Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)

I propose to deal with the three parts of amendment No. 14 in turn. The first part of this amendment proposes to make illegal within the State a form of waste management which is legal under EU law. Incineration, where it reaches the required threshold for energy recovery, is deemed to be on the recovery tier of the waste hierarchy - a priority order established by the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC. I transposed this directive into national legislation on 31 March this year. Landfill, which is classed as disposal and below the recovery tier, would remain legal under this amendment. Therefore, this amendment would be contrary to the directive. We have an immediate challenge in moving away from over-dependence on landfill. We will need a range of alternative infrastructure and will need to put in place a number of measures, including waste prevention, to meet this challenge. To make one of those options illegal would result in increased costs to the public and business, and undermine our ability to provide alternatives to landfill.

The second part of this amendment proposes to repeal two sections of the Waste Management Acts dealing with waste management planning. Deputies will be aware that it was previously found necessary to provide for city and county managers to make waste management plans as an executive function. The reason for that was that councillors did not make the decision. I assure the House that I will examine the issue of waste management planning as part of the development of a new waste policy, which I intend to conclude by the end of this year. I will also examine the issue of devolution of functions back to the councillors in the context of a local government review.

The third part of the amendment proposes to restore responsibility for the making of waste management plans to the members of local authorities. As I indicated, I will examine this issue at the appropriate time as part of local government reform in respect of the role elected members will play in adopting waste management plans.

My primary aim in the development of a new waste policy is to ensure Ireland meets its obligations under EU law. If I am to be

characterised as being in favour of anything in so far as waste policy is concerned, I am in favour of moving away from an over-reliance on the least desirable waste management option of landfill towards approaches higher up in the waste hierarchy. Whatever way we look at this, there is no escaping the stark reality that the most pressing challenge in waste management is to achieve compliance with the limits set in Directive 1999/31/EC in respect of the volumes of waste which can be sent to landfill. The next targets are to be achieved by 2013 and 2016. The EPA warned us in its 2009 national waste report that we did not have a hope of meeting these targets if we did not make quick decisions on our waste infrastructure. Therefore, we need to address the alternatives to landfill.

With the opening of Ireland's first municipal waste to energy project later this year, it is clear that incineration will play some

part in diverting waste away from landfill. However, a range of other measures will be even more important in the development of a

sustainable waste policy. The national waste prevention programme will continue to support businesses and the public in reducing the amount of waste produced, saving them money in the process. The further roll-out of segregated waste collection services will also help to ensure the diversion of waste from landfill to more productive uses such as composting and anaerobic digestion. Therefore, it is not a question of being in favour of incineration but of meeting our obligations.

There is nothing in the waste framework directive that precludes the introduction of a levy on incineration. However, it does

preclude one such as that proposed in the original section 7 of the Bill. The reason I have had to take the route I have taken on section 7 is to ensure the section of the Bill developed by the previous Government will be based on an approach that levies should not be changed in a way to give incineration an economic advantage over landfill.

The programme for Government commits to the introduction of a sustainable waste policy which adheres to the waste hierarchy. In the coming weeks I will publish a discussion document for public consultation to inform the finalisation of a new waste policy. The appropriate use of economic instruments such as levies will be considered as part of that process. I am telling