Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 5 Nov 2003

Vol. 174 No. 9

Waste Management: Statements.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. N. Ahern)

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, who is indisposed, has asked me to express his regret at not being able to be here this morning. However, he has asked me to thank the House for the opportunity to discuss the crucially important issue of waste management.

As Senators will know, since coming into office, the Minister has placed waste management at the top of his environmental agenda. It is heartening to see that Members of the Seanad are equally conscious of the importance of this issue and have demonstrated this by setting aside time for this debate this morning.

Waste management presents one of our greatest environmental challenges to which we must respond in a comprehensive, multi-faceted way. Unlike certain other environmental challenges which have a much more global dimension, we are fortunate in the sense that waste is an area where the scope for progress rests significantly within our own control. This applies to all of us, Government, the wider political system, statutory authorities, providers of waste services and every member of the public. Waste is a collective responsibility and requires collectively-based solutions. There are several key factors in addressing successfully the waste challenges. We need a clear policy approach, to plan in order to provide a basis for turning our policies into reality and to ensure that our approach is backed up by a strong, comprehensive legislative code which will provide the necessary degree of environmental regulation. Finally, we need to ensure that we achieve the required scale of "on the ground" transformation, in other words, we need to focus on implementation. At this stage, we measure up reasonably well under the policy, plans and legislation headings.

In so far as policy is concerned, we have laid out our stall very clearly in the Changing Our Ways and Delivering Change policy statements. The approach on which they are based is centred on respect for the waste hierarchy of prevention, minimisation, re-use, recycle, recovery and safe disposal. We took this approach because it is widely respected and applied internationally, not least at EU level where it forms the basis of the EU Community Waste Management Strategy. It has provided the basis for the successes of the best waste performers in Europe.

We are all well aware of the difficulties which delayed the adoption of waste plans around the country. Firm action was required to bring the process to a conclusion and the Government was not found wanting on that score. Since late 2001 we have had full national coverage in terms of waste management plans, allowing the important work of delivering on the plans to begin in earnest. We have made major progress on the legislative code governing the waste sector. A comprehensive system for regulating the waste sector was introduced under the Waste Management Act 1996 and this has been updated on several occasions, most recently under the Protection of the Environment Act 2003 which was the subject of considerable debate here earlier this year.

Policy, plans and legislation are the foundation stones but they must be built upon through speedy and effective implementation. We must give practical effect to the waste hierarchy and ensure that waste management plans are implemented in a timely and comprehensive way and that the law on waste is fully and effectively enforced. Since taking office the Government has focused on implementation and I am happy to indicate to Senators that significant progress is being made. Much of what we hear about waste revolves around thermal treatment and landfill, but there is also significant activity at the upper end of the hierarchy including waste prevention, minimisation and recycling.

Waste prevention was identified as a key area for action in last year's Delivering Change policy statement. My colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, is in the final stages of having a national waste prevention programme established. This will operate through the EPA and a core prevention team will be established within the agency to drive the programme. Arising from the success of the plastic bags levy in achieving important prevention and re-use objectives, we recently commissioned consultants to examine the issues surrounding the implementation of economic instruments, including environmental levies, on other problematic materials such as chewing gum, fast food packaging and ATM receipts. This report will be received shortly and the Minister will study it carefully with a view to bringing forward detailed proposals at the earliest opportunity.

Significantly, the most recent EPA National Waste Database Report indicates that our recycling of municipal waste has increased from 9% in 1998 to 13% in 2001. While this is welcome progress, we have a long way to go to get to the national target of 35% recycling by 2013. However, the building blocks for achieving this are being put in place. We have provided €22 million from the environment fund over the last 12 months to support a range of local authority recycling projects, principally, bring banks, civic amenity sites and biological treatment facilities. Segregated collection services for household recyclables are now available to one third of all households in the State and are being extended all the time. Preparations are advancing for the establishment of a market development board for recyclable materials. Producer responsibility initiatives, which have been so successful in the areas of packaging waste and farm plastics, are being extended to a wide range of other areas, including construction and demolition waste, end-of-life vehicles, waste electrical equipment, newsprint and tyres. A producer responsibility unit will also be established within the EPA. My Department will also be publishing shortly a national biodegradable waste strategy which will provide the framework to facilitate the diversion of 65% of biodegradable waste from landfill by 2013.

While these initiatives hold out the potential for making further major progress in preventing, reducing and recycling waste, they cannot provide the full solution. The experience of the best environmental performers in Europe shows that energy recovery and residual landfill also have a role to play. While some would have us believe that we can wish away this aspect of waste management plans, as a Government we cannot deal in fantasy. We must work within a framework that is rooted firmly in reality. We all accept that education and awareness are crucial in securing a better understanding and acceptance of this aspect of the waste debate.

Accordingly, in addition to the recent Race Against Waste advertising campaign, a parallel waste communications strategy is being launched to try to address the misconceptions and misunderstandings surrounding waste management and the facilities for which waste management plans provide. My Department is liaising closely with all the key stakeholders in driving forward this crucial aspect of the overall campaign.

