intent behind section 9?
This section provides for a consequential amendment of section 7 of the 1996 Act, which deals with regulations, orders and directions, to reflect the particular status of a provisional order under section 72(12) of the Act, inserted by this Bill. Section 9(a) amends section 7(3) of the 1996 Act to provide that a provisional order under section 72(12) of the Act inserted by the Bill, which requires confirmation by an Act of the Oireachtas, is not, therefore, subject to the normal procedure whereby regulations or orders may be annulled within 21 sitting days after being made by either House of the Oireachtas. Section 9(b) provides that a provisional order under section 72(12) of the Act may not subsequently be amended or revoked by ministerial order.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 12, line 23, after "landfill" to insert "and incinerator".
I presume the concept behind the landfill levy is to try to discourage people from putting waste into landfill and encourage them to reduce or recycle it. Section 4, which provides for the implementation of waste management plans - some of which may contain provision for incinerators - by managers, has already been passed. I am concerned that incinerators will discourage people from recycling. If incinerators were included in the scope of the section, as the amendment suggests, people would be encouraged to recycle.
Consultants were engaged to advise on the optimum level and scope of a landfill levy and other relevant issues, including measures to identify and address potential adverse environmental effects. The consultants' report was recently completed and is under consideration. Based on their recommendations, it is intended that proposals for the levy scheme would be published for consultation this year with a view to its introduction from 2002. Among other things, the consultants advise - I tend to agree with them in this regard - that to incentivise "high in waste" hierarchy waste management options, waste incineration should, in due course, also be subject to a levy, albeit it at a somewhat lower rate than landfill. The Bill does not provide for a levy on incineration but there will be an opportunity, following full consideration of the issues, to make relevant provisions in the context of the forthcoming Environmental Protection Agency (Amendment) Bill, 2001.
I am happy with the Minister of State's reply.
It goes against the grain to deal with this matter as if incineration was almost a fait accompli. The Minister of State’s comments are a source of concern. Why would incineration be treated in more favourable terms than landfill with regard to the imposition of levies? What informs the idea that incineration is a more attractive or less polluting instrument than landfill? I am concerned by the comment he made to that effect in replying to Deputy Clune’s proposition. Will he elaborate on what he said?
In the waste hierarchy, incineration comes higher than landfill and that is why a lower levy would be charged. This matter is dealt with in the consultants report, which will be published in the near future, and provision can be made in respect of it when the Environmental Protection Agency (Amendment) Bill comes before the House.
There is no point in continuing indefinitely with the cut and thrust of debate on this matter. Leaving hierarchies aside, I ask the Minister of State to take on board the fact that the purpose and intent is to encourage people to reduce, reuse and recycle. If the Minister of State creates hierarchies in terms of charges of levies, it will be an indication of a less punitive preference. In my view, they should be treated in the same way. If these are the worst case scenarios in terms of options for disposal of waste, we should treat both with the same contempt and seek to encourage the preferred approach. I ask the Minister of State to take on board my views on that. I do not believe a levy more favourable than that with applies to landfill should apply to incineration.
Is it intended to publish the consultants' report shortly?
It will be published in the near future.
Does it deal with the landfill levy?
Yes. The report will be published as soon as the Department completes its consideration of it.
The Minister of State is indicating that a consultants' report on the implementation of this levy has been prepared. Is it not correct that the report could lead to changes in what is proposed in the Bill?
As already stated, the consultants are engaged to advise on the optimum levels and scope of a landfill levy and other relevant issues. Their report and recommendations will be published.
In view of what has been said about incineration and the hierarchy of waste, it is important to place on record what is the real thrust of the proposed regional plans. Waste management plans are required, in the first instance, to respect the waste management hierarchy, that is, prevention, minimisation, reuse, recycling, energy recovery and final disposal. Some Members appear to be of the opinion that if incineration is included in a plan, it will become the only option and everything else will fall by the wayside. That is not the intention. Deputies must realise that the intention is to achieve the objectives as set out in the Bill. The regional plans will seek to identify the best practicable environmental option, including the provision of an integrated waste management infrastructure with performance targets typically involving recycling. The latter will include biological treatment of 40% to 50% of waste - 60% in the case of Dublin - thermal treatment of between 25% and 45% of waste and landfill for the balance of residual wastes.
