Amendment No. 1 is consequential on amendment No. 207 and amendment No. 2 is an alternative to amendment No. 1. It is proposed to discuss amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 207 together. Is that agreed? Agreed. If amendment No. 1 is approved, amendment No. 2 falls and there will be a separate vote on amendment No. 207 but no separate discussion.
SECTION 1.
Is there a fixed time for the votes or will they occur when we reach them?
I have already indicated it is not possible to fix times for the votes unless there is an order of the House.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 17, before "Waste Act, 1995" to insert "Avoidance and Reduction of".
The committee has had a great opportunity to meet a number of interested people and groups in relation to this Bill, and I wish to acknowledge the Chairman's role and that of the convenors in organising those meetings.
There is widespread interest in this Bill. It is designed, according to what the Minister told us and according to the Bill's provisions, to tackle in a systematic way the problem of waste, its elimination and management. The Bill's purpose is to prevent and reduce waste. However, calling it the "Waste Bill" is insufficient. It could be seen as a Bill to promote extra waste. The title should clearly indicate the determination expressed by the Minister and others to avoid waste where possible and to prevent waste.
I propose an alternative title as the meaning and purpose of the Bill should be reflected in its title. Most modern legislation in Europe and the US would have stronger titles. If we include the ideas of the avoidance and reduction of waste it will convey the message that we are serious about reducing waste. I ask the Minister to accept this amendment.
I congratulate the Chairman and the committee on their extensive preparatory work. I have watched and read with interest the submissions received. It is appropriate the committee should have consulted broadly because I regard this legislation as the most important for which I will have responsibility as Minister for the Environment. The level of preparation and detail is appropriate.
I will do my best to assist the Chairman in dealing with the Bill's provisions as expeditiously as possible. I will curtail my natural inclination to be long-winded. Having been in Opposition for many years I will accept as many amendments as I can. I approach the Committee Stage of a Bill on the basis that we have a common purpose, which is to have the best legislation enacted. With respect to the experts accompanying me I admit there is no reservoir of exclusive wisdom on matters such as this. Concrete and positive proposals from the Opposition will get a fair hearing.
Having said that, I have to deal with the amendments before us. There is a legislative form with which Deputy Dempsey is familiar. The Short Title of a Bill must, by definition, be as clear, concise and accurate as possible. The Long Title is explanatory and states:
AN ACT TO MAKE PROVISION IN RELATION TO THE PREVENTION, MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF WASTE; TO GIVE EFFECT TO PROVISIONS OF CERTAIN ACTS ADOPTED BY INSTITUTIONS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES IN RESPECT OF THOSE MATTERS; TO AMEND THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ACT, 1992, AND TO REPEAL CERTAIN ENACTMENTS AND TO PROVIDE FOR RELATED MATTERS.
The opening few words of the Long Title encompass the intent of this amendment. To cite simply avoidance and reduction of waste in the Short Title would not do justice to the Bill because it is about a lot more than that. I am anxious that we approach the construction of the Bill in the same way to avoid unnecessary waste of words. I do not consider it appropriate and I suggest the formulation I have put forward is best.
With regard to amendment No. 2, the meaning of the term "secondary resources" is far from clear in ordinary usage. The Bill does not use that term although there are amendments tabled to include it. It is not a clearly defined term and it would not help to amplify the meaning of the Bill. I suggest "Waste Bill" with an amplified Long Title is the correct structure.
The Minister has answered what he probably thought I was going to say. The Bill before us has so many parts that it is tempting to give it a long title. I assure the Minister I resisted the temptation as much as humanly possible, probably beyond that. There is an element of the Bill not even mentioned in the Long Title as it stands. It is certainly not apparent to the vast majority who create waste, those on whom we have to focus.
This Bill has to educate people primarily. A large element of the work in this area depends on education and the many submissions made, and their value, also must be taken into account. A couple of the groups which made submissions are in the business of recovering and reusing material. It is as sacrilegious for them to talk about their raw materials as waste as it would be for us to classify our language as gibberish. It is a travesty for them to talk about waste; they are adamant they are dealing with materials. I am referring in particular to Secure Shred Limited, a very successful business in Dundalk which is branching out around the country and across the Border. They talk about the importance of defining secondary resources.
We should begin as we mean to continue and talk about more than simply waste. We are talking about a shift in the mind set of people. As long as people think of whatever is going into the bin as waste, it will not receive the amount of attention it ought to in their day to day experience. I urge the Minister to consider the value of elaborating to that extent on the word "waste" because it is not all waste. We have to educate people that the word "waste" is insufficient.
