Amendment No. 7 is consequential on amendment No. 75 and they will be discussed together.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 9, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following subsection:
"(5) In this Act, ‘waste hierarchy' means management of waste policy according to the following priorities
(a) waste prevention, that is to say activities in production, which consist of the substitution and the reduction of the use of raw materials, the change of the performance of existing and the design of new processes and products, resulting in the non-generation or the reduction of waste and/or its pollution potential, in the materials life cycle;
(b) minimisation of waste;
(c) re-use of secondary materials including composting;
(d) recycling of secondary materials;
(e) safe and orderly storage of secondary materials with a view to recovery at a future date.".
This amendment is proposed reluctantly. I thought there would be more referernce in the Bill to the waste hierarchy because the Minister on Second Stage spoke about what he called the "well known" concept of waste hierarchy. I wonder what circles he moves in because I doubt that the vast majority of people we are hoping to reach with the provisions in this Bill would know much about the waste hierarchy as defined in European legislation. We should take a more pro-active role by providing details and not simply utilise the catch-phrase "reduce, re-use and recycle". One hears it so often it is like a broken record and I doubt that people really think about what it involves.
In some provisions of the Bill waste prevention and minimisation are mixed up and it is important to be clear that both concepts are very different. When one asks people such as IBEC to take these principles on board the least we can do is define them in a manner that offers assistance to people in charge of the processes which we hope will prevent waste being created and then minimise the waste as much as possible in the process. I ask that my amendment be taken in the spirit it is meant. It offers a serious definition of concepts that are well meaningly bandied about but not to provide the necessary information. I am from a teaching background — as is the Minister — and it is important to go into detail about matters that we expect people to understand and take on wholeheartedly.
The definition I use for waste prevention is already well tried and tested although not well known. It is used by Dr. Van Weenan of the Netherlands who spoke at the Agenda 21 conference in Dublin Castle for local authorities who, in many cases, will be charged with the responsibility of implementing the Waste Bill. He comes from the experience in the Netherlands where a concept such as this must be set out in detailed language and truly reflect the hierarchy. The hierarchy is not simply a list of processes but it ought to give weight to the first, second and third priorities in that hierarchy. Prevention is the first one to which I have given the most attention in this waste hierarchy.
I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment as an important addition to the Bill and that it will not be left to whoever knows the concept well to explain it to all the people who do not know it well. The Environmental Protection Agency has produced a book on waste prevention that is attractive, colourful and legible but, in all honesty, IBEC will need more than the cartoons in this book to seriously come to terms with its responsibilities regarding waste prevention, as will many of the other areas of the economy. I will not go through each part of the amendment because it is self-explanatory. I hope it explains itself.
I am not familiar with the definition of the waste hierarchy which Deputy Sargent mentioned, nor does it conform with the hierarchy expounded at European Union level, that is, the definition incorporated in the European Union 1990 strategy for waste management or the one outlined in the Framework Waste Directive 75/442 EEC. In descending order of preference the European Union hierarchy is waste prevention and minimisation, reuse and recycling and safe disposal of waste. I have a problem with the Deputy's hierarchy because it does not deal with the safe disposal element.
It does.
It does not. We are dealing with safe and orderly storage of secondary materials with a view to recovery at a future date.
It is the same as disposal.
It is not. Does that mean that every landfill will be dug up some day?
It must be done.
The latest statistics show that western Europe disposes of 60 per cent of municipal waste in landfill. The percentage in Ireland is greater than that. We could not enact legislation which would make that impossible. Under amendment No. 75 priority would have to be included in the waste management plans of local authorities. I do not accept that because it goes further than is reasonable. Safe disposal of residue waste must be part of our strategic thinking. To pretend that we can minimise everything to nothing and that waste can be stored in such a way as to dig it up again is not reasonable. The powers set out in this Bill and the high targets I want to achieve must be reasonable. Deputy Sargent's proposals do not fall into those categories.
I am disappointed that the Minister has focused on the difference between storage and disposal. It is a shame to spend time debating the Waste Bill without defining the waste hierarchy. I will not argue if he wishes to deal with the wording provided by his mentors in Europe or if he wishes to deal with my version of it. Our aspirations must be positive so that we do not have to shift the goal posts when our current policies do not work in the future.
I included "with a view to recovery at a future date" because, as the Garda Síochána is aware, crimes are committed and landfills are used to hide the evidence. Officials in local authorities have been asked to locate where a load was dumped on a certain date and it must be made available to be searched, which is not a pleasant job. We should acknowledge the difficulties of having to gain access to materials we thought were gone forever. There are times when we need to gain access to waste more toxic than household waste. We should consider a definition because the waste hierarchy is not well known. We now have an opportunity to take part in that educational process.
I have no difficulty helping Deputy Sargent in his ambition to broaden the public's knowledge of the waste hierarchy. However, my definition of the waste hierarchy is not the same as his definition. His proposal is not an educating exercise, but an attempt to impose an unreasonable burden on local authorities. It is unreasonable for the Deputy to suggest that local authorities should know where every item of domestic refuse is disposed of in a landfill.
Every load.
