Could the Minister clarify which Community directives, if any, govern the transport of waste between countries? As we do not yet have incineration in Ireland, there are no regulations on the management or importation of waste for either recovery or disposal. What are the intentions in this regard?
Waste Management (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2001: Committee and Remaining Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
The importation of waste for any purpose would require EPA approval.
I understand that this is governed by EU directives on waste management. Section 2 recites three directives. Is it any of those directives? Does he propose to make regulations or is it the EPA that will make those regulations? It is critical that whereas we do not have incineration at the moment it could be the intention of a company to import hazardous or other waste under European directives into this country. I would like to ensure that this Bill will deal with that issue.
It is dealt with under Council Directive 259/93 and we have made regulations in relation to the matter under that directive. It is already catered for and we have regulations in place.
I raised that matter with the EPA today and they told me that there are no regulations. I question this because I seek information. There is no incinerator in the country so there are no regulations. When will the regulations be made and who will make them? I do not wish to labour the point and will be happy to hear the Minister talk about it later.
I can only repeat what I said. Council regulation 259/93 has direct force here. Therefore the laws and regulations under that have direct effect. I will get a further note for the Senator to clarify it.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
Amendment No. 1 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
3. –A waste management plan shall contain comprehensive provisions regarding separation and recycling of waste.
I am disappointed that amendment No. 1 has been ruled out of order because it relates to a central issue.
The Senator will have an opportunity when we come to debate the section to make the points she wishes.
Amendment No. 2 relates to recycling. The amendment proposes to insert a new section. Section 3 relates to definitions under the Bill and we are anxious that the issues of waste and recycling are included. The amendment is designed to strengthen the purpose and powers of the Bill and to ensure that the fundamental issues of the separation and recycling of waste are incorporated in this section. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment.
I support Senator O'Meara. The Minister is enthusiastic in promoting recycling. We have been very successful with recycling of glass and aluminium cans. This is because the industries which use them have been able to substitute them. Unless we include in our legislation the need to have the recycling industry established here we will get nowhere. It is disappointing to see so little has happened to date. I was delighted to see the recycling dictionary brought forward by Mr. Sam Foster and the Minister recently. We are, however, about ten years behind everyone else. We should at every opportunity promote recycling as essential. We want not only the separation and collection of waste, which are easy, but the setting up of a recycling industry, which currently exists only in respect of glass.
I endorse Senator Henry's last sentences. We need to set up a recycling industry, nothing else. The principle of recycling and segregation is enshrined in the Waste Management Act, 1996, but the problem is making this happen on the ground. That is the challenge. It is an operational matter for local authorities to put the infrastructure in place to enable householders and others generating waste to segregate and present for recycling.
It has to be a matter of national policy to put in place and, where necessary, subsidise a national recycling industry. As the Minister knows, paper is a most recyclable commodity, but the market fluctuates. Sometimes one can present paper and at other times one cannot. I am glad to be able to argue again that when the market is rock bottom and the companies cannot carry the cost, the Government should subsidise materials. That needs a national framework and the will by the Government to make it happen. Putting it into statutes will not make it happen but the challenge is to make it a reality on the ground.
I support the amendment. One of the key issues is funding for recycling. Drogheda Corporation, for example, wants a recycling centre but has no funds for it. The Government ought to have a policy of supporting waste recycling, particularly by funding local authorities ab initio in this process.
Under the law at present, if people buy something which has a lot of packaging from a retailer with a badge on his window saying he supports Repak, the waste cannot be left with him. The big stores like Dunnes Stores and Superquinn are avoiding the issue of waste management by contributing to this useless body. The legislation imposes on the small operator, the corner shop, which must take the waste back. The Minister must change the regulations on waste recycling, especially at the point of sale and at large supermarkets.
The amendment states that the waste management plan shall contain comprehensive proposals for separating and recycling. That is in all the plans to date. There should be more emphasis on this. It should not just be a sentiment but should be implemented. The Minister in his Second Stage speech stated that minimisation, reuse and recycling would be prioritised and that he would take initiatives to ensure that this is prioritised by local government. I hope he will expand on how this will happen in practice. That is what is needed rather than duplicating it in the Bill.
I support Senator O'Meara's amendment. I have a query, although I will not get involved in Senator O'Dowd's comments that the supermarkets are not paying their fair share.
Why not?
As the Minister is aware, there is a huge cost and every retailer is obliged, correctly, to contribute. On the polluter pays principle, Senator Quill talked about packaging, and one of the largest amounts of waste going into tipheads is newspaper, which is not packaging. Almost everybody involved in packaging is obliged to contribute to the cost of recycling, but apparently the newspaper industry has refused to do so, not just in Ireland but throughout Europe. It has claimed that newspapers are not packaging and that the industry should not therefore contribute to the cost of recycling. In every country the newspaper industries have remained at one in ensuring they do not contribute one penny towards recycling as to do so would be to let the side down. Given that newspapers account for a large volume of material in tipheads and that because it is not packaging there is no obligation on the industry to pay for recycling, has the Minister plans to find some formula to overcome the problem? I am not sure it can be done easily and perhaps it is not relevant to this section. However, I would welcome the Minister's views.
I thank the Senators for their contributions. While I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment, I assure Senators that it is absolutely unnecessary to include it in the Bill. I do not intend rewriting the Waste Management Act, 1996, which is fundamentally sound. We have discovered a number of flaws in it which we are addressing in this and perhaps a further Bill.
Section 22 of the 1996 Act requires that local authority waste management plans contain objectives to, among other things, encourage and support the recovery of waste, which includes reuse and recycling, and to specify measures and arrangements to be undertaken with a view to securing these objectives. The 1997 waste management planning regulations specify in great detail the matters to be addressed in waste management plans, including the separation, segregation and collection of recoverable waste and a range of very specific matters regarding recycling and recovery. In addition, the 1998 policy document, Changing our Ways, set specific targets for recovery and recycling which formed the basis of most of the proposed regional waste management plans. The reason for this Bill is to try to finalise the plans which provide for household segregation and separate collection of organic waste and dry recyclables in urban areas, an extended network of bring facilities in rural areas, typically in a target population density of about 500, an increased network of civic amenity sites and waste transfer stations, a range of centralised composting and other biological treatment facilities and support for home composting of food and garden waste, especially in rural areas. The draft waste management plans have not been passed in some local authority areas.
Given what I have said, Senators will appreciate it is not necessary to include the amendment. The matter is well covered in previous legislation, in regulations and in our policy document. I agree with the Senators in that there is a great commitment, both verbally and on paper, by local authorities and various other bodies to the whole concept of recycling. It is now time to make it happen, and a number of Senators have said that, but we cannot make it happen until plans are adopted by local authorities. It is imperative that local authorities complete the current strategic planning process, but they are not prepared to do that in a number of cases. Once the waste management plans are in place local authorities will proceed with their implementation as a matter of urgency. To deal with recycling, reuse, recovery, composting and thermal facilities, all the plans drawn up so far, if implemented, would result in a national network of bring facilities and a necessary critical mass to put all the facilities in place. We intend to encourage that further, following the passage of this Bill, with the publication of a recycling policy document. The environment fund will allow us to make money available to put some of that infrastructure in place, particularly the mechanisms being talked about.
The fundamental principle of environment policy in Europe and here is the polluter pays principle. We can dance around this any way we like but the polluter pays principle is a core principle of European environmental policy and it has to be a core principle of our environmental policy, particularly in relation to waste management facilities. I do not wish to get involved in the crossfire but I will address the other points made. I do not agree with Senator O'Dowd – it is not the first time we have disagreed—
I am not surprised.
Those who are familiar with Repak, including Senator Quinn who defended it but did not get into the argument, will know that I had concerns about it from the beginning. It took a while to get started, but the problems it faced have been addressed. There has been considerable change in Repak over the past three or four months. It will reach the target designated for the packaging of waste by the end of this year, and that will be a worthy achievement.
Senator Quinn made a point in relation to newspapers. Newspapers are not regarded as packaging. This is certainly an issue that needs to be addressed. I was delighted to see in a recent newspaper article that I was roundly condemned by one evening newspaper for my environmental performance. I am sure it will fully support my campaign to have the newspaper business contribute to improving the environment. We look forward to speaking to that industry about that matter in the near future. It is a problem and we are trying to make contact—
It is a huge problem.
I was trying to remember exactly what percentage of landfill is used up by newspapers – I think it is considerably more than plastic bags. We intend to put an initiative in place, similar to Repak, or offer the newspapers the opportunity to become contributors to Repak and allow Repak to recycle the waste paper. The amendment is not necessary. The sentiment of its proposers is shared by every Member, but it is already provided for in legislation and acceptance of it would not add to existing legislation.
I thank the Minister for his response. He is technically correct when he says this matter is dealt with in the 1996 Act. However, those of us who are members of local authorities and have passed waste management plans will know that simply having aspirations and targets does not achieve the objectives of waste management. Almost every Member has commented on this fact. We still have a major problem in building an infrastructure for separation and collection of recyclable material. Targets in waste management plans and aspirations in legislation will not achieve that.
Senator Quill spoke about this matter very eloquently last week in her speech on Second Stage and others have done so too. Unless the Government becomes involved in funding an infrastructure it will not be created because the market will not provide it. Senator O'Dowd referred to his local authority. In my area Nenagh Urban District Council established a community employment scheme to be responsible for a recycling project. I am sure the same has been done by many other local authorities. The Nenagh project was well supported and was very well run on very small resources but it had to close when the community employment scheme came to an end. There is now some difficulty in finding a private operator to do a kerbside collection, and one can see why.
The problem is referred to in a recent Environmental Protection Agency newsletter. The newsletter refers to the absence of an infrastructure for separate collection and recovery of waste. It speaks of "an urgent need for the necessary infrastructure to be put in place for the separate collection, recovery and safe disposal of waste so that a truly integrated approach to waste prevention and management becomes standard practice in Ireland". That is everybody's target but there is a huge missing link without which we will not achieve our targets. I know this from speaking to local authority engineers. The targets and objectives are in place but local authorities do not have the resources to achieve them.
Senator Quill says the local authorities must act. Local authorities want to act but they cannot do so. We must face up to the fact that unless central Government becomes involved, through tax incentives or direct provision, in the establishment of an infrastructure it will not be built. Without an infrastructure the current crisis will deepen.
I accept the Minister's point that a plan for separation and recycling is covered in the 1996 Act but we know that legislation is not working. Unless an infrastructure is put in place provision for separation and recycling will not be made. The object of the amendment is to strengthen the Minister's hand. Perhaps the strength must come not from waste management legislation but through agreement with the Department of Finance on a tax incentive for private operators or financial support for local authorities to build the necessary infrastructure.
Did I understand the Minister to say that until everything is in place nothing can happen anywhere? That would be a recipe for disaster. When waste management measures were taken in the United States they were initially taken in the form of federal legislation. This was followed by state and finally local legislation. Our waste management measures must also begin with central Government and be pursued with determination.
I take the Minister's point about the 1996 legislation. However, five years later we appear to have got nowhere. I get more complaints from the public about waste collection than any other issue. Collection is only the beginning of the problem. It continues through separation and reuse of waste material.
FÁS has performed miracles. Some of the pilot waste management schemes were run by FÁS, but these can only continue for two years. It is the responsibility of the State to put the infrastructure in place. People will not want to get involved until there is a system in place and without State involvement the mess we are in will continue.
I was impressed by the directory and the website. Some support will be necessary for these small businesses, until we realise the value of what we throw away.
There is a definite need to get more involved in recycling. I am concerned at the inability of local authorities to tackle the issue of waste management. Considering that legislation has been in place since 1996, the management of local authorities which still do not comply should be closely examined.
In the area of waste management, County Kerry already has recycling, composting and paper separation bins. Although we are in a peripheral area we have achieved much. I suggest to the Minister that local authorities who are not fulfilling their obligations be fined and that Kerry County Council should be given extra money.
I understand the Minister was recently in Nova Scotia looking at recycling facilities. I received a leaflet from there referring to hundreds of jobs which had been created through the recycling of newspapers into plant containers, trays etc. Perhaps the Minister should initiate research in his Department regarding what is done in the area of recycling in places such as Nova Scotia, with the aim of integrating this into our own plan.
There is a strong case to be made for the provision of State subsidies in order to ensure the viability of the recycling industry. Although it will cost the Exchequer it will ensure that re-cycling remains effective in spite of being marginal in economic terms.
In response to Senator Henry, I am not saying that nothing can happen until everything is in place. Senator Kiely made the point that things are happening. In 1995-96 there were approximately 400 "bring facilities", and this year there are some 1,000. I think there are in the region of 30 "bring facilities" in the Senator's own county. In Dublin, segregated waste collections have begun. The composting of domestic waste is taking place in Limerick.
In some cases local authorities are doing what is required while in others it is not getting the priority it deserves. It is not always down to money, it is a question of priority in the local areas.
The draft waste management plans contain commitments to the segregated collection services. Although I was in Opposition at the time I accept blame with the then Minister for the approach taken in the 1996 Waste Management Bill. At that time it was not felt that regional solutions would work due to the opposition to the "super-dump" approach, from Meath, Wicklow, Galway and various other places. We chickened out and it was decided that each county would look after its own waste.
I saw the error of my ways soon after coming into the Department of the Environment and Local Government. Nothing was happening due to the fact that the critical mass was not there in each local authority. Reasonable systems of waste collection with some recycling might be possible in Dublin, Cork and possibly Limerick and Galway due to their population base. However the rest of the country could not do it, and there would be some doubt over Limerick and Galway and even Cork.
The issue of critical mass prompted us to take the regional route. This should make it attractive to the private sector, which I believe should be doing this. It will do it if there is a profit to be made whether it is recycling, recovery, composting or whatever else. One of the lessons I have learned from Nova Scotia is that once the regime is in place, and the critical mass is there, then the private sector will move in either on its own or through PPPs with local authorities. In this way composting and recycling facilities etc. can be provided. It is a simple and basic message which local authorities should be getting across. It is important to get the waste management plan in place as quickly as possible.
I do not want to down-play the valuable contribution of FÁS, Rehab and the community employment scheme as referred to by Senator O' Meara, but that is only tricking around at the edge and we have to move from there by putting it on an organised footing.
I accept the point made by Senator O'Dowd on the need for more research on the practices of other countries and the need to put them into effect. I hope that some money from the environment fund will be used to research best practice, in addition to the provision of a subsidy towards the cost of infrastructure. Some £650 million has been provided in the National Development Plan 2000-2006 for waste management infrastructure. The breakdown of that sum is as follows: £100 million to come from the Exchequer or the EU, £100 million to come from the local authorities own resources and the remainder to come from the private sector. Obviously those figures will have to be revised as the plans are rolled out. We need a mixture of all three as the State cannot provide all the money for this. It is a matter for local authorities and the responsibility will continue to lie largely with them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
3.–In exercising his or her functions under the Waste Management Acts, 1996 and 2001, the Minister shall have regard to the polluter pays principle which shall include the desirability of ensuring that the manufacturer or retailer of packaging waste shall contribute to the cost of waste disposal.".
I thank the Minister for his very comprehensive replies to the earlier amendment. We had a useful debate and teasing out of the issues contained therein.
Amendment No. 3 applies to the same section. The Minister has already referred to the polluter pays principle as the fundamental issue at the heart of policy in relation to waste management and as part of the EU approach. This amendment is self-explanatory, providing that the Minister shall have regard to the polluter pay principle which shall include the desirability of ensuring that the manufacturer or retailer of packaging waste shall contribute to the cost of waste disposal.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this amendment. With your permission, I shall repeat something I said on Second Stage. I wanted the Minister to refer to the first principle in dealing with waste, that of waste minimisation. In this hierarchy of activities the basic one is minimisation. Whatever efforts have been made in regard to recycling, reuse and recovery, our efforts at minimisation have not even begun.
As this is not a Second Stage debate I cannot demonstrate what I want to say except to say that if we are serious about tackling the waste problem we must put more energy into waste minimisation and we should start here in this House. The example should come from the Minister's Department. I invite him to see my office in this building which is like a sanitary landfill, a badly managed tip, with all the paper-based material that comes into it every day, much of which is never read because I do not have the time, interest or inclination.
Much of what I need to read and research to enable me to function could be made available to me on my computer. I understood when the sophisticated system of computerisation was introduced to our offices that there would be a dramatic reduction in the amount of paper that floods our offices every day. That has not happened and I do not know why.
If we are serious about that element of waste management surely we and, in particular, the Minister's Department should seek to give the good example. An opportunity to effect a dramatic reduction presented when the modern computers were introduced but it was not grasped. A great deal of specialised material is sent to my office daily and sometimes it is duplicated and sent to my office in Cork. The specialised material comes from the Law Reform Commission and similar areas. It is the kind of material I would normally only need to access through a well-stocked library. Some of us remember the days when we went to the library to do our research. We did not buy in every book – maybe it was that we could not afford to buy them – but one way or the other we learned the skill of going to a library, seeking out whatever material we needed, accessing it and using it through the library. We did not need to have every document on our own study desks in our houses or on our desks in Leinster House.
As well as making the polluter pay the definition of a polluter should be widened. The Minister's Department is a primary polluter in that it sends me material I do not need and which has become a nuisance. The only way I can dispose of it is to send it to landfill. We need to look at that element of waste management. I have submitted a document to the Minister's Department asking that his Department seek to implement this philosophy of paper reduction in his own Department, to set targets for his Department and set standards for every other Government Department. If the Government gave good example in this respect I have no doubt State agencies and those in the private sector would follow suit. The amount of marketing material that comes to me through my newspapers in sections which I do not read and which clogs my letterbox and falls of my wastepaper basket is disgusting.
I have adopted the habit in my office this year of writing to people who forward unsolicited material that I cannot use or do not intend to use asking to be taken off their mailing list. All of us should adopt that policy. If that was done on a family or household basis there would be a substantial reduction in the amount of pollution coming into our houses. Perhaps the Department should impose a penalty. It may be that I should seek a new job, pollution prevention officer in Leinster House. It would be interesting to conduct an audit of all the unnecessary material that issues from the Minister's Department on an daily or hourly basis and to surcharge him piece by piece. Rather than my doing it, I ask the Minister to have that done.
It is critically important to seek to implement every element of the Waste Management Act, 1996, the first principle of which Act was waste minimisation. No effort has been made to implement it. I have written to the Minister on this subject and I look forward to his response. Perhaps at another time we shall debate this matter more fully. If we could give leadership it would pay dividends.
I agree with practically everything Senator Quill has said. Two of the documents we get are the Order Papers for the Dáil and the Seanad, both of which are available on the website and can be downloaded in two minutes. They should cease to be circulated.
Yes.
There should be a message to the effect that if one wants to use them, they can be found on the Internet or one can go to the Library. Some 80% of the material I receive is unsolicited and is of no value to me. In regard to documents circulated to all Members, the Library should send a note through our website saying that the following documents are lodged in the Library and anyone wishing to use them should call the Library. That policy, if adopted, would save a tremendous amount of waste. The Government should be proactive. The amount of paper used by local authorities, Government agencies etc. is almost infinite. The Minister should consider making a regulation whereby Government agencies, State agencies, semi-State agencies, local authorities and health boards should use recycled paper.
How proactive are we in regard to recycling in this House? I realise some efforts were made in the other building before we moved here. I suggest to the Leader that we get together and put a plan in place for recycling, reuse and reducing waste in the Houses of the Oireachtas.
The other issue contained in the amendment is important. It is a question of ensuring that the manufacturer or retailer of packaging waste should contribute to the cost of waste disposal. If one buys a pair of socks in a shop, one gets a metal clip to hold the socks together, a piece of cardboard to say who made the socks, a plastic clip between the socks to hold them together and a piece of paper in each sock.
The Senator must buy up-market socks.
This is an absolute waste of resources. If one buys a shirt one gets metal pins, pieces of cardboard, pieces of plastic and all sorts of things. The Government should set up a body comprising the business community and those in the retail business with a view to reducing the amount of packaging used. The amount of packaging used is a total waste of resources and has no value. Somebody thinks it looks nice but it is a waste of finite resources. This legislation is all about managing and reducing our waste.
