Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)

The Bill provides for an increase in a range of levies and the introduction of a new levy on incineration. The plastic bag and landfill levies are to be increased. The increase in the levy on plastic bags, to 70 cent, is viewed by the Government as a means of using price to control the use of plastic bags. There is no doubt that the levy was effective when first introduced. It was a very efficient tax and raised €22.6 million in 2007 and involved a very low administrative cost of only €350,000. The increase in the levy to 22 cents in 2007 appears not to have slowed down the demand for bags because demand has begun to increase again. Increasing the levy can only be seen as a revenue generating exercise because plastic bag use is not sensitive to price changes above 22 cents. A study in 2007 showed there was significant positive consumer sentiment towards the levy and that consumers were happy to pay the charge in the hope it would reduce littering with plastic bags, which problem had blighted the countryside. Increasing the levy again will have the effect of turning consumers against it and probably lead to an increase in the usage of bags.

The landfill levy is purely a revenue generating exercise. The environmental fund is almost depleted and there will possibly be a deficit of €4.8 million by the end of this year. We can see that the need to increase the landfill levy is purely to add to the environment fund. A 2009 study by Eunomia claimed the relatively low cost of sending waste to landfill in Ireland has created an over-reliance on landfill. It is clear the Government will use the levy to increase the cost of putting waste into landfill which in turn will increase the cost to householders, which I believe in turn will create more fly-tipping and more illegal dumping in the countryside.

Over the years, the mistake we have made in Ireland is that we have tried to create a private market where none existed previously. We bought into the European model that waste is a commodity and that the market should dictate how it is used and how it develops. However, we should be looking at waste as a public good to be dealt with through public facilities and public means of collection and disposal.

In 2009, some 61% of municipal waste went to landfill. A total of 30% of municipal waste is actually organic and biodegradable, so a proper roll-out of the three bin system would reduce landfill requirements to 40%, which is the EU average. Only 24% of serviced households have a three bin collection. I remind the House that in Donegal only approximately 50% of houses have any collection and must dispose of waste by their own means. Nationally, 19% of houses do not have a collection. This means an increase in the levies will increase the cost to households. It will also increase the number of households without a service because people will withdraw from services because of affordability issues, and we will increase the amount of fly-tipping that is taking place throughout the country.

The regulation and control of landfills operated throughout the country by the EPA is having the effect of penalising compliant facilities because the cost of compliance is huge. Gate fees being charged for waste brought to landfills throughout the country have been reducing significantly. We must question this, as if a facility is reducing significantly its gate fee it cannot be completing its compliance requirements also. There is an issue in terms of enforcement through the EPA. We have a bizarre situation now where compliant facilities are being penalised through the costs involved in being compliant. I notice from the Bills digest that there will be a level of fees for unauthorised facilities and authorised facilities. This is an ironic admission that there is a huge number of unauthorised illegal landfills throughout the country. When we detect them we will place a levy on them also. We are encouraging non-compliance.

With regard to the incinerator levy, incineration is the wrong way to go and it is obvious from what Deputy Catherine Murphy stated about Poolbeg that we have planned for an over-capacity of incineration. The big problem with an incinerator is that once it is lit, it must be kept lit. We will see large-scale diversion of waste that could otherwise be biodegradable or recyclable to these incinerators to ensure they maintain the levels of waste they are built to manage and require to keep going.

We have never had a debate on the large amount of hazardous waste, approximately 10%, produced by incinerators for which there is no option other than landfill. This is significant and we should examine it. The Minister should consider this in his waste management policy later in the year. In the case of the Poolbeg incinerator, if Dublin City Council provides the 320,000 tonnes a year that are required, it will generate 32,000 tonnes of hazardous waste for which there will be no choice but landfill in a hazardous waste facility, which probably requires a higher standard than most of the facilities we have in the country at present. We are building up an environmental hazard by the burning of waste.

The idea seems to be that increasing the levies will stimulate the provision of alternative waste facilities by private operators throughout the country. However, in these times it will also increase fly-tipping and the withdrawal of households from availing of the service, which is of no benefit to the environment. The Bill is premature and should be left until after a waste management policy has been introduced. It is not an environmental Bill but a taxation Bill, and its purpose is to increase indirect taxation on households and artificially stimulate an unworkable private market.

See this speech in context