The proposed Connacht regional plan, for example, involves the provision of household segregation and separate collection of dry and organic recyclables in all urban areas with a view to servicing 50% of the region's population; extended bring-back facilities in areas not serviced by door to door collection systems - the typical target density here is 1:1,000 persons - 21 recycling centres; civic amenity sites; two material recovery facilities; six composting facilities and two biological treatment facilities; a central construction and demolition waste recycling facility; provision of a thermal treatment facility and associated transfer stations; and a residual landfill facility. The provision of recycling and recovery infrastructure on this scale is significant and will be replicated in other regions throughout the country. Only this integrated approach will ensure the diversion of waste from landfill at the levels necessary to meet our European Union and national targets.
The EPA has stated in a document recently submitted to Deputy Bruton that it is its view that municipal waste incineration operating to the best modern standards and incorporating heat recovery is preferential to landfill from an environmental viewpoint. I would, however, have thought that was fairly obvious.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 13, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
"(c) the levy shall be retained by the local authority to promote reduction, reuse and recycling of waste.”.
We are discussing an environmental levy which is going to be collected locally but distributed nationally. I tabled this amendment because I want to ensure that if the landfill levy is to be collected locally it should be spent locally. Local authorities operate most landfills and, as far as I am aware, only one is privately operated. Local authorities in many areas encounter great difficulties in trying to impose and collect service charges. There is a high level of compliance with service charges in Cork, but in Dublin it is significantly lower because many people object to paying such charges. The landfill levy will increase the level of service charges and local authorities, which in many instances are responsible for operating landfill sites and collecting municipal and household waste, will be obliged to pay the £15 charge and pass it on to consumers and the producers of waste. When the money is collected it should be given to the local authority to promote waste reduction, reuse and recycling through literature or the provision of facilities in their areas. Service charges are used to fund refuse collection and the maintenance of landfill sites. The levy should be seen to be invested locally.
Section 10 provides for the introduction of a landfill levy which is designed both to encourage the diversion of waste away from landfill and to generate revenue for the new environment fund that can be applied in support of waste minimisation and recycling initiatives on a national basis. Accordingly, as a matter of principle, I am not prepared to agree to this proposal that all proceeds of the landfill levy should be retained by local authorities. However, there would be significant practical implications of any such measure. What would happen in the case of a local authority which does not operate a landfill or have a private landfill facility within its functional area, an authority operating a regional landfill facility on behalf of other authorities or an authority operating a landfill in the functional area of another authority?
This proposal, in practical terms, would lead to the arbitrary and unbalanced inflow of funds to local authorities which would benefit some and disadvantage others. However, the consultants engaged to advise on the optimum level and scope of a landfill levy addressed other relevant issues, including the use to which the proceeds of the levy could be put. Possible options include measures to offset resource demands on local authorities arising from the implementation of the levy as well as measures to support better local authority performance in terms of recycling of waste. That report is still under consideration. However, I cannot accept the amendment.
Where there may be only one landfill facility in a region, the proceeds of the levy could be retained in the region. It is proposed that there will be a landfill facility for Cork city and county and the levy could be spent locally rather than being collected by the Exchequer and someone else making decisions on how the money is spent. Perhaps the Minister will consider this proposal before Report Stage so that it can be applied within the region if not the local authority area in which the facility is located.
I would be wrong to give the Deputy the impression in considering it that I am opening up the prospect of accepting her proposal. The purpose of the environment fund is to support waste minimisation and recycling initiatives. There could be instances where a local authority incurs an expense during the operation of its waste management plan and the fund could help it to overcome that. There could also be instances of people illegally dumping materials, a practice known as fly tipping, where the local authority will incur costs. It could apply for financial assistance to help address costs that might arise during implementation of the plan.
Why not give local authorities the money they have collected rather than make them apply to a central body for funding locally? Local authorities deal with issues such as fly tipping on the ground and problems associated with the implementation of their waste management plans such as the provision of bottle banks and so on.
The fund will be available for measures that might have to be applied on a national basis to facilitate implementation of the plans.
Will the application for funding involve a lengthy process? If a local authority is refused, it will not have money to deal with these issues.
