Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 are alternatives to amendment No. 62 and all may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 22.
I move amendment No. 62:
In page 26, subsection (2), line 30, to delete "such date as may be prescribed" and substitute "1st January, 1997".
The purpose of the amendment is to have target dates for the regulations under this Bill. I do not go along with the existing vagueness. The Minister has explained the difficulties in relation to specific timetables but I want us to be somewhat specific in relation to the time. I am not hung up on 1 January 1997, but I would like something other than "such date as may be prescribed".
I appreciate the points made. I am anxious for an effective waste management plan under Part II of the Bill to be in place as soon as possible, but I would rather see this function implemented properly than put in some artificial timeframe under which inadequate or incomplete plans would be drawn up.
It is important to have the Bill enacted and to have the agency draw up its own plan before the deadline for the individual local plans. There are prudent provisions in the Bill. The flexibility is there to have good plans, rather than an imperative to have any kind of a plan in an artificial timeframe.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 63:
In page 26, subsection (2), line 30, to delete "as may be prescribed" and substitute "within one year of this Act becoming law".
The Minister is aware of the story which tells of a law being introduced, councillors ask the manager about it and the manager replies it is the law, but that they do not have to do anything regarding its provisions because it will be put on the long finger. I agree with the Minister that we all want a good plan but at the same time it appears to be very open-ended. Some timeframe should be inserted.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 64:
In page 26, subsection (2), line 30, to delete "as may be".
The thinking behind my amendments is similar to the other amendments. However, it does not tie down the date and allows the Minister to have regard to the sentiments without having to set a date. Nevertheless, I hope it strengthens the case for making the amendment in some form or other, as the Minister will see that ". . . as may be . . ." leaves local authorities with much leeway. Being involved in a local authority, I am aware that provisions such as this are very often overlooked when there are other pressures.
I support these amendments. Local authorities are already required, by law, to make county development and city development plans and are required to so do within a specified time.
How many do?
Most of them.
This is the reason for my amendment.
This is another reason for proceeding with these amendments. If a mumber of local authorities ignore the requirement to make a development plan with impunity, which is a basic framework for the development of their areas, they will be much more inclined to do the same with regard to the provisions of the Bill, because the cost of the Bill to a local authorities will be substantial. Unless there is a time requirement put on them, they will let it drift.
Is there a statutory obligation on boroughs and counties to review their county development plans?
There is.
It is sometimes more honoured in the breach than in the observance.
What is the situation on this? Some local authorities are under extreme pressure to have this work carried out within five or six years, or whatever is the period of time.
Passing a law does not necessarily make things happen. I was Minister for Health for two years and to compare a reading of the Health Act, 1970, with the reality reveals many discrepancies. For the sake of good administration, we should try to enact practical laws that can be implemented. I intend to implement waste management plans for local authorities. I also intend to have national structures within which this would happen. I do not wish to set artificial guidelines because I do not want inadequate plans where people meet deadlines for the sake of meeting them. Under section 26(7), for example, the making of the national hazardous waste management plan by the agency itself, as set out under section 36, should precede the making of any local authority plan. Therefore, steps should be taken before the local authority plan is finalised.
Local authorities are now engaged on strategy studies which will lead to local waste management plans in due course. The strategy studies, the implications of this Act and the interaction of the agency and local authorities will build towards it. The most appropriate and prudent course is for the committee to leave it as tabled in the original draft, whereby I, or the Minister of the day, will define the appropriate timeframe for drafting the waste management plans, rather than to now artificially prescribe a time.
I would also rather see good plans rather than mere plans and I also have no difficulty with regard to the Minister's point on artificial timescales. However, unless we have some indications that it will be done within a specific time, we are wasting our time here. Waste management planning is a very important section of the Bill. We will not undertake any planning, waste avoidance, waste management or anything else unless we have plans drawn up by local authorities to which they must adhere.
I am aware of the length of time it takes to review or make a development plan in Dublin, but I have not heard anything from the Minister to the effect that it would be his view that local authorities would have to have these plans drawn up within three years or something like that. If the Minister could be a little more definite I might be able to justify withdrawing the amendment. Will the Minister consider looking at this? One cannot leave the wording ". . . not later than such date as may be prescribed . . .".
There is no other way of doing it unless a timeframe was imposed, which I am unwilling to do, for the good reasons I outlined. I am serious about this and about its planning. I have already issued local agenda 21 guidelines to every local authority and have asked them to begin the process of waste management plans. The local strategies are up and running. I intend recouping a good deal of the cost — up to 75 per cent — of the preparation of the plans. I will draw up the regulations when the Bill is enacted and those regulations will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas in due course. That is as far as we can prudently go, rather than set an artificial time-frame.
There are only two ways of proceeding. The committee either sets a time-frame or allows me to do it. We have begun the process. I am very serious about it, and I want a high quality plan. My officials will not be available for two days next week because they are conducting a seminar for local authority officials on the implications of this plan for local authorities. Much of the groundwork is, therefore, up and running with regard to the preparation for the implementation of the Bill when it becomes law at local level.
Will the Minister look at the idea of a penalty clause? I have more important things to do than merely talk about waste or waste management and I will not tackle the thorny problem of recycling, proper landfill sites or whatever in the same manner. Will he consider, if possible, including a penalty if they do not have one carried out within a prescribed period?
The Deputy knows that secondary legislation is as binding as primary legislation and I will have power to demand that such plans be drawn up within the timeframe I set. That will be binding on local authorities. It will not be up to a manager to be lethargic in the way the Deputy describes.
The Deputy asked for an indication of the timeframe. After the enactment of the Bill the Environmental Protection Agency will take about 12 months to draft its own hazardous waste plan. After that the local authorities would take about six months to complete their individual plans. That is the timeframe I envisage. We are talking about perhaps 18 months from the enactment of the Bill for the local authority plans to be put in place. Obviously, we will flesh that out when the seminars are over, when we see the reaction and when the difficulties will be explained to my officials by the officials who will have to work on these plans.
I am not in a position to be definitive at present. Before setting timeframes, I ask for flexibility in order to talk to the people who will have to do this job.
I am surprised to hear the Minister asking us to wait until he talks to the people who will have to implement this. There has been a great deal of consulting by the committee and I presume that in the course of drafting the Bill there was considerable consultation given the job that must be done in this area.
What are the penalties if a local authority does not produce the waste plan? The local authorities will argue strongly that they find it beyond their capabilities, that they do not have the time, that it is too much to ask of them and so forth — the Minister has probably heard such excuses more often than I have. When county managers appeared before the committee I asked them fairly fundamental questions. I recall asking about composting and whether consideration was being given to that as a way of dealing with a large proportion of domestic waste. The answer was — as was reported in the newspapers — that they have to crawl before they can walk. Will that be satisfactory? If the Minister receives that answer what can he do apart from declaring that he is unhappy?
I am not sure that there is control over the local authorities. At least in the case of a development plan developers are knocking on the door wanting to know when decisions will be made and that creates its own level of excitement. However, I do not see the same level of excitement being created by people asking about the waste plan. People who knock on the door about such are often dismissed as busybodies or NIMBYists — they certainly do not command the same level of respect as those looking for a development plan. I worry that there is not the level of control over foot dragging on this matter as the Minister claims there is. I would prefer to have penalties.
The Deputy raised two separate issues. His initial point is that he wants a timeframe included in primary legislation. I will set the time frame by regulation and that has the same legal impact. There is no difference in the force of a regulation drawn up under an Act and a provision in the Act. The legal imperative will still exist and I have no doubt that local authorities will comply. If they do not comply we will take action to ensure compliance.
There is no precedent for penalty clauses for local authorities not doing something. It is unworthy of the Oireachtas to take that view of local authorities. Many of them will be anxious to fulfil their obligations and many local authority members are as environmentally conscious as the Deputies.
They are not in control.
That must be addressed in a different way. I accept the general point about the imbalance between the administration and the elected membership at local level. However, we can look at that on another day.
I have outlined my envisaged timeframe. I seek the Opposition's support for that timeframe and for my good faith in this matter.
I will withdraw the amendment so that I will have more time to think about this.
I understood the Minister to say he will look at this before Report Stage.
I made no such commitment. I ask Deputies to accept what I said.
I hope he will think about this between now and Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 65 is consequential on amendments Nos. 66, 67, 68, 69, 71 and 78 to 86, inclusive. Amendments Nos. 89, 90, 91, 98, 102, 103 and 104 are related. With the agreement of the committee we will discuss those amendments together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 65:
In page 26, subsection (2) (a), line 34, before "and" to insert "having regard to section 22 (3),".