Although that is not clear from the Deputy's wording, it is still unreasonable. We must frame such ambitious legislation in the context of reasonableness.
As regards the definition of the waste hierarchy, it is not a code for my mentors in Brussels, as the Deputy suggests, but part of established European law. It is an accepted provision negotiated and enacted in directives which are binding in the European Union. We have already passed section 2 which states that our purpose is to give legislative effect to that directive.
The Bill requires local authorities to have the following objectives in their waste management plans: to prevent and minimise the production and nature of waste; to encourage and support the recovery of waste; and to ensure that such waste as cannot be prevented or recovered is disposed of without causing environmental pollution. That is what the Deputy requires. The Bill provides for detailed management plans at local level. There are a range of powers under sections 22, 24 and 60 to ensure that the plans can be validated and that the ultimate authority rests with the Minister to give directions on the plans. There will be effective environment management plans at local level, based on reasonable objectives which can be achieved. Perhaps I am narrowing the suggestion too tightly, although that would be its legislative effect, but imposing a duty on local authorities, which requires them to ignore the notion of a safe landfill, is not reasonable or acceptable.
I understand the Minister is concerned about this amendment because he does not want county managers asking him what he means. The waste hierarchy includes a set of principles. The Minister mentioned prevention and minimisation. These terms, which are used throughout the Bill, should be separated. Waste prevention is a well defined discipline which is familiar to people involved in industry throughout western Europe. We should include the principle so that others will understand it is not only an aspiration which will work out if we think hard enough about it. It needs to be worked at and defined and I do not see that in this Bill. The aspiration is there but the definitions are not.
I do not like moving out of sequence, Chairman, as it is not fair to you, but I refer the Deputy to section 22 which sets out what we require local authorities to do in their waste management planning. The hierarchy is set out there.
I am talking about local authorities only.
That is what we are focused on. In terms of the hierarchy the Deputy talked about, the definition I gave, not the definition the Deputy submitted, is part of European law. That is explicit in this Bill. It is part of the objectives of the legislation to have regard to that. If we can be explicit in other areas of the Bill, I will happily look at that so that I can move closer to the Deputy's opinion. I am happy to be very clear in establishing an explicitly stated waste hierarchy. I am not happy with the one the Deputy has come up with, so if we can accommodate him being explicit within the terms of the European Union drafted hierarchy, I have no difficulty with that.
I am sure Dr. Van Weeman will not be upset if the Minister does not like his wording. I take the Minister's willingness to look at being explicit as an indication that he is prepared to put in some form of wording that will be more explicit than the current wording.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 8 is in the name of Deputy Dempsey. Amendments Nos. 29 to 33, inclusive, and amendment No. 203 are related. Therefore, it is proposed to take amendments Nos. 8, 29 to 33, inclusive, and amendment No. 203 together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 9, subsection (5), line 39, after "Schedules." to insert "The draft of any such regulation shall be brought before the Oireachtas or a Committee of the House for discussion before being finalised.".
The purpose of this amendment, and others, we have proposed is to ensure everybody will know exactly what is going on once this legislation is passed. I have heard people, including the Minister at one stage when he was on the Opposition benches, talking about the increasing frequency with which Ministers come into the House and pass enabling legislation only to disappear and pass their own regulations. Nobody knows exactly what is happening. Too much legislation is passed in this manner, allowing regulations to be introduced later. In many cases, the Minister has an obligation to bring them before the House, but in many cases he does not. We have gone to great lengths over recent years to set up a committee system in the House to process legislation such as this and I was happy to be involved in that. We probably have too many committees at present, they are too big, judging by attendance.
The committee system should be used more fully for democratic scrutiny and accountability of Ministers and officials and to ensure that regulations being brought forward are at least seen beforehand. I suggest that they be seen in draft form first. The committee's opinion should be sought and then the Minister could produce the regulations for passing in the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Minister should consider this in relation to this Bill and many others. There will be a need for quite a number of regulations to be drafted under this Bill and many of the committees or sub-committees could be used to invite submissions from interested parties in relation to draft regulations whereupon the committee could make recommendations to the Minister. It might reduce the need for the Minister to meet various bodies and thereby ease his busy schedule.
Any regulations passed under this Bill should be brought to the House or to a committee of the House and that should be stated in the Bill. Deputy Quill spoke earlier about openness, transparency and accountability in the House. This is one way to show a definite commitment to them. Members should have a chance to see what the Minister is doing. The public have a right to see if a Minister is deciding to change schedule because no Act of this House can be passed in isolation. Every Act has some impact on people and everybody should have a democratic right to express their views on it before it is finalised.
I always try to be as open and facilitating as I possibly can. I am also mindful of my comments while on the Opposition benches, which sometimes come back to haunt you. As Deputy Dempsey will know, many regulations are passed by Ministers. Some are very minor or technical in nature. It would be impractical to bring every set of regulations before a committee of the House or before the House proper. The system would simply stop working if an affirmatory resolution was necessary for every set of regulations, but I am mindful of the desire of the Deputy, and others opposite, to be as open as possible, have an affirmatory procedure in mind, whereby a positive resolution of the Oireachtas would be needed before any regulation that would be significant in consequence would have effect. A secondary type of category of technical regulations would be laid before the House in the normal way. I will formulate an amendment on that basis which I think will meet the approval of Deputies opposite.