I have certain sympathies with the amendment because we have to look at waste in a different manner. Irrespective of what the Minister said about the Long Title of the Bill, people will not use the Long Title. There is an important agricultural scheme called the rural environment protection scheme which everybody now refers to as the REP scheme. Could we have an environmental protection Bill or a short title such as segregation of waste Bill or recovery of waste resources Bill which would give the clear impression that it is not all waste?
I agree with the amendment, in that the Title of the Bill does not accurately or adequately reflect its intent and objectives. We have a view in this country about waste. We increasingly generate more and more waste and we then put in place a system of collection and disposal of waste. I am afraid people will think that the intention of this Bill is to deal more efficiently with the collection and disposal of waste in the future. That interpretation would defeat the intent of the Bill.
While I can see what the Minister has in mind and that a Short Title is an effective one, I ask him to reconsider. The Title should reflect more accurately the intention of this Bill, which is a total change in attitude and approach to waste, and the putting in place of practices based on a different set of principles such as prevention. That is not clearly reflected in the Title of the Bill. If the Minister does not find it possible to support the amendment, he should examine the thrust of what Deputy Dempsey said and table his own amendment on Report Stage.
Perhaps the Minister could recycle the Title of the Bill.
I do not want to get bogged down in the Title but I hear what the Deputies are saying. We worked for a long time on the component parts of this very broad Bill. Putting avoidance and reduction of waste into the Title would not do the scope of the Bill justice because it is much broader than that. There are various formulations of appropriate titles. The Swedish equivalent is called the ecocyle Act.
I suspect that regardless of what Short Title we give it, it will be known as the Waste Bill in common parlance. Last year and the year before I was involved in complicated negotiations between the three hospitals which will join together in Tallaght. The title of that hospital will involve, after much negotiation, the names of the Adelaide, Meath and National Children's Hospitals but I dare say that it will always be known as Tallaght hospital. However, in deference to what the Deputies have said, if the amendment is not pressed I will reflect further on it and see if we can come up with a broader Title which might encompass the desires of the committee.
In light of what the Minister has said, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. We need to get the message across and a few simple words such as "prevention" or "avoidance" should be included in the Title.
With regard to amendment No. 2, which is in my name, I hear what the Minister is saying and I acknowledge that a great deal of work has gone into the Bill. However, all that work should be reflected as much as possible in the Bill and I hope that the Minister will consider the merits of my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 7, subsection (2), line 22, after "provisions" to insert "but with the proviso that all sections shall be in operation within 2 years".
Many people have put a great deal of work into this Bill and we have had submissions from various groups. If we are to show that we mean business in relation to implementing this Bill we must include a timescale and a compulsion on the Minister, the agency and local authorities with regard to when the provisions of the Bill will come into force. As everybody, including the Minister, has acknowledged, the movement in Europe on waste management is towards taking the problem very seriously and tackling it, and we cannot be seen to be any less diligent.
While there are specific cost implications for the Government, the agency and local authorities in the Bill, we have to grasp this nettle and tackle the real problems. If we take firm and decisive action in regard to waste, food production and so on our green image will be enhanced. As an illustration of the importance of our green image, in the last few days a very prominent Dutch firm with 600 supermarkets in the Netherlands has said that it will only sell Irish beef because it is what their customers look for.
We cannot afford, in a Bill like this, to make enabling legislation allowing the Minister to decide he can introduce regulations and then leave it on the Statute Book. I know the Minister has no intention of doing that, but everybody concerned would be much happier to see that we really mean business by imposing a timescale. We have recycling and other targets, as outlined by this and previous Ministers and, if we are to be serious about this, we must put this proviso in the Bill, so that there is a timescale imposed.
I support this amendment. It is important that a timescale be put on the implementation of this Bill in its totality. A number of interest groups to whom I spoke were supportive and thought it was essentially a good Bill. I compliment the Minister and his team on the amount of work that has been put into the formulation of this Bill. Having said that, a number of groups referred to the framework nature of the Bill and were afraid that a number of its provisions would not be implemented in what they believe to be an essential timeframe, reflecting a lack of urgency about the overall intent of the Bill. For that reason I support the idea of putting a timeframe on its introduction. It will demonstrate to all those who will have to comply with these provisions that the Government is serious about its enactment.
Second, it will help us to rid ourselves of the notion of putting things on the long finger. We know the principle of St. Augustine: Lord, make me good but not yet. Everybody wants to be good in terms of dealing with waste but many people like to think that other people will do it or that they will not have to do it soon and can leave it until later. That view should not be allowed to stand.
There will be a significant cost to industry when this Bill is implemented. When I talked to industry leaders, they were of the opinion that they would prefer to know up front what was required of them. They would be happier to know precisely the requirements imposed on them by the provisions of this Bill so that they can plan and budget for it sooner rather than later. In defence to industry, we have to put a timeframe on the Bill. That is one of the reasons I supporting this amendment. Local authorities who have been in the habit of doing things the old way are not likely to change quickly in response to this Bill unless there is an absolute requirement on them to do certain things within a given timeframe. That is important.