This amendment depends on acceptance of amendment No. 66. The Minister said, in response to an earlier amendment, that he has the best intentions and I do not dispute that. However, I was brought up to believe that the road to hell is paved with good intentions so I am obliged to propose these amendments.
That was when people believed in hell.
It depends on how one is reared. This amendment is based on my considerable experience on one local authority and after I contacted all local authorities about their waste plans. The replies I received were enlightening even though they were brief in many cases.
When local authorities in the greater Dublin area were asked about their individual waste plan they responded by saying that they had an overall joint plan and that I should talk to somebody in another local authority if I wanted to know the details. That started warning bells ringing in my head on the provision for joint management plans. While there will be a need in several cases for waste management to be dealt with on a joint county or local authority basis it is vital that we do not overlook the requirements of each local authority to be responsible for the waste hierarchy we discussed the last day——
Mine or the Deputy's?
If both were implemented it would go a long way towards solving the headaches. Obviously, I prefer mine. The Minister often spoke about minimisation but he did not talk so often about prevention which is the premier aspect of the waste hierarchy and to which I gave considerable attention in trying to be helpful with the definition. The waste hierarchy is difficult enough to implement, but it will become even more so if local authorities are allowed to have joint plans without having individual plans governed by very specific requirements. For instance, before a local authority thinks of transferring its waste to another local authority it should rigorously assess whether it is necessary. Has it brought into effect all the aspects of the waste hierarchy, giving priority to aspects which are often not acknowledged?
The waste hierarchy in Dublin is different from the waste hierarchy in a rural area where there are great distances between centres of population. Dublin is a fairly densely populated area and many of the provisions and the measures we would like to see implemented are more workable in this area, so there cannot be a common implementation of that waste hierarchy. A number of us visited Kerbside as the Chairman will testify and we had extensive discussions with the management there. They are enthusiastic about extending that operation, or a form of it, to avoid — or reduce — landfill. I include composting in that; it is often not borne in mind because it is overshadowed by the packaging directive.
The practicality of doing that in the Dublin area leads me to insist that the merits of amendment No. 66 be taken on board. This amendment would go a long way towards meeting the needs we are talking about. The practicalities of implementing a collection system mean that it is more likely to happen in the greater Dublin area than in a rural, perhaps even depopulated area. It is criminal that a local authority can simply decide it has a problem and that it needs a landfill site. That does not address the problem it is faced with. I have provided in the amendment that a local authority should establish it has done everything it can to avoid the fateful decision to export its waste. That is not being done.
We are talking about exporting to another local authority. You may want to use the word "transfer", but that is a soft description of what is involved. The people living around Kill, County Kildare, see it as nothing other than the export of waste to that facility if it comes on stream. The word "transfer" might sound like a temporary little arrangement. It does not in practice work out like that as the Minister would be the first to admit. I inquired whether it would be possible for the "transferred" waste to be recovered at a future date. I realise there are difficulties in that and to use the work "transfer" is not to recognise those difficulties.
I have already referred and I do so again because it is relevant to this amendment, to the response of local authority managers. It shows the lack of progress in the fundamental direction in which waste management should be going. Other countries have been far more successful than us to date, in spite of the fact that the densely populated, greater Dublin area, should be showing the way. How much of the 46 per cent or 47 per cent of the domestic waste stream which is municipal is taken out of the waste stream at the moment? I hazard a guess that it is less than 1 per cent. St. Anne's park is very busy after Christmas receiving Christmas trees for compost which gets media publicity and shows that something can be done, but it only is a tantalising taste of what ought to be done.
If the local authorities are allowed to have joint plans, as happened with Kill, they will fight the decision through the courts and override the wishes of the local population in which they propose to be active. That is a very regressive way to allow waste management to develop. We could avoid many of the problems, landfills would not be such a nuisance if they were smaller; they do not have to be as large as we invisage them. My proposal is simply to ensure that local authorities face up to their own responsibilities before they dilute —that is what it amounts to—their responsibilities by having a joint waste plan that does not address their own requirements first. That is the reason I am hoping the Minister will look sympathetically at this amendment. It is doing no more than filling in a missing part of the jigsaw.
We want to make a bigger jigsaw having joint management plans but I am worried that will lead to local authorities taking their eye off the ball when it comes to preventing the waste being generated in the first place and minimising the amount of waste generated. I hope the Minister will see that this amendment will be a help. Future problems will be avoided if each local authority is required to do everything that it ought to be doing right now but is not.
That was a long contributuon. Does anyone else want to come in before the Minister replies?
I agree with the general principle of Deputy Sargent's proposal. Each local authority should have a responsibility to draw up its own waste management plan. I do not mind them consulting then—they have to do that but I agree with the general thrust of his argument.
We had a discussion about this the last day. I am fundamentally at odds with Deputy Sargent's approach. The thrust of the body of amendments is that each local authority would be compelled to act strictly in isolation in relation to waste management planning and the measures which follow from any such plans that they adopt. That is fundamentally opposed to the approach in the Bill. It does not recognise a range of practical realities, current desirable trends towards co-operation between local authorities and issues of economic thresholds. I have repeatedly asked regional authorities to look at waste management from a regional perspective. I am informed that in a new landfill, operating on the standards we will insist on, and annual minimum threshold of approximately 50,000 tonnes would be required. Cities like Limerick do not produce that amount and some counties would produce a fraction of it. Will we require them to manage their waste?
If Carlow and Kilkenny have a joint waste management plan, which is environmentally sound——
I am not against joint management plans.
——it is daft to say that the movement of waste from Carlow to Kilkenny is exporting. It is a perversion of the proximity of principle. There are sound environmental as well as economic reasons why there should be co-operation between local authorities. It underscores the rational measures I encouraged local authorities to take. There will be a number of wastes which it will not be practicable to dispose of even on a regional basis. We might need a national centre for disposing of certain types of wastes. The notion that each county should be an independent republic with a vetting and licensing system to cross the county line is extreme and inappropriate and I fundamentally oppose it.
I do not know who the Minister is opposing because he is not opposing me, although he may wish to portray that. I said I understood why joint management plans are necessary. For example, each county would not have an appropriate facility to deal with batteries, which would be less than 2.5 per cent of the domestic waste stream. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that I am speaking from the same position. That is why he should have no problem with the amendment.
The Deputy referred to the exporting of waste between counties.
Yes.
Is it only Dublin to Kill or does the same apply elsewhere?
The Minister is trying to say that I am not in favour of joint management plans. I categorically refute that. The Minister spoke about independent republics — words I never used. This Bill is not about semantics but it is important to call a spade a spade. Whether we say transferring waste or exporting waste, it means 40 tonne lorries coming into one area from another. I do not mind what we call it. We can call it the transfer of waste if that is more acceptable.
The principle should not be overlooked. If local authorities have joint management plans which do not contain individual plans, officials, like those in the councils I contacted, will say they have joint management plans when asked and they will not be able to give details about how their area contributes to the waste stream and how they are implementing the waste hierarchy to prevent and minimise waste before it is shunted, transferred or exported from one local authority area to another. There is a principle at stake.
Kill is no more than an example and I stress that it is not simply because of it that I have tabled this amendment. In the future if local authorities are allowed to have joint management plans which do not require them to face up to their responsibilities, they will unfortunately take the expedient course of action. I would be tempted to do so if I was a county manager and the provision was not clearly laid out to reduce and minimise waste before it was inflicted on anybody else. That is not much to ask. A plan which requires a local authority to do everything it can before it enters into a joint arrangement is no more than asking it to face up to its responsibilities. I do not see a problem with that.
From what the Minister has said, the joint management plan is understandable and progressive in some ways, but it should not be used as a smoke screen. I am worried that will happen. If the Minister gave me a categorical assurance that we could come back to this in five year's time, I would accept it. I do not believe we should be playing with the issue when we can include provisions which will prevent any abuse, as I hope we are trying to do. I do not see any way of preventing that abuse if we do not include a provision so local authorities will draw up their own plan before joint management plans. It could even be drawn up in conjunction with it, but we should not exclude drawing up individual plans.
