Skip to main content
Normal View

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

SECTION 30.

I move amendment No. 150:

In page 40, subsection (1) (a), line 1, to delete "as soon as may be after" and substitute "within 12 months of".

This comes back to a point about timescales etc. and we have had the argument before. The phrase "as soon as may be after" is vague and does not give anybody an objective at which to aim. The public authorities must lead the way and give the good example. If they are to be allowed to put the introduction of sections of this Bill on the long finger, it will make it more difficult for the Minister and everybody concerned to point the finger at the private sector. If there is a 12 month deadline, it sends a clear signal not only to the public authorities but also to private organisations.

In general terms, vague wishy-washy language does not get across the urgency of this Bill even though the draftsman probably says it is precise and legal. I ask the Minister to accept this target or set a specific target.

I am not so sure it is wishy-washy as the Deputy indicates. The words "the Minister shall" are clear in section 30 and I intend to promulgate a public authority waste management programme as soon as possible after the enactment of the Bill, develop it progressively and expand its scope. The groundwork has already commenced and I have given Deputies some indications of it here and in the House. I do not want to go through it again — the contracts on local agenda 21, the local stable development strategies and so on. I certainly intend it to happen but I do not want to put in a timeframe which would militate against a comprehensive programme or the type of consultation and background work which is required under this.

The timeframe suggested by the Deputy is quite inflexible. I assure him that I have every intention of introducing a public authority waste management programme expeditiously as long as that expedition achieves the result which all sides of the House require.

I am anxious that the Minister give some indication. I understand the use of the word "shall" and that it commits the Minister, but "as soon as may be after" is a wishy-washy term. The Minister gave the committee a rough idea when we discussed this previously. Is the Minister talking about a timescale of about 12 to 18 months?

That would not be far off the mark. That is the timeframe we may well achieve. Local authorities are already gearing up and I have already begun discussions and issued guidelines. We are preparing in-house for all the provisions, not only of this section but of the Bill generally. Without putting in a timeframe which, as the Deputy will remember from his time in Government, is impracticable, he can trust me to achieve it as quickly and effectively as we can.

I was going to support this amendment because my experience is that nothing concentrates the mind more than a hanging order set for a certain date. It is unrealistic to expect there will be a uniform response to the requirements of this Bill from all bodies and local authorities. Some local authorities will be up front and will want to proceed at a pace in advance of what even the Minister would expect. Others will drag their feet. The Minister will not get the same uniform response from all corporate bodies in the private sector.

I cannot think of any good reason for the Minister not setting down a minimum and maximum timeframe in the Bill that the Minister, for example, shall "no sooner than" and "no later than" the enactment of this Bill as opposed to using the phrase "as soon as may be". I understand that the Minister wants to leave himself a certain amount of flexibility and that is a sign of his good judgment. I do not want to tie him to a specific timeframe which might be more of a handicap than a help later.

Nevertheless, it is reasonable to include in the Bill a maximum time and use a formula like "no sooner than" or "no later than" a specific time. I ask the Minister to look at that and come back to it again if he thinks it is reasonable to set it in those terms.

The warning bells sound when I see phrases like "as soon as may be" because I know there is pressure on the Minister to do many things. Such a phrase allows other issues to take precedence if this is not considered to be at the top of the priority list. What timeframe does the Minister envisage if the amendment is not pressed? If he leaves office and someone else takes over, there will be quite a different scenario.

I should explain what I intend to do in relation to the promulgation of this programme which relates to the prevention, minimisation and recovery of waste arising from the performance by public authorities of their functions. We had some discussion about public authorities which include everybody from semi-State bodies and local authorities to individual Departments and Ministers. This will not be a booklet prepared for a given time and circulated, it will be an ongoing programme. It will involve seminars, consultation and documentation and will be sectoral. It will be a comprehensive programme looking at all corporate bodies, how they deal with their waste and how they can improve and achieve the targets we set out here.

I started the process and the Department will start developing that process publicly as soon as the Bill becomes law. It will be an ongoing developmental sectoral approach to encompass all the people and authorities I have mentioned. It will be a large body of work in itself and not just one leaflet or document that is suddenly produced on a Tuesday and circulated and that is that. It will involve seminars with individuals, pamphlets and discussions as well as a sectoral approach. I hope my intention will be understood by the Deputies opposite and that they will give me the flexibility to carry it out.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 151:

In page 40, subsection (1) (b), lines 7 and 8, to delete "or apply to such class or classes of public authorities" and substitute "and shall apply to all classes of public authorities".

