Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 21 Nov 1990

Vol. 126 No. 12

Private Business. - Waste Disposal: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government, as a matter of urgency, to review the legislation relating to the generation and disposal of waste with particular emphasis on the implementation of regulations which would enable local authorities to enact bylaws which would define whether waste would be disposed of or recycled.

—(Senator Foley.)

Mrs. Jackman

I cannot disagree with the motion. I wonder why it is necessary for Seanad Éireann to call on the Government as a matter of urgency to review the legislation. I would have thought that the Government would have gone ahead and reviewed it without having to be asked to do so by Seanad Éireann. We are not initiating anything. I wonder why the Government could not review the legislation without having to be cajoled or pushed by the Seanad.

I did not have an opportunity to hear Senator Foley open the debate. I was not able to find out the date the legislation relating to the generation and disposal of waste was implemented. How old is that legislation? The Minister can help with that answer. It is interesting that up to 6 p.m. we were debating an amendment to a superannuation Act which dates back to 1928. We should review legislation every 20 to 25 years and if it is not necessary to update it we can leave it but some legislation has not been updated for 60 or 100 years. Surely the review of legislation on an ongoing basis is a pragmatic exercise and is something every Government would want to do. Then we would not have to go back through dusty Bills wondering when they were enacted. Senator O'Toole referred to the English terms used. Rather than talking about the Minister he was talking about the "Treasury" in relation to the previous Bill. That seems extraordinary in this day and age.

How do we view waste disposal? Our attitude is that waste appears but we do not have any responsibility for it. There is a negative attitude to local authorities. I will give an example of this, and I know the Minister will agree with me. Every institution has to be kicked. It was interesting to note when we had a tag-a-bag of 25p per sack, bin or whatever receptacle was used in my own local authority area, that people were willing to pay 50p or £1 a week to private enterprise to collect their rubbish. They did not see any conflict between paying 25p to a local authority and paying £1 to a private enterprise. I find that extraordinary. It is a strange reaction and is all to do with our negative attitude to local authorities and to the Department of the Environment. The only time we react to waste is when the word "toxic" is mentioned; then people become quite hysterical. They react very vehemently against dumps when they are being provided in or near their areas. They disregard the fact that they are the producers of the refuse which has to be dumped somewhere. It is not just a question of calling on the Government to review the legislation relating to the generation and disposal of waste and to implement regulations enabling local authorities to enact bylaws which would define whether it was disposed of or recycled; what we must ensure is that people understand that they are the producers of rubbish.

I was quite astounded at the figure of one million tonnes of refuse referred to by Senator Foley. That is really mind boggling. We can divide waste into two categories, domestic and industrial. In the lead up to Christmas and the post-Christmas period with all the packaging and various things associated with Christmas, there will be a plethora of waste dumped, whether it be outside public houses or take-away cafés. At this time there should be a media campaign to alert people that they are the producers of waste. It does not matter what we ask local authorities to do; at the end of the day if we are not individually concerned, seeing that we are the producers of domestic waste, by-laws or no by-laws the situation will not be rectified.

For the last 20 years school children, both at primary and secondary level, have been told about protecting the environment. They are brought on nature trails and view sophisticated video programmes on how waste is recycled in Germany and France; they look at environmentally aware projects; they enter competitions for this, that and the other, and yet it is impossible to keep a litter free school. Despite those competitions there seem to be two ways of behaving — one while the authorities are keeping an eye on you and the other when the authorities are not keeping an eye on you. How do we address the issue of making young people aware that they are the producers of litter? It seems that like everything else, it should start in the home. Even when they leave their homes and walk to school, they pass litter on the side of the road.

As far as I am concerned, it all comes back to how we perceive our environment. During the green Presidency there was a great drive to project ourselves as having a clean environment, with clean, uncontaminated food, clear rivers and so on but tourists lured here by glossy brochures, find an extremely different picture. They find a throwaway, careless society who dump tins, cars, glass, etc. and for some reason they always appear to be dumped in our most scenic areas. I am sure the Minister is aware that when local authorities are asked to prosecute by exasperated county councillors they are told a prosecution will be taken if a name is found on private correspondence or whatever. Litter can be traced to litter louts but it can also be traced back to people who should know better and who should have better values. In County Limerick the local authority had an estimates meeting recently and we found that we are as financially starved this year as any other year. I could not ask for any by-laws to be implemented unless there is a guarantee that the local authorities would be given the necessary finance to ensure that what is inherent in this motion could be implemented.

Senator Foley said that the by-laws would allow local authorities to charge for the provision of waste disposal facilities. Is he talking about dumping because these have already been charged for and I would consider the charges to be minimal? He said it would allow them to charge different rates for recyclable and non-recyclable waste. What exact rates and charges has he in mind? Would it be sufficient to allow the local authorities not just to implement but to monitor those by-laws? It is all right to have facilities for the collection of wastes but it is an extremely expensive operation to monitor them. In America and Japan there is somebody standing by actually telling you exactly where to put your coloured bottles or whatever, where to put the different sizes, etc., and they have sufficient gadgets to ensure that the different sizes of bottles are put in place. As a people we would tend to come to the recycling depots but we certainly would not do the groundwork by classifying items into different sizes, structures, colours, etc. as they do abroad. They tend to be far more civic minded. It would be up to local authorities to monitor the areas where they would collect those items. I would have liked Senator Foley to comment on how they operate the pilot area in Kerry which appears to be working so well for them. That is one aspect as regards the finance that would be necessary to ensure it worked properly.

I would have thought that under the Environmental Protection Agency Bill all of this could have been thrashed out and I am sure it will be when that Bill comes before us. The Minister is no doubt aware of the many calls from this House for the Environmental Protection Agency Bill to be introduced. What I am worried about in relation to this motion is that we no longer have An Foras Forbartha which was a source of valuable information not just to the Oireachtas Members but to local authorities, community groups and so on. They gave scientific advice on all environmental issues. It is a pity they are gone and that we are still waiting for the Environmental Protection Agency Bill to take over their role.