I never had any doubt about the Minister's reasonableness in this area.
The Minister's approach is very reasonable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 10, subsection (1), to delete line 30 and substitute the following:
"household industrial or agricultural waste except that agricultural waste referred to in section 4 (1);"
This subject has cropped up at our committee in relation to how we treat the agricultural sector. This is related to another amendment I proposed to the first schedule to the Act. In that amendment, which will not now be taken unelss we can talk about taking it now, or at least talk about it in the context of the waste derived from intensive agricultural activities under this Bill, I am defining intensive agricultural activities as poultry rearing installations in excess of 100,000 units and pig rearing installations where the capacity exceeds 1,000 units. This type of intensive agricultural activity and the waste derived from it should be brought within the remit of this Bill. I am aware that in certain circumstances it is dealt with by other legislation, but we should send a clear signal that waste from this type of activity must be controlled and dealt with.
We talk about waste and pollution and agriculture is the sector which causes the most pollution, whether we like it or not. I am not saying, nor would I allege that it is done deliberately or with any malice, it is a side-effect of the type of activity which must be engaged in by the agricultural community. I do not want to impose any unnecessary bureaucracy on the majority of farmers but intensive agricultural activity is completely different. Acres of poultry sheds or pig fattening units in a rural area will have a more significant effect on it than a chemical factory or otherwise. That is not really agriculture, it is processing because these units are like processing plants. Many units on a smaller scale are not harmful but the type to which I refer are different and should be treated as such.
There is a huge potential for pollution and the illegal disposal of waste from these activities. We have seen examples of pollution and there should be an effective vehicle to combat it, which we do not have at present. It was suggested that perhaps an IPC system might be put in place and I would be happy with that.
When the IFA came before the committee it stated that pig and poultry farmers engaged in this type of activity were the most efficient and the best managers in the agricultural sector. That being the case, I am sure they will have no difficulty accepting the terms of this amendment and that they should come within the terms of this Bill.
I support Deputy Dempsey. There is a high level of pollution from pig fattening and poultry stations above a certain size. Although there are two significant Acts in place, which appear to be aimed at curbing and controlling that type of activity, it does not seem to be succeeding. It would have been better if we could have put in place an integrated anti-pollution Bill incorporating air, water and solid waste so there would not be a gap between the implementation of certain sections of existing legislation. There is a loophole as regards air and water pollution.
Considerable damage is being done to water, for example, by the run-off from certain categories of agricultural activity. We do not seem to be able to curtail that. Although prevention is to be the essence of our practice from now on, there is not sufficient prevention of that type of farming activity. The Bill should recognise that because it is likely to be the last major anti-pollution legislation put in place during the lefetime of this generation. We should try to close gaps which have arisen as a result of the enforcement or the application of existing legislation. I refer specifically to pollution derived from farming carried out at a certain level and in a particular way. The quality of water in our rivers is suffering as a result of pollution from certain sources on the land and we should try to come to terms with that. For that reason, I support Deputy Dempsey's amendment.
I am trying to come to terms with the distinction the Minister wishes to draw between commercial, household, industrial and agricultural waste. Perhaps the reason parts of it are not included in commerical waste is that other legislation may be deemed appropriate to deal with it. I am not sure whether some of these items fall between legislation. I would like to know if lessons have been learned. A considerable amount of animal offal is going into landfills which, according to what I have been told, is unauthorised. After the huge fire in Ballaghaderreen, many animal carcases had to be disposed of. No provisions were made for that fiasco. While it was an unexpected event, it is liable to happen. Will the Minister say why those matters are excluded and what provision is being made for household, agricultural and industrial waste?
Deputy Dempsey said he would be happy if the intent of his amendment is encompassed elsewhere. I am sure he is aware that the specific activities about which he spoke come under the title of intensive agriculture and are emcompassed in the First Schedule to the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992. The activities Deputy Dempsey and Deputy Quill spoke about will be subject to the regime laid out in the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992, which is integrated pollution control licensing. That is a rigid system. It is not simply a once-off start up monetary procedure involving an environmental impact assessment, although that will be required, it is an ongoing licence to operate under the IPC system and will be required for those particular categories identical to those outlined in the Deputy's amendment.
In line with the principle I outlined earlier, I do not want to duplicate in relation to activities covered by existing legislation, whether it is the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992, the Water Pollution Acts or legislation emanating from other Departments. Where those standards are high, I will not repeat the provisions in this legislation. In essence that is dealt with.
Will the Minister make me deliriously happy and tell me when he will impose that?