On the question of supermarkets, I do not imply that there is anything wrong with Superquinn as opposed to Dunnes Stores. They are in the business of selling. Advertisements in the media and on television are used to sell the product. The product is colour coded and designed to look nice so people will want to buy it. That is the psychology of selling. Most of the packaging on the household goods we buy is neither needed nor wanted. We need to look again at how packaging is designed to ensure there is a sufficient amount from a health point of view but the minimum necessary to have the goods sold safely and undamaged. That is the bottom line.
We need to grasp this nettle. The Minister should give a lead on this issue. If that were done, it would make a significant difference to our waste problem. The issue must be tackled now and this amendment will add to the momentum for change, which the consumer wants but to which the packaging and retail industry is not sufficiently alert.
Supermarkets must be forced to do more. I accept the Minister's assertion that there have been big changes in Repak in the last four months. I welcome that but in the town of Drogheda there has been no change of which I am aware. Look at what happens in the retail sector. Mountains of rubbish are put out every day for private or public collection. The sheer waste is unacceptable.
There is a risk of this discussion becoming a Second Stage debate. The Government can do something. Whenever a Bill is introduced in this House with the object of establishing a new State body I put down an amendment that it must be registered on the Internet. The response to the Internet has been patchy. Some Departments automatically recognise the need and the ability of the community to acquire information through the Internet, therefore avoiding the use of huge amounts of paper. Other Departments are slack in this area. The Government has the ability to force us to use less paper.
Senator O'Dowd and I might end up having plenty of rows here today. This is a market economy and customers decide what they want. If the customer decides to buy an Easter egg covered with lots of wrapping, that is the customer's choice. The customer can also choose to buy an egg with little wrapping because they feel strongly about this issue. This issue is driven by the market economy.
The Minister has grasped the opportunity. He has brought the supermarkets and retailers together and asked them to work with him to educate and change public opinion with regard to waste. I congratulate him on the steps taken in that area. He is going in the right direction but a great deal more work and commitment is required in addition to the type of dedication he has been showing in recent times.
This amendment deals with the polluter pays principle. Senator Quill made an interesting point. Members of the Oireachtas must concede that the amount of paper generated in this establishment is far in excess of what is necessary. I am sure it would be possible to cut it by 75% or 80% without anybody complaining. We are just a microcosm of the problem.
Perhaps there should be a provision regarding prevention and minimisation—
And penalties.
Yes. These are two areas about which we are aspirational but which really require tangible targets. The Minister visited Nova Scotia, a region which has become environmentally friendly in relation to waste management. According to the figures, their waste has been reduced by 50% in less than a decade. That is a significant reduction. The debate we are having now was taking place in Nova Scotia at the early stages of that reduction.
Can the Minister say if a provision could be included in the Bill to set targets and provide for penalties? If the council were responsible, penalties could be levied on it. If the function is given to the managers, it might be more appropriate that the manager would be surcharged if he or she failed to meet certain environmental targets.
We must make this happen. Talking about it and providing for it in legislation will not make it happen. We must enforce the stipulations and the targets. They should be attainable but they should also be vigorously pursued. Could something be done in that regard in the Bill? The charge on plastic bags is certainly progressive but can we do more than that, even with regard to the waste unnecessarily generated in the Houses, to force a change in habits? We are creatures of habit and considerably more than aspirational expressions will be required to change those habits.
I support the principle of this amendment. I disagree with Senator Quinn with regard to customers, packaging and so forth but I will deal with that in a moment. The problem is that manufacturers and, to a lesser extent, retailers use an excessive amount of packaging, particularly in the electrical and fancy goods sectors.
The electrical goods industry is a particular offender. When somebody buys a small television or radio – known as brown electrical goods – after seeing the demonstration model, they discover the product is placed inside a cardboard box and is generally surrounded by polystyrene packaging. Polystyrene emits toxic emissions when burned and does not biodegrade. The consumer is paying for this unsolicited level of packaging when buying the product. In this age of transparency the consumer should know what amount of the money is spent on the packaging. They would be quite surprised.
I do not know how one can deal with this problem but the manufacturers are making a major contribution to pollution. What does the consumer do with the wrapping? It is usually sent to landfill but some people actually burn it.
Senator Quinn mentioned Easter eggs. The Easter egg is wrapped in a huge piece of coloured tin foil and is then mounted in a cardboard box. Easter eggs, like Christmas goods and gifts for Mother's Day, are seasonal products and the manufacturers compete with each other in how they are presented. The colours on the tin foil become ever more garish, as do the colours on the cardboard mounting. The packaging also becomes larger. The objective is to appeal to young children and encourage them to buy the product. The packaging is part of the sales pitch and we ought to do something about that.
When we refer to the polluter pays principle we generally mean that the polluter is somebody who will dump rubbish improperly. In my area people dump their rubbish on remote roads. I wish they were all caught. Most of these bags of dumped rubbish contain packaging, but no blame attaches to those who use that packaging as part of their sales pitch.
There is an excess of packaging. If one buys a small cooker one finds it mounted in a timber frame with polystyrene to cushion it as well as sheets of plastic with air bubbles which are also there to cushion it. None of the products is biodegradable and they are the very products that people object to going into incineration because of the emissions they produce. Use of these products is unlimited and uncontrolled. We banned the use of certain materials of this type in furniture because of the fire hazard they represent, and rightly so, yet we have done nothing in relation to their grossly excessive use in the packaging industry. Polystyrene and such materials are by-products of the oil industry and while we are facing difficulties with oil supply we allow burgeoning and unnecessary manufacture of these products.
The Minister should take this amendment seriously. I hope he will incorporate it as it is designed to make the Bill better. This detailed discussion gives us an opportunity not only to discuss the central issue but the shift of waste management within our areas from being a function reserved for elected members of local authorities to the executive function of the manager, over whom the Minister holds full control. The county managers are not independent agents of the Minister – if he wants a county manager to do something the manager will do that, while often if elected members want their manager to do something he will take much less heed of them. The Minister should do everything he can to incorporate the sentiments behind this amendment as the manufacturing sector gets away with murder in wasting resources on packaging. An element of packaging is necessary to protect a product but when it is used in an over the top manner or as part of the hard sell, that is unacceptable and everything must be done to discourage it. We should do nothing to discourage the necessary level of packaging but we should discourage unnecessary usage of these products.
This could be a historic amendment as a message seems to be coming that we are overproducing paper and that there is a surplus of paper in the market. Some years ago a legendary Galway councillor, Joe Lambert, who is known to the Leas-Chathaoirleach, arrived at a council meeting and stated what are now words of wisdom: "I am afraid, lads, if this continues, some day one of us will be drowned in paper." How wise he was. That is a number of years ago, but matters have become worse. A number of us still hold the dual mandate and often I get a letter addressed to Senator Jarlath McDonagh – I got one addressed to Councillor Jarlath McDonagh – but when one opens them they contain the same letter. It is a total waste of paper and of the time of the person who must open them. We can do a lot in this area.
We should also deal with mailing lists as once one gets on a mailing list it is nearly impossible to get off it. A woman recently came to me whose husband died in 1994 but sales material for him is still delivered two or three times a year, even though she has written to the company many times. We as well as those in business should look at what we are doing. The superfluous use of paper should be cut back and Senator Quill has started a historic debate with this amendment. I hope the Minister will respond positively.
I would be making a Second Stage speech if I tried to respond to all points. I do not propose to accept this amendment. I am not sure what the Senator intended with it but the polluter pays principle is the cornerstone of the Waste Management Act and of our environmental policy. This amendment seeks to put in place a limited interpretation of what the polluter pays principle means by focusing it on a particular group of people or companies. It is at variance and inconsistent with amendment No. 1, though that was ruled out of order. It would lessen the impact of a very important cornerstone of environmental policy which is already contained in our legislation.
Without going into the specifics of Senators' contributions, I am delighted with their comments. The Members' interests committees of both Houses focus on the financial or other aspects of Members' interests but the points made here could be raised with those committees. Pardon me for saying so, but one gets one big brown envelope with one list of amendments, then if someone puts down two or three more amendments one gets another big brown envelope with those. One receives the Order Paper and other communications that could be sent by e-mail or in other ways. The staff of the House have statutory responsibilities and Members must be informed equally of events, but that problem can be overcome if we agree rules in both Houses as to how we are to be informed. I have seen two or three big sacks of paper outside Members' offices every evening and when the bins are tipped out.
There is a provision dealing with this in the 1996 Act and we are putting that into effect with a public authority waste programme which is geared towards preventing waste. That will be included in the policy document I mentioned earlier. There will be a national waste prevention policy statement in relation to that also.
Senator Quill mentioned the Department of the Environment and Local Government. She will be delighted to hear that we are currently striving for the environmental quality mark ISO 14001 to set a good example to other Departments.
Well done, that is excellent.
A number of other Departments, or sections of Departments like the Revenue Commissioners, are striving at our instigation and through the Government's eco-network to achieve the mark. We have requested every Department to pursue this by putting in place a green housekeeping officer that will come up with methods and means of controlling waste management within Departments. As a general rule, there are principles in relation to buying recycled paper and environmentally friendly or energy-saving equipment, double-sided copying and so on. People often laugh and claim that such measures are little things, but they make a huge difference.
They add up.
Senators will be delighted that the notes I am writing are on notepaper headed "Ireland EU Presidency 1996". We are even recycling the paper we did not get to use at that time. This is a very important matter, and I accept the positive comments of Senators. As Minister for the Environment and Local Government, I am not supposed to admit things like this, but we are all guilty of waste and not preventing or minimising it. Much of this results from thoughtlessness. The Electronic Commerce Act allows the Government to operate on the basis of IT and my Department is to the fore as we have a good and helpful website. We encourage local authorities, many of whom lead the way, to enable people to apply for various licences on-line. The planning system is going on-line, as provided for in the Planning and Development Act. A lot of positive things are happening.
I do not wish to get involved in crossfire and I accept the sincerity of Senator O'Dowd's beliefs about Repak, a company of which there has been a negative view. Without being patronising, it would be worthwhile for Members to be brought up to date on changes that have taken place. Our audit of Repak showed up its faults and failings, as did an internal audit, which revealed some of the difficulties that had arisen. Repak has put in place a plan and a new system to help it achieve the targets it has set itself. I have no doubt that these targets will be met, and the company is even talking about assisting local authorities in relation to infrastructure.
I hope I am not breaching confidences by saying that there have been internal discussions in Repak about the municipal waste that is collected by local authorities, much of which is packaging waste. We go into shops and buy things, and the packaging ends up in municipal dumps. Repak is talking about ways of assisting local authorities, perhaps through civic amenity sites where waste could be segregated. That would meet the obligations of Repak. I must say that local authorities have failed to pursue those who are not members of Repak. We can criticise Repak as much as we like, but fairly substantial fees are paid by members of the company for collection systems to help meet recycling targets, as Senator Quinn can indicate.
Local authorities must be vigorous in the pursuit of those who seem to want to get up on everyone's back, no matter what business they are in. To date local authorities have been less than diligent, but we have said this to managers and it is being addressed. Some 392 major producers and 373 independent retailers are members of Repak, representing over 2,000 individual sites around the country. The fees for 2000 were £8,574,000 and this year the figure is expected to be about £9 million. The fee is an annual charge based on the quantity and type of packaging.
Repak funded or contributed funding in respect of the collection and recovery of 146,000 tonnes of packaging waste in 2000. This is not an inconsiderable amount, but it needs to be increased by 40,000 tonnes to reach the 2001 recovery target under the packaging directive, a target I am satisfied will be achieved. Members of Repak would accept that they have been slow to get off the ground in the past, but it should be acknowledged that is changing now.
The four largest supermarket chains, Superquinn, Super Valu, Dunnes Stores and Tesco, have joined a partnership with the Department of the Environment and Local Government. The message conveyed to the House today about making choices and choosing goods with less packaging is also the one we are promoting. The supermarket chains have become involved directly with my Department and we recently held a joint launch of the promotion. If we can increase awareness, which is our goal, consumers will demand less packaging and those who do business will be the first to react and respond. If the demand is there, goods with less packaging will be supplied. A joint approach is important. I am delighted to hear Senators expressing forcefully the necessity to minimise and prevent waste and I agree with them.
It clearly was not the intention of this amendment to limit the application of the polluter pays principle and I do not accept that such a limitation would be the effect of the amendment. I agree with the Minister that Members can respond in a practical way to concerns raised about the mountains of waste we are subjected to and add to. We should channel these issues through committees and where appropriate opt for e-mail rather than using stacks of brown envelopes, as the Minister pointed out. We should communicate to the relevant authorities from an Internet mailing list, as a basic and obvious way of reducing the mountain of paper coming our way. To act without delay would be a start and a good model. Although I do not agree with the Minister's comments about my amendment, I withdraw it based on his remarks.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 3.
As amendment No. 4 is related to amendment No. 7, which is consequential on amendment No. 6, all three may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 4, to delete lines 6 to 9.
Amendments Nos. 4, 6 and 7 relate to one of the more contentious elements of this legislation, which seems to be the main reason for the amendment Bill. The Bill effectively removes the reserved function in relation to adopting a waste management plan from members of local authorities and makes it a reserved function of the manager.
Much was said on Second Stage on this issue and I do not intend to repeat what I said then. I made the points then as strongly as I could. I fundamentally disagree with this amendment in the Bill. It is a very bad day for local government, a step backwards which we will regret. It is the Minister's response to the refusal by some local authorities to adopt a waste management plan but it is not the appropriate response because it will not necessarily have the desired effect. We have had some discussion on this already when dealing with earlier amendments. The Minister believes that simply adopting a waste plan will effectively change our ways, to use the Department's own term, or change the waste infrastructure. Clearly this is not the case.
At the heart of this amendment is the issue of local democracy. Those of us who are members of a local authority know that we already have a very limited amount of power. While I would make the point, with which others would agree, that in exercising that power we should be responsible, take the wider view whenever possible and act as carefully as possibly, we should also guard our right to have that power and resist all attempts to remove it. It is a pity the Minister takes the view that the whole system should be diluted just because a small number of members of local authorities find it impossible to adopt a waste management strategy for whatever reason.
The point which has been made, which the Minister will probably make in his response also, is that it is only those local authorities which, for want of a better word, misbehave or fail to do their duty by the Act which will have their functions taken from them and transferred to the manager. I do not think that will be the effect of this measure. Simply changing the legislation to make this an executive power means that fewer local authorities will do their duty. Because elected members will know that at end of the day the manager will act, it is quite likely that there will be a great number of local authorities which will fail to adopt waste management plans.
That is a negative effect of this amending legislation. All it will do is dilute local democracy. It will generate even more aggravation among local communities who find themselves living in an area which has been targeted for an incinerator, for instances, which is one very possible result of this. Already members of local communities, who find themselves the target of an executive decision, feel very aggrieved.
I am dealing with one or two issues at present where the manager is using his executive powers to make decisions against the strongly expressed wishes of a local community and the relationship between the local authority and that community is suffering badly as a result. I have remarked at local authority level that the authority should be building good relations with the local community rather than damaging them. When power is exercised in this fashion by a manager it has the opposite effect. That has an implication for the future also. While we are in the era of partnership, transparency and accountability, increasingly local communities feel they are not being heard, their views are not being taken into account and the local authority is riding roughshod over them. Inevitably in the future there will be an even greater feeling that this is the case. That is already having the effect of lessening people's faith in local democracy.
We spend a great deal of time wringing our hands about how democracy is being undermined and about how there is greater cynicism as a result of revelations at tribunals, for example, but people are antagonised and made feel as if their votes at local elections make no difference when councillors cannot act or when councillors have one view and the manager has another. People ask members of the local authority what they are doing sitting in the county council if they do not have any power. If the manager can simply turn around and overrule the local authority members' strongly expressed view, what is their function?
I fundamentally disagree with the amendment in this legislation. I know there are Members in the Minister's party who are not sitting here at present but who share my view on this and it is sad that they are not coming in to express that view. I would put it strongly to the Minister that in adopting this amendment and in taking this approach we are actually storing up more problems for ourselves than it will ever solve.
I support all the views expressed by Senator O'Meara and of course I support those amendments which go to the very heart of what this legislation is about, that is, the removal of the responsibility for making waste management decisions from locally elected councillors and the giving of this responsibility to the chief executive or county manager.
I was one member of my local authority who took a leading part in the debate on the waste management plan for Connacht which involved, my county, County Roscommon, and counties Mayo and Galway. Everything about the waste management plan, with which we in the county council were presented by the same set of consultants which prepared plans for every local authority in the country and which had the full blessing of the Minister and his Department, was predicated on one thing only – landfill and incineration. There was to be hardly any waste minimisation, no recovery of energy from waste and hardly any thought of recycling.
The Senator did not read it.
I did read it. It was predicated on telling us that we should go on doing what we had always done in a county where there is no industry and the waste is largely of a domestic nature – there is not much toxic waste such as that which would be generated by a pharmaceutical industry or other such industry. What amazed me about it was that we were literally being told to carry on in the way we always had done and send all our waste to landfill. We resisted that and over two or three meetings the contributions from all sides of the council made common sense.
The representatives of the consultants who drew up the plans for every region came and put their case. At my behest we in my county council asked representatives of a responsible organisation who had an alternative view to come and put certain alternative views to us. They did so and they sounded very credible. However, at the end of the day it was quite clear that our chief executive had discussed all of this with the Department of the Environment and Local Government and wanted to brush aside any suggestions made by the people who had certain alternatives to offer us.
From beginning to end the Minister and his Department were in close consultation with every chief executive in the country and wanted the waste management plans for every region, which inter-linked formed the national waste management plan, to be passed. The councillors who, in the opinion of these people had the temerity to question a part of it were subjected to ridicule. I listened to the Minister one day on "Morning Ireland" and, by implication, he named my county council because we were one of the three which did not adopt the waste management plan as presented to us.
There must be common sense in County Galway, given that the members of the local authority rejected the waste management plan for County Galway on two occasions. They first rejected it last July or September and having allowed six months to elapse during which they examined it more closely, they again unanimously rejected it last night. Some people will say they have a short-term view, but that is not the case. I was not at the meeting in Galway county buildings last night, but I am sure plenty of common sense and alternatives were offered, but they were not listened to. The county manager of County Galway did not have to listen to them, as he knew this legislation was coming through and that locating an incinerator in Galway city would be a matter on which he would make the decision and that the location of landfill sites in County Galway or in the vicinity of Galway city would be executive decisions.
It is the antithesis of democracy, including local democracy, to take decisions of this kind out of the hands of locally elected representatives. All over the world, especially in newly emerging democracies in eastern Europe, where democratic governance structures are being put in place – every country in eastern Europe that has—
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I assume the Senator is aware we are not on Second Stage.
I know the Chair will allow me some latitude as I was not here last week to make a Second Stage speech.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That is not relevant.
I was not here to reply to the Second Stage debate and I am sure I would not be given the opportunity to do so.
The last thing I want to do is challenge a ruling of the Chair, but the Chair will find that the points I am about to make are directly germane and relevant to this section.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I am sure the Minister is anxious to reply.
I am sure he will be anxious to hear the points I am about to make.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I have given the Senator some latitude.
I accept that.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I ask him to put his points.
Where democracies are emerging, a new level of local democracy is being put in place. In those countries in eastern Europe which I have had a chance to examine due to my previous interest in them, the level of local democracy, the level of powers left to the people elected by their local community on decisions that affect them locally are amazing, innovative and new. However, we are going down the direct opposite route. After all the lip service we have paid about local democracy having a new meaningful role and making the term "local authority" mean something, that the local authority has authority to do something, in this instance the Minister is taking back that power simply because, and I hate to use the term, he arrogantly dislikes what two or three local authorities in the country have said about the waste management plan. He has tried to tell them they were passing the buck or not facing up to their responsibilities. However, they were interpreting what was best for their local authority areas. They were interpreting what people were saying to them, and that together with common sense was what they were proposing in their chambers. That is the way it should be. If there are only three local authorities with which the Minister has had a difficulty, this is an enormous sledge to crack what appears to be a small nut. It is the essence of something that is anti-democratic.