As regards industrial waste, we are very much aware of the fact that individual firms must have licences to dispose of effluent. It is very difficult to have all of these monitored by local authorities. It is only when things go wrong that fire brigade action is taken. Another point regarding recycling, is that it must be economically viable, and no matter what we say it will only work if that is so. I know it is in the very early stages in Kerry but I would like to know whether it is an economically viable option. We all hope further employment can be created as a result of recycling. At the end of the day, we need a nationally co-ordinated scheme for recycling re-usable waste products. Although I have faith in local authorities I worry about their finances and resources, and whether they can monitor such schemes when they come into existence. It is a burning issue. It is interesting that an American millionaire, whose name escapes me, has retired from his industrial job and has decided to devote the rest of his life to the area of recycling and to the protection of the environment.

There are many lessons we can learn. I would start with the domestic exploiter. In Ireland we tend to scream at multinationals and to look to industry but we seem to forget the buck stops with each individual. I welcome the motion but I would be twice as happy if the provision of resources for local authorities were implicit in it and in the local government reform package we will get.

Mr. O'Keeffe

I welcome the Minister to the House particularly as we are dicussing a motion on recycling and, generally speaking, waste disposal. It is only right to acknowledge that in his term as Minister for the Environment massive strides have been made in the area of recycling and general waste disposal. It is the first time in the history of the State that we now have a comprehensive policy on how to rid ourselves of waste and how economically to recycle a lot of waste material.

There will always be a difficulty in providing modern landfill sites and it is becoming an extremely acute problem for local authorities. That will continue to be so given the fact, as Senator Jackman suggested, that people agree they are necessary provided that they are not located in their immediate vicinity. My view is that this problem will continue to agitate people in the years ahead. At this stage it is only proper that we should take steps to conserve the landfill sites we have available to us by recycling as much as possible of domestic refuse.

My understanding is that when you remove glass, cans, plastic, metal and paper, approximately 40 per cent of what is left is organic waste and that can be digested. The problem is: how can we separate all the various items listed. I understand that in France and Denmark they have a mechanism to separate them. I know the Minister is aware of this and I ask him if he would have a look at the possibility of locating one such machine in the Cork area on a pilot basis. It has been suggested that a 40 per cent EC grant is available directly to local authorities for a digester dealing specifically with municipal waste and I understand Cork County Council have lodged an application for a digester with the Minister. The Minister might elaborate, given his call earlier in the year to other local authorities, on how many of them have made proposals to the Department relative to this and what the likelihood of sanction is for the Cork applicaton.

The programme under which Cork County Council lodged a claim is an EC programme called Thermie, that is, for a full-scale municipal digester. The problem for Irelend under that programme is that a full feasibility study has not been completed by any local authority, and certainly not by Cork County Council. The closing date is 6 January 1991. Under some of the environmental programmes funding can be made direct to the local authority as in the case of Thermie. Would the Minister, therefore, consider it appropriate that some mechanism be put in place in his Department whereby the managers of local authorities would be made aware of schemes where funding would come directly to the local authorities rather than having what seems like the hit-and-miss operation at present?

Everyone welcomes the estblishment of private recycling units all over the country. While profit margins are, generally speaking, low it goes to show there is now a level of consciousness of the need to recycle. I welcome the grant aid that is made available in this area through the Department. It has increased from £250,000 to £500,000 and that in itself is encouraging.

In the environment action programme the Minister listed three points that were particularly pertinent in this regard. They are the increase that I have spoken about bringing the amount to £500,000; the fact that the Minister asked the IDA to look at the possibility for spin-off industry from recycling and the possibility of arranging tax incentives for companies who involve themselves in recycling given the low profit margins that everybody accepts. In Cork and Kerry companies seem to be blossoming. There does not seem to be the type of regulation that perhaps should be in place. One can argue that at the end of the day competition will decide which of them will last. Under the present scheme of things there are a number of cowboy operations. They start off on the basis of making some profit but they seem to cause damage rather than alleviate the difficulty. In those circumstances given the influx of new companies into the recycling area, would it not be appropriate to bring in a licensing system? It could be operated by the local authorities, where on an annual basis licences would be issued and they would perhaps be based on performance and thus ensure that at all times companies stayed within their remit.

I would also like to use this occasion to mention the serious problem that has arisen with offal disposal. The Minister is well aware that with the advent of mad cow disease slaughterhouses are experiencing difficulty in disposing of offal. Up to 1 November, Cork County Council were accepting offal in two tipheads but with the advent of winter the danger of leachate contamination of streams meant we had to bring that process to an end. That begs the question of where exactly that offal is going at present. In Tralee there was the danger of an explosion when domestic refuse was compacted on top of offal because of the carbondioxide present.

I understand there are 660 slaughterhouses and 48 large-scale slaughtering premises in this country. It is estimated that we kill 1.2 million cattle, 2.5 million sheep, 2 million pigs and 42 million poultry per year. That is a substantial amount of waste at the end of the day. With the closing off of our exports of meat and bonemeal a major problem exists for slaughterhouses. In fact, it is compounding the high price of meat at present. I understand costs have gone up by 33? per cent in the interim period.

In Cork we have a pilot programme whereby sewage sludge, offal and industrial waste from the Pfizer factory are digested together successfully and the rendering at the end of the day has produced a significant flow of biogas and the by-product can be used as a fertiliser on the land. In Denmark, France and other countries this is operating successfully and from the environmental point of view that would seem to be the way forward. I congratulate the Minister on indicating that his Department are prepared to fund a feasibility study provided that the slaughterhouses and local industry are willing to pay their fair share in any such study.

It is important that we establish how expansive that digester should be because in many instances I am told that although the pilot project looks extremely positive when you put in place a major digester we may not get the same level of positive results. I would like the Minister's comment on that. The feasibility study, which is to take three months, will obviously take a look at the location. It will have a look at the benefits to the environment, how waste is to be collected, how the digester itself is to be run and particularly how it is to be financed.

