I move amendment No. 54:
In page 24, subsection (3), line 11, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
SECTION 18.
I have no difficulty with accepting this amendment. The arguments I have prepared are identical to the ones I stated on the previous amendment. However, if the wording of the section is considered, Members will realise that I intend doing what is suggested under this amendment. I see no difficulty in accepting it.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 55:
In page 24, subsection (3) (b), lines 15, to delete "hazardous".
This amendment simply expands the scope of the section by deleting the word "hazardous" for subsection (3) (b). If the subsection is read as currently drafted, paragraph (b) applies only to hazardous wastes and would preclude the Minister from introducing regulations concerning non-hazardous wastes. As a result, local authorities would only be able to obtain information on such waste on a case by case basis through service of a notice under subsection (1). It is in the interest of good waste management and prudent regulations to encapsulate all classes of waste, not simply hazardous waste.
I welcome the amendment. Does the definition of "hazardous" include a proportion of domestic waste?
I will have to read the section again to see what is defined as harardous waste.
In America hazardous waste includes domestic waste.
Any classification of hazardous waste, whatever the source, is encompassed by the term "hazardous waste" in the context of this Bill, despite the clearer definition in European law which would exclude domestic waste. That is not excluded from the term "hazardous waste" in the context of this Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 56 to 58 inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 24, lines 39 and 40, to delete "as soon as may be thereafter" and substitute "within seven days in writing".
The Chairman will forgive me for not being prepared to discuss this amendment immediately because I had many arguments to offer in relation to amendments Nos. 56 to 58 which were not moved. The argument in favour of this amendment is a familiar one. The term "within seven days in writing" is aimed at ensuring that things are not put on the long finger. Is there any reason a local authority or the agency itself should be allowed to interpret the term "as soon as may be thereafter"? The term "as soon as may be" seems to imply things can be done in a leisurely fashion without a rush. It does not provide anything by way of direction. The Minister has a responsibility to provide direction given that he has the expertise at his disposal to inform the local authority or the agency of the significance of applying.
I do not want to place too great a burden on local authorities or the Environmental Protection Agency. I have more confidence in the Environmental Protection Agency than Deputy Sargent's comments indicate he enjoys. I am disposed to address the issue the Deputy has raised. I believe that seven days is slightly onerous. If the Deputy withdraws this amendment I will introduce an alternative at Report Stage with a proviso for application within 21 days.
With regard to amendment No. 57——
The amendment was not moved. It was discussed with amendment No. 49.
It has not been clarified for how long the records are kept.
Unless it is covered by the regulations?
Is it covered by the regulations?
Yes. It was discussed with amendment No. 49.
Can the Minister clarify if a stated period of time is included?
I did not make a particular comment on this issue when the amendments were discussed together. The period of 75 years is rather an onerous one for which to retain all records. Large warehouses would be filled with minutiae after a period of 75 years.
Creating much waste.
Yes, We will reconsider this issue and introduce an amendment at Report Stage aimed at a reasonable, balanced period for record-keeping. It will be more ambitious than the European Hazardous Waste Directive, for example, which requires records to be kept for only three years. I believe that 75 years is a rather onerous period but an reasonable timeframe is needed if, for example, one considers the operation of a landfill site. I might be willing to entertain a period in the region of 30 years.
The officials from the Banker's Federation raised this point when they appeared before the committee.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 19
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 25, subsection (2), lines 2 and 3, to delete "or the Agency, as the case may be," and substitute "and the Agency,".
This amendment does not sound very onerous to me but I am beginning on a hopeful note. Section 19 (2) states that "A register under this section shall be kept at the principal office of the local authority concerned or the Agency". The fact that the principal office of the agency is not located in Dublin brings home to people living in the city——
The principal office has a wonderful home.
The Minister has good reasons for saying so.
Is it close to a golf course?
