SENATE SPEECHES

Waste Management: Motion 7th June, 2000 Mr. Coogan: I move: That Seanad Éireann calls on the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to debate the issues involved in waste reduction, recycling, composting, incineration and gasification, with particular reference to any possible consequences to public health. While welcoming the Minister of State, I am shocked because the Government has tabled an amendment to the motion. The motion seeks to discuss waste reduction and does not condemn the Government's policy or ask it to do anything more than it would normally do. I sought the debate because I wish to be informed, as do many people whom I represent. The local authority in Galway will have to make a decision on the Connacht waste management plan in the coming weeks. That decision will involve a number of issues but the one that is causing the greatest controversy is incineration. The concept of incineration is frightening for people. The Minister may say that is ridiculous and that there is much hype attached to the issue. Nevertheless, I have to deal with people on the doorsteps. My colleague, Senator Walsh, has already faced the same issue. People are telling us how frightened they are about it. That fear might have been accelerated by a number of people with their own axes to grind. Some people involved in this controversy are against incineration and have their own agenda. There are even people who are making quite a nice living out of it travelling around the place. There are others who see it as a campaign opportunity on which to launch their political careers. These people represent a small minority, however. The majority is frightened by the thought of waste incineration. Recent surveys from Galway city show that more than 20,000 people signed petitions against incineration - I am sure the Minister has seen the figures. One may say that people will sign anything if they are asked to do so by someone standing at the side of the street who frightens them by speaking about the worst aspects of incineration. I doubt, however, whether 20,000 people would sign a petition unless they were genuinely afraid. I sought this debate to discuss those very issues and get a balanced view, but I am surprised because at the very last moment the Government has tabled an amendment to the motion. I cannot understand why because we are seeking information and clarity. I have two files with me. One, a very thin one, is pro-incineration, containing claims that it is safe and that the dioxins produced are minimal. The other file is three times as thick and it contains evidence that incineration is dangerous. Included in that file is an Environmental Protection Agency report from the United States, which says that dioxins from incineration are carcinogenic, in other words, they cause cancer. I have no other proof of that and I do not know how this report was drawn up, but I assume the EPA in America is as qualified as the EPA here and that it did not lightly decide the dioxins are carcinogenic. One may argue that we are talking about old incinerators, ones that are being closed down, and that new ones that have minimised dioxin emissions are quite safe. One can quote figures, but one would have to be a scientist to understand some of them. There is no point going into them because the public and I would not have a clue what they mean. The emission of any carcinogenic substance, no matter how minimal, must be scientifically examined to decide whether it is too much and should be eliminated. I want the Minister of State to give me an informed viewpoint, based on scientific knowledge which is as up to date as possible, using the facilities of the Department. I hope I will then be able to make an informed decision on whether incineration is good or bad. When I balance incineration against the alternatives, I want to know if I make the right decision in voting for or against. I am reflecting the views of many local authority members the majority of whom, if a vote was cast now, would vote against incineration. My colleague, Senator Jackman, is a member of Limerick County Council which recently voted in favour of recycling and the other elements of their plan but decided to leave aside the question of incineration until it was proven to be safe. This is the view of local authorities throughout the country. I have no reason to disbelieve that this Government supports incineration. I recently read a report in a national newspaper, where the Minister, responding to the American EPA report, said incineration is completely safe and he supports it 100%. Therefore, we must assume the Government supports incineration and that it will make a decision that will not adversely affect the health of the people. However, I must also assume that whatever decision I make is based on scientific fact. I condemn previous Governments, including one of which I was a member, for not recognising that waste and waste management would be one of the burning issues of the future. We are reactive, not proactive, in this area. We should have started recycling a long time ago but we are now starting very late. I do not believe in conspiracy theories but now that local authorities are faced with a decision which must be made quickly, it is better to allow them to do that rather than build it up until they have to make a decision and go one way or another. In the context of the Government's amendment, I do not believe it has ever attempted to look at recycling, reduction or composting. There has been no genuine commitment to the alternatives. There is a programme for 48% recycling in the future. I cannot see this happening in households where plastic bags are left outside containing a mix of every type of material. There is no attempt at separation or reduction. If there was a real attempt at reduction, supermarkets would not hand out plastic bags. They would demand that one had a bag made of jute or a natural recyclable material which could be reused until it wore out. Supermarkets give out plastic bags to hold products which are already wrapped or double wrapped in plastic - these bags are pushed at the customer left, right and centre. It is easy to say that customers can say no. However, they cannot because they have to carry the products somehow. We must go to the root of this and stop the production of plastic bags or change the nature of their manufacture. I have spoken about this before. I am aware of ongoing scientific experiments on biodegradable plastic bags, which will harmlessly re-enter the earth because when they are buried the heat generated underground is enough to melt them down. This is a possibility, but in the meantime we must be firm in our commitment to recycling. When I was growing up, the rattle of milk bottles was a lovely sound and one knew when the milkman had arrived, which was the only alarm clock in the house for some people. Now we have plastic cartons scattered around which take years to degrade, if they degrade. Why do we not tell milk producers that we want to return to glass bottles? If we are to make a commitment to recycling, we should be honest about doing it. We should do it 100% and impose restrictions, in the same way as we do for litter. We should not rush into incineration because it is the last chance saloon. Incineration will fail to be accepted by the public. I received a letter from my local chamber of commerce, in which it asked if we have looked at all the alternatives and the possibility of toxic emissions etc. The chamber of commerce asks questions but does not direct us. It states in the letter that with the public perception as it is at present, it is unlikely that incineration will be voted through. This was said by an organisation which is not in the political arena but is involved enough to know what is going on. It is telling public representatives that incineration will not go through. This indicates to the Minister that the possibility of its happening is non-existent.