When the Minister was in opposition, he paid lip service, by way of acres of newsprint, to the need to increase the power of local authorities, to return local government to local people and to the locally elected representatives. Those are fine sentiments, with which we all agree, but in office the Minister is doing the direct opposite. We must resist that. We do so because what was taking place at local level was not cowardly, as some people like the Minister try to describe it, but was an exercise in common sense. It was an exercise in listening to the local community express fears about emissions from an incinerator or having a landfill site in their locality. Given the Minister's disgraceful history of managing existing dumps and landfill sites, I sympathise with anyone facing the prospect of having a landfill site in his or her locality.
The Minister said on one occasion in Carrick-on-Shannon, although I accept this is a slightly separate issue, when speaking about a communications mast, that he would not like one of them in his neighbourhood, and nothing was done about the location of that mast. I am sure the Minister would also not like a badly managed landfill site to be located in his neighbourhood with all the savaging birds, rodents and everything else that attend upon locations of that kind.
Local authorities such as the one of which I am a member were forcing the issue of ensuring that the disposal of waste should be dealt with to the greatest possible degree by way of recycling, reusing or trying to recover energy from it, which would result in the minimum being sent to a landfill site or incinerated. Those of us who were try ing to change the existing culture have had dust thrown back in our eyes. As a local authority, we were trying to assert that we were exercising the authority we held responsibly, but that power has been taken from us. What the Minister is doing is shameful. It is a retrograde step, given what we considered to be the trend in all modern democracies, including this one. In the past ten years there has been a well informed public debate on this issue.
I am struggling to know what amendment we are on.
We are dealing with section 3, amendment No. 4.
Acting Chairman
It was not clear to me what the Senator was taking about.
I do not wish to challenge any of the rulings of the Acting Chairman, but had he been in the Chair a little longer he might have a better drift of the point I am trying to make.
Acting Chairman
I also point out to the Senator that if he was making a Second Stage speech, he would probably have concluded by now.
As I said to the Acting Chairman previously, he would be aware I am the most taciturn of the Members of this House and at all times I remain germane—
Acting Chairman
Taciturnity and brevity are not the same.
I like the term "taciturnity" and I am always relevant. I am always germane, another term I like to use. I do not wish to be in conflict with the Chair or to challenge its rulings as that would be improper and disorderly on my part, but I am discussing a serious principle, that of democracy, of people elected by their local communities dealing with community issues and having a community input into addressing them. I am making this point from the point of view of being responsible and having common sense. Just because the mandarins in the Minister's Department, the Minister or local authority chief executives do not like the approaches put forward to deal with this issue, as they are more complicated than the simplistic ones they wish to adopt, the big stick is taken out to club democracy. That is why I am making a forceful case to the Minister not to proceed with taking the decision on waste management away from the elected members in any local authority area or in any region made up of two or three local authorities, as that power is enshrined in the 1996 Act, and making it an executive function of the county managers, given that so much has happened regarding local government since 1955 and earlier.
Given all those provisions in those Acts that took the authority from local authority members and reduced the membership of them to something close to meaninglessness, we were promised by all parties in this House that that trend would be changed and matters would be reversed in the name of democracy. It was promised that such changes would be part of international best practice. I made some comparisons with international best practice earlier, but in this instance we are moving in the opposite direction. I appeal to the Minister, in the friendliest possible way, not to proceed with this measure.
I understand the Minister must be fed up with those councils that have not submitted their plans. That is why I asked earlier if all had to move together, or if those not co-operating could be left outside. It is a major step, in view of the failure to get everyone to co-operate in the regional plans, to have to take this action because of three county councils.
I understand the concern of local councillors. This measure really lets them off the hook with regard to the situation in their areas. This is very unfortunate. The protesters may have very reasonable and arguable points, but the executive will feel obliged to bring in whatever suits the regional plan.
I would have far preferred if a national waste management plan had been brought in. I got the impression from the Minister's recent press conference that that was what we would get in this Bill. I ask him to consider these amendments and to take account of the huge influence which the three recalcitrant councils are having on local democracy.
Any action which would reduce local democracy is regrettable. Much has been said in defence of local democracy in this debate. Perhaps if we had time to be more philosophical about the role and function of democracy at local level, we might come to a better understanding and we might be able to segregate the very idealistic theory from the manner in which democracy serves the greater and better need of citizens, householders, consumers and the local community. That is the real purpose of democracy. It is not a self-serving or self-perpetuating entity. It is there to serve the best interests of the citizens by whom councillors are elected.
As a strong believer in the ideal of local democracy, I find it regrettable that central Government has had to take over the function of determining the location of halting sites, for example. Local councillors would not grasp the nettle, leaving central Government with no option. Similarly, central Government had to take over the issuing of taxi licences in Dublin, because local democracy did not respond to the legitimate needs of people for a decent taxi service. For years on end, the local authority was ambivalent on the issue and failed to face down vested interests. Once again, central Government had to assume a function which rightly belongs to a properly functioning local democracy. The same applies in the present instance.
I think it was Bismarck who once said that a bad decision is better than no decision at all. I do not say that this is a bad decision, but it is made in response to the situation in which we now find ourselves.
The Senator is really saying that it is a bad decision.
Not at all and if, with the permission of the Chair, I can have as much time as Senator Connor, I will tell a story. Have I the Chair's permission?
The Senator should not even begin to ask, because the answer is obvious.
It is a fadó, fadó story. It relates to a conversation among the Fianna while out hunting. Fionn asked the opinion of Oisín and the others as to what was the greatest music on earth. Oisín suggested the song of the blackbird. Goll Mór mac Mórna suggested the sighing of the wind through the birch forest. Others offered different ideas. Then Fionn himself answered – and the Minister will find this interesting –"The greatest music on earth is the music of making things happen."
If there are local authorities where little or nothing is happening in terms of advancing proper, modern, efficient waste management, then the Government has no option but to act. Accordingly, as a strong believer in local democracy, I have to give my consent reluctantly to the Minister's proposal. Democracy is as strong and healthy as those who exercise it. There are people in certain areas who, for one reason or another – and we all know those reasons – are not prepared to exercise their function. Earlier this afternoon, a speaker said that local authorities could not allocate sufficient funding to put in place the infrastructure for the most basic elements of recycling. However, at their annual estimates time, it is their prerogative to allocate funds and to generate the necessary finance. Perhaps the slogan, "No taxation without representation," is applicable here.
Or "No incineration without representation."
How can somebody bewail the loss and diminution of local democracy and, in the same conversation, say that his local authority cannot generate enough money to put a few segregation bins in place? Does that person really believe in local democracy? My point is that the Minister has no other course open to him and accordingly I support the Bill.
This Bill is eroding democracy and denuding councillors of power. At the meeting in Galway last night, 30 very well informed councillors expressed their frustration. There was a very open and informed debate but I have never experienced such tension in the council chamber in my time there since 1985. There was anger, frustration and sadness. Councillors felt somewhat like John the Baptist crying in the wilderness – and the Minister was not listening. Clearly, our manager will be put in the most unenviable position of having to force through a plan which is vehemently opposed by all 30 councillors, including 16 Fianna Fáil councillors in Galway. It is also opposed by the general public, in the main. Our manager is one of the finest, most upstanding, honourable local authority officials in the country, a man of great vision and the utmost integrity. He is now faced with a most unpalatable decision. That is not fair.
Even at this late stage, I urge the Minister to meet a representative group, including management, councillors, consultants and people in organised groups which are directly involved in this issue and have carried out extensive studies on it. Of course, central Government has to be involved. However, it is grossly unfair to shove out the messenger, in this case the manager, to be shot. In Galway, where we have a difficulty at the moment, we should be given another opportunity and a little more time. There are good ideas and, although there is strong opposition to incineration, which I share, we are prepared to discuss a plan for County Galway. The manager should not be left in the unenviable position of having to put this plan into operation, by direction of the Minister.
I do not want to be specific as this is a general discussion on the waste management plan.
Acting Chairman
This is a specific discussion on the amendment.
Galway is one of the three areas that have a problem with this issue. As a member of the local authority I have first-hand information and I attended the meeting last night. I am sad at what I sense is happening. I know the Minister is decent and does not want to go this way so I appeal to him to give more time to Galway before he pushes the legislation through. I am sure a solution will be found. As it stands, I oppose what the Minister is trying to do here, to erode local democracy and take power from local councillors. This is especially of concern at a time when he has proposed removing the dual mandate and vesting power in councillors. He should think before he acts in this instance.
On section 4 as I read it the manager will be in a position to make a waste management plan where one has not been made to date and where a plan has been made he will be in a position to vary the terms of the plan. Any of us involved in local government would be concerned about shifting powers to managerial functions. The thrust of local government should be in the opposite direction. When the Local Government Bill is introduced we hope it will address that democratic deficit. The Minister's views on the reform of local government are well known and I feel sure this is no more palatable to him than to us. Will the Minister look at the section and consider amending it so that subsequent to the passing of the Bill a local authority will have a period of time to address an effective waste management plan and strategy for its county? If it fails to do that within a set time, the executive element should be triggered. That would allow the councils address the issue. In my own council one of the best debates we have had has been on this issue. Will the Minister consider this suggestion and possibly an amendment on Report Stage?
The Minister proposes a very radical change to present powers. These amendments propose the retention of local democracy. They seek to retain the importance and the function of the elected representative in the making of a waste management plan. The Minister proposes to take that power from elected representatives. I acknowledge that there are different views in different parties and that this is not a party issue. The Minister will land us with incinerators we do not want. On 20 June 1995 when the Waste Management Bill was going through the Oireachtas under the then Minister, Deputy Howlin, Deputy Dempsey stated:
The Minister has chosen to ignore the question of incineration and I can understand why. It has the potential to be politically difficult and that potential difficulty has overtaken environmental concerns. The technology of incineration has a bad name in Ireland and it has raised many serious concerns, not without reason, in view of some of the incineration operations we have had. However, we cannot ignore the issue.
He said a lot more than that but that summarises what Senator Walsh, I and others are saying. We would like to see changes before we push aside local democracy. There are serious health issues and concerns in relation to incineration. The Minister of State, in summing up the Second Stage debate, said that he was prepared to look at the health impacts of incineration. This is the misunderstanding between the Department, the European Parliament and the Irish people who do not believe that incineration is good for their health.
Acting Chairman
Incineration has nothing to do with the amendments before us and is not included in the section.
What is included in the section is the—
Acting Chairman
We are not discussing the section, only the amendments.
We are talking about making it a reserve function of the manager rather than of the elected members to make a waste management plan. That is taking democracy from the elected council. If the Minister persists with this section I would like to have further debate on the issue within the meaning of the amendments in the same spirit in which you allowed Senator Walsh to speak. It is basic to the whole issue. Last week the Acting Chairman spoke about the quality of food. Many people feel that if there is an incinerator in their area the food chain will be affected and dioxins will enter the food chain. That is a real fear. The Minister did not address those issues and I accept there is not an opportunity today to debate them. I and my party oppose this Bill and we will vote against it.
Acting Chairman
I call Senator Coogan and I appeal to speakers to stick to the amendments. We have too many Second Stage contributions. The Chair has time only to administer Committee Stage of the Bill. That is all we are trying to do.
If the Chair treats everyone the same I would have no problem with that.
Acting Chairman
I hope the Senator does not suggest otherwise.
No, but does the Chair mean I should not make the points I make.
Acting Chairman
Under the rules of the House we discuss the amendments before the House and the section can be discussed when we come to the section.
I thought I was doing that.
In view of the fact that there were Second Stage speeches when I came in I felt it was appropriate that I respond. If the ruling is that I should wait for a response, I am willing to wait provided I do not hear long speeches for the rest of the day.
I will try not to bore Senator Coogan with my response.
I did not say boredom. It was not my intention to continue making Second Stage speeches, but if the opportunity arises, these issues are important enough to be discussed without clamping down on anyone.
I do not know how much time Senators have, but I am prepared to stay all night to discuss what is contained in the Bill rather than what people are insinuating should be in it. The word "incineration" is not used anywhere in the Bill. We have heard an amount—
That is what it is all about.
It is not.
It is.
I do not propose to accept the amendments because they seek to overturn the Bill's main provision and frustrate its key objective, that is, to provide a mechanism for the satisfactory conclusion of the current waste management programme as soon as possible.
There has been much talk about democracy. The previous Government, during whose term of office the Members who spoke, except for Senator Walsh, were present, passed a Waste Management Bill in which it decided on a particular route. The current Government has followed the policy decisions made in that Act in respect of which democracy must prevail.
Three out of 15 local authorities in three regional groups refuse to adopt regional waste management plans. Section 4 of the Bill amends section 22 of the Waste Management Act, 1996, to transfer the power to make a waste management plan from the elected members of a local authority to the relevant manager. This change will only affect the few local authorities which have failed, despite their obligation to do so under national and European law, to make and pass a waste management plan and deal with the cases mentioned by Senator Walsh where it was purported that a plan had been made, but in respect of which the decisions made were invalid by virtue of the qualifications imposed, as happened in County Roscommon, a matter to which I will return.
We will only use this power in those cases where local authorities have failed to live up to their responsibilities, in some cases after three or four years of consultations. The Bill will allow local authority management to conclude the planning process and move towards what everyone says they want, the effective implementation of regional waste management plans to provide for improved waste services and infrastructure throughout the country.
The planning process is under way for three to four years. Three out of 15 local authorities in three regional groups have failed or refused to adopt the plans placed before them which were drawn up on the basis of technical advice given by consultants. They were not, as Senator Connor claimed to my surprise, imposed by the Department of the Environment and Local Government; rather they were drawn up by consultants employed by the local authorities.
The Minister's Department is a strong supporter of the findings.
There are regional plans which have been adopted by all the local authorities concerned, in some cases subject to significant qualifications. This must be dealt with in a legal manner. My legal advice is that a regional waste management plan must be adopted on the same substantive basis by all of the local authorities concerned, otherwise it cannot be considered to be valid. If a local authority decides to adopt it with stipulations, ruling out landfill or incineration, it will invalidate the plan. That is what happened in County Roscommon.
What is wrong with that?
I am conscious of the need to meet national and EU targets for waste recovery and the diversion of waste from landfill and the legal proceedings which have been initiated against Ireland in the European Court of Justice because of our ongoing failure to respect our waste planning obligations. This cannot continue. We do not have the luxury of giving the local authorities concerned another six months. I gave then 12 months in which they could not bring the matter to a conclusion.
We must act now to put modern and efficient waste management infrastructure in place to provide for improved services. As Minister, I have to act in the national interest and take the necessary steps to bring this lengthy process to a satisfactory conclusion. Having considered a range of legal options I have concluded that the existing regulatory powers under the 1996 Act are not strong enough to ensure a decisive and satisfactory outcome. That is the reason these proposals, which I deem to be reasonable, are before the House. I would prefer not to have to introduce this legislation, but, as indicated in recent years by the two main Opposition parties in the other House, I have a national obligation beyond that to the local parish or electorate.
While I have heard what is wrong with the Bill, the Opposition has not presented an alternative. All that it has offered is procrastination, preferring to wait and see what will happen. I reiterate that the word "incineration" is not used in the Bill. As Senator O'Dowd is aware, it does not matter if the plans are passed. There is a planning application for an incinerator near Drogheda. Preventing a plan from being passed will not stop the planning or Environmental Protection Agency process. It is disingenuous to tout the line, as the Senator, the Labour Party and the Green Party have done, that this is a major plan to impose incineration. That is nonsense.
In speaking of responsible actions by local authorities Senator Connor is speaking from the weakest position of any Member in either House.
Rubbish.
A local authority which states that it is adopting a plan, but that we will not have—
What did we say about minimisation, recycling and recovery?
As this is Committee Stage, the Senator will have a right to reply.
—anything to do with our own waste, that we will recycle—
Rubbish.
I have no doubt that we can recycle, but it is a myth to say, as some people have, that there can be 100% recycling for everything. The Senator knows this as well as I do. The nonsense of a local authority telling me it has a waste management plan in place but will not deal with residual waste makes a laughing stock of those proposing it. I do not think the Senator should try to insult the intelligence of the electorate in such a manner.
I intend replying to the insults levelled at members of my local authority.
The Senator also said there was nothing in the Connacht regional waste management plan about recycling or composting. It is obvious the Senator has not read the plan.
These issues were given second place in the plan.
He would not come to the House and say what he did had he read the Connacht waste management plan.
I did not say that. I said the plan was predicated on incineration.
In case the Senator does not have time between now and the end of Easter to read the waste management plan for Connacht I will give a summary of it. It talks about recycling, 48%—
I do not want quotations from the plan given out of context.
—thermal treatment, 33%—
I have read the plan from beginning to end.
—and landfill disposal, 19%. The plan's collection policy includes door to door collection of recyclable material with source segregation in all urban areas to expand to service 50% of the region's population; provision of bring banks in other areas not served by door to door systems and towns with more than a population of 200; provision of 21 recycling centres located in Galway city, Clifden, Tuam, Ballinasloe, Athenry, Castlebar, Ballina, Westport, Claremorris, Belmullet and – I offer this for the information of Senator Connor – in Castlerea, Boyle, Ballaghaderreen, Tubbercurry, Sligo, Manorhamilton, Carrick-on-Shannon, Ballinamore; two material recovery facilities in Galway and Sligo, to which Roscommon waste can go; six central composting facilities – no doubt waste from Roscommon can also be sent to these; two biological treatment facilities and the development of a central construction demolition waste recycling facility. To say the plan was not predicated on recycling is absolute nonsense.
This section of the Bill is central and I have no intention of accepting the amendments. I do not think the Members opposite are going to change their minds either. It is essential that this planning process is brought to an end and this is the only way I can see in which that can be done.
I would like the Minister to clarify the extent to which this Bill will allow the manager power to vary a plan already adopted and if that becomes an executive function.
I wish to reply to the remarks made by the Minister. We opposed the plan in County Louth because it contained the option of thermal treatment. We only wanted to remove that option and accepted and welcomed the other provisions in the plan. The legal advice given to us by the county manager and the advice of two solicitors from a Dublin firm was that we could not reject part of the plan – it had to be accepted or rejected in total, which is the nub of the problem. We want everything in the plan except incineration.
Regarding the regional plan, it is only such in name and not in nature or in fact as the elected members who have the reserved function to make the plan never actually met as a group to collectively talk about and decide upon it. If the councillors in the region had met none of the plans would have been accepted as I hope all of them would have rejected incineration as an option. Whether they would or not, to say it is a regional plan is not strictly correct in the sense that councillors did not meet collectively as members of the region to decide upon it.
I was in communication with the waste management section of the European Community and was informed by those to whom I spoke that the European directive does not say we must have thermal treatment in our plans. There may be directives relating to incineration, but there is no legal obligation whatever on regional waste management plans to include thermal treatment as an option. There is an obligation to reduce waste and landfill. The Minister is wrong when he says incineration is not part of the Bill. Rather it is the only significant part of the Bill. It is being shoved down our throats by the Minister and it is why we are objecting to the Bill.
I do not know enough about County Roscommon but I know enough about Senator Connor to know the local authority members would have been very reasonable in their discussions. They wanted to reject one part but accept all the other provisions in the plan which are important. I ask the Minister to think again about what we are saying.
I would like to reply to some of the Minister's statements. I do not wish to be parochial, but this issue was discussed in great detail in our local authority with the consultants, the county manager and his staff in attendance. Line by line we took them through these sections dealing with waste minimisation, recycling, composting, etc. Because there is no infrastructure in the county which could facilitate these very desirable things we asked where the money would come from. We found it would take years to put the infrastructure in place and that there was no will in the Department to provide the necessary funding.
Roscommon has two of the most appalling landfill sites in the country. They have been badly managed, have had no resources invested in them and are a scourge to the neighbourhoods which are close to them. Members of the local authority, having common sense, decided they could not accept the plan, that they were buying a pig in a poke full of pious aspirations. In the end Mr. Rudden, the manager, could only say the waste of the county would go by and large to existing landfill sites or for incineration or thermal treatment because there are no facilities for minimisation or recycling and that such provision could not be envisaged for years. It was right that the members of the local authority decided in such circumstances – I was a leader in this regard and am proud of it – to reject the plan as it was presented to us.