While on the subject of implementing waste management policy and plans, it would be remiss of me not to say a few words on the issue of waste charges, which has been the subject of some attention over recent months, particularly in the Dublin area. Across Europe, direct user charges for household waste collection services are widely applied, particularly in the context of increasing awareness of the financial and environmental cost of waste generation and of encouraging waste reduction and recycling. It is only logical that such principled support for waste charges should be built into EU policy and legislation. The polluter pays principle, one of the cornerstones of EU environmental policy, is therefore reflected in waste legislation at European level as well as in Ireland.

The bottom line is that charges serve an important environmental purpose. They have been in place in many parts of the country for some time and their recent introduction in Dublin brings domestic waste management practice in Ireland into line with EU norms. Leaving aside these environmental imperatives, it is noteworthy that at no stage during the current debate have those opposed to waste charges offered any credible alternative solution as to how we can tackle our waste management problems. The anti-bin charge lobby has a comfortably simplistic view of how to deal with domestic waste. It thinks that waste management should be looked after by local authorities and not involve the wider community and society and that local authorities can take away householders' waste at no cost to anyone and dispose of it nowhere, if possible.

This escapist view may fit in with some of the more fundamentalist ideologies that characterise some of those involved in the anti-bin charge campaign. It also may serve to explain the very narrow base of support which the campaign has attracted. What it would certainly do is disastrously fail the needs of householders and society in general, which wants an efficient and sustainable waste management service, as well as one which will improve the environment.

We must see events in Dublin in recent weeks for what they are – a clear statement by a very small group of people that they refuse to obey the law requiring the payment of their waste charges. Perhaps even more alarmingly, they are an indication that the people involved also refuse to accept the consequences of their actions, which are provided for in law and passed through the democratic process, as well as refusing to abide by orders of the courts. To have the authority of the Executive, the Legislature and the courts challenged in this way is unacceptable in any democratic society. The law is the law and must be upheld.

Turning back to the implementation related theme of my contribution, the final priority issue I wish to touch on concerns the implementation of waste legislation. Instances of illegal dumping, some on an apparently significant scale, have come to my attention and have highlighted the need for a much more concerted effort to enforce the waste code. Having introduced a number of stronger enforcement powers under the Protection of the Environment Act 2003, the Minister recently announced the establishment of a new Office of Environmental Enforcement. Located within the Environmental Protection Agency, the new office will have a broad remit as regards the enforcement of environmental legislation, both directly and through local authorities, but its initial activities will focus on the waste area in particular.

The establishment of the new office ushers in a new era of environmental enforcement by having a dedicated, professional and fully resourced team with extensive powers. As a result, we will be much better placed to ensure that those who flout the law and cause environmental pollution are held to account.

I again express appreciation on behalf of the Minister and myself for the opportunity to address the House on this issue. I have outlined, in a broad sense, the current state of play in terms of waste management in Ireland and I hope I have demonstrated to Members that with policies, plans and legislation now well embedded, work on the critical area of implementation is proceeding apace on a number of fronts.

As I mentioned at the outset, waste is a collective responsibility and requires collectively based solutions. From the viewpoint of the Minister and the Government, political leadership, drive and determination will continue to characterise our approach to transforming waste management in Ireland. The House's interest in the process is welcome and I look forward to hearing Members' views during the remainder of the discussion.

Mr. Bannon

I welcome the Minister of State. I am disappointed the Minister was not able to be present for this important debate—

Mr. N. Ahern

So was he.

Mr. Bannon

—on waste management, although the Minister of State issued an apology on his behalf. He looks to be a Minister on the run because it is hard to get him in recent times for anything.

Mr. N. Ahern

He is unwell.

Mr. Bannon

Hopefully, he will come at some future date and debate the whole issue with us. Today the environment occupies a central position in our awareness. The reason is simple: the quality of our life is now threatened by developments which humans have started, but cannot control. In the worst case, the result could be that we no longer have the opportunity to improve the quality of life by our own means. When consumption goes up, more waste is produced. This waste mountain began to grow faster with the invention of plastic and the proliferation of new chemicals and metal alloy products.

Other factors were the mass manufacturing of goods with built in obsolescence. The use of packaging leaped ahead with the development of refrigeration and rapid transport systems, which meant that more goods and foodstuffs could be packaged and sent all over the world, instead of being produced and sold locally. The boom in disposable consumer goods such as razors, pens, cameras, nappies, etc. added another twist to humanity's tale of waste. Our country is now choking on waste. The same could be said of other parts of the world, but Europe is ahead of us with regard to tackling the waste problem.

In terms of materials usage, the industrial society squanders natural resources and creates huge amounts of waste. As more and more countries embrace consumerism, there is growing support for a radical change of approach to materials usage and waste management. The goal of sustainable society is not helped by disposable one-time use products and consumer goods which are cheaper to replace than repair. This is an area that on many occasions I have said should be looked at by the drivers of waste directives in the European Commission. Concerned politicians place production methods that generate less harmful waste on top of their wish list, particularly at election time. To make the most of the waste materials at hand, recycling should be given the highest priority in our environmental policy. At this stage it is up to the Minister of State and the Government to find markets for the materials collected for recycling by local authorities.

The objective should be to recycle as much waste as possible. The evidence from other countries that I have visited is that sorting at source results in a higher degree of recycling and ensures that non-recyclable waste is handled in an environment-friendly way. At any recycling station, the most important thing is that the waste is properly sorted. The containers at the station are clearly marked to identify what kind of waste goes into each. It is important to have staff at recycling stations to give information and guidance if there is any doubt as to what goes where.