Will the Minister tell me why he believes incineration is safe? Will he assure me and everyone else - public representatives and those they represent - that its safety is guaranteed? Will he assure me he has looked at the alternatives, such as gasification, and that they are safe? Will he assure me there is a genuine commitment to recycling and reduction? To date, I have been assured of none of these. As I said at the outset, I have two files - one thicker than the other, one saying no to incineration and the other saying yes. There is misinformation on both sides. I recall someone telling me that a certain location had no incineration and 100% recycling, which was extraordinary. I found out that the person was not telling me a lie and there was 100% recycling - 100% recycling of what was left because the rest of it had been transported to the next state where it was being incinerated. I was not given that information. I was given information on dioxins but what will happen to bottom ash was not addressed. This subject is worthy of a long debate. Senator Quill, other Senators and myself have continually asked for a debate on this which we did not get, so we must compress the discussion into Private Members' time. We are not being informed of all the facts. I want to be convinced that the decision I make is based on all the facts. I was surprised - genuinely I was not that surprised - to read an article by Frank McDonald, who would not be known as a supporter of local government, in yesterday's edition of The Irish Times, where he came out strongly in favour of incineration, having looked at a project in Vienna which is quite up to date. Vienna has a population of 1.8 million and they incinerate 800,000 tonnes, which highlights how much they have reduced their waste. We produce half a tonne of waste per person. The Galway west and Connacht regions do not generate enough waste to justify an incinerator. We will have to take waste from other places. Going on the figures, we will probably need three incinerators throughout Ireland. The time we have been given is too short. I should have complained about that this morning. However, my hands are tied by virtue of the fact it is our motion. Mrs. Jackman: I second the motion. I am also shocked by the amendment. Senator Coogan and the other Fine Gael Senators specified in the motion what we wanted to discuss. It states, "the issues involved in waste reduction, recycling, composting, incineration and gasification, with particular reference to any possible consequences to public health". That is as open and honest as could be. I am a member of Limerick County Council, which has never spent as much time on any issue as it did on the production of a draft waste management plan for the Limerick, Clare, Kerry region, which we rejected the other day. We debated it at length but we are back to where we started. What is the Minister's stance? Where is the direction given by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to us local authority members? We are not scientists, engineers, hydrologists, geologists or hydrogeologists. It would take all those specialties to keep abreast of the debate that has not happened in Ireland, except at local authority level, but is raging throughout Europe. It is interesting that the word "incineration" is not mentioned in the amendment. Perhaps the Government has decided it does not want to talk about incineration. There is a reference to "energy recovery", but that need not necessarily be incineration because thermolysis and pyrolysis also involve energy recovery. Is the Government drawing back from even using the word because it now knows how controversial it is? I do not know why this amendment was tabled. It asks the Seanad to affirm "its support for the current comprehensive integrated policy approach to waste management, based firmly on the waste hierarchy". We understand the waste hierarchy. I will talk about incineration, thermolysis and pyrolysis in a moment. I am sorry the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, is not here. The Minister of State, Deputy Ned O'Keeffe, took the debate in the Seanad and Dáil on the EPA and the supposedly leaked document in The Washington Post. Why can the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, not come to the Seanad to debate this issue? We cannot say whether the EPA in America is any better or worse than our own EPA. We cannot just say we do not believe what we have heard about dioxins and the problems posed to our health by the food we eat. In this country we eat a lot of dairy produce and meat, through which humans digest dioxin which, we hear, results in carcinogenic problems. I do not disagree with the amendment in regard to waste prevention, minimisation, reuse and recycling. It is interesting that our local authority decided to accept that thrust but said it was not accepting the part dealing with thermolysis, gasification and incineration. We said we would revisit it in two years' time, with the proviso that we could opt out of that issue if we wanted. There seemed to be no problem with the local authority agreeing to that. We are expected to be recycling over 40% of waste by 2005. We have almost reached 2001, as the longest day of the year will be in a couple of weeks' time. How could any Minister or Department think we could be close to recycling 40% or 50% by 2005? That is wishful thinking. Local authorities have not been given the financial support to do anything about reducing, reusing or recycling waste. We have one small financial intervention in Limerick, which is for the compost cone, which has been so widely accepted by the community of County Limerick that there is a six month waiting list for them. The small manufacturer in Midleton, County Cork, cannot keep up with the demand for the composting cone generated by the pilot project in Limerick County Council. The public is ready, willing and able to reduce, reuse and recycle waste, but we cannot meet the demands within our local authority area for even the very basic aspect of the compost cone. Senator Coogan referred to supermarkets. Supermarkets on the Continent ask customers if they have their own bag or if they will carry the goods in their hands. They then very reluctantly produce a bag, for which the customer has to pay quite a large sum. I have seen that in Denmark, Germany and most other European countries. Where is the proactitivy in relation to asking our major supermarkets to do something in that regard? I know that money goes to a local school if one brings back the bag one got last week. However, they are made of very thin plastic and do not last long. The supermarkets should tell us to bring our own shopping bags, particularly given how near the carparks are. That is what I would regard as being proactive. Businesses and industries should be asked to look at the products they use. It is not the concept of incineration that is wrong but what is put into the incinerator, because what is put in must come out. Why is the Minister not proactively asking industries and businesses to see if they could use alternative products which would not cause problems for waste disposal? I would have some hope if that were to happen. However, it seems no effort is being made in regard to businesses and industries. Most of the questionnaires sent to the public on waste management strategies ask whether people would prefer landfill or incineration. That is an extremely unfair question because it should not be a question of one or the other. The report states that, no matter what we do, we will still have to have a certain element of landfill. The proposal by M.C. O'Sullivan for Slievefelim, which is a most beautiful, untapped range of mountains in east Limerick and the border of north Tipperary, is that landfill should be put at 1,000 feet above sea level. I am a geography teacher and we know that mountains produce far more relief rainfall than lowlands. These consultants are supposed to have the most extraordinarily up to the minute hydrogeological advice available to them. Who would put a landfill site at a height of 1,000 feet, at the headstreams of the whole Shannon basis, east of the Shannon, as Tipperary is? That is incredible. We are being asked if we want Slievefelim or an incinerator, but the public will want neither. I understand we have to deal with waste and that it is not the Minister who is producing waste in Limerick, Galway or anywhere else. We know that, as individuals, we produce an enormous amount of waste. However, the public must be given a carrot to reduce waste. A woman came to see me who said she had a wheelie bin through a private operator but wanted to go to Limerick County Council because we had introduced the cone. She made a great effort to reduce her waste to a minimum and asked the council if she could have a small wheelie bin. They said she could, but owing to the restrictions in their funds as a result of not having an input into the funding they receive from the Department of the Environment and Local Government, she would have to pay the same amount for the small bin - £115 - as she would for the large one. What message is she getting? The message is that no matter how much one recycles or how great an effort one makes, one is going to pay the same as if one needed three or four bins. Regarding incentives for the general public, an excellent environmental awareness officer is employed in Limerick courtesy of the Minister's making some financial concessions and she is doing wonders. She has produced a regional waste management plan for householders and businesses and has visited schools in the county and much more, but she is not getting the financial backup to invest in further waste reduction measures. That is fine in theory, but it is impossible in practice. M.C. O'Sullivan prepares draft waste management plans for all the regions. Who are the Minister's advisers? I asked that question last week on the Order of Business. Is the Minister getting advice solely from M.C. O'Sullivan? I have nothing against the consultants; they are paid to do a job and I am sure they are doing that job to the best of their ability, but they were leaning heavily towards incineration until we on the local authority questioned them as to whether they had looked at thermolysis. They said it was not tried and tested and that they favoured a tried and tested method, but we pointed out that the lead in for Ireland would be very slow and that they could look at alternatives in this area. Now there is a slight move towards looking at thermolysis, though when we in Limerick County Council looked at the Karlsruhe facility we were told to forget about it. Until there is an open debate - which people are entitled to - on the dangers of incineration, everyone will say "No" to it. Governments respond to the public's reactions and at present incineration is a no-no word. People are entitled to a proper debate on why incineration is pushed so strongly. We should look at other sides of the debate. The EPA stated that Britain is not worried about incineration. The British Minister, Mr. Michael Meacher, has promised to limit the number of incinerators to be built in Britain and will try not to build any if Britain can do without them and still meet tough EU targets to cut the use of field dumps for rubbish disposal from 85% to 35% by 2016 and 2020. The British public is listening to the same arguments, so we are not the only ones with a big problem in this area. I am also shocked, as was Senator Coogan, by the Government amendment.

