We will resume on amendment No. 149 which is being discussed with amendments Nos. 150 and 153. Deputy Gilmore was in possession and I call on him to resume his contribution.
Protection of the Environment Bill 2003 [Seanad]: Committee Stage (Resumed).
SECTION 22.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 149:
In page 63, to delete lines 15 to 18.
-(Deputy Gilmore).
I wish to return to the matter of the two women the Minister met yesterday in the lobby who obviously made a big impression on him. I do not think they are still there but they may return.
If one of them meets the Minister again in a few months' time after the Bill is put into operation and repeats to him what she said yesterday, that she has paid her refuse charges and is upset at the fact that her neighbour has not, she will be even more upset in light of the Minister's legislation because, not only will the neighbour not have paid the charges, the council will not have collected the contents of the neighbour's bin for several weeks, and bluebottles will begin to multiply around this woman's kitchen window. She wants somebody to do something about it, but to whom may she turn? May she make a complaint to the county council? What can the county council do about it? Can any sanction be brought to bear on householders who do not pay their charges, whose bins are not collected and who, consequently, create an environmental nuisance and hazard for people in the neighbourhood?
What about the neighbours who have paid their service charges, have their bins collected every week and know that a next door neighbour has not paid the charges? The Minister could not provide a clear answer, but I understood him to indicate it will be a matter for the local authority on whether to take action. What if the neighbour has applied for a waiver and has not paid charges pending a determination of the application, yet his or her bin is collected every week? It will not be long before everybody applies for waivers at which point bins will be collected without anybody paying service charges. Will this not defeat the purpose of the provisions?
In County Limerick there are no waivers of any kind. Old age pensioners and those in receipt of unemployment assistance and disability benefit pay their bin charges. No bins are left on the streets and no public health issues have arisen. I rest my case.
Private collections take place in more than 50% of local authority areas and there is no problem.
Will the Minister answer my question in the context of the circumstances I outlined?
Substantive powers already exist under the Litter Pollution and Waste Management Acts to enable local authorities to deal adequately with litter arising from household refuse and to regulate the presentation of household refuse for collection. Section 3 of the Litter Pollution Act 1997 prohibits household refuse being presented for collection in circumstances that create litter. In practice, poor presentation of household refuse is a significant source of litter pollution. In addition, section 6 requires the occupier of land to keep it free of litter if it is a public place or is visible to any extent from a public place. This provision includes private property, for example, the front gardens of houses, where litter may be visible.
Section 6 also requires the occupier of any land adjoining a public road within the confines of a speed limit area to keep any footway or verge adjacent to his property free of litter. These duties apply irrespective of the source of the litter concerned. Offences under sections 3 and 6 are prosecuted by the local authority.
Local authorities also have a legal remedy even in instances where it is not clear which household or premises leave out refuse that leads to littering. Section 26 of the 1997 Act provides that litter, which gives a reasonable indication of the identity of the persons from whom the litter emanated, may be used as evidence in the absence of evidence to the contrary that the person identified disposed of the litter in contravention of the Act. Local authorities use those powers. Although primarily intended to enable them to deal effectively with the problem of "fly tipping" or indiscriminate dumping, local authorities could also use the provisions set out in section 26 to tackle litter arising from household refuse presented for collection. Other provisions are included under the Waste Management Act.
With regard to what might happen to the collection of waste in respect of households whose waiver applications were still under consideration by the local authorities, it would be up to local authorities to make by-laws in relation to the operation of this power at local level. This provision does not place an obligation on local authorities not to collect waste; it is an option which is available to them. I am aware that one of the major local authorities in the Dublin area is currently deciding on waiver applications within three to four weeks and is working towards reducing this to two weeks. The same authority has been running advertisements in the newspapers encouraging customers to immediately submit their waiver applications so their entitlement can be determined. I understand there has been a positive response in the context of the Bill. A significant number of appellations has been received and this should ensure that entitlements to a waiver should be clarified in advance of the possible introduction of any policy of non-collection.
Deputy Gilmore referred to the position in his local authority of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, especially to the length of time it takes for waiver applications to be decided. If applications can be dealt with in a matter of weeks in one local authority area, there is no reason why it should take months in other areas, especially if they are of similar size. It is a question of organisation. Irrespective of whether I was introducing new provisions similar to those included in the Bill, decisions on waivers should not take the length of time suggested by the Deputy. The elected members should examine why the local authority takes so long to act and they should consider its procedures and use of technology.
The issue raised by Deputy Gilmore is one to be addressed at local authority level. However, perhaps we need to look more generally at a number of aspects, including the by-law making power, the setting of waste charges being made an executive function and the provision of an option to local authorities not to collect waste from those who have not paid their charges. There is also a need to consider the broader issue of how these can be combined. I intend to look further at this matter and, if necessary, return to it on Report Stage. The Bill provides that the setting of waste charges will become an executive function.
We can hold philosophical arguments about this, but the reality is that the vast majority of people in the country pay for their waste collection, are happy to do so and are pleased with the quality of service they are getting, both from public and private collection services. More than half the local authorities in the country use private collections and there is no difficulty with getting the waste collected, as evidenced by some Deputies. I am well aware of it. We want to ensure that the vast majority of those who pay their charges are not subsidising neighbours who refuse to pay. We may argue over the philosophical differences between us, but we are legally obliged to do this. It is part of the EU directive. If we do not act, the Government and the country will be subject to massive fines. Furthermore, no Government will change the law, unless somebody has the ability to undo EU directives. It will not happen.
We have moved a long way. The arguments on taxation that were of relevance in the 1980s do not apply today given current taxation levels. The national tax take is one of the lowest in the OECD, which creates an opportunity for empowerment at local level. I do not want to recommend that the Exchequer should increase central taxation and further undermine local authorities, who should be given real credibility in terms of financial responsibilities and rights. I have always held such views. I am trying to end the enormous difficulty with waste facing the country and am seeking to ensure the country is not brought before the European courts, where horrendous charges could be imposed.
There is some conflict in what the Minister is saying because he wants to give local authorities responsibility yet he stresses that more than 50% of them have delegated waste collection to private contractors. This happened in Galway County Council.
It was a decision of local members.
If the Minister would let me continue I might be able to make my point. In the case of County Galway, the collection was given over to private collectors, but the local authority in Galway City resisted doing that. Before it was handed over, a waiver scheme was put in place whereby an old age pensioner living alone would get refuse collected free of charge while two old age pensioners living together got half a waiver.
I am intrigued by what is happening in Limerick whereby old age pensioners are paying the full refuse collection charges because if we proceed in the direction in which the Minister is going, levying the real cost of disposing of refuse, those old age pensioners will pay up to one fifth or maybe a quarter of their entire income on refuse collection. Is it fair that an old age pensioner should pay that? In relative terms, I would want to pay about €400 per week to pay an equivalent portion of my salary. The Minister would want to pay an awful lot more per week to pay the equivalent amount to an old age pensioner.
There is no justification for any argument to proceed with handing this over to private collectors who are business people and will not operate the waiver system after the first year or so. Will local authorities still be free to adopt and have a waiver system under the proposed increased charges? I must investigate the Limerick system. I would be very interested to know what percentage of people there pay their refuse charges. Deputy Cregan says everybody does, but I cannot understand how an old age pensioner could afford to pay the refuse charges that will be introduced as a result of this legislation, which allows the manager to fix the charges at the real cost of disposing of refuse and not, as is currently the case, at a subsidised rate.
I very much welcome Deputy McCormack's comments and agree with all of them as they prove my point. He is absolutely correct that it is up to the local authority members to get their act together and get a system of charging by weight in place as quickly as possible if they are really concerned. Fair play to the local authority in Cork for doing this already. It is working extremely well and is now happening in other proactive local council areas across the country.
The point I have made all along, which the Deputy ignored, is that the cost of waste collection is going down dramatically. People are reducing their charges hugely by recycling. That is the whole point. People like old age pensioners and those living alone might only put out a bin once every six, seven or eight weeks. I know that in some cases people do not put out a bin at all anymore as they compost what is left. They might have a very small bag which they fill once a year. People are happy to do this.
The Deputy is absolutely correct. Local authorities that are proactive and thinking about old age pensioners and so on are the ones which are getting all of these systems in place, and they are working extremely well. The Deputy should not underestimate the public, of all age groups. If he is in doubt he should go to Dundalk on any Saturday morning and see who is using the recycling centre. I heard surprising stories from there of older people, including grandparents, who said at first that this was all a load of boloney and that they could not understand it, but who are now leading the charge down to such places. I have met some of the people concerned. They thought it would never work in Ireland and that we would never change our ways. Not everybody is doing this but the point is the change is dramatic and people are reducing their costs hugely.
How many local authorities are on the pay by weight system?
Cork runs the main pilot scheme but I understand Kilkenny has now moved into that arena and into the segregated waste system, which is really the key.
The Minister does not have to lecture me on recycling. I was one of the first advocates of it and my local authority was one of the first to adopt it. I do not have to be lectured on recycling, composting and so on. I organised a pilot scheme from door to door in my own area, in co-operation with the community council. I have no difficulty in pursuing segregation, recycling or composting because I was an advocate of that long before the Minister.
The reality is that one local authority has gone on to a pay by weight system. We are now going to penalise old age pensioners and everybody else, while the remaining 45 or whatever number of local authorities there are still charge by the bin per week.
Where are we penalising old age pensioners? From where has this argument come?
If we adopted the system Deputy Cregan is talking about, where everyone is charged the same, we could not go anywhere.
The whole point is that they are not charged the same.
They are. Limerick has not adopted a pay by weight system yet.
No, but recycling reduces waste costs dramatically.
No, there is a fixed charge in every authority where there is not a pay by weight system. The fixed charge is applied to everybody, whether they are earning €70,000 like myself or are on a pension of €120 per week.
Limerick City Council has a private collection system but, in fairness to the members there, they have introduced a waiver system, in agreement with the private collectors, which is paid for by the city and which works well. The Deputy should use his imagination. He wants me to hamstring every local authority but some local authorities are proactive, biting the bullet, changing their ways, introducing segregated waste collections, getting into recycling and providing facilities.
I have lots of money left over for this, and it will be very interesting at the end of this year to see who has failed to draw down money from the environment fund. It will be very interesting to measure the local authorities——
My local authority was so far ahead that we did not get these funds. We had the work done before the fund was created.
The money is there to provide the facilities and I am only too pleased to provide it.
We already had the facilities in place.
It is extraordinary to hear a Fianna Fáil Deputy now boasting that in his area old age pensioners and poor people are not entitled to any alleviation of refuse charges, or the bin tax. It is extraordinary.
People feel they have a public duty and are happy to recycle. The Deputy cannot knock people for wanting to do that.
No, they have been bullied and have been left with no choice. The Minister can be full sure that many of them have to find alternative means because, increasingly, people simply will not be able to afford refuse collection where the service has been privatised. The charge is €500 in Sligo at present for a family that has to put out only one refuse sack per week. That is the direction we are going in and the Minister knows that very well.
He cannot hide behind European directives. These directives are based on the principle whereby the polluter pays. I do not accept that this applies to householders, but even if it did, who finances the services? Who financed the services in areas where there was no direct charge until now? It was the PAYE taxpayers who were paying for the service. It was not financed out of thin air. The Minister, in his own defence, cites the reduction in direct taxation since the 1980s, but this is precisely a method of going back to hammering the ordinary taxpayer again because there will be a parallel tier of taxation under which there will be no scrutiny by the Dáil or by the local authority. The Minister for Finance will not have any responsibility for it on budget day and the local elected members will have no control over the level that the manager charges.
That will be a source of huge controversy and will not be acceptable, particularly when householders account for only 1.5% of national waste according to the 1998 EPA National Data Survey of Waste.
The Deputy should read the figures in the report.
I have the figures here.
I ask the Deputy to read what it states.
I will read it for the Minister if he wishes. It states that of the national waste arisings of 80 million tonnes in 1998, only 1.2 million tonnes were accounted for by householders.
Read the other part of it. It is 13% of what is going to landfill.
It would not be enough to get the Minister elected in his constituency. It is still a small minority of that. Can the Minister answer this question? In answer to Deputy Gilmore's question, he blithely said there is no problem with waste being left around areas and he failed to address——
I addressed it.
——the survey I pointed out to him, carried out by Irish Marketing Surveys and published last year, which indicated that in the six local authorities in his own area, the south-east, 37% of the population said they dispose of their household waste by burning. A senior executive officer in one of the local authorities admitted that some people were burning rubbish to avoid paying increased waste charges, the knock-on effect of the landfill levy. What kind of solution is that?
I am glad the Deputy has made my point for me.
No.
I rest my case on that report. It proves my point.
Hold on——
We can have wanton abuse of the environment or we can manage it properly. We have a simple choice. That 35% is putting more dioxins into the air than 40 incinerators, if we ever had such things in this country, would in a year——
The Minister does not appear to even understand the point so I will try to make it in a clearer fashion. Does he not understand that by taking the measures he is taking, by which the bin tax will rise dramatically - it is already high in many areas——
It will not.
It will rise dramatically and it is already high in many areas.
It depends on what one calls "high".
That is what will result in, for example, the type of uncontrolled burning I mentioned. I do not approve of that but that is what will happen. How is that assisting the environment?
It is not assisting it. I agree with the Deputy on that. That is the reason I welcome the report so that we can explain to people that what we do not want is deliberate and uncontrolled degradation of the environment.
But the Minister's policy will result in that. It is resulting in it already.
No, it is not. More than 70% of people are already paying charges. The Deputy is talking about the small minority of people he purports to exclusively represent, which he does not. He comes in here, and into the Dáil, and purports to represent all PAYE workers. That is not the case and I will challenge the Deputy in any forum on that. He misleads them every time he speaks. He pretends to them that there are some alternatives. He suggests to them that they should do nothing for the environment and that they have no responsibility for waste or all the services being provided. How does he believe all the community centres throughout the country have been transformed in the past few years? The reality is that if the likes of Deputy Joe Higgins was running local authorities, with all due respect to him, we would have a shambles on our hands. We have, rightly, reduced central taxation from 36% in the mid-1980s. As a matter of interest, 15 of that 16 point reduction was brought in by Fianna Fáil-led Governments which created 600,000 jobs and put people back to work, and we now have a hugely enterprising economy.