One of my amendments relates to the cost of implementing the provisions in this Bill. If each local authority has a joint plan, it will face the cost as a composite entity. Surely each local authority should be able to say what the cost of implementing the Waste Bill will be in its area so it can tell elected representatives exactly what is involved. At present the administrations in the local authorities just wring their hands. An answer given to me was that we must crawl before we can walk. That is not satisfactory and it sets off warning bells. If we do not provide for individual plans for local authorities before they become involved in joint management plans, we will have a repeat of Kill. Deputy Dempsey will be up in arms when Baleally is full and we buy land around Oldcastle.
Our sites are identified.
They will not only be used for waste from County Meath. Does the Minister accept I am not saying joint management plans are not a good idea?
The Deputy is taking them out of the Bill. His amendment removes every reference to two or more local authorities working on waste management plans. Does the Deputy require them all to have individual plans? The Deputy is removing a policy which I believe is important. I know he draws most of his experience for the Dublin perspective, but there are counties where it is environmentally sound to have a joint strategy. These amendments remove that from the Bill.
I am putting in something.
The Deputy is saying he has no difficulty with the concept but the import of the amendments is to remove all reference to them. He is saying that downstream he has no difficulty with that. Our approach to water quality is on a catchment basis. The boundary of a local authority is not a waste catchment area — it is not sacrosanct. Why not pick a parish boundary, so that it must be dealt with within the parish? A local authority must look at the realities and the practicalities of the amount of waste generated and the appropriate environmental setting to dispose of it. That might be within its own functional area; it might be jointly with a neighbouring authority; or it might be jointly with two neighbouring authorities, depending on the scale of the operation and the volume of waste generated. That is sound environmental practice and the Deputy proposes to cut that out of the Bill——
I am not. Did the Minister hear what I said?
——requiring every local authority to have an individual plan. The Deputy is saying one thing, but the import of his amendment is the reverse of that.
That is the Minister's interpretation, not mine.
I stand over what I said on this. I agree with the principle of what I think Deputy Sargent is putting forward. I know there are many things in the amendment, but I understood the principle to be that each local authority should make a waste management plan and there is nothing to then stop local authorities from coming together to discuss their plans and agreeing a joint plan. That is reasonable enough, because if we allow two, three or four local authorities to draw up a composite plan for a region, there will be buck passing on it.
The Minister should consider—I do not know if this will go some way towards what Deputy Sargent is pushing —deleting the words, "in lieu of each of them making a waste management plan," in section 22(2), so the subsection would begin: "Two or more local authorities may jointly make a plan". It is important that they initially address the problem of minimising, controlling and managing waste within their own areas and then the broader questions can be dealt with—the economies of scale the Minister so rightly points to and the environmental reasons it might be important for two or three local authorities to work together. I can accept all of those things but, by leaving in the words, "in lieu of each of them making a waste management plan," the Minister is letting the local authorities off the hook in some respects.
I do not have an amendment tabled to this section, but I am inclined to propose an amendment to delete those words on Report Stage. I am not sure whether I could do that but perhaps the Minister might do it.
There are elements of waste management that would perhaps be better dealt with on a local authority basis and others that would be better dealt with jointly. The element that can be better dealt with jointly relates to the disposal of waste. In my part of the country local authorities will be acting in unison and they are already planning that in Cork, where the city and county authorities will be working together. That makes economic sense. There are other elements of waste management that would be better dealt with locally. These are prevention, minimisation and recovery of waste. Those processes will depend for their success on being done as near as possible to a given local authority area. Perhaps the Minister would have another look at this.
My difficulty is that what is being said by the Opposition is reasonable but the amendment in front of me is not reasonable.
I accept that.
Under subsection (d) of Deputy Sargent's proposed amendment, a local authority shall not export waste unless it is satisified that it is necessary to do so. The proposed subsection (d) (iii) states that:
the local authority to which waste is to be exported uses the best available technology in dealing with the waste.
There is no mention of cost, just the best available technology. There would have to be a monitoring, vetting or analysis system before there could be the level of co-operation I am encouraging to be the norm. Before Cork city and county local authorities can work on a common waste disposal plan it has to be decided whether it will be on a load basis, a yearly basis or a principle basis that this vetting process has to be gone through. I am opposed to that.
I have encouraged local authorities to look realistically at waste management and set the highest environmental standards. We will legislate and they will implement those standards in a co-operative way. Not every local authority will be able to do that. The Deputy should talk to the Limerick city authority. It does not physically have scope within its boundary to deal with waste and it is logical and natural that it would talk to its neighbours to devise a common plan.
I do not know what this amendment proposes because I do not know what "necessary" means; I do not know what criterion has to be applied or to whom it applies. It is vague and I am not willing to accept. It works against establishing the type of co-operation I am anxious to establish and against the thrust of co-operation of local authorities in having the best practices that I want to put into the Bill. There is no other similar provision, as far as I am aware, in European law. Other countries do not have those narrow confines.
There is some merit in the discussion in terms of looking at individual plans that do not preclude co-operation ab initio and I will reflect on what has been said, if the amendments are withdrawn, to see what I can do on Report Stage. I reject the substance of the amendments tabled in Deputy Sargent’s name.
The Minister may not be surprised, but I did not really think he would take them on lock, stock and barrel. I would have been the first to come over and congratulate him if he had. However, he is listening and perhaps it is now beginning to dawn that there is merit in having an individual waste plan. The Minister's talk about regional co-operation——
It does not have to be regional; it could be city and county.
I am using the Minister's words; he said "regional" and "intercounty" and I am just trying to reflect on what he said. My amendment does not preclude co-operation, as he initially suggested. Subsection (3) (a) of the amendment states:
Where there is a transfer of waste from one local authority area to another, this shall be clearly indicated in each local authority's waste plan.
That states it as it is, and when I or any member of the public phones a local authority to find out about its waste plan I should not get the reply that the plan is for the whole region and everything is to be lumped in for that whole region. That does not encourage specifying how the components in the waste stream are to be dealt with individually. Some will, as I said initially, require broad treatment; others are localised.
In the estate where I live, there is a pilot project for composting. It is best organised on a housing estate basis and certainly not on an intercounty basis. If there was a joint waste management plan that did not contain a local plan, the local plan would be lost. The Waste Bill unfortunately continues to favour the landfill option. The Minister may disagree with that but I am simply talking about experience up until now and I remain to be convinced that there is another experience waiting for me in the future. I am trying to provide for the future on the basis of our experience.
We are moving further away again. I think, and I am saying this genuinely, the Deputy's perspective is exclusively a Dublin one. That is all I hear. It is predicated on Kill, County Kildare and Kill dump.
It makes a nonsense out of the general strategy. Rehab runs bottle banks all over the country. Every time a bottle bank is collected and brought to a central location, will that be exporting waste? In one of the main car parks in my home town we have a centralised collection point for clothing.
It is not a matter of batteries. It is a matter of recycling a whole range of goods. We do not have individual processing plants for bottles, glass, aluminium or materials in every county, much less in every local authority area.
Not in the country.
Absolutely, so let us be realistic about this. I want a level of co-operation. I think the thrust of what Deputy Sargent is doing is creating impediments to the good environmental treatment of waste and to practical recycling measures with this notion of every individual local authority being a fiefdom to itself. I really think the Deputy is blinded by the Dublin experience and does not——
Is the Minister saying it is overkill?
It is the Fingal experience.
——have a perspective for what is good for the country. I have argued my case to exhaustion.
Is the Minister prepared to look at section 22(3) so that there would be a requirement that local authorities would at least draft a waste management plan initially?
I will reflect on this one aspect of it, the fear expressed by the Opposition that somehow people would evade their responsibilities by this. However, I want the ability for joint plans to be drawn up from the beginning as, environmentally, that is the soundest policy.
We agree with the Minister. I suggest not to go even as far as "Two or more local authorities may, in lieu of each of them making a management plan, . . ." in section 22(3). If they were obliged to put the management plan in a draft format, which is the consultative format, at that stage they would, at least, have to focus their minds on waste management, waste avoidance and waste minimisation. I take it the Minister will do that.
I will not do that much. I have been to virtually every regional authority and I have encouraged them to look at the matter in a co-operative way. I will not unravel work already done. Where it is sound from an environmental perspective to have joint plans, I want to encourage them to do that from the beginning and therefore, I will not require them to draw up an individual plan and then discover it might be better to do a joint one. Where local authorities decide from the beginning that a joint plan, whether in Cork city and county, for example, is the best way to go, let them work on it from the beginning. I want to encourage them to do that, I want to facilitate them to do that and I will certainly not impede them from doing that.
If there is some clause which I can insert to ensure that, where bad environmental practice is a result of this provision, it is prohibited, I will reflect on such a mechanism for introduction on Report Stage.