Mr. Walsh: I move amendment No. 1: To delete the words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following: "affirms its support for the current comprehensive integrated policy approach to waste management, based firmly on the waste hierarchy of - waste prevention - waste minimisation, - re-use and recycling, - energy recovery, and - environmentally sound waste disposal, and reaffirms its confidence that the Environmental Protection Agency, in licensing waste facilities through the IPC and waste licensing processes, will continue to apply the highest standards so as to ensure the protection of human health and the environment.". Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government (Mr. D. Wallace): When we published Changing our Ways in 1998, defining a new national waste management policy, we acknowledged that historically our performance in this area had been poor. Unlike the majority of our EU colleagues, we have relatively low levels of materials recycling, no significant biological treatment capacity and no energy recovery infrastructure. Consequently, we are heavily reliant on landfill to deal with our waste arisings, which are increasing. However, we are now engaged on a radical transformation of our approach to waste management. In recent years, we have seen a very significant evolution of policy and law. We are now completing a strategic planning process which will lay the groundwork for the development of a modem waste management infrastructure that will enable us to deliver ambitious national waste recovery targets. There is no question that the objective of sound waste management presents significant environmental and lifestyle challenges which will engage us at national, regional and local level for some years to come. The challenges involved in the current transition to modern waste management practice can best be addressed on the basis of informed planning and commitment to progressive policies implementing the highest environmental standards. I am confident our policy approach is well founded and well balanced, that good progress is being made and that we are laying a sound basis for future waste management in this country. The Waste Management Act, 1996, recognises that meaningful and comprehensive waste management planning is an essential prerequisite to improved waste management performance and much effort has been devoted at national, regional and local level to delivering effective results in this regard. Reflecting the waste hierarchy, the statutory objective of these plans is to prevent or minimise the production and harmful nature of waste, to encourage and support the recovery of waste, to ensure that such waste as cannot be prevented or recovered is safely disposed of and to address the need to give effect to the polluter pays principle. Changing our Ways provided a national policy framework for the adoption and implementation by local authorities of strategic waste management plans. It outlined the Government's policy objectives in relation to waste management and in particular it focused on the need to develop and pursue integrated solutions. The policy statement strongly endorsed a dramatic reduction in reliance on landfill, in favour of an integrated waste management approach which utilises a range of waste treatment options to deliver effective and efficient waste services and ambitious recycling and recovery targets, greater participation by the private sector in the provision of waste management services, a more effective and equitable system of waste charging which incentivises waste minimisation and recovery and the mobilisation of public support and participation. Ambitious targets were set for achievement over a 15-year timescale, including a diversion of 50% of overall household waste away from landfill, a minimum 65% reduction in biodegradable municipal wastes consigned to landfill, the development of composting and other feasible biological treatment facilities capable of treating up to 300,000 tonnes of organic waste annually, materials recycling of 35% of municipal waste, recovery of at least 50% of construction and demolition waste within a five year period, with a progressive increase to at least 85% over 15 years and a rationalisation of the existing network municipal waste landfills. The response of local authorities has been very positive and 32 authorities have adopted or are committed to making detailed regional waste management plans and it is evident that these plans will seek to give effect to the policy objectives and targets outlined in Changing our Ways . In particular, the emerging regional waste management plans make provision for an integrated waste management infrastructure, including segregation and separate collection of recyclable materials in urban areas, "bring" facilities for recyclable materials in rural areas, civic amenity sites and waste transfer stations, biological treatment of "green" and organic household waste, materials recovery facilities, recycling capacity for construction and demolition waste, thermal treatment facilities and residual landfill requirements. New waste facilities are generally unwelcome to the public and invariably generate vigorous local opposition. In part this is due to past performance of local authorities, which had no guidelines or standards set down for waste facilities and limited finances to ensure proper performance. In part, it also reflects the prevalence of the NIMBY factor. Local communities have the right to expect democratic decision-making which is being achieved through the waste management planning process; they are also entitled to acceptable environmental standards which ensure that waste activities will not harm human health or the environment, but they have to play their part too. Nobody who creates waste can ignore the consequences or rely on the NIMBY factor. When we are creating over a half a tonne of municipal waste per person per annum, a range of solutions, beginning with prevention, is obviously required. As public representatives, it is our duty to resist the negative and the simplistic and to counter emotive claims with responsible leadership. Very stringent standards are imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency in relation to all significant waste facilities and we need to assure the public that their interests are being rigorously protected. Accordingly, public education, awareness and participation are an integral part of modernising waste management. We need informed discussion of the issues. I strongly believe that meaningful public involvement and a policy of openness and transparency can mitigate the real concerns of host communities in relation to waste treatment facilities of whatever kind. Clearly, the most controversial element of these plans is the proposed development of thermal treatment capacity both because of concerns regarding emissions and perceived implications for materials recycling. Thermal treatment of waste, carried on in accordance with high environmental standards, is regarded as environmentally preferable to the disposal of waste by landfill and plays a major part in municipal waste management in many EU countries and further afield. Accordingly, Changing our Ways proposed that, where technically and economically feasible, and subject to appropriate attention to materials recycling, incineration with energy recovery or other advanced thermal processes are among the treatment options which should be considered in an integrated waste management strategy. I am satisfied that this remains the case. To inform the development and implementation of regional waste management plans, two EU-funded feasibility studies were carried out for local authorities in 1998 on thermal treatment/recovery options as one element of an integrated approach towards waste management. These studies, incorporating expertise from Denmark, Austria, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, examined the technical, environmental and financial advantages and disadvantages of thermal treatment in two distinct rural regions - the north east and mid-west - and in the greater Dublin region. The studies considered three thermal treatment options - waste incineration with energy recovery, gasification and pyrolysis - under a range of criteria. At that time the consultants concluded inter alia that WTE is a safe, tried and tested technology capable of meeting stringent environmental standards; gasification and pyrolysis are emerging technologies which are continuing to be developed to the scale likely to be appropriate in Irish circumstances; gasification offers environmental advantages over WTE, including lower emissions; gasification does not have the same track record as WTE but appears to be close to becoming proven as a treatment method for municipal wastes; and pyrolysis may have future potential in certain applications but is not currently suitable as a bulk treatment method for municipal wastes. Our major infrastructural requirements in the waste area can best be addressed through the establishment of public/private partnerships delivering integrated regional solutions. Private participation in waste management can contribute not just capital investment but specialist expertise in the application of alternative and emerging technologies. As local authorities address the implementation of regional waste management plans, it may be expected that PPP proposals will emerge which reflect the state of the art in, and relative merits of, available waste technologies. The position in this regard, including the need and scope for support of a technologically innovative process such as gasification on a pilot basis, will be kept under ongoing review. The media recently highlighted a so-called report from the US Environmental Protection Agency linking waste incineration with carcinogens. In fact there has been no recent report by the US EPA in this matter. The media and certain interested parties have been content to comment, apparently sight unseen, on a leaked draft report being prepared by the US EPA regarding dioxins. Dioxins, which are ubiquitous in the environment, arise from a range of combustion sources, diffuse and otherwise. Detailed information regarding the known effects of dioxins on human health is contained in a range of reports, including a comprehensive published 1999 EU report entitled Compilation of EU Dioxin Exposure and Health Data. The essential point said to emerge from the leaked draft report is that the US EPA has concluded for the first time that dioxins are a human carcinogen. This link is already accepted elsewhere. In 1997 the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an agency of the World Health Organisation, had already classed the most toxic dioxin compound as a known human carcinogen. The WHO also considers that there is a level of exposure to dioxins below which cancer risk would be negligible. In 1998 it agreed on a tolerable daily intake guideline for dioxins based on a thorough evaluation of all available data on the toxicological effect of dioxins and the most up to date methods of interpretation. Clearly, because of the potential toxic effects of exposure to dioxins, their emission must, where possible, be strictly controlled and minimised to ensure that exposure does not exceed relevant guidelines and standards. Irish environmental legislation, in particular the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992, provides for the integrated licensing and comprehensive environmental control of waste incineration facilities. The EPA must take the precautionary principle into account and is precluded from granting an integrated licence unless, among other considerations, it is satisfied that the activity concerned will not endanger human health or harm the environment. In licensing incineration facilities the EPA already applies a flue gas emission limit value for dioxins of 0.1 nanograms, that is one ten thousand millionth of a gram per cubic metre of gas emitted. This is an extremely stringent standard which will shortly be adopted by the EU generally under the proposed Council directive on the incineration of waste. The European Commission estimates that the implementation of this directive will result in a 99% reduction in emissions of dioxins from waste incineration relative to 1993/1995, and anticipates that the contribution of municipal and clinical waste incineration to overall emissions of dioxins in Europe will be reduced to 0.3%, assuming the output of other sources remains unchanged. I am advised that emissions from proposed new thermal treatment facilities, employing modern technologies and subject to compliance with strict environmental standards, should not have any appreciable environmental impact or contribute significantly to background levels of dioxins locally or nationally. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, has been publicly challenged to comment on a recent press report quoting an official of the European Commission to the effect that the Commission is opposed to thermal treatment because of public health considerations. I am advised that the report in question is completely unfounded. Having regard to the waste hierarchy, the European Commission considers that preference should be given, where environmentally sound, to material recovery, such as composting and recycling, over energy recovery. This is entirely consistent with the approach underlying the regional waste management plans currently being adopted. These plans set out to achieve the maximum realistic levels of waste recycling and biological treatment, before addressing the scope for thermal treatment of residual wastes, in preference to landfill. For instance, the waste management plan adopted for the Dublin region provides for recycling and biological treatment of nearly 60% of anticipated waste arisings, thermal treatment of about 27% and the landfilling of only 14% of waste. This kind of performance is on a par with the best international practice. Some criticism of the proposed regional plans stems from the view that thermal treatment is inconsistent with high recycling rates. This need not be the case. Throughout the EU the most environmentally progressive member states combine an impressive recycling performance with a significant reliance on thermal treatment as part of an integrated approach to waste management. For a topical and informed illustration of the role of thermal treatment as part of a progressive solution to the problem of waste management I would refer colleagues to a newspaper report yesterday regarding the Spittelau municipal waste incinerator located in Vienna, which is not only that city's principal waste treatment plant but is also a major tourist attraction. I am satisfied that the regional waste management plans currently being adopted by local authorities are getting the balance right and will provide a sound basis for the delivery of improved waste services and the development of an effective and safe waste management infrastructure. Accordingly I support the amendment to the motion. Dr. Henry: I enjoyed the Minister of State's speech, even if some of it was a little aspirational. I realise he is genuinely very interested in this matter. It is essential that we should all share that interest. The European Union has as its core mission the inclusion of sustainable development and the integration of environmental considerations in all its policies. The new programme currently being drawn up by the European Union is likely to require all citizens to be informed about and responsible for their impact on the environment and to require that environmental concerns are integrated into economic, social and education policies. Despite what the Minister of State said, I question whether we are doing enough on this issue. I am pleased the Minister of State praised the EPA because its policy documents and reports are excellent. I read its most recent national waste database report and it is frightening that, despite the numerous directives that have been introduced since the early 1990s, there is increased waste generation. Between 1995-98, waste increased by more than 37%. A huge amount of this was agricultural waste but there was a great increase in the manufacturing, mining, construction and demolition sectors. There was also an 11% increase in municipal waste which most citizens believe they can address. The Environmental Protection Agency does splendid work. It produces policy documents and deals with episodes such as the recent inadvertent planting of genetically modified grain. However, I question whether it has the resources needed to monitor the legislation passed in this House. There is plenty of legislation and directives but I question how these are being monitored, because I see very little effect of it on the ground. I praised the efforts made to get manufacturers to remove phosphates from detergents voluntarily in a couple of years. We have also promoted the involvement of Teagasc in monitoring the amount of phosphates spread on land, in the knowledge that in some areas there is a five year over-supply. Are there any reports on how Teagasc is doing in this regard? I worry about the fact that we produce reports and think we have done something. We send out directives and believe that to be more progress. However, unless something happens we are doing nothing. I was interested in the Minister of State's speech which states that the Dublin region has adopted a waste management plan which provides for recycling and biological treatment of nearly 60% of anticipated waste arisings, thermal treatment of about 27% and landfilling of only 14% of waste. I am sure such a performance, whenever it will happen, is on a par with best international practice, but nothing is happening in Dublin 4. When Mary Banotti MEP and I walk around Sandymount, we are berated by locals who recognise us about the possibility of an incinerator being built there. However, the Minister of State cheered me tonight by saying that I will be able to inform them in future that it will be not just an incinerator but a tourist attraction. Given what we have been discussing tonight, we are looking at waste disposal in a backward way. We are trying to deal with incineration, which is the most important part of the Minister of State's speech, as an alternative to landfill. Incineration should be the last straw before landfill. The information we received from ENFO on how to deal with waste, which is excellent, includes the most favoured options which are prevention, minimisation, re-use and recycling and the least favoured options, energy recovery and disposal. We seem to be doing next to nothing on the most favoured options. Consider, for example, the ubiquitous plastic bag. If we were to begin with the prevention option, we would be making a great effort to encourage people to use a shopping bag when they go shopping, which is becoming a slightly more common sight that it used to be. However, very large shopping malls are being built outside towns in many areas where it will be impossible to shop with just a shopping bag. We must encourage local shops in the high streets in this regard as many people will not have access to shopping malls. As a member of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Enterprise and Small Business, I believe the Government is cognisant of this fact but it is a matter into which we must put a great deal of thought if we are to encourage people to minimise the amount of plastic bags they use. These bags should not be given to someone who buys a packet of crisps, as I have seen happen on occasions. More social policy and educational efforts should be made in this area. When one shops locally, one has the benefit of the exercise which I am sure will cheer those who tabled the motion. The minimisation effort whereby we use fewer plastic bags and fewer wrappings is not promoted. Directive 315 of 1997 promotes and supports the recovery of waste plastics from farms. The regulations impose obligations on manufacturers and importers of farm plastics to take steps to recover waste plastics from farms. Is this happening? I am not aware of any report on the monitoring of what proportion of plastic goes on to farms and what portion is taken back by those who send it out. The waste management packaging regulations, 1997, promote and support the recovery of packaging waste. The regulations impose obligations on all suppliers of packaged goods, packaging and packaging materials to take steps to recover packaging waste. Is this being monitored? Are we making sure that people who send groceries in cartons and so on to various supermarkets are being made to take back their waste? I do not think this is being monitored. Very little is being done in this regard. The third option favoured relates to the re-use of plastic bags. This is encouraged in our local shops where everyone brings back their plastic bags. However, I do not know how frequently this happens. Some effort in that area might be worthwhile. Some supermarkets occasionally make an effort in this regard but we need to have a greater educational input into it. Recycling was taking place in some of the supermarkets but there is the problem of exposing those who work in recycling plants to chemicals, such as polychlorinated dibenzyls, which are very undesirable. We are setting up industries to manufacture these bags which it would be better not to set up. It would be better to re-use the plastic bags. There has been no effort in relation to recycling. The bottle bank was started mainly by the Simon Community. While there are bottle banks in some areas, it would be better if this practice was seized upon as a major municipal initiative. There is another regulation, No. 1163 dating from 1998. I wonder if anybody is doing anything to enforce that regulation. Energy recovery is being treated as a commercial venture in Ireland and is viewed as something which will solve our waste disposal problem. We must stop using the term landfill as these facilities are dumps. The problems with incinerators have been gone through carefully, and I will spare Members a discussion of the problems associated with land dumps, which include rats and Weil's disease. Dumps are the least preferable option. I was travelling near one of the dumps in Dublin with a German who said they would not keep sending Ireland money for structural development while we have such dumps. We went to Rio and signed Agenda 21, but we have a huge issue to address. I regret that we seem to be going backwards. Admittedly we are trying to reduce landfill, but are only going as far as energy recovery when we should be going far further in terms of the most favoured options in order to make an impact on the waste problem.