The vast majority of people accept they have a responsibility to pay charges for waste, etc. at local government level, and the evidence is there to prove it. The Deputy should not sit here ranting about people doing something which there is no evidence to support. In addition, more than 50% of local authority areas now have private collectors operating in them and there is no piling up of waste, nobody is refusing to pay charges and everybody is quite happy. The move to segregating and recycling waste has been driving down the costs of waste collection substantially. Families have embraced that practice because they see enormous savings from it. Charges which were once approximately €300 and €400 per year are now being reduced.
The Deputy mentioned Sligo. I will give him the facts. Sligo Borough Council proposed a €400 flat rate charge for an unsegregated waste collection service. That is what the council, the public sector, wanted to charge but it went out to a private waste collection company. Regarding the current position, it is estimated by Sligo Borough Council that a couple with a small family now only uses a €5 bag once a fortnight. Even if they were to fill a 120 litre bag with recyclables a week, that would be €1.50 per bag. It would not even buy ten cigarettes. Let us get matters into perspective. That would bring their waste charges for the year to €208. If the system remained in public hands, the cost would be €400, with no segregation of waste. Those are the facts and that is the evidence from Sligo. I will give the Deputy another example of a large family in Sligo. At €10 per bag per week, not per fortnight, plus the 120 litre bag, their total annual waste charges would be €338 for the year. Let us get a sense of fairness and responsibility at local level.
I ask people like the Deputy to support us all in terms of trying to change the mindset in respect of the problems we face with litter and waste. There was a programme on television the other night and I was saddened to see Galway being mentioned because it has been one of the best counties in terms of litter and recycling, but it goes to show what can happen on any given day. We have a responsibility to deal with this problem. If we do our business right, Ireland will be in the same position as any of the major European countries in terms of waste and littering, at a very small cost to the individual. This is an education process and we will work through it.
The Minister has had a five minute rant at my expense. Can I have an opportunity to reply to some of the points he made?
Yes, but a number of other speakers want to come in also.
We are dealing with two amendments to a section we have not talked about for 20 minutes.
I will be brief. There is a willingness, and as a local authority member for 12 years I encouraged it in my area, on the part of ordinary residents to co-operate in and assist with the reduction, reuse and recycling of waste. If more facilities, like the composting of green waste, etc., were proposed, there would be far more co-operation. People do not have to be taxed into doing this as they want to do it. If there are some regular offenders who do not want to be co-operative, there is a by-law which can be used to spot check, thereby ensuring they comply. We do not have to use this system as an excuse for bringing in a new tier of taxation. That is what PAYE workers, and I represent a substantial sector of PAYE workers, at least in Dublin, and I have no doubt outside it, understand to be the case.
But not exclusively.
They believe that under cover of this measure a new tier of local taxation is being introduced. That is the point the Minister does not appear to understand. That is the reason they object and will fight the Minister on it. They know he wants to bring back water charges and add those to a new tier of local taxation. On the one hand the Minister said his party reduced taxes from the 1980s onwards but on the other hand he is now proposing to increase them. There will be no democratic control over these charges because he is proposing to give that responsibility to the county manager, and that is the objection. The Minister did not answer the argument about the survey of his own county in respect of the enormous amount of uncontrolled burning of waste.
I want to come back to the section we are dealing with because the Minister, in responding to my earlier remarks, said he did not want a philosophical discussion on the issue but then went on to make speeches about everything except what is contained in the sections with which we are dealing. I note in his litany of the Government's achievements the Minister did not include the fact that the Government has put home ownership beyond the reach of families on modest incomes. Neither, when he talked about taxation, did he tell us about the welter of new charges and increases on everything from college registration to, in this case, refuse collection, all of which is taxation by the backdoor. It is also regressive taxation because the level of charge ends up being the same for a family on a modest income as for a millionaire.
What we are dealing with here is a proposal from the Minister that if a person has not paid his or her charges, that person's bin will not be collected. That is what this legislation proposes. I am not trying to have a philosophical argument with the Minister on this, although we can have that if he wants. I want to deal with the practicalities. All the questions I raised and the points I made deal with the practicalities of this issue. I have raised two sets of practicalities with the Minister. One is whether - I raised this question yesterday to which I have not yet got an answer - the bin of a person who has submitted a waiver application will be collected. It seems that every time the Minister is asked a question on a matter on which he has not thought about the answer, his stock answer is that he will leave it to the local authorities to figure out, and when pressed on the matter he, like a kind of latter day Marie Antoinette, tells the county councils they can make by-laws. That is not a sufficient answer. We have a right to know what this legislation will mean in practice. I still do not know what it will mean in practice for people who have submitted waiver applications which have not yet been processed. It is good where local authorities can manage to turn them around in three or four weeks. Since the Minister is in the business of making comparisons between one local authority and another, I invite him to examine the staffing levels in local authorities as against populations in those areas, the rate bases of local authorities which they inherited from the old rates regime and the disproportionate way in which resources are being allocated to local authorities based on the needs and resources study. There is no point in flogging one local authority and making invidious comparisons unless one examines how they are resourced.
We still do not know whether the bin of a waiver applicant will be collected. Neither do we know what will happen in cases where bins are not collected and refuse mounts up in a persons back garden. The Minister's reference to the Litter Pollution Act and the Waste Management Act does not address the problem. The Litter Pollution Act and the Waste Management Act put an onus on householders to present their waste in a particular way and not to cause litter when doing so. I refer to when bins are put out on the side of the road. The closest the Litter Act gets to dealing with this is to tell us that if a bin is in the front garden and is visible from the roadway, it may be regarded as litter within the meaning of the Litter Act. I do not know if it has escaped the Minister's observation but most waste bins are put in the back garden. A person who is confronted with the nuisance of mounting waste in a neighbour's back garden cannot do anything about it. That person has to put up with the stink and the health problems associated with it. There is no provision of which I am aware under which the local authority can take action to deal with that problem. The only provision of which I am aware is that the person can make a complaint to an environmental health officer and have the matter investigated as a health hazard. I have had some experience of doing that in circumstances where we were not talking about a few plastic bags alongside a bin that had not been collected for a few weeks; I am talking about circumstances where there was a virtual tiphead in a person's back garden and where because of overstretched staffing resources and the various other reasons I was given, the health board was not exactly quick off the mark in dealing with the problem.
Some mechanism must be put in place to deal with uncollected waste in substantial quantities lying in back gardens, which is being teed up for in this legislation - in the interests of public health and the quality of the environment people in a neighbourhood experience. I will come back to the business that we have not had a problem up to now and there is the fine example of County Limerick. Up to now the mechanism has been the obligation on the local authority to collect the waste, and that has been confirmed by the courts. The Minister is now removing that application. If this legislation is passed, there will be no public authority charged with taking away the waste a person can mount up. If an individual householder defaults in the payment of his or her refuse charges and as a consequence that household's waste is not collected, there is no means by which that householder can be brought to book and obliged to put out the household's waste. That is not a requirement under this legislation and there is nothing in the Waste Management Act that requires a householder to do that. Even if there was, resources are not available to local authorities or to health boards to implement such a provision. Will the Minister arrange for inspectors to go around looking in over back garden ditches to see if waste is mounting up? He will not. We will have a waste problem. It may be dealt with in other ways. One of the ways in which it will be dealt is that people will burn it. Some people will throw their waste in the grate and burn it, others will burn it in a garden incinerator and others will torch it, which again will create an environmental problem for people. The Minister's answer to this problem will be that this only proves how right he is about incinerators. That will be poor comfort to one of the two women he met in the hallway if she is lying out in the sun in her back garden in the middle of summer while her children are in the paddling pool and her neighbour decides to burn the contents of plastic bags that have mounted up and she has to endure the stench wafting across the fence. That is not dealing with the problem.
Is the Minister for real when he says 50% of refuse collection is private and people do not have a problem with that? From where does he think illegal dumping is coming? Why does he think we have found all these illegal dumps in County Wicklow, which may be only the tip of the iceberg? It is hardly the local authorities that put waste into them. Unfortunately, there is a connection between the rash of illegal dumping and the privatisation of the collection service.
There are different views on this issue depending on one's background. When I grew up in east Galway the closest we ever saw to a refuse truck was the burnhouse lorry which collected dead animals. There was no refuse collection service. When a private collection service materialised in more recent times the people of the area were happy to pay for it because it was something new. They view it entirely differently from those who have lived in an urban environment and who have always had a refuse collection service as a public service. Some 50% of the private collection service is in mainly rural areas or areas which did not traditionally have a refuse collection service. In those areas there is not the same degree of resistance to payments as in urban areas where it was always a public service. As to how long that will remain the position when the level of charges is likely to increase - we will come to that later in the Bill - is another day's work.
On the idea that there is not a problem, it is great news that there is no litter and no illegal dumping in County Limerick. I am sure for many people in Limerick it comes as news that it is free of waste problems and of litter, but that does not answer the specific issues which arise.
As the Minister introducing this, Deputy Cullen must take responsibility for what he is putting before the committee by way of legislation. He wants this committee to agree to pass legislation which says if there is no payment there will be no collection. This is not like a vending machine where if one does not put in money one does not get the product. There are consequences to this and unfortunately the Minister is running away from them because when specific scenarios are put to him, including the waiver, burning waste in back gardens, waste mounting in back gardens and illegal dumping, his answer is not to tell us what the legislation means but to tell us that it will be all right on the night and the local authorities should use their imagination. They will need a lot of imagination to wish away the amount of illegal waste, mounting up of waste and waste problems which this will produce up and down the country.
The Minister keeps cautioning us to face up to problems. Now is the time to face up to the consequences of this. We know this will result in waste in back gardens, the burning of waste, illegal dumping and fly tipping. Saying to leave it to local authorities and let them make by-laws is no answer.
I listened with interest to Deputy Gilmore's queries and so forth. When my colleague, Deputy Cregan, made his submission it came across as a bit of make believe. What occurs in Limerick also occurs in County Laois. Rather than waste time on the specifics, in my county there were 11 dumps - as they were called in the 1980s. The waste was collected by the local authority. We had one major landfill, as it became known, in the centre of county. I speak from experience because at that time the local authority in Laois decided to close the 11 dumps throughout the county. One can imagine how that caused great consternation and annoyance.
However, it is not for me to come in here to paint a picture in support of the Minister. I also want to paint a picture of the position in County Laois. I chair the monitoring committee in County Laois. I have been chair of the waste management committee in County Laois since its inception in 1989. The reality is that we have privatised, we have no waiver system, we have illegal dumping and the Deputy can challenge this if he wishes by inviting the local authority from County Laois to come before this committee.
In the late or middle 1990s the landfill in County Laois known as Kyletalesha was one of the worst run landfills in the State. This is the voice of experience, on this particular issue at least. Laois County Council was awarded by the EU, only two years ago, a grant of between €300,000 and €400,000 - that figure can be checked - due to its management of the only landfill in the county. We were able to deal with the issue of leachate treatment and of controlled dumping in the area, and that landfill is now second to none in the country.
My point, which I do not voice to raise political hackles, is that some people get into politics by picking an issue and driving it on, and if they drive it hard enough gives an impression to the public. Deputy Joe Higgins has done that on the water charges. Other local authority people say there is a way around this and ask us to change the mindset. Having listened to my colleague, Deputy Cregan, I am saying to this committee that the mindset in County Laois has been changed and I am quite certain this can be done elsewhere if people go out to explain that waste is something with which we have to deal and it will not go away. By using it as a cosy vote getter it certainly will not go away. We should explain to people that it is our responsibility to deal with waste and in that regard, I would use the example of County Laois and would encourage people to support the Minister in changing the mindset.
The Minister referred to the recycling facility at Dundalk, which is second to none. One of the reasons it works so well is that two years ago we had an enthusiastic, and indeed acrimonious, debate on the incineration issue and the one view we all shared was the need to recycle and reduce waste. That message got across because we were all pushing it in our debates on the issue. That is one of the reasons people visited the centre in the first instance. The reason they went back to it is that the facility is operated to such a high standard. It is unfortunate that the longest town in Ireland, Drogheda, only 25 miles down the road, does not have any such facility and one would cut the ankles off oneself walking over broken glass to try to get to that town's couple of bring banks. Perhaps they will be able to do something about it on the strength of their borrowed €1 million.
One cannot discuss the issue of collecting or not collecting separately from the waiver system. Obviously, funding is an issue when one speaks of the waiver, how it will be implemented and how refuse will be collected from people in fairly dire circumstances. It seems the thrust of Government policy is pushing towards the privatisation of the refuse service. If that is so, from where will local authorities get the funding to pay for the waiver system which will apply in those hardship cases which cannot pay? Will it come from the rate payers of the area? Will there be a fund in the Department or centrally to back up the financing of the waiver scheme? If not, from where will that money come? Who will fund the waiver scheme? I pitch those comments in the context of this because this is where it is rightly grounded.
My other question relates to the private sector which will do this collecting. How will we stop the creation of a cartel - this is already developing in a number of areas - where fees can be fixed at whatever rate? Has that been considered or has the Minister looked at possible ways of preventing a cartel developing in any area, and probably across the State? I am sure the Minister is aware there are three or four major companies in the area at present, and, increasingly, they are jockeying for position and tying down each other. We know the trend is moving towards amalgamation. I am interested in that issue.
I am delighted to hear about the wonderful situation that prevails in Limerick and Laois. Unfortunately that is not the case in most other local authorities of which I am aware, my own included. Before I came to this meeting I was dealing with the issue, to which I alluded briefly the other day and on which I expect I may return to the Department, of lorry loads of refuse going across the Border into County Fermanagh. We are currently investigating that and are trying to stop it happening.
The news of the Laois landfill and of Limerick, with its extremely affluent population, is terrific. Perhaps we need Ministers to look at other areas of the country to see if we can build up the level of affluence so that pensions, one parent families, etc., do not have to carry the can on all of this. On their level of income, which is made up entirely of social welfare because if they work at all they will lose their medical cards and any State assistance to which they are entitled, such people will be banjaxed if they have to pay the charges. I look forward to some responses on these issues.
I wish to clarify a few matters lest any member is influenced by what the Minister is saying about the reduction of charges. The Minister is saying recycling, reuse, composting and separation will reduce charges. Most members have relayed their experiences of their local authorities and I will give the case of my local authority. Galway City Council, the local authority of which I am a member, has reduced our landfill requirements by 50%, but at the same time our charges have gone up by 100%.