We have had an extensive discussion on a number of amendments. We have a procedural difficulty in that there are 15 amendments to be dealt with. How stands amendment No. 65, Deputy Sargent?
It stands battered and bruised.
Can it be recycled?
It may well be recycled. It is withdrawn for the moment until we see what the Minister comes up with on reflection on Report Stage.
Nothing which will approximate to this, let me assure the Deputy.
I did not imagine the Minister would have the time to go into that much detail but he may make some provision.
He should make provision so that if two or three local authorities come together to make a joint plan, and I go in as an ordinary citizen to question something——
I will reflect on that
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 66 to 69, inclusive, not moved.
Amendment No. 70. Amendment No. 72 is related and amendment No. 73 is an alternative to amendment No. 72. Amendments Nos. 70, 72 and 73 may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 70:
In page 27, subsection (5), to delete lines 1 to 3 and substitute the following:
"(5) A waste management plan shall in respect of non-hazardous waste contain such objectives and targets as determined by the Minister and by this Act as it gives force to EU Directives and which are incorporated in the environmental management systems in place in the Local Authority:".
This is a very important section of the Bill. The way this is worded betrays a lack of commitment to the implementation of a real waste avoidance and waste management system. To state in section 22 (5) that a plan shall have objectives which seem to the local authority to be reasonable and necessary is a recipe for disaster. Why should the local authority be the arbiter as to what is reasonable and necessary in a case like this?
If that is left in the Bill, I do not think it will comply with EU regulations. It certainly does not comply with the spirit of the Act or with the spirit of what the Minister — and Members — have been saying all along. It is almost a charter for complete inactivity or, at least, the lowest levels of activity possible. Unless the Minister can convince me otherwise, if we leave this in the Bill, we are wasting our time sitting here talking about being serious about waste management and waste avoidance.
The proposal which I am making is that there will be environmental management systems in place in the local authorities and at least they will give a set of objectives to which local authorities can attain or aim to attain. They are objective rather than being subject to the local authority. I will be interested to hear the Minister's commentson it.
Subsection 5 simply states in general terms that a waste management plan shall contain such objectives but subsection 6, without prejudice to that subsection, details a whole range of things to which it is obliged to have regard. European law also outlines a whole range of matters to which they are required to have regard. Other directives under this Act set out measures to which they are required to have regard so that it is not vague. Objectives "as seem to the local authority . . . to be reasonable and necessary" is a phrase used. Obviously, not withstanding that they have a whole corpus of requirements to which they must have regard. I think it will be as comprehensive as the Deputy wishes.
On amendment No. 73, I feel that "and" rather than "or" would avoid unnecessary choice between one or the other. I think the waste hierarchy would require both.
To quote the parliamentary draftsman, I am informed that "or" in this context is the same as "and-or".
On amendment No. 70, why can we not use my wording? The Minister has indicated that it is taken to cover these things. Why can we not be explicit and say that it covers these things, i.e. "such objectives and targets as determined by the Minister and by this Act as it gives force to EU Directives" and then go on and say "without prejudice to generality". What would the parliamentary draftsman have to say about that?
Amendment No. 70 gives power to the Minister, who will have general powers under section 60 of the Bill and specific powers under section 24, including power to direct a change of the plan. This provision simply sets out what the local authority must do. Its phraseology sounds broad but the next section makes clear that a large body of requirements are imposed on local authorities. I believe the Minister has sufficient powers in the other provisions I mentioned.
I accept the Minister has a range of powers but why can they not be specifically mentioned here? The Bill states: "A waste management plan shall, in respect of non-hazardous waste, contain such objectives as seen to the local authority or local authorities concerned reasonable and necessary."
I believe it is just as reasonable to insert what is in the amendment: "A waste management plan shall in respect of non-hazardous waste contain such objectives and targets as determined by the Minister and by this Act".
This is compartmentalising the matter. The general phrase is in subsection (5) but a much broader power than Deputy Dempsey has suggested is contained in subsection (6) which states: "a waste management plan shall, subject to such regulations as may be made by the Minister for the purposes of this section, include information on or otherwise have regard to [subparagraphs (a) to (i)]."
That would still exist if subsection (5) were changed.
We are now talking semantics.
One item I included in the amendment was putting in place environmental management systems in local authorities. I am anxious that something should be in the Bill to make it——
Not long ago it was said the local authorities should be independent republics; now it is said they should not be allowed draw up their management plans without specific directions from the Minister. Let us state where the function is to be carried out. A waste management plan should contain such objectives as the local authority deems appropriate and each should have input to that, even outside the scope of what I deem appropriate. I have provision separately to say what I deem appropriate by direction. Deputy Dempsey wants to prevent the local authorities taking independent action.
No, I do not want that.
I fully accept that contradictory things are being said but people in industry told me they were concerned about this provision of the Bill as it is vague and does not put as strong a requirement on local authorities as they would have wished. They said industry needs the assurance that a good basic infrastructure is in place in every local authority area. They need to have confidence in their industry and in future investment for job creation, which they felt was lacking in the past. They hope there will be much higher standards and evidence from the outset of a requirement on the local authority to have such standards. One issue overseas investors take into consideration when deciding where to put their money is whether the basic infrastructure exists. We must be clear and unambiguous about this and there should be certainty.
The Bill is complicated enough and we should deal with the issues as they present themselves. We will be discussing the particulars of infrastructure later so we can leave it aside for the present. We are now discussing how we define and what should be in a waste management plan and who should decide that. The amendment would allow the Minister to decide; I suggest the Minister has that power under sections 24 and 60 but the local authority should be able to make decisions on what it deems to be reasonable to include in the waste plan.
I do not wish to preclude our discussion on infrastructure but I have had many meetings with industry. This morning I addressed an IBEC seminar on the Waste Bill.
Has IBEC introduced its voluntary code yet?
The confederation is meeting me next month on that issue and they have pulled it together quite well. I have not seen it but I am optimistic. I am heartened that everyone seems to be moving in tandem. Quite often with comprehensive legislation such as this people wait for it to be enacted before they take action. On this Bill, IBEC is taking steps, the trade unions are interested and are educating their members, the local authorities are holding seminars and we are facilitating them. There has been a great deal of advance preparation for this Bill, which is heartening.
To return to the amendment, I accept the thrust of what Deputy Dempsey is saying. It is important that there be provision for local authorities to have input and find their own terms and I have enough scope to define general terms on top of those.
I see the Minister's point, that by deleting what is in the Bill and replacing it with the amendment one gives no discretion to the local authorities. I withdraw this amendment but I will resubmit it in another format.
My amendment No. 72 is designed to reword the section slightly and Deputy Sargent's amendment has the same intention. This may return to the Minister's point about hierarchy but we should make clear the first aim is to prevent the production of waste and where that is unavoidable to minimise the production or the harmful nature of waste. Could the Minister accept those amendments? It is not a major point but it sends the signal that prevention is an aim of itself.
I am informed that section 22 (5) (a) as drafted reflects the EU Directive and we would prefer to keep that form of words. I am not convinced Deputy Dempsey's amendment adds anything which would require or support the notion of amending this form of words.
We have already discussed these amendments and I will rule any further discussion out of order because we are making slow progress. I will allow Deputy Sargent to return briefly and the Minister to reply.
The Minister said the hierarchy was well known but he will have to revise that view. He sounds like a manager trying to promote his band by saying they are well known when they are not. Perhaps saying they are well known identifies the need to make them so. The Minister should make the hierarchy better known because if people read this part of the Bill they will receive a stronger message than they are getting currently.
That last comment reminded me of a restaurant which opened in Dublin some years ago, which at its launch displayed a sign reading: "Famous for its steaks". Perhaps that is the way to make people aware of the hierarchy. To deal first with Deputy Dempsey's amendment "unavoidable" is a hard word in this context and the phrase "where the production of waste is unavoidable" is too strong. I ask the Deputy to reflect on that.
In relation to amendment No. 73, the hierarchy of waste management principles outlined in the framework waste directive refers to "prevention or reduction of waste production". I do not intend to accept Deputy Sargent's amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 71 to 73, inclusive, not moved.
Amendment No. 74 is a substitute amendment on the new list of amendments. It replaces amendment No. 74 on the original list. Amendment No. 111 is a cognate amendment and it is also on the new list, replacing the previous amendment No. 111. Amendments Nos. 74 and 111 may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 74:
in page 27, subsection (5) (d), line 11 to delete, "in so far as it is practicable,".