I am anxious to bring all its elements into effect. The broadening of the licensing regime is advancing quicker than I had originally anticipated. I have signed three orders this year broadening the range of activities. I am informed that is as quickly as the agency is equipped to process the applications. That is a reasonable way of progressing. We must prepare each industry and segment of the economy for it. When I sign the order — I am mindful of the support from Opposition Deputies — to encompass the agricultural community under the IPC system, I have no doubt there will be a political reaction. I look forward on that occasion to the same solid support from Opposition Deputies which I am getting today. I want to deal with Deputy Sargent's other specific question because I do not want him to feel I intend in segregating or categorising, some category to be less effected by the implications of this legislation. The categorisation is for administrative purposes because the onus of responsibility will fall on different individuals depending on the category into which waste falls. For example, commercial waste will be the sole responsibility of the commercial companies. Domestic waste will be the responsibility of local autorities. We categorise waste simply for administration purposes but everyone will all be subject to the rigours of the legislation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 10, subsection (1), between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following definition:
"‘composting' means the process by which decomposing vegetation is processed with sufficient air, moisture, lime and heat to encourage aerobic activity by azotobacter and other organisms which transform discarded vegetation into useful compost in due course;".
There is a mixture of the old and the new in this amendment. I seem to be on another educational crusade here. The Bill should be a little more explicit. It has a few passing references to composting but one would not learn much from them if one was not experienced in the science of composting.
I am anxious that the Minister take this opportunity to address one of the biggest challenges in the area of domestic waste, i.e. the organic component of it. Depending on whatever university student's thesis on waste one chooses to read, one is talking about between one-third and a half of all domestic waste put into landfills. It is mandatory in other countries to segregate waste and, through either domestic, municipal or a combination of both systems, composting is carried out on that large proportion of domestic waste.
By not having any explicit composting definition, the Bill misses an opportunity. That opportunity may be taken voluntarily and I know the Minister is keen on the voluntary route rather than the mandatory one. However, we need to give people the information and let them know we are as serious as we ought to be, given the percentage of waste which is compostible.
Charles Darwin was well ahead of us all in writing ostensibly about this science. It is a science, as anybody who is keen on gardening will tell the Minister. We ought to come to terms with it by way of a definition alongside all the other definitions. In terms of the percentage of the waste it would help to eradicate, it is vital we give this area the attention it deserves.
I ask the Minister to be sympathetic. Maybe he will quibble about the wording of my amendment in that it was not decided by somebody in Brussels, but that will not bother me. I am more concerned with the principle of being explicit about what we mean when we encourage people not to create waste.
We have ideas in the Department. Not everything is necessarily imported from Brussels although I have not been shy to import a good idea. In dealing with definitions we do not need to define every term. It is not the practice in legislation to define every term.
The proposed definition causes difficulty because it is too restrictive. Putting a definition into the Bill does not achieve anything. It is how the word is used in the body of the Bill which gives effect to a practice.
I have no difficulty with legislation being educative but we have enough to do in legislation without it having to be almost a resource for technical terms on the environment. There are other resource books for that.
I return again to first principles. I said in the beginning and I will say repeatedly on Committee Stage that this is not meant to be a catch all Bill. There are other stand alone practical initiatives which have importance in their own right. We have a recycling strategy and composting is an important element in that strategy so we do not need to transpose everything into this leigislation to try to reach out and touch everything related to it.
The specific definition which I am asked to include here is too restrictive. It only encompasses vegetation, green waste, for want of a better word, and excludes other organic matter which could be composted. Even if I accepted the need for a definition, I would not be particularly anxious to accept Deputy Sargent's definition. To save him trawling through the Bill, I refer him to pages 13 and 14 where he will find the references to composting.
I realise the Minister is trying to keep the wording to a minimum because it is a big Bill, but it is important to give due cognisance to the potential which exists in the area of composting.
I said I would not get hung up over the wording. For instance, I asked a parliamentary question, which did not reach the Minister's desk because it was intercepted, and received a reply to the effect that the question would not be allowed. The question tried to tease out what experience of composting the Minister or his Department had. The answer stated that the Minister has no official responsibility in this matter. I wonder whether that is a lack of education on the part of the person who intercepted it or if it is really the case that the Minister wished to avoid dealing with 37 or 47 per cent — depending on the county in which one lives — of domestic waste. Not only is this a way to deal with it but it is a resource when one has the finished product. I am at pains to stress that local authorities are fumbling about in the dark. That is all I can call it.
It is a good place to be with compost.
Yes. It is certainly a bad place to be when one is in administration. Local authorities are looking to Europe, to what is happening there. I realise the Environmental Protection Agency is beginning to come to grips with the issue through its research but a little guidance from on high and a definition, which says that we realse it is not just a word or an aspiration but is a form of working, would not cost us much trouble, ink or whatever else is holding us back.
Is the amendment being pressed?
I do not see the Minister being too willing to take it on board.
I do not have control over everything that happens in waste management in Ireland. There are agencies with statutory responsibility for this, largely the local authorities. A new licensing regime is in place to manage it and the Environmental Protection Agency has responsibility there. I do not keep a compost heap in the Custom House and we have to be reasonable in how we approach such matters. There will be a waste management plan at local level and composting will be a component of that. Many levels are involved. One hopes domestic households will compost their compostible waste. There may be a municipal arrangement; one local authority has already submitted plans to my Department to establish a municipal composting procedure and I will encourage and exhort others to follow suit.