Mr. Walsh: Molaim Fine Gael go bhfuil an abhair tábhachtach seo ar an chlár. I commend the Leas-Chathaoirleach and his colleagues for tabling this important motion. The issue is a serious challenge for local government. The debate over the years has falsely been presented as a choice between either landfill or incinerators. Incinerators still need landfill for hazardous ash. There are working alternatives in many countries which have rejected incineration. It is also worth pointing out that incineration introduces a range of new problems which are easily overlooked, including the need for hazardous landfill for pollution control residues and for bottom ash, an increased risk of leaching of contaminants, the possible dispersion of hazards if ash residue is used for construction, the undermining of public confidence in the safety of our food both at home and abroad and the financial liability for local authorities if we succeed in reducing waste volumes. It is interesting to acknowledge a report in The Washington Post on May 17 which dealt with the EPA report which linked dioxin to cancer. The report stated: The Clinton administration is preparing to dramatically raise its estimate of health threats from dioxin, citing new evidence of cancer risk from exposure to the toxic chemical compound. A draft of a long awaited report by the Environmental Protection Agency concludes for the first time that dioxin is a "human carcinogen". The report notes that emissions of dioxin have plummeted from their peak levels in the 1970s but still may pose a significant cancer threat to some people who ingest the chemical through foods in a normal diet. Dioxin comes from both natural and industrial sources, such as medical and municipal waste incineration and paper pulp production. The chemical enters the food chain when animals eat contaminated plants. Dioxin then accumulates in the fat of mammals and fish. It has been linked to several cancers in humans, including lymphomas and lung cancer. Exposure to dioxin occurs over a lifetime and the danger is cumulative, the report said. Studies have found that people all over the globe have some dioxin in their bodies. Is the Department waging a propaganda war, encouraged by county managers who are reluctant to examine alternative waste policies? Are we abrogating our responsibility as elected politicians by paying consultants who may have prejudiced their views by their industry associations? The recent significant lead taken by Wexford County Council has not been recognised as the considered judgment it was. An article in The Irish Times in March sought to suggest the recent EU dioxin report had been interpreted incorrectly by councillors in Wexford and a comment was attributed to Dr. Heidelore Fiedler, one of the authors of the report. Direct contact with Dr. Fiedler revealed that no such criticism of Wexford County Council was every made and that councillors were wise in their assessment. On 16 March Dr. Fiedler said: I have not been involved in any discussions and I am not familiar with the process that happened in Wexford. But even if I would have been it is certainly not for me to comment on any decision that has been made by the council. The UNEP and LUA reports both find that waste incineration is the largest dioxin source in many countries. Recently, concern with waste incineration has been highlighted by three sources. The EU dioxin assessment indicated the toxic effects of dioxin compounds and pointed to waste incineration as the number one contributor to the problem historically and in the present. The EU Dioxin Exposure and Health Data 1999 states: "However, in several member states, waste incineration is still an important source of dioxins". The leaked report from the US EPA implies that all sources of dioxin should be eliminated such is the risk to health posed by this family of chemicals in the food chain. The Washington Post of 17 May stated: For a small segment of the population who eat large amounts of fatty foods, such as meats and dairy produce that are relatively high in dioxins, the odds of developing cancer could be as high as one in 100, the report says. That estimate places the risk ten times as high as the EPA's previous projections. The report, obtained by The Washington Post, links low grade exposure to dioxins to a wide array of other health problems, including changes in hormone levels as well as developmental defects in babies and children. It also concludes that children's dioxin intake is proportionately much higher than adults because of the presence of the chemical in dairy products and even breast milk. The head of the EU Waste Management Directorate has also stated that new incinerators are unlikely to be built in Europe, that the building of incinerators by countries is not part of the EU's waste management programme, and that thermal treatment hinders progressive waste resource management initiatives. On 19 May The Guardian stated: Europe is moving to phase out the building of huge incinerators just as Britain is planning a new chain across the country as part of the Government's waste strategy, Ludwig Kraemer, head of the EU Waste Management Directorate, revealed last night. In France, Belgium, Holland, Italy, Germany and Portugal no more new incinerators are being built because the public will not stand for them. "They are treated in the same way as nuclear power stations - people no longer want them," he said. Mr. Kraemer said concerns about public health and traffic congestion and pollution caused by the lorries required to deliver hundreds of thousands of tons of waste to each incinerator had turned the public against them. "Once they are built we are talking about creating waste streams for the next 25 years to keep the incinerators going," he said. His warning follows revelations from the United States that Britain's new generation of incinerators could pose a cancer threat to local residents. Emissions from incinerators threaten health and the quality of food. In the case of dioxins it is wrong to claim there are many other significant sources in Ireland. Our low levels in cows' milk testify to our lack of sources. Lists of other dioxin sources are used to mislead the Irish public since these measurements are from industrial and contaminated Europe. Burning straw in Central Europe releases dioxins because incinerators have deposited dioxins on the lipid layer of grass. It would be wrong to justify introducing a major source of dioxins into this country on the basis of figures taken out of context. All sources of dioxin must be eliminated. If waste incineration is a source of dioxins, then it must be eliminated. This is why the EU Waste Management Directorate has stated that incineration is now being viewed in the same way as nuclear power - nobody wants it. Particulate matter from incineration is another problematic emission because it is so difficult to trap the dangerous parts. Smallest particles present the greatest threat, in particular those less than 2.5 microns. Pollution control devices in incinerators manage to catch only between 5% and 30%. These emissions cause heart attacks and strokes. It is not possible to eliminate all the risks from waste incineration simply because it is not possible to eliminate serious pollutants such as mercury, cadmium and other heavy metals, as well as the smallest and most dangerous particulate matter. Even the amounts of these that are removed must be disposed of in a landfill. The EU calculates that currently 36 tonnes of mercury are emitted from incinerators. Even after 2005, if the proposed directive is fully implemented, the level will still be greater than seven tonnes. There is no doubt that waste incinerators would become the most serious point sources of such a dangerous toxic metal in Ireland. Recycling figures in Europe are not as high as our waste consultants would have us believe. Composting figures are also quite low in many of the environmentally friendly countries. It is important to note that composting is the optimum choice for organic waste if we truly want to recycle it and improve the quality of landfills. There are composting methods available that eliminate methane emissions. It is the organic fraction that makes landfills leach and smelly and produce methane emissions. A selection of European countries listed in order of dependence on incineration clearly reveals that the three countries with the greatest dependence on incineration are bottom of the league when it comes to recycling. The situation in France is clearly the most damning of incineration, while the Danish figures also dispel the myth that it has a good environmental record in waste management. While Germany, Finland and the Netherlands have respectable levels of recycling, it is still clear that, overall, incineration prevents recycling from being maximised. The choice is not between incinerators or landfills. There will be landfills for the foreseeable future. The question is what will go into them. Will we dump ash containing a range of hazardous metals or will they be restricted to materials separated from all organics that are impossible to recycle? Rejecting incineration in many countries has led to energy being devoted to sustainable alternatives. Even though much of this activity has only begun in the past ten to 15 years, there are many examples of success. In 1995 targets were set in Nova Scotia to reduce waste going to landfill and incineration by 50%. A wide range of measures were adopted, one of which was to ban certain materials going to landfill. At the end of last year a 44% diversion rate had been achieved. New Zealand, where incineration was rejected some years ago, now has 22 zero waste councils aiming to eliminate the disposal of used materials. It approaches the issue as one of resource management where one of the major incentives is the economic benefit derived from alternatives. There is no approved hazardous waste landfill in Ireland. The hazardous waste policy is to reduce the amount of hazardous waste generated. The proposed six incinerators would produce more than 50,000 tonnes of hazardous waste per year from the pollution control residues. This amounts to over one million tonnes requiring landfill over 20 years. This is not in keeping with the need to reduce hazardous waste. Locating these landfills will meet with deserved opposition. Using the figures mentioned, over 510,000 tonnes of bottom ash will be generated requiring landfills for disposal. This ash will contain the various contaminants found in fly ash but in a lower concentration. The use of bottom ash for construction purposes is one of the ways some countries avoid necessary landfills. This carries risks for the future. The Dutch Government has legislated for this. When incineration was proposed in New Zealand some years ago the argument made against it by the country's farmers was that it would damage agriculture. They were fearful that Ireland would use its position as the country with the lowest levels of dioxin to wipe them out on the world market. It is ironic that we run the risk of handing a competitive advantage to New Zealand on the basis of its equally low dioxin levels and absence of incineration. Consumer confidence is all important in agriculture as demonstrated by the BSE crisis and the Belgian dioxin crisis. The quantity of dioxin involved in Belgium was a mere one gramme. The IFA in Wexford recognised this in its opposition to thermal treatment for the south east. It stated, "Emissions from an incinerator, whether real or imaginary, could cause food quality concerns with retailers or consumers." I understand one of the major food producers in the region was contacted by overseas customers to secure a guarantee that there was no incinerator within 40 kilometers of the company. There are a number of forms of thermal treatment but as yet only incineration has been used commercially for municipal solid waste. All other methods are still at an experimental stage. Other methods have been used up to now for particular feedstock. For example, gasification has been used for the combustion of used tyres. It is worth remembering the observation of Mr. Eamonn Timoney of Fehily Timoney, consultants, when asked the difference between incineration and thermal treatment: "The difference between thermal treatment and incineration is only PR." Gasification makes many claims for itself, even though it is still at the experimental stage. The major diffference is that