I will wager with any member that passing this legislation will not lead to a reduction in refuse charges in one local authority area.
The Deputy is a horseman.
We should not encourage gambling here.
At the next local authority estimates meetings, not one local authority will be able to reduce refuse collection charges. No matter what anyone says, though I must visit counties Limerick and Laois some time, increasing collection charges will lead to disposal of refuse in another way. As Deputy Higgins said, 35% is disposed of by burning, which I deplore, but that attitude will not be helped by this legislation. It is deplorable that people go out the road between Galway and Headford to dump fridges and rubbish in bog drains. The local authority is constantly cleaning up the area. The littering is the result of refuse charges.
I welcome the licensing of collectors. Deputy Gilmore gave examples from County Wicklow where material was dumped illegally because landfill charges had increased. It is easy to understand the reason such charges increased, with EU standards and regulations being far more stringent than before. It is correct that local authorities live up to and implement these standards but it is obviously going to lead to increased charges, which the people should expect.
Saying this legislation and recycling and composting will lead to a reduction in charges is misleading. That is pie in the sky as they are not cheap options. The Minister is misleading his party colleagues - no one on this side of the House - if they believe the legislation will lead to a reduction in service charges.
Unlike some speakers, I favour the mindset of people being charged to dispose of their waste. However, we should not deceive them by suggesting everyone will live happily ever after if the legislation is passed and that waste charges will be lower. They will rise by at least 50%. Such an increase may be necessary.
I bring experience from a party which has a Deputy in every constituency. Some parties are obviously unaware of what is happening throughout the country, though they will find out.
There is negativity, which disappoints me. Cork City Council is adopting a weight charging system. While Cork County Council operates a waiver system in areas where it collects refuse, there is no such system in areas where private operators are working. However, waste is not piling up in back gardens. If one takes this situation to the logical conclusion suggested by Deputies Gilmore and Higgins, is the person who gift wraps a Ferrari for his girlfriend entitled to have his rubbish collected in the same way as a person who pays charges? Are they entitled to the same service if one pays and the other does not?
There is goodwill. My experience of recycling is that if we drive it from the top down, with public representatives being responsible, we will not face many of the problems it is suggested we will face in the future. Members should look at the systems being operated in other parts of the country by responsible local authorities such as Cork City Council which has been very responsible in introducing a weight based system and Cork County Council which does not operate a waiver system in areas where private operators work.
There should be a system in place which takes income into account. Deputy Higgins suggests that a person with huge resources and none should be entitled to the same service without paying. I do not accept this. The implementation of his suggestion would put huge pressure on local authorities to increase charges, whereas if we were all more co-operative, we would have a better system.
Before I call on the Minister to reply, we spent 40 minutes debating the amendment last night and have spent an hour talking about it today.
It is very important.
It is but we are not in a position to allow that amount of time for each amendment. Members are repeating what they said.
Would Deputy Kelleher tell us what is involved in wrapping a Ferrari for a girlfriend?
Deputy Higgins is encouraging people in his constituency not to pay service charges, while others in the constituency, on limited incomes, are paying them.
Compliant taxpayers are paying for this service, as well as the health service and everything else.
Deputy Higgins claims to represent the working class but he is putting money into wealthy people's pockets.
The Government is giving €1 billion back to big business this year.
While I will answer the questions raised, I do not want to be misconstrued as saying everything in connection with waste disposal and the environment is perfection. It is not but there have been huge changes in recent years. Not all of the places to which we have alluded are happy that they have reached the top but a lot has happened. We should acknowledge those who have made an enormous effort and changed their ways.
The laws about which Deputy Gilmore asked me have changed dramatically in recent years. We did not have them previously, as the Deputy said last night, but there are more than sufficient provisions in the waste management Acts. There is a general duty of care across the legislation which covers those who dump rubbish in their back gardens and so on.
Regarding waiver applications, I would not expect any local authority to be so foolish as to prosecute someone while adjudicating on a waiver application from the same person. I would not expect this to stand up in law. An application would have to be adjudicated and decided on before moving, which would only be reasonable. I would not see any local authority doing this, given the wrath it would bring down on itself. It would be very foolish to do so.
Deputies referred to problems with collections and collectors. We now have a licensing system for collectors, which is a welcome step forward. The issue of amalgamation of existing companies arose because their scale was such that complying with modern standards would not have been possible. Rationalisation is taking place, on which we are keeping a close eye, as we would welcome and want competition in the marketplace. I hope it continues.
Deputy McCormack is probably not aware of this but his local authority, like all others, operates a free take-back scheme for fridges. I have mentioned before that we have put in place a system for the whole island, having signed a deal with the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland. This is good as it shows that the country is small enough for us to co-operate on an all-island basis which helps to speed up the resolution of waste issues. The competition for this contract was conducted by our Northern Ireland colleagues and the contract was awarded recently.
There is a question of historical attitudes, as shown by the debate. What saddens me is that some may agitate and organise others to behave in a particular manner once the Bill is passed, which is fair enough, but it is obvious that in any community it comes down to leadership, including cross-party leadership. Where there is cross-party support and agreement, people change their ways. While our capital city belongs to Dubliners, it also belongs to the people. It is as important to me as it is to anyone living there. It would be a tragedy if small pockets, areas we can pick out before we start, became the focus for these issues. It would be dreadful for the communities living there to be encouraged by anyone to lead campaigns because they would only involve a small number. Further, it would deny them the respect they deserve. They have enough difficulties without being further alienated by being involved in false campaigns. The vast majority have now accepted the way forward.
I never presented the Bill as one which will lead to a reduction in charges. I speak about recycling as a way to reduce them, which is a fact. It is not the case that they will continue to rise out of kilter. The charges levied in Galway are reasonable. Obviously, they increased from an extremely low level. If recycling and segregation of waste were not taking place and there was still a flat charge, the figure would be significantly higher. I am on record as saying recycling is not free. I have never presented it as such. There are costs attached but the system is far more cost-effective than the old one.
We need leadership across the spectrum, including in communities. I am pleased the vast majority accept there is a need for change. I am asking people right across the political spectrum to support these changes. We can have arguments and disagreements about thermal treatment and so on but there is clear evidence that dramatic changes are taking place. Those communities which have taken on board these changes have benefited greatly.
No one is denying that.
I hope it happens in Dublin.
It is happening.
I recently visited a wonderful centre not far from Amiens Street station which is very successful.
Yes; we are encouraging it.
I compliment the ordinary men and women who work there. The pride they took in their facility was tremendous. I know of one facility which recently introduced a charge - not the one in Dundalk. A facility in another part of the country has introduced charges.
The Minister got in free but the rest of us must pay.
I was not recycling that day. It was a wonderful one, shared with children from all over the country. Some 10,000 are happy to pay for it. As the Chairman rightly said, we have been around the house on the issue and, while I respect the interesting views which have been expressed, I am pleased we have moved on in the debate.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 150:
In page 63, to delete lines 19 to 22.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 8.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Gilmore, Éamon.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
Níl
- Blaney, Niall.
- Cregan, John.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Moloney, John.
- Power, Seán.
We shall suspend the sitting until after the vote in the Dáil Chamber.
Sitting suspended at 5.55 p.m. and resumed at 6.15 p.m.
I move amendment No. 151:
In page 63, paragraph (b), line 21, after “75” to insert “or the Local Government (Financial Provisions)(No. 2) Act 1983”.
The purpose of section 22(b) is to provide that local authorities will not be under any duty to collect waste from a person who has failed to pay his or her waste charges. This should apply to unpaid charges levied under the existing regime of the Local Government (Financial Provisions)(No. 2) Act 1983 or in the future under the new section 75 of the 1996 Act, to be inserted by section 35 of this Bill. However, section 22(b), as it stands, only refers to unpaid charges levied under the new section 75. The proposed amendment will make it clear that local authorities will not be under any duty to collect waste from persons who have not paid their charges, whether levied under the existing 1983 Act regime or the new regime to operate under section 75.
I formally oppose the amendment. We have debated the general principles.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Question, "That section 22, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put and declared carried.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 152:
In page 63, before section 23, to insert the following new section:
23.-Section 34 of the Act of 1996 is amended-
(a) by substituting the following subsection for subsection (4):
'(4) A local authority 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 consistent with the objectives of the relevant waste management plan or the hazardous waste management plan as the case may be.',
and
(b) by substituting the following paragraph for paragraph (c) of subsection (13) (inserted by the Waste Management (Amendment) Act 2001):
'(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 was 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 consistent with the objectives of the relevant waste management plan or the hazardous waste management plan as the case may be.”.’.”.
This is a technical amendment to change the words "in accordance with" to make the Bill consistent with the plan. This brings the language into line with provisions such as, for example, in new paragraph (cc) in section 26(d) of the Bill, subsection (4) of section 40 of the 1996 Act and provides a more realistic framework for local authorities to operate within in issuing collection permits. It is more flexible for local authorities and more consistent with existing language.
What will it do in practice?
It substitutes the words "consistent with the objectives of the relevant plan" in place of "in accordance with". It is more flexible for local authorities and consistent with the language used elsewhere in the Bill as well as the 1996 Act. I am not aware of anything hidden. It is purely a technical amendment.
Section 34 of the Waste Management Act 1996 is the one which deals with the granting of waste collection permits. The use of the words "in accordance with" in subsection (4) of that section can be unnecessarily restrictive in the sense that it can be interpreted as almost requiring the relevant waste management plan to have envisaged the specific circumstances in which a permit might arise and make provision for this but that was never the intention. What the provision was designed to ensure was that the granting of a waste collection permit would be carried out in a manner which was consistent with the plan.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 23.
Mr. Gilmore: I move amendment No. 153:
In page 63, lines 27 and 28, to delete "payment of any charge that has been made under section 75 in respect of the collection of" and substitute "address of the person presenting".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question, "That section 23 stand part of the Bill," put and declared carried.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 154:
In page 63, before section 24, to insert the following new section:
24.-Section 39 of the Act of 1996 is amended-
(a) by substituting the following subsections for subsections (4) and (5):
'(4) The Minister may by regulations provide that subsection (1) shall not apply in respect of the recovery or disposal in a specified manner of a specified class or classes of waste, if and for so long as the person carrying out the recovery or disposal of the waste, as the case may be, complies with specified conditions in relation to the carrying out of such recovery or disposal.
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4), regulations under that subsection may specify conditions in relation to the following matters-
(a) the quantity of waste concerned which may be recovered or disposed of in a particular period,
(b) the use of the best available techniques to prevent or eliminate or, where that is not practicable, to limit, abate or reduce, an emission from the recovery or disposal activity concerned,
(c) a requirement that the person concerned obtain from a local authority or the Agency a waste permit or such other authorisation or certificate as may be prescribed in respect of the carrying on by him or her of the activity concerned,
(d) the specification of controls to be exercised or measures to be taken by a local authority or the Agency in relation to the carrying on of an activity in respect of which such a permit, authorisation or certificate is required (which controls and measures a local authority or the Agency is hereby empowered to exercise or take, as the case may be),
(e) a requirement regarding the payment to a local authority or the Agency of a fee of a specified amount in respect of an application for such a permit, authorisation or certificate, or of such charges as are necessary to defray or contribute towards the cost of any investigation carried out or caused to be carried out by the local authority or the Agency in relation to such application,
(f) where a question arises as to whether or not a particular waste recovery or disposal activity falls within regulations under subsection (4), enabling the Agency to determine that question and providing that that determination of the Agency shall be final,
(g) such other matters as the Minister considers are appropriate to ensure that the recovery or disposal activity concerned will not cause environmental pollution.’,
and
(b) in subsection (7), by substituting in paragraph (a) (inserted by the Waste Management (Amendment) Act 2001) ’paragraph 7.7.1, 7.7.2 or 11.1’ for ’paragraph11.1 ’.”.
The primary purpose of this amendment set out in paragraph (a) of the new section 24 of the Bill is to insert a new paragraph (f) into subsection (5) of section 39 of the 1996 Act. The new paragraph provides that in cases of doubt as to which form of authorisation is required for a particular waste activity, it will be up to the EPA to decide the matter. I am proposing this provision in response to a particular case which came to light where there was a difference of opinion between the local authority concerned and the agency as to whether a particular activity required a waste permit from the local authority or a waste licence from the agency. Given that we are amending subsection (5) of section 39 of the 1996 Act for this purpose, I am taking the opportunity, for the sake of completeness, to restate the existing provisions of subsection (5) and subsection (4), both of which were initially inserted into the Act by way of regulations made in 1998 under the European Communities Act.
Paragraph (b) of the new section 24 is simply a restatement of the terms of the existing section 24 of the Bill, as published.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 24 deleted.
SECTION 25.
Question proposed: "That section 25 stand part of the Bill."
Do I understand the section correctly to mean that up to now the operators of an incinerator have been required under existing legislation to apply separately for a waste licence and an emissions licence, that what is being proposed is that they be given a choice of applying for one or the other and that once they have applied for one, it will cover the two?
The intention of the new section 39A of the 1996 Act to be inserted by section 25 of this Bill is to address cases where two activities are proposed to be carried out in association with one another where one activity is licensable under the 1992 Act and the other under the 1996 Act. The Environmental Protection Agency Bill and the Waste Management Bill, as originally enacted, left open the possibility that two licences might be required in such cases. This would clearly be wrong and lead to confusion. The Waste Management (Amendment) Act 2001 attempted to address this issue. In hindsight, it did not deal with it sufficiently and comprehensively. Section 25 of this Bill deals in a comprehensive way with the issue of overlapping between the two codes. It also provides for the EPA to determine which code is the most appropriate in any given case.
I disagree with this. The licensing procedure for incinerators is being fast-tracked as incinerators represent the case where two licences will be required. There will not be a requirement for an emissions licence in, for example, a recycling facility or landfill site. The operators of an incinerator must get planning permission. While there is the question of a legal challenge to the one proposed in Duleek, planning permission has been received from An Bord Pleanála. If this stands the test of whatever legal challenge may be made, the operators will be required under existing legislation to make two separate applications in respect of waste and emissions.
Two separate issues arise. Because of all the issues surrounding a waste facility a waste licence is required. A separate application is required for an emissions licence under the 1992 Act as it deals with a separate dimension. It is not unreasonable to require two applications and that both issues be decided separately. The specific issues that arise on the waste aspect are distinct from those that will arise about what comes out of the chimneystack and should be addressed separately. Effectively, only one application to the EPA will be required. If an operator applies for a waste licence under the 1996 Act, it will cover the emissions issue arising under the 1992 Act and vice versa.