This is in line with our policies, is explicitly stated in our recycling strategy and will be pushed as part of the overall initiative. One does not need to restate a definition of composting in this Bill to have such an effect, there are other practical ways to achieve it and we are well on our way to doing that. Introducing a definition of composting will have no practical effect but the measures I outlined will.
I hope the Minister is right. I will withdraw the amendment and look forward to the other results.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 11 is in the name of Deputy Sargent, amendment No. 12 is an alternative and both may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 11, subsection (1), line 5, after "holding," to insert "transport,".
It is not realised that some of the materials we transport as waste are quite valuable. It is a contradiction to call it "valuable waste"— it should be seen as a raw material and it is more positive to look on it in that way. In the recovery and disposal area the Minister has taken various matters into account when speaking about environmental pollution. In other countries there is flytipping and environmental pollution as a result of transport and this is a growing phenomenon here, thanks to local charges. We would be remiss if we did not include a transport element when dealing with waste because it is such an integral part of dealing with it safely. I ask the Minister to look favourably on this amendment: I do not wish to press it because it is only one word.
I am convinced by the argument and accept amendment No. 11.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 11, subsection (1), between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:
"(d) cause to be lost, or render unnecessarily difficult to recover, useful resources;".
The Minister will know my line of thinking in wishing to introduce this subsection as it follows other amendments I moved. A number of sections on environmental pollution are referred to and the provision appears to be retrospective in that if something is done to cause pollution we then pursue the person and deal with it. As I said, some of the waste is valuable and increasingly it creates employment, as we heard in submissions on this Bill. To cause useful resources to be lost or render it unnecessarily difficult to recover them is a travesty, ought not be encouraged and should come under the definition of environmental pollution. It creates waste in the same way that a car which is scrapped and left in a ditch is potentially useful if brought to Hammond Lane but is not useful if left where it is, although it might not cause enormous amounts of leachate to enter water courses. In the broadest sense of the word we should try to encourage behaviour which avoids problems in the future and makes the best of our resources, of which we have few as it is.
I am intrigued by and fearful of this definition. As I understand it the amendment proposes to expand the definition of "environmental pollution" to include any activity which militates against recovery of waste. I think this is too broad in scope and would produce legal complications and difficulties. It could be argued that it would be illegal to cause any useful resource to be lost.
I am not suggesting life imprisonment.
I do not want to be fined if I lose my biro. A biro is a useful resource and if I lose it or cause it to be lost could I be carted away?
It has to be of certain value, as valuable as the Minister's biro may be.
I think the definitions go too far and are of a different category to those currently in the Bill. Its definition of environmental pollution is quite clear and would have wide support. Including the phrase, "cause to be lost, or render unnecessarily difficult to recover, useful resources" makes it too broad. I am thinking it through but on my first reading I was not sure this was environmental pollution.
It ought to be.
I am not convinced. I think it is too broad and I ask the Deputy not to push the amendment.
Will the Minister look at it again before Report Stage?
Under section 22 a general duty will be put on the citizenry, that a person shall not hold, recover or dispose of waste in a manner which causes or is likely to cause environmental pollution, so causing such pollution shall be an offence. This amendment would involve broadening the definition of environmental pollution to include causing useful resources to be lost. I think this goes too far. The definition in the Bill is understood to be environmental pollution — that is, to create a risk to waters, the atmosphere, man, soil, plants or animals; to create a nuisance through noise, odours or litter; or to adversely affect the countryside or places of special interest. Those are of one category but Deputy Sargent's amendment seems to be of a different order of magnitude and I would not be happy to include it as a definition and make it an offence.
I am not pressing the amendment but this involves economic as well as environmental pollution, because it removes matter which would otherwise be used. I will not press it because the Minister has difficulties.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 14 and 27 are related, amendment No. 28 is an alternative to amendment No. 27 and all may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 14.
In page 11, subsection (1), lines 32 and 33, to delete "not entailing excessive costs".
This amendment does not have many words but it is significant. If included it would give a message which some may construe as positive and others as negative, depending how they view it. Again, this should be seen not as a cost but as an investment, with dividends at the end.
The phrase "best available technology, not entailing excessive costs" is often trotted out. It tends to raise hopes and then dash them because it is considered too costly to use the technology available. Nevertheless, it is important to tease out the point.
The booklet issued by the Environmental Protection Agency contains a little background information on the organisation and mentions the licensing and regulation of large complex industry and other processes with significant polluting potential on the basis of integrated pollution control and the application of best available technologies for this purpose. To be consistent, we should put down the hallmark of best available technology without trying to water it down to a point where it is ineffective and may as well not be mentioned. If excessive cost is used as a defence, it means the best available technology is rarely, if ever, used in terms according to the willingness of those charged with the responsibility of applying this aspect of the law.
I am cautious in this area in the same way as I am cautious about the nuclear industry in Britain. I have argued the point that the technology is available but they will not use it because it is too costly. In that case, it comes down to public pressure. I am not sure if the Minister is prepared to rely on public pressure to make people comply with the best available technology aspect. As matters stand, best available technology will not be used unless something along the lines of the amendment is included in the Bill.