We either accept "the polluter pays" principal or we do not and I take a straightforward view. We are allowing a let-off in relation to that principle by stating it can be done "in so far as it is practicable". I will probably be told there is a specific meaning for the term in the parliamentary draftsman's office but it should be omitted. A judge should decide what is practicable when taking all aspects into account. By including it in the Bill, we are saying the principle exists but it can be ignored. It can be said that it is not practicable to follow it through.
I will try to pre-empt what the Minister will say. This is dangerous and I probably should not do so but it is tempting. The term "in so far as it is practicable" is already covered in legislation. A judge takes a view in accordance with all the evidence presented. Is the Minister going beyond what is required, which is the point he often makes to the Opposition, by including the term? Will the judge not make a desision on that aspect if the case goes to court?
It is always dangerous to second guess me. I accept the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 75 has already been discussed with amendment No. 7.
Amendment No. 75 not moved.
I move amendment No. 75 (a):
In page 27, subsection (5), between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:
"(e) to ensure where waste is transported that regard is had to the need to give effect the polluter pays principle".
A similar point arose earlier when transportation was not included in the list of activities. I ask the Minister to include it and ensure that loophole is closed.
It was included in a different context. The amendment seeks to insert a new paragraph which would require a local authority waste management plan to include information to ensure that, when waste is transported, regard is had to the need to give effect to "the polluter pays" principle. What does that mean?
As the Minister said, we are moving towards joint co-operation between areas. It is possible that local authority vehicles will go back and forth between areas for which the authority does not have direct responsibility in terms of the administration in the area to which it is travelling. I ask the Minister to take this into account and provide for good relations between local authority areas to ensure that the transportation of waste, whether by a local authority or private operator, is governed by "the polluter pays" principle. As anybody who travels knows, waste, when it is being transported, can become a source of litter or spillage. There could be a loophole in this area unless the amendment is included. Transportation should be included as an activity in waste management.
My difficulty is how to apply it to transport. "The polluter pays" principle comes into effect at the point of disposal. The person who created the waste should be responsible for its disposal. How can that be related to transport? How does the lorry bringing it impact on it? I cannot see that it has any legal meaning as a stand alone paragraph.
If all goes well, it should not have an impact. However, it does not always go well. I am not discussing fly tipping but there will be spillages or other accidental disposals along the way.
There are other provisions to deal with that.
Does the Minister feel the area is sufficiently governed?
If normal damage occurs, it can be dealt with under, for example, the Road Traffic Act or the Litter Act. "The polluter pays" principle does not apply to something blown off a lorry on the way. That is sufficiently dealt with by other provisions.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 76 is in the name of Deputy Eoin Ryan, Amendment No. 77, in the name of Deputy Sargent, is an alternative.
Amendment No. 76 not moved.
I move amendment No. 77:
In page 27, subsection (6), line 117, to delete "as may be".
The Minister might regard this as superfluous. A waste management plan "shall, subject to such regulations made by the Minister for the purpose of this section . . . " sounds much more definite. Is the Minister trying to say there will not be regulations in this area? He seems keen to ensure that the regulations in other areas will follow quickly. I am not thinking of the Minister as much as his successors who may not think regulations are necessary.
I am following the advice of the parliamentary draftsman. "As may be made" is the normal drafting procedure. I intend to draft the regulations and deleting the term will have no impact, good or bad. It is standard terminology to keep it in line with normal procedures and the techniques employed in every other Bill.
I do not know if the draftsman has any way of knowing that the Minster will make regulations or whether the Minister has guaranteed that they will be made. I accept that he will make regulations but I do not see why "as may be" is necessary. However, I accept the Minister's good faith in the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment Nos. 78 to 83, inclusive, not moved.
Amendment No. 85b is cognate on amendment No. 83a and they will be discussed together. We already discussed the same topic under amendments Nos. 7 and 75. Technically we should not allow a further discussuon even though these amendments were submitted later but I will allow a brief contribution.
I move amendment No. 83a:
In page 27, subsection (6) (d), lines 37 and 38, before "collection" to insert "prevention".
This is in line with a previous wish that the waste hierarchy would be followed as closely as possibe in the terms of the Bill. It is vital to stress the word "prevention" but in this case it is not stressed.
I support what the amendment would do in terms of giving greater prominence to prevention. If the Deputy withdraws the amendment, I will propose an appropriate amemdment on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 85a and 88a are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 85a:
In page 27, subsection, (6), between lines 39 and 40, to inset the following:
"(e) the provision and proper maintenance, use, operation and supervision of local authority and other waste management facilities;".
Section 22(6) deals with the objectives and information to be included in a waste management plan but fails to make any reference to the supervision and management of waste management facilities owned by local authorities. The Minister said on Second Stage that he wants the public authorities to lead by example. I have therefore placed this amendment to incorporate that sentiment.
There has been considerable controversy about the siting of dumps and in some cases unsuitable locations have been proposed. That is not addressed in section 22(6) as it stands. I ask the Minister to accept these amendments to enable the manner in which local authorities manage their waste and landfill sites become a more public process. I noted the reaction of the Dublin city manager when he made a submission to the committee which was to keep the public ignorant and not tell them where one is thinking of siting a local authority dump because it would give them an opportunity to oppose it.
I understand his difficulties, and those of every county manager, but we have tried the other way for long enough. We should consult with local communities about the siting of landfill sites and compensate local areas if they have to accept a landfill site. These amendments would facilitate a more orderly approach and make the local authority process more open to public scrutiny.
I am swayed by the Deputy's persuasive argument. For drafting reasons, I undertake to submit similar amendments on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 85b and 86 not moved.
I move amendment No. 87: In page 27, subsection (6) (g), line 46, to delete "or" and substitute "and/or".
I think the Minister will say the draftsman meant that.
Correct.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 88 and 110 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 28, subsection (6) (g), line 1, after "remediation," to insert "the measures that have been, and will be, put in place to prevent environmental pollution in the interim, until final ameliorative measures are achieved,".
I ask the Minister to consider this amendment in light of the experience to date of local authorities and people who have to live with the malpractice in so many of our landfill sites. I realise we are looking forward to a time when there will be improvements but quite a number of our landfill sites will continue, even after closure, to require extensive monitoring and ameliorative measures such as sealing where leachate is a problem. Significant work will be needed in some cases. My amendment stands alongside the requirements to let the public know where they stand and what environmental information is available. It will also require local authorities to be very deliberate in how they lay out plans for post landfill operations.
At present, and this is not just in Dublin, the attitude to landfill sites once operations finish is out of sight, out of mind. This can give rise to huge problems unless we are specific about the exact measures to be put in place to prevent problems in the future. That is why I am proposing the amendment and I hope the Minister will accept the spirit of it.
I have examined this very carefully because it is important. I would look not just to the future but also to the past when drawing up waste plans. There is environmental damage out there and it does not all result from local authority landfills because there are also private landfills. An angling group showed me photographs yesterday of the disposal of carcases in a dump. It is right that this should be taken into account and that there should be some responsibility to draw up a plan to ameliorate the problem in the interim as well as long-term. For that reason I am minded to accept the Deputy's amendment, but, again, for drafting reasons I ask him to withdraw it and I will come back with an amendment on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 88a. not moved.
I move amendment No. 88b.:
In page 28, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following subsection:
"(7) all regulations in this section will apply to local authorities in the same manner as any other corporate body."
I am interested to hear the Minister's response to this amendment.
The meaning of this amendment is unclear. The regulations to be made under section 22 (6) would specify detailed requirements to be complied with by local authorities as to the information to be specified in a plan. The regulations could not operate or impose any requirements on a body corporate. Thererfore, the amendment seems to have no basis.
I accept that.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 89 and 90 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 90a and 90b are related and may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 90a.:
In page 28, subsection (10), line 20, after "plans" to insert ", water management plans".
The purpose of this amendment is to insert the term ", water management plans" into the Bill. Subsection (10) includes the wording "have regard to the provisions of the development plan or plans". I realise the water management plans do not exist in every local authority but they should be taken into account where they exist. I am interested to hear the Minister's response.
The problem is that I am a very co-operative Minister. I accept the thrust of what the Deputy has proposed. I am very mindful of the impact of water on landfill. I am prepared to accept the amendment subject to drafting changes. We will return to it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments No. 90b. and 91 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 91a., 91b., 117a., 128b., 139a., 139c., 149a., 151a., 151b., 157c. and 167b. are related. The amendments will be taken together by argeement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 91a:
In page 28, subsection (11), line 25, to delete "considered appropriate and".
