Amendment No. 157c has already been discussed with amendment No. 91a.
SECTION 34.
Amendment No. 157c not moved.
Amendment No. 159 is related to amendment No. 160 and is an alternative to amendment No. 158. Therefore, these amendments may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 158:
In page 44, subsection (3), line 14, after "permit." to insert "An application must be granted or refused within 3 months of application. In the event of refusal reasons must be provided in writing.".
This amendment was tabled because people who apply for waste collection permits and are refused should be allowed to appeal the decision. I am amazed that the Bill does not allow an appeal and that there does not seem to be a time limit for consideration of a licence application. A licensing system should have an appeals system. The rules of natural justice should apply in this case and a person should have the right of appeal or the right to refer the matter to the courts.
I am concerned that many local authorities — a case was brought to my attention in County Kildare — are in competition with private refuse collectors throughout the country. Surely the best way to ensure no competition is to refuse a waste collection permit to a private operator? In County Kildare difficulties were created for a private waste collector because the local authority wanted to continue waste collection. The company was willing to provide a service in competition with the local authority.
Natural justice should apply in this case because competition is the life blood of business and should be encouraged. Local authorities should not be in a position to knock out a competitor. Decisions should be made within specified time limits. There is nothing to stop a local authority, which is in competition with a private contractor, from considering something for nine months and causing severe difficulties. Perhaps the Minister could respond to these points.
I support Deputy Dempsey. It is important, even for administrative reasons, to specify a timeframe for considering applications for waste permits. Such matters are dealt with in planning law where a certain timeframe is put in place, beyond which further consideration is not given. My amendment suggests three months as a suitable timeframe. However, the Minister may want a different one, for example two months, to streamline the timeframe for granting or refusing applications for permits or planning permission. It is essential to specify the timeframe so that the process can be completed within a given time and the applicant notified about the outcome of his application.
I am persuaded by the Deputy's argument. The functions specified in this section are straightforward and there is a reasonable case for a specified time limit. Rather than accepting the amendment, I give the Deputy an undertaking that I will prescribe a time limit in the regulation because I am not sure what an appropriate time limit is at present. I would also like the flexibility to change it. I could say it should not be more than three months, but four weeks might be long enough. If I specify a time limit in the regulation, I could change my mind, subsequent to practice, when the Bill is enacted. I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment on the basis that I will specify a time limit for determination and notification in the regulations.
There should be an appeals mechanism. Deputy Dempsey referred to a conflict of interest. I do not want to impose a function on the agency that it must examine every appeal against an application to every local authority because that would be a waste of its resources. There is an appeals mechanism — the District Court — in the Bill against a revocation of a licence because that would impinge directly on a person's livelihood. I might consider that is the appropriate forum, rather than the agency, for the normal non-granting of a licence. If the amendment is withdrawn, I will consider if it would be appropriate for me to introduce an amendment on Report Stage which would allow an appeals mechanism, such as the District Court.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 159 and 160 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 160a, 162a and 163a are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 160a:
In page 44, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) An application made to a local authority for a waste permit must be advertised in at least two national newspapers.".
This amendment seeks to insert a new subsection (4) in section 34. It is similar to other amendments.
I am in agreement with the provisions about public notice. It would be desirable to extend the provisions of section 34 in relation to applications for waste permits. On that basis, I am willing to accept the principle of amendments Nos. 162a and 163a which seek to provide for public notice of applications for waste permits, the public inspection of applications for permits and the making of submissions by interested parties.
This is the intention of the amendments. If the Deputies withdrawn them, I propose to bring forward an amendment on Report Stage to amend section 34 (11) to provide for regulations in relation to those matters.
I wish to signal my continuing view regarding the other matter. It has not altered since we discussed it previously in relation to the need to advertise in at least two national newspapers. That is not necessary and I ask the Deputy not to pursue it, for all the reasons I will not waste time repeating.
I appreciate the Minister is in principle accepting two of the three amendments. This must be a good record on any day, but would it have been easier for the Minister to accept the third amendment if I stated one national newspaper? Is there something beyond that of which I am not aware?
I would have been easier but I would not have accepted it.
We would have been nearly saved.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 161:
In page 44, subsection (6)(a), line 38, before "A local authority" to insert "A permit shall normally be in force for a three year period but".