I put down a similar amendment to another part of the Bill. Overall, I am most enthusiastic about this legislation. However, I am equally adamant that opt out clauses should not be available to any sector. I am uneasy about the concept of the phrase "not entailing excessive costs". There will be a cost to almost every industry. However, some industries, such as the pharmaceutical industry and modern operations, have already met and in some instances exceeded the requirements of the Bill. It was forced on them in some cases but regardless of the reason, some industries already meet all the requirements of this Bill and other legislation already in place, such as the Air Pollution Bill. They have already met the cost and are not benefiting as a result.
There will be a cost to most industries but the phrase "excessive costs" is far too loose. How does one define "excessive costs"? For example, what could be excessive for a small, old fashioned, long established industry, such as a family owned firm, may not be excessive for a medium sized or larger operation. The term "excessive costs" is too loose in terms of application and if it is included in the Bill, there will be an opening for industries to haggle forever as to whether a requirement placed on them is excessively expensive. This is the wrong starting point and approach to take.
We should approach this matter from a different angle. We should say to ourselves and convince others that there is no industry which cannot benefit from the application of cleaner technology. Information in relation to clean technology in operation in Ireland has developed. Our task is to make industries aware of this point because a number, which might have the will to improve their production procedures, do not know this type of technology is available and accessible. I would be happier if we started from the point where there was an attempt to harness the information about cleaner technology which is now available. We should create an awareness of the expertise which is now available to industries of every size at every level if they wish to use it.
The clean technology department of the regional college in Cork made a submission to a meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Sustainable Development yesterday. The delegation included people who have a good deal of experience of meeting the requirements of industry, particularly the pharmaceutical industry, in the Cork region. Their conviction was that the information is available and they are ready and willing to put it at the disposal of industry. They wish to be in a position to do so and for an extension of that approach. They stated that a change of attitude is needed more than anything, particularly on the part of management. Where such a change takes place, the application of cleaner technology can be put in place in industry, sometimes without huge cost. They argued for a change of attitude on the part of management and a willingness to take on board changes in procedures in processes such as manufacturing and services. They were of the opinion that these elements are necessary.
I found their arguments compelling. We should start from a different base and acknowledge that the technology is now available. We should attempt to marry that technology to older and small industries and examine what assistance it may be necessary to provide by way of expertise and information to enable those industries to meet the Bill's requirements. We should not discuss this matter in terms of whether industries can afford to carry the cost. If that is done, the door will be left open for industries to look for all types of derogations and reasons for not complying with the requirements of the Bill. I support the amendment and ask that this concept and phrase is deleted from the Bill. We should approach it from a totally different standpoint.
I remind Deputies that we are still on section 5 after two hours of discussion. At this rate, the Bill will not be passed before Christmas. I urge Deputies to realise that we have much work to complete.
I have much sympathy for the amendment. However, as Deputy Quill said, if we haggle over "not entailing excessive costs", we will haggle over "best available technology". I worry about placing such a requirement on small manufacturing industries which may not be polluting. There will be problems if they are told to get a particular piece of equipment from Germany which is the best available. It will cost a fortune but the regulation states "not excessive cost". We do not know what we are getting ourselves into in this regard. It is a dangerous aspect.
There is some middle ground on this issue. I am concerned about the phrase "not entailing excessive costs". People in business may do the best they possibly can to minimise their pollution and maintain a clean environment but they may not be able to afford the best available technology. I am concerned about this matter but I agree industries which can afford it have avoided these regulations by stating, for example, that they have the best available technology. I am concerned about many industries in the country and it might be foolish in the long-term to include this provision. Perhaps another regulation would be easier on small to medium size manufacturing and other industries.
I am sympathetic to the views expressed. I understand the desire of Deputies to have the highest standards and ensure compliance with the legislation. Deputy Ryan took a pragmatic approach and made a great deal of sense. There is not a great deal of difference between BAT, best available technology, and BATNEEC, best available technology not exceeding excessive costs.
BAT procedure everywhere contains small print about practicality and cost. The German BAT system takes account of the scale of the operation and the benefit. There must be some regard for the benefits of the technology in helping to alleviate the environmental damage caused by the plant or its operation. I was Minister for Health for two years and one of the biggest pressures in that Department was technology. One could spend any amount of money on it but practical decisions have to be made about the benefit of that investment in terms of human life. While we are dealing with an important subject — in a way it involves human life — it is not as much on the cutting edge as health decisions for the practicalities of the impositions we will impose.
The BATNEEC principle, which we have enacted in legislation under the Environmental Protection Agency Act, is having an increasing effect in this country. It has changed people's attitudes, especially those who interface with the licensing regime and people are endeavouring to reach the best standards. The Environmental Protection Agency has produced guidelines that many people in the industry have told me encompasse the principle of BATNEEC but put an onerous burden on operations. I make no excuse for that. Using BATNEC, the principle enshrined in the Environmental Protection Agency Act, we have set high standards.
BATNEEC will not, as a concept, be a loophole for industry. It will strive for the highest standards and we can set the highest standards, but we must have some regard for practicality. Not every operation will have the best and latest unproven technology that happens to be in vogue in another country that we must, by law, impose on them here.