This is certainly not being done in the interests of protecting the environment. It is being done simply to speed up the licensing process for incinerators which I will certainly not agree to facilitate.
The EPA strongly supports this initiative. There is no difference in the treatment of emissions under both codes. Most of the licensing conditions will be applied under the waste stream as opposed to the other. There are no lesser provisions on emissions in one code as opposed to the other. This is a way of dealing with the whole matter more comprehensively. Waste licences for thermal treatment plants will be dealt with under a very comprehensive code. This does not introduce a reduced set of standards. The EPA must still make the highest possible technical assessment under both codes.
Why should we buy into that response? I regard the issuing of a waste licence as one element of the whole issue of waste management. Given the complexity of the emissions issue, operators rightly should require an additional licence. Deputy Gilmore was particularly sharp in spotting this. He mentioned the example of the proposed incinerator in Duleek which got through the process at An Bord Pleanála because its inspector's report which recommended not approving the incinerator was thrown out.
Applications for such licences have now been made to the EPA. At least, this affords the very sincere objectors in the area the opportunity to scrutinise the applications on two occasions. One licence would reduce this by 50%, which should not happen. While the thrust of the debate, including the submissions of the Minister, has been along the lines of tightening up scrutiny and the whole process of waste management, this is not being assisted by reducing licence requirements by 50%.
That is not the case. I do not doubt either Deputy's comments. I do not have any ulterior motive in doing this; I simply want to make the system as strong as possible.
Nothing the Minister is doing has ulterior motives.
At some point we must decide which code it is. We cannot have two codes applying. We need a comprehensive code for the public which rightly will continue to have the right to object. However, everybody needs to know the code under which we operate. This simply makes certain it is one or the other, not two. Earlier we had a discussion about the separation of the planning code from the licensing code. I do not want separate streams emerging in the environmental code. For good reason there must be certainty about the one chosen. There is no question of one being less strenuous than the other. The EPA wanted this to remove uncertainty. If the Deputies think about it, they will recognise it as a very good change.
I disagree with it.
Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 26.
I move amendment No. 155:
In page 66, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
"(b) by substituting the following subparagraphs for subparagraphs (iii) and (iv) of subsection (2)(b):
'(iii) such other matters related to the prevention, limitation, elimination, abatement or reduction of environmental pollution from the activity concerned as it considers necessary,
(iv) the policies and objectives of the Minister or the Government in relation to waste management for the time being extant, and
(v) such other matters as may be prescribed.',".
Section 40 of the Waste Management Act 1996 sets out the provisions governing the granting of waste licences by the EPA. Section 40(2)(b) sets out certain matters to which the agency must have regard when deciding on waste licence applications. The amendment adds a specific requirement that the matters to which the agency must have regard when deciding on waste licensing applications are to include the waste management policies of the Minister or the Government. This is a similar requirement to that which will apply to the agency under the corresponding provision of the IPC licensing code. Similar requirements also apply to planning authorities and An Bórd Pleanála under which they are required to have regard to relevant national policies in deciding on planning applications and appeals.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 156:
In page 66, line 31, to delete paragraph (b).
Is the Minister opposing the amendment?
I am. While the provisions in this area are somewhat complex, I will endeavour to outline the relevant facts as clearly as I can in order to demonstrate that this amendment is not necessary. In considering the matter, it is necessary to take paragraphs (a) and (b) together. Paragraph (a) provides that, in determining a waste licence application which is accompanied by an environmental impact statement, the agency is to have regard to the impact statement only in so far as environmental pollution matters are concerned. The other aspects are either considered by the relevant planning authority or An Bórd Pleanála in the context of their determination of individual planning applications or appeals.
Given that a local authority development outside its own area would require planning permission in the same way as a private development, it is appropriate that such cases be dealt with under the general regime provided for in paragraph (a). The deletion proposed in paragraph (b) provides for this. I emphasise again that this deletion only affects a local authority development outside its own area.
In bringing forward this amendment, there may have been a concern that the effect of paragraph (b) would be that waste developments by a local authority within its own functional area would not be subject to environmental impact assessment but that is not the case. Environmental pollution aspects of an EIA for such development would be dealt with in the context of the waste licence which would have to be obtained from the EPA. The other aspects would be dealt with under the general procedure set out in section 175 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 under which relevant local authority development within its own area must be subject to environment impact assessment and approval by An Bórd Pleanála. That being the case, the proposed amendment is not necessary.
What will happen in a situation where a local authority - let us call it the lead authority - within a region becomes the developer of the facility involved in this process?
The local authority in whose area the facility is to be placed will have responsibility for the EIA.
Will the proposed facility be the subject of an application to that authority?
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 157:
In page 66, between lines 47 and 48, to insert the following:
"(e) by substituting in paragraph (e) of subsection (4) ’section 53,’ for ’section 53.’,
(f) by inserting the following paragraphs after paragraph (e) of subsection (4):
'(f) energy will be used efficiently in the carrying on of the activity concerned,
(g) any noise from the activity concerned will comply with, or will not result in the contravention of, any regulations under section 106 of the Act of 1992,
(h) necessary measures will be taken to prevent accidents in the carrying on of the activity concerned and, where an accident occurs, to limit its consequences for the environment,
(i) necessary measures will be taken upon the permanent cessation of the activity concerned (including such a cessation resulting from the abandonment of the activity) to avoid any risk of environmental pollution and return the site of the activity to a satisfactory state.’,”.
This mirrors exactly the corresponding provision in the IPPC code. We are simply doing the same in this Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 158:
In page 67, lines 1 and 2, to delete "or the Act of 1992" and substitute ", the Act of 1992, the Local Government (Water Pollution) Acts 1977 and 1990 or the Act of 1987".
This provision also mirrors the IPPC code to ensure we are on all fours in that regard.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 26, as amended, agreed to.
Section 27 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
I move amendment No. 159:
In page 67, before section 28, to insert the following new section:
28.-The following section is inserted after section 42 of the Act of 1996:
42A.-When calculating the appropriate period (within the meaning of section 42) or any other time limit under this Act or in any regulations made under this Act, the period between the 24th day of December and the 1st day of January, both days inclusive, shall be disregarded.'.".
All Deputies will welcome this amendment which disregards the Christmas period for the purposes of the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 160:
In page 67, before section 28, to insert the following new section:
29.-The following section is inserted after section 42A (inserted by section 28 of this Act) of the Act of 1996:
42B.-(1) The Agency may amend a waste licence for the purposes of-
(a) correcting any clerical error therein,
(b) facilitating the doing of any thing pursuant to a condition attached to the licence where the doing of that thing may reasonably be regarded as having been contemplated by the terms of the condition or the terms of the licence taken as a whole but which was not expressly provided for in the condition, or
(c) otherwise facilitating the operation of the licence and the making of the amendment does not result in the relevant requirements of section 40(4) ceasing to be satisfied.
(2) None of the requirements of section 46 or of any other provision of this Part shall apply to the exercise of the power under subsection (1) but the Agency shall, where appropriate, consult with the holder of the licence before exercising the power.'.".
Under the new section, as in the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992, a new provision is being included under which the EPA can amend IPC licences for clerical or technical errors. Similar provisions have been made previously - it is simply a matter of maintaining consistency throughout the Bill. On the IPC side, I undertook to bring forward an amendment on Report Stage, which I will do. Objectors will be notified of the amendment.
Is that in relation to a situation where a licence is being changed?
Yes.
The clerical error aspect is straightforward. With regard to the words "facilitating the doing of any thing pursuant to a condition attached to the licence", this opens up a degree of discretion to the agency in terms of changing a licence after it has been issued.
I would not have thought so. Circumstances may perhaps arise at a later stage, in which case it is important that people are notified publicly that this is about to happen. The codes are so tight that it would be very difficult to make a very substantial change such as changing the conditions of the licence. That would require another licence. I have had recent experience in that regard, where certain proposals were put to me with regard to existing facilities in terms of trying various alternative pilot schemes. The proposition seemed sensible but the code was so tight that it just was not possible to proceed with it. Once a licence for a facility is issued, that is final, apart from very marginal adjustment - so marginal that it would not in any way affect the main intent of the facility's operation. The codes are extraordinarily tight, as I found when I tried to facilitate what I considered an imaginative pilot project.
I will reserve my position, pending sight of the Minister's other amendment on Report Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 161:
In page 67, before section 28, to insert the following new section:
30.-The following section is substituted for section 44 of the Act of 1996:
44.-(1) (a) An oral hearing under section 42 shall be conducted by a person or persons appointed for that purpose by the Agency.
(b) Subject to any regulations under subsection (4), the manner in which a hearing aforesaid is conducted shall be at the discretion of the person or persons appointed under this subsection but it shall be the duty of the person or persons to ensure that the hearing is conducted without undue formality.
(2) The person or persons appointed under subsection (1) may take evidence on oath or affirmation at the oral hearing and for that purpose may administer oaths or affirmations, and a person giving evidence at such a hearing shall be entitled to the same immunities and privileges as if he or she were a witness before the High Court.
(3) The person or persons appointed under subsection (1) shall make a written report on the objection or objections made under section 42(3) and the hearing to the Agency and shall include in the report a recommendation relating to the grant of a waste licence or a revised waste licence, as the case may be (including the conditions to be attached to such a licence) or to the refusal of such a licence.
(4)(a) The Minister may make regulations in relation to the conduct of an oral hearing under section 42 and the procedures at such a hearing.
(b) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a), regulations under this subsection shall provide for all of the following-
(i) matters that may be raised at an oral hearing;
(ii) the persons who may be heard at an oral hearing;
(iii) enabling the person or persons conducting an oral hearing to require any person to attend the hearing and give evidence in relation to any matter in question at the hearing;
(iv) the publication or giving of notice of the holding of an oral hearing;
(v) the alteration of the time and place of the holding of an oral hearing;
(vi) the provision of submissions, plans, documents or other information and particulars to persons;
(vii) the adjournment or re-opening of an oral hearing, and the publication or giving of notice regarding such an adjournment or re-opening;
(viii) the replacement of a person or persons appointed to conduct an oral hearing or the conduct of a new oral hearing;
(ix) the withdrawal of a request for an oral hearing, and matters consequential thereon.'.".
This is a restatement of the oral hearing provisions, except for two clarifications, the first of which is designed to recognise that more than one person may be appointed by the agency to deal with an individual oral hearing. Accordingly, where there are currently references in section 44 to "a person appointed to conduct an oral hearing", there will in future be references to "a person or persons". All will agree to this. The second clarification recognises that, as an alternative to taking evidence on oath, evidence can be taken by affirmation.
Will they be required to adjudicate on costs, as in a certain current case?
I am trying to deal with that, even as we speak.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 28.
Amendments Nos. 162 and 163 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 162:
In page 67, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following:
"(iv) that the public notice requirements were not fully complied with when the licence was applied for,".
This is similar to previous amendments in terms of trying to copperfasten the requirements, having regard to the history of doubt as to whether there has been proper public notification. I await the Minister's view in that regard.
As the Deputy rightly said, we dealt with this in the same manner in the context of the IPC licensing system. The position in this regard is exactly the same. I do not wish to repeat the arguments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 163 not moved.
I move amendment No. 164:
In page 68, line 31, to delete "shall" and substitute "may".
Under current legislation, the EPA is automatically required to undertake a review of a waste licence in circumstances where it is notified, or otherwise becomes aware of the cessation of an activity which is the subject of a waste licence, or where the agency refuses to accept the surrender of a licence. Under the well developed licensing system now in place, it has become standard practice for conditions governing after-care and restoration to be included in licences. With such matters already conditioned into licences, the agency has indicated that there is, therefore, no longer an automatic need for a licence to be reviewed in circumstances where the waste activity which is subject to a licence ceases to operate.
The need for an automatic review is diminished further by the fact that, separately, sections 31 and 32 will give the agency additional powers to direct, where necessary, certain measures to be taken in individual cases. Accordingly, the amendment proposes that the agency should be given the discretion to decide in individual cases whether a licence review should be carried out. In tandem with this, in amendment No. 167, which will be discussed separately, I propose to include a provision clarifying that the cessation of a licence on foot of cessation of an activity does not affect or diminish the conditions, obligations or requirements which the licence places on the licensee. The amendment is straightforward.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 165:
In page 69, to delete lines 20 to 26 and substitute the following:
"(8) As soon as may be after it has completed a review of a waste licence under this section, the Agency may-
(a) grant to the holder thereof a waste licence (’a revised waste licence’) the terms and conditions of which are, in such respects as the Agency thinks appropriate, different from those of the first-mentioned licence and the revised waste licence shall have effect in lieu of the first-mentioned licence, or
(b) refuse to grant to that holder such a licence.”.
Members will welcome this amendment, which is to clarify that the Environmental Protection Agency has power to refuse to grant a revised waste licence.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 28, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 29.
I move amendment No. 166:
In page 70, line 37, to delete "operate."." and substitute the following:
"operate.
(6) The Minister may by regulations make such incidental, consequential or supplementary provision as may appear to him or her to be necessary to give full effect to any of the provisions of this section.'.".
Under section 29, a new section 48 is to be inserted into the 1996 Act allowing for the revocation or suspension of waste licences by the agency in circumstances where the licensee no longer meets the fit and proper person requirements specified in section 40 of that Act. It may be necessary, in giving effect to this new provision, to set out the form and content of revocations or suspensions and the manner in which representations by the licence holder should be made. The amendment, therefore, includes a standard provision which allows matters of this nature required to give full effect to the new section 48A to be addressed in regulations. We have discussed a similar amendment to the corresponding provision of the IPPC licensing code.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 29, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 167:
In page 70, before section 30, to insert the following new section:
30.-Section 49 of the Act of 1996 is amended by inserting the following subsections after subsection (2):
'(3) Where the activity to which a waste licence relates ceases to be carried on then, unless the activity is resumed within the period of 3 years beginning on the date of that cessation, the licence shall cease to have effect on the expiry of the said period.
(4) The cesser of a waste licence's effect under this section shall in no way affect or diminish the conditions, requirements or obligations that apply to, or fall on, the holder of such licence by virtue of the licence.'.".
I referred to this issue in discussion of amendment No. 164. It mirrors a provision of the IPPC licensing code.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 30.