Measures that will be supported by the fund include grant assistance for recycling activities that would not qualify for funding under the proposed regional operational programmes; seed funding for a market development programme for recyclables; support for the establishment of a national waste prevention programme; contributions to capital costs of segregated door to door collection services by local authorities; support for the development and introduction of weight-based waste collection charging systems, which involves incorporating computerised micro-chip technology to more fully reflect the polluter pays principle; support for local authorities regarding the enforcement of environmental legislation generally; a subsidy scheme for individual households to engage in home composting - the list goes on.
They are all worthy proposals.
A fund is needed to support them.
Yes, but if the money is collected in a specific region, should it not be spent there?
We want to proceed on a national basis. Some regions will not generate revenue because they do not have landfills.
I withdraw the amendment with a view to returning to it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 13, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
"(7)(a) Regulations under subsection (1) may, for the purpose mentioned in paragraph (b), restrict the extent to which a local authority may exercise a power to make a charge for the provision by it of any service in circumstances where, in the opinion of the Minister, such exercise is so as to enable the local authority to recoup amounts paid by it by way of levy.
(b) The purpose mentioned in paragraph (a) is ensuring that the exercise of the power referred to in that paragraph does not result in one or more categories of person paying a disproportionate amount of the total amount of charges a local authority could reasonably be expected to make in respect of the provision of services in the circumstances concerned.
(c) For so long as regulations under subsection (1) restrict the exercise of the power referred to in paragraph (a), the enactment that confers that power shall be construed as if there were contained in it a provision the effect of which is to restrict the exercise of the power in the manner provided by the said regulations.”.
Section 10 provides for the insertion of a new section 73 in the 1996 Act to allow for the imposition of a levy on the landfill of waste and related regulatory powers, including powers to require that the proceeds of the levy be paid into the environment fund. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure provision can be made in such regulations for liability for the levy to be passed on to waste producers in an equitable manner.
The intention is that local authorities operating landfill sites would recoup their levy exposure by means of an additional charge on all their customers, that is, private waste collectors paying gate fees for access to landfill and domestic commercial producers to whom the local authorities directly provide a collection service. Concerns have been raised by the private waste industry that a local authority could unfairly load the levy on private operators using their sites to mitigate the impact on waste collection charges payable to the authority by domestic customers. Clearly, having regard to the polluter pays principle and the basic objective of the levy in regard to incentivising diversion of waste from landfill, this would be undesirable.
It is considered necessary, therefore, to bring forward appropriate regulatory powers to direct or control local authorities as to the means by which they recoup or pass on their levy liability. The proposed section 10(7)(a) provides that the Minister may by regulation under section 73(1) restrict the extent to which a local authority may pass on the landfill levy in particular circumstances, that is, by means of a charge for its landfill service.
Section 10(7)(b) clarifies the purpose of such regulatory provision, that is, to ensure one or more categories of persons are not charged disproportionately for the purpose of the recoupment by a local authority of its exposure to the landfill levy. Section 10(7)(c) is a consequent technical provision whereby the restriction of a power to charge by regulation under section 72(1) shall be construed as if it were contained in the enactment that confers initial power, which in this instance is the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (No 2) Act, 1983.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 13, before section 11, to insert the following new section:
"11.-(1) The Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Public Enterprise, may by regulation require the Electricity Supply Board to collect, as part of its own monthly, bi-monthly or quarterly billing system, any local authority charge where the local authority, by motion, so request.
(2) The Electricity Supply Board shall be paid an appropriate fee for the service.
(3) Any savings or increased revenue achieved by this method of collection may be shared with charge payers by way either of reduced charges or rebate.
(4) Every regulation made under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the regulation is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the regulation is laid before it, the regulation shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.".
I discussed the amendment with a number of colleagues, particularly those from the Dublin area, who experienced difficulty introducing service charges in their local authority areas. Some people do not pay them because they are not imposed universally while there is high compliance in other areas. The procedure proposed in the amendment has been discussed with departmental officials. It could be possible to add the service charge to an ESB bill, for example, which householders receive bi-monthly. Waivers are in place and that will not happen. It could help people who would not be able to pay the service charge in one go as they would be able to spread the cost over a period, similar to the manner in which An Post collects the television licence. It is a facilitating measure to enable local authorities to collect service charges.
