I welcome the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin. Yesterday we dealt with amendment No. 101a in the name of Deputy Dempsey. Amendment No. 102 in the name of Deputy Sargent was already discussed with amendment No. 65.
SECTION 24.
Amendment No. 102 not moved.
I move amendment No. 102a:
In page 29, paragraph (a), line 45, after "plan" to insert "with the consent of the local authorities concerned".
This amendment is in line with the Minister's commitment to democratic accountability and his desire to give the members of local authorities the maximum amount of freedom and flexibility. The Minister may issue a directive to two or more local authorities to set up a waste management plan even if they do not want to do it. I tabled this amendment in line with our views that local authorities should make their own decisions. As it stands, section 24 takes power away from local authorities and gives it back to the Department of the Environment. This means all decisions would be made at central rather than local level. Decisions should be made by those at local level or "with the consent of the local authorities concerned". In other words, the Minister cannot hand down a diktat. The Minister will say that is not his intention, but he cannot speak for the future. I ask him to accept this amendment in line with his stated commitment to local democracy.
Deputy Dempsey and I are arguing from different perspectives. This is an enabling power but there is no point in introducing it if I need consent to carry it out. The power of direction is negatived if local authorities can withhold consent. These provisions allow the Minister to intervene where joint planning is considered necessary for the purposes of efficient and effective waste management or where a waste management plan is substantially defective. It would completely negative those powers, which are important to ensure best practice, if the local authority, which is negligent, can say they will not do it. There are similar powers under the air and water pollution Acts but they have never been used. We need the residual power to ensure that the practices and standards we are enacting in this Bill are complied with at local level. It is normal for the Minister, who is accountable to the Oireachtas, to have the power to make directions when this work is not done satisfactorily. On that basis, I ask the Deputy to withdraw his amendment.
Considering the difficulties which have arisen and will arise as regards waste plans, I am glad the Minister has included the provision that he can direct local authorities to get together and form a co-ordinated plan. Can the Minister give a fuller definition of "requires"? Does it mean he can compel and tell the local authorities, and councillors in particular, precisely what to do? Does this authority for a co-ordinated waste plan apply, for instance, to the location of landfill sites, a controversial issue which would make up a substantive part of a waste plan?
As far as landfill sites are concerned, we must go in the direction of regional plans rather than having local authorities doing all the work on their own. Once a landfill site is planned, there will inevitably be objections to it because if it is in a scenic area, it may create difficulties for the local population. We currently have this problem in County Sligo. A landfill site may be decided on, perhaps only a small site which may last for up to six years but when it is full, the same problem will come up again. Occasionally, a major landfill site to which there is no great objection may become available but, ironically, the local authority cannot on its own avail of that site because of the cost involved and it does not have the infrastructure. Therefore, it has to abandon a site that might be able to deal with its waste problem for up to 30 years. We should be thinking in terms of regional landfill sites for the smaller local authorities, including my own. What is the Minister's opinion on regional landfill sites? Will the Minister give special grants to encourage this kind of operation because it often comes down to money?
Councillors, as distinct to officials, seem to have the final say as far as the location of landfill sites and the disposal of waste are concerned. If the Minister takes on this power — I can see the value in doing it — how will that compare with his statement favouring the devolution of local authorities as far as possible and giving maximum authority to local councillors and the local administration? I would like to hear the Minister's opinions on regional landfill sites.
I accept the Minister's point but the section as it stands baldly states without any preamble that a Minister can give this kind of a direction. Will the Minister even consider inserting something along the lines of "following consultation with the local authorities, require them to jointly make a waste management plan"? I am concerned that a diktat can be, and is seen to be, handed down. If that could be facilitated, I will withdraw my amendment and insert another amendment along those lines on Report Stage.
I am concerned that the Minister thinks this represents best practice. On what does he base that assumption? It is not possbile to use "best practice" in the same way as the Church uses "faith". There can be different interpretations of "best practice"——
There can be different interpretations of the Church as well.
Precisely. Best practice in this case has to be tempered with the need, as stated by the Minister, to involve the democratic process at the lowest effective level and make it as workable as possible. There is a great deal of disempowerment in local authorities and we do not want to add to that.
The same can be said about the overall policy of best pracrice in waste generally. Those dealing professionally in this area reckon that peoole are more responsive to problems if they occur close to where they live. For instance, most people in the greater Dublin area do not know where Ballally dump is located even though it is increasingly receiving their domestic waste. A wider regional set up may be an engineers dream because it might be the biggest project they have done in their lives and may add greatly to their CV, but removing the dump further from their doorsteps is not the best way of getting the public to realise they have a responsibility for the problems they create. While I can understand the convenience of having large regional operations, people are more responsive to a site close to them and will take measures more willingly if they realise it may affect the quality of life in their locality.
Having said that, I do not want the Minister to say that Deputy Sargent wants a landfill at the end of every street; I can almost imagine him saying that. There is a downside to this convenience approach of dealing with matters by way of joint policies between local authorities. I have a question in relation to Kill——
There is more than one issue.
It is a one issue Bill; it is called the Waste Bill.
The Kill Bill.