We accept the principles of minimisation, composting, etc., but when will such facilities be available? We were not going to allow our area to become a location for an incinerator, given the Department's refusal to answer the most basic question about the health effects of thermal treatment and incineration. That issue has never been addressed and has always been avoided by the Minister. Until we have an independent study on the health effects of thermal treatment or incineration, which result in emissions into the atmosphere, why should any local authority, community or region want to accept them? Those who ran Bhopal, the chemical plant in India, would have said the emissions from it were safe but they resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people. Those in the Ukraine said the Chernobyl nuclear power plant was safe, yet it suffered a melt down. Nobody has scientifically or in any detail studied the health effects of incineration. Elected local authority members reflect the views of concerned citizens in local authority chambers.
Maybe in ten years' time we will have facilities for composting, recycling and facilities to recover energy from waste. Live long enough horse and you might get grass. I ask the reasonable people in this House if we are wrong to vote against the Bill. This attack upon us amounts to abuse, gratu itously insulting abuse because of what we did. We did right by our people. We did right because what was in front of us was totally inadequate. That is why this is wrong. The Minister is saying that the people have no right to be, as he sees it, wrong, that the local authorities have no right to be wrong as they see it. We have no right to assert the genuine desires, the genuine fears of the very people we represent at local level.
Going back to the broader issue, this is an attack on democracy. It is an appalling scandal. This will lead to nothing but huge numbers of local protests. Managers will only be answerable to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. Under this Act, managers will be able to ignore the elected members and, therefore, effectively ignore public opinion in their own area. If that is not the antithesis of democracy, my name is Davey.
I do not know whether Senator Connor is trying to deliberately confuse the issue. The power given to the manager to pass a regional waste management plan does not give the manager the right to put a landfill site or an incinerator anywhere he likes within the county. The Senator must surely know that. For a Senator who is also a member of a local authority to come into this House and talk about how proud he is to have led his local authority in a particular direction in relation to waste management and admit that the same local authority has badly managed landfills and is doing nothing about it is an appalling admission for a Member of the Oireachtas—
The Minister's Department did not give adequate funding for it.
No, nothing at all. The polluter pays principle is long established in waste management. The Senator should know that. I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he does not know it, otherwise he would not make such statements. It is the responsibility of the local authority – it has always been the responsibility of the local authority – to put in place proper—
If we do not get an adequate rates support grant, like many other things, we cannot provide enough housing.
Rubbish. We are talking about the polluter pays principle. The local authority is responsible and has always been responsible. Roscommon County Council, over the past four years, has been given an increase of approximately 60% in its rates support grant. I wonder what it is doing with it. Certainly, by the Senator's admission, if that admission is accurate, it is not being spent on environmental matters.
The Minister should know that we have won awards.
The Senator should not come into this House and talk about badly managed landfill sites.
I did not say that.
The Senator spoke about badly managed landfill sites in Roscommon, appalling landfill sites. The Senator, as a councillor—
The Minister is responsible.
—is responsible for ensuring that the manager does his job in Roscommon and that the facilities provided for landfill, for waste management, are up to standard.
The Minister has absolute responsibility to ensure that we have adequate funding.
No, the council has responsibility under the polluter pays principle. I have no responsibility in relation to the running of local authority landfill sites.
The Minister has responsibility to provide the local authorities with adequate funding.
We need to get rid of the dual mandate where people are not willing to accept responsibility here as national legislators or in their own local authority as local authority members. The provision of the infrastructure in relation to waste management is a responsibility for the local authority. We will be assisting those local authorities which have adopted the polluter pays principle and are putting in place the infrastructure for recycling. Even as it stands today, the local authority has a responsibility and it is not a responsibility that members should be trying to shift elsewhere.
On what Senator O'Dowd said about councillors not meeting as a regional group, I accept that they did not. That is not the way these things are done. Agreements are decided individually under section 59 of the Act to go ahead and do this on a regional basis. The procedure, as is common in these section 59 agreements, is that local authorities then individually adopt it. I accept that what the Senator says is accurate in relation to councillors not coming together in a region. That was never the way it was done, and this is no different. The Senator is absolutely accurate and he did not accuse me at any stage of saying that there was some explicit EU requirement for incineration. I agree with that statement, there is no explicit EU requirement. The consultants concluded that the diversion targets that we have to reach in relation to waste would not be met solely by recycling and composting. That decision and recommendation was arrived at on the basis of experience, not just in this country, but across Europe in countries with high standards of environmental practice and good integrated waste management policies.
Senator Connor accused me of always avoiding the issue of health implications. I spoke in this House during Second Stage at great length on the issue. I have spoken in other fora about the health issues in relation to incineration. The problem is that no matter how often I speak about it, those who are deaf do not hear and do not want to hear—
The Minister is deaf and blind.
Some of the Members of this House heard an eminent German expert toxicologist, Dr. Dieter Schrenk, a professor of food chemistry and environmental toxicology, advise local authority members throughout the country on the issue of possible health risks from municipal waste incineration. He does not foresee problems and he is an adviser to the World Health Organisation.
I spoke on Second Stage about the case of the Isle of Man. The chief medical officer and director of public health for the Isle of Man, who is certainly an independent individual, but who seems to have been powerful enough to tell the Government not to go ahead with an incinerator until he had an opportunity to study the possible health effects of the emissions and dioxins from incineration, stopped the project and presented a report after 12 months investigation which then approved the provision of an incinerator on the Isle of Man.
In 1997 the international agency for research on cancer, an agency of the World Health Organ isation, classed the most toxic dioxin compound as a known human carcinogen. However, the WHO also considers that there is a level of exposure to dioxins below which cancer risk would be negligible. It is on that basis that emission levels are set by the EU. There are controls in the EU Directive on Thermal Treatment and Incineration. The directive applies the extremely stringent standard of 0.1 nanograms, that is one ten thousand millionth of a gram per cubic metre of gas emitted. This standard is currently applied by the EPA in IPC licensing and it will apply throughout the EU. The EU Commission estimates that the implementation of the directive will result in a 99% reduction in emissions of dioxins from waste incineration compared to the period 1993-95.
We hear stories about reductions in incineration and Europe moving away from incineration. These are not true. At least 14 member states include incineration as part of their waste management strategies. I find it difficult to believe that the Governments and regulatory agencies of those 14 states are knowingly acquiescing in causing damage to the environment, the health of their citizens or public health generally. I am not afraid of the health issue in relation to incineration. I would prefer to live beside an incinerator than a landfill site.
Senator O'Meara asked about a local authority manager's power to vary a plan. A manager cannot vary an original plan. To do so would be to operate on the same basis as the councils which put in qualifications.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
Tá
|
Bohan, Eddie.Bonner, Enda.Callanan, Peter.Chambers, Frank.Dardis, John.Farrell, Willie.Finneran, Michael.Fitzgerald, Tom.Gibbons, Jim.Glennon, Jim.Kett, Tony. |
Kiely, Daniel.Lydon, Don.Moylan, Pat.O'Brien, Francis.O'Donovan, Denis.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Ormonde, Ann.Quill, Máirín.Quinn, Feargal.Ross, Shane.Walsh, Jim. |
Níl
|
Burke, Paddy.Caffrey, Ernie.Coghlan, Paul.Connor, John.Coogan, Fintan.Cosgrave, Liam T.Cregan, Denis (Dino).Doyle, Joe.Hayes, Tom. |
Henry, Mary.Keogh, Helen.McDonagh, Jarlath.Manning, Maurice.O'Dowd, Fergus.O'Meara, Kathleen.Ridge, Therese.Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine. |
Tellers: Tá, Senators T. Fitzgerald and Gibbons; Níl, Senators Burke and O'Meara.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Amendment No. 5 is consequential on amendment No. 10 and they may be discussed together, by agreement.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 4, line 20, to delete "subsection" where it first occurs, and substitute "subsections".
The purpose of this amendment is to curtail the potential opportunity for obstructing the implementation of waste management plans by means of the development plan variation procedure under the Planning and Development Act, 2000. This is a logical and necessary provision and is consistent with the preceding subsection, which already provides that sections 3 or 4 of the City and County Management Act, 1955, or section 1(79) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, cannot be used to block the implementation of waste management plans.
Waste management plans in most cases are not sites specific for recovery or disposal facilities. Development of these facilities would have to be consistent with the zoning and specific objectives in local development plans under the Planning and Development Act, 2000. As matters stand implementation of the waste management plans, through the provision of the requisite waste management infrastructure, could require the relevant local development plan to be varied under section 13 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, which is a reserved function following a public consultation procedure.
The proposed amendment provides that the development plan in force in an area shall be deemed to include the objectives for the time being contained in the waste management plan in force in that particular area. In addition, the proposed amendment provides for a notification and public consultation procedure modelled on the standard planning material contravention provisions for situations where a planning authority proposes to grant planning permission for development consistent with a waste management plan but which would materially contravene any other objective of the development plan. Following consideration of any submissions or observations the final decision on whether to grant planning permission rests with the manager.
The proposed amendment also provides for a notification and consultation procedure in relation to any proposed development to be undertaken by or on behalf of a local authority itself consistent with the waste management plan but which in the opinion of the manager would contravene materially any other objective in a development plan. Following consideration of any submissions or observations the final decision on whether to proceed with the procedures set out in the planning Act to allow for the development plan rests with the manager. The provision in the proposed amendment would apply to waste management plans already adopted as well as plans made by the manager under this section.
It may seem to the Minister a minor point but after the consideration earlier about the amount of paper published and the need to do something about it by encouraging people to use less of it, I suggest that section (10B)(a)(i) which reads:
publish notice of the intention of the authority to grant the permission in one or more newspapers circulating in that area
include also the additional words "and on the Internet". Also in section (10C) (1) after the words "in one or more newspapers circulating in that functional area", will he consider adding "and on the Internet"? I say this in the knowledge that we had an interesting debate earlier on how some Departments use the Internet and encourage the absence of paper. We know it should be published in the newspaper and we are not suggesting a substitute, but I suggest the addition of the words "and on the Internet" or some other suitable words. In the past when I proposed this on occasions I found that words such as "or electronic means" have suited some Departments. I propose that as an amendment to the amendment.
I second what Senator Quinn has said. It is a worthwhile suggestion.
In an attempt to be clear on what this amendment means I wish to ask the Minister about functions and so on. It is the reserved function of the members to adopt a development plan but the Bill makes it an executive function of the manager to adopt a waste plan where members have not done so. Clearly this has implications for the county development plan.
It will take away more democracy.
That is the point I wish to make. The Minister said it is consistent with the Bill. Clearly it is consistent with the principle of removing discretion from members. The language the Minister used was that it is designed to curtail the opportunity to use the development plan to stop a landfill or a thermal treatment plant or whatever going ahead. I would have concerns in that regard. It presupposes that members of a local authority would be looking for ways of curtailing the location of—
That would never happen.
That will never happen.
A Senator
Not in Tipperary.
I made the point on Second Stage and I do not intend to repeat it all again. I am a member of a local authority which adopted a plan. Nobody opposed it. We swallowed our concerns and said we had to get on with it. At the same time I would stand over the right of any person to oppose the adoption of a plan. We live in a democracy.
But it is—
Senator Connor will have an opportunity to make his contribution.
Clearly we have difficulties about this. I want to be clear about what we are adopting in this substantial and complex amendment. It is important to spend some time teasing it out. The first paragraph of the amendment, " Where a planning authority proposes to grant permission .. for development which is consistent with the provisions . of . a waste management plan." is critical. In other words, it intends to grant planning permission for some type of waste facility but by so doing would contravene materially an objective of the development plan then the manager has power to act. Am I correct in saying that is the objective of the amendment? In other words, the manager can materially contravene the development plan in order to give permission for a facility which is part of the waste plan.
I have exactly the same questions, though perhaps going further. Here we have an extension of the powers of the county manager to thwart resourceful members of my local authority by inappropriately placing a waste facility in our area. We cannot now use our county development plan. If it could be shown under current legislation that the proposal was a material contravention of our county development plan and that we as local authority members could not intervene to protect it, that would be a serious erosion of local democracy. That power has been a reserved function of local authority members for many years. A material contravention of a county development plan had to go before the local authority which had to give its consent.
In this amendment the Minister is trying to close off all democratic loopholes. He extends the power of the manager, thus eroding further the democratic powers which local authority members enjoyed for many years. That is a retrograde step and smacks of the iron fist approach. In the event of local objection the local authority chief executive, with the consent of the Minister and his Department, can decide to put in place a waste facility that has serious environmental concerns for many people. Local authority members are being emasculated to the extent that if they wanted to be creative, imaginative or resourceful and to attack the manager and the Minister's plans, that role is being taken from them.
Many Members on that side of the House are members of a local authority. Can they allow this to be done to them? Will they allow their hands to be tied behind their back because of the waste management policies of the Minister? Those policies are wrong because they do not allow for a contribution from local people. It is popular to say that this is due to the NIMBY – not in my back yard – attitude, but people have serious concerns about these matters. They look to their local authority members, as the people on the front line, to put their concerns forward and to defend them. Here, however, the Minister is extending the tentacles of the Bill to ensure there is no way local authority members can attack or successfully challenge, within their local authority area, an attempt to do something highly inappropriate.
I received a copy of the amendments on Friday but I did not see this amendment among them and I have not had a chance to study it. I wish to put a few questions to the Minister on the amendment.
I understand the amendment was received in the Seanad office only yesterday.
I have not had time to study it, which might or might not be a good thing from the Minister's point of view. At present, the development plan is a reserved function of the elected members. If the corporate body wishes to vary the plan, it must publish a notice. In what way is the procedure in the amendment different from what is there already? When local authority members vary a development plan, it is the subject of discussion at the local authority meeting. Is there a reference to that in this section or can that be superseded? In other words, does the amendment allow discussion by the local authority of the proposed draft variation by the manager?
Are there any implications for planning law generally? I presume the Minister will say there are not, but is he sure of that? This has been a reserved function of the elected members for a long time. If that power is removed from them for the purposes of the waste management strategy, can the Minister provide in the amendment a guarantee that it will not or cannot affect any other areas? I presume that a section 4 motion will not be relevant in this respect, in other words that a section 4 motion under this amendment could not compel the manager to do something that was lawful and proper, which is to vary the development plan according to the wishes of the members.
Does this procedure have any planning implications for An Bord Pleanála? Any planning application of which I am aware has had to conform with the development plan which the members have made. Now there will be a number of cases which will not conform with the development plan. The elected members will oppose them and that will create a crisis for local government. What implications will this have for the appeal process? Is there an appeal process or does this disallow it? The Minister is changing the law for varying a development plan. Does that have a knock on effect in any way on An Bord Pleanála decisions?
Will the Minister explain section (10C)-(3) further? This appears to facilitate a situation arising where the manager could bring in a proposed development even though it was against something which had already been decided to be for the common good. This is odd and surely unwise.
I can assure Senator Quinn that under the planning Act any notice which can be published in a newspaper may also be published electronically under section 249(1), which this provision affects. It does not need to be restated. The facility of publishing this electronically on a website or whatever can be used.
May be or can be but it does not have to be.
Yes, it does not have to be. They may use the facility and in practice most of the local authorities are going down that route.
The explanation I gave earlier was long and detailed because the amendment is long and detailed. I will clarify it again, although Members have grasped the intent. It permits the manager to grant permissions in material contravention of the development plan. As Members correctly pointed out, this function is normally reserved to the elected members because it amounts to a specific variation of the development plan. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that the planning process for waste management is brought to a conclusion and, when that happens, that the waste management plans can be implemented.
I am simply trying to ensure that this aim is not thwarted. I do not want to be back in the House in three, six or 12 months because an enterprising councillor or member of a local authority decided to thwart the aim of getting the waste management plans implemented by using the planning law or other sections of the local government and planning Acts. It is, to put it bluntly, to fireproof what I am doing in giving the manager the power to adopt the waste management plans. It will apply in particular to those local authorities that have not adopted waste management plans.
It has no implications for planning law generally. It is not an extended power but is specific to waste management and waste management facilities. This amendment supersedes the normal variation procedure in this instance only; it is limited to developments by a private developer or the local authority which is to implement the waste management plan.
The Senator also asked about appeals. The normal appeal procedure under the Planning and Development Act would apply. People have the right to appeal under the Act and the board will have to hear the appeal and have regard to the development plan in all its decisions. However, as we have seen previously, the board has on occasion overridden development plans.
Under section (10C)-(3), the manager could decide to proceed with the procedures set out under the planning Act but he or she is still bound by the requirements of the Act, that is, to provide for the proper planning and development of the area. An Bord Pleanála is also obliged to comply with that. Decisions on the developments we are discussing will be taken as normal after the procedure that is set out in the amendment. In other words, there is a public consultation procedure. The procedure is as it currently exists for all other material contraventions. There will be a period of consultation. Appeals will be allowed and An Bord Pleanála will have to decide them in the normal way.
I was tempted to intervene on several occasions when I was in the Chair but, knowing that it would be inappropriate, I waited until I had the opportunity of speaking from the floor.
Senator Connor spoke about the contribution of local people to these decisions. I would also be enthusiastic about devolving local government and more powers for councillors but one can only devolve powers to those prepared to use them. From my experience in Kildare County Council, people are reluctant to use powers even for simple things like hackney and taxi licences. I have frequently heard people in the council chamber speak about devolving power, but when one points out to them that they have a devolved power they are not prepared to use they do not seem to see any contradiction.
The contribution of local people on this issue is unanimous – nobody wants a dump in their area. I do not want one in my area. How does the Opposition propose that we dispose of waste? Nobody has come up with an alternative for disposing of it. The Minister made a very telling point earlier in the debate when he spoke about his national responsibilities. He is to be applauded for taking those responsibilities so seriously. It cannot be easy to do so but that is a Minister's job and that is what he has done.
I drove to the west last weekend and came back through Galway and Roscommon and so on. One does not travel ten miles without seeing a sign about a superdump. There are no more dumps because they are all superdumps. I was very vocal about the Kill dump, which could be regarded as a superdump, and I opposed it on the grounds of its proximity to the Liffey, ground water pollution and so on. There were real grounds for not locating it where it was planned but that battle was lost even if, from my experience, it was managed well.
We come back to the point that whether the manager or the members make the decision, and whether that decision is favourable or negative, I do not know of one case that has not gone to An Bord Pleanála. Either the conditions were appealed by the applicants or something such as a refusal resulted in the case going to An Bord Pleanála. It was unusual in Kildare in that one local authority wanted to locate a landfill in another authority's area, which meant the refusal from one local authority led to the other making an appeal to An Bord Pleanála, which it won. I cannot envisage a case that would not reach beyond the local authority and be adjudicated on elsewhere.
From that point of view I am more comfortable than I would otherwise be about the manager making a decision as there is a court of appeal and the observations, which the manager must of course have regard to, are legitimate and can be considered by An Bord Pleanála. The inspector's report can be taken into account when the final decision is made.
I thank the Minister but seek clarification on the variation of the development plan. Will that go before the local authority for discussion? I am not clear if he responded to that query. The normal procedure is that the council meets, the variation motion is discussed after the procedures are followed but the Bill does not mention its returning to the local authority for discussion. If that is not included it should be because it is very important that the members should be able to discuss what the manager is doing.
Section (10c)(1)(i) refers to development which is consistent with implementing the waste management plan enforced in the area but which the manager feels will materially contravene the plan, provided the work is proposed to be done by the local authority. However, can the Minister explain paragraph (b)? The Bill seems to state that one could have a partnership or relationship with a local authority where a private company rather than a local authority provides a facility. How is that different from not having it in the Act? What impact does it have? What is the extra reason for paragraph (b)?
I accept Senator Dardis's points regarding sensitivity about dumps. I have received letters on this matter from people in the private sector, and to which I did not respond in one case, about land they have in different parts of Louth. For instance, there was an asbestos dump in Togher and the seven or eight acres there have given rise to a row as to whether the land is sealed or not. According to this Act a developer could look for planning permission for this site under the variation procedure and all the issues would be agreed provided they had entered into an agreement with the local authority.
