I move amendment No. 167d:
In page 51, subsection (1), line 21, to delete "subsections (4) and (7)" and substitute "subsection (7)".
What is the Minister's response to this amendment?
SECTION 39.
The purpose and effect of this amendment are not clear. The Deputy may have in mind effectively to remove the power of the Minister under section 39 (4) to provide as an alternative to the licensing by the Environmental Protection Agency for a consent system to be operated by local authorities in relation to the recovery or disposal of certain types of waste.
I withdraw the amendment because if it is not clear to the Minister then it must faulty.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 168:
In page 51, subsection (3), between lines 46 and 47, to insert the following:
"Provided that in all cases a waste licence shall be required for all facilities within six months of the coming into force of section 39 (1) of this Act.".
It appears from this section that there are no time limits after the coming into effect of this Bill in which licences will be required for various facilities. It is important that this Bill is implemented as quickly as possible after it has gone through the House and the Minister has made his commencement orders. The reason I chose a six month period for the coming into force of section 39 (1) is that a limited time would help to focus minds. If we leave it as vague as it is at present, people will not focus as fully as they should. The Bill is necessary to tackle the problem of waste prevention and minimisation. It is important that there is a tight timetable for its implementation. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment.
I am impressed by the Deputy's confidence as regards the timeframe he has outlined, but I find it totally impracticable. In fairness to the Deputy, it is unrealistic to suggest that all waste recovery and disposal facilities could be subject to the waste licensing system outlined in Part V of the Bill within six month of the coming into force of the Act. The Deputy will be familiar with the licensing regime under the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992. The provisions in section 39 (2)——
That is why I tabled the amendment.
——whereby different dates may be prescribed in respect of different classes of activity follows the precedent of the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992, and other environmental legislation. It is intended that all new licensable waste recovery and disposal activities will be subject to licensing at the outset — from the day of enactment. However, for some practical reasons it is not appropriate to subject all established waste activities to licensing en bloc.
A licensing requirement will be extended to existing activities on a phased basis as is possible and appropriate having regard to their relative environmental significance and the capacity of the agency to deal effectively and efficiently with the new responsibilities the regulations would impose on them. I ask the Deputy to follow precedents in other environmental legislation and allow me the flexibility to incrementally bring in the licensing regimes as I propose.
The Minister almost made my case when he quoted from the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992. It is almost 1996 and a considerable amount of work has yet to be done, although I acknowledge the steps taken by the Minister since coming into office. I accept what the Minister said about doing this incrementally. Obviously, large facilities should be dealt with initially.
There seems to be no timescales except the one the Minister has in mind and working towards. Perhaps the Minister could indicate if he is willing to consider an amendment on Report Stage which would state that waste licences shall be required for all facilities within five years of this Bill coming into effect. This would allow the Minister to incrementally bring in all the waste facilities under the terms of the Bill over a five year period. I would then withdraw this amendment and table one on Report Stage if that was in order.
In five years' time the Environmental Protection Agency could tell us that it has only finished bringing industries under the IPC licensing arrangement and that it needs time to do this. I ask the Minister to put an outside limit on the period of time in which waste licences will be required for all facilities.
Maybe in five years' time the Deputy might be making that case from the Government benches. A compelling case has been made by the Deputy. However, if I include an unrealistic timeframe — for example, six months, it will not happen and it would devalue the intent of the Bill, while a five year timescale would allow people to rest on their laurels, which would also give the wrong signal.
I suggest that we do this in the same way as the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992, was enacted. Over the past year I have become familiar with that legislation. Before that I was concerned with health legislation and I know there is a timeframe for the introduction of the Child Care Act, 1991, which was the focus of attention for some time.
I approached both pieces of legislation and anything under my jurisdiction from the perspective that I do not believe we should sign orders which are meaningless on the ground. It is fine to draw up a regulation and sign an order but if you do not put in the infrastructure to achieve the objective, you undermine the law.
Over the years this House has often enacted provisions as if the passing of the law was an end in itself. I am determined to ratchet up the competence of the Environmental Protection Agency and I think Deputies will have seen the advertisements which appeared in national newspapers last week for a new tranche of Environmental Protection Agency employees to deal with the new functions which I am devolving to that agency. They will also be aware of the new regulations which I have signed into law in the last six months. We are moving at a pace which is faster than that envisaged when I became Minister.