I understand the Government has been given a five-year deadline, within the last few weeks, to improve its performance on recycling and must now meet much tougher targets for materials such as paper, glass and metal. The new drive towards more sustainable use of materials has been approved by the European Parliament and looks likely to demand new thinking on waste, if the goals laid down are to be achieved by 2008. These goals include increasing targets from between 25% and 45% to between 55% and 80%, depending on the material.

The recycling and waste recovery targets, which are legally binding, are part of an existing directive that the European Parliament voted to strengthen. To meet the targets set for Ireland, the Government will have to persuade everyone to recycle more, but business will also have to reduce the packaging it creates and emphasis must be placed on a reduction of the volume of waste generated in industrial manufacturing and retail processes and also in the home. A new local authority support unit should be set up by the Minister of State to prioritise needs and deliver a toolkit of solutions to help local authorities meet their statutory targets for the recycling of municipal waste. Educational programmes and financial initiatives, such as a tax on packaging with built in costs and a choice given to the consumer, can encourage this. The plastic bag tax introduced by the former Minister for the Environment and Local Government was a major success.

Since the current Minister took control of waste management there has been no evidence of leadership or meaningful funding of local authorities, demonstrating that the Minister is not serious about achieving real results. Since the Protection of the Environment Bill was passed, there has been no leadership or policy direction to local authorities, public agencies, businesses or the public, apart from a few national advertisements, where a man swings a rat, across the countryside. Where are the waste services and infrastructure to meet modern waste management needs? Where is the commitment to a network of new, state of the art landfill sites? Despite the incineration proposals, there will always be a need for a residual landfill capacity and any waste management process must be sustainable. There must be proper assessments of the implications of any developments to prevent any further deterioration of environmental, social and economic structures and to ensure they make a positive contribution to the environment.

The Minister must introduce best practice to waste management and incorporate public preferences at planning stage, something that is not being done at present. The proposals on incinerators have generated opposition in many areas, as we see from the protests in Cork, Tipperary and Meath. Residents are frightened by serious health concerns, including cancer claims, but the Government has done nothing to allay their fears. The precautionary principle should apply until the Government can give guarantees on the safety of incinerators. The focus of the Minister's thinking must shift from methods to get rid of rubbish to processes that will prevent wastage and conserve natural resources. To achieve this he must focus on the upper part of the EU waste hierarchy which states that prevention and minimisation of waste should be followed by re-use, repair and recycling.

The Government, under the Waste Management Acts, Litter Pollution Act, Protection of the Environment Act and other legislation, has the necessary power to prohibit unnecessary generation of waste. The most recent Act allows the Minister the powers to provide for requirements on the nature of waste, to specify certain designs of package and to control waste importation, distribution, supply and sale. It is time for the Minister, now that he has taken the power of the elimination of waste from locally elected councillors, to use the numerous powers he has vested in himself, county managers and officials to clean up the countryside.

The Minister should tell us what he is doing to prevent the carbon waste from plastic milk cartons. Will he go to the diaries and encourage them to reintroduce glass milk bottles? The Litter Pollution Act has been in place since 1997 and the national litter action plan since 2001 but there are still litter problems throughout the State, with indiscriminate dumping on nearly every county road and cul-de-sac. There should be less talk and more enforcement, something the general public would welcome.

In 1999 we were promised that a national litter pollution monitoring system that would review local litter management plans would be fully operational by the end of that year but there have been no results from this venture. We have only been told by local authorities that they are starved of cash by the Government when it comes to implementing plans or proper reports.

The An Taisce-led national spring clean in 1999, 2000 and 2001, hailed by this Government as a tremendous success, has been abandoned. The development of broadly based local partnerships, with local communities, tidy towns committees, schools, development associations and residents' associations in housing estates that help to achieve a litter free environment, has been hampered by a lack of finance from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Those associations have played an important role, with the assistance of FÁS community employment schemes, in improving the appearance of towns, villages and the countryside and I congratulate them. While much progress has been made, however, more needs to be done. What, however, did this Government do? It reduced community employment scheme numbers from 40,000 to less than 20,000.

Mr. N. Ahern

The Senator should give the correct figures.

Mr. Bannon

This is having a detrimental impact on the environment, tidy towns committees and development associations. The Minister of State can shake his head but the numbers have been reduced by a further 5,000 in recent weeks.

We must take responsibility for our environment and ensure it is handed on to future generations intact and in an enhanced form. There has been a lot of talk and legislation but little action and I plead with the Minister and the Minister of State to act on waste management.

Mr. Kitt

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, to the House and thank him for his contribution.

I am glad the Minister of State mentioned the levy on plastic bags. It was very successful and the former Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, who introduced it deserves credit. There were many objections at the time and difficulties were put in the way of the levy but it has been a great success and shows the positive attitude of the Government.

The Minister of State referred to the debate on thermal treatment and landfill, difficult issues that we must tackle. In the Connacht regional waste management area, we have not yet identified a landfill site in County Galway or a site for an incinerator. It is a controversial issue but we are running out of time because the present landfill site in Ballinasloe has a life span that will last until 2005. It is time that all counties in Connacht looked at proposals for landfill sites and treatment.