Will the Minister inform me that the term used in the amendment is a draftsman's phrase?
The import of this amendment would compel local authorities to take such steps as are necessary to attain the objectives of a waste management plan. It is too absolute a provision. I am advised not to accept the amendment. If we remove the ability of the local authorities to consider its appropriateness a compulsion will be placed on them to do so.
Would that not be a good idea for a local authority? If a plan is to be drawn up then surely the local authority must believe in it and must decide——
The responsibility does not rest exclusively on the local authority. It rests on those who would be included in the waste management plan other than the local authorities. The responsibility would fall on the most appropriate person.
Will the Minister explain what is meant by the wording in subsection (11) where it is stated that "the two or more local authorities concerned shall take such steps as are considered appropriate and necessary to attain the objectives in a waste management plan"? That places an imperative on the local authority to meet the——
It refers to those functions that are appropriate to them under the waste management plan. The Deputy wishes to delete the term "considered appropriate and". The implication would then be that the local authorities should take that responsibility at all times. It will not fall to them to be responsible for every element of the plan, only the elements which are appropriate to them.
The way I interpret the subsection, a local authority can draw up a plan and proceed to ignore parts of it. I understand the point made by the Minister that there may be something contained in a waste management plan that pertains to——
There is logic in Deputy Dempsey's argument. If the word "considered" is deleted and the word "appropriate" retained we will achieve the Deputy's aim. If the Deputy withdraws his amendment, I will return with an alternative at Report Stage. I hope I remember the context when we reach that point.
I am sure the draftsman will remind the Minister.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amend No. 91b.:
In page 28, subsection (11), line 25 after "necessary" to insert "having regard to the purposes of this Act".
This amendment does not involve the same issues as the previous amendment.
It has already been discussed with amendment No. 91a.
I know that. It is the reason I am offering a separate argument. I feel I have to say something on this matter.
It is out of order, Deputy, but I will permit you to speak on the amendment.
I indicated earlier that it is important that each local authority takes on board the constraints of the Bill when enacted. I was referring specifically to the costing of their waste plans. The term "having regard to the purposes of this Act" is another way to focus attention on it.
I will accept any good suggestion. This amendment is of the "to be sure, to be sure" variety and I cannot accept it could be included in every phrase of every Act. The purpose of the Bill is formally stated in the Title. The scope of all its provisions is limited to the terms specified in the Title. Action taken by a public authority outside the terms of the Title would be open to legal challenge. The correct interpretation of any provision of a Bill requires the provision to be considered in the context of the Title and not in isolation. There is no need for the repetitive phrase "for the purposes of this Bill" to be replicated through any enactment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 92:
In page 28, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following subsection:
"(13) The local authority shall furnish the full cost of each aspect of implementing the waste management plan.".
This amendment returns to my fixation with the cost of the Bill.
Why is the Deputy so fixated by costs in relation to environmental excellence and standards?
It is important that local authorities are made to face up to the costs. It is good PR for a local authority to say it will do the "devil and all" but it might find itself in a position where it cannot because of the cost involved. At the point of making the plan the local authority should, if only out of courtesy, give the elected members of the local authority an indication of the cost of implementing the waste management plan. Too many fine words are spoken in management plans and they have never been examined in relation to cost. It is time we faced up to them.
Furnishing, indicating or publishing the cost is not an easy task. The issues of costing a waste management plan are complex. I intend to address the issues in regulations under subsection (6) which provides a flexible and appropriate mechanism for dealing with the costs issue.
What does the concept of full cost mean? Would it mean the cost to the local authority alone? Would it include marginal costs arising from one choice or option over another? Is there a list of possible costs? Would it mean the net cost of the provision or the gross cost? Are we talking about possible income from recycling to be deducted? It is not a straightforward issue and I would prefer to deal with it by way of regulation where I would have scope to specify in clear terms the imposition I will put on local authorities.
I am reminded of the saying "Marbh le té agus marbh gan é." If I had the opportunity I would like to have fleshed out the matter so the Minister would not have to guess at the aspects of costing. Will the regulations the Minister mentioned be more specific in terms of the guidelines? Will they include the revenue from recycling to be factored into the overall cost and will they indicate specifically how the Minister wishes the local authority to cost its plans?
I appreciate we are dealing with different values and talking about estimates. Perhaps I should have said "estimated the cost of each aspect". The cost of paper, for example, fluctuates according to world price. I ask the Minister to take on board the spirit of the amendment. I do not want to get hung up on the words "furnish" or "publish".
I do not know exactly what will be in the regulations yet because I will first try to get the Bill passed by the Oireachtas. I have spelled out the considerations I have to take into account before finalising what exactly should be in the regulation. By and large, it will include those issues, but until I address the specifics of the regulations I will not really know. There will be a mechanism to have some indicative costings. Those regulations will be laid before the House for debate.
That is new to me; it is not mentioned in the Bill that the costing is to be a factor. Would it not be a good idea to put something in the Bill by way of amendment to give an idea that the Minister is considering the cost aspect? Costs are not mentioned.
Costs are not mentioned. The volume of regulations that will flow from complex primary legislation can be exhaustive. We will not mention every specific element in the primary Act that can be acted on by way of regulation. Costing may be significant enough to merit mention. It is not mentioned at present but I undertake that it will be mentioned in regulations and will be dealt with specifically in regulations under subsection (6).
Is the Minister saying he will not include a reference to costs in the Bill?
I am not sure there is an appropriate slot or how to phrase it.
This is a suggestion.
I do not accept it because it is too vague.
Could the Minister come back on Report Stage with something more appropriate?
I will reflect on it and come back to the matter on Report Stage, although without commitment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 22, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 23.
Amendments Nos. 93 to 96, inclusive, 115, 116 and 118 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 93:
In page 28, subsection (1), line 42, before "Where" to insert "Before a Local Authority makes a Waste Management Plan it shall make it known to the public that it proposes to so do by publishing a notice in at least one national newspaper and one newspaper circulating in its functional area and it shall invite submissions, proposals and observations from interested parties."
The purpose of this amendment refers to the famous principles the Minister is sick of hearing about—openness, transparency and accountability.
I never tire of hearing them.
There is a need to give the public a sense of ownership of plans which affect the quality of their lives, whether they are county development, waste management or water management plans. Waste in particular affects the quality of life for everybody. I am interested in real consultation and real involvement and participation.
This Bill follows the model of the county development plans. What happens at present is that bureaucrats decide what the fears and desires of the public are without any reference to the public. As a result of what they think is good, bad or needs to be addressed by them they draft plans which they put to the local authority members for approval and public display. I find this system less and less satisfactory, as do many members of local authorities. It is a return to the "we know best; we will tell you what you think and what needs to be addressed" mentality.
The problem that arises with the way we do things now is that once the draft plan is made public and the consultation starts, the people who draft the plans feel they have to defend them. They feel that if they do not defend them they are accepting they did not do a good job in the first place.
The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that before any bureaucrat or official sits down to draft such a plan, he or she will at least listen to the expressions of concern and the ideas of the public. That is what the public servant is for. This proposal would mean that members of the public, directly or through their local public representative, could make submissions in general terms in relation to waste management plans. They could express their fears, views and suggestions and the bureaucrats with their professional expertise would draft a development plan which would take these into account — not what they feel are the fears etc. but the real problems as perceived by the people. That would be an inclusive process and help to get the public on the side of the local authority rather than the confrontation which now breaks out almost immediately in the development planned areas. Perhaps the amendment is not worded to the exact liking of the draftsman but I ask the Minister to look at the principle of involving the community and inclusiveness.
We are talking about a chance in advance of making a waste management plan for local input, perhaps there is something to be said for that. Like the Deputy, I do not want to over complicate the procedure or to over-state the importance of the waste management plan. It is not all embracing or all encompassing like a development plan. However, even under a development plan the public has only one shot to make its input, there is not a rolling programme.
Some of these amendments would require almost open-ended procedures and every time someone wanted to submit a new proposal it would have to be again displayed. It has to be workable and relatively sharp, but as open and democratic as practicable after that. In that context, in relation to an input in advance of preparation, I am willing to reflect on that further. I note that we are dealing with many amendments, but I am not disposed to impose onerous burdens, in terms of two newspapers instead of one. The notification and submissions procedures are adequate, open and democratic. With that one proviso, I ask the Deputies to withdraw their amendments.