It may be covered later by regulation but the purpose of the amendment is to include a minimum specified period for which a licence will operate. It is important to give a reasonable period of time to allow a private operator to become involved in the business of waste collection, holding or recovery. He should be given an opportunity to recover the capital costs and three years is a reasonable period.
I am strongly of the opinion that a continual renewal system is a good way to retain control and maintain relatively high standards. We should be up front about charging for renewing permits. It could be a source of revenue for local authorities to defray general environmental costs. It would also ensure that there are relatively regular checks on operations at least once every three years, although I hope checks will be carried out more frequently.
I may agree too much with the Deputy. I accept there should be a reasonable period for any operator and three years is not long enough. I do not intend to accept the amendment. It would be unreasonable and unduly inflexible to apply a period of three years as the normal period of a waste collection permit. I expect the permit to have a longer duration than three years. However, the section gives local authorities powers to review and amend a waste collection permit at any time.
I expect that particular power will be utilised in the event of any changed circumstances which, in the view of the authority, would merit an amendment of the permit conditions. I hope that will not happen too frequently. I am anxious to avoid any unnecessary inconvenience or expense to waste collectors or local authorities in relation to the licensing mechanism. In essence, I envisage a longer period than three years for a permit. Local authorities have the ability to review the permit at any time they deem appropriate.
I am suggesting a review over specified periods of times because if a local authority decides to review a permit, I presume it cannot a charge a fee.
The general enabling provision in relation to fees is incorporated in the Bill. The specifics have yet to be drafted. However, in the regulations I will cover the point made by the Deputy to ensure there is no ability on the part of a local authority to meet financial targets by simply doing a trawl of permits and imposing charges arbitrarily. I will ensure that does not happen.
Could the Minister balance that in relation to the regulations also? Provided it is not abused, it is a potential source of finance for local authorities that could be applied to environmental areas. If the Minister thinks three years is too short for recovering capital costs, perhaps it could be five years and a renewal fee would apply. The Minister and I are talking about the same thing.
I can encompass what the Deputy wants in the regulations.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 162:
In page 44, subsection (7), line 54, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
The subsection states that ". . . a permit granted under the section shall specify the requirements to be complied with in respect of . . ." and such requirements "may include requirements in relation to —" various other items. I put down the amendment to highlight the necessity to set minimum standards. The subsection does not state that the Minister "shall"include various items. I am worried because it states "shall specify" and then just "may" include various matters. Perhaps the Minister has a view on this aspect.
I do not insert "may" or "shall" by way of tradition; it is a choice in each case. If the Deputy's amendment was accepted, it would require that a waste collection permit "shall" have attached to it all the conditions in relation to all the matters set out in subsection (7). This would not necessarily be appropriate. In this case, that flexibility should exist.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 162a not moved
I move amendment No. 162b:
In page 46, subsection (11) (a), line 9, to delete "may" and substitute "shall within a reasonable time".
The amendment should be considered in the context in which it was written. It is not unrelated to other aspects where there was concern about the timeframe and temptation not to review or take action in the short term. The current wording states the Minister "may" make regulations for the purpose of this section.
It would be a little more comforting to people to see the phrase "shall within a reasonable time" even though we are talking about legalities. Is that practical?
No, in my view it is not practical. The phrase "shall within a reasonable time" is an onerous concept in law. As soon as the Bill is enacted the Minister would be on a hazard in relation to any judicial review that says a week, a month or six months is a reasonable time. He could then be asked why the regulations are not in place. I intend to produce them expeditiously but I should not allow myself to be subject to that sort of judicial hazard where any citizen could decide to take a case about what constitutes a reasonable time to do this volume of work. I ask the Deputy not to press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 163:
In page 46, subsection (11) (b), to delete line 25 and substitute the following:
"(v) requiring a local authority to attach specified conditions to a permit;
(iv) specifying conditions that a local authority may attach to a permit;".
This amendment will expand the scope of subsection (11) (v) to allow the Minister to prescribe conditions which must be attached to a waste collection permit as well as conditions which may be attached to permits. This is intended primarily to give effect to a requirement of the hazardous waste Directives 91/689 EEC. It requires persons who transport hazardous waste to be obliged to comply with specific requirements regarding the mixing of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. This is included in Article 2(2) of the directive. The amendment allows the Minister to specify mandatory permit conditions where other circumstances warrant it.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 163a not moved.
Section 34, as amended, agreed to.