it involves heating the waste in a primary chamber before burning it in a secondary chamber at higher temperatures than normal. Nothing in this process would prevent mercury from being present at the emission stage. Real consultation with local communities will reap results and changes in attitudes. Up to now the various consultants have engaged in presenting consultation charades and misleading questionnaires with leading questions. Unfortunately they looked for their guidance from the various incinerator companies to which many are associated. There are many initiatives that can be taken. There are many locations for councillors to visit, not incinerators. The south-east study group returned from its visit to continental incinerators with conclusions that stated that there were no public concerns with incineration in the countries visited. In contrast Ludwig Kraemer stated, "They are treated in the same way as nuclear power stations - people no longer want them." This is an issue on which local elected representatives need to take the lead with their communities to address the solutions. It is not appropriate to hand over such decisions to paid consultants with no electoral accountability. Mr. O'Dowd: I welcome the excellent contribution of Senator Walsh. It was well researched and gave much food for thought. The motion tabled by Fine Gael calls on the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to discuss the issues involved. The Government amendment affirms Seanad Éireann's support for the current comprehensive integrated policy approach. The reality is that if one was to travel to any part of the country today one would see posters on every second or third pole with the words "No Dump Here" or "No Super Dump Here". In Ashbourne one can see posters with the words "Ashbourne Opposes Super Dump" and in Drogheda, "No Bin Tax Here." God knows what we would find in Tipperary but what we would not find is a comprehensive integrated policy. While the public is involved to some extent through the county councils, the points made by Senator Walsh are very important. Sometimes consultants are afraid to attend public meetings. They are afraid of the hassle. The people are concerned about the lack of a proper waste management policy and are looking to the Government for leadership, but clearly it is not giving it. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government spoke about a tax on plastic bags. What about a campaign to get rid of all the rubbish that consumers have to take home in those same plastic bags? There is no aggressive policy in supermarkets and no campaign by the Minister to encourage consumers to leave unnecessary packaging behind. There is a need for a revolution in our supermarkets. I am sorry Senator Quinn is not present, but supermarkets should seek to educate consumers by providing a receptacle in which they can place unnecessary packaging. A person who had three pancakes and a cup of coffee in McDonalds described in a letter to The Irish Times last week, running to about 15 lines, all the useless rubbish, including styrofoam, he had left behind. The following day there was a letter from a person in Norway to the effect that in that country one must use cardboard rather than styrofoam and wooden rather than plastic materials. The Minister has, therefore, not done his homework. The leaving certificate started today. I would give him three out of ten. There are seven points to be gained by way of a public campaign. The Minister spoke about the NIMBY syndrome - not in my backyard. Most people keep their refuse in their backyard. What they do not want is a massive super dump in their local community. Where possible, communities should be responsible for their own waste management, rather than have rural communities deal with waste from Dublin, Wexford, Drogheda or wherever else. That is easy to say. However, Galway County Council had a proposal to move its landfill sites around. Landfill is the last option we wish to take but the council proposed to move its sites around the county in order that the environmental problems would be spread and no one community would be stuck with them. This may not have been politically clever and the chairman of the council may have lost his seat. However, there is much sense in the proposal that each community takes its share of the burden. People have to put up with an unbelievable burden given the amount of refuse at Balleally dump and would support a fairer and more regularised distribution of the problem. I am opposed to waste incineration but the lack of such a facility leads to more landfill. The Government's amendment reaffirms its confidence that the EPA is doing a good job. I do not agree. On 1 January this year the EPA decided to close the town dump in Drogheda without any notice. I pointed out to the agency that it was not living up to its responsibilities. It did not make sense to close a landfill site overnight without providing the local authority with a reasonable period of time, such as three months, to find an alternative site or alternative sources of funding. I pointed out to the head of the EPA that its decisions should be practical. No one disagrees with the closure of landfill sites if they are environmentally unsound but there must be a phased and costed method of finding an alternative, and financial support from Government to do so. The Government has failed to support local authorities faced with crises when landfill sites are closed. It did nothing when the site in Drogheda was closed but told the council that it was its problem and that it should get on with it. As a result, the council had to introduce unpopular decisions with which it has to live. I reject the Government's amendment as it does not state a comprehensive, integrated policy. It is doing nothing to help local authorities which have to face difficult environmental decisions and for that it is to be condemned. All this highfaluting talk is nonsense when landfill and waste management issues are highlighted on every second telephone pole. The Government needs to take a practical, realistic approach which is properly funded and managed. It must listen to people and get the work done in that way. I reject the amendment. I do not understand why it was tabled as it is a total nonsense. The Minister of State referred to an article in The Irish Times about an incinerator in central Europe which meets all the criteria it is supposed to meet. However, that is contradicted by scientific evidence from the US. We have a difficult problem with which to deal. We must do so carefully in a planned, financed way but the Government is failing to do so. The next general election may come sooner than Members wish and waste management will be one of the most important issues in the campaign. It is time the Government got its act together but the flowery language in its amendment is rubbish. Miss Quill: I am glad to have the opportunity to debate this issue. I congratulate those who framed the motion and the manner in which it was done. I was encouraged when I read the motion because it invited Members to debate this issue in a logical, non-confrontational way. I thought that was to the credit of those who framed the motion but I did not expect an amendment. The fact that an amendment was tabled, and the wording used, filled me with despair. The amendment does nothing but defend the status quo which is indefensible. This is a backward step and the wrong direction to take. I had hoped, even at this stage, the Government would seek to reach a consensus among parliamentarians that we would face the daunting challenges of dealing with waste and, having done so, would be in a position to give leadership. However, the amendment gives me no grounds for optimism that such a course of action will be taken. The EPA's most recent report makes grim reading. It points out that we are falling back instead of making advances and that the quality of our environment is deteriorating on every front. The Minister of State's speech referred to the theory of waste management. I am a supporter of this Government, but I am filled with despair if it does not see the glaring gaps between the theory and the practice. A bird's eye view of the country would show mountains of waste everywhere. We have doubled our waste in ten years. Not alone is the volume of waste increasing at that rate, but the nature of the waste has changed dramatically. Last year, 10,000 cars were ditched. They were driven into ditches, hedgerows and backyards without any plan or proposal for their disposal. The same applies to batteries and fridges. We are living in an obsolescence society. In my generation things were mended if broken but we have moved away from that approach. If things are broken or are no longer in fashion they are thrown out, dumped or disposed of without proper facilities. This country is littered with badly presented waste and unauthorised dumping. This does not happen everywhere. Some areas, particularly those most dependent on tourism for their survival, such as County Kerry, have confronted the situation. However, the overall position is scandalous. At the same time, every county is peppered with posters opposing the location of dumps - "No Tip for Tipp". The issue has generated much local witticism but every parish has signs erected, which add to the litter, opposing the location of dumps. If they are not against dumps they are against incineration. In such a situation one would expect the Government to give some national leadership. The problem is there and it is not going to go away. It must be confronted and dealt with and I would have expected strong national leadership where the public would be alerted to certain facts, such as that rubbish has to be dealt with, one way of the other. We cannot carry on with our heads in the sand. We should also establish the best independent scientific evidence on each option. A public awareness campaign should be launched to educate the public on the options and alternatives available so that they can make decisions based on the best available independent scientific information. Deciding how to address this issue has been allowed drift and the country is in a state of anarchy. That is not the way to run a country or to give leadership on an issue as fundamental as waste management. The public needs to be educated, motivated and challenged to take ownership of this problem and to become partners in finding a solution to it. There is no evidence of partnership in the approach to this debate this evening, and I am worried and upset about that. I favour the hierarchy laid out in the Minister of State's speech. While it is fine on paper, it is not happening in practice. We are recycling less paper now than at any time during the past ten years. The amount of recycling taking place is minimal. Less waste prevention, recycling and reusing is taking place here than in any other EU member state. The aspiration towards that exists, but there is no gradual movement in that direction. That applies to every local authority. As the Minister of State said, most local authorities have waste management plans, but there is no dynamic to their implementation. Time targets have not been set for their implementation and they are not monitored to establish whether the targets set will be achieved. I am not encouraged by what is happening. Lest we be filled with despair, all the hotels in Killarney have come together and put forward a proposal that their organic waste will be composted. That represents a genuine effort by one community to take action to reduce material before it goes into a landfill site. That should be the rule rather than the exception. Any worthwhile initiative of that nature throughout the country is the exception when it ought to be the rule. If nothing else comes out of this debate, I appeal to the Minister of State present, the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, and the Minister of State, Deputy Dan Wallace, to take a stand on this, to give national leadership to try to find a national consensus to deal with this issue and to put the necessary infrastructure and the investment in place to enable recycling to take place. The Kerbside project in Dublin was discontinued due to a lack of investment. That alone is a statement as to where we stand on this issue. I commend this motion, but as a member of the Government side I will find it very difficult to support the amendment. That is the truth.