If the Minister has this Bill at his disposal, would he have considered asking Kildare and Dublin County Councils to form a joint waste management plan thereby smoothing the way for developing a landfill site at Kill? Where would that leave local democracy? Would he be prepared for the fallout in that type of situation?
I see advantages in this. Deputy Sargent has concerns about Fingal. Under this arrangement it would have at least some input into the waste management of Dublin city, which it does not have at the moment, at least not formally.
That is the point I want to make. All I am asking for is a standard provision to ensure things are done at the end of the day. The way that is traditionally and effectively done is to have a residual power to make a direction. I ask the committee to agree that I, as Minister, would ultimately have that power. It might never be used. It has not been used in the other pollution Acts although a standard provision is made for it. Ultimately, if a local authority decides to do nothing, it should know there is a directive power available to the Minister to force them to do it.
What the Minister would do, if this power was exercised, is not make a plan but direct local authorities to make a plan. What is contained in the plan would not be decided by the Minister but by section 22 of this Bill. I have already accepted an amendment under this section that objectives of the establishment of waste facilities within a particular location will be referenced in the plan. The point made by Deputy Nealon would be covered. The plans will have a reference to possible locations for landfill sites but if I direct them to do it, it does not mean I will make the decisions. That will have to be decided on locally after discussions on a single or joint authority basis, depending on what is appropriate.
Ultimately, under this Bill the location of a landfill is subject to a licensing procedure under the Environmental Protection Agency.
I return then to the central plank of my argument. The objective is to establish an expert agency which will make a determination on best environmental standards and practice, that is, the Environmental Protection Agency. We are giving it those responsibilities not the local authority, the Minister or this Department. All the issues which have been touched on are safeguarded in various sections in the Bill. This amendment is a request to the committtee to allow for the residual power where there is inaction for the Minister not to do the job himself, but to direct the local authorities to do the job they are required to do under this legislation.
I accept the argument the Minister put forward. However, the section as it stands is very bare. It appears the Minister could require local authorities to do that. I ask him to look at this on Report Stage and to perhaps preface it by saying "where a local authority fails to do so individually or jointly, the Minister may require".
With all my concessions Report Stage is shaping up to be longer than Committee Stage. It would be inevitable that, before this power would ever be exercised, there would be a number of contacts, probably formal discussions and letters exchanged between the Department and the local authority in default of their obligations. That will happen. I will reflect further on whether we need to formalise that by a statement before Report Stage.
If the Minister and everyone knows it would better for two local authorities with separate waste plans, which have fulfilled their obligations, to have a joint waste plan, could he interfere?
We had a long discussion yesterday about what is best practice. For some local authorities it will be an individual waste plan for their functional area and for others, for example, Cork city and county, it might be a joint plan. That would be a local democratic decision. If there was a blatant example — I do not want to mention a specific instance — where an urban authority had no facility to deal with its waste and which would not be facilitated for some obdurate reason by an adjoining authority, the Minister might be required to make a direction that they co-operate.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment Nos. 103 and 104 not moved.
I move amendment No. 105:
In page 29, paragraph (b), line 50, after "and" to insert "all waste management plans should be able to stand as independent documents, and".
This amendment is along the lines the Minister has heard before. It states that all waste management plans should be able to stand as independent documents. I stress that is not to lessen the significance of or thwart joint arrangements. It is to reinforce the sense of responsibility which we say every individual should have for waste in terms of practice, behaviour and decision making being taken at the lowest effective level. Similarly, each local authority should be responsible for waste in their area.
I urge that the sentiment which I express will be taken on board as enhancing the overall effect of the Bill rather than damaging any of the Minister's plans. It is critical that local authorities are not let off by having a joint plan. For example, if a city and county have a joint plan, once the plan is made the city does not need to think seriously about prevention and minimisation until the landfill crisis raises its ugly head. We should be making plans and encouraging local authorities to do so also so that they will realise that they will have to answer for any transfer of waste agreed with the joint authority and as I said before, it is necessary — and we may differ on what is or is not necessary — that it be minimal. The only way to ensure that is minimal is for the local authority to have its own waste plan which should stand as an independent document in conjunction with the other plans.
I am not sure the amendment achieves what the Deputy has instanced. Each plan will be a stand alone document. It will have a legal status under this Bill irrespective of whether it is a single authority or a joint plan. The amendment is not necessary because that is the de facto position.
It is not necessary to include something given that the Minister said — if I understood correctly — that a joint plan would take away the requirement for a local authority to have a plan?
We are at cross purposes. The Deputy's amendment stated that any plan, whether a joint or a single authority plan, would be a stand alone document.
It was made in conjunction with previous amendments. That is why I still stress the sentiment I expressed.
I reject that sentiment because it is important that the facility is available for the type of co-operation about which we have had long discussions.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 105a:
In page 30, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:
"(d) the Minister shall cause to be published in at least one newspaper circulating in the relevant local authorities' functional area a notice of his requirement in the case of his or her operation of paragraph (c),".
I am not sure if we are repeating ourselves because we discussed this point yesterday.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 24 agreed to.
Section 25 agreed to.