I also acknowledge that there will be significant costs on every sector to put this Bill in place. I further recognise that there will also be significant real overall benefits to the economy at the end of the day and significant economic benefits to industry and to the commercial life of this country, as well as to the environment and the aesthetics of this country. It would be better to set a timeframe on the implementation of this Bill in its entirety now, so that we can all get to work on it and not put the response to this Bill on the long finger. It is reasonable to put the timeframe suggested by Deputy Dempsey.
A timeframe is important and, to that extent, the amendment from Deputy Dempsey is welcome. There are questions which will be unanswered if there is not a timeframe. While the Minister has a clear interest and his credentials are known in the area of concern for waste, what would happen if his successor were not all that keen? I cannot imagine that the officials will badger him to make the regulations if he does not feel like doing it. The new Minister would not have to do it, if it was his prerogative not to introduce the regulation or interim legislation. That is a question people want answers to. Can a new Minister change the regulations this Minister has made and could we end up with a seesaw type of system? There are real concerns raised by people involved in the business of secondary resources, as they would call it, although the Minister might call it waste.
There are other people who are waiting for legislation to come into place, such as Kerbside. Kerbside has a list of over 50 different companies which are contributing to the waste stream but ignorning and denying the fact that they do so. Legislation is required if anything is to change in that area and time will be a factor.
I want to knock on the head once and for all the idea, which is frightening people away, that this is somehow going to be costly and that perhaps that is a reason not to go about it too quickly. A well-known English correspondent in this area, Mr. Jonathan Parrot, whom the Minister will know of, recently had a title on his article in The Guardianwhich captured what we ought to be about. He said we should stop doing good and do business. He was basically saying that proper management of sustainable development is good for business and it is a question of doing good business, not just doing good. If we were to grasp the nettle and made the necessary changes, we could begin to learn to live with the more ecological way of dealing with this problem.
I thank the Members for their broad-ranging comments. I want to make a few general comments and then respond specifically to the proposed amendment. I do not see this Bill, important as it is, as stand alone legislation that we can all sit back and be happy with. It is simply a significant block in a large wall of legislation, policy, action and regulations. We have good primary legislation enacted by my predecessors. The most important Act is the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992. We have clean air legislation and waste water regulations and legislation. A variety of components is in place and this is the most significant of the new legislation. It is important in itself, but I am aware that the regulations being brought in and their timetabling are equally important as the actual framework, which will hopefully be enacted quickly.
I will give my public commitment early on to drive this legislation to the best of my endeavours. We are not waiting for it to be enacted before we start that process. I have already had discussions with a variety of interest groups, for example IBEC, in relation to the preparation of industry for the implications of this Bill. IBEC has a standing committee looking at how its members can reduce their own waste cycles, minimise the production of waste and comply with the provisions of this Bill in advance of its implementation. I expect to have a voluntary code submitted to them before this Bill is enacted.
We are not standing idly by waiting for this, although we are focusing very much on the legislative provision; we are working to have it enacted quickly.
Sustainability is a hallmark of our environmental policy, in line with the attitude outlined by Deputy Sargent. We have established a Joint Committee on Sustainable Development. I have said to that committee, in my opening remarks at its first meeting, that we have to look afresh at the requirements of environmental protection and to see it as good for business in itself.
Deputy Dempsey has instanced one recent positive result for Ireland's standards and reputation. It is incumbent on us that we protect them, not only because we want a pristine environment for our own people but also because we want our industries, agri-business and tourism to thrive. I am convinced that can be facilitated by the highest environmental standards. It is not working against job creation or an effective economy. Ultimately I want to change the measurement of economic performance by moving away from the older, cruder instruments — like using GDP as a criterion — and factoring in environmental criteria as being equally valid. We are working towards a major attitudinal shift. In the context of all these policies this Bill is important, not as an end in itself but as a major building block in a large wall of regulation and co-operation. I do not want to be seen as driving somebody with a big stick. I want to empower and encourage people to take action. Every sector of the economy, be it agricultural business or the trade union movement, is approaching this area with a heart and a half, to do what is right and sustainable for the future.
It is important for such legislation to be enacted rather than hanging on a shelf. The legislation is both major and complex. For example, having had responsibility for two years for the Child Care Act, I know how even with the best will in the world it is difficult to bring sections of it into effect because we need to create the framework for it.
We have given this amendment great consideration and, in tune with the attitude of being positive to amendments, I am willing to accept the principle of it. I would like to submit my own amendment in terms of the specifics. For example, is the period of two years to date from the enactment? I will accept the spirit and thrust of the amendment and if the Deputy withdraws it I will come back with my own amendment on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section I agreed to.