Is this not a huge power to give the manager, that even if a proposed development would materially contravene the development plan he or she could still go ahead with it? It is an amazing power to give someone. Why bother to have development plans at all if someone who decides to do something in the waste management sector, even if it is going to do terrible damage to the plan, can just go ahead with it? There must be a good reason or the Minister would not have put this in but it has not yet dawned on me what it is.
Could the Senator repeat the question?
Is this not a huge power to give the manager, that even if a proposed development would materially contravene the development plan he or she could still go ahead with it? There must be a good reason but what is the point in having a development plans and going through all the consultations if, in the heel of the hunt, the most appalling things may be done? Some managers are better than others and nobody seems to be in a position to override the manager's decision. Even the Minister seems unable to override those decisions and that seems a huge power to give someone.
I do not agree with Senator Henry but it seems to me that a county development plan will never have an incinerator or thermal plant. A plan will never include a dump because on that basis it would never be passed. I understand why the Minister has had to take these draconian measures. It is for that reason, to return to the issue I raised earlier, that we should not limit information about this solely to those who buy newspapers.
If we introduce legislation we should not limit it to people who buy newspapers to get information on that legislation. Many people, particularly young people, now stay at home and do not have to buy newspapers. Many of them depend on local radio for the death notices, for example, which they used to read in newspapers. For that reason I urge the Minister to set an example for local authorities by providing that they have to use electronic means to disclose this information, rather than providing that may use such means. When these matters are advertised and publicised in local newspapers the Minister should add "and by electronic means" in both cases. I know he has explained there is nothing to stop them doing that and that they may do so, but we should set an example here.
It will not set an example for every other case that must be publicised, such as planning, but we had an interesting discussion earlier about the amount of paper we have. We are now entering a new age where we do not need that quantity of paper. People who can buy local newspapers should do so by all means but those who choose not to do so should be able to get the information by sitting at home and glancing at the Internet to see something of interest to them without having to buy a newspaper. The Minister should take this into account and include "by electronic means" where newspapers are mentioned in the Bill.
I will try to answer some of the questions fairly succinctly and clarify whether managers will discuss these matters and whether councillors will have an opportunity to make their views on variations known. This amendment outlines a procedure whereby submissions and observations can be made by councillors or anyone else. The manager must consider such observations.
Paragraph (b) of section (10c)(1) is a reflection of existing planning law and basically allows a joint venture with a local authority or a public-private partnership if an authority is not providing a suitable waste management facility. Rather than dealing specifically with queries that have been raised, I will give a general explanation of this section. We are putting in place a procedure to complete the waste management planning process, a procedure which would be pointless if we did not fireproof it against those who would thwart the intention of the Legislature in regard to waste management planning.
The proposed change in planning law ensures that a development plan cannot be used to defeat the implementation of a waste management plan when sites under the latter plan are selected. That is the simplest way I can phrase this logical change which is a consequence of changes we are making elsewhere. It is designed to ensure that our plans are not thwarted.
In view of what he has said, does the Minister consider it wise to write into the Bill that these matters be discussed by the local authority? I appreciate the Minister's comments about consultation and written submissions, but nowhere does it say that local authorities, as corporate bodies, shall discuss this. In theory a manager, having allowed submissions, may not put further discussion on the agenda and may say that he is doing what the Act allows him to do, although equally this may not happen. I realise that elected members can dictate what is on the agenda, but it should be statutory that local authority members discuss the matter before the manager makes his decision, within the context of the procedure as a whole.
It is neither necessary nor desirable to enforce such a stipulation. As the Senator rightly says, most managers will try to ensure they reflect the views of the council, when directing a waste management plan. I would be wary of putting in specific stipulations making it necessary that it is discussed with elected members. Those who control the agenda for a meeting could continue to postpone the item on the agenda and thereby thwart the procedure. I think we can safely leave it to the good sense of both managers and elected members to ensure that something like this is discussed as part of the normal consultation and submission procedure. I am not inclined to change what I have proposed as I feel that it allows the kind of discussion the Senator referred to.
Notwithstanding anything that may be in the Bill, I wonder if any member of a local authority envisages a circumstance whereby it would not be discussed regardless of whether it was on the agenda. I cannot.
That may be so, but I am asking a different question. In this legislation, is the Minister giving the manager the power not to refer to a local authority if he does not wish to? There is no statutory obligation. Variations on a development plan are a matter for elected members, who discuss such variations when they come before them at corporate body meetings. There is no requirement, as I see it, for the corporate body to meet to discuss the matter. Although I accept the Minister's comments as regards where it would come on the agenda, perhaps he would consider ensuring that it would be the only item on the agenda and therefore have to be dealt with. At least a useful democratic process of consultation would be written into the Bill.
I realise that many of the things we have suggested may never happen, but it only needs to happen once to turn the Minister's provision on its head. This issue is difficult and emotive in local communities. I appreciate I have had a number of opportunities to speak on this amendment and if Minister has anything to say I am happy to listen.
Without being disrespectful to the Senator, I have nothing more to say as I do not think it is necessary to write such a specific measure into the Act. I do not intend to do so as the submissions and observations procedure should be sufficient.
Amendment put.
Tá
|
Bonner, Enda.Callanan, Peter.Cassidy, Donie.Chambers, Frank.Cox, Margaret.Dardis, John.Farrell, Willie.Finneran, Michael.Fitzgerald, Tom.Gibbons, Jim.Glennon, Jim. |
Kett, Tony.Kiely, Daniel.Lydon, Don.Moylan, Pat.O'Brien, Francis.Ormonde, Ann.Quill, Máirín.Quinn, Feargal.Ross, Shane.Walsh, Jim. |
Níl
|
Burke, Paddy.Caffrey, Ernie.Coghlan, Paul.Connor, John.Coogan, Fintan.Cosgrave, Liam T.Cregan, Denis (Dino).Doyle, Joe. |
Henry, Mary.Keogh, Helen.McDonagh, Jarlath.Manning, Maurice.O'Dowd, Fergus.O'Meara, Kathleen.Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine. |
Tellers: Tá, Senators T. Fitzgerald and Gibbons; Níl, Senators Burke and O'Dowd.
Amendment declared carried.
Amendments Nos. 6 to 9, inclusive, not moved.
Government amendment No. 10:
In page 5, line 50, to delete "void.'." and substitute:
"void.
(10A) The development plan for the time being in force in relation to the functional area of a local authority shall be deemed to include the objectives for the time being contained in the waste management plan in force in relation to that area.
(10B) (a) Where a planning authority proposes to grant permission under Part III of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, for development which is consistent with the provisions (including any objectives contained therein) of, and is necessary for the proper implementation of, the waste management plan in force in relation to the authority's functional area, but, in the opinion of the manager of the authority, would contravene materially any other objective of the development plan in force in relation to that area, the manager shall–
(i)publish notice of the intention of the authority to grant the permission in one or more newspapers circulating in that area,
(ii)give a copy of the notice to the applicant for permission and to any person who has made a submission or observation in writing in relation to the development to which the application relates in accordance with any regulations made under the Planning and Development Act, 2000.
(b)Any submission or observation in writing in relation to the making of a decision to grant the permission concerned which is received by the planning authority not later than 4 weeks after the publication of the notice in accordance with paragraph (a) shall be considered by the manager of the authority.
(c)Following consideration of any submissions or observations received in accordance with paragraph (b), the manager of the planning authority may, subject to, and in accordance with, the provisions of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 (apart from the amendments of them effected by this section), decide to grant the permission, with or without conditions, or to refuse the permission.
(d)Section 34(6) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, shall not apply to applications for permission referred to in paragraph (a).
(e)Notwithstanding section 34(8) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, where a notice referred to in paragraph (a) is published in relation to an application for permission for development, the manager of the planing authority concerned shall make his or her decision in relation to the application within the period of 8 weeks beginning on the day on which the notice is first published.
(10C)(1)Where development which is consistent with the provisions (including any objectives contained therein) of, and is necessary for the proper implementation of, the waste management plan in force in relation to the area concerned but, in the opinion of the manager of the authority, would contravene materially any other objective of the development plan in force in relation to the area concerned, is proposed to be carried out by–
(a)a local authority that is a planning authority, or
(b)some other person on behalf of, or jointly or in partnership with such a local authority, pursuant to a contract entered into by that local authority,
within the functional area of the authority (hereafter in this section referred to as ‘proposed development'), the manager shall publish notice of the intention of the authority to carry out the proposed development in one or more newspapers circulating in that functional area.
(2)Any submission or observation in writing in relation to the proposed development which is received by the planning authority not later than 4 weeks after the publication of the notice in accordance with paragraph (a) shall be considered by the manager of the authority.
(3)Following consideration of any submissions or observations received in accordance with subsection (2), the manager may–
(a)notwithstanding the fact that the proposed development would materially contravene the development plan, decide to proceed with the proposed development, with or without modifications (and, where he or she so decides, he or she shall follow the relevant procedures contained in section 175 or 179 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as appropriate), or
(b) decide not to proceed with the proposed development.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
I wish to raise questions about the amendment of subsection (10)(b) of section 22 of the 1996 Act which enshrines waste management plans as the law of the council and gives such plans a retrospective legal status that nobody realised they would have. Consultants were appointed to deal with waste management plans, a reserved function of the elected members. County managers were given the authority to appoint such consultants. Waste management plans were drawn up and discussed by members, a number of whom disagreed on what was contained within them. The amendment will make such plans law. Effectively, the county manager will implement plans completed prior to the passage of the Bill. I am concerned about the implications of this. The Minister may consider that there is none, but there must be some. Any waste management plan drawn up by a consultant in consultation with the county manager, as proposed under the section, effectively, will be law, irrespective of whether members of the local authority support it. In that context, does the Minister have a view on the constitutionality or propriety of the retrospective nature of the amendment of subsection (10)(b) of section 22 of the 1996 Act? I hope I have made myself clear.
I know what the Senator is asking. We are not talking about retrospective legislation. None of the plans to which the section will apply has been validly passed as they currently stand. We are putting in place legislation which is essential to complete a process in order that we can say that we have waste management plans. Section 4 provides that having gone through the procedure, whether the decision is made by the manger or, as has happened in many cases, councillors, we will be in a position to implement what is contained in the plan. We are trying to avoid a situation where people might use aspects of other legislation, such as the Planning and Development Act, to prevent a waste management plan from being implemented. The question of retrospection does not apply in this case.
I appreciate the Minister's point of view. I wish to clarify that following the passage of the Bill the preparation of a plan, formerly a reserved function of members, will under this section be a reserved function of the manager. If members disagreed with what was contained in the original plan, it would not make sense to return to it. I would have thought that in such circumstances a manager would have to bring forward a new plan from the date of enactment of the Bill when such a plan would be given retrospective recognition.
While I appreciate the point made by the Minister, under the section retrospective recognition will be given to a waste management plan; it will be enshrined in law and given a special legal status that it did not have when prepared. If councillors knew when plans were being drawn up that they would be given that status subsequently, many plans, or, at least, the plan drawn up by the local authority of which I am a member would have been different in many ways.
An issue arises in the drafting of waste management plans in that most will be drafted by those with technical qualifications and consultants. The manager will have to rely on them together with his technical staff to make an assessment. Allegations have been made that some of the consultants concerned could have a vested interest in some of the proposals made in that they may act for persons who would make planning applications. There would be very significant fees involved. A facility mooted in my area was costed by its proposers, ESBI, at £80 million, of which 5% would be £4 million.
To ensure there is absolutely no conflict of interest any consultant drafting a plan should not be in a position to subsequently pursue an application or represent an applicant to the council. This issue needs to be looked at to ensure that we are not compromised in the manner in which plans will be presented to the council or to the manager in this instance.
I am reluctant to respond to an allegation that there are conflicts of interest in relation to drawing up regional waste management plans. The plans are already drawn up in draft form and have not been passed yet. Any element of the waste management plan that has to be implemented or any facility which has to be put in place by a local authority will obviously have a full and open procurement process. Accordingly, the question of a conflict of interest is not a real issue. I am aware of only two companies being involved in drafting plans and one should be very wary of accusing anybody of having a conflict of interest.
On the matter of decisions being made by managers, they will be aided by the steering group and will have to evaluate the technical quality and the rationale for any recommendations which come before the council, particularly in the context of variation of development plans. The full rigours of public procurement will apply, whether the facility is being provided by a local authority or on a PPP basis. I do not envisage that the difficulties to which the Senator referred will arise.
The north-eastern waste management plan has an illustration showing a recently opened therma-select gasification plant at Karlsruhe in Germany. The document states:
A newly commissioned plant in Germany uses the therma-select process, which combines partial porolisis in a pre-stage with oxygen-blown high temperature gasification, for the treatment of non-hazardous waste. The process looks promising, but is still in the early stages and needs to be closely monitored.
Suppose a consultant decides to opt for that process, what checks and balances are provided in the Bill to ensure that it is a credible decision? Perhaps the manager should refer the waste management plan to the Minister's Department for advice in that situation. A consultant could very well be mistaken in his conclusions.
I have not got a copy of the north-eastern waste management plan with me, but I read the plan, probably 12 months ago. The Senator referred to one particular illustration of the therma-select gasification process, which is a form of incineration or waste-to-energy recovery. The advice which has been available to me at all times is that gasification is probably one of the most promising of the thermal treatments when compared to thermolosis, pyrolysis, vitrification etc. However, I have always been advised that, although it may look promising, it is not a proven technology. Although some consultants and engineers think it has enormous potential, nobody opted specifically for gasification in the regional waste management plans because it is not proven technology. As Senator O'Dowd is aware, the particular plant referred to had to be closed because of measurable levels of emissions.
On the broader point made by the Senator, where a local authority chooses this particular route, landfill, waste water or whatever, the normal procedure is that a client's representative is appointed as a first step. The consultants appointed for that purpose, whether local, national or international, would be qualified to act on behalf of the local authority to ensure that the whole procurement procedure was properly put in place, including all the technical details. Where local authorities have not got the relevant in-house expertise, they can hire it in. The appointed client representative then vets the proposals for a particular facility, both from technical and overview perspectives. This safeguard system has worked well, whether for large contracts or otherwise, including waste water treatment facilities and waste management.
Appointing a client's representative does not necessarily involve the Department of the Environment and Local Government in the assessment. Department officials, for whom I have high regard, should have a role in the decision-making process and the Bill should in some way acknowledge that. The involvement of the Department, which has no vested interest in the matter, would help people to accept an argument which they may have strongly opposed.
The choice of thermal treatment technologies will be a matter for the regions to decide for themselves. The client's representative, acting on behalf of the regional groups, because it will be done on a regional basis, will advise on a range of matters, including the technical solutions, the selection of the projects and evaluation of the various technologies. The Department will participate in the regional steering groups dealing with implementation of the plan and I assure the Senator that it will also be involved in the oversight of the PPP procurement process.
I welcome that.
Question put.
Tá
|
Bohan, Eddie.Bonner, Enda.Callanan, Peter.Cassidy, Donie.Chambers, Frank.Cox, Margaret.Dardis, John.Farrell, Willie.Finneran, Michael.Fitzgerald, Tom.Gibbons, Jim.Glennon, Jim. |
Kett, Tony.Kiely, Daniel.Lydon, Don.Moylan, Pat.O'Brien, Francis.O'Donovan, Denis.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Ormonde, Ann.Quill, Máirín.Quinn, Feargal.Ross, Shane.Walsh, Jim. |
Níl
|
Burke, Paddy.Caffrey, Ernie.Connor, John.Coogan, Fintan.Cosgrave, Liam T.Cregan, Denis (Dino).Doyle, Joe.Hayes, Tom. |
Henry, Mary.Keogh, Helen.McDonagh, Jarlath.Manning, Maurice.O'Dowd, Fergus.O'Meara, Kathleen.Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine. |
Tellers: Tá, Senators T. Fitzgerald and Gibbons; Níl, Senators Burke and O'Meara.
Question declared carried.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 6, line 39, to delete "facility." and substitute the following:
"facility,
(e) the Minister shall appoint an administrative structure within his or her department to ensure compliance with Article 18 of the Council Directive 96/61/EC, Integrated Pollution and Control.”.
I will not delay the House because it is obvious what I would like to see here. Monitoring is always a good idea and I had hoped the Minister would appoint an administrative structure within his Department to ensure compliance with Article 18 of Council Directive 96/61/EC.
I do not propose to accept this amendment. It is unnecessary in the context of waste management. Article 18.1 of the IPPC directive provides that the Council of Ministers shall set emissions limit values – ELVs – in respect of emissions to air and water of an indicative list of polluting substances from a wide range of industrial and waste activities specified in the directive. Under Article 18.2 pending the development of community ELVs pursuant to this directive relevant ELVs are contained in 15 other specified directives and shall be applied as minimum values in respect of the industrial and waste activities concerned.
In so far as the regulatory control of waste activities is concerned, the requirements of Article 18.2 are already fully implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency. All significant waste recovery and disposal activities are licensed by the EPA under Part Five of the Waste Management Act, 1996. Under the waste management licensing regulations, 2000, the agency is required to attach to any waste licence granted by it such conditions as are necessary to give effect to specified provisions of specified community acts in so far as such provisions are relevant to the waste activity concerned. The specified provisions for this purpose include Article 18.2 of Directive 96/61/EC. Accordingly, the EPA applies the relevant ELVs as a minimum requirement in licensing activities. The Senator's worthy amendment is already catered for in legislation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
I am speaking on behalf of An Taisce here. They welcome this particular element of the Bill and the right of the Minister to prohibit certain wastes being recovered or disposed of. They make the point that the understanding is that the Minister has the power to guarantee to communities affected by incineration plants that wastes that are known to cause serious environmental pollution can be removed from the waste stream by regulation, notwithstanding licensing procedures. They would like to see an explanation of why and they suggest we should add to it the words "in order to prevent environmental pollution arising from the recovery or disposal of such waste". The reminder is that in everything to do with waste it is better to reuse rather than recycle. This explanation, if included in the Bill, would be of benefit to it. I propose this to the Minister because it would strengthen the Bill.
I would like to confirm that section 7 prohibits hazardous waste, plastics etc., which can cause pollutant problems.
I agree with the Senators and An Taisce's sentiment on this section of the Bill. Senators will accept that it is not normal in a Bill, for various reasons, not least that our friends in the Four Courts would ride rough shod over them, to state why a particular provision is included in a Bill. In reply to Senators Quinn and Walsh, we are taking the power to allow the Minister to remove harmful streams of waste. This applies to landfill and will apply to incineration or thermal treatment. Another reason is that if the waste streams are not segregated, it allows me to place a ban on certain types goods going into waste facilities and so force people to recycle and re-use. It would not be good practice to put the reason into the Bill, but I assure the Senators that I am at one with them on this.
I agree with what the Minister says about this. I recall our earlier discussion about the amount of newspapers, for instance, going into landfills. I also bring to his attention that An Taisce are concerned about PVC, batteries and treated wood going into any waste disposal facility, especially thermal treatment. I ask him to consider these when he makes regulations.
I will do so. Senator O'Meara's list appeared on the EPA guidelines about the burning of livestock, because of the foot and mouth outbreak, as items not to be used. We are aware of the problem. I also want to ensure that as much as possible construction and demolition waste is taken out of landfill as it causes a problem. This gives me the power to that and I intend to use it in that way.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Government amendment No. 12:
In page 7, line 5, to delete "designed and intended to be supplied to" and substitute "which is suitable for use by".
It is proposed to amend the definition of a plastic bag in section 72 of the Bill providing for the imposition of an environment levy on such bags and other potentially environmentally problematic products. After consultation with the Revenue Commissioners, it is considered appropriate for the purposes of implementation of the levy to define a plastic bag by reference to its composition, that is wholly or partially of plastic, and suitability for use at retail checkouts, rather than by reference to the concept of designed and intended for such use.
It is worth recalling that the purpose of this levy is litter management. It is designed to discourage the use of plastic bags. Even if manufacturers' claims about the biodegradability of certain plastic bags are accurate, they still end up on hedges and elsewhere, perhaps for not as long but it is still unsightly litter. I am not inclined to make that distinction.