The Minister of State has rightly emphasised the importance of recycling and I hope we will prioritise that issue. I received a letter from Repak earlier in the year where it listed its achievements. In 2002, Repak funded the recycling of 323,000 tonnes of packaging waste, 40% of the total packaging on the market last year. Through Repak's efforts, the State met its EU targets for recycling of packaging for 2001 and is well on the way to meeting the 2005 targets. The organisation has 1,200 members, from small corner shops to large companies, and it deserves credit for spending €11 million in direct recycling in 2002 and an extra €4 million to fund the expansion of the bring bank infrastructure. It is confident that there will eventually be an average of one bottle bank for every 1,000 people. It is also involved, as are An Taisce and local authorities, in educational initiatives. For example, approximately 700 schools were involved in the Repak cash for cans project, which was targeted at primary school children, and approximately 7 million drinks cans were collected. There is also the Repak national recycling week, which is designed to raise the awareness of recycling in general, and the Repak green Christmas campaign. The work it is doing in conjunction with local authorities and in partnership with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has shown the resources that are available and highlighted the area of enforcement. I hope it will continue the good work it is doing in the future.

I understand that Forfás established a waste management taskforce on following an integrated approach to waste management. This involved a national plan for hazardous waste and a regional waste management plan for the management of non-hazardous waste produced by regional and local authorities. They have made progress on waste prevention, minimisation and segregation, reusing and recycling. Senators from rural areas will agree that we have gone in a short time from having no refuse collection service to a situation where we throw everything in the bin. Recycling bins and bags are now provided, in many cases by private contractors, in rural areas. Due to increases in charges, people say that refuse collections services have become expensive. However, the private sector has become involved because local authorities cannot cover all the different areas of refuse services. My local private contractor informed me that he is moving from the recycling bag to coloured bins next year, but without any increases in charges.

There is an anomaly with regard to the waiver scheme. It is available in Dublin, Galway city and other areas, but it is not available in rural areas because private contractors are operating the scheme. I suggest to the Minister of State that, just as we had a subsidy for group water schemes to provide free domestic water, the same idea should be considered for waste charges. We cannot have a situation where people in rural areas cannot afford to pay the charges because they do not have a waiver scheme similar to those in towns and cities.

I am a big fan of the green school projects. There are 35 schools in County Galway involved in the scheme with 32 receiving the green flag from An Taisce. This started off as a simple project where schools collected newspapers, milk cartons and drinks cans for recycling. Now, they have moved into other areas such as composting, reusing materials, such as egg cartons and ice lolly sticks, and bringing nature trails and gardens to schools. This is an important initiative by the local authorities, schools and An Taisce that I hope will continue to be successful. The local authorities have many other proposals with regard to this scheme.

Regardless of whether we like it, we must have landfill sites, yet people believe they can be done without. Local authorities have been slow and have had difficulties getting suitable sites, so much so that private contractors are looking for planning permission for sites. We are informed that these private operators can cut through the red tape involved and get planning permission quickly. If permission is rushed through, there will be objections and appeals to An Bord Pleanála. It is better to have consultations such as those in which local authorities are involved. People are concerned that landfill sites will be located near houses and communities. However, it is proposed that they should located one mile from villages, communities or schools. That is a fair proposal. There are plenty of opportunities for landfill sites in rural areas. I hope we will see speedy action on this issue.

It is also important to remember that schools have put in place with local authorities many litter control programmes. Litter control is an important issue that is linked to pollution. For example, schools are now not only involved in waste issues but also in water conservation. If we do not control litter, we will have a problem with water supply. Many schools are now looking at the question of phosphates, detergent and disinfectants in the water supply. These are chemicals we are just throwing into the ground. The whole impact on our water supply from this pollution and the lack of litter control must be examined.

Energy management is another issue that comes into this debate. In many offices and workplaces photocopiers are left on all day. If this was prevented and, for example, different lighting was used, we could have a better outcome in terms of energy management. I hope I do not sound like a killjoy, but these are important issues. One is told often by managers that lighting and heating are left on in offices all day. This should not be allowed to happen. This is also part of the whole issue of waste and energy management.

In County Galway there are five contractors for waste collection. One of the advantages of private sector involvement in waste management there is that the biggest landfill in the county in Ballinasloe has reduced 40% of its waste. However, this site will close in 2005 so we must work hard to get a new landfill for the county. I agree with the Minister of State about paying for the collection of waste. I understand the charge in Dublin is €150 per year, which is reasonable. However, there are other parts of the country where it is twice or even three times that figure. We must bring in a better system for rural areas. The subsidy I referred to could be a possible remedy.

The Minister of State also spoke about illegal dumping. That is the most serious issue that affects us. Despite all the work we are doing, waste is still being dumped in bogs, on the side of the road and even outside bring banks. I do not understand why people do not place waste into the bring or bottle banks, leaving it on the side of the site. What will happen is that the bring and bottle banks will be taken away and that will be a retrograde and disastrous step.