I urge the Deputy to accept the BATNEEC principle. I will give this reassurance; BAT, as a principle — dropping its excessive cost element — is part of the European Union discussions under the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Systems directive which we will be discussing in some detail next year. If that directive adopts a refinement of BAT, we may have to revisit this Act and the Environmental Protection Agency Act in due course, but that is a few years away. We should now drive the BATNEEC principle home. It is new to this country but is increasingly having effect as the Integrated Pollution and Prevention Control System, operated by the Environmental Protection Agency, comes to bite at industry, operations and potential polluters. We should accept it on the understanding that we are looking at an ever increasing demand to stop anybody posing a potential threat to the environment.
I initially thought the Minister was arguing for including the amendment. He said that in Germany, BAT is not as bald a term as it might suggest but that there are practical details not spelt out when the impact on industry and the common good are taken into account. BATNEEC encourages people to look for ways of slipping through the loopholes, but I wish the Minister well in his deliberations in Europe.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 12, subsection (1), to delete lines 12 and 13 and substitute the following:
"‘leachate' means a liquid that is contaminated as a result of coming into contact with any material;"'.
This is a strange situation. The Minister's definition is too restrictive while my version is somewhat broader; it is normally the other way around. Maybe we can find some middle ground. I hope the Minister will look again at the definition of "leachate" in the Bill. I am at a loss to understand why it is relevant for leachate and not for compost, but if there is a reason, I look forward to hearing it.
The existence of leachate is a problem in our landfills; it is only a question of whether people know it. In this case, it is tempting to look on it in terms of its most common manifestation, that of liquid percolating through disposited waste, as referred to in the Bill. I ask the Minister to recognise that leachate has a broader range of origins than that. It does not have to percolate very far before it becomes leachate; it only needs to be contaminated. My amendment will avoid people trying to wiggle out of definitions if they feel they do not come under this restricted definition, as laid out in the Bill. People should not get away with doing this.
I am coming back to basic principles. This Bill is not meant to be all encompassing. By and large, we are talking about solid waste. In the context of this Bill, leachate refers to liquids that have filtered through solid waste disposal. Deputy Sargent's definition of leachate covers any contaminated liquid, which would include sewage etc. Other bodies of legislation deal with water pollution in that definition. The definition I want to focus on is germane to this legislation which deals with solid waste and waste management.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 are related to amendment No. 16 and all may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 12, subsection (1), line 22, before "inspection" to insert "adequate".
I do not want a loophole in this subsection. There is a reference there to measurement, sampling and analysis. My experience and that of others, when it comes to local authorities dealing with those activities, has not been that impressive. I do not intend to malign anybody but we have to face facts and look at our past experiences. If we are to talk about measurements, sampling, inspection and analysis, it is no harm to say there is a standard towards which we aspire. Inserting the word "adequate" would allow us to at least insist that a proper inspection would take place.
For instance, landfill is the primary means of disposing of waste but it does not reclaim or recover any of it. Some local authorities insist that they analyse, inspect, measure and sample the waste but when one asks what they mean by that, it falls short of the mark. Some countries are more rigorous than we are. For instance, landfills in other countries have cameras which enable them to see what is contained in open top lorries when they enter the landfill. I ask the Minister to take this idea on board to ensure there is no flagrant abuse of the law.
We encountered this previously. The definition that would result from the amendment would be too restrictive. I want the monitoring to be as broad and inclusive as possible. I believe the amendment would operate to restrict the extent of the samplings and the inspections that could be carried out. I know that is not the Deputy's intention but it would be the impact of the amendment.
For example, if the agency was only entitled to carry out adequate monitoring, it could be a defence for somebody in court to say that the monitoring was excessive and it was going beyond its powers. The advice I have is to leave it as open and broad as possible so the power remains with the agency and the competent authority to carry out the monitoring required in the circumstances. The definition only includes inspection, measurement, sampling or analysis. Other matters can be included if necessary. It should not be too narrow. I do not want to provide loopholes for people to restrict the monitoring that will flow from this legislation.
I accept what the Minister said. I suggest he look at Deputy Sargent's objective. I agree that often inspection, measurement, sampling and so on are not to a minimum standard. Will the Minister examine the provision with a view to including some reference to independent standards? I agree with the thrust of the amendment as I think the Minister does. I do not want to tie him to specific words but there is a problem and I ask the Minister to consider it in that light. I accept his response to Deputy Sargent, that one could be making things worse, but the spirit of Deputy Sargent's amendment is important.
The spirit of Deputy Dempsey's suggestion would be best dealt with under amendment No. 41, also in the name of Deputy Sargent, where he calls for minimum standards in monitoring. We will deal with it then.
I accept the Minister's judgment but past experience has shown that monitoring, sampling and analysis has been far from excessive.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 17 to 19, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 12, subsection (1), line 26,, to delete "or are".
This is a straightforward drafting amendment. The words "or are" are redundant in the definition of monitoring in section 51. This amendment does not in any way change the meaning of the provision. It is just good English.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 12, subsection (1), lines 27 and 28, to delete ", in the opinion of the local authority concerned or the Agency may be" and substitute "is likely to be".