A further consideration regarding any exemption is the implications for the implementation and enforcement of the regulations. People could have great fun deciding whether a bag was biodegradable or non-biodegradable. It would be open to a supplier to claim that his bags were biodegradable and exempt. The phrase used by an infamous English judge springs to mind, an appalling vista. We are trying for as reasonable a definition as possible. I commend the amendment to the House.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 7, line 8, after "a bag" to insert "supplied for the purposes of a waste management plan or".
I support action to reduce the use and proliferation of plastic bags but I am not convinced about how we will do that, specifically how this levy will work. I support the Minister's intention but hoped that he would ban them. We should start at that point and then move backwards towards allowing plastic bags for specific purposes such as hygiene in supermarkets or food outlets, where the Food Safety Authority might require them. On the Continent there are no plastic bags at supermarket checkouts. The customer is expected to bring a reusable bag. That should be our aim. I hope this levy will have that effect.
Some bags should not be levied. One is the heavy duty plastic bag which some supermarkets encourage and sell for 10p or 50p. They should not be seen in the same context as the ubiquitous plastic bag we want to get rid of. Their use should be encouraged.
This amendment is designed to ensure that the bag which consumers buy from local waste management companies for collection is not levied. The charges for these bin bags are increasing. It is largely single householders or old people, who do not generate huge amounts of waste and do not require a wheelie bin, who use this type of bag. They should not be levied because they are not the same as the plastic bags which litter the countryside causing a major problem.
While I support the Minister's intention and the spirit of the Bill in this regard, we must tease out how it will work in practice. I ask him to consider this amendment positively.
I support the amendment. The Minister's objective is excellent. We want fewer plastic bags. Senator O'Meara's amendment concerns a significant area of activity and would be useful. It will be absolutely impossible to collect the levy – it will be a nightmare for everybody. What is simplest is best, although I do not know what is the simplest thing to do. When I said that we should ban plastic bags I did not understand that the cost of producing paper bags was so high, as outlined by Senator Quinn. I would be happy to ban plastic bags, although it may not make sense as one wonders how the law might be applied. What the Minister said is good and constructive, but I am not happy with the mechanism proposed.
Senator O'Meara's amendment suggests that after the word "bags" we insert the words "supplied for the purposes of a waste management plan or". It will be very difficult to include such a provision in the Bill. The meat will be in the order made by the Minister, and while I understand exactly what the Senator is trying to do, namely, to exclude a certain type of bag, I could table 20 similar amendments. I have not done so, however, as the provision must be flexible enough to allow the Minister to make changes by order in order that he is not forced to return to the Oireachtas to introduce amending legislation. I have no problem supporting what is being suggested by the Senator. My problem is with including such details in legislation rather than ministerial orders.
I have often heard of the legislation pertaining to the muzzling of certain dogs introduced within hours or days of a crisis when a child was bitten by a dog. It was never enforced. The general tenor of the provision is to empower the Minister to make an order which can be adjusted over time. I doubt if matters will be exactly right from the outset, and I would hate to find that we have to return the legislation to the Oireachtas to cover other areas. If we start inserting details such as that proposed by the Senator, we could have an additional 20 amendments, but such detail should not form part of the Bill. The legislation will be more effective if it gives the Minister the ability to make orders which can be changed.
We are all in favour of what the Minister is trying to do, but it will be extraordinarily difficult. Senator Quinn has the most experience of dealing with plastic bags and is, probably, correct in saying the detail should be left to ministerial orders. We must change the philosophy in order that people do not look for plastic bags. On Second Stage Senator Dardis said that every Sunday morning he buys the newspapers and the same nice girl asks if he would like a plastic bag, to which he always says no. I would say that every Member has had the same experience. I tell people in shops not to offer plastic bags, that people should be made beg for them. I am told, however, that people ask for plastic bags, even for a packet of crisps. I have tabled an amendment to ensure that, at least, an attempt is made to charge people for bags. I do not know what we can do if we do not change the philosophy.
Senators have mentioned attitudes in other countries, particularly Germany where one is viewed as a Vandal or Goth if one looks for a plastic bag, even to carry some bread and a couple of slices of ham for a picnic. A huge effort is required about which the legislation may do something. What we must work on is the philosophy which is down to each of us.
The only manufacturer of plastic bags in Ireland is located in my constituency about four miles from where I live. The Minister will appreciate the pressure I am under, not only from the employees, but also from the distributors. The factory was called Europlast and owned by Údarás na Gaeltachta. It got into difficulty a number of years ago and was taken over by EPI, an Italian company. The employers maintain that the levy has been tried in other countries and proved unsuccessful – at least, that is what I am told. The employees are very concerned as there were over 50 employed in the company when owned by Údarás, a figure which has now been reduced to 24 or 25. This also concerns a number of distributors who travel the country selling the bags and who have also contacted me. The jobs are at risk as there have been difficulties. Raw material costs have increased by over 40% and the two other manufacturers in the country have closed. Perhaps in time no bags will be manufactured in Ireland, which would be a solution for the Minister.
The employees have asked me to raise the issue. The distributors are asking me who will be responsible for collecting the levy when introduced. I understand the shopkeeper will be responsible. From my experience in accountancy and dealing with shopkeepers who may not be as large or as well organised as Senator Quinn, there will be huge scope for malpractice in terms of collecting the money. I am not arguing that it should be collected at the manufacturing stage, which would, probably, ensure the levy was paid, but there will be huge practical issues.
Employees have also asked if the levy will be applied to all plastic bags. For example, will small plastic bags used for pick and mix carry a levy of 15p? Another issue is the choice of using a box or plastic bag. I prefer a bag as I find it easier to dispose of in a proper manner whereas a cardboard box could be thrown anywhere. Will people who provide cardboard boxes be charged? I accept that there is much pollution due to plastic bags, which can be seen on trees, along rivers, etc. The biggest source of litter pollution, however, is fast food take-aways as a result of the boxes and papers used for packaging. It will be unfair to charge shopkeepers for plastic bags while those who own take-aways will not have to pay for cardboard boxes, etc.
I ask the Minister to clarify a number of these issues. I raise the issue primarily on behalf of the employees of the Gaeltacht company concerned.
Despite what Senator Bonner said, I have no great philosophical opposition to the banning of plastic bags. We are, however, bound by EU law, including the packaging directive. We cannot ban packaging, which is consistent with that directive. Some countries have tried to ban different things resulting in matters coming before the European Court of Justice. That is the reason we took the route of imposing a levy to tackle the problem of plastic bags. We are talking about 1.2 billion plastic bags, about 350 plastic bags for every man, woman and child per annum.
I have noticed somewhat of a change in attitude. Shops almost throw plastic bags at customers. My daughter was working for a time in a service station and at the time there was a lot of publicity about the plastic bags levy. She said that it was remarkable that once the 10p levy was mentioned, many customers chose not to take a plastic bag for their purchases. It illustrated to me that if a ban is not possible, a monetary charge will make people aware of the problem.
Senator Quinn is correct in his points about this specific amendment. This has been a learning curve for all of us both in the Department and in other places such as the Revenue Commissioners. We have been trying to get this right and I do not think we will be totally successful on the first attempt. Initially, I thought the best way to collect this levy was at the distributor and manufacturer level. It was explained to us after much consultation with various groups that there would be a danger of abuse from the point of view of people importing from Northern Ireland or elsewhere. We are now back to the idea of the levy being charged at retail level. We think that the levy should be 15p because the collection of the levy by the Revenue Commissioners must also be paid for. We are unanimous in the spirit of this amendment because I believe the Senator wishes to exclude certain types of bags from the levy, such as the alternative bags offered by supermarkets. The regulations will deal with the size and composition of the bag and the exemptions. We will then have flexibility if that is needed. I accept the spirit of the amendment but I wish to deal with those issues in regulations.
I have every sympathy with Senator Bonner in relation to the points raised by him both today and over the past year. However, I must look at the broader picture even though I appreciate that the Senator must think about his local area. I would be concerned if any job losses were incurred but I am thinking of the greater good.
A charge for plastic bags operates in some countries – it operates very successfully in Denmark. I note that I was being blamed for the closure of a factory making plastic bags in County Clare. It closed down in anticipation of the 10p or 15p limit. I would regret if this measure had a serious effect on employment. We must think of alternatives to the plastic bag.
Cardboard is a recyclable material and is more biodegradable than plastic, and we do not intend to have charges on cardboard containers. I note the Senator's point about the materials used by take-away restaurants and this has become a significant cause of waste. There are provisions in the Litter Pollution Act which will have to be implemented. Plastic bags, aluminium beverage containers, plastic PET bottles and litter from take-aways are the most visible signs of litter, and action will have to be taken on them.
I have no illusions about the difficulties to be faced in implementing these measures. Apart from initial resistance, and once it is accepted that we will be introducing a levy, retailers and the Plastic Industries Association of Ireland have been extremely co-operative. I acknowledge that co-operation even though I know that many would have preferred if it was not introduced. I am aware there will be difficulties.
Will the levy be exempt from VAT? Will very small sweet bags be exempt?
The regulations are not yet finalised, but it is not intended that smaller bags used within the store for meat or sweets would be taxed. VAT is included in the levy. I have secured an agreement with my colleague that the VAT charges will be reimbursed to the environment fund.
In the light of the Minister's response, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 14:
In page 7, line 17, after "bags" to insert "or otherwise".
The purpose of this amendment is to provide that the proposed environment levy can in principle apply to the supply of plastic bags to a customer anywhere in the retail premises. This is another example of trying to anticipate different situations. It is simply to ensure that retailers would not offer plastic bags to customers as they enter the store and then not charge at the checkout. Anyone procuring a plastic bag in the store will have to pay the levy. That is the purpose of the amendment.
No supermarket would think like that.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 8, to delete lines 12 to 16, and substitute the following:
"(e)requiring that the levy be charged as a billable item payable by the final consumer in such a manner as specified by the consumer,”.
I know that the Minister will agree to this amendment because his heart is in the right place about this. I do not mind if the Minister specifies how the levy should be payable. It is important that the person who gets the plastic bag pays. I do not agree with Senator Bonner's idea that it could be factored into the manufacturing price. How would the customer be aware of that? I am worried that the retailer will build it into their prices. Senator Quinn on Second Stage said that it would be too big a factor to build into retail prices, but I am not so sure that everyone would feel like this. We must change the attitude to the use of plastic bags. Some 350 bags per person per year are used. With any luck, until we get people to turn their minds to carrying Ugandan or Mexican baskets, as I do, the State could collect £50 per person per year.
We hear a great deal about the principle of making the polluter pay and Pigouvian taxes. The consumer of an article must be the one to pay the tax. I envisage one's bill being rung up on the supermarket till and the cashier saying, "and £1.50 for ten plastic bags." That would make quite a difference to one's bill. A customer in a service station who normally demands several bags for crisps and bars of chocolate and is charged an extra 45p for three plastic bags might be inclined to use fewer of them.
Senator Quinn expressed concern to me as to how my proposal would operate. Simply say, "20p for the bananas, 50p for three and 15p for the plastic bag." They will be collecting money for the Minister too. Unless, however, the last person is the one paying the levy, the measure will achieve nothing. The Minister may wish to reword my amendment, but I hope he will ensure the last person in the line knows he or she is paying the levy.
I do not always agree with the Senator, but in this case her heart and head are both in the right place. A tax paid by the person who demands and uses the plastic bag would have great benefits. The Minister hopes he will receive no money from this tax, but that the attitude of the public will change in order that they will refuse to pay 15p and stop using nasty, litter-bugging plastic bags. If that happens, the environmental fund will gain nothing, but the country will be cleared of a major element of litter. If we avoid using plastic bags, the benefit in the fight against inflation will be substantial. The cost of 350 bags per person is considerable. If we do not use any plastic bags, the cost to the nation will come down. Although Senator Bonner spoke of the factory in County Donegal which manufactures plastic bags, the vast majority are now imported.
How will the tax be collected? Senator Henry's proposal makes a great deal of sense. I am not sure how the price of a plastic bag would be written on the bottom of a receipt, as she proposes. How would the price be recorded for a plastic bag containing a few apples bought in Moore Street, where a receipt is not given? These are technicalities which the Minister must address.
The benefit of this measure in the fight against inflation is huge. On the other hand, it will be a great blow to our fight against inflation if the public pays this tax. A grocery bill will increase by 15p every time a plastic bag is used. If a customer uses ten plastic bags, the cost of his or her groceries will increase by £1.50. That would not be acceptable in the fight against inflation.
The Minister should consider the feasibility of accepting the amendment. I am aware Senator Henry's intention is good. I am not sure how the levy will be collected and do not think the Minister is fully sure either. I do not like the thought of returning to the old rate collection system whereby entrepreneurs would be appointed to collect taxes on behalf of the Government. The Minister appears to have something like this in mind. Unless the tax is collected in a way similar to that suggested by Senator Henry, it will not be collected easily. The Minister's original intention was to collect the levy at source. If that system were adopted, a large number of entrepreneurs would cross the Border, load the boots of their cars with plastic bags and no tax would ever be collected for them. The question of collection is of interest and one which we will be interested to hear the Minister clarify.
The concept of Senator Henry's amendment, that every customer who uses a plastic bag would be aware of how much he or she was paying for it, would be a huge disincentive to using plastic bags. For that reason it may achieve what the Minister wants and the tax will not yield a penny. If that happens we will have less litter and helped to reduce inflation by reducing the price of food.
The Minister referred to supermarkets, petrol service stations and other outlets. I have a fear the concentration will be in one area alone. Takeaway food outlets are a much greater source of litter, a matter we will discuss when we consider a later amendment. Our concern here is with changing the attitude of shoppers by having them pay for plastic bags.
I am a major polluter. Among the 18 shops which my company controls there is a huge difference in attitude. In some of my company's shops one customer in ten uses reusable bags and in others, not far away from them, almost nine in ten customers use them. When asked, the vast majority say that they have not got around to using reusable bags and would, probably, do so if forced. I believe it was President Roosevelt who said, "Speak softly but carry a big stick". The legislation contains a very large 15p stick. If this measure succeeds, the environmental fund will derive no income from the levy. Attitudes are more likely to be changed if Senator Henry's amendment, or something similar, is accepted and the final user is the one who is aware that he or she must pay.
The sentiments expressed in the amendment underscore the principle of making the polluter pay. If we could garner the same level of public support as has been shown in the fight against foot and mouth disease against the proliferation of litter, we would be taking a step in the right direction. This should be the objective of the Department and the Bill.
The Minister is to be complimented on his initiative in introducing this charge. When one hears that 1.2 billion bags are used annually it is no wonder the countryside is strewn with torn plastic. The countryside is strewn with plastic bags although we are trying to keep it clean. I am sure that charging for them will be a deterrent against the use of plastic bags. I was surprised to find that only brown paper bags are issued in supermarkets in the United States. This also happens in chip shops in the UK and elsewhere. I do not know why they are no longer used here. Perhaps we need to educate people to bring the shopping bag back into use. I compliment the Minister on introducing this charge.
I agree with much of the debate which I have heard. There is a Drogheda retailer, who actually lives in the Minister's constituency in County Meath, who gives a 15 pence refund on goods when people bring in their own bags. He sells clothes and other such items which would cost more than a few pounds, and admits that while people laugh they are happy to take the money back.
I agree that education is critical. There is a degree of consensus on the issue of waste management. We can all work together on it. I believe it is possible to change people's minds through a campaign that is both national and local as well as targeting schools.
I agree with Senator Kiely. Before plastic bags we used paper or string bags. In that way recycling comes into play.
I thank the Senators for their support. I am not accepting Senator Henry's amendment because it is already in the Waste Management Act, 1996.
I have it here in my paw.
Section 29(4)(j) of the 1996 Act empowers the Minister by regulation to require the owner or manager of any specified sales outlet to impose a charge on a customer in respect of the provision by him or her to the customer of any bag, container or other such packaging.
I intend to make the regulations under section 29 of that Act, which is already in place, requiring that the retailers pass on the full amount of the proposed levy to customers. The enabling provision in the proposed section 8(6)(e) is intended to allow the Minister to require in regulations that the imposition of the levy in respect of the supply of plastic bags has to be clearly specified on the relevant till roll supplied to the customers.
I take the point that Senator Quinn made in relation to certain parts of the city and perhaps other cities as well. It is catered for. As the Senator would be aware, I have had some discussions with IBEC and retailers etc. They were concerned that this levy should not be seen as an imposition by them on their customers. I have no difficulty with retailers putting up signs beside their tills indicating that the 15p levy is for the environment fund. This addresses the concerns of retailers that they would be taking the blame for this. I seem to be blamed for much that is happening or not happening in this country, so I do not mind taking that on my shoulders as well.
The essential point is that everyone is aware that they are paying for the plastic bag, why they are paying for it and what the money is used for. Some Senators have called it an environmental tax and I would agree with that. It will be a function of the Revenue Commissioners to collect this levy. It will apply to all retailers, not just the larger multiples who might be considered an easy target.
There are various ways one can improve education and increase awareness. Putting up signs is one way and itemising it on receipts is another, as well as having direct action programmes. In Nova Scotia the emphasis on educating the public was very apparent. The efforts to make people aware of the issues appear to have paid off. It would be my intention to divert any potential income from the "plastic bags tax" from the environment fund into concentrated awareness-raising measures. That will help us all to reduce, re-use and recycle. I can assure Senator Henry that what is being sought in this amendment is already in place, and will be put in place by the regulations under section 29(4)(j).
It is not in the Bill. I thought for a moment I had missed something. I have a big star beside this area. This says quite clearly that the manager of the supermarket, service station or otherwise must impose a charge on a customer in respect of the provision by him or her to the customer of any bag.
I want it to be a billable item. Of course they can impose the charge, but it might get lost in all the other charges and be overlooked. When one looks at a bill one sees so much for VAT, so much for the service charge etc. I want plastic bag charge to be in the same category. The Minister would be wise to take my advice.
The imposition of a charge can be built into the price, but if it is a billable item such as £1.50 for ten plastic bags, would that not make one sit up? I want the person who is getting the plastic bag to be fully aware of it. All kinds of charges can be built in, such as charges for cleaning the floor etc. It is important to me that it be a billable item.
The Minister is far too young to remember a nasty item called turnover tax, from 1971 if I remember correctly. I had not thought this through until Senator Henry put this down. It was 2.5% and later became 5%. I think it was in 1972 that a bright entrepreneur named Pat Quinn announced that he would pay the turnover tax. While the rest of us showed the turnover tax at the end of the bill, he did not. He was out of business a couple of months later. He made this great play that he would pay this tax for people, that he did not charge turnover tax.
Senator Henry is saying that it is not enough to build in the charge, as there will always be someone to make the promise to pay that nasty tax for their customers. I support the Minister and I believe that Senator Henry is attempting to give him the power to help him to change attitudes and educate the public. I gave the example some time ago that many would be ashamed or unhappy to walk down Grafton Street in a fur coat because it is not acceptable behaviour. The same applies to those who still use, but are no longer happy to use plastic bags. We shall debate later which bags should be levied.
Senator Kiely referred to the use of brown paper bags in the United States. Brown paper bags are unacceptable as they would add to inflation, are more expensive and, more important, not environmentally acceptable. The only way we can win is to encourage people to use bags over and over again, not one trip bags. That is the Minister's objective. Whether the bag is plastic or paper, the fact that it is used only once does not achieve the objective. I support Senator Henry in that the person who buys the bag should pay for it. Her amendment is worthy of support.
We will be making regulations under both section 29, to ensure the charge is passed on, and under section 72(6)(e), as inserted by section 8, to ensure it is reflected in the till roll receipt. What will be done in the regulations will meet exactly what Senators are proposing. There is no difference between us on the matter, except that we propose to do it under section 29 and this section which will become section 72(6)(e) of the 1996 Act.
Section 72.
Yes, as inserted by section 8. The two matters the Senator desires, the separate charge—
I am sorry, but I notice that section 72 is a new section.
Section 8 will become section 72 of the 1996 Act. The Senator's amendment is fully catered for.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".