Mr. Quinn

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Noel Ahern, to the House. I congratulate him on taking the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen's place. I am sorry to hear he is indisposed. The Minister of State has given us a clear view of the policy on waste management and issues that I was not aware of, such as the waste hierarchy. I was on the board of Repak, but I cannot say much now because Senator Kitt has covered all the areas that I wished to cover.

I stepped down from Repak when I was elected to the Seanad. Repak takes a large amount of money from business to relieve them of waste. Supermarkets, in particular, provide much packaging to customers and are obliged to take it back if they do not contribute to Repak. The supermarkets that Senator Kitt referred to are paying that contribution to relieve themselves of the responsibility they would have otherwise.

I want to focus on the hot topic of the day, the dispute about refuse charges. Nine months ago to the day, when we discussed the Environment Bill 2003, I made the point that waste charges for householders should always be related directly to the amount of waste they put out to be collected. At the time the Minister suggested it was enough to provide in the Bill for local authorities to have the power to do this, rather than requiring them to do so. In view of the widespread trouble in collecting these charges, more attention needs to be paid to this aspect of the matter.

I support the principle of waste charges at household level. The main argument for charging at that level rather than including the cost in general taxation is that individual charges can establish a link between a person's behaviour and the amount that he or she pays. They are, or they should be, based on the principle that the user pays. The importance of the approach is that, if properly structured – it is not fully structured yet – the user pays for a service in proportion to the extent that he or she uses it. The more of the service people use, the more they pay, which is the cardinal principle of this approach. This gives users an element of control over how much they pay.

I have a neighbour who lives on her own, is very careful about what she does and only uses her bin once every four weeks. In our house we fill it every week and pay for it. By reducing their use of the service, people should be able to reduce the amount they pay. This system allows us to put a brake on the extent to which services are drawn on. If a service is free, users have no incentive to restrict their use of it. This is why the European Union is so keen on having this kind of scheme as well as metered water charges. It wants paying for the system to be structured in such a way that people have a constant incentive to use the resource more carefully.

Paying for waste services at householder level also has an inbuilt motivational factor. We charge for these services at local level to encourage people to use the services sparingly. Individual householders have a number of choices over how they dispose of their waste. They can throw it out, which in effect means putting it out for collection, or they can sort through the waste and select some of it for recycling through bottle banks, green bins, etc. In the case of organic waste, they can compost it and use the compost in their gardens to help the growth of flowers or vegetables. From a national waste management point of view, we have an interest in what choices they make. The more they recycle and the more they compost the better. The less they put out for collection by the local authority the better.

It is vital that we structure our system so as to encourage the use that we want. This comes down to a matter of how the collection services are charged. I will give an example of how this can work. In Fingal we have bins and we pay for a label to attach to them each week. We also have a green bin that is collected once a month free of charge. As Senator Kitt said, in several parts of the country waste collection has been privatised. In County Wicklow special bags are sold in local shops and the price of the bag includes the cost of collecting the refuse. The company collecting the rubbish only picks up its own bags and ignores anything else. This system has an inbuilt incentive to use it sparingly. Every time someone uses a bag, he or she pays for it. In Wicklow each bag costs €1.50 to €2, so the more rubbish someone puts out in these bags, the more he or she has to pay. More importantly, the less rubbish someone puts out, the less he or she pays.

A resident of Wicklow explained to me that within a month of the system starting he found that his household had drastically cut down on the amount of rubbish it put out, almost without thinking about it. Up to then, he had sorted out stuff for recycling whenever he remembered to do it. Now he found he was religiously putting aside stuff for recycling all the time, because he had an incentive to do it. Similarly, he now had an incentive to maintain a compost heap in his garden and feed it with organic waste.

A considerable number of my supermarket customers ask me why we put certain products in plastic packaging as they cannot get rid of it. Our main reason is so customers can see through to the plastic and changing would create a challenge for us. Customers never raised this before and have only started to do so in the past year when they became obliged to pay for the waste and they begrudge spending the money. This shows the system is working. In providing for local waste charges, we must do it in such a way as to give the householder the incentives to behave in this way. If we do not, we miss the most important point of having local charges.

My objective is to support the Government in its determination to have these charges collected. However, I want to urge it to reconsider how the charges are structured and collected. While in certain parts of the country there is an annual charge, this does not work unless it is related to the amount of rubbish collected.

There is inconsistency in dealing with the issue of the ability of householders to pay the charges. We all agree that people who do not have the means should get a waiver. However, apparently waivers only apply in some areas and not across the board. This is clearly iniquitous, and should be fixed immediately.

I am concerned about the notion of collecting these charges on a yearly basis. Doing so presents the householder with one big bill, which is much more difficult to cope with than many smaller bills at regular intervals. More importantly, it increases the distance between the action he or she takes and the need to pay for it. If something done now has to be paid for a year down the road, that is one thing. It is another and much stronger thing if what is done now has to be paid for this week. In my case I have to buy tags to put on bins each week.

I am also concerned at the expense of collecting these charges. Most local authorities seem to be collecting the charges in exactly the same way as they used to collect residential rates, when they existed. Under such an arrangement the cost of collecting the charge will become a significant amount of the charge itself. Apart from the waste of resources, I can see it making the charge even less popular than it would otherwise be.

