Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

There were a couple of points that were not adequately answered. With regard to the licensing of companies, there are some companies in my area and one knows that one would only have to give them the standard and they would keep to that standard, even if they never received a visit. They would want to be absolutely compliant and would stake their reputations on it. There are some very good examples. Often, however, that gives a skewed impression in terms of the others who are non-compliant.

To refer back to the experience with Kerdiffstown, the EPA had responsibility from 1996. The mountain of waste grew from then every year. Kildare is a very flat landscape and it ended up with a mountain where there was none before, and it was a mountain of waste. Much of it happened under the EPA's watch and it was only when it went on fire, which was a major emergency, that a remediation process was seriously put in place. There were complaints for a long time about it. However, that happened and it is over and done with, although there was a very large bill at the end of it which is being picked up by the taxpayer. How do we ensure something similar does not happen somewhere else?

That brings me to the Aughinish Alumina plant. The evidence shows that once companies that are non-compliant have stripped every penny out of something, they will wish to disappear and leave the trail of destruction behind them. That is the reason there must be bonds in place, so at least it will not be necessary to fall back on the public purse to remediate a site. Why was there a continuation of the issuing of licences where a known risk was involved and where there would have to be a remediation process for the end-of-life of the facility? Why was the taxpayer not protected, for example, by a bond being in place to make it absolutely certain that the individual or the company would not cut and run? That is what happens when there are non-compliant companies. There is an ongoing problem in this case and it is located beside a major water course, the largest river in the country.

The witnesses speak about changing behaviour. Sometimes sanctions and laws change behaviour. Certainly, bonds change behaviour. One often finds that companies will want their bonds back or they will not want to be exposed to being obliged to pay a charge to stay in place. Having gone through the experience with Kerdiffstown, for example, why is it that an industry is allowed to be licensed where there is a known risk, without a bond being in place to ensure that where there are environmental and health risks and the working through of the end-of-life of the facility is not guaranteed there is at least money there for that? I am not referring to the health risks.