Tá
|
Bohan, Eddie.Bonner, Enda.Callanan, Peter.Cassidy, Donie.Chambers, Frank.Cox, Margaret.Dardis, John.Farrell, Willie.Finneran, Michael.Fitzgerald, Tom.Gibbons, Jim.Glennon, Jim. |
Kett, Tony.Kiely, Daniel.Lanigan, Mick.Lydon, Don.Moylan, Pat.O'Brien, Francis.O'Donovan, Denis.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Ormonde, Ann.Quill, Máirín.Walsh, Jim. |
Níl
|
Burke, Paddy.Caffrey, Ernie.Connor, John.Coogan, Fintan.Cregan, Denis (Dino).Doyle, Joe.Hayes, Tom.Henry, Mary. |
Keogh, Helen.McDonagh, Jarlath.Manning, Maurice.O'Dowd, Fergus.O'Meara, Kathleen.Quinn, Feargal.Ross, Shane.Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine. |
Tellers: Tá, Senators T. Fitzgerald and Gibbons; Níl, Senators Henry and Quinn.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I have already said that legislation is not the best way of dealing with this. However, I am concerned with the details and seek to influence the regulations when the Minister comes to make them. When will those regulations come into being? The Minister mentioned 1 January, which gives us time to take steps, but I am not sure if that is correct.
Some of the amendments have touched on my main point on the objective of the Bill, which is to change behaviour. If we are to change behaviour I want to make sure the Bill works when enacted. I do not want to find there are flaws in it, therefore our attitude should be that those who at present use plastic bags at the checkout for their goods cease doing so and switch their behaviour to using the same container, whether it is a box, shopping bag or carrier basket such as our grandparents used.
I know something of the bags used at our checkouts and a number of us are experimenting with new containers that will have many benefits. One of them is a heavy duty bag which costs 10p at present but those who buy it use it over and over again. It would be a shame if the legislation did not take into account the difference between that heavy duty bag which is used over and over and the flimsy light bag which ends up creating litter. I do not know how the Minister is to do that in regulations but it is important he does so.
There are three types of bags in a supermarket, although I know I should not just be talking about supermarkets, as take-aways and other types of shop also cause litter through plastic bags. The first type are the bags used at the checkout into which goods are put. The objective of this legislation is to stop such bags being used and to have something else take their place. The second type of bag is one into which, for example, one would place cooked ham to keep it separate from other foods, if only for food hygiene and safety reasons. It is essential that these bags are not taxed, even if they are plastic, because they are there for food safety. If we charge 15p for those bags the inflation cost will be huge. I know that is not the intention but we must make that clear.
The third type of bag used in supermarkets is not what is used for wet fresh foods but for other foods. If one buys half a dozen apples and half a dozen pears one needs some form of container to keep the apples separate from the pears and one probably uses a plastic bag for the six apples and six pears, as they must be kept separate if they are sold at different prices. It is important that these are not charged at 15p each also.
I do not know the solution to this but it may relate to the secondary bag. In other words, if a product is put in some sort of wrapping, whether it is a packet of crisps, as Senator Henry said, a few apples or some cooked ham, it already has a wrapper around it. It is the bag one then puts those into at the checkout which we aim to tackle with this measure.
I am not attempting to change the legislation but the regulations should take something like that into account. On that basis there would be no effect on inflation, we would achieve what we are setting out to do but we would also keep the challenge of food safety very high on the agenda. I am anxious to make sure the legislation works, as is the Minister, and we do not want it to fall down due to something we did not foresee like food safety. Between inflation and food safety there is a challenge and the answer may be in directing the regulations towards tackling the outer container. This may not be the occasion to solve the take-away problem because if one puts a hamburger into a piece of paper and then into another wrapper, the other wrapper will have a tax on it, whereas if one keeps it in one container it will not be taxed.
That may be the way to go and I suggest this not to influence the legislation but so that the Minister takes it into account when making the regulations.
This is a good section in that it taxes plastic bags. The attraction of the plastic bag is in its convenience but another factor contributes to the growth in use of plastic bags, they are very advertiser-friendly. The Minister should consider a regulation which would stop such bags being used for advertising but which would stipulate, on the contrary, that the bag would carry a message stating that use of the bag is ecologically unfriendly. I know that has not been very successful with cigarettes but it is part of education and awareness. If one took away the opportunity to avail of the bag – we are trying to discourage use of the bag given the difficulties with its disposal – one could not have an advertisement. A statement on the bag raising awareness of the problem would also help. This may not be the relevant section but such a provision would strengthen the purpose of the tax.
RG Data contacted Deputy Clune and she faxed me some of their questions, although most of them have been answered. What will happen when a consumer refuses to pay the levy for a plastic bag? What exemptions from the levy will apply, if any, and in what circumstances will refunds of the levy be repaid? Will there be exemptions for specific classes of retailers and, if so, on what basis will they be granted?
Most Senators, including Senator Quinn, have said that the primary pur pose of the legislation is to influence consumers to try to move away from the use of plastic bags. For that reason, the intention is that the charge for the bag will be separate and will appear on the Bill, as I said earlier. Senator Quinn also mentioned "bags for life" schemes which have been promoted by shops and retail outlets prior to the commencement of this scheme. It is not intended that bags that are consistently used should be affected by regulation. We are trying to deal with those bags that end up on trees and in bushes.
We realise that there are items that need to be protected for hygiene and food safety reasons. The Food Safety Authority has pointed out the need to separate what it calls wet foods in small bags. If we thought that people were trying to use this to evade the tax we would have to take it on board. I would not be as open to the Senator's suggestion to allow bags for apples and pears, as it is not intended that small bags be taxed at 15p. I disagree with the Senator as I think that apples and pears can be bought loose and put into shopping baskets and charged for on an individual basis. Such items have too much packaging and it is not a matter of hygiene.
I like the Senator's idea regarding the "secondary bag" which would be useful if we could come up with a tight definition of it. Senator Walsh and I recall that greaseproof paper was used extensively for goods until multiple retailers and multiple stores came on the scene. I also recall that it was once common to get one's chips wrapped in newspaper. Perhaps that is another good use for newspapers, a problem we discussed.
They burn much easier too.
As regards the starting date, I want to give fair warning that it is our intention to start to collect the levy in the autumn, subject to being able to finalise details. I have told officials that they should make that known to people now. We have had talks in relation to this with retailers and IBEC and it is only fair that we allow the maximum possible lead-in time. The reference to 1 January next that a Senator asked about may be the specific mention to the Euro changeover, when the levy will be 19 cents. It is also intended that the landfill levy will start on 1 January 2002.
Senator Walsh asked about putting a message on the bag, but I am worried that a message saying that the consumer is paying a 15p charge for an environmental fund will make people think "this is wonderful, give me ten bags, keep the balance". Senator Quinn might confirm it was suggested when this tax was first proposed that my photograph be put on bags with a caption saying "This man is making consumers pay 15p". I am very disappointed that did not go ahead, particularly so close to a general election.
Senator O'Dowd asked a number of questions that I did not quite catch. His last question concerned exemptions for certain retailers, but there is no such provision whether the outlet is large or small. He also asked what happens if a customer refuses to pay for the bags. What happens if a customer refuses to pay for goods in a shop? The shopkeeper does not give them the goods, it is as straightforward as that.
My question was actually related to exemptions that may apply to the levy, but the Minister already said that there are none.
I assume the Senator refers to exemptions based on the type of bag and so on, which I have already dealt with.
The Minister has already dealt with that.
I hope I am not opening up a loophole.
The Senator can contact me later if there is.
If there is a loophole I am sure the Minister will close it before this Bill goes to the Dáil. It struck me when Senator Quinn was talking about apples and pears that such items are often carried in nets which may be made from plastic. I wonder if nets are covered within the scope of this Bill, as if they are not I can see creative people finding a way around the levy. If one creates a plastic bag with a lot of holes in it, suddenly it is not a plastic bag anymore.
I also have a question about subsection (6)(h) of this section, which enables the payment of the levy to be deferred by specified persons in specified circumstances. I wonder what specified person the Minister has in mind for this exemption. Senator Quinn's query about different sizes of bags is covered by paragraph (f) of the subsection which allows the Minister to designate certain sizes and composition of bags that would be unacceptable.
I welcome this section. In previous discussions with the Minister I suggested that he designate a national package-free day, similar to the national car-free day. I still hope he considers the idea, which came from a community member of the strategic policy committee in Galway. Before the tax on plastic bags is introduced, I hope that we run the national package-free day as a pilot scheme whereby anybody who goes to a supermarket or store would be encouraged to leave packaging behind. This would include plastic bags, packaging around apples, cardboard boxes around cornflakes and toothpaste as well as the other various wrappings used on a daily basis, particularly in supermarkets.
Following discussion at local council level and an endorsement of this by Galway Corporation, a constituent told me that manufacturers in Switzerland have changed the way they package goods as a result of changed consumer habits. Tubes of toothpaste are no longer surrounded by a plastic box and everything is much more environmentally friendly as a result of the elimination of waste. While I did not hear all Senator Quinn's address, I will tell him what happened when I was at the checkout of a supermarket while in Austria recently. Following the checking out of one's goods, if one picked up a plastic bag which was available an extra amount of money would have to be paid.
We pay such levies when abroad so I think we will do so here when we go to the supermarket. Just as we gave millennium candles to everybody in the country, perhaps we could distribute cloth bags for life sponsored by the Department of the Environment and Local Government. Such sponsorship would be a really nice initiative from the Minister at the launch of the campaign. Instead of putting his name on plastic bags, the Minister could put his Department's name on a cloth bag.
That is a good idea. Is that unanimous?
On Senator Cox's point about a national day, my company had a national day last year on 15 May and it worked very well. We charged 10p a bag for charity and a very large number of people were willing to participate because it was fun and there was much excitement. For those who were not willing to participate, we found a way of putting our hands in our pockets and saying that if they did not want to pay for it, we would pay for it. There were very few who would not participate. One can do that but there would be a need for a marketing effort behind it.
I know we are not talking about the Bill here and I am sorry for using it so that the Minister will understand the importance of my point. The point I want to get across about the bags is that there is no doubt about food hygiene because I am sure the Minister will not do anything which would suggest that we would not separate cooked meats from other meats.
I am talking about trying to do too much in this Bill. For instance, I made a point about apples and pears. When a supermarket customer wants to buy mushrooms, carrots, apples and pears, this does not pose a food safety problem, but the way that is done at present involves putting them in bags, weighing them and then paying for them at the checkout. It seems that if the Minister says that different produce should not be put in separate bags, that they should be all put together, that will not be an acceptable behaviour change to expect from the public. If the Minister wants to get people to change, he should not challenge the behaviour of people to such a great degree. There could be a reaction. It could be like what happened in the case of the dog muzzle.
The answer lies in primary and second packaging. Senator Cox talked about the way people behave at checkouts in other countries, but we are talking about the final packaging rather than individual packaging. We could go on about that too long. I believe that this legislation can work but perhaps we should not try to change everything. We certainly should not do something which has such an effect on inflation that there would be an outcry against it and it would not work as a result.
Senator Dardis raised the question of whether the use of nets or other ingenious means of trying to get around this levy would be catered for. We will obviously consider everything we possibly can when we are drafting the regulations. We probably will not think of everything because there is great ingenuity out there. I am aware of the kind of netted bags to which he referred but those would be more environmentally friendly, even if they are made of plastic, than ordinary plastic bags.
On the very good point the Senator raised regarding deferments of payment of the levy in specified circumstances, I mentioned that originally we envisaged that payment of the levy on plastic bags would be made by the distributors and manufacturers of plastic bags. In such circumstances they would need time to get the money in from the customers and, therefore, we provided for this built-in deferment period. We have changed the method of payment because it is the retailers who will pay the levy. We do not anticipate that there will be any deferment of payment of the levy but we are leaving it in as a contingency. It is a belt and braces approach.
We would have no problem with the idea of a package free day, as I said to Senator Cox when she raised this matter with me some time ago. I do not think that initially we will set about promoting such a day but if a local authority, using its initiative, introduced it on a pilot basis, we would be interested in seeing the reaction to it and whether it could work. It is part of a wider question to which the Senator referred, that is, the question of educating and-or creating awareness of these issues. Anything like that which we do can only be for the better.
On the proposal of a bag for life, we have received a proposal from An Taisce along the same lines. An Taisce has proposed that we would give out a bag at the launch of the levy to heighten awareness etc. and that is something which we are actively considering. It probably would be a good idea.
I want to make the general point again, because perhaps I took what Senator Quinn said about apples and pears too literally. We are trying to create an awareness of too much packaging in certain fruits. I accept what the Senator said about mushrooms and other such foods where it is not a food safety issue, but apples, pears, carrots and various other foods come in polystyrene trays, wrapped in plastic and perhaps wrapped again in something else. We are actively trying to ensure that there will be less of that and that people make the choices and decide to purchase loose produce as much as possible. I repeat that it is not our intention currently to go down the route of putting a levy on the primary packaging to which Senator Quinn referred.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Amendment No. 16 is a Government amendment. Amendment No. 17 is cognate. Therefore, amendments Nos. 16 and 17 may be discussed together by agreement.
Government amendment No. 16:
In page 10, line 38, after "paragraph 1" to insert "or 5".
These are technical amendments for the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the proposed landfill levy can be applied in respect of all landfill activity. Paragraph 1 of the Third Schedule of the 1996 Act, which specifies a range of waste disposal activities, relates to the deposit of waste "on, in or under land", including landfill. However, paragraph (v) of the Schedule specifies "Specially engineered landfill, including placement into lined discrete cells which are capped and isolated from one another and the environment". While landfill in such facilities may be taken as a sub-set of the activity specified in paragraph 1, reference should be made in the proposed section 72 to both paragraphs for the avoidance of doubt. It is a technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 17:
In page 10, line 40, after "paragraph 1" to insert "or 5".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 18:
In page 11, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
"(4) Subject to subsection (3), regulations under subsection (1) may specify, as respects the amount of the levy payable under them, different such amounts by reference to different activities referred to in any of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1) in respect of which the levy is so payable.”.
The primary purpose of this amendment is the avoidance of doubt. It makes explicit the power to impose the proposed landfill levy at different rates in respect of landfill of different classes of waste or in respect of different types of landfill activity or both. This enabling power to specify different rates of levy is subject to subsection (3), which specifies the maximum initial amount of levy at £15, or 19. The purpose is to be careful to avoid doubt and to give us the power to do it at a later stage. There is no proposal at present that there will be different levels but it is prudent to provide that there may be different rates in the future.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 10, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
While I welcome most of what is contained in section 10, I have a couple of questions. The landfill levy is to be posed locally. In other words, the local authority or whoever operates the facility will impose the levy. As I understand it, the money will be forwarded to the Exchequer. It is likely that the communities in the vicinity of the landfill sites will not be particularly happy because waste management facilities have an impact on the local environment.
If local authorities collect the tax, as they would in most cases, I urge the Minister to ensure a significant amount of the money raised locally, particularly by way of the landfill levy – I would not prescribe that it should be 40% or 50% and presume the Minister will ensure regulations are drawn up to deal with the matter – would be used locally to ameliorate the stress caused by the facility and support and improve environmental amenities within the county or town. If all the money raised locally by way of such a landfill levy was used nationally, an important benefit that could accrue to a local community would be lost forever. I have not read the detail on the imposition of a landfill levy in the United Kingdom, although I am aware that there were some incidences of fraud. Could that be a factor in the imposition of such a levy here and, if so, how would we deal with it?
I do not have a difficulty with the principle of imposing a levy. It is a sensible proposal. If we support the polluter pays principle, a levy should be imposed. Its imposition, however, would give rise to a potential difficulty. Illegal dumping presents a terrible problem in certain parts of my constituency. Some even dump material quite openly. It seems to take the local authority and the EPA a long time to deal with the problem in terms of the legal process that has to be gone through and eventually the stage may be reached where it is established that there is contempt. The long time taken to deal with such offenders is an encouragement to dump material illegally. Dumping presents a particular problem in the boglands in my constituency. It is practised by individuals rather than an organised offence.
To pick up on Senator O'Dowd's point, in which there is a good deal of merit, it would be useful if some of the moneys collected by way of such a levy were allocated to ensuring a local authority has the necessary manpower or resources to deal effectively with this activity which is being practised willy nilly and a blight on the landscape. There are two aspects to it, one of which is the ad hoc tipping of a skip in a bogland area. The other, which is more difficult to identify, is getting rid of other material in a large facility at which it is specified that only rubble should be dumped.
Senators raised some good points on the section. There is nothing to stop a local authority, as contained in the waste management policy document, Changing our Ways, including a charge or provision in the conditions covering a landfill to provide for a community relief or community fund, although I note the point made by Senator O'Dowd specifically in regard to a landfill levy.
On the question of fraud in the collection of such a tax, having read some of the material on this area, I recollect that the incidence of fraud made the imposition of a landfill levy ineffective in some parts of the United Kingdom. The possibility of fraud has been taken into account by the Department. It is some time since the Government agreed the principle of a landfill levy. We appointed consultants to advise us on international experience in this area. Their report is almost finalised. This one of the areas examined which ties in with a point made by Senator Dardis.
All of us would agree this an exercise of knocking local authorities, but one of the areas in which they have been weakest in the past, for good reason, is the enforcement of environmental legislation, as it is only since the late 1980s that environmental legislation has been up and running here, mainly because of the implementation of EU directives and so on. In a sense it has been the Cinderella service of the local authorities and the Cinderella element in the environmental area has been enforcement. Local authorities have not put the necessary resources into the enforcement of environmental legislation.
The only way to prevent fly tipping, which Senator O'Dowd raised, is by the active enforcement of the legislation by the local authorities. Without departing from the polluter pays principle, some of the money in the environment fund will be used to assist local authorities to implement their waste management plans and awareness programmes on environmental mat ters. Some of the money in that fund will be allocated to enforcing the legislation. I think that is something we will take on board. We indicated we would give that favourable consideration. I am not very much in favour of leaving that up to the local authority that collects the levy, as the aim of waste management policy is to reduce the number of landfills. Therefore, not every local authority will have one. There may be a case for a local authority that has a landfill being given a little more out the environment fund than one that does not have one. The money collected from the levy will go into the environment fund and it will be allocated to local authorities for environmental purposes. If a local authority has a landfill site, that should be taken into account in such allocations.
With regard to the experience of fraud in the collection of the levy in the UK, there will be one essential difference between the imposition of a landfill levy here and the levy in the UK. A considerable number of landfills in the UK are privately operated. Consequently, there is a greater opportunity for them not meeting their obligations than there would be here where most of them are operated by local authorities. We assume the local authorities would be in compliance with their obligations in relation to it.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 12, line 3, to delete "may" and substitute "shall within three months of the passing of this Act.".
In this amendment I encourage the Minister to give himself a break, as he has a great deal to do. The Bill states that the Minister may by regulations delete the management and control of all or part of the environment fund. The Minister should ensure he deletes that control, as his life seems to be extremely busy. It appears initially that a good deal of money will flow into the environment fund, even though I agree with Senator Quinn, if we wanted to fade away as rapidly as possible from the plastic bag point of view, the matter of the levies on the tonnage going into the landfills may be a bit more difficult. The Minister should ensure that someone would be appointed to operate the environment fund as soon as possible.
I do not propose to accept this amendment, as it places an imperative on the Minister to do something within three months of the passing of the Bill, in other words, to remove the proposed discretion the Minister would have to delegate the management and control of all or part of the environment fund and any of its related functions to a specified person. The pro posal here is simply an enabling provision. I have no proposals at this time to delegate the operation of the environment fund to any person or body.
I am currently trying to get the environment fund into operation. I hope it will provide assistance on a wide range of environmentally desirable initiatives. At this early stage, with the fund not even set up yet, it would be unwise for the Minister to begin delegating and I have not yet given much thought to that. It is possible that, in future, there could be a national waste management agency, or there might be an environmental awareness bureau, to which funds might be delegated. At this stage, however, I do not propose to let go of the fund before it is even established.
The idea of a national waste management agency cheers me up so much that I will withdraw the amendment.
Does the Minister intend to institute a national waste management agency?
