John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. At a public meeting in Ringsend a number of weeks ago, I gave an undertaking on behalf of the Green Party that we would use our Private Members' time to table a motion calling on the Government to reassess its decision to grant approval for a public private partnership for an incinerator on the Poolbeg peninsula. Our motion goes further than that. It is a comprehensive motion which details the problems and difficulties with the Government's approach to waste management and offers a number of solutions. I convey my thanks and appreciation to residents groups in my constituency who have worked so hard on this issue and I express the hope that we will continue to work together on this campaign and bring it to a successful conclusion. I also thank the Opposition parties that have signalled their intention to support the Green Party Private Members' motion.

Those who are genuinely opposed to the siting of an incinerator on the Poolbeg peninsula will support this motion. Deputy McDowell, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, has issued quite a number of statements and newsletters to our constituents on this matter, insisting that he is opposed to the siting of an incinerator on the peninsula. This is his moment of truth and he has a number of options. He can choose to amend this motion as he sees fit but in a way which will ensure that no incinerator can be located on the Poolbeg peninsula. If he decides to toe the Government line, he will renege on a solemn promise given at the previous general election.

Nobody should be mistaken that the Minister made the issue of the incinerator the central plank of his election campaign and we have all of the election literature to prove it. As befits a man who does not usually mince his words, he told the electorate that he would stop the incinerator. He also told us that Fianna Fáil could not be trusted to govern on its own and that he would use his influence at the Cabinet table to stop the incinerator. However, we are still waiting for this man of action to deliver and we have seen precious little action.

If the Minister was so opposed to this incinerator, why did he do nothing to stop the granting of approval by this Government for the incinerator contract on the Poolbeg peninsula? It is untrue to claim that the public private partnership deal, which was granted to Elsam Limited, had nothing to do with the peninsula proposal. Replies to parliamentary questions I tabled demonstrate the PPP is directly linked to the Poolbeg peninsula. During this debate, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will have an opportunity to make amends. I sincerely hope he will do so when the votes are cast at the end of this debate because I am tired of his posturing and the disingenuous nonsense in his newsletters to constituents. Reading these newsletters, one gets the impression, as only the Progressive Democrats can give, that somehow the Minister is a bystander in Government or, even better, a member of the Opposition.

He claims the proposed incinerator is a mass burn incinerator not in line with Government policy. Well done to the Minister for spotting that. I am sure that took a lot of detective work. We have been saying it is a mass burn incinerator for years and, if it is not in line with Government policy and Fianna Fáil has managed to pull the wool over the Minister's eyes, as he implies in his newsletters, why did he give his assent to the public private partnership? Why did he not raise an objection? If, as he claims, Dublin City Council is not dealing properly with the ash problem, which is also something the Green Party has stated repeatedly, why has he allowed this process to continue?

I have no intention of allowing the Minister to get away with such cute hoor politics where he pretends to the local electorate to be one thing and then acts differently in Government. It used to be called talking out of both sides of one's mouth and if the Minister were in Opposition, he would be the first to attack such politics.

See this speech in context