Mr. D. Kiely: I welcome the Minister of State to the House and I welcome this debate. It is timely and one which Members on all sides of the House have sought for some time. Many speakers referred to signs stating "No dump wanted here", "No super dump here", "No tip here". Where are we to dispose of waste? A colleague across the floor of the House proposed that each small town and village should dispose of its waste, but how would bigger town dispose of theirs? We must have a waste management policy and plan. There is an active waste management plan in operation in my county. There is only one super dump in the county and the refuse is transported from all parts of the county to that super dump. The only problem is it is filling up faster than anticipated, which will pose a problem in the future. The manager of our local authority recently invited some of its members to attend seminars and visit other countries that have waste management plans in operation. We visited dump sites, incinerator sites and waste management sites in other countries. Some of my colleagues visited sites in Germany, more visited sites in Austria and more visited sites in Holland. We were very impressed with the programmes in operation in those countries. Senator Quill said the Government does not have a waste management policy in place. The Minister of State said, "When we published Changing our Ways in 1998, defining a new national waste management policy, we acknowledged that historically our performance in this area had been poor." That was a brave statement for him to make and it is true, but at least it was admitted openly. Each local authority has been contacted to put in place a regional waste management plan. This matter was discussed recently in my region and it was agreed that a waste management plan was required for Kerry, Limerick, Clare and north Tipperary. In that region perhaps one incinerator and one super dump are required as well as recycling and other facilities. Those matters are being examined and consultants reports on this matter have been completed. While I would not agree with everything consultants recommend, one must take note of it. During the most recent debate on this matter in the county council of which I am a member, the county management team advised that a regional incinerator or region dump might not be viable as it may be too expensive to transport refuse from one county to another. That would make the operation of such a facility too expensive for householders and local authorities. Therefore, local authorities might need to reconsider local incinerators or other forms of waste disposal. My esteemed colleague on the far side of the House said that given the size of this country, we might require two or three incinerators. One might be adequate, but the main problem associated with it is the cost of transporting refuse to an incinerator. Kerry is the first county in the country to recycle part of its waste. It has an active composting operation in place. A good deal of compost is being generated and it is being sold. That composting operation is successful. Speakers referred to the dumping of fridges, cars and other products. I was impressed that the waste disposal plans in place in other countries provided different areas for the disposal of different types of refuse, whether cookers, washing machines, old batteries or other products, which are all recyclable. They also provided for the separate disposal of paper, cardboard and so on. We were informed that households have three or four bins for the disposal of bottles, cardboard and other materials, which can be recycled. The refuse that cannot be recycled is put into another bin, which is transported to an incinerator. That accounted for only 2% of total waste disposal, which ensures landfill sites will be viable for quite a number of years. Various arguments are emerging about incinerators, including that in the recent report from the United States which states that incinerators in Europe are emitting too much dioxin, which is a danger to health. That claim would require further investigation. I would not support acting on that finding simply because it is highlighted in a report. I would have to check how the waste generated by 250 million people in the United State is disposed of. We will have to adopt a uniform approach to address this issue. The Government approach to it is the correct one. It has contacted local authorities and asked them to adopt a new waste management plan, to regionalise waste management, and to find the best and most economical way to dispose of waste. We could all suggest landfills but that involves a cost to the consumer. One has to consider all these issues. God only knows what happened in the past when waste was stored in the backyard and most of it was burned. They also had an ash pit. We live in modern times and people wish to dispose of their refuse in many different ways. There are new types of refuse, such as plastic and so on. Senator Quill referred to waste in Kerry. The amount of waste littered across the countryside in Kerry in recent years which the local authority has had to collect is frightening. Tonnes of it along the roadway had to be bagged to ensure the area was respectable for those visiting the county. I appeal to the public to be more concerned about waste. The Government will have to initiate a programme of school visitation as schools can play an active part. If we are serious about this matter, a waste management structure will have to be put in place, whether incinerators or some other structure. I mentioned to the Minister earlier that a countrywide debate is necessary. Before making any stupid mistake proper research is necessary. Mr. Costello: I too welcome the debate and commend Fine Gael Senators for tabling the motion. However, I do not commend the Government for tabling the amendment. It is the most bizarre amendment I have seen in a long time. This is a neutral motion and there is absolutely no reason all sides could not accept it. To amend it by deleting the motion in its entirety is ridiculous. We are behind in dealing with waste. In 1996 the Waste Management Act was passed under the previous Administration. It gave local authorities four years in which to put their house in order, to have waste management plans adopted and in operation. Not a single local authority has reached that stage. In the fourth year, at the eleventh hour, they are trying to adopt waste management plans. Part of the reason is that there has been no leadership and no direction on a national policy front. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government is merrily strolling along as though the problem scarcely existed, yet it is at crisis stage. It is the largest problem facing the country. Our rivers and lakes are seriously polluted and the streets are strewn with litter. In urban areas the business community is putting up advertisements in relation to litter in an effort to protect the tourism industry. That is a scandalous situation. The Department of the Environment and Local Government has published a discussion document, Changing our Ways, which has been long awaited. There was a two year delay in relation to the proposals in the Waste Management Act. While we had expected the waste management plan would have been adopted, the debate did not start until 1998. Kerbside, the only waste recycling system in this city, has been abolished and has not been replaced. There is no recycling of domestic waste in the City of Dublin. That is a dire situation. The number of bottlebanks is few. Litter can be found everywhere and is getting worse. The existing legislation in relation to landlord responsibility for litter which is put out by their tenants is not being implemented because resources to do so have not been put in place. Acres of plastic bags are put out at weekends, along the North Circular Road, the South Circular Road and other areas of high density private rented accommodation, which is torn up by dogs and cats. This results in litter being strewn all over the place. Mr. D. Kiely: And by crows. Mr. Costello: Yes, by magpies and all sorts of animals and birds which are appearing on the scene. There is a crisis. How is it that the Government has not seen its way to imposing a tax on plastic bags? Why not charge everybody for a plastic bag? It is very simple. In Paris or in any other European capital there is a charge on plastic bags. If it were imposed here some money would come into the retail outlets and the exercise would be worthwhile. It would even yield a few pounds in tax to the Exchequer. Something as simple as composting is not being done either. There is no reason any house with a back garden should not have its own compost barrel to deal with biodegradable domestic refuse. That is an obvious way of dealing with it. Dublin Corporation announced two weeks ago that it has such a scheme in place but it never told councillors that it has compost bins. Ms Ormonde: The new management. Mr. Costello: It is outrageous. It should be advertised as being available either free or on payment of a token fee to every household that has a means of using it. The tentative targets in Changing our Ways, do not add up - a diversion of 50% of all household waste, a minimum 65% reduction in biodegradable municipal wastes, 300,000 tonnes of organic waste annually. There is no attempt to make it all equal to 100%, it is all over the place. In one line there is a reference to percentages and in another tonnes. There is a reference to 35% of municipal waste and 50% of construction and demolition waste. These figures are taken out of the air and do not exist in reality. The Minister has told every local authority to draw up its plan, yet the national target is not accurate in any form. Dublin Corporation has a landfill target of 60% while the document refers to a landfill target of 50%. A 60% landfill is hardly a decent target. I support Senator Walsh in relation to incineration. This is an unreal science. The scientist is telling us there has been no threat, the EPA says there is no threat to human health and that dioxins emanating from incineration and gasification do not cause cancer. The latest studies show there is a ten times greater risk from incineration than was thought by the EPA a couple of weeks ago. We do not know what incineration has in store for us. Why pursue a costly system that will damage those living