Side-by-side with this project would be the creation of what I feel is a significant number of jobs. The initial results suggest that the biogas generated could act as a feeder to local industry within the area and it could also assist the development of the glasshouse industry in Cork. I am pleased to indicate that discussions are at present going on between Bord na Móna and Cork County Council with regard to new product development on the byproduct of this particular digester.

The cost of a full generator is prohibitive, £6 million. Obviously, while in the long term it would appear to be the way forward and while a 40 per cent grant might be available from the EC, this is going to have major ramifications for the Minister in regard to cost on the Exchequer, especially when you consider that the project they are proposing for £6 million will cover only Cork city and county. That begs the question: What is going to happen to the rest of the country? We still have a long way to go down that road but it looks to be something well worth pursuing.

I also welcome the fact that the Environment Protection Agency is being put in place. Now that the Kramer report has been published in relation to Cork harbour, there are one or two points I would like to make.

Mr. B. Ryan

Despoilation of Cork harbour.

Acting Chairman (Mr. R. Kiely)

Senator O'Keeffe, without interruption.

Mr. O'Keeffe

It is important that that report would be put in place, but, more important still, it should be said that the control mechanism used by the Cork County Council environment department has by and large been proved to be correct and the statements they have made in the past have proved to be well founded on this occasion. On the question of the Environment Protection Agency, obviously a location will have to be found for that. Given the major concentration of chemical industry in Cork harbour we would look with a benign eye on the siting of such an agency in the Cork area and we would readily provide a premises for the Minister if that were to happen.

Before I conclude, I would like to advert to the fact that the Government have now decided that a national waste incinerator is required and that we cannot be exporting our waste to other countries. I also understand from some of the Minister's statements that it is getting down to two consortia to decide which one of them is to get the contract. I understood from a statement made by the Minister that these consortia would decide on the suitability of location. I find it quite ironic, therefore, that the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Mary Harney, should come to Cork and should indicate that with regard to this national waste incinerator that it should not be sited in Cork.

Mr. B. Ryan

Quite right.

Acting Chairman

Senator O'Keeffe, without interruption.

Mr. O'Keeffe

I am sure the Senator will get his opportunity to contribute. I am also quite concerned that the Senator should speak in such a way, given the fact that his own qualification is in the chemical field and, above anything else, he should have a good knowledge of the importance of a national waste incinerator. If we accept the principle that it should be located in Ireland then we should be willing to accept it in Cork, if that were a suitable location, other than any other part of the country.

I would like to point out two other facts relating to the national waste incinerator that concern me. Industrial development is quite likely to follow hard upon the siting of a national waste incinerator and 2,000 jobs could be generated around that incinerator. What concerns me is that in the September issue of Business and Finance there were two articles relating to the national waste incinerator, one where, again, the Minister, Deputy Harney, said it would not be in Cork, that it was not appropriate that it should be in Cork and another indicating that she was quite adamant that Limerick was a more suitable location. I would hate to think the nepotism would be part and parcel of our partners in Government; and, while I would not want the Minister to comment on that, it is rather appropriate that it should be said in this Chamber.

Dr. Upton

At the outset I welcome this motion. It is a bit like motherhood; one of these things which anybody could agree with. I compliment Senator Foley on his speech last week. It was very comprehensive. Unfortunately, he did not spell out precisely what the difficulties were with the present legislation in relation to the disposal of waste and so on. The motion is fine, by 31 Members of the House, all Fianna Fáil people. I also understand that the Environmental Protection Agency Bill is on its way; it has been on its way for a long time. I saw Senator O'Keeffe reading through the Environmental Action Programme. I am sure that if he had gone on to the end of it he would have seen——

Mr. O'Keeffe

I have digested it.

Dr. Upton

Intellectually, I hope as distinct from physically; but it would be a good source of fibre as well. The Environmental Protection Agency Bill, if we were to take that announcement seriously, would have been up and going by now. It has not materialised yet and the Minister might fill us in on when we can expect it. It is a question we ask the Leader of the House each day and the disorder of asking this question seems to have spread. Today it spread as far as Senator Cullen of the Progressive Democrats who has got interested in when this Bill will be introduced. My own view of the Fianna Fáil motion is that it could be interpreted as a coded message to the Minister to introduce the Environmental Protection Agency Bill. That is how I would decode it. The reason I say that is that pretty well everything covered in the motion would also have been covered in the Environmental Protection Agency Bill and much more besides. If we got that Bill then we would be aware and we would solve the problem and many others also.

The amount of waste which is recycled in this country is very low by international standards. The desirable aspects of recycling waste have already been well explained here. They will extend the life of present landfill sites and they will also allow productive economic activity to develop. It will allow for the creation of employment in recycling material. It should be possible to establish a considerable number of new industries based on commercial recycling; and, while the employment which can be expected from these industries in relation to the overall levels of employment in the country can be modest, nonetheless it is fair to say that they would be significant.

I also want to say that the suggestion in the Environmental Action Programme where tax initiatives or tax incentives to encourage recycling are being studied is welcome. I look forward to proposals being made in relation to tax incentives to encourage recycling and to encourage the use of biodegradable containers where that is feasible.

In relation to the question of hazardous waste, we have to get down to the question of the safe disposal of this material. That is a long and complex question. It is complex in relation to the chemical aspects and it is even more complex in relation to the political aspects. Hazardous waste is not just hazardous in terms of human health. It is also very hazardous in terms of political health and the side-effects of a political mistake made in relation to hazardous waste management could be fatal politically, if not fatal from a health point of view.

I understand there is something like one million tonnes of refuse produced each year in this country and that, of course, means we have enormous potential for recycling waste. If we are to look at the figures which have been quoted from places like Japan where they are able to recycle in excess of half the total waste which they generate, and if we look at the objectives which the French have set themselves of recycling two-thirds of their waste over the next decade, it indicates the enormous potential which exists for recycling waste in our country. At present the levels of achievement are very modest. Quinnsworth, the supermarket chain, who have done a good deal of work in relation to promoting recycling and so on, have estimated that something like 40 per cent of the plastic bags which they give out in their supermarkets are waste, so there is quite a considerable potential there for saving. There are also estimates available to show that something like 100 jobs could be created in recycling the present levels of waste cans in this country.