I presume the Minister's argument on this amendment is the same.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 151a to 154a, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. a154b:

In page 40, subsection (4)(c), line 34, before "implementation" to insert "cost,".

On the face of it this amendment appears to involve the insertion of a word but it is an important word. All too often, when in contact with local authorities by telephone or in writing to assess their views, I find they are extremely anxious to present a positive image of their own activity and that is quite understandable. However, in their enthusiasm they often propose wonderful schemes without going into any great detail. The most important detail — any type of estimated cost — is often omitted. Regardless of whether the Minister wants to talk about estimated cost or cost projections, the financial implications should to be put down in some form so people will understand that they need to be considered in terms of estimates. They should be costed rather than simply talking about the operation of the waste reduction programme, publication of the results of audits and programmes and so on as stated in the Bill. I am anxious that would be the case. "Public authorities" is a broader term than "local authorities" and presumably that is why the phrase is used. I take that on board. Does the Minister have a view on what I said?

The definitions in section 5 illustrate that "public authorities" is a much broader definition. It includes members of Government as well as statutory agencies and others. That definition is already encompassed in the Bill. "Local authorities" has a much narrower application. I have read the paragraph that would be amended by the insertion of the word "cost". While I accept the gist of what the Deputy is saying in support of the amendment, it does not fit into that paragraph. As drafted, the paragraph is adequate and provides for the publication of the results of audits and programmes. Results would obviously include reference to costs.

The question of costs would arise more particularly in paragraph (d) which relates to the making of waste management plans by public authorities. It might be appropriate to include some reference to cost in paragraph (d) rather than in paragraph (c) as the Deputy proposes. If he withdraws the amendment I will reflect further on it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 154b:

In page 40, subsection (4) (c), line 35, to delete "reduction" and substitute "prevention".

It is an advantage having a Department to support one. I remember having very complicated and long amendments to Bills and I appreciate the difficulty on Committee Stage, particularly when one is dealing with groupings of amendments. I am fully appreciative of the Deputy's difficulty.

The Deputy's proposal is that the guidelines and criteria to be published by the Minister for the purposes of public authority waste management programmes should cover the operation of waste prevention programmes, rather than waste reduction programmes. I presume we are getting back to the issue of hierarchy, which we discussed earlier. The Deputy will not be surprised to know that I do not agree with the amendment.

While the programme prescribed by the Minister will included a package of requirements in relation to prevention, minimisation and recovery of waste, the Deputy's proposal would not be appropriate. In addition, it would be unduly restrictive that such a programme would relate to waste prevention only. For the reasons we have dealt with so many times, I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment.

I had an idea that the Minister would respond in that fashion because the amendment puts an extra burden on the management of waste, in that it looks further than reduction and addresses prevention. However, ultimately, we should not loose sight of the priorities as outlined in the much quoted, but seldom implemented, waste hierarchy. This is my intention in proposing the amendment, but given the trenchant opposition of the Minister, I will withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. a154c:

In page 40, subsection (4) (d), line 40, after "them," to insert "subject to minimum targets agreed beforehand by the members,".

We are returning to the definition, and the Deputy may be confused again by "local authority" versus "public authority", because the amendment as drafted reads as if the Deputy is referring to local authorities and their members, as opposed to public authorities, which has a different meaning. His amendment is meaningless in that context, and I ask him to withdraw it.

I accept the Minister's remarks, although in attempting to ascribe a motivation to me he may not be accurate. I recognise that local authorities are an aspect of public authorities, and to that extent I was trying to be specific, as I realise that local authorities are presented with the huge task of dealing with most of our waste management problems, although that may change. However, as I wish to think further on this, I withdraw the amendment.

If he wishes, I can clarify matters on this issue further for the Deputy. The amendment would require that waste management plans to be made by public authorities would, in all cases be, if the amendment was carried, "subject to minimum targets agreed beforehand by the members,". Not all public authorities have members, that is why the amendment is inappropriate to the section. I understand the Deputy's remarks on the issue of local authorities, but it does not fit in this instance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 30, as amended, agreed to.
Top
Share