Amendments Nos. 168 to 171, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 168:
In page 70, lines 41 to 43, to delete all words from and including ", or" in line 41 down to and including "subsection," in line 43.
This section will drive the charging regime which will apply for waste collection and may not, therefore, have received as much attention as it deserves. As I understand the section, it provides that the operator of any facility for the disposal of waste must charge for the disposal of waste at the facility. Facilities covered by the provision will include an incinerator and, possibly, even some facilities for the collection of material for recycling in the event that it is not clear whether the material is being recovered for recycling purposes. The provision has a wide remit and provides for no discretion.
My first amendment proposes that an element of discretion would apply. Whether one agrees with charging for waste, circumstances may well arise in which, for good reasons, it may be necessary for a particular facility to provide a free service in the public interest. The legislation is explicit on this issue and requires that facilities charge without discretion. The amendment provides that there should be a discretionary element.
Where a charging regime is introduced, the method of calculating the charge is set down in the subsequent sections. Section 30 states:
The amount or amounts of charges imposed under subsection (1) shall be such as the operator of the facility concerned determines is likely to ensure that the result specified in subsection (4) is achieved . . . The result referred to in subsection (3) is that the aggregate of the amount of the charges imposed by the operator, in relation to the facility concerned, during the relevant period will not be less than the amount that would meet the total of the following costs (irrespective of whether those costs, or any of them have been, have been or will be met from other financial measures available to the operator), namely . . . the costs incurred by the operator in the acquisition or development, or both (as the case may be), of the facility . . . the costs of operating the facility during the relevant period (including the costs of making any financial provision under section 53), and the estimated costs, during a period of not less than 30 years or such greater period as may be prescribed, of the closure, restoration, remediation or aftercare of the facility.
In other words, the operator, for instance of an incinerator, will be required to charge the full cost of acquiring the site, building the facility, operating it and after-care for 30 years. This will also apply in the case of landfill sites where the operator will have to charge the full cost of acquiring, developing, lining, sealing, operating and managing the site. Even where some of these costs are met from other sources, these must be disregarded and the operator must charge the full economic cost.
This provision will produce charges for refuse collection because the operator will have to pass on, ultimately to the individual householder, the full economic cost, including the cost of remediation and so forth. These costs will be significant. This marks a dramatic shift as there will now be no public money or public service element involved in the provision of waste disposal facilities, the full of cost of which will ultimately have to be met by the person putting out a bin on a Tuesday morning.
On Second Stage I asked what the section would mean in monetary terms for the average householder. I repeat my question. I am sure the Minister has worked out what the section will mean in practice and his Department will have done models on what the proposals will involve for the typical landfill site or incinerator. The public should be told what it is letting itself in for. What will the section mean in monetary terms for the average householder?
I see from where Deputy Gilmore is coming and recognise there are costs involved in production. Our aim should be to internalise these costs. Unfortunately, in this case, the measure is crude and will simply create additional costs by taking an end-of-pipeline approach which takes landfill costs in isolation. It is akin to asking people to make arrangements after a war has broken out. One hopes they will try to cope in the face of enormous odds. In this case, one hopes people will be dissuaded from putting out material for landfill because of the costs.
No clear alternative is on offer. Mixed landfill sites should not be acceptable. What should be in place, as I mentioned yesterday, is either wet or dry collections. Mixed waste should not be included under the general heading of residual waste. That is part of the difficulty I have with this imbalance. Putting a cost on crude practices is not what the Minister should be about. The focus should be on avoiding the creation of waste which requires co-operation with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, as well as other Departments. This should be a stated objective, which we are failing to fulfil.
I am unhappy with section 30, the focus of which is the imposition of charges, rather than facing up to the challenge of reducing waste. It could, in fact, be seen as a profiteering exercise on the back of a waste crisis. I have no doubt that private operators will look on it in such a way. It is a highly profitable way of making a return by encouraging the production of as much waste as possible to be placed in landfill sites or for incineration. We could do a lot better.
I respectfully advise the Deputy to talk to my counterpart in Germany who is a member of the Green Party.
I have done so.
I have an enormous amount in common with him but the Green Party here seems to have nothing in common with him. This baffles me. I respect everybody else's point of view but at times I despair of the Green Party here. I do not know what it stands for.
I am thinking of the Canadian Greens also. They are very sensible too.
I despair of the Greens. The effect of amendments Nos. 169 to 171, inclusive, would be to remove the requirement placed on operators of landfill facilities to charge the full costs of the facility over the course of its life, as Deputy Gilmore rightly said, from acquisition through to post-closure aftercare. As such a course of action would be in direct contravention of Article 10 of the landfill directive, I will not be in a position to accept the amendments.
Provision is also made for the application of the terms of the section to be extended to waste disposal facilities other than landfill sites. This provision is included in order to provide the flexibility required to deal with future EU legislation similar to the landfill directive that may be introduced at a later stage. Therefore, I do not propose to accept amendment No. 168 which seeks to delete this provision which is being introduced to ensure compliance with EU law. It is that simple.
We were party to this agreement, to which we signed up. I am not using it as an escape. As I said, we were part of the negotiations and accepted it. I am not blaming the European Union for it, I am saying we were party to it and took this view, as any party representing the Government of the day would have done in the negotiations on this issue. I have no doubt about this. I find it hard to reconcile the constant Opposition criticism of the Government and me, in particular, in regard to the Government's record on the implementation of EU environmental legislation and the fact that when I take steps to do so, as I am doing here, the reaction is to pull it asunder.
On Deputy Gilmore's question on models and costs, we do not have any models or costs. What is the point? We have already agreed to it. It is the law. We might as well just get on with it. We do not have any models in place. All the models in the world will not change the fact that we have to do this. Therefore, let us get on with it.
I have some questions about this matter. It is clear that it applies to the classic landfill facility but does it also apply to incinerators?
No.
Incineration is not regarded as waste disposal as defined in the legislation.
An incinerator could be prescribed, if one so wished.
What about the residual ash that an incinerator creates?
If it was being placed in a landfill site, it would come under the terms of the legislation.
What if it is placed in a landfill facility on the site of the incinerator? In that case, who makes the charge? Is it the operator of the incinerator or the operator of the landfill site?
The operator of the site.
Does it include any provision for what might pass as a recycling facility?
No.
Therefore, this relates exclusively to landfill sites.
Or other methods of disposal. I do not want to be accused of misleading the Deputy - it certainly was not deliberate - but if an operator has both an incinerator and a landfill site as part of the facility licence, the provision does not apply because it is an internal landfill facility.
Will it apply to existing landfill sites?
It will.
How will it apply? From now on we will know the land acquisition costs, in addition to the associated costs that can be projected forward, but how will this apply in respect of existing landfill sites? Will the acquisition cost of the landfill site be the acquisition cost at the time the site was acquired or the current value?
No. All landfill operators will have to make an annual statement to the EPA. The legislation states:
The operator of the facility concerned shall prepare a statement in writing in respect of the determination he or she makes under subsection (3) in each year of the amounts of charges and that statement shall specify the method he or she has employed in making that determination.
Obviously, with existing facilities one has to arrive at a reasonable figure that reflects the real cost.
Are any landfill facilities currently making returns to the EPA?
It is not required at present but it will be once the legislation is enacted.
Presumably, some estimate has been made.
We have not done so.
I find that absolutely astonishing. I have never come across a case involving the legislative imposition of charges in the kind of detail stated here, including the cost of acquisition, managing and remediation, where nobody promoting the legislation has made an estimate of the amount involved.
The Deputy will know from his experience serving on EU Councils, for instance, in environmental legislation, when he was——
No. I was not in the Department of the Environment.
Sorry. My apologies.
I will not carry the can for that.
I was confused for one moment.
I was at sea.
Yes. The Deputy was at sea and most helpful to my coastal constituency.
Even at EU level, when the polluter pays principle was adopted, nobody did any cost-benefit analysis or suchlike of the likely costs involved. This is being driven from an environmental perspective. There will, evidently, be costs involved and they will be charged. That is the way it is. I could employ a wonderful team of consultants to do an analysis and pay them a fortune for it but it would not achieve or prove anything. The fact of the matter is that EU law requires it. I am simply transposing the EU directive in this matter, which I am under pressure to do.
I am sure the Department has received applications from local authorities, for example, which are in the process of looking at options for landfill sites. There must be applications for approval from them——
No, we do not have any. That is the job of the agency.
I am talking about the money. Local authorities are not allowed to——
We do not give money for landfill sites. We do not have anything to do with it.
Do they not apply to the Minister for approval to proceed to acquire land and tender and so on?
They can apply for loans but it might not necessarily——
Is the Minister saying he does not have the foggiest idea of what it costs to acquire a landfill site?
No, the Deputy must be fair. He asked me if models had been considered and I gave him a very straight answer - that they had not. I gave the reasons for this. I was about to follow up and say to the Deputy that I would be happy to revisit the issue on Report Stage to see if I could get figures. I have no obligation in respect of this issue in the Department. We do not deal with it. The only umbilical cord - it would not reflect the full cost - is in respect of the fact that local authorities could apply for loans for some, but not all, aspects.
What I am seeking is not unreasonable. We are being asked to agree to legislation under which there will be a charging regime for landfill sites. I am satisfied if the Minister can deal with the issue on Report Stage but the committee or the House needs to be given estimates for what is involved.
I will be happy to come back to it. I do not want to be disingenuous but this issue has never arisen before. It is not until submissions are made that we will have the relevant information. It is the agency which will have a role in this respect. I will return to the issue on Report Stage and ascertain whether loan applications have been submitted for landfill sites.
Report Stage will be very restrictive. Will the Minister circulate a memorandum with the estimate before Report Stage?
If I have it, I will give it to the Deputy. He asked me if the Department would be involved but it will not be granting any funding - that is the role of the agency. I do not even know if applications have been made. Presuming there are applications concerning the cost of a landfill site, such as those of local authorities looking for loan approval, I will be more than happy to put such information at the disposal of the committee before Report Stage, if possible.
I have seen the proposals for next week's business. If I am not mistaken, a total of 2.5 hours has been allowed for Report Stage of the Bill, which is outrageous. There will not be much time to tease out anything.
To be fair, it is a matter for the Whips.
(Interruptions).
We have been considering the Bill for four days so far.
We know who will decide.
If Deputy Cregan was a wing forward, he would be blown up for the speed at which he is getting out of the scrum.
This is an extraordinary provision. Many things in the European Union are extraordinary.
We are party to it.
We are returning to the position we were in 100 years ago, rather than moving forward. With regard to workers' pensions within the European Union, for example, anything is possible. It is a speculator's charter. When the whole waste service is privatised, as envisaged in the Minister's philosophy——
I have no ideological feelings on the matter. I do not mind.
——we will have cartels operating landfill sites, etc., and they will use this provision to justify charging anything they want.
They would have to make an annual report to the EPA.
Yes, but they would have to factor in the price of land, which is almost any price one wants it to be nowadays. A speculator can state any price he wants, and the Government refuses to introduce any controls. How does one project forward what the costs of remediation will be for 30 or more years? What is the criterion for this? At present, an operator or cartel of operators can pull any figure it wants out of the sky when estimating the cost of remediation in 30 years and, therefore, say that this must be charged to those using the landfill site. Will the Minister tease out further how this provision will affect the price of disposal by incinerators as opposed to landfill sites? Will the effect be to make incineration, according to the rules he is proposing, much cheaper than landfill sites?
I find it interesting that the Deputy and I might find ourselves in agreement on the fact that we currently have no knowledge of what will be charged and that there are no grounds for calculating it. There are no obligations on anybody at present. The legislation brings a substantial degree of transparency to the issue by forcing operators to submit an annual report to the EPA. We will now be able to establish, for the first time, the basis for the setting of costs. Operators do not have to do so at present but will now have to justify their charges. This section provides that the requirement can be applied to incineration also. Therefore, I am jumping ahead of the upcoming directive which should satisfy the Deputy.
The Minister's proposal is so elastic and means nothing in terms of transparency because operators can charge any price they want and justify it.
They are specifically told what to charge for it, as Deputy Gilmore rightly stated. The regulations in this respect involve an exact transposition of what is contained in the EU directive, which is exactly what I am doing.
Apart from the charges for the regular refuse collection service, what is the position on the charges imposed by the local authority or other operator on householders who go to the tiphead once or twice a year with garden or garage waste? Does the Minister expect these charges to increase as a result of section 30?
I do not necessarily expect charges to increase. The point is that I do not know and have no basis for analysing what they are charging at present as there is no transparency. The legislation is putting in place criteria that will have the force of public judgment.
I am interested to know where the upper limit can be set. Is the Minister suggesting that the EPA or he, by ministerial order, can tell a landfill operator that its prices are exorbitant and cannot be justified and, therefore, need to be reduced? Is there some kind of regulator role being provided for, or is it just a case of documenting the estimates?
I am not suggesting the legislation will bring forward a regime of capping and did not mean to do so, if I did. I am not in a position to introduce it. The full cost must be charged. The public is not stupid——
How will the Minister control the charging regime?
People will know exactly what the transparent costs are and whether they are being severely overcharged.
What choice do they have?
I foresee every public representative rightly saying severe overcharging is completely unacceptable
What power will they have?
The point is that we simply do not know what the charges will be. I would have thought that people would have said the provision under discussion was good, transparent and provided a basis for charging a given price.
If the Minister can control it.
Market pressure will control it.
This is the first time that the cost of the land, either for a landfill site or an incinerator, and the cost of remedial works for the next 30 years will be taken into account. It is inevitable that the costs, previously covered by the local authority or somebody else, will escalate greatly. Does the Minister accept this?
How will this work in practice? On the cost of acquisition, a couple of proposals have been made, although I do not know whether they will be accepted. For example, in my constituency, two of the landfill sites being considered as part of the Dublin waste strategy are located in high amenity areas where land prices are very high. If one of these is chosen as part of the process which is at a very early stage, with land testing and so on, will the charging regime reflect the land price because of the cost of acquisition? Obviously, the cost will be much higher than it would be, for example, in Deputy Moloney's constituency. Will landfill operators or local authorities end up searching for sites where land is cheaper? In the USA they have ended up locating landfill sites on Native American reservations. While we do not have that option, we might have an equivalent. Will this set us off on a whole new approach to site location for landfill facilities?