In relation to what should be done by way of developing the potential, I believe there is a need now for a national policy. I believe that policy should have clear objectives and the methods by which it would be pursued should be clearly laid out. In particular, it is important that investment is made in increasing the public's awareness of waste and how it can be reduced. I believe in relation to industry there is a need for courses in environmental management for industrialists. I would expect that as industry develops those courses would become part and parcel of the training of managers and, indeed, that they would be introduced on a short term basis for managers who are at present working in industry.

It is important that we carry out research into environmental management and environmental policy. A modest amount of that is going on at present. Again, it is a matter of regret that the Environmental Protection Agency is not up and going because there are plans there for research into these areas.

It is very important that the labelling standards in relation to waste and disposal of waste be improved. There is great scope for some products to contain labels which would be much clearer and much more easily understood for consumers in relation to biodegradability and various other aspects of how packaging and so on should be disposed of.

There are two points I want to mention very briefly. One relates specifically to the problem of coastal pollution and to the difficulties which plastic materials create in relation to coastal areas. They are an absolute plague in coastal areas. I wish an awareness programme would now be introduced as to the deleterious effects of these materials so that the public might be made fully conscious of the tremendous damage this type of litter does to our coasts, which indeed are one of the country's great national resources.

The final point I want to refer to is the matter raised by Senator O'Keeffe in relation to the disposal of offal. That is a very serious problem now. I hope the Minister is addressing himself to it. Clear steps should be taken to ensure that serious damage is not done to the health of the environment arising from this practice which now seems to be becoming more widespread. I find it particularly alarming to hear the reports of people burying offal and that kind of thing. It is very worrying and I sincerely hope the Minister will take appropriate action to remedy any irregular behaviour in this matter.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Flynn)

Ba mhaith liom ar dtús mo bhuíochas a chur in iúl do na Seanadóirí uilig a ghlac páirt san díospóireacht agus an t-ábhar fíor-thábhachtach atá i gceist againn anseo agus ba mhaith liom beagáin a rá faoin diíospóireacht sin.

The production of waste is an inescapable feature of modern Irish life and life generally and the volume and complexity of waste directly reflect the kind of society in which we live and the living standards we enjoy. Experience has shown that in Ireland, as in other countries, industrialisation and economic growth give rise to accelerated generation of waste of all types. This trend requires action by the private and public sectors as well as increased awareness on the part of the general public if economic growth is to be sustainable in terms of protection of the environment. To put it very simply, we cannot go on producing ever-increasing amounts of waste and close our eyes to the environmental consequences. Traditionally, waste was viewed as something with a negative economic value. Its holders no longer wanted it at a given time and place because it has no market value, but the modern view of waste is more discerning. On the one hand, waste is a potential source of pollution and, on the other hand, waste can represent a real natural resource as a secondary raw material.

I am pleased the motion before us emphasises this potential of waste as a natural resource in its reference to recycling. Putting down the motion at this time was opportune and timely. To appreciate the problems associated with waste we need to understand the different forms under which it arises: municipal waste, industrial waste, agricultural waste, miscellaneous waste and hazardous waste. They all present distinct characteristics and they require quite different management strategies. Production of industrial waste in Ireland exceeds 1.5 million tonnes per year. A significant amount of this — some 40 to 50 per cent of it — is recovered or recycled and the balance is disposed of on private sites, local authority sites or dumped at sea. I should point out that under the Government's environmental action programme marine dumping of industrial waste will be terminated finally by the end of 1995.

Agricultural wastes are a very significant part of total waste produced in Ireland as one would expect in view of the importance and size of the agricultural sector. Over 20 million tonnes of these wastes are produced each year and virtually all agricultural wastes are disposed of by land spreading. While it is gratifying that this is a form of recycling, the whole management of agricultural wastes is, of course, vital so as to prevent problems of water pollution. Miscellaneous wastes include mining and peat wastes, construction rubble and metal wastes such as scrap vehicles, tyres and waste oils. With regard to the latter, there is a significant degree of recycling. Hazardous wastes are produced mainly from industrial sources and, on a broad definition, some 52,500 tonnes of this waste arise in Ireland each year. Of course, this would be classified as toxic and dangerous waste for all the purposes that are relevant to the EC directives.

Municipal waste includes household refuse, street sweepings and sludge from waste waters. Statistics show that we produce over one million tonnes of this waste each year or about one-third of a tonne per person. This figure has been increasing steadily. Local authority refuse collections systems serve about three-quarters of the national population and collect the bulk of municipal wastes. In all, local authorities will spend over £50 million in 1990 on waste disposal activities. Most wastes in Ireland are disposed of by landfill, although other methods such as incineration are likely to increase in the future.

I should say here that the landfill disposal option is fully acceptable from an environmental point of view, given a suitable location and proper management. When used up, landfill sites can often be reclaimed to provide parks and other amenities. About 1.5 million tonnes of waste is deposited annually on approximately 160 local authority tip sites while at least 175,000 tonnes is deposited on some 40 private tip sites. While landfill is usually cheaper than other disposal options, it still entails significant collection of transport and management costs. Worthwhile savings could be realised if waste production was minimised or if a greater proportion of waste was recycled or recovered.

I have listened with considerable interest to the contributions of Senators and there seems to be a general agreemnt that the actual disposal of waste should be the last — not the first — item on the waste agenda. Enlightened waste management strategies should focus in the first instance on waste minmimisation and this can involve a number of considerations. First, minimisation of waste can be achieved at production stage by the use of clean technologies in the production process itself. There is an economic incentive for industry to do just this in view of the cost of disposal of industrial waste and this incentive will increase in the future as the standards for final disposal become even higher. Secondly, minimisation at source will also depend increasingly on the manufacture of clean and environmentally friendly end products.