I ask the Minister to reconsider what he said while I try to put my case. In the planning process there was a choice of putting the notice in a newspaper or on the property. The notices on the property caused consternation because they were generally quite small and, it seems, intentionally designed to avoid detection. I am not saying that every local authority would want to employ similar tactics, but everyone will know where they stand if the manner for the publication of the notice which informs people about the waste management plan, as provided for in the draft legislation, is prescribed. I support the intent of the proposal in the draft legislation but it would be to the public's benefit and the overall common good if the manner of publication was prescribed.
I will not get hung up over the issue of one or two newspapers. However, if we are serious about informing the public it should not be such an ordeal to let more people know than would otherwise be notified by one newspaper, particularly as some newspapers which describe themselves as national are per haps regional. I wish to avoid any side-stepping of direct communication with the public.
The purpose of amendment No. 96 is to insert "all neighbouring local authorities and any local authorities affected by the plan". This supports the Minister's previous determination to co-operate with local authorities as jointly as possible. For example Dunsink is in the county of Fingal but very much on the minds and doorsteps of the people in Dublin city. It is important to bear in mind that we are not all independent fiefdoms and to look at the neighbouring areas when we draw up development plans. Perhaps we could learn something from the neighbouring areas and vice versa. Opportunities for co-operation might also become apparent at the initial stages.
I do not think that a planning applicant and a local authority giving notice to the public under this section are comparable. I have a high regard for local authorities and the requirement under this section is to inform the public in their functional area. I do not think they would employ the deception which the Deputy suggested is employed by some applicants for planning permission by publishing it in an obscure publication, five copies of which are circulated in the functional area. There is a clear onus on the local authority under this section.
More importantly, it is very much in line with the provisions already enacted in the Water Pollution Act and the Air Pollution Act. This is simply another piece in the general corpus of legislation on environmental protection, which should reflect each other's broad provisions. It is more than adequate and it is right and proper for the notification procedure to be there.
Amendment No. 96 would require a local authority to send a copy of a proposed plan to the neighbouring authorities. I have already explained in detail my enthusiasm for co-operation in these matters and I certainly will include a provision to give effect to that type of provision in the regulations which I will draw up under subsection (1). For that reason, it is not necessary to specify it in the primary legislation
Mindful of what I have said, I ask the Deputies to withdraw their amendments. I will come back on the point of seeing how the public can be properly alerted in advance of finalising a waste management plan by a local authority.
Before they commence——
Certainly in advance of finalising the plan. Let me reflect on it.
I wish to lend my support so that Deputy Dempsey realises that he is not on his own with regard to this aspect. There is too much paternalism in regard to the development plans. I am involved in a few of them and often the planners' view of what is in the public interest dominates. We do not have planning, engineering or architectural experience; our views are based on practical experience and meeting people but we are often outvoted. A proposal that there must be half an acre per site is inconsistent with the Land Registry practice where a half an acre is measured from the centre of the road. Often people find themselves two feet short of the half acre for planning specifications, but they are stuck because they are part of a development plan and somebody knows better. However, the practical reality is that this kind of thing should be dealt with at a pre-notification stage where it will all come together rather than have things running in opposite directions.
Before we embark on the process, those with an interest in having consultations should be consulted and we should take those matters raised into account at that stage. The planners should also have to take them into account and if they did not, we would have a basis on which to challenge their plans as drawn up. This is the reason for the amendment and I hope the Minister may find some mechanism on Report Stage of incorporating the thrust of the proposal.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 94, 95 and 96, inclusive, not moved.
I remind Deputies that we have been sitting three hours today and we have not yet dealt with nine sections. We are not making very much progress.
There are many sections where no amendments have been proposed. We are dealing with a core part of the Bill.
I move amendment No. 97:
In page 29, subsection (2) (b), line 14, before "representations" to insert "and/or oral".
This amendment is self-explanatory.
I do not consider that it is necessary or appropriate to provide for oral representations with regard to waste management plans. It would be onerous to require a local authority to hear everybody who wants to give an oral presentation to be received in the council chamber to make a presentation. If that were to happen, members would be there until the cows come home. It is better if people are required to put their observations in writing. They can then be considered in a composite way by the local authority. There would be no prohibition on taking oral submissions, but to give everybody a statutory right to have an oral input would be very onerous.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 98 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 99 and 101a are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 99:
In page 29, subsection (3), line 26, after "fit)." to insert "Where material alterations to the plan are made as a result of the public participation process, the procedure above shall be repeated.".
This section deals with the notification procedures prior to the adoption of a waste management plan, or the variation of that plan, but it makes no reference to the necessity of putting on display an amendment to the draft plan for a further period. I am mindful of the Minister's remark that it is not quite the same as a county development plan. Neverthless, if a draft plan comes before the council, if there is a public consultation, and if, as a result of those consultations a fundamental material change is proposed, it should come back before the public again.
I am not aware of the legal advice given to the Minister, but a legal person who spoke to me on this matter made it clear that he found it difficult to understand that it would not have been put on display. In this respect, he cited a case with which the Minister is probably familiar, Finn v. Bray UDC. My legal advice is strongly of the view that this provision must be included in the Bill.
The effect of my amendment is similar to that proposed by Deputy Dempsey. Local authorities undertaken plans at present, whether they be development or waste plans and in the area of planning development, there is often reference to a revised plan which continues to be revised as time goes on. Is the Minister mindful of the danger where a waste management plan is drawn up with all the proper procedures being followed, but then being allowed to continue in an amended form with the local authority administration arguing, correctly, that it had no obligation to consult further after its initial period of consultation? Effectively, therefore, one could change radically a waste management plan on this basis without any control. Will the Minister reflect on this? I am aware it will require him to look into the future, but that is one of the jobs he must try to do.
The Minister should view this as a constructive amendment. The initial consultation process will bring forward various alterations and amendments, some of them of a descriptive nature which will have no impact other than to amend an aspect of the description. However, some will entail a material or fundamental alteration to the process and to the plans on display. Once the proposed alterations and amendments —which may require a further definition process—are brought back to the council, the plan should be put on display again, perhaps not for as long a period as required for the planning process under the development plans.
It would be perceived to be excluding people if something of a material nature is incorporate and they do not get a chance to make a further comment. At the end of this process a decision should then be taken. I am aware of the case to which Deputy Dempsey referred. It should be looked at carefully in the context of the proposed amendment.
I regard the waste management plan as being an extremely important document, and, in the context of the provisions of the Bill, to be a significant part of the Bill. However, we are now in danger of making more of it than it is worth. It is not such a fundamental document that requires the same level of consultation on an ongoing basis as a development plan which impinges on the physical infrastructure of the entire region or the functional area of the local authority. We should not equate the two.
Amendment No. 99 is open ended. There is consultation and display, and the amendment requires that if there is further input there be consultation and a display again. There appears to be no room for adoption on that rolling programme. I do not believe this is what Deputy Sargent envisages, but that would be the import of the amendment.
The Minister has more legal expertise at his disposal.
I do not mean it to be disparaging of the amendment, but it would be open ended if it were to be adopted. With regard to Deputy Dempsey's point, I always fear legal interjection in these matters. I do not want a waste plan to be too elaborate and cumbersome. It is not similar to a development plan where every citizen and every individual in the area will have a view on it. I would be fearful that most of the suggestions would come from those who do not want an environmentally sensitive plan and who are happy with the ongong waste management regime but which may not be up to the standard we would like. I hope many of the submissions will be rejected on the basis of the best environmental practices.
Ultimately, it is a reserved function for the local authority to adopt a waste management plan. The functions and procedures I have set out allow for proper consultation with the public and allow the public to make submissions after seeing the draft plan. It is then up to the elected members to carry out their function to adopt the plan. That is in line with the Air Pollution Act and with water pollution legislation. We should not have a measure for solid waste management that is separate from air or water quality management. They are all equally important.
Some of these provisions have been on the Statute Book for a long period without any problem. The Deputies are anticipating problems that are unreal and unnecessary. I do not want a cumbersome procedure that is too onerous on local authorities. I want the management plans to be adopted but under some of the amendments before us, I fear they might never be adopted.
This is a fundamental point of disagreement between myself and the Minister. There is no point having waste management plans and trying to give people ownership of waste management — I accept that they are not the same as development plans — if we are to have a procedure where there is no democratic input into the preparation of the plan in order to overcome the difficulties that arise in relation to the siting of landfill sites and so forth. We either do this fully or we do not do it at all.