The Minister said the cost would apply to existing facilities as well as new ones. Existing landfill sites may have been opened 20 or 30 years ago when there were no regulations of any kind. They were not sealed; they were a hole in the ground. Somebody might have put up a gate at the end of the field and called it a landfill site.
Or an estuary.
Yes. The cost of remediation will be much more significant in those cases than for the newer facilities. Take, for example, the landfill site at Ballealy estuary. What is the estimated cost of remediation in that case?
All of these facilities are licensed.
They are licensed but there is no statutory obligation on them——
There is under waste——
——to draw up a charging regime based on the cost of remediation.
Not under this Bill but they are already obliged to deal with issues of remediation and aftercare.
They have to deal with them but do not have to do anything else. The Minister is proposing that they draw up a charging regime based on the full cost of remediation.
Yes but the Bill refers to a period of not less than 30 years and it can be much longer than this. They can decide to stretch it out over 100 years.
To return to the issue of land acquisition, will it be the case that all the sites will be located where land prices are low?
As the Deputy knows, every region has its own integrated waste management plan. Therefore, it is not as if they will all be stuck somewhere down in the west. They will be in the Deputy's constituency, the south-east and the north-east. There will be facilities within each region.
We are being asked to accept something about which everybody is unsure. Nobody knows what this amounts to. We are being asked to buy a pig in a poke.
I understand the Deputy's points and sympathise with them but in all of this, right across industry and all sorts of other areas, the polluter pays principle was borne in mind. There has been no analysis of this. The Deputy's colleague was at the discussions, although I am not blaming him.
Is the Minister saying the polluter pays principle is nonsense?
No, I am saying the principle underpins all of this.
What "polluter" means has never been defined.
Deputy Gilmore was asking me whether the costs attaching to this were defined in advance. They are not.
In terms of this section, if something goes wrong with a landfill site over the next 30 years, who will have to bear the cost?
The owner or operator of the site.
On behalf of this committee, I recently visited Switzerland and looked at landfill sites. I saw one instance in which a site, in a town with a small population of 10,000 or less, was costing €350 million to rehabilitate. There is no end to what could happen down the line. I do not know whether there is any alternative to what the Minister is proposing but we must bear in mind the cost of rehabilitating sites that might or might not have been properly controlled when being filled.
I will discuss many matters with the Deputy at length but this refers to the EU directive. The argument is spurious. As much as I respect people's views, that is the bottom line.
We will suspend our deliberation on the Bill and reconvene after the vote in Private Members' time.
Can we agree a time until which to sit?
We will review the situation at midnight. We said earlier that it was our intention to finish the Bill tonight.
The Dáil is rising earlier than that.
We could have Report Stage in October.
Sitting suspended at 7.20 p.m and resumed at 9.15 p.m.
We had concluded our discussion of amendment No. 168.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 169:
In page 70, line 44, to delete "shall" and substitute "may".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 170:
In page 70, to delete lines 50 to 54.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 171:
In page 71, to delete lines 1 to 21.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question, "That section 30 stand part of the Bill," put and declared carried.
NEW SECTION.
Mr. Cullen: I move amendment No. 172:
In page 72, before section 31, to insert the following new section:
31.-Section 54 of the Act of 1996 is amended-
(a) in subsection (4)(a), by substituting ’may’ for ’shall’, and
(b) in subsection (5), by inserting after ’subsection (4)(a)’, ’that were the subject of consultation in accordance with that provision and in respect of which a condition has been attached to a waste licence in accordance with subsection (4)’.”.
This amendment states that, in circumstances where compliance with conditions attached to an IPC licence requires the obtaining of planning permission, the agency is obliged to consult the planning authority concerned and include in the licence such conditions as the planning authority specifies in the carrying out of such development, or even stricter conditions if the agency considers this to be necessary. This revision of the IPC code is restated in the new section to be inserted in the EPA Act. I believe this is a section colleagues will welcome.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 31.
I move amendment No. 173:
In page 72, line 15, after "Agency" to insert "(but, as respects the Agency, without the limitation imposed on subsection (1)(a) of that section by subsection (1)(b) thereof)”.
This is a technical amendment which was redrafted to include better language.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 31, as amended, agreed to.
Section 32 agreed to.
SECTION 33.
I move amendment No. 174:
In page 73, line 14, to delete "contravention"." and substitute the following:
"contravention', and
(c) by inserting in paragraph (c), after ’costs’, ’, including costs incurred by the Agency in relation to the carrying out of relevant inspections or surveys and the taking of relevant samples and the analysis of the results of any such activities,’.”.
Section 57 of the 1996 Act provides for access to the courts in relation to waste activities giving rise to environmental pollution. Subsection (1)(c) of that section provides that the court, in making a section 57 order, can include provisions in relation to the payment of costs. Given the costs which can arise for the agency in carrying out investigations associated with such proceedings, I am sure we will all agree that it is desirable that the courts have the power under section 57 to make provision for the payment of such costs in any order that might be made under the section. The amendment proposes to include an explicit provision for this purpose.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 33, as amended, agreed to.
Section 34 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 175:
In page 73, before section 35, to insert the following new section:
35.-Section 72 (inserted by the Waste Management (Amendment) Act 2001) of the Act of 1996 is amended by inserting the following subsections after subsection (4):
'(4A) Where any amount of levy becomes payable in accordance with regulations made under this section and is not paid, simple interest on the amount shall be paid by the person liable to pay the levy and such interest shall be calculated from the date on which the levy became payable and at a rate of 0.0322 per cent for each day or part of a day during which the amount remains unpaid.
(4B) Interest due in accordance with subsection (4A) shall be payable to the collection authority specified in the regulations under subsection (2) and the provisions of those regulations relating to the recovery of the levy shall apply to the interest as if it were levy.
(4C) For the purposes of subsection (4A), levy includes any estimated amount which has been included in a notice served by a collection authority on the person liable to pay the levy concerned provided such estimated amount has, in accordance with regulations under subsection (2), become due and payable to the collection authority.
(4D) Interest paid in accordance with subsection (4A) shall be treated as levy for the purposes of paragraph (l) of subsection (6) and section 74(7).
(4E) The Minister may by order amend the rate of interest specified in subsection (4A).'.".
This amendment relates to the charging of interest on late payments of plastic bag levy receipts by retailers to the designated revenue authority, that is, the Revenue Commissioners.
As a matter of curiosity, will the Minister use it?
Generally, payments are good but we do not want retailers to benefit from holding the money, of which the taxpayer should have the benefit.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 35.
I move amendment No. 176:
In page 73, line 42, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear that, where a local authority is satisfied on grounds of hardship, it "shall" waive all or a portion of the refuse charge made by it under subsection (1). It is to make it definite that a waiver would be granted.
I understand from where the Deputy is coming but the waiver system has been in place on this basis for a long time and works very successfully. I want to leave discretion in the matter with the local authorities. As I said to the Deputy on Second Stage, I do not want to change a good system by moving from local authorities using their discretion to a mandatory system.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 178 to 183, inclusive, are related to amendment No. 177 while amendments Nos. 177 and 178 are alternatives. They may all be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 177:
In page 74, to delete lines 7 to 14 and substitute the following:
"(5) (a) An amount payable to a local authority on foot of a charge made under subsection (1) shall be payable either in advance or in such instalments payable on or by such dates as the authority shall determine, and, in default of being paid within two months of becoming payable, may be recovered by the authority as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction.
(b) In any proceedings by a local authority pursuant to this subsection a certificate purporting to be signed by an officer of the authority authorised by it for purposes of this subsection and stating any matters relating to the liability of the defendant in the proceedings to pay an amount due on foot of a charge made under this section shall be sufficient evidence of those matters until the contrary is shown.
(c) Such a certificate shall be admitted in evidence in those proceedings without proof of the signature on it, that the signatory was an officer of the authority concerned or that he or she was authorised by it for the purposes of this subsection.
(d) The Minister may make regulations in relation to form and content of the certificate referred to in paragraph (b).”.
Amendments Nos. 177 and 183 are Government amendments. I will deal first with amendment No. 177 which relates to section 35 of the Bill and the new section 75 which it will insert into the 1996 Act providing a new explicit power to make charges for waste services. Subsection (5) of the new section 75 makes provision for the recovery, through the courts, of charges made under the section but which have not been paid. In proceedings for the recovery of moneys of this nature it is common practice for the authority concerned, in this case the relevant local authority, to provide the court with a certificate setting out the relevant information which has given rise to the proceedings. Rather than taking up the time of the court in having a witness appear to have to go through each piece of information in sequence, the matter will be laid out in writing in advance. This will not prevent the accuracy of any aspects of the information being challenged in court if an issue in that regard arises. It is purely a mechanism to ensure the time of the court will not be taken up in going through information which is not challenged. As no provision is currently made for this procedure in the waste management Acts, I, therefore, propose to include an appropriate provision through amendment No. 177.
With regard to amendment No. 183, subsection (8) of the new section 75 to be inserted into the 1996 Act provides for the making of such charges to be a matter for the manager. In order to ensure there is no conflict between this provision and the exercise by elected members of their general powers of discretion under section 140 of the Local Government Act 2001, it is necessary to include an amendment to clarify that the section 140 power cannot be used to frustrate the manager's exercise of the new section 75 power. Amendment No. 183 makes appropriate provision for this. A similar provision was included in the Waste Management (Amendment) Act 2001 in the context of assigning certain other powers to local authorities. I am simply repeating it. Do Deputies want me to speak to their amendments now?
Can we discuss them individually?
They are being discussed together.
They are related. AmendmentsNos. 177 to 183, inclusive, are being discussed together.
Do Deputies want me to respond to their amendments now?
Yes.
The broad thrust of amendments Nos. 178 to 182, inclusive, is to maintain the status quo in the function of setting waste charges and limit the capacity of the local authority to operate and administer an efficient collection system. This issue was the subject of much debate in both Houses through the various Stages of the Bill's progression and again this evening. At present local authorities do have power to charge for services, including waste services, under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (No. 2) Act 1983. I take this opportunity to bring this aspect of the local authorities' waste function under the waste management code. The provisions of section 35 are worded closely on the relevant provisions of the 1983 Act, including section 6 which allows a local authority to charge for services in advance. The only change of substance is that the setting of a charge for this service will, under this provision, be a matter for the manager. We have discussed this provision on many occasions at length and I think Deputies know where I stand in relation to it. I do not propose to accept the amendments.
This was one of the central issues of dispute between the Government and the Opposition on the Bill. The principal change the Government proposes in this section is that the making of a charge for refuse collection will become an executive function. In other words, it will be made by city and county managers, rather than by the elected members of the council, as was the case heretofore. To date we have received no serious explanation from the Government as to the reason this change in the law is necessary. Previous waste management legislation was justified on the basis of provisions for the making of waste management plans, in that local authorities had not exercised this function. They had not made or agreed to them but the same cannot be said for the making of charges.
No local authority has failed to agree its annual Estimates or make a charge. Admittedly, in a number of local authorities there have been serious difficulties in arriving at a decision but every local authority eventually arrived at one. If it was the case that last December or January a number of local authorities, perhaps including some large ones, had failed to adopt an annual Estimate and make a charge, I could understand the justification there would be for bringing forward this provision but every local authority has fulfilled its statutory obligation to adopt an Estimate and make a charge. Therefore, I wonder what is behind the introduction of this measure. The only conclusion to which I can come is that the direction in which the Minister is heading is towards the making of charges which would be very high.
We have had a discussion in recent days about the economic cost of the operation of landfill sites and the waste service. On a previous occasion the Minister indicated that his estimate was that the economic cost was about €11 per collection which, on the basis of one collection of non-recyclables per week and one collection of recyclables per month, would work out in the order of about €700 a year. It seems the Government is seeking to clear the decks for a regime of charging for refuse collection, which charges will be significantly higher than what we have experienced heretofore.
During much of the discussion on the Bill to date the Minister and colleagues from the Government side have laid emphasis on the degree to which there is a level of acceptance of refuse charges among members of the general community, which I do not dispute. If the charges are €150 or €200 per year, I do not dispute that many householders are happy to pay that amount. However, it would be a horse of an entirely different colour if refuse charges of the order of €700 to €800 per year were introduced. There would be much more resistance to that level of charges. This measure is being introduced because the Minister knows very well that, even among councillors of the Government parties, there would be a reluctance to make charges of that order in the Estimates for local authorities. In anticipation of this he is transferring power to city and county managers.
This measure is blatantly political. We are heading into the run-up to the local elections in 2004. The Minister wants to free councillors from his side of the political divide from having to make charges next December or January and is teeing up to enable outgoing councillors from the Government parties to go before the electorate next June and say, "Not I, master. We didn't make the charge. It is all the fault of the county manager." They are the only reasons I can think of as to why this is being done.
I recommend a number of the amendments being considered. In amendment No. 181, I propose that the decision should remain a reserved function. I also propose that the making of a waiver scheme should be a reserved function and that the only executive function should be to consider the individual applications.
The Minister proposes that the charge should be payable in advance. It is one thing to introduce a charge but requiring householders to pay it before they get the service is blatantly unfair. In some cases, there is considerable criticism by householders that they are being charged for a service they are not getting. In Dublin householders were promised at the time refuse charges were introduced that they would get the green bin as part of the service. While many did receive one, there are a substantial number who have not yet been supplied with one. Some of these who were told, perhaps two or three years ago, that a bin was on the way are now turning around and saying they are paying their charges and not getting the level of serviced promised. The principle of asking householders to pay in advance is wrong.
The other measure about which I am concerned is provided for in subsection (7) in which the Minister is proposing that where a sum is due to a local authority in refuse charges and the local authority concerned owes the person in question something else, the local authority can set one off against the other. This is also unfair. We have had experiences where, for example, student grants were withheld or deductions made from them in cases where charges had not been paid, or where people were owed refunds of overpayments on housing repayments or rent.
That has been part of local government law for about 50 years.
It should not be. It is wrong.
Fair enough.
There are two separate accounts. The citizen or householder does not have a general account with the local authority which it can run up one side and down the other. People have been owed moneys by local authorities for all kinds of reasons and it is unfair that they are being withheld. I have come across cases where, for example, the deeds of houses were held up because charges had not been paid. That is unfair and wrong and, in a situation where the Minister is now making provision in this legislation for the non-collection of bins, unnecessary. I cannot see the reason he must provide for this belt and braces arrangement.
This is a central issue. While I am opposed to the section in its totality, I have proposed amendments to deal with its more offensive provisions.
