Mr. Pat Barry:

Yes. One of the problems at the moment is the way we have implemented the European waste framework directive, particularly around the definition of waste. Articles 27 and 28 of the directive set out criteria for when waste is waste and when it is the byproduct coming out of a building.

Under how we have applied the regulations, virtually everything that comes out of a site becomes waste unless it is reused on the site or the contractor applies to the EPA to have it considered a by-product. In many cases, we are taking perfectly good soil and stone from sites and, in order for that to be reused on another site down the road, it has to go through a licensing process to be categorised as a by-product. Other countries are not applying the regulations the way we are. In the Netherlands, contractors are able to reuse these materials as they are. If there are excess materials on a site in Ireland, though, they can be considered waste and end up being backfilled simply because of how we have applied our waste definitions. Under the European directive, we are allowed to define waste classes as by-products. This could be a simple and easy win.