The choice being made to retain the information at the agency means that it will be far away from people who do not live in Wexford or near one of the regional offices. This amendment proposes the substitution of the wording "and the Agency" for that of "or the Agency" even though it would require some people to travel a long distance. It might be more accessible if it were kept in local libraries, although I know it is a lot of material.
The principle should be to make the information available as conveniently as possible. If a clause "or the agency" is included local authorities can get away with not having the information at hand. That loophole is unacceptable.
I do not want to make impracticable arrangements for the local authorities or the agency. We can reach objectives of access to information and having high standards of provision without crippling the agency or local authorities with responsibilities. The next demands would be for staff resources etc. The objective is for the public to have access to information on a reasonable and practicable basis and what I have set out achieves that.
Ever mindful of the reasoning coming from the Opposition, I consulted with the agency which told me its practice is to send to a local authority information about licensing activities in the functional area of the local authority. The agency is prepared to give a commitment this practice will be applied to all activities under the Waste Bill also.
It would be unreasonable for the agency and each individual local authority to have an updated register available all the time. It would be a great burden to place on them. If one is interested one knows one can have access to information. Knowing where to get the information is more important than having a network of the same registers avilable all over the country.
Subsection (1) states: "Each local authority and the agency shall as soon as may be after the commencement of this section establish and maintain a register for the purposes of this Act . . . ."
Their own register. We are talking about the national register.
Is the Minister sure we are talking about two different things?
Yes. The agency has the national register and the local authority has its own register. If one goes to one's local authority one will have information available for the local authority area but not the whole country.
I want to see the agency in the best light. I do not wish to be seen to malign it by insisting that the local authorities have the information. I am sure with the best of intentions it wants there to be the fullest access to information. It ought to be possible to establish a commitment by putting down some timeframe. It is my experience from involvement with various environmental groups that when one looks for information reasonable answers are often given as to why one cannot have it, such as "It will take too long to get it." some timeframe should be given so that people who look for information and are told it is available from the agency are not left high and dry while the agency or the local authority goes about making the information available. Is there any reason for not having any timeframe?
With regard to the availability of the information and making public access easier, the major task is to compile the information. Once that has been done modern technology should make it possible to transmit it widely. If this information is available to local authorities then it ought to be possible to make it available in public libraries without any major cost.
That would involve a major cost burden. The register is not static; it will change every day. New monitoring data will be added continually. The monitoring data could be boxes of information. There will be a general register available but the data, in its absolute terms, will only be available in the agency. It would not be practicable to have everything that comes to the agency replicated in electronic form for circulation around the country. It would be an enormous task. Nobody elsewhere does it. I agree with the Deputy's initial point that it is most important to have a comprehensive record and to know where that is.
I do not wish to press the amendment to a vote. The Waste Bill has been described by people outside this country as being rooted in the 1970s or the 1980s and not meeting the requirements of the 1990s — I am sure the Minister would argue against that strongly. The development of information technology has overtaken most of us, but the Government is beginning to catch up with the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, talking about the Internet. There is widespread availability of information at the press of a button. We are not just talking about boxes of paper being moved around. If the information is compiled and available on disk, could it be made available via the Internet, for example, which will be in every home very shortly?
Let us try to be practical. Every home has not got the Internet.
I did not say that.
The Deputy said it would be in every home very shortly. One IPC licence application would fill a filing cabinet. I have visited companies and seen the data. Incrementally this will become a volume of data. It is not reasonable for all that to be replicated in any form inputted and updated daily and sent around the country. There might be a new licence dealt with every day. I would prefer one repository for all the data, a register that one could access. That is the intention in the Bill.
In what form will it be?
Subsection 7 (a) states "A local authority or the Agency may keep a register under this section otherwise than in legible form so that the register is capable of being used to make a legible copy or reproduction of any entry in the register." It can be in other than legible form—computer disk or whatever new technology provides for in the future. Let us not design for the 22nd century until we have got to the 21st century.