The Minister has provided in section 23 for publication of notices and submissions from the public, etc. If we go down that route we should go the whole hog. We must decide that it will be a real process and not just something that is there so that we can say it is there. I accept what the Minister is saying and I would use it in an argument against him. I doubt that there will be huge interest in drafting variations to the waste plan but that is not the point. This is an era in which everybody appears to be interested in the environment. This is an issue that will affect them directly; waste affects everybody directly, whether it is caused by farmers spreading pig slurry or a local factory allowing waste to blow all over the place.
We must make a choice: we either remove the section or we leave it there and include proper procedures which allow for variations. If people wish to vary the plan the procedures for doing so should be included. We should not go into this half-heartedly by saying, in effect, for the sake of looking as if we are asking people their opinions, we will put this into the Bill but let us not burden ourselves by listening to them or going back to consult them if we change it in a serious way. That is not the Minister's intention but if this section is not amended to allow for full public consultation and public input through the democratic process it should not be included at all.
There is pressure on local councillors from time to time depending on what decisions are being made. In the case of a development plan the level of interest among local councillors and the amount of consultation that takes place are noticeable. Public consultation is largely responsible for that heightened awareness and level of excitement. A waste development plan lacks a similar level of urgency among the elected representatives.
I hope that increasing the level of public consultation will help that reserved function to be more fully informed and considered. It is not fair to tell councillors that they are the people making the decision and get on with it. The councillors fall between two stools. They are not the administration which, in effect, makes many of the decisions by giving people nicely printed proposals which they must adopt, and often that is exactly what they do — adopt them. They should encourage the public to inform and consult fully with public representatives and the officials in the council. I am unhappy that local representatives are again placed in a position where they must come up with the nearest thing to a perfect plan when public participation is there to an extent but is not followed through by conversation between public representatives and the public, which could happen if this idea were accepted. It is an idea; it need not be taken fully on board — I appreciate that the phrasing of the amendment is open ended — but the intention behind it is vitally important.
We are not saying it is a development plan, nobody has said that, however, it is a complex issue. There are people in the wider community — some of them have come before the committee — who are dealing with this on a day to day basis either through enterprise or by having to deal with the negative impact of malpractice. They should be more fully involved and this is an opportunity to involve them. I ask the Minister to take this on board because the present situation is not adequate.
We have a fundamental difference in attitude. I have argued in the Dáil and throughout the country about the importance of locally elected representatives. That status has been eroded left, right and centre. I have made public utterances even about Government policy in relation to appointments to new quangos where community representatives appear to have higher status than the elected members. I have no intention of adding to that erosion. I intend to enhance the powers of local authorities wherever I can.
This is not Switzerland; there is not a referendum of the people on every issue. The elected members of the local authority will have the reserved right to make the decision about the waste plan. I have a high regard for those representatives and I do not believe they will rubber stamp proposals put to them on glossy paper by officials. If they wish they can draw up the regulations and the waste plan themselves and not even refer to officials. They have the right to do that. They could set up a committee and work on the detail. I am not as disparaging of local authorities as Deputy Sargent.
I am trying to help them.
The Deputy is not.
I am giving them more information.
The Deputy is saying that they must always consult. The provisions in this section allow for a good consultation process with the public. They replicate exactly the consultation processes to deal with air and water pollution under the Air Pollution Act and water pollution legislation. There have been no complaints about them; we have no difficulty with them and nobody has objected to them. Suddenly, the Deputy wants a more onerous consultative process about solid waste management. Why? There should be consultation process and a mechanism for individuals to make submission and the elected membership should have regard to them.
There should be a period of public display of the draft plan, but after that, the elected representatives have the right and the authority without constant reference to the people. We live in a representative democracy. We make decisions here because we are sent by our constituents to make those decisions. At local level, the local authorities have a similar mandate. I ask you to reflect again on the points you are putting forward. We are following a well beaten path by air and water pollution legislation in putting in similar provisions for parallel legislation dealing with waste.
It is now 5.50 p.m. and we agreed last week to adjourn at 6 o'clock. I want to do some housekeeping before we proceed because originally it was planned to sit until 10 o'clock tonight and until 6 o'clock tomorrow but the committee has decided otherwise. The Minister and his officials are not available next week and the committee does not sit the following week, so we are running into problems already. We are talking ad nauseam about these amendments. We will not have time to discuss other amendments. This is only one of many pieces of business this committee has to complete between now and Christmas, so I ask that Members cooperate now and that business proceed as fast as possible. We have only dealt with nine sections today. How stands amendment No. 99?
I know that this committee has a lot of other business to do and I do not want to impede it but if you want to set up a subcommittee to deal with this Bill, I am in favour of that. I am not going to gallop through very important sections of this Bill.
There is no question of galloping through anything.
That is what it looks like.
On Deputy Dempsey's proposal last week we refused to sit beyond 6 o'clock today or beyond 4 o'clock tomorrow. I am drawing the attention of the committee, as is my duty as Chairman, to the fact that if we continue at this pace, this Bill will be here until after Christmas. We have other business to do; the remit of this committee is much wider than just the environmental issues. I will be bringing forward proposals for sitting that will dispose of this at least in a number of weeks and that may mean long sitting hours.
We are not that slow going through it. We have already been——
We are halfway through the amendments.
We are not even halfway through the amendments.
How many days have we dealt with this? We should review this after tomorrow's sitting and then we will have a good idea of where we stand. I agree with my colleagues. We cannot simply race through it.
We have an alternative. We will have to sit an adequate number of hours to deal with it. Nobody is suggesting that we race through it. This is a vital Bill.
We cannot worry about other legislation. Deputy Dempsey has made a good suggestion; maybe a subcommittee could be convened.
When will the subcommittee sit and who will attend?
I will attend it any time you want.
Very few people have been here all the time.
If Members want to propose that, we will have to find committee rooms and agree times to meet. They are difficulties to overcome. If Members have particular proposals they should table them. We are on amendment No. 99.
Are you asking for suggestions in writing as to when we will meet? I understand your sense of urgency.
The problem is that this committee deals with the following: the Department of Finance, the Department of the Taoiseach, the Office of the Tánaiste, the Office of the President, the Attorney General and the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. We have lots of other business to do.
That is why I chose this committee. I know why we are here. I am just asking a question.
If you are making a suggestion you have to bear in mind that we have other business to do with other Departments.
I am not denying that. What are you suggesting?
I am just drawing the attention of the committee to the problems we are running into. If there are any suggestions as to how to deal with them I would be glad to hear them. We are on amendment No. 99. Is there anything more to be said on this amendment?
There is a lot to be said about it but I know we have very little time, so I will raise the matter on Report Stage. I take your point, Sir; I do now want to delay.
Amendment No. 101a is to be discussed with amendment No. 99. Has the Minister anything further to say about amendment No. 101a?
I am not accepting it.
I will be pressing this amendment very strenuously on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 100:
In page 29, subsection (4) (a), line 31, after "plan" to insert "within 5 days of the request".
This amendment requests that a number of days be specified where a local authority is asked for a copy of its plan. As I said on a similar amendment, the number of days need not be specifically tied down here but the experience — my previous amendment was also based on experience, I am sorry to say — has been of delays. Perhaps these are accidental but it would be helpful if there were guidelines to say how long and no further shall a person be left waiting for the information. That is a reasonable request.
Can I adopt the same procedure I did previously and say that I believe five days is too onerous? I will come back with a period on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 101:
In page 29, subsection (4) (b), line 33, to delete "an officer" and substitute "a county or city manager".
Instead of an officer the Deputy is insisting that it be signed by the country or city manager.
Does the Minister accept that?
No.
Will he give me his reasons please?
Because of the delegation of functions, officers are designated to do certain jobs. It would obstruct the law if the signatory had to be a named individual of that rank.
If we go along with that, in the local authority itself, is there a sort of collective responsibility?
No, that only applies to Departments where the Minister is the corporate sole. We have very learned counsel present. The Deputy may be providing an avenue for people to get around the law. Every county manager would be subpoenaed to court to give evidence that he personally signed it and then you have validation of signature and all the sort of things that we are used to on other legislation. The standard provision is the way to go.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 23 stand part of the Bill."
On Report Stage I note that there is no explicit requirement on a local authority under section 23 to publish notification of the replacement of a waste management plan on foot of a ministerial direction. If I direct them to replace it they are not required to advertise that and I intend to put that to rights by way of amendment on Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.