It seems that collecting the tax through a charge on special bags, tags or labels that are sold through local shops is inherently a much more cost-effective way of raising the money as well as possibly being seen as less painful for those who have to pay for it. By focusing on the bags or tags that are used for collection, we should also allow for a system in which the local authority could eventually itself take responsibility for collecting goods for recycling. Some authorities, including Fingal, are already doing that with monthly green bin collections.

We have often heard about how in Germany and the Netherlands people put out not one but several different coloured bins for collection, each one containing a different kind of rubbish, which is treated in a different kind of way. Repak has already taken the first steps in this area. We could introduce such a scheme here and make it work by differential pricing on the various bags that are used.

The Government could make the system of refuse charges more acceptable to everyone if it did three things. The system of waivers for people who cannot pay, currently only available in some areas, must be available everywhere. The charges must be directly related to the amount of refuse the householder puts out for collection, which is not happening in all cases. It must be possible to pay the charge "as you go", rather than having to face a big bill at the end of the year. If the Government takes those actions, we will face up to the challenge and there will be greater acceptance among householders, who are having difficulty putting forward an alternative.

Mr. Brady

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I wish the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, a speedy recovery. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this very important issue of waste management. Huge progress has been made in the evolution of waste policy and law. It is an ongoing process, which particularly in the past five to ten years has greatly improved the environment in which we live.

When one remembers the dark smoggy days of the 1970s and 1980s and the ever-growing mountain of rubbish that littered our streets and countryside, we cannot but appreciate the advances that have been made. Senator Kitt mentioned that a visit to any school in the country will show how aware the children are of the environment and their role and responsibility to it. Programmes such as the green flag initiative have opened many young minds to the benefits of environmental awareness and concern.

Over the years a number of measures have been introduced which in my view will pay significant dividends in the long run. In many cases these benefits are already plain to see, from plastic bags to the control of hazardous waste and from by-laws regarding shopping trolleys to the emphasis on the polluter pays principle. These measures have greatly benefited our environment. The key to sustainable waste management is the introduction of strong forward-looking legislation, which has been introduced since 1990. In 1992 the Environmental Protection Agency was established with particular responsibility for pollution control. It has also evolved into other areas, including the creation of a national database on waste management and the use of best available techniques in all areas of waste disposal. In 1994 the national recycling strategy underpinned the principle of producer responsibility. The previous speaker referred to the Protection of the Environment Bill 2003 which has been discussed in great detail in this House. This Bill deals with pollution prevention, minimisation and recycling and underpins the principle of the polluter pays. It is also very practical and deals with issues such as the rubbish created by concerts and public events and the disposal of car windscreens, which are lethal waste.

The role of the local authorities is crucial to the planning and management of all efforts to minimise production of waste and to encourage recovery and recycling. The 2003 Act underpins the role of local authorities and councillors by awarding them enhanced powers in all these areas. Since 1997 the emphasis for local authorities has been concentrated on a number of key areas. Today there is kerbside collection for segregation and recycling. Bring centre facilities are in place around the country where one can bring everything from a milk carton to a fridge freezer. Materials recovery facilities are also available.

Thermal treatment and waste water treatment is being examined. Switzerland is one of the world's chief producers of toxic chemicals but it has the technology to deal with waste. The technology is available and I believe the thrust of present policy is correct. Everyone is in agreement that we have reached the point of diminishing returns as far as landfill is concerned and we need to consider an alternative. Thermal treatment is the only alternative. Other measures such as the environmental fund set up under the 2001 Act ensure that the proceeds of any levies are used specifically to benefit environmental initiatives, including education and management. The Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, stated that €22 million was allocated this year. The National Development Plan 2001-2006 suggests a significant investment of €1.1 billion for the provision of infrastructure, based specifically on the local authorities' waste management plans. The public wants rigorous and independent control to be maintained on all activities that impact on the environment, including the collection of household waste. The vast majority of people accept that these services come at a cost but they also want to see value for money. There have been various initiatives such as encouraging people to compost their household waste and recycling whenever possible. I welcome the installation of segregated rubbish bins in Raheny village. This is a step forward which must be pursued. Repak has taken initiatives such as producer responsibility. Even business people can see the benefits of a responsible approach to waste management. There is an ongoing evaluation of the management of construction and demolition waste in the construction industry. The disposal of end-of-life vehicles is an issue for the motor industry. We have all seen abandoned and burned out cars in housing estates and in rural boglands.

The Tidy Towns competition is usually associated with small rural towns but streets and small estates in Dublin have also become involved in the competition. The Forfás report of July 2003 states that significant progress has been made in delivering infrastructure and programmes for waste recovery and recycling. There is further work to be done. I commend the Minister and the policies and legislation he has introduced and encourage him to continue along those lines.

Mr. McCarthy

I welcome the Minister of State, Dr. McDaid, to the House and thank the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, in his absence, for his attendance. I wish the Minister, Deputy Cullen, a speedy recovery. I can only hope he did not cause the injury to his back by falling off the back of a bin lorry.