The next method of reducing the amount of waste for final disposal is, of course, recycling. This is central to the motion we are discussing this evening. Recycling can conserve natural resources, extend the life of existing disposal facilities and it offers significant opportunities for productive economic activity and employment. The Environment Action Programme acknowledges that by international standards the amount of municipal waste recycled in Ireland is low and it proposes a number of initiatives to encourage greater activity in this area. At the same time, Senators should bear in mind that the quantities of municiple waste produced per capita in Ireland are still low by international standards. Indeed, most of the countries who can claim to be advanced in the recycling of municipal waste still produce more net waste per capita than we do. Nevertheless, I am determined to improve the level of recycling in Ireland and, in line with the action programme, a number of important measures have already been taken.

Major local authorities were asked to prepare recycling schemes for their areas which would identify recycling possibilities and measures to facilitate them. I am pleased to inform Senators that most local authorities have now responded to this request and their recycling plans are now being evaluated in the Department of the Environment. Grant assistance from my Department for recycling projects have been increased to £500,000 this year — that is a 100 per cent increase on last year's allocation. IDA feasibility studies are being carried out in relation to the potential for new recycling industries and I await the results from that source with some interest. Finally, two important studies have been commissioned in relation to tax incentives for recycling and the use of biodegradable forms of containers and packaging. Again, I am expecting the results from these matters shortly.

A number of important advances were made in waste policy during our Presidency of the European Communities earlier this year. As President of the Environment Council, I guided through the adoption of a comprehensive resolution on waste which established modern principles for future EC waste management purposes. Under my Presidency, the Council also agreed an important framework directive on waste. Finally, a specific directive was agreed concerning reduction and safe disposal of waste from batteries.

Before I speak about waste legislation in Ireland, which is central to the motion, I want to respond to a number of issues raised by Senators. The first concerns eco-labelling. The Government fully supports this concept which should serve to promote environmentally friendly products. Work on eco-labelling is continuing at the European Community level. I am however, including a general power in the Environmental Protection Agency Bill for the promotion of an eco-labelling scheme.

The Environmental Protection Agency Bill has been referred to by every single contributor I have listened to. It is now virtually complete and will be published and introduced very shortly. I take it that when it is being discussed here it will give Senators a further opportunity at some length to consider legislation which, I believe, will introduce new measures, new structures and new powers that have been eagerly awaited by all concerned with the environment for quiite some time. It will be a good Bill. More about that anon.

I would also remind Senators that the Environment Action Programme promised a nationwide attitudes survey to the established baseline data, in relation to individuals and the corporate sector, to assist in planning environment awareness campaigns and other programmes in the years ahead. Results of the survey, which I am sure will also be applicable to waste management, will be available early in the New Year.

Senator Foley spoke about the achievements of the Kerry Recycling Group. I am pleased to acknowledge the contribution of small recycling operators throughout the country. Kerry Recycling Group and some 20 other operators have had the assistance of recycling grants from the Department in order to try to expand their operations, as they do very good work. The Senator was quite justified in supporting them in the way he did.

A number of Senators raised the problems of pollution of the sources of group water schemes. Waste has to be acknowledged as a potential source of pollution. This is why in rural situations we must put a premium on improved farm management and on proper waste water disposal facilities. Action is being taken on two fronts to combat this threat to rural water supplies and to smaller group schemes in particular. First, grants are available to groups to undertake the necessary works to connect to public water supply schemes and an ever-increasing number of group schemes will receive their supply direct from public schemes in the future. In cases where a connection to a public scheme is not practicable, grants are payable for the installation of suitable water treatment facilities.

I think that perhaps a statistic or two about that is worth keeping in mind. About 40 per cent of group schemes use private sources of supply and as many as 60,000 households in the country are supplied from private sources. There are about 5,000 group schemes in the country — something in excess of 5,000 schemes — and they serve 139,000 homes. You can get some idea of the importance of the group scheme system to the community at large. It applies particularly to rural Ireland. It is important that these rural communities be supported, first of all, in providing water supplies for their homes and, secondly, we must seek to try to have the best quality water possible made available through those group schemes. The only sure safe way to have that quality maintained on a continuous basis is for as many as possible of those group water schemes to be connected to public water supply. We would hope in the future that as many as possible of the new group schemes that are grant-aided would, if at all possible, be connected to public water supply schemes that are treated in a proper fashion because there is some concern in regard to ground water that, of course, agricultural wastes and disposal like that can affect the quality. We have to be conscious of that and monitor it very carefully indeed.

I readily acknowledge that the cause as well as the symptoms must be treated. The powers available to local authorities to require measures to be taken to prevent pollution or to regulate activities, such as the storage and disposal or wastes which may pose a threat to water quality, have been significantly strengthened by the Local Government Water Pollution (Amendment) Act, 1990. This Act introduces civil liability for injury, loss or damage to persons or property resulting from the pollution of waters. These legislative measures, together with the grant scheme operated by the Department of Agriculture and Food to improve waste storage facilities on farms are designed to reduce the incidence of water pollution generally. This, of course, benefits group water schemes.

Enormous amounts of money had been provided by the Department of Agriculture and Food to help the farming community who now fully recognise their responsibility to reduce the levels of pollution emanating from their operations. They have been given this grant assistance to enable them to provide better storage facilities, better holding facilities for their wastes and to do all in accordance with the strictest standards as laid down by that Department. We are happy to co-operate in that regard.

There has been an enormous improvement in the whole area of management of farm operations this year. Generally, farmers, often maligned, should be at least congratulated on the efforts they have made in trying to improve their own situations. Thousands of them have attended symposia, lectures and seminars over the last number of winters to learn how to better use the facilities they have and how to improve upon them and they have been encouraged to do quite a lot in so far as improving the environment is concerned over the past few years. I am happy to support them in their efforts.