I am determined this will happen in a way which is effective. I am not inclined to include any timeframe which is either ridiculously narrow or broad by definition. The only way is to allow the flexibility to do it as determinedly as possible. Of course, I invite the Opposition to put down parliamentary questions to ensure I am doing it effectively.
I appreciate what the Minister and Deputy Dempsey are saying but I also think the Minister should take on board the implementation of environmental legislation. The late coming on stream of the Environmental Protection Agency has been a source of disappointment to some people who felt it would have happened sooner, that people would have been taken on and the whole mechanism envisaged would come into effect more quickly.
People are concerned about a great deal which gives rise to this multitude of amendments on timeframes. Experience shows that while it will be done expeditiously now, perhaps that was not the case in the past, but experience, if it is a teacher at all, tells us we must be cautious about that assumption. I hope we will come back to say the Minister was right.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 169:
In page 51, subsection (4) (a), line 50, to delete "non-hazardous".
Section 39 prohibits the recovery or disposal of waste at a facility unless under, and in accordance with, a waste licence. Section 39 (4) enables the Minister by regulations to exempt the disposal of specified non-hazardous wastes at their place of production and specified recovery activities from the basic licensing requirement, and to impose alternative controls in respect of such activities.
This amendment proposes to delete the reference to non-hazardous waste in section 39 (4) (a). This will give greater flexibility in determining which waste activities should be exempt from full integrated licensing under Part V of the Bill and made subject to alternative control requirements instead. The amendment is necessary to ensure an integrated waste licence will not be required in respect of the disposal of waste which, though classified as hazardous in accordance with the European Union's hazardous waste list, is more appropriately dealt with under a simpler licensing regime.
An example of such waste would be used sheep dip. It would be impractical to require the agency to subject every farm on which sheep dipping takes place to the full rigours of integrated waste licensing. Instead, it is proposed to establish alternative control procedures for such waste, which I regard as serious.
Under section 39(5), the Minister is empowered to make regulations governing the quantity which may be recovered or disposed of under such an exemption and requiring the use of best available technology not entailing excessive costs — BATNEEC — or other measures in order to prevent environmental pollution. These may, and in the case of hazardous waste would, include a system of prior local authority authorisation.
The quality of environmental protection will not be lessened by this amendment. On the contrary, it will be enhanced by the application of a practical system of control and supervision which is compatible with the reality of day to day commercial and agricultural activity.
The word "non-hazardous" seems to give rise to a considerable amount of debate. When the Minister talks about the European classification of that word, can he clarify whether it takes aspects of household waste into account?
The problem is that in European Union terms the term "hazardous waste" has a very broad legal definition which would certainly include household waste. For example, sour milk, because of its toxicity, could be regarded as a hazardous waste. We need a regime which will reflect the common sense reality of the disposal of such products.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 169a and 169b, both in the name of Deputy Sargent, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 169a:
In page 52, subsection (5) (b), line 11, to delete ", where appropriate,".
I accept this amendment.
Amendment No. 169b proposes to delete the words "or, where that is not practicable, to limit, abate or reduce," from section 39 (5) (b) and I do not propose to accept this amendment. Section 39 (5) (b) is based on the definition of BATNEEC in section 5 (2) (a) which we have already discussed. If section 39 (5) (b) is amended as proposed, the words "best available technology not entailing excessive costs" in that paragraph will no longer conform to the BATNEEC definition and would cease to have legal definition under the Bill. I ask the Deputy not to press amendment No. 169b.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 169b and 170 not moved.
I move amendment No. 171:
In page 53, subsection (7) (b), line 9, to delete "a" and substitute "the same".
This is a simple, technical amendment. Section 39 prohibits the recovery or disposal of waste at a facility unless under, and in accordance with, a waste licence. The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear that the exemption applies only to household waste produced and disposed of within the same dwelling.
From what I can gather, the Minister stated that the waste of the same household was the critical factor in this amendment.
While I am grappling with the wider context of the amendment, can the Minister tell me whether it would impinge on local arrangements? I am involved in a scheme of household composting; some people do not wish to become involved so they off load their waste to somebody else who makes good use of it. Both households benefit from the arrangement. Would the Minister's reference to the same household affect that type of arrangement? I want to safeguard against that.
We are talking about exemptions from a licensing requirement. Those minor operations would not come into the licensing criteria at all. Of course, even in a household, there is a burden of care not to pollute which falls on everybody.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 39, as amended, agreed to.