Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

I regret to say there are some provisions in the Bill that I could not possibly support. Even if incineration was the preferred method of waste disposal, the finances simply do not stack up. I have a serious concern about the level of regulation. My view is based on practical experience of how the waste collection system has played out in reality. I have used my area as an example. There will be an opportunity to improve the Bill and I hope there will be amendments to address my concerns.

The waste collection service has been liberalised, but there needs to be additional regulation which may be on a different tier. For example, Kildare County Council is one of eight local authorities which still retain a waste collection service, albeit one provided by a contractor. The county council is also the licensing authority which gives rise to a potential issue in terms of competition as the local authority cannot be seen to interfere. A court case was taken against the Dublin local authorities in that regard.

Dublin has the highest level of directly collected waste, with 88% of the waste collected by local authorities. That differs substantially from the position in other local authorities around the country where only eight collect directly or with the assistance of contractors. Deputy Lawlor will be familiar with the situation in Kildare County Council as it is an issue we have debated in a different forum. In my constituency a difficulty arises every single morning when six or seven contractors arrive one after the other to collect waste at 5 a.m. or 6 a.m., thereby preventing people from getting a night's sleep. Deputy Lawlor will know this having debated the issue in a different forum. We found this problem impossible to address, even through the introduction of by-laws. This is much more of an issue in urban areas where there is more acute competition. It demonstrates there is an element of cherry-picking in waste collection. It is much more expensive to collect waste in rural areas.

We need to address much more substantially the issue of regulation. When the waste collection service was liberalised in Britain, it was put out to competitive tender, but the authorities retained the landfill sites, the vehicles and relevant apparatus. What we have done is allowed a free-for-all arrangement. This is problematic in some communities, particularly where there is a greater level of competition than in others. A solution is needed quickly in order that the service can be managed in a way that respects the affected citizens.

In my area the local authority provides the most expensive service because it is the only one which provides waivers. Deputy Fleming has raised this issue. A sum of €188 per week is approximately the same as the annual cost of a waste collection service. It is not inconsiderable for somebody on social welfare, for example. As we all know, a serious problem arises over dumping and the public must pick up the tab if it is not controlled. A levy may need to be imposed on private contractors so as to have a universal waiver for all those on the lowest incomes. The current arrangement is not tenable and is costly. I have no problem with the fining of people who dump waste. I do not condone dumping in ditches and along roadsides, but we must also consider inability to pay at some point.

The EPA which, in theory, has a role to play works fine in circumstances where there is a compliant operator. However, the operator at Kerdiffstown dump, for example, was not compliant. The EPA estimates remediation measures at the site will cost €30 million. The problem, including smells and smoke from the fire which was ablaze for a very long time, has been an absolute nightmare for those who live beside the dump. The operator went missing after it had made its money, which is not good enough. We need proper regulation. This could occur in a reorganised local government system with a strong regional authority. The system could function at regional level rather than local authority level. I am sure reorganisation will happen in the context of the programme for Government. I await the reform of local government with bated breath. It has been sought since the foundation of the State.

The issue of finance at the Poolbeg station does not stack up. Dublin City Council must commit to delivering to the incinerator 325,000 tonnes of waste per annum for 25 years or else it will have to pay a penalty. Poolbeg may not be in my area, but this does not mean I am not concerned because the money will come from the public purse. The council cannot tell private contractors where to dispose of their waste; therefore, it cannot force them to deposit their waste at the incinerator; yet it will have to pay a penalty if an insufficient volume of waste is delivered to the incinerator. I suspect surrounding counties will be contributors to the facility if it is ultimately built. When one builds a very large incineration plant, the very concept of recycling and reusing goes out the door because a very large volume of waste must be incinerated to make it efficient.

The plastic bag levy has been a success story. We no longer see as much litter on fences and in ditches. The waste we now see in ditches tends to comprise bags of domestic waste, which is very unsightly.

My area benefited from the move to smokeless coal. It improved air quality substantially. It is not difficult to notice the odd person burning smoky coal because the smoke cannot be hidden. Has anyone ever been fined €5,000 for burning smoky coal? The ban has been in place for in excess of ten years, but I do not know anyone who has received a fine. I do not know how the local authorities enforce the law. Very often the people who use smoky coal are those who cannot afford to pay for the more expensive smokeless fuel. Enforcement is a problem. It is not good enough merely to put legislation in place because we must consider its practical outcome and how it will be enforced. I do not know how local authorities can enforce the smoky coal ban practically in areas that benefit therefrom. Where there is an embargo, it is more likely to be in the evening that monitoring will take place. In winter it will be too dark to see the source of smoke, but one will certainly see it in the spring and autumn. I hope we will continue to have good air quality. The ban on smoky coal made a positive contribution, but there is still a deficiency in enforcement.

See this speech in context