This is just a question of grammar but the Minister may have his own view. There are more opinions than those of the local authority and the agency. People are entitled to have an interest to the extent of going to court, as they have done in the past, when they feel strongly about non-compliance with monitoring requirements and so on. It is quite restrictive to say that the local authority and the agency are the only ones to have opinions on proper nonitoring. It is more satisfactory to say "is likely to be" and let the agency and the local authority be the standard bearer but not make it exclusive.
The proposed change would again have the effect of weakening the provision because "may" is a much looser term than "is likely to be". The phrase "it may be affected" is a much broader power than to have one come to the conclusion that "it is likely to be affected". The Deputy is weakening the scope to take action because the agency has to come to the conclusion that the environmental medium is likely to be affected.
I take the Minister's point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 13, subsection (1), lines 26 and 27, after "Harbours Act, 1946" to insert "and the Harbours Act, 1995".
This is self explanatory. I am not sure if the harbours legislation has been passed yet. It may not be possible to include it at present.
It is at Report Stage and I am advised that I am not allowed refer to it until it is enacted.
I was anticipating its passage. I take it that if the Bill is passed, the Minister will include a reference to it.
We will update the Bill if the legislation is enacted before we finish but we cannot expect the decision of the Oireachtas in its wisdom.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 25 are related and may be taken together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 13, subsection (1), line 36, to delete ", in relation to waste, the" and substitute "the removal and".
I will not dwell on this. If the Minister thinks it is acceptable well and good; if he does not, I will not dwell on it because I do not think it is the essence of the Bill; it is just arguing over words.
I ask the Deputy not to press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 14, subsection (1), between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
"‘temporary storage' shall mean not more than three months;".
Temporary storage is not defined in the Bill. We are all members of local authorities and know that one man's idea of temporary storage may be very different from that of another.
I am not willing to accept the amendment. It is not good environmental practice. It removes a degree of flexibility which could be a good environmental decision. It is too restrictive and I ask the Deputy not to press the amendment.
Why?
The Minister gave the reason.
I said it would remove the flexibility which I consider necessary.
Can the Minister elaborate on that?
The Deputy is setting out a clear time frame. There may be occasions when that time frame might be appropriate for the best of environmental reasons. To be that rigid in primary legislation is not good practice. I have powers to determine it by regulation but I do not think we should fix it in primary legislation. It is too rigid and it might work against the best interests of the environment.
I can accept to a point what the Minister said. I am sorry to have to make this point and people will think I have a bad opinion of local authorities which I do not. However, I have a poor enough opinion of them on environmental protection and the role they play in it. I make no apology for saying that. I know that very often local public representatives, myself included, put pressure on local authorities because there are jobs and so on at stake but the time has come for us to stop doing this. We must adopt the best possible practices.
I understand the Minister's point about not being too rigid but if one leaves "temporary storage" undefined in the primary legislation, it might mean five, six or seven years in some local authorities and only two or three weeks in others. There should be a definition of temporary storage, even if a let-out clause is required as a result. The Minister suggested that circumstances might exist where good environmental practice would mean storing waste for six to nine months. Perhaps temporary storage could be termed "a period, in normal circumstances, of not more than ‘x' months", or some form of let-out clause. Temporary storage should be defined and the exceptions spelled out in regulations if need be. I ask the Minister to consider this issue.
By not accepting this amendment, the Minister is erring on the side of those who do not aspire to the highest environmental standards. I realise the Minister has outlined situations where three months may not be sufficient. In other legislation I have seen the following wording "shall not mean more than three months except the approval of the Minister" which is aimed at providing an exception. We ought by law down some definition of what is meant by temporary storage because local government will not put any pressure on the local authorities to comply with the aspiration of temporary storage. Temporary, in a geological sense, means we have a long way to go.
I do not intend to be open-ended; I do not intend it is not to be defined. I have specific powers to make regulations on a category basis in relation to such storage. Members may examine the regulatory powers I have under section 39 (6) which states that the Minister may by regulations:
(c) specify a maximum period for which the waste may be stored as aforesaid and deem storage of the waste beyond that period to be a disposal or recovery, as appropriate, of the waste.
In reality I do not think it good practice to put a specific three month proviso into primary legislation. There are instances where the technology might not be available or there may be a reason where it is best to store waste— asbestos for example — for a protracted period until a safe method of disposal becomes available. A suitable permanent method of disposal might not be available to us. That is best carried out within the latitute of regulations rather than the narrow confines of primary legislation. I ask the Opposition Members to accept my assurances in that regard.
Would the Minister consider including a definition of temporary storage in the Bill, even if that means leaving out a specified time?
What value is a definition if we do not have a time clause?
What value is temporary storage if there is not a definition?
It would be specified by regulations which will be laid before the Oireachtas. The Deputy may examine them at that stage.
These regulations will come before the Oireachtas? May I have the Minister's assurance that they will come before the Oireachtas?
I will look into it. I will try my best to have an affirmative resolution for that particular regulation. I do not know what other linkages that has.
Perhaps the Minister will contact me in that regard because I can raise the matter on Report Stage if necessary.
Fair enough.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.
Section 5, as amended agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.