We are only talking about a register and perhaps we are focusing incorrectly on the issue. We are all interested in people having access to information.
Transparency, openness and accountability.
The Minister's point is reasonable. We are talking about a register; let us get it compiled accurately and up to date, and let us talk about access to the information on another section.
I will withdraw the amendment. The Minister would also like as many people as possible to visit Wexford and this is one way of achieving that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 19 and 20 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 25, subsection (1), line 37, after "Agency,"to insert "and with the agreement of the relevant Local Authority."
I put forward this proposal in the interest of local democracy. According to the current wording of the section, the Minister may, following consultation with the agency, decide on something and bypass the local authority. There should, at least, be some consultation with the local authority. My reading of it, is that the Minister can decide without consulting it to do away with a function of the local authority. I know the reaction of an ordinary local authority member reading this, would be that it was typical of the treatment by central Government.
What I had in mind was not to take power from an individual local authority. I am talking about functions which would be agency functions rather than local authority ones, for example, responsibility for issuing commercial hazardous waste collection permits. Should we talk to every local authority to see who would or would not agree? We are talking about where responsibility should rest, which is best determined by the Minister in the legislation rather than consulting with functional layers of bureaucracy. It is impractical to consult every local authority. It is not a matter of taking power from individual local authorities' functional area and leaving it with somebody else, but a matter of removing a class of function from a local authority sphere into the agency's sphere.
The wording should be looked at, although who am I to argue with draftsmen and the Attorney General's office? I am fed up arguing with people in the Attorney General's office. However the section states "The Minister may, following consultation with the Agency, where he or she is satisfied that any function conferred on a local authority by this Act....". Would it not make more sense to say "any function or functions conferred on a local authorities by this Act"?
The Deputy will not want to hear the answer to his question. The draftsman tells me that the use of "a" implies plural as well as singular, female and male, and is all encompassing in this regard. It is the drafting convention under the 1937 Interpretation Act which governs the drafting of legislation.
This is a very educational forum but I hope that it will also become an amending one.
We are also discussing the section, which the Deputy is opposing.
I am opposing the entire section. A couple of minutes ago the Minister was trying to save the Environmental Protection Agency from taking on more burdens and now the Opposition is trying to do the same. The Environmental Protection Agency will be rightly confused. Nonetheless, it is the overall wish that the most democratically accountable system should be in place. If rafts of decision making functions are taken over by the agency, regardless of the fact that it can be brought here, questioned and investigated, I am not convinced that that is as accountable as the Minister having to get the permission of the Dáil, or the local authority having to get the permission of its elected members.
I am wary of this section which seems to make it possible to remove significant amounts of decision making from local authority control. It must not be forgotten that local authorities have built up a large body of expertise and local knowledge. That can be abused because they are almost too close to the local knowledge, however, we must be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water and to ensure that the agency is given the powers it needs but is not used to pre-empt local authority decision making so that accountability and local democracy suffer.
I recognise that the agency has already been given an enormous amount to do. The integrated pollution licences which have been expected since the agency was set up are now so delayed that people are wondering if the agency is able to fulfil its mandate and if that difficulty in coping with its burden will continue. I an worried that this section will further burden the agency and result in a deterioration of accountability and workability in the long run.
The Deputy has only read the first subsection of this section. This is a framework provision. The idea is to enable the function to be handled at the most appropriate level. While it allows for taking power from local government and giving it to the agency, it also allows for taking power from the agency and giving it to local government. It allows for taking power from county councils and giving it to sub county authorities. The idea is that the function, in the best principle of subsidiarity, would be done at the best level. It will not be a one way flow.
I would love to know where it is not a one way flow.
I suggest that the Deputy read section 21 (3).
I meant in practice. I know that it is in the section but I am looking for the practical implementation.
I find the Minister's interpretation of the Interpretation Act very helpful and if that is the intention, we should start to put laws into ordinary layman's language. However, I accept what the Minister said.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 21 agreed to.