I am also finding it difficult to establish the thinking behind this section but it is becoming clearer to me, following Deputy Gilmore's line. I asked myself the reason the Minister wanted to give this function to managers. Once it is given to them, service charges will no longer be in the ownership of elected members. Therefore, they will have no responsibility in the matter and will not have to defend the level of service provided. I am beginning to believe strongly that this is a concession to Government councillors whose responsibility it would be to adopt Estimates to cover the real cost of greatly increased services to get rid of our refuse. Therefore, there must have been a campaign whereby Government councillors wanted this to happen. It is short-term relief for long-term damage to local democracy. We all recognise that if the real cost of disposing of our refuse is imposed, service charges will be increased. More dangerously still, does it give the manager a free hand to make up a shortfall, where applicable, in the rate support grant at Estimates time by increasing charges? He or she will be encouraged to do so by members because they will no longer have to accept responsibility.
This is a deplorable step for democracy. There might be short-term relief to get the Government over the next council elections next June when Government councillors, particularly, will be under more pressure than Opposition councillors. Because of what the Minister is introducing, Government councillors will state at the doorstep, "It was not us; it was the manager. He is an awful man. We did not want it. It was desperate that he increased the charges." This is a bad development. While it might be a means of getting over the difficulty facing Government councillors in the local elections, in the long-term it is bad that this has been allowed to happen.
Equally important, under another amendment, it will now be an executive function to determine waivers. I am strongly of the opinion that the policy on waivers should be laid down by elected members. Why is it necessary to make this an executive rather than a reserved function? Naturally, the managerial staff or the executive must deal with all applications for waivers but the guidelines should be laid down by elected members.
Another question of mine, which might apply to some, has to do with subsection (7) which states that, where there is a sum due to a local authority by a person, "the sum may be set off against the latter. . . " Does this mean that if an elected member, which could happen from what I have heard around the table, does not pay his or her service charges in protest, they could be deducted from his or her expenses?
That has happened. There is nothing new in this; it has always been the case.
If it has, why is the Minister including it in the Bill?
I am merely restating it.
I only wanted to have the matter clarified. I do not feel strongly about the issue, one way or the other, but I do feel strongly about the idea that giving a function of the elected members to the manager will let them off the hook in facing up to their responsibilities. It would be far better if they retained that function. For the past three or four years all of my council's Estimates for refuse charges have been adopted with cross-party support.
I will give the Minister an opportunity to explain the thinking behind this measure. Is he giving a sop to Government councillors, stating service charges will be raised substantially under the new legislation but that they need not worry that they will have to impose them because he will pass that chalice to the manager?
Before I call Deputy Boyle, I seek the permission of the committee to allow Deputy Cregan to take the Chair for ten minutes. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Mr. Cregan took the Chair.
One of the amendments is in the name of my colleague, Deputy Cuffe. If anything shows the difference between local government as an arm of local administration and the exercise of local democracy, it is this provision. On many occasions the Minister has expressed his frustration at the unwillingness of councillors and local authorities to be decisive but in many cases decisions have been made. I have been a member of a local authority which has made decisions but it has been decided that the appropriate ones have not been made. The motivation for this provision is that members of local authorities are no longer are to be trusted with what should be a reserved function, one of the many new executive functions passed on by the Minister and his predecessor over the past five years. On these grounds, regardless of the environmental impact of the Bill, this provision must be opposed by those of us interested in the concept of local democracy. That is the reason the amendment has been tabled.
Will the Minister highlight any additional powers given to members of local authorities in recent years and not lecture us on whether powers have been used effectively? Local democracy has to thrive regardless of whether the Government is happy with decisions made at that level. In all other European nations there are clear distinctions between central, regional and local government. There are also distinctions in terms of who makes decisions and whether those decisions are consistent with other areas of government. Until we reach that level of maturity and consistency in our political system, I see little changing, despite this and future Bills, in what remains of the scant reserved functions of local representatives which will eventually be peeled away until none remains. Unless the Minister changes this, my party and I see no hope of the legislation being amended appropriately.
There is no defensible reason to give city and county managers a new power to levy a bin tax without restrictions as to the level they may set. We will listen for an explanation from the Minister, although I cannot see any reason other than this being another pillar in the relentless move of the Government to put a parallel tier of taxation in place, a regime of local taxation. In order to do so, the Minister reckons there will be less political pressure on managers than on councillors from his party and those of the Progressive Democrats, who control many councils, and that they will be able to achieve this.
County managers live lives far removed from those of ordinary working class people living in their administrative areas in terms of income and lifestyle. They do not have the same level of contact with those living in local authority administered areas as elected representatives. I do not doubt they will look at this measure in a bureaucratic way, as a method of balancing the books. As the Government continues to starve local authorities of real funding, managers will try to make up the shortfall by soaking more from householders in this way. If the Minister succeeds in bedding this measure down, he will, in the lifetime of the Government, look for a further round of charges by giving managers the power to levy charges for water.
Fianna Fail and Progressive Democrats Members of the Dáil and Seanad, as well as candidates for local, general and European elections, need not go around wringing their hands and blaming county managers for the level of bin taxes brought forward at the end of the year. They need not say, as one Deputy said here, that they had no power; that they did not want it and that they spoke against the measure.
Does the Deputy have a question? I will bet any money he likes that will not happen. I have no reason to believe it will - that county managers will up charges by 100% or more.
They are going up with elected members voting for them, in spite of being under pressure from hard hit taxpayers. County managers will feel no such pressure. Perhaps it will not happen dramatically or all at once this winter but there are others to follow. The Minister may have moved on to other responsibilities by then and his successor will be able to wring his hands and say: "That was Deputy Cullen. We did not really agree with it at the time but he is off to different pastures now." In the same way, candidates will say in the local elections that it was terrible that their powers were taken away but I have news for them: no way, Jose. We will expose them.
Yes, I agree with the Deputy.
We will expose the fact that they came into the Chamber to vote this measure through, if that is what happens. They and the Government parties will carry full responsibility. Others and I will make sure the people know this when they come to decide for whom they should vote.
I have no doubt the Deputy will do so. I have no doubt he will not focus on the real issues of the campaign either. It will all be obfuscation.
My views are so well known that I do not want to bore committee members by repeating them again. The latest accusation tonight intrigues me greatly - that this measure suits Fianna Fail candidates. I stand to be corrected but I cannot think of any local authority area where Fianna Fail is in control on its own. There may be a few.
The Government parties.
Very few. That argument does not stand up, as the Deputy knows.
In Galway city they are in full control.
It may be the only one in the country.
Fianna Fail and the Progressive Democrats control it.
This was presented as if the whole country was controlled by the Government parties and the Deputy knows full well that it is not. Galway city council is probably the only one.
Galway County Council; Clare County Council.
There may be a few.
There are rakes of them.
The Deputy should stop. The reality is that the Labour Party and Fine Gael, in particular, with Fianna Fail, control most of the existing pacts in different ways. In Waterford city the Estimates process is controlled by a pact involving the Labour Party, the Progressive Democrats, Fine Gael and Independents. Fianna Fail has nothing to do with it, although I know it works with different parties in different areas. The numbers game might get it off the hook - it might also get all of the pacts off the hook but it is not exclusive to Fianna Fail. If I had the numbers in front of me, I could make the point, as Deputies know.
On Deputy Higgins's point on the lack of discretionary funding, in 1997 the amount was €349 million. Today it stands at €626 million. It has almost doubled in five years. Therefore, Deputies cannot say local authorities have been starved of discretionary funding. I would like the figure to be even higher.
I am intrigued by the points made by Deputy Boyle and others. I am strongly of the view that local government should be strong, with executive mayors and so on. I would like to be able to say at the end of next year to those involved in it, "You are on your own. Central government no longer has funds available. It has nothing to do with local government. These are your revenue raising powers in respect of which you have autonomy. Off you go." I believe in the complementary relationship between local and central government. However, if I introduced such a Bill in Dáil Éireann, people would have coronaries all over the place. While respecting the complementary relationship between central and local government, I would like to introduce a Bill which would reflect this aspect and move from a centralised government system to a much more decentralised local government system. I have already made known my views in public in this regard.
When the Deputies opposite indicate the systems in place in other countries, they know the revenue raising powers available under them. There are substantial revenues available in respect of education, policing, the fire service and so on - services paid for, although not exclusively, under the local government system. One of the difficulties is that this is a small country. Therefore, it would not be easy to introduce such a system. In countries with a population of 70 million such as France and the United Kingdom the economies of scale are very different. However, Denmark - not too far removed from us - and some of the Scandinavian countries have such a system in place. It is a road I would like to go down. I do not disagree with Deputy Boyle. Deputy Gilmore made the point in a different way.
What is the explanation——
I have made my position absolutely clear and will bring the matter to a conclusion. I will not place the country in a position where plans will be sundered.
I do not foresee charges going through the roof. One learns each day. If one does not learn from one's mistakes, one is not learning. I made a big mistake. This was not prompted by officials but I used figures for the real cost of collection. I had the approximate figures checked as I thought the committee might be interested in them and I have been misquoted on the issue ever since. If we had continued to do nothing and simply place everything in landfill sites, at the time the real cost would have amounted to approximately €500 or €600, or in one instance a maximum of €700 but we have moved away from the "do nothing" scenario which has come to an end. We must drive this agenda forward at a rapid pace in order that the public will not face charges that were increasing at an extraordinary pace because there was no alternative available. However, we now have regional management and integrated waste plans in place. Many local authorities are doing extraordinary work to put facilities in place. There have been huge improvements across the system. It is clear from what Deputies have said and from what I have been hearing around the country what was about to happen. I was not going to put the country at risk of receiving massive fines from the European Union. I was not going to take the chance that the plans would be sundered because I did not have that option. I would like to be popular - I might be a lot more popular if I was not bothered about this issue——
(Interruptions).
I am clarifying the issue. This is an important step forward. We will see how it evolves in coming years.
I want to concentrate on the transfer of power to set charges from elected members of local authorities to county managers. I would like to know the reason this is being done. To date no local authority has failed to agree an Estimate. The Minister spoke about issues, of which he was afraid. For a while I thought he was looking for weapons of mass destruction in county halls and that it was necessary to make a pre-emptive strike to save civilisation from something local authorities might do. Why is it necessary to give this power to county managers? Every council did what it had to do, however painful it may have been at times.
As the Deputy well knows, this has been the only issue which has driven the Estimates process. There have been threats, walk-outs and so on. I want to bring this to an end.
That is politics.
I am not disputing that.
It happens here on budget day and during debates on the Estimates. The Minister should describe what he will be doing for the next couple of months with the Department of Finance.
The Deputy has asked for my view which I have given to him. All it needs is for one local authority to walk away to expose the State to substantial fines. I am not prepared to take that risk.
The Minister is tilting at something that has not happened. The last local authority which failed to adopt an Estimate was Naas Urban Council in 1985, almost 20 years ago.
It was the only one which had failed to do so in 50 years.
It happened in Dublin City Council in the late Frank Cluskey's time. If local authorities continue to adopt Estimates, why is this being done? It is all very well for the Minister to say what he would like to do for local government but everything he has done in the last 12 months has been designed to take powers and functions away from it.
The two precedents for what is being done are the transfer of powers to county managers in the making of waste management plans - to be fair, even though I disagreed with this, it was justified on the basis that some local authorities had not agreed plans - and in the making of Traveller settlement plans, in respect of which all that was provided for was a default provision. If the Minister had come here and proposed the introduction of a default provision, whereby if a council failed to agree an Estimate, the power would transfer to the manager by default, there would have been some logic to it. The only significant functions left to local authorities are the functions of making of annual Estimates and county development plans. To say some councils have had difficulties and that there was brinkmanship is wrong. There is nothing wrong with this; it is good for a healthy democracy. At the end of the day, they all adopted Estimates.
The Estimates process is still live. Members need not pass the Estimate. The Deputy should not slide this argument in as if the Estimates function has been taken away.
Yes, but this is at its centre.
If I get an answer to this question, I will not ask it again. The Minister clearly said he did not anticipate much of an increase in service charges this year, that they were not going to go up to the figure of €700 mentioned. Why is he making this change if there is only going to be a small increase? We had a 30% increase last year when we struck the Estimate without a problem. We would manage to do so again this year if there was a small increase.
The Minister has not explained the purpose of taking authority from elected members. If he can explain it to me, I might not vote for the amendment. There is a hidden motive which may become clear later.
The Minister outlined that he felt there was a need to do this lest the plans would come asunder. Whose plans? They are not the plans of elected members. In my local authority we were not given the opportunity to vote because it was clear to management that the plan would only pass with amendments I had tabled, on which we were not allowed to vote. Therefore, we had a climate in many local authorities where elected members were not allowed to decide on issues relating to waste management. Where those who are allowed to vote come up with the wrong decisions, they are subsequently faced with legislation of this type.
The plans were certainly not approved by local people. They were imposed on all of the local authorities concerned. There is a lack of trust on the part of central government and the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government in the concept of local government. They lack trust in the ability of its members to make decisions. Even if they are the wrong ones, they are the decisions of the representatives of the people. If we cannot grasp this concept, what are we doing in democratic politics? That is the reason measures of this type should be opposed.
The Minister did not answer the question about taking the reserved function to determine waivers from elected members.
We discussed it last night.
I have answered it previously.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Amendment No. 178 not moved.
I move amendment No. 179:
In page 74, to delete lines 15 to 24.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 180:
In page 74, to delete lines 25 to 30.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 181:
In page 74, to delete lines 31 to 36 and substitute the following:
"(8) Notwithstanding the provisions of any order made under any other enactment, the making of a charge in respect of the provision of a waste service, and the making of a waiver scheme shall each be a reserved function, and any exercise in individual cases of the power of waiver under subsection (3) shall be an executive function.".
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 7.
Tá
- Boyle, Dan.
- Gilmore, Éamon.
- Hogan, Phil.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
Níl
- Cregan, John.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Moloney, John.
- Power, Seán.
I move amendment No. 182:
In page 74, lines 35 and 36, to delete "an executive" and substitute "a reserved".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 183:
In page 74, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:
"(9) A local authority shall not, by resolution, under section 140 of the Local Government Act 2001 give a direction or require any act, matter or thing to be done or effected where the effect of such direction or requirement would be contrary to, or inconsistent with, this section and any such resolution purporting to be passed under the said section 140 which contravenes this subsection shall be void.".