Waste management is a very significant issue in regard to which we have witnessed crisis in recent times. Most people do not realise the seriousness of this issue. As a society we have probably been collectively negligent in our attitude and have not done enough. In the recent past there was a lack of facilities, investment and awareness for which we should all accept responsibility. We have moved into a new era in line with European Union directives. The rate of progress on this issue at European level is a very good teaching block for countries such as Ireland. More than 90% of non-agricultural waste is dumped in landfill sites. While the number of dumps is declining, many more landfill sites have been closed each year and that is a welcome development. EU regulations will strictly limit the kind of waste which can be sent to landfill. A number of landfill sites in Cork have been closed in recent years and the remaining sites will only accept specific types of waste. Municipal waste is increasing by 11% per annum. The proportion of waste being recycled has been in decline in recent years but it is hoped there will be an upsurge. I can say without fear of contradiction that in almost every county, controversy is created when strategies are adopted to deal with the future of waste management. The reasons for the controversy often might not stand up to scrutiny but we must deal with the situation as it is. If change frightens a few people, then so be it. Difficult decisions must be made. In recent years there has been a recognition of the problems due to the lack of a decent waste management strategy. The dissipation of natural resources, the risks to human health, the avoidance of our responsibility to the environment and to future generations, the breaches of our obligations under European law and the limits on our future economic growth are seriously impinged upon by past actions.

Waste treatment and disposal in Ireland relies fundamentally on landfill, the least favoured method of waste disposal. As a society we produce too much waste, the vast bulk of which is spread or deposited on land. This is not desirable in any context. We have the highest dependency on landfill in the EU. In 1998 some 91% of our domestic waste went to landfill, which spells out the seriousness of this matter.

Most official strategy and policy on waste emphasises minimisation, recycling, recovery and reuse. Everybody wants to reduce the amount of rubbish they dispose of, but, unfortunately, some local authorities have not introduced an adequate system of recycling outlets. This presents its own difficulties.

A most successful pay by weight system was introduced in Cork at the beginning of this year. It created huge controversy at the time and, although I agreed with the principle of the approach, I was opposed to the high level of costs associated with it. Pay by weight gives people an incentive to reduce the amount of waste they produce and to use recycling outlets. Such facilities, however, are not available at the level at which they are needed to recycle to the greatest possible extent.

The standing charge for waste collection in Cork County Council in 2002 was €160, which was not sustainable in the long term. At that time some businesses in small towns filled refuse trucks by themselves, yet they were not paying any more than those who produced less waste. The pay by weight system prohibits the inclusion of certain waste items. A number of recycling units were introduced. The standing charge was increased to €190 and further payment is based on the weight of waste for disposal.

In a town in my constituency last week I noticed 15 bins put out on a street of some 60 houses. This goes to show that people are being proactive about the waste disposal process. They accept the polluter pays principle. People are being encouraged and incentivised to look at alternative measures to the old system of waste disposal, be it recycling, reducing or reusing. This is a welcome development in a town which had two or three bags of rubbish outside each house a few years ago. It demonstrates the distance we have travelled in a relatively short time.

The strategy for investment in waste infrastructure should be aimed at supporting official policy. Investment needs to be redirected towards the three Rs – recovery, reusing and recycling – to promote the minimisation of the amount of waste requiring treatment or disposal. Two basic requirements are necessary to maintain any degree of success in recycling, the provision of a nationwide collection and separation infrastructure and the development of markets for recycled materials.

The second requirement, establishing and maintaining markets for recycled materials, will necessitate not only direct investment but also market development through investment incentives, development grants and Government procurement policies that will provide initial demand for recycled goods. If the project is not looked at in its entirety, in terms of the markets that should exist for recycled goods, that will be an obvious impediment to any strategy.

The race against waste is a welcome initiative. While it is something we need, I remain to be convinced about the advertisements running on national television. I expect that they cost a great deal of money. While I accept that the spirit behind them is positive, I do not think they will have the desired effect. Having 30 or 40 mechanical rats running off the windscreen of a car does not—

Mr. Brady

They are real rats.

Mr. McCarthy

—serve this cause to the extent that it should and a great deal of money has been expended to bring about the desired effect.

We need to have a proper recycling system in place if we are serious about asking people to recycle their goods. There is no point having a strategy or initiative that encourages this if we do not have the facilities there to ensure the end product is delivered.

As Senator Brady pointed out, we debated the Protection of the Environment Bill earlier this year. Many people had difficulty with this contentious Bill. I had strong reservations and spoke to that effect during the debates on it. This legislation will be remembered for one thing only, the fact that it gave county and city managers the power to set the refuse charge and leave waste uncollected in cases where bills were not paid.

Real local government is about the ability and power to make decisions at local level. This Bill was retrograde in the sense that it took power away from local councillors. Local government was devoid of enough powers without the Minister taking away further powers. In many instances this has led to refuse charges reaching more than €600 which is a huge extra household bill that would not have come about if the decision to levy that charge had remained with members of local authorities. While a waiver system exists, by and large, it is for those on the margins. We have to consider people on low incomes who may be unable to pay a bill of such magnitude. This legislation was a project in avoiding the political resistance that would have come about if such levies were imposed by elected councillors. It was a contentious issue in most councils and Cork was no different in that regard. When the country was awash with money it was not too much of a difficulty but given the weaker financial situation now it would be much more difficult to implement. The role of elected county council members was eroded by that legislation.