Senators also referred to toxic and dangerous wastes. Quite a lot of comment was made on these matters. As I have already indicated to the House, we produce about 52,500 tonnes of waste which is regarded as toxic and dangerous in the context of the relevant EC directives. We also produce a further 55,000 tonnes of chemicals, metal and oil wastes which can be broadly regarded as hazardous as well. While minimisation and recovery methods should be applied as fully as possible to these wastes, we must have a proper disposal facility for the smaller quantity, say, 5,000 to 10,000 tonnes which require specialised incineration. That is the matter referred to by Senator O'Keeffe. This facility of a national incinerator must be carefully planned, managed, monitored to the highest environmental standards. The thing that has to be said is that we must have it.

We have had the opportunity for a number of years now of disposing of these toxic and highly dangerous wastes by relying on our friends abroad. We utilise incinerator facilities in the UK, France and Finland. It is becoming increasingly obvious to me, as Minister for the Environment attending Environment Council meetings in Europe, that the policy of proximity and the policy of self-sufficiency will be the order of the day in a very short time. Proximity simply means that you should dispose of these dangerous substances and wastes as near as possible to where they are created.

The self-sufficiency principle applies in that it is expected that each country will provide the necessary facilities to dispose of its own dangerous waste. Taking that seriously and acting responsibly in that matter, we must plan to have in place a facility to deal with our own waste in a proper way, properly controlled, monitored in a safe way long in advance of the door being closed by other countries who will eventually refuse to take that waste from us. It is infinitely more suitable to know what is happening to our wastes, to have it controlled and monitored, to know precisely where it is going rather than to have it disposed of in bogs, ditches, drains, dumped at sea or in any other location.

Waste is a necessary by-product of industry. Whether it is processing, chemical, agricultural or whatever, we produce the waste and we will continue to do so in increasingly large volumes. We should do whatever we can by improving the production processes and reducing the amount of waste generated at source — this must be an essential as well — and whatever we can do on the other matter referred to by Senator Foley, the question of recycling of waste. We have not a good reputation or record in this question of recycling. We are the worst in Europe. We are improving a little bit but we have still got a long way to go.

Whatever we do in the production processes or in the recycling area we will still have a sizeable volume of dangerous toxic and harardous waste that has to be got rid of. If we are told in a short time: "Keep it yourself, Minister; it is not coming into our country because the self-sufficiency principle will become established in law" then we will end up with it and will have to store it, bury it or dump it where it could be a very serious hazard to the lives and health of all our people. That nettle has to be grasped. That is what the national incinerator proposal is all about. One will have to be provided and we must plan for it and we must do it carefully. I believe if we do that we then can have a facility and we will be the authors of our own destiny in so far as the disposal of that waste is concerned.

I will deal with the question of improving legislation on national waste. Our existing legislation falls under two main headings. First, there are a number of provisions scattered throughout the various statutes dating back to the last century. The most important of these are the Public Health and Sanitary Services Acts. These Acts enable us, but they do not compel sanitary authorities to collect household and trade refuse. More recently, a series of regulations have been made under the European Communities Act, 1972, which give effect to various European Community directives pertaining to waste. These regulations implement directives on a general framework for waste disposal, toxic and dangerous waste, waste oils, PCBs, transfrontier shipment of hazardous wastes and, finally, disposal of asbestos.

Senators will see that existing legislation on waste is either very old, last Century stuff, or derives totally from the EC directives I have referred to. This is unsatisfactory. In particular, Senators will be aware that secondary legislation, under the European Communities Act, 1972, must be restricted to the measures necessary to implement the provisions of the EC directives concerned. We cannot, for example, cater for further provisions notwithstanding their desirability in terms of particular national circumstances. This factor, along with the growing importance of waste control as a central component in promoting a cleaner environment, suggests the need for a modern statutory framework to underpin all aspects of waste control. My intention is that a comprehensive Bill should be prepared which will provide for all activities associated with waste. The movement is in that direction. The Community is now taking up the whole question of this legislation by way of directive following the framework which was put in place under my Presidency. From that will flow all the legislation needed to deal with this waste business. It is starting now and I believe it is necessary. I include storage, collection, transportation and treatment as well as all types of waste from the simple domestic refuse along the scale to hazardous waste which are separate but still related in all the activities associated with waste. There were a lot of comments made about particular issues. I do not think it is necessary for me to deal with them in an individual way this evening. There will be opportunities shortly, particularly in the discussion on the Environmental Protection Agency Bill quite a voluminous piece of legislation. It is a major matter which is about to descend upon you——

Mr. B. Ryan

On us?

Mr. Flynn

It is about to descend on the Oireachtas. It will give a great opportunity to everybody to have a very careful consideration of what is required there. I want to make one or two little comments about things I heard this evening. The question of animal waste was referred to by several Senators, also the question of offal and the sizeable amounts of offal generated in an agricultural country. Perhaps all of it is not being disposed of in a manner of which we would all approve. However, so that at least we understand what is going on, there is still a very big export market for bone meal and the export of bone meal has become more restrictive in recent times. Senators should at least be aware that the export of this product is still going on. I am aware of the problem and the potential it creates for unsuitable and unlawful disposal of these animal wastes and I propose issuing guidelines in the immediate future to local authorities on the proper method of disposal of this offal. It is still being exported in very large tonnages. In fact, it is expected that the export of bone meal and these related matters will be running at about the same as 1990. Rendering plants are still operating. They have always been a suitable method of disposal of these kinds of wastes.

At the same time, I am somewhat concerned about offal being disposed of in open landfill sites. It can be done properly at landfill location but there are ways of doing it, and because of that, I have decided to ask the Department to draw up suitable guidelines for sanitary authorities so that they are fully acquainted with the best method of disposing of these wastes on their landfill sites if that is the only method available to them.

Senator O'Keeffe was particularly anxious about the anaerobic digester. I understand it is at testing stage in Cork. I hope the Senator is aware that this matter has not been disposed of by the Department or the Minister just yet. I would not want anyone to feel it has suddenly been all cleared. We have not as yet agreed to assist this project. I believe it would be appropriate to include it perhaps when it comes to approval stage for assistance under the envirge operational programme. That would be the best way I can envisage of getting decent grant assistance to enable it to proceed. It has not been approved yet and I do not wish it to be announced that it has.