I cannot support the amendment. There are dangers in contracting out the collection of refuse charges to the ESB. If the ESB is the collecting agent, the implication will be conveyed to householders that if they do not pay their refuse charges their electricity supply may be discontinued. This issue has arisen previously. The ESB used to operate a system whereby if somebody bought electrical equipment in its retail outlets he or she could repay the cost on a phased basis. It conveyed the impression, sometimes with the encouragement of ESB staff who were over-enthusiastic——
It was written on the bill that non-payment of this bill could result in one's electricity being cut off.
Even when that was discontinued there was still the implication that if one did not pay the bill, one's electricity supply would be cut off. I do not support the amendment.
I was Minister for energy and I stopped that practice in the ESB. It should be written on the bill that the non-payment of a shop bill will not result in the cutting off of one's electricity supply. They are two separate bills and that is now the requirement on the ESB, with which I presume it is complying.
The amendment proposes a new section providing for the collection of local authority waste charges by the ESB on an agency basis. The primary purpose of the legislation is to provide a legal mechanism by which the current waste management planning process can be brought to a quick and satisfactory conclusion. The opportunity is also being taken to provide certain enabling powers that will be required in the short-term to facilitate the implementation of highly desirable measures.
I am not prepared to make provision in this legislation for a significant measure such as that proposed in the absence of appropriate consideration, research and consultation with the local authorities and the ESB. There will be an opportunity to consider such proposals in the context of the Environmental Protection Agency (Amendment) Bill, 2001, which will also contain a range of amendments to the Waste Management Act, 1996.
The proposed amendment, from a drafting perspective, does not address in any way the existing statutory powers available to local authorities to levy waste charges under the 1983 Act. I cannot accept the amendment.
It was not the intention that non-payment of a shop bill would lead to the cutting off of one's electricity supply. Perhaps the proposal can be considered in the EPA Bill referred to by the Minister and research can be conducted in conjunction with the local authorities. Local authorities which have discussed this system informally have indicated that it would be beneficial in enabling them to collect the levy. I am glad the Minister has addressed the issue and we will get an opportunity to discuss it again later.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 41 to 46, inclusive, not moved.
Section 11 agreed to.
Amendment No. 47 not moved.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 17, lines 8 and 9, to delete subsection (2).
Section 13(2) states: "The litter pollution regulations, 1999, are by virtue of this subsection confirmed". The purpose of the amendment is to ask why the subsection is being inserted in the legislation. Is there something wrong with the litter pollution regulations, 1999? Are they invalid? If so, is that why they are being retrospectively validated by this legislation?
I cannot accept the amendment, which seeks to delete section 13(2) which confirms that under the litter pollution regulations, 1999, the on-the-spot fine for litter offences is increased to £50. The Litter Pollution Act, 1997, provides in section 28 for an on-the-spot fine of £25. This fine was increased by regulation under section 28(4) of the 1997 Act from £25 to £50 with effect from 3 January 2000. In examining this area in the context of preparing the litter action plan, published last February, we concluded that there can be differing interpretations of the power available to the Minister to increase the amount of the fine under the section. Accordingly, section 13(2) of this legislation clarifies the matter by confirming the 1999 regulations and the on-the-spot fine of £50. The balance of the section deals with increasing the fine beyond that level. This is a desirable clarification and I cannot accept the amendment.
The purpose of the amendment was to seek clarification of the reason for the insertion of the subsection. I have no difficulty with the increase in the litter fines under the 1999 regulations. I do not wish to take any measures which put a question mark over them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 13 agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Chairman
I thank the Minister and his officials from the Department of the Environment and Local Government for their input into the Bill. I thank in a very special way the members of the committee for their contributions during our long discussion through Committee Stage of the Bill. This is the third Bill we have considered in the past two weeks and we can be proud of the work we have carried out. I thank the clerk of the committee and the staff of the Bills Office and of the committee secretariat for their assistance. There will be a meeting of the joint committee at 3 p.m. today to consider the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1983, in terms of increasing the number of ordinary members of An Bord Pleanála.
I thank you, Chairman, and the Opposition spokespersons for bearing with me. I thank my colleagues for their support. When this Bill is finally passed we will be able to implement waste management plans which were delayed for much too long.
I thank you, Chairman, the staff of the committee, the Minister and his officials. I particularly thank Deputy Clune who dealt with amendments for me in my absence. We will resume hostilities on this Bill on Report Stage.