In regard to bin charges, I respect everybody's right to protest on any matter but I do not agree with people deliberately defying court orders. The reason some people found themselves in prison was because they defied a court order which is not the same thing as protesting against an issue. Such people deliberately engaged in actions contrary to the explicit instruction of a judge. I do not believe there is a broad basis of support for the anti-bin charge campaign. We pay a great deal of money for bin charges in Cork, yet there is no professional type of protesting taking place. It is confined to a select number of people and to one particular area. There are attempts to get a similar campaign going in Cork city but I do not believe it will be successful. These people should pay their charges just the same as the rest of us. While people are entitled to their opinions on the amount of charge they pay, they are not entitled to defy court orders or organise professional protests with the result that some people end up in jail. I do not agree with such behaviour – I never have and I never will.

We should be cognisant of the level of breaches of European directives. As recently as August, the European Commission announced that it would take Ireland to the European Court of Justice for continued breaches of the EU groundwater directive. This is one of a number of cases – I understand there are eight in total – which are being taken. We must be responsible and serious. We must abide by EU directives in the same way as other member states. The €20 planning charge is another issue in respect of which we are being brought before the European Court of Justice. Other directives include those on dangerous substances, nitrates and the protection of shellfish. These are issues we must examine in a European context. We must be seen on the international stage as a country providing leadership on waste management, which is serious about doing something and which can abide by European law.

Mr. K. Phelan

I wish to share time with Senator Brennan.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Leyden)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. K. Phelan

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Deputy McDaid, to the House.

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, and his Department have played a major role in setting in motion a number of steps to deal with the waste management problem, which we have ignored for too long. As a nation, we simply do not seem to care what we do with our waste as long as it is not disposed of on our own doorstep. When one speaks to the person in the street, one will invariably be told what should not be done but rarely is a solution to the problem offered. My message today is that this problem concerns us all. Each citizen in this country must face the fact that waste management begins with him or her.

If we want to reverse some of the waste problems we currently face, we must hammer home the message that each individual has a responsibility when it comes to waste management. Everybody must help local authorities to tackle this issue. The current hierarchy of waste management is prevention, minimisation, reuse and recycling, energy recovery and, lastly, environmentally sustainable disposal of waste that cannot be prevented or recovered. That is the policy of the Department, which should be congratulated for its approach. However, it will be very difficult to ingrain this policy in the culture of the average Irish citizen. We have become too reliant on dumps and landfill but any attempt by the Government to bring about change is met with resistance at every opportunity. Unless we all accept responsibility for this problem, it will not be dealt with.

A case in point is the attitude towards incinerators. If we are to deal with the waste issue, we cannot continue to use landfills where waste is out of sight and out of mind. We must eradicate waste properly and, in some cases, the only option will be to use an incinerator. Despite this, whenever and wherever local authorities attempt to develop such a waste management option, they are met with fierce local resistance. Inevitably, development is held up for years. The country simply cannot afford to maintain this approach. The incinerators being developed these days, which are the incinerators which would be introduced here, are top of the range. They produce very little pollution and pose a far smaller environmental risk than any landfill site. Incineration is much less of a threat to health and less likely to contaminate the water supply or attract rodents and other disease carrying animals to a particular area. Despite these facts, we seem intent on putting as many roadblocks as possible in the way of developing a successful incineration scheme.

Of course, incineration is not the only option. We should only turn to it when all other avenues have been explored. That we should look first at preventing as much waste as possible is the principle at the top of the Department's waste management agenda. This is a difficult policy to develop as it requires a change in our thinking. We must educate people to ensure that when they go to the shops they consider packaging and its disposal when purchasing a product. As it stands, that rarely if ever crosses the mind of the Irish consumer. Until we can introduce this philosophy into the minds of citizens, we will continue to produce far too much waste.

As well as prevention, more must be done to recycle our waste. Again, this comes down to education. Until people realise it is their responsibility to recycle, we will continue to see plastic bottles, aluminium cans and tonnes of paper needlessly disposed of as general household waste. Despite the great leaps forward taken in developing our recycling policy, we are still not recycling enough. Perhaps the best way to change the mindset is to offer a deposit on cans and bottles and other generally recycled materials. In a number of European countries, a deposit on glass bottles is still offered. Even if it were minimal, Irish people would be far more likely to recycle their waste if there were some monetary return for doing so. In some ways such a policy would be an extension of the polluter pays principle. By introducing it, we would be rewarding those who do not pollute but instead recycle. It would only add to the success of the polluter pays principle, which has already done much to influence Irish attitudes to waste. Despite some recent difficulties here in the capital, this policy has had a great effect in dealing with the waste issue.

By placing the burden for dealing with waste on those who produce it, we have already begun to see changes in the levels of waste production. Generally, people accept the principle and have welcomed it, which is why we have seen positive effects in most parts of the country. Perhaps a further extension of the principle would be for local authorities to introduce authorised bin liners. These would be sold at a premium rate rather than imposing bin charges. The more waste a household produced, the more bin liners would have to be purchased and the more money would have to be paid to the local authority. The effect would be to make people more conscious of the waste they were producing thereby helping to prevent waste and to promote its reuse.

I reiterate my congratulations to the Minister and his Department on the policies they have introduced. I urge them to introduce incinerators where they are needed and to continue to adopt policies which are in the best interests of the country despite their unpopularity. While people may oppose them now, our children will benefit.