No, I was simply putting forward a hypothesis that, if such a body were to be established, some funds might be delegated to it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments No. 20 and 21 are out of order, because they involve a potential charge on the Revenue. Amendment No. 22 is a Government amendment. Amendment No. 23 is an alternative. Therefore amendments Nos. 22 and 23 may be discussed together by agreement.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.
Government amendment No. 22:
In page 12, lines 36 and 37, to delete "recovery activities" and substitute "re-use and recycling activities generally, or recovery activities in respect of any specified class of waste".
The proposed section 74(9)(b) provides that the environment fund may be used, among other things, to assist the establishment and operation of waste recovery activities. Recovery, as defined in the 1996 Act, is very wide-ranging and includes the reclamation, reuse and recycling of waste, as well as energy recovery. I have recently received representations from the waste prevention working group of Comhar, the National Sustainable Development Partnership, requesting that the scope of this provision be limited to reuse and recycling only. In general terms, I intend that assistance from the fund will be directed to such activities which are high in the waste hierarchy and will not be used to support thermal treatment activities, such as municipal waste incineration.
However, I want to retain the option of providing assistance to projects entailing thermal treatment or energy recovery in relation to specific waste streams, where such activities are considered environmentally desirable. An example of such a project might be the application of gasification, as mentioned earlier in this debate, or porolysis to deal with used tyres, which we have to divert from landfill under the landfill directive. Another example would be anaerobic digestion of sludges or agricultural wastes, which generates energy in the form of methane. Waste treatment technologies are evolving and we should retain the flexibility to support the treatment of specific waste streams where that is environmentally desirable. The proposed amendment meets the essential concerns of the Comhar working group, while retaining the necessary flexibility. It is not necessary to specify 'reduction' in this amendment. Section 74(9)(a) provides that the environment fund may be used to assist programmes or schemes established for the prevention or reduction of waste.
Amendment No. 23 was based on the wording submitted by An Taisce – no doubt it circulated it to the Minister. I understand the Minister's comments and I do not agree with him, but I am not pressing it to a vote tonight. On the matter of used tyres, I understand that the recycling process in Nova Scotia involves grinding down the material. I cannot remember what the resulting product is used for but I can get the relevant information leaflet. However, the process certainly does not involve burning, in case that is what the Minister was concerned about.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 23 not moved.
Government amendment No. 24:
In page 13, line 2, to delete "(within the meaning of Part III)" and substitute "(within the meaning of part II) and the hazardous waste management plan".
This amendment is required both to amend an incorrect reference in section 11(9)(f) and to provide that moneys from the proposed environment fund may be used to support implementation of the forthcoming national hazardous waste management plan, as well as the local authority plans. Subsection (9)(f) provides that the environment fund may be used for the purpose of assisting the implementation of waste management plans within the meaning of Part III of the Act. Waste management planning is dealt with under Part II of the Act. The definition of waste management plan under Part II of the 1996 Act does not include the national hazardous waste management plan to be prepared by the EPA under section 26 of the Act. As it may well be desirable to be in a position to support the implementation of aspects of the forthcoming national plan, for example, in relation to measures for the collection of household hazardous wastes, it is proposed to make an appropriate amendment to subsection (9)(f).
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 25 is a Government amendment. Amendment No. 26 is an alternative. Therefore, amendments Nos. 25 and 26 may be discussed together by agreement.
Government amendment No. 25:
In page 13, line 26, after "community groups" to insert ", environmental groups".
These two amendments are alternatives and they have the same net effect. Obviously, I support the Government amendment, but I suggest that it encapsulates what Senator O'Dowd is proposing in his amendment. Amendment No. 25 is for the avoidance of doubt and to make it explicit that the proposed environment fund may be used, among other things, to assist appropriate activities undertaken by environmental NGOs. The proposed section 74(9)(l) provides that the environment fund may be used, among other things, to assist, support or promote initiatives undertaken by community groups, or other like persons, with respect to the protection of any aspect of the environment. I believe that is wide enough to cover what Senator O'Dowd intended in his amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 26 not moved.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 13, lines 29 and 30, to delete "the protection of the environment" and substitute "waste management".
I would have preferred if the environment fund had been called the waste fund. Waste management is probably the most serious issue which we are currently trying to deal with. I recently saw an advertisement for a guest lecture in UCD. Normally, the subject matter might be something like "the use of cobalt blue in impressionist paintings", but in this instance it was "waste management." I thought that was very indicative of how serious this issue is.
In advocating waste management support in my amendment, I am anxious to see that something is done about the landfill issue. The Minister and Senator Connor nearly came to blows earlier about what was happening in Roscommon.
Or what was not happening.
Yes, the local authorities were not properly refurbishing landfill areas. On recycling, that industry should be supported. Perhaps Senator Bonner can encourage the people who he said were being put out of business in relation to plastic bags to set up a small industry in that area. The fund should not just be used for aspirational projects, however good they may be. I am delighted to see them all in this section. It is absolutely splendid but we must keep assisting, improving and educating people. We need to get down to brass tacks and that is why I put in the two amendments which were disallowed.
I put down this amendment because to talk about the protection of the environment is too nebulous. That could mean the protection of rare birds in Donegal or something like that. I want this fund used to deal with waste management. The Minister said that the national plan provided for £100 million in this area but with the amount of rubbish we have, that will go nowhere. That is why I would like the Minister to change the wording to "waste management". This is what the Bill is about. The environment is a very nice and friendly term and nobody likes talking about messy things like rubbish, dumps and waste, but that is really what we need to spend this money on. We should be more realistic. It is a splendid section and beautifully written but we should decide to use this money to deal with waste management.
I respectfully suggest that the Senator's amendment is not necessary. The section specifies on page 12 some of the things we will use the environment fund for. It specifies in paragraphs (a) to (l) the particular activities that may be supported. They largely but not exclusively relate to waste management. We have prevention and reduction programmes, waste recovery activities, support of research and development etc. It is better that we call it the environment fund because we would hope to add more money for a wider range of purposes rather than confining it to waste management. Stating it specifically for waste management would limit it too much.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Government amendment No. 28:
In page 14, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following subsection:
"(3)Where, immediately before the passing of this Act, a licence or revised licence under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992 (‘the Act of 1992') is in force in respect of an activity, being an activity which, immediately before that passing–
(a) fell within paragraph 11.1, 11.2, 11.3 or 11.4 of the First Schedule to the Act of 1992,
and
(b) was not connected or associated with another activity specified in any other paragraph of that Schedule, then, notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2) of this section but subject to subsection (4) thereof–
(i)that licence or revised licence shall continue in force and the provisions of the Act of 1992 (apart from the amendment of them effected by the saidsubsection (1)) shall continue to apply in relation to it,
and
(ii) section 39(1) of the Act of 1996 shall not apply in relation to that activity, for such period as the Environmental Protection Agency may determine and specifies in writing.
(4) The period determined undersubsection (3) of this section shall not, other than with the consent of the holder of the licence concerned, be less than 3 years from the passing of this Act.”.
This is an important amendment. The overall purpose of section 12 is to try to achieve a very clear and effective separation between IPC and waste licensing so that everyone involved, the EPA, the applicants, the licensees and the public, knows where they stand. This need for regulatory certainty applies both prospectively and retrospectively. This amendment addresses the retrospective aspect of it. Members who heard me speak on the Waste Management Bill, 1996, know that one of the particular areas in that Bill that I made a lot of was to do with processes that we were putting in place and the separate processes that were in place for planning. People would turn up to planning appeals to object to particular aspects of a development and be told it was a matter for the EPA and could not be discussed. This led to confusion, annoyance and frustration. I see this as a step in bringing clarity to these processes.
The proposed new subsections (3) and (4) are transitional provisions for the purpose of clarifying the position in relation to any activities which already have an IPC licence under the EPA Act, 1992, but which are really waste management activities and consistent with the principles followed in the section as a whole should be licensed under the Waste Management Act. The subsections will allow the agency, not earlier than three years after the passing of this Act, to require licensees in these circumstances to apply for a waste licence. The agency may make the transfer sooner provided it has the agreement of the licensee to do so. In the meantime, the status quo of regulation under the IPC regime remains in force. They are purely technical provisions to address the consequences of what we could have at the moment, duplicate licensing requirements, and ensure that the existing licensees are treated fairly in terms of transferring from an IPC licence to a waste licence. It would be unfair not to have that transition period.
This is a very important section of the Bill. I am not absolutely clear on what effectively is happening. At the moment a thermal treatment facility would require an IPC licence. If this amendment is passed the licence will come from the Waste Management Act, 1996, and therefore the burden of the IPC licence will no longer apply to the incinerating company. I have spoken to the EPA about this issue and they have assured me that the Waste Management Act, 1996, is a stronger, more effective Act. It defines that the financial circumstances of the company can be taken into account. This cannot be taken into account under the IPC system. That could mean, if this section is passed, that if a proposed incinerator is deemed to have a life of 30 years, the EPA could, in theory, identify a sum of money or satisfy itself that the company would be able to meet any legal actions due to ill health or other ill effect produced as a result of that incineration facility. That is a good thing.
The other important issue is that the EPA can regulate the waste stream. Under the IPC it cannot do so. Both of these issues must be considered. When I said that we were opposing the amendment I was referring to a document dealing with a meeting between the EPA and INDAVER where on 7 June 2000 INDAVER raised the issue of IPC and Waste Management Act licensing. The agency advised that with new regulations pending over the next few months a final decision might not be available. The most appropriate option was to indicate that whatever permits or licences were required would be applied for under the EPA Act and the Waste Management Act as appropriate. The next meeting was on 2 October 2000. The issues of the IPC and WMA licensing was raised again and the agency advised that as the amended Bill to the EPA Act had still not been published, let alone passed or enacted, the current situation was that an incineration facility as described required licensing under Schedule One of the EPA Act and any associated facilities would also be included in such an application. Non-associated facilities involving waste recycling etc. would require to be permitted under the WMA.
The agency also drew attention to requirements of the IPC directive which apply to new developments since October last. For an inciner ator company, the IPC is more lenient and I do not understand why they would be concerned about the WMA. I leave that as a question. While in theory we oppose this section, I raise these issues for the Dáil debate where they will be picked up. I am not satisfied that what the Minister is proposing is the best thing. I am happy that much of it is better but I am concerned why an incinerator company wanted this amendment.
I was told, as the Minister said, that they want clarity as to which was the licence they had to go for, the IPC or the WMA, so that there could be no legal challenge as to the regulations. Is there something in the IPC which would help those who are against the incineration facilities? The jury is out on that issue.
Earlier I raised the issue of licensing of waste transfer. Can the Minister respond now?
There is nothing sinister involved in this. This arose, I am told, because anyone applying for an IPC licence communicates with the EPA in advance, in pre-planning and so on. It arose that if it were a mixed facility, they would have to get two licences. It was a question of making the decision as to the most effective method. It is not reasonable to expect them to go through two similar licensing procedures.
From a legal point of view, if there is any room for doubt, lawyers could play off one act against another. The Senator has done his homework. My information is confirmed by the independent advice of Duncan Lawrence Environmental.
I have the quotation.
It makes it clear that the switch from the EPA Act to the Waste Management Act will not make the obtaining of approval for incinerators any easier. I will not delay the House by reading it as the Senator has it. It points out how much more stringent the Waste Management Act will be and how protective of long-term issues the licensing will be. Although it is the Senator's desire to prevent thermal treatment altogether, it is mine that thermal treatment plants operate to the highest standards. This is the way to ensure that.
I accept all that the Minister said. We are both getting that advice. My query is still why the incinerator company, when it has an easier vehicle in the IPC, wants the WMA. I do not understand that. It is the easier option for them.
I will get a thorough briefing note from officials. I hope that I am not wrong in surmising—
I am sure the Minister is not wrong.
—that they went to the EPA as part of the IPC consultation process and discovered that they needed two licences, both IPC and waste management. The EPA thought that this was not a good way forward and recommended to us to change the procedures so that they would get one or the other. If I am right, and I beg the Senator's indulgence, we decided with the EPA that the Waste Management Act was more stringent and that was the route to go. If that is not so, the officials will provide the Senator with a brief.
That is the same as I was told.
I only half replied on the matter of transportation that the Senator raised but will supply him with a note on it. In general terms, the regulations referred to have direct application here. He asked if we could import waste. It can be imported for recycling or recovery but not for disposal.
This also arises from the EPA's discussion with the incinerator company. The UK can import waste for recovery and disposal only from Ireland and Portugal because they have no incinerating facility. If an incinerating company here, which will be possible under this Act – although, as the Minister pointed out, it could have happened under planning legislation – wished to import waste for recovery, it could be hazardous waste or anything. On 8 January 1999, Indover and Minchem, now both the same company, were concerned at the lack of consistency in applying disposal and recovery codes to activities across the EU. They felt one of two options should be adopted – no incineration process should be classified as recovery or a specific calorific value limit should apply. How will this legislation affect regulations which the Minister will make?
I referred this morning to F1149/98. I am raising these issues now because they are important. The Minister did not have prior notice. It is important, because we are moving into a new phase in national waste management, that we make absolutely sure that we keep the regulations as tight as possible. We both agree on that.
Amendment agreed to.
Question, "That section 12, as amended, stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.
SECTION 13.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 14, lines 31 and 32, to delete subsection (2).
The section effectively confirms regulations made in 1999. I presume the Minister is taking an opportunity to do this, but I wonder about the practice. Is it not an unusual provision? It appears to be a retrospective increase in the litter fine and perhaps the Minister will confirm this.
It is not a retrospective endorsement of an increase. The increase was introduced under the Litter Pollution Act, 1997, section 28 of which provides for on the spot fines of £25. This was increased by regulation under section 28(4) to £50 with effect from 3 January 2000. In examining this area in the context of preparing the litter action plan which was published last February we concluded there might be different interpretations of the power available to a Minister under the original Act to increase the fine under the section. Therefore, to avoid doubt, section 13(2) of the Bill clarifies the matter by confirming the 1999 regulations and the on the spot fine of £50. The rest of the section deals with increasing the fine beyond that level in future. It was felt that this clarification should be inserted in the Bill which is the first available opportunity to do so. There has been enough talk about litter and litter fines and I am sure the Senator is not opposing the principle of increasing it further. We shortly intend to increase the fine to £100.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 are consequential on amendment No. 30 and amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32 may be taken together by agreement.
Government amendment No. 30:
In page 14, lines 33 to 39, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following:
"(3) Section 28(1)(b) of the Act of 1997 is amended, with effect from 1 January 2002, by the substitution of '125' for '£50'.”.
These amendments follow from what we have already discussed. They are aimed at improving the framework for future increases in on the spot litter fines. Instead of providing for a two stage process under which the £50 fine would become a fine of 60 on 1 January 2002 and allowing at some point after that for the making of an order to increase the fine to 125, it is simpler and clearer to provide that the fine is definitively increased to 125 at the start of next year. This is achieved through the amendment to subsection (3).
The other two amendments are consequential. It is necessary to amend subsection (4) to provide that a ministerial order to increase the fine amount above 125 can be made after 1 January 2002. As a result of these amendments, subsection (5) which allowed the Minister increase the fine above 125 only after he had increased it to that level is now obsolete and should be deleted. Increasing the fine to 125 from 1 January gives effect to a commitment made most recently in the litter action plan. Making it effective from next January rather than at a later date as originally provided for in the Bill is a clear signal of the Government's continued commitment to tackle litter pollution. In the past when these fines were increased they received all-party support. It is desirable that we get the message across.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 31:
In page 14, subsection (4), line 40, after "may," to insert "after 1 January, 2002,".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 32:
In page 15, lines 7 to 9, to deletesubsection (5).
Amendment agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Acting Chairman
When it is proposed to take Report Stage?
We have spent seven hours non-stop on Committee Stage. We have given it a very thorough examination and have had an excellent debate. However, in relation to the ordering of business, Committee Stage should have been taken over two days. It is not fair to the staff of the House, the Minister, his officials or anybody and it is no way to treat legislation. I know my views are shared by many Members. We are constantly raising the issue of how legislation is treated. We should not take Report Stage tonight. We should at least leave it until tomorrow and preferably leave it until another week. Legislation and the House should be treated with dignity. For that reason I do not agree with taking Report Stage now.
Acting Chairman
Business as ordered provided for a 15 minute break between Committee and Remaining Stages.
Can we amend the Order of Business and go straight to Report Stage as there are no amendments on Report Stage?
I propose that we take Report Stage now.
Question put: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
Tá
|
Bohan, Eddie.Bonner, Enda.Callanan, Peter.Cassidy, Donie.Chambers, Frank.Cox, Margaret.Cregan, JohnDardis, John.Farrell, Willie.Finneran, Michael.Fitzgerald, Tom.Gibbons, Jim.Glennon, Jim. |
Kett, Tony.Kiely, Daniel.Lanigan, Mick.Lydon, Don.Moylan, Pat.O'Brien, Francis.O'Donovan, Denis.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Ormonde, Ann.Quill, Máirín.Ross, Shane.Walsh, Jim. |
Níl
|
Burke, Paddy.Caffrey, Ernie.Connor, John.Coogan, Fintan.Cregan, Denis (Dino).Doyle, Joe.Hayes, Tom. |
Henry, Mary.Jackman, Mary.Keogh, Helen.McDonagh, Jarlath.O'Dowd, Fergus.O'Meara, Kathleen.Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine. |
Tellers: Tá, Senators T. Fitzgerald and Gibbons; Níl, Senators Burke and O'Meara.
Question declared carried.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I compliment the Minister on this Bill. Senator O'Dowd referred to the diverse opinions expressed by Members from various parties. Nevertheless we all realise that the Minister faced a dilemma with regard to this issue. The question of waste management poses a challenge to national and local government. The Minister has tried to tackle the difficulties he faced in a manner which impacts as little as possible on the structure of local government. We hope his efforts will be fruitful.
The Minister must have regard to the European Union. The provisions to minimise the proliferation of plastic bags which have been a blight on our landscape and the disposal of which presents one of the most difficult aspects of waste management will stand the test of time. Despite minor differences on aspects of the Bill, the House supports the Minister in his efforts to encourage local authorities and the public to pursue progressive and environmentally friendly policies.
I thank you, a Chathaoirligh, and the acting chairmen who have chaired the debate for their patience and courtesy. I thank the Minister and Members for a very important and useful debate. We spend much time debating issues and statements on various subjects. This Bill merited twice the amount of time we gave it. It is not easy to debate legislation for seven consecutive hours but it is a challenge. Opposition Members do not shirk a challenge.
Bills such as this are of such national significance that we should give more time to debate them. We will debate other matters this week which are not half as important as those dealt with in this Bill. Waste management is an important issue and this debate has highlighted significant differences between the approach of the Government and the Opposition. Nevertheless the debate was an honest and honourable one which will continue. We have set the foundations for a good debate in Dáil Éireann. That is the job of the Seanad.
I thank the Minister and everyone concerned. The fullest time was afforded to debate this Bill. I thank the Minister for initiating this legislation in the Seanad. This is not the first time the Minister has initiated major legislation in the House. I hope many more Bills will be initiated here to be debated in the business-like manner in which Members carry out their duties, as they have done over recent days.
I thank Members for their kind remarks and their courtesy and co-operation during the course of a long debate. This is an important topic which deserves the attention it received in the House.
Despite our political differences most Members know my absolute commitment to the concept of local government and to local people taking responsibility and making decisions locally. It is a matter of regret that, in some cases, decisions were not taken locally in relation to waste management so that I was obliged to introduce legislation in the Oireachtas. I have a national responsibility and Ireland has obligations as a member of the European Union. It is for that reason that the Bill has been brought before the House.
Senators contributed to aspects of the Bill such as the environment fund and the landfill levy. These will be important in time to come and will lay the basis for a strong waste management regime firmly founded on the waste management hierarchy of prevention, minimisation, reuse, recycling, recovery and safe disposal of waste. We are all committed to that although our view may vary slightly as to how we will achieve it.
I thank you, a Chathaoirligh, acting chairmen, Senators who contributed to the debate and the staff of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
When is it proposed to sit again?
At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.