Amendment put and declared carried.
Question: "That section 35, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put and declared carried.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 184:
In page 74, before section 36, to insert the following new section:
36.-The following section is inserted after section 75 (inserted by section 35 of this Act) of the Act of 1996:
'76.-(1) Every waste licence and revised waste licence granted under this Act and in force immediately before the commencement of section 36 of the Protection of the Environment Act 2003 shall, without prejudice to subsections (3) and (4), section 49 and the other provisions of this Act, continue in force; for the avoidance of doubt, the provisions of this Act as they stand amended by the Protection of the Environment Act 2003, and not as they stood before such amendment, shall apply to such a waste licence.
(2) Every application made under this Act for a waste licence, or the review of a waste licence or a revised waste licence, and every review of a waste licence or revised waste licence commenced by the Agency of its own volition under this Act and not finally dealt with and determined or completed before the commencement of section 36 of the Protection of the Environment Act 2003, shall continue to be dealt with by the Agency, and be determined or completed by it, as if the application were an application for a waste licence, or the review of a waste licence or a revised waste licence under this Act as it stands amended by the Protection of the Environment Act 2003 or, as the case may be, the review were a review commenced by the Agency of its own volition under this Act as it stands so amended.
(3) The Agency shall, not later than 30 September 2007, have done the following (which, by virtue of this subsection, it has the power to do)-
(a) examined the terms of every waste licence and revised waste licence to which subsection (1) applies and for the time being in force and determined whether, having regard to the provisions of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 and subsection (4), the waste licence or revised waste licence requires to be reviewed under this Part or be the subject of the exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (4), and
(b) if-
(i) it has determined that the waste licence or revised waste licence requires to be so reviewed, commenced such a review and exercised the powers conferred on it by this Part consequent on such a review, or
(ii) it has determined that the waste licence or the revised waste licence does not require to be so reviewed and subsection (4) does not apply and, accordingly, that no further action is required, declared in writing that it is of that opinion.
(4) If the bringing into conformity with Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 of a waste licence or revised waste licence to which subsection (1) applies can, in the opinion of the Agency, be achieved by amending one or more conditions of the licence (and the making of those amendments will not significantly alter the character of the licence) then, unless the Agency considers it ought nevertheless, in the public interest or because of other special considerations, carry out the review and exercise the powers referred to in subsection (3)(b)(i) in relation to the licence, the Agency shall have made, not later than 30 September 2007, those amendments of the conditions of the waste licence or revised waste licence (which, by virtue of this subsection, it has power to do).’ .”.
This is to cater for the transitional arrangements relating to waste licences. The provisions replicate the terms of the new section 82 which Part 2 of the Bill will insert in the IPC licensing code.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 36 and 37 agreed to.
SECTION 38.
I move amendment No. 185:
In page 75, line 7, after "not" to insert "save by the express permission of the planning authority".
I do not propose to accept this amendment. It was moved in the Seanad for the same reason. The exhibition of advertisements is subject to development control under section 3 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The amendment, as drafted, would have the effect of wholly removing planning controls from advertisements where authorised in advance by property owners. Local authorities can, under section 20 of the 1997 Act, require the removal of any advertisement. I am satisfied that there is adequate legal provision.
Amendment put and declared lost.
As amendments Nos. 186 and 188 are related, they may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 186:
In page 76, lines 13 and 14, to delete "or direct election, within the meaning, in each case," and substitute "within the meaning".
These amendments are proposed in order to make the text consistent with the provisions of the Local Government (No. 2) Act 2003 which repeals the legislative provision for the introduction of the direct election of county and city cathaoirligh. It is proposed to delete references to direct elections in the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 38, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 39.
I move amendment No. 187:
In page 77, line 1, after "area" to insert "and collect residue".
This is a reasonable amendment.
It may well be but it would not add to the substance of the by-law making provision in the Bill. The wording - "and collect residue" - could be construed as requiring an owner or manager to collect the water used to wash down the area outside his or her premises. I presume that is not the intention but it could be the interpretation.
We could make it stop.
Accordingly, given the provisions in the Bill and its lack of clarity, I do not propose to accept the amendment. We have strengthened this area. The party of which the Deputy is a member was party to amending the Bill in the Seanad along these lines when I agreed to an amendment which dealt with the question of washing down areas.
We could have included a reference to solid residue. It would then not be taken to mean collecting water.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 188:
In page 77, lines 20 to 22, to delete "or direct election within the meaning, in each case," and substitute "within the meaning".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 39, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 40.
As amendments Nos. 189 to 192, inclusive, are related, they may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 189:
In page 77, line 43, to delete "€130,000" and substitute "€5,000,000".
On the intent behind each of the amendments, the levels being suggested in the Bill are far too low. The amendments would be consistent with much of our environmental legislation. I know the Government will make the argument that it intends to introduce a fines Bill that will index fines in all legislation but if the levels are low in the first instance, indexing them will not do a lot. It is incumbent on us, therefore, to set a realistic level that will act as a sufficient deterrent. In each of the four cases, the amount suggested should be large enough to discourage activity that will result unless the figure in each case is included.
I know the Deputy was not here earlier and was not dealing with the Bill - I do not mean this as a criticism - but I have increased the vast majority of litter fines. Most such cases would be tried in the District Court which carries an upper limit of €3,000 for offences. I have increased the fines from £1,500 to €3,000, which represents a huge jump. I am advised that it would not be constitutionally safe to impose a higher fine. Conviction on indictment carrying maximum fines not exceeding €130,000 and €10,000 per day for continuing offences is being introduced to provide a greater deterrent in particular categories of littering activity. These are substantial fines, which reflect reality. The maximum fines of €5,000,000 and €50,000 proposed by the Deputy would be disproportionate and not warranted in litter cases.
The Minister has highlighted part of the difficulty in that prosecutions in the District Court necessarily introduce such restrictions. Because of the District Court limit, there have been derisory fines under the Water Pollution Act for serious incidents. We must think outside the box, set higher levels of fines and put them in the appropriate jurisdiction to allow the deterrent to take effect.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 190:
In page 77, line 45, to delete "€3,000" and substitute "€100,000".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 191:
In page 78, line 2, to delete "€10,000" and substitute "€50,000".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 192:
In page 78, line 4, to delete "€600" and substitute "€10,000".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 40 agreed to.
Sections 41 and 42 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 193:
In page 78, before section 43, to insert the following new section:
43.-Regulations under the Planning and Development Act 2000 in force immediately prior to the commencement of this section whereby a fee is payable for the making of submissions or observations to a planning authority in connection with an application for permission to that authority are hereby revoked.".
We are now discussing Part 5 - Miscellaneous. The Planning and Development Act 2000 allowed the Minister to set fees for making submissions or observations to a planning authority in connection with a planning application. There is a €20 fee for objecting to planning permission or making an observation on a planning application. The Labour Party strongly opposed this at the time, regarding it as a charge on democracy.
Since then, a number of environmental organisations have made complaints to the European Commission on the basis that charging a fee, where an environmental impact study is involved, is in breach of EU legislation. The legal opinion from the Commission agrees that the €20 charge does not comply with European law concerning environmental impact statements. Clearly, if it does not comply with EU law concerning an EIS, for what would be substantial planning applications, it makes no sense to have a €20 fee in the caser of minor applications. My amendment proposes the abolition of the €20 fee.
The primary purpose of the €20 fee is to contribute towards the enhanced service required under the 2000 Act and the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 to be provided by planning authorities for those who make submissions. I am satisfied that the fee is at a level that will not deter any person or body which has any concern about a planning application. I have no proposals for the amendment of the requirement.
As the Deputy said, on 23 January the European Commission issued Ireland with a reasoned opinion to the effect that the €20 fee for making a submission on a planning application was contrary to the public participation element of Directive 85/338/EEC on environmental impact assessments. A reply which responds to each of the points raised in the reasoned opinion issued to the Commission on 16 May 2003 and contends that the imposition of a €20 participation fee is not in conflict with the provisions of the relevant directive. I have no proposals at this stage to amend the relevant regulations, which reflect an approach recently endorsed by the Oireachtas in the Planning and Development Act 2000.
It is very regrettable that the Minister insists on being dragged kicking and screaming by the European Commission into abolishing the fee, which is the direction in which we are heading. Even if the European Union had never issued a reasoned opinion, the fee should be abolished. We will return to the issue again.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 43 agreed to.
SCHEDULE 1.
As amendments Nos. 194 to 196, inclusive, are related, they may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 194:
In page 83, line 1, to delete "650" and substitute "750".
Clearly, all sows and their banbhs are related. Therefore, it makes sense to discuss the amendments together. This part of Schedule 1 states:
The rearing of pigs in an installation, whether within the same complex or within 100 metres of the same complex, where the capacity exceeds-
650 places for sows in a breeding unit, or
275 places for sows in an integrated unit, or
2,000 places for production pigs.
Is this related to planning? If not, to what is it related?
It is related to the type of pig units representing different rearing operations.
It is proposed in the legislation to allow 650 places for sows in a breeding unit. Is this without planning permission or 650 places entirely?
This has nothing to do with planning but licensing.
In tabling this amendment Deputy Allen showed he had an affinity with sows, because he wanted the number to be increased to 750.
The amendments touch on issues raised by farming organisations, with which we have had extensive discussions on a range of issues. The Bill proposes to licence breeding units with more than 650 sows. While this is in advance of the directive, it provides for equity between the production and breeding sectors in ensuring licensing takes effect at a similar point in terms of the environmental impact, regardless of the type of intensive pig rearing being carried on. The technical advice available to me is that similar phosphorous loading from slurry is produced by 650 breeding sows and 2,000 production pigs. I believe the farming community accepts this. The directive is clear that a 30 kg pig weight limit must be specified at the crossover point for the production of pigs.
Suckler pigs are often left until they have reached 32 kg. I cannot see much difference between the 30 kg and 32 kg limits.
They were agreed as part of the directive.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 195:
In page 83, line 6, to delete 30 kg and substitute 32 kg.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 196:
In page 83, line 9, to delete "30kg" and substitute "32kg".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 197:
In page 83, to delete lines 22 to 24 and substitute the following:
"7.3.1 Brewing (including cider and perry production) in installations where the production capacity exceeds 25 million litres per year, not included in paragraph 7.8.
7.3.2 Distilling in installations where the production capacity exceeds the equivalent of 1,500 tonnes per year measured as pure alcohol, not included in paragraph 7.8.
7.3.3 Malting in installations where the production capacity exceeds 100,000 tonnes per year, not included in paragraph 7.8.".
This is a somewhat technical amendment. The 1992 Act did not contain any threshold for commercial brewing and distilling operations. I am setting the thresholds at a realistic level so that very small breweries are not included.
Was this based on advice?
Yes, it was recommended by the EPA.
Amendment agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 10.32 p.m. and resumed 10.46 p.m.
We resume on amendment No. 198.
I move amendment No. 198:
In page 85, lines 39 and 40, to delete "kiln, not included in paragraph 10.1" and substitute "kiln".
The amendment proposes to delete a phrase which was inadvertently included in the text of the Bill. There could never be an overlap between the production of cement under paragraph 10.1 and of a lime in a kiln in paragraph 30.3. The cross-reference in the latter can and should be deleted. The amendment rectifies a mistake in the text.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
SCHEDULE 2.
I move amendment No. 199:
In page 86, to delete lines 18 and 19.
The amendment makes a deletion similar to one made in another amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
SCHEDULE 3.
Amendments Nos. 200 to 202, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 200:
In page 86, line 32, after "landfill)" to insert "other than the application of animal manures and slurries of benefit to agriculture".
It is reasonable to include the text I have proposed in the Schedule in question.
The purpose of the Third and Fourth Schedules to the 1996 Act is to reflect the waste disposal and recovery activity specified in Annexes II A and B of the waste framework directive. Subsequently, in May 1996, minor changes to the annexes were made by Commission decision 96/350/EC and these amendments were carried into the 1996 Act by the European Community's Waste Management (Amendment of Waste Management Act, 1996) Regulations, 1998.
The opportunity is now being taken, for the avoidance of doubt, to confirm these amendments to the Schedules by means of primary legislation. As these annexes are fundamental to the application of the directive, it is essential that we ensure their precise transposition into national legislation. Accordingly, I am not in a position to accept amendments which would tamper with the Schedules as this could cast doubt on our transposition into Irish law. The directives prescribe exactness in the Schedule.
Does that mean the spirit of the amendments will be included in the Schedule?
No, I am transposing the exact wording of the directive. The contents of a directive, as the Deputy will be aware, are precise and we may not go beyond them.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes.
Before we do so, as we are dealing with Schedule 3, I wish to raise a substantial issue for the purpose of amending the Schedule in relation to incineration on land or at sea. Given that we have only a couple of hours to deal with these amendments next week on Report Stage, I do not expect we will get anywhere near it, but if we do, I will amend it for the purpose of discussing it at that stage.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
SCHEDULE 4.
I move amendment No. 201:
In page 88, to delete lines 3 and 4.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 202:
In page 88, line 12, to delete "produced."." and substitute the following:
"produced.
14. Excavation of landfill.
15. Excavation or remediation of land contaminated by industrial processes, extractive industry or waste disposal.'.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Amendment No. 203 not moved.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
As I indicated previously, I may return to certain provisions on Report Stage in addition to the interpretation of waste management plans. I am looking at the interface between waste management plans and the development plans with a view to potential Report Stage amendments. On the completion of Second Stage I said I was endeavouring to finalise certain provisions in regard to end of life vehicles. I hope I will still be in a position to do that, although to date I have been unable to do so.
When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
I understand it will be taken on Tuesday.
The Whips have arranged it for next week. I think it will be on Tuesday.
If the Minister's proposed Report Stage amendments, which have not been the subject of discussion on Committee Stage, are such that we would not be disposed to accept them, we will oppose the taking of those amendments on Report Stage, which is subject to a guillotine. If the amendments are not controversial there will be no difficulty in dealing with them, but if that is not the case I will seek a recommittal of the Bill to a Committee Stage debate.
That is fair enough.
I thank the Minister and his officials for attending today's meeting and the other meetings. I also thank the committee members and Members of the House who are not committee members who assisted in the completion of the consideration of the Bill. I also thank the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas for their assistance.
I thank the committee for the high quality of the robust debate. It contributed greatly to an understanding of the issues involved, which I appreciate.
I would like to be associated with those remarks.