The Senator is quite right to say it has great advantages and it could have a major potential for the disposal of sludges which are likely to increase. The volume of sludges is cetainly very likely to increase over the years because of the increased level of activity under the sanitary programme in so far as new sewerage treatment plants are concerned particularly one that would be operating, for instance, in Cork when that design is finished and put in place. We are talking about huge volumes of sewage sludge. We will not allow it to be be dumped at sea after the date which I mentioned earlier on. That will be banned. It has to be got rid of and that digester, of course, could do the trick very adequately for us. It is also quite a useful plant type for disposing of animal wastes. It certainly offers very big possibilities on the whole question of recovery of gas and using it to the full advantage. While not telling the Senator that it will be approved, let me put it in this fashion, I certainly see the great possibilities for this anaerobic digester. Hopefully, we will be able to deal with it in the very near future.

I emphasise the new conceptual approach to waste involving minimisation. Recycling will feature prominently in the legislative measures we have in mind. I will also bear in mind the many quite interesting, educational, stimulating and constructive points that were raised by all the Senators who contributed to this debate so far. Their contributions were well researched. They have given notice to me, of course, that they will be expanding on the matters they have referred to when the Environmental Protection Agency is being discussed here in the very near future. I look forward to that opportunity also. When the waste legislation is finally complete, together with the controlling and monitoring arrangements that will be put in place in the new Environmental Protection Agency Bill, we will then have gone a long way in quite a short time in dealing with the whole question of waste that arises in this country.

Acting Chairman

Before I call Senator Ryan I would like to inform the House that this debate is to conclude at 8.12 p.m. less than 25 minutes. I understand there are three Senators offereing and Senator Foley has a right to reply. He has a right to come in at 7.57 p.m. I would appreciate co-operation so that all Senators will get in.

Mr. B. Ryan

I will take five minutes. I would like to give whatever time I have left to Senator Norris. Senator Ó Cuív wants to speak as well. There is no way I can let Senator Norris speak and give Senator Ó Cuív five minutes and speak for only two and a half minutes myself. I will be as brief as I can. I do not want to start arguing with Senator O'Keeffe about it because I do not have time. We will discuss that at length in Cork, in the media if necessary.

Mr. O'Keeffe

We will do that in Cork.

Mr. B. Ryan

Suffice it to say that the national incinerator at this stage is going in the wrong direction. My view is that the only way forward is not just to minimise it but to end waste from hazardous substances. The world is not in a position to keep on consuming wastes.

On the specific issue of the motion I have every reason to support it. I agree with the sentiments but my problem with it is that it does not go far enough. If all the populations of China and India were to reach the standard of living and consumption currently achieved in the United States the world would only have resources to provide that standard of living for about three years in terms of natural resources that are available. Quite clearly, therefore, the assumption that underlines the continuous consumption of resources and even the assumption that underlines the renewal of resources either presumes that we will discover huge tracts of unknown resources or else presumes that the world will run out of resources a lot quicker. At current levels of consumption the world is assumed, depending on which one you look at, have 50 to 150 years supply at current levels of exploration and discovery. That is on the assumption of the present level of under-development of the vast majority of citizens of the world.

The fundamental question I would like — if the Minister had not given us such a long and indeed informative address — to have addressed is the consumption of the world resources. The questions that need to be addressed are underlying ones. Recycling is a necessary step on the road to somewhere else. The somewhere else is stability in the consumption of the world's resources; for instance, waste disposal, the conversion of toxic substances into non-toxic substances like any incinerator. Carbon dioxide is not a harmless product. Carbon dioxide on the scale we are now producing it, along with water, is a serious threat to the stability of the global environment.

All you can do in disposing of waste is change the timescale somewhat. The only way to stabilise the world environment is to stabilise waste production which means many areas of activity either ceasing or using entirely new technology which involves zero waste. Therefore, words like "waste minimisation" are noble aspirations but they are not adequate. Even large sections of the chemical industry accept that the long term target will be zero waste because we have these ridiculous cycles where you have gaseous waste which, when the pressure comes on, becomes liquid waste and when that comes on it becomes solid waste. Then the solid waste ends up on the ground and becomes gaseous waste itself. Then somebody has to dispose of that and you get liquid waste and that goes into something else and becomes solid waste and the whole damn cycle starts all over again.

The solution to the problem can only be addresed if the problem is addressed properly. The problem is a problem of waste and waste has to end. We have to stabilise the consumption from the world's resources, stabilise the consumption of energy, stabilise all of those things to a level that the world can sustain. Recycling is a breather that gives us time to deal with the underlying questions. It is an important breather, it is a necessary breather and it is a reproach to a country that talks so much about its environment. It is a reproach to us that we have not done it.

It should not be seen as the solution. It is a step on the road to the real solution. The real solution is one that I hope at some stage we will see if the Environmental Protection Agency Bill gets introduced here. I would love to think that the interesting debate we had on the Water Pollution Bill would inspire the Minister to have the Environmental Protection Agency Bill Introduced here. Then we could discuss these questions in detail. I want to simply put down those markers and leave some time for my colleagues.

Mr. Norris

I would like to express my gratitude to Senator Ryan for allowing me this short time to make some comments. The debate did not really reflect fully the terms of the motion because until the Minister spoke there was virtually nothing about the existing legislation and its inadequacies. People spoke in a general way about the problems of pollution but they did not deal with the defects in the law. There is obviously not time for me to do it. The Minister has laid some basis for it. It is a cause of shame for us in Seanad Éireann and the Oireachtas that we are really basically dealing with legislation from the British imperial past and the European Community. There is very little domestically-generated legislation governing this area of our lives which is very important. All modern countries are waste generators. We all, both at national level and at domestic pump level, suffer from what environmentalists call the NIMBY syndrome, Not In My Back Yard. The Minister, I am sure, will be aware of this in his own locality of Laois where recently there has been a problem of the disposal of highly toxic waste. I am thinking of the Portlaoise area where there has been a situation with regard to asbestos, which is an extremely toxic substance. Nobody really wants it buried or destroyed in their backyard.

