Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs debate -
Wednesday, 8 Nov 1995

SECTION 38.

Mr. Dempsey

I move amendment No. 166:

In page 50, subsection (2), line 13, to delete "A local authority may provide" and substitute "The Minister shall designate and cause to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas within 3 months after the enactment of this Act the authority that shall provide and shall arrange for and facilitate".

On the basis of what we spoke about before, I am not sure if this amendment is necessary. The Minister indicated that in all appropriate cases he would inform us of the regulations he intends to lay before the House prior to Report Stage. He gave that commitment and if it applies in this case, I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Acting Chairman

The next amendment is No. 166a in the name of Deputy Sargent and amendment No. 167 is an alternative to amendment No. 166a. It is proposed to discuss both amendments together.

Mr. Sargent

I move amendment No. 166a:

In page 50, subsection (5), line 36, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".

Before the Minister says there is legislation to cover this, I would like to make it clear that there are a number of unacceptable and disgraceful landfill operations throughout the country. This subsection states: "The repeal of any enactment mentioned in Part I of the Fifth Schedule shall not prejudice the continued operation of waste disposal facilities by the corporation or a borough (other than a county borough) or the council of an urban district, where such facilities are in operation upon the commencement of this section." I worry that a number of loopholes may be identified — I will not say unscrupulous operators — by those who have not reached a reasonable standard in their operation. Has the Minister any thoughts about that?

Mr. Howlin

I do not agree with the Deputy. Perhaps it is because I come from a corporation and I have been mayor of a town. I do not believe we need to immediately outlaw a municipal dump per se and, therefore, I cannot accept the amendment. The intent of amendment No. 166a seems to be to remove the legislative basis for the continued operation of waste disposal facilities by urban district councils and non county borough corporations.

Amendment No. 167 proposes, in effect, to impose a time limit of six months on the operation of such facilities. I do not believe that is reasonable and that there is an environmentally compelling reason that a dump, simply because it is under the auspices of that authority, should be closed immediately or within six months. I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment on that basis. The licensing regime will apply to such landfill operations as it would to any other.

Mr. Dempsey

Landfill sites that are less than adequate and do not comply with the stringent conditions under which they will need to operate under this Bill seem to be allowed to operate. If the Minister can assure us that this is not the case and that all the rigours of this Bill will apply to all landfill sites on the coming into operation of the Bill, I will have no problem. It seems — Deputy Sargent made this point — that although we are repealing some enactments under which they operate, they will be allowed to continue. There is no provision which will place them within the terms of this Bill. I may be reading this incorrectly.

Mr. Howlin

I assure the Deputy that by seeking the withdrawal of these amendments, I am trying to avoid prejudice against landfills operated by a certain category of local authority. The licensing regime, which is the way the standard will be imposed, will apply to all landfill regardless of the operations. If a landfill does not meet the environmental criteria laid down by the agency, they will be closed down. It is a bit arbitrary to decide that one category of landfill, because it is operated by a municipal authority in the categories listed, should be closed down without regard to its environmental performance. I assure Deputies that the environmental standards set down by the agency and the licensing regime will apply equally to all landfill.

Mr. Dempsey

The only reason these were specified is that the Minister does so in the legislation. I would not like him to think we were getting at urban councils; I was a former member and chairman of one.

Mr. Howlin

Maybe I should explain myself better in terms of what I want to do and why this initial provision is included. Perhaps I may now be accused of being prejudiced against small urban district councils. It is my intention that the smaller urban district councils will not be waste authorities. By and large, that function will be given to county councils and county borough councils because the scope of this Bill is such that it would probably not be encompassed that smaller urban district councils would carry this out. In due course, all new landfill would only be licensable on application from a waste authority, which will be a county council, a county borough council, a regional body or a combination.

Mr. Sargent

I hope the Minister does not believe there is an agenda to militate against smaller local authorities from carrying out any function in relation to waste management. As long as the Minister does not equate waste management with operating landfills, that should be the least of their concerns if they are to do the job properly. I am glad the Minister said that he might be accused of undervaluing the local areas because one of the principles of waste management should be to keep the responsibility as locally based as possible. I worry that there is a tendency in this Bill to try to make a macro plan which cuts away at local responsibility. I hope that is something we can avoid in the rush for joint plans which the Minister is keen on.

Mr. Howlin

I know the Deputy's prejudice in that regard.

Mr. Sargent

It is not a prejudice but a concern for what might happen by default.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 167 not moved.

Acting Chairman

Amendment No. 167a in the name of Deputy Sargent has been ruled out of order since it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.

Amendment No. 167b not moved.

Acting Chairman

Amendment No. 167c in the name of Deputy Sargent has been ruled out of order since it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.

Amendment No. 167c not moved.

Section 38 agreed to.