in the area? We have to rethink our strategy on charging. Much work has to be done as to where the charges for waste management schemes will come from. I would like to speak about this in some detail but I do not have time to do so now. Ms Ormonde: This is an important issue in which everyone has an interest. The Celtic tiger is roaring so much now that one has time to sit around dinner tables and discuss our environment. It is a major issue and one that we are all very conscious of as it can bring about a better quality of life for all. The motion mentions waste reduction, recycling, composting, incineration and gasification, which are subjects of ongoing debate at local authority level and in all walks of life. I reaffirm my support for the Government's integrated policy on waste management. The matter is being tackled in a hierarchical way, involving the reduction and recycling of waste as well as reusing waste through composting and incineration. The hardest task is to get to the root of waste reduction, which involves dealing with plastic bags and making the public more aware of litter control generally. I have been seeking a tax on plastic bags for a long time. I am glad, therefore, that following a public consultation process, the Department of the Environment and Local Government is at an advanced stage in developing specific mechanisms to implement the Government's commitment to tax plastic shopping bags. I am advised that the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, and the Minister of State, Deputy Dan Wallace, will bring that proposal to Government shortly. It is a great breakthrough. I cannot bear to come out on a Sunday morning and see so many plastic bags and cartons strewn all over our streets, trees, rivers and parks. This proposal is a great start and I compliment the Government on tackling the problem. This is a national issue rather than a local authority one and it must be tackled at source. It is great to see that leadership is being provided on this matter. Mr. Costello: I hope it is at a sufficiently advanced stage for the Government to be around when it is implemented. An Cathaoirleach: Senator Ormonde, without interruption, please. Ms Ormonde: I would condemn the Government if it had not taken the initiative. The Senator has not done his homework on that matter. I regard recycling very highly and I wish Senator Quill was here to discuss it. Only yesterday I attended the launch of the new household recycling service which will replace the Kerbside scheme. Senators Costello and Quill said nothing was happening with the Kerbside scheme. They said it had disintegrated but now the four Dublin authorities have come together, following the initial move by South Dublin County Council, to launch this new public private partnership. I am delighted I was at the launch yesterday in Rathfarnham where the green recycling bin has been introduced to take newspapers, magazines, light cardboard packaging and aluminium cans. This provides training for the public in differentiating between ordinary waste and recyclable waste. This example proves it is wrong to say that nothing is being done to manage waste. We met the residents yesterday and they complimented us on getting the scheme off the ground. At least, we are showing an attempt at leadership in this area despite the fact that some contributors to the debate claimed there was no leadership. According to the announcement of the new scheme, over 6,000 green wheelie bins will be distributed to residents in the Rathfarnham area over the next ten days. Each householder will be given a green wheelie bin which will be collected every four weeks. Newspapers, magazines and aluminium cans will be accepted for collection. In all, 18,000 houses in the South Dublin County Council administrative area will receive the service this year. It is intended that all households in south Dublin will receive the service on a phased basis over the next two years. I want to deal with the issue of composting, which involves the reuse of waste materials. Essentially, the process comprises converting kitchen waste to energy through gasification and thermal treatment. To this end we will again train the public by introducing another bin called the brown bin. South Dublin County Council is very clear about how it will manage waste. The three examples I have cited will be phased in over the next two to three years. Senators who say that nothing is being done by the Government can take it from me that leadership has been well established. I am delighted I was able to contribute to that process yesterday by launching the new household recycling service to replace the Kerbside scheme. It is quite incorrect to say that nothing is happening in this regard. Incineration will always be a political hot potato, but our aim is that only 15% of waste will eventually be dealt with by this process. The problem is that we did not get our campaign right to tell the public how incineration works. It is quite a complicated subject that requires much thought, so we need to explain it in a simple fashion. Incineration is a scientific method of managing waste but the public is ready to learn and the Government will take the lead in bringing the message to them. I welcome the amendment to the motion and I hope those who oppose it will listen to what I have said on the subject. Ms Cox: I fully support the amendment and I agree that the Government has done a huge amount since we started the Changing Our Ways campaign which highlighted the reuse, recycling and reduction of waste. We are on our way towards taxing plastic bags and I suggest that all the taxes raised in that way should go towards the provision of local recycling campaigns. A comprehensive investment programme should target education on waste matters for primary and secondary schools. Such a programme could be funded through local authorities. Helvetica">Recently I asked the Minister for more promotional and educational information on incineration to be made available in an audio-visual format and I repeat that request. Why introduce any such incineration technology - even if the dioxin emission levels are described as not carcinogenic or cancer causing - that may cause problems in future? We readily admit that our waste recycling and reduction methods are not good enough, so why not give the Changing Our Ways programme a chance? After a period we could evaluate whether we still require thermal treatment to get rid of any remaining waste. The Minister should re-examine waste policy and take a couple of years to evaluate the success of the programmes we are putting in place. Based on the findings of that evaluation, we would decide whether we need to implement a thermal treatment process and whether incinerators need to be placed strategically at regional centres. I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House to take this debate. This is indicative of the Government's commitment and I hope he will take all our points on board. Mr. Coogan: It is evident from the Minister of State's response to this debate that he was not paying attention to what I said. It is unfortunate that the Government decided to put down an amendment to this motion. Given the contributions from Senators on both sides of the House, including the Minister of State's party colleagues, there was no justification for an amendment. We sought a genuine debate and information. What we received in response was a consolidation of the Government's position. The question now is what is the Government's position? It is evident from the contributions that the Government has none. If it wants to genuinely deal with waste management, it must introduce genuine policies - policies which were referred to by Senators from all sides and which must be effective - instead of which, we got a single justification for incineration. We spoke about air emissions and toxins in bottom ash etc. but we never got into the details. Apart from the health aspects, what is the cost of incineration? Can it be justified in this regard? Are the figures genuine or one-sided? We are only getting one side of the argument, which tells us what we should be doing. The Minister of State said the response of local authorities has been positive. The Government spokesperson, Senator Walsh, in his well-researched contribution, told him that the response of local authorities to incineration has not been positive but the very opposite. Wexford County Council has already rejected it. The Minister of State must put in place a genuine, effective means of reduction, replacement and composting. He must examine these methods before he takes the alternative, which may threaten people's health, or come back with a justification for being so positively in favour of incineration. I am sorry the debate was so curtailed. Senators Quill, Costello and I, with other Senators, have continually asked for a lengthy debate on this issue, which we failed to get. Unfortunately, we had to compress it into the few hours given to us tonight, as a result of which certain issues were not dealt with. Worst of all, we have come out with no further information or no greater knowledge which tells us what we should be doing. How can we go back to our local authorities and tell them we have made no progress? All we got was a one-sided response from the Government. I will have to vote against the Government amendment as a result. I am sorry this amendment was put down in what should have been a genuine and open debate. Amendment put. The Seanad divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 11.   Tá Bonner, Enda. Callanan, Peter. Cassidy, Donie. Chambers, Frank. Cox, Margaret. Cregan, John Farrell, Willie. Finneran, Michael. Fitzgerald, Liam. Fitzpatrick, Dermot. Gibbons, Jim. Glennon, Jim. Glynn, Camillus. Kett, Tony. Kiely, Daniel. Kiely, Rory. Leonard, Ann. Lydon, Don. Moylan, Pat. O'Brien, Francis. O'Donovan, Denis. Ó Fearghail, Seán. Ormonde, Ann. Walsh, Jim.   Níl Connor, John. Coogan, Fintan. Costello, Joe. Henry, Mary. Jackman, Mary. McDonagh, Jarlath. Manning, Maurice. O'Dowd, Fergus. Ridge, Thérèse. Ross, Shane. Ryan, Brendan. Tellers: Tá, Senators Farrell and Gibbons; Níl, Senators Jackman and Ridge. Amendment declared carried. Motion, as amended, put and declared carried. An Leas-Chathaoirleach: When is it proposed to sit again? Mr. Cassidy: At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow. Speech Menu Top