I agree wholeheartedly with what Senator Brendan Ryan said about the dangers of simply thinking that you can incinerate or dispose of waste by some kind of modern technological process. There is no time to go into quantum physics or sub-atomic particles and so on but basically it is more or less true that matter is virtually indestructible. You can alter the form of the matter. As Senator Ryan has dramatically illustrated you can by burning or other processes alter the form of matter but you cannot guarantee that it will ultimately emerge as completely non-toxic. We have to be aware of this problem.

The Minister raised issues of sewage polution, sludge and so on. I would like to put it to him that perhaps behind all of this fine talk we might get some action. We have a glowing example here in Dublin with the Pigeon House electricity generating station right beside the main sewage outfall. We have an enormous amount of human excrement which is disposed of in what is in my opinion an unsuitable and utterly unproductive way in these works where it could be reclaimed and used for the production of energy. Why do we not think also, for example, in terms of the implementation of a district heating system employing waste? They have done this in Sweden and in a number of the Scandinavian countries and yet we have not found ourselves capable of doing it.

A lot of the waste that is involved is what I would call insidious waste. It can come in various forms. Recently a radium needle was misplaced from a hospital. Some child finding this in a dump would not realise the danger to which he or she was exposed by virtue of the radiation effects of this needle. We see, those of us who love our beaches and walk along the strands, the effect of plastic bags disposal. They crop up all over the place. I have to say that the industrial concerns, which we would like to feel are responsible, are very often not responsible at all. For example, the Mogul Corporation of America produced plastic bags that were supposed to be photo-degradable, in other words, destroyed by sunlight. That is fine, but they did not tell anybody that they were specifically used for burying in dumps where they never came into contact with the sunlight so they simply never became properly biodegradable. We have to be aware of this.

It is perfectly clear the Minister is correct when he talks about the international ramifications of the NIMBY syndrome, the fact that nobody really wants it in our back yard, that we have to wake up to the fact that other countries are increasingly unwilling to accept our waste and that we may well, as we move into the nineties, find it difficult to persuade anybody else to do our dirty work for us. Not only are we finding that, but our great ally, the United States, is finding it. Perhaps the Minister will not think me too tendentious if I suggest that perhaps if he has some of these friendly talks — as for example, when he was President of the European Council of Ministers for the Environment — he might like to drop a hint to the United States of America that it simply is not good neighbourly practice to use the harassed state of Nicaragua as a dump for their toxic waste which the Mayor of a small town in Nicaragua assured me last week was one of the principal arms of American policy at the moment.

One final point, because I catch the dangerous glint in the Acting Chairman's eye, is on a purely urban note. Living as I do in the city of Dublin and loving it, we are aware of waste at that level of domestic rubbish. It seems to me quite extraordinary that the hamburger joints are allowed to continue to pollute the main streets of this city without suffering a tax. I would like to ask the Minister to consider implementing, as part of these regulations, a specific tax on those hamburger joints and other outlets whose trademarked bags and containers can be seen floating in the Smurfit fountain and all along the gutters in O'Connell Street. I believe they should be at least taxed in order to provide the wages for litter wardens who might be able to reduce the incidence of this by approaching members of the public and fining them.

Éamon Ó Cuív

This subject is of grave importance for our long term future. If we want people to dispose of waste products by recycling we have to make recycling economical. I see two ways of doing this. One is by charging people an economic rate for disposal of refuse and the second is, by taking into account the saving the recycling industry is making in raw materials. Recycling reduces the volume of waste that is just disposed of, as a result, we use up fewer resources. We will have to make a much greater effort to ensure that glass, paper, etc. is used again and again. This will not happen of its own accord.

It is fine to talk about reducing toxic waste so that we do not need an incinerator to dispose of it. Anybody who looks rationally at the situation will admit that while that must remain a long term goal, it is totally unrealistic to expect it to happen in the short term. However, it is totally unsatisfactory to continue disposing toxic waste in the way we do at present. I have no doubt that it is necessary to grasp the nettle on this issue and ensure that we dispose of toxic waste in a satisfactory manner. At the same time we must continue to reduce the volume of toxic waste as rapidly as we can over the coming years.

As regards the disposal of animal and fish matter, in Galway we had the question of the disposal of fish from fish farms which both the fish farmers and the city authority considered to be a problem. We have to be more careful when we set up new industry to make arrangements for the safe and adequate disposal of any waste products that may arise. It is as a result of lack of planning that there is often friction between communities and to problems that cause a lowering in effect of people's lifestyles. It is a matter that needs to be addressed urgently. Large fish farms will not be able to prosper unless proper arrangements are made for the disposal of their waste products in a safe and environmentally satisfactory manner.

Mention was made briefly of the disposal of sludge. One of the greatest challenges facing us is to come up with a suitable system for the disposal of sludges of various types, particularly organic type sludges and also to ensure in the future that rather than becoming a waste product they actually become a raw material for profitable processing. I know that in the timber industry we have progressed rapidly from the stage where bark was something we had difficulty in disposing of to the present situation where the demand outstrips supply in the horticultural industry. Timber millers are receiving more money for bark than they are for timber chips.

Acting Chairman

The Senator is in injury time.

Éamon Ó Cuív

Bhí an díospóireacht seo an-tairbheach agus tá súil agam go spreagfaidh sé roinnt tuairimí don dlí nua a bheas ag dul faoi bhráid an Oireachtais go gairid.

Mr. Foley

I welcome the agreement on al sides of the House of this very important motion. The contributions all round were most positive. I have no doubt the Minister and the Minister of State have taken note of the points made. It is essential that extra funding is made available to the many local authorities involved in recycling, in particular to groups such as the Kerry Co-op Recycling Group, who are doing tremendous work. There is no doubt that in the next few years people will continue to be agitated more and more about this problem. We should now take steps to conserve the sites we have by increasing the volume of recycling.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Foley

At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.