Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)

It gives me pleasure to speak on this issue that is critical for both my constituency and the country, namely, waste management and specifically the proposed incinerator for the Poolbeg Peninsula. This evening the Opposition is offering the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, the opportunity to stop the Poolbeg incinerator. He need only support the Fine Gael motion by voting with those parties in the House which oppose incineration. It is as simple as that. It should be easy for a Green Party Minister to vote against the unnecessary burning of 600,000 tonnes of waste per annum. This constitutes waste that can otherwise be disposed of in clean and safe ways. It should be easy and natural for a Green Party Minister to support such a motion and I hope the Minister agrees with me when the time comes to vote on the motion tomorrow evening.

The proposed incinerator facility is to be one of the largest in Europe. It will be a mass burn incinerator, the scale of which means that it will require increasing quantities of waste to remain commercially viable. In other words, the proposed incinerator will not be a facility of last resort, as it ought to be, to deal with waste that cannot be disposed of by other means. On the contrary, it will become a massive waste burning monster that will provide a disincentive to reduce and recycle waste. In simple terms, it will become an alternative to environmentally friendly waste management options.

A total of 2,000 residents in my constituency of Dublin South-East, myself included, lodged objections with An Bord Pleanála to the proposed incinerator. While the voice of the people should count for something in a democracy, it appears the Minister disagrees. On agreeing a programme for Government in recent weeks, he had the opportunity to make the incinerator in Poolbeg a make or break issue. Unfortunately, however, he failed to so do. On the contrary, there is no reference to the incinerator in the programme for Government. How quickly power hungry Ministers forget the concerned residents who voted them into office in the first place.

The Minister's silence on this issue in recent weeks since becoming a Cabinet member is deafening. Although he is in the Green Party's dream Ministry with all its attendant powers, he has failed to set out his stall. He shied away from this issue when he negotiated the programme for Government, which was probably the best opportunity to stop the incinerator he was likely to have in the Government's lifetime. Since then, he has sheepishly avoided the issue. Can the prospect of power have caused him to sell out on the single issue that matters deeply to the constituents of Dublin South-East? I hope Members will find out tomorrow when the division on this motion takes place.

Fine Gael's position on this issue is clear. It has opposed the Poolbeg incinerator consistently. It is the wrong policy and the wrong solution to a dire waste management issue. It is the wrong facility at the wrong location at the wrong time. Those who are genuinely opposed to the imposition of an incinerator in Poolbeg will support Fine Gael's motion during this debate.

It does not take a rocket scientist to work out the health dangers and implications that pertain to incineration. All Members are familiar with the health issue and aware that children and the elderly are particularly at risk. The World Health Organisation has issued clear studies of the impact of dioxins and their link to the risk of cancer, respiratory diseases, etc. In 2003 a study published in the British Medical Journal showed that living near an incinerator increased the risks of a baby being born with spina bifida or congenital heart defects by 17% and 12%, respectively. The Health Research Board report commissioned by the Government states: "[a]t present, Ireland has insufficient resources to carry out adequate risk assessments for proposed waste management facilities ... Irish health information systems cannot support routine monitoring of the health of people living near waste sites".

As for the environment and ecology, it is clear that the proposed Poolbeg incinerator is close to natural resources that are valued highly by Dublin's citizens and those of the south east, in particular. I refer to Sandymount Strand and Irishtown naturepark. It is beside a special protection area and a special area of conservation in Dublin Bay. The River Liffey risks being endangered from the emission of biocides from the plant and the existing threat to salmon stocks will increase. Moreover, it is clear there will be an impact on the climate through CO2 emissions which will take place in the face of Ireland's failure to fulfil its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.

The location of the incinerator is wrong. While it has been argued that it will be located well away from the densely populated areas of Dublin South-East, this is untrue. It will be located in the immediate vicinity of parts of my constituency, including Sandymount, Irishtown and Ringsend. The nature of this residential area has changed dramatically with the granting of planning permission for further development on the Poolbeg Peninsula. Moreover, more planning permission is likely to be granted as planners flout and ignore the wishes of councillors in the local government system.

As for the visual impact of the proposed incinerator in one of the most precious and beautiful parts of Dublin city, it will be as big as Croke Park and almost as tall as Liberty Hall. Do Members really wish to see such a development beside an area of conservation? In respect of the impact on traffic, the area is log-jammed; access routes are limited and few proposals have been made to improve them. The proposal for an eastern bypass has fallen by the wayside. The catchment area of Dublin South-East is bound to be affected by this development. On Dublin City Council I fought to extend the cordon for HGVs around the area to prevent them from trundling up and down Beach Road and Strand Road. Were this incinerator project to proceed, those arterial routes would lead to it.

The Minister is familiar with the policy arguments in this regard. The Dublin city development plan has a stated objective, on the part of the planners, to which no councillor on Dublin City Council agreed. In the process of amending and creating a new development plan for the city two and a half years ago councillors created a new zoning that excluded thermal treatment, the euphemistic term for incineration. However, this is being ignored by the Government in its promotion of its incineration policy.

There are many alternatives to incineration and I am sorry to state that when the Green Party was in opposition, it was the party which propounded many of them. I agreed with it at the time and it is a shame that it appears to have performed a U-turn on so many of them. Fine Gael has set out to achieve a goal of zero waste, the correct objective when dealing with waste management. Recycling facilities must be rolled out nationwide, while waste separation laws to prohibit the disposal of mixed wet and dry waste should be introduced.

The Minister's powers should be used. He should have the courage and conviction to so do during his tenure of his elevated post. He has the opportunity to bring forward regulations under the Waste Management Act 1996 to give effect to obligations on producers which I hope will happen to promote reusable, recyclable and biodegradable products. He also has the power to establish regulations to require producers and distributors to operate deposit refund schemes. Such schemes operate in most European countries but still not in Ireland. Moreover, the Minister should repeal sections 4 and 5 of the Waste Management Act to provide that the making of a waste management plan should become a reserved function of democratically elected councillors. This should happen and I hope it will.

The motion presents the Minister with an enormous opportunity. Less than eight weeks ago the Green Party was ardently demanding the complete abolition of the incinerator project. Now, however, it appears it has claimed that a watered down, somewhat neutered approach to the issue of incineration will suffice.

See this speech in context