Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I have heard him speak in this Chamber many times about how incineration would discourage recycling and be a source of possibly harmful emissions. The Green Party previously refused even to accept the role of incineration as set out in the EU hierarchy. Nor did it accept the notion that there is any energy saving in terms of the waste to energy function of incineration.

Whatever about past utterances, what I am interested in now is action. The Minister must make a decision on this and we ask him to do so according to what we propose in our motion. There cannot be drift, postponement and claims that this is a matter for local authorities. We are all carrying major costs in terms of waste disposal. This is particularly so in the case of the business community, which seeks clarity and certainty on this issue. If incineration is not employed, there must be information in terms of the what, when and where of other methods. These matters must be decided quickly.

I have limited time in which to speak on this multidimensional issue, so I will concentrate on two particular aspects. The first relates to the location of the proposed incinerator at Poolbeg. All traffic into Poolbeg must travel via the M50 and the Dublin Port tunnel. This is true even of waste collected in Ringsend itself because it must first be sent for baling. The only two baling stations in Dublin are on the south of the city, at Ballyogan and Ballymount. Some 80% of all local authority waste will be baled in one of those locations. This baled waste will then have to be delivered to Poolbeg via the M50 and the port tunnel. This is madness both logistically and environmentally.

Since the ban on five-axle vehicles in the city centre, Ringsend is probably the most inaccessible location in which to place an incinerator that will be serviced by heavy-duty freighters. It was originally selected in the context of a proposed eastern bypass of the M50 that would allow waste to be delivered from both directions. The current situation, however, is that it can only be delivered from one direction. There is no eastern bypass and it is my understanding that the Green Party is not in favour of such an bypass. Unless that infrastructure is delivered in tandem with an incinerator, there could hardly be a less suitable location from a traffic perspective.

For that reason alone, the site must be revisited, just as the port tunnel route should have been revisited when the proposed eastern bypass was dropped. Instead we have an infrastructural white elephant that will always be underutilised. With 80% of rubbish originating in the two baling stations on the south of the city and access to the incinerator only possible from the north side, it will be a nightmare to transport the same rubbish first south, then north and back south again via the M50.

The second issue is even more problematic and must also be addressed immediately. This is the security of supply of waste, not only to incinerators but to all our waste infrastructure, whether in Ringsend or elsewhere, since the introduction of higher standards of disposal and recycling. Charges to the consumer have become the norm, which is necessary to comply with the polluter pays principle. This has attracted the private sector in competition with the local authorities to collect, process and dispose of waste. These private companies also offer recyclables for sale.

Competition is good for the consumer so long as it is effective. However, an unintended result of the competition in waste management is that the public facilities that were used heretofore by local authorities to collect, process, bale and transport waste to landfill, as provided for out of the public purse, are no longer being utilised by the private sector. We now have extra capacity in publicly provided facilities in Dublin. Large private sector waste disposal companies, such as Greenstar, are collecting both waste and green bins in competition with the public sector and are making their own arrangements to dispose of that waste. This is perfectly legal but it does not represent effective utilisation of resources.

The Minister must bring certainty to the issue of who has control over waste. Before spending money on any more public facilities, whether through public private partnership or direct public provision, there must be clarity as to the control of waste and who is responsible for its disposal. It is a waste of public funds to provide any facility for which there is no demand. This is not confined to incineration but is something that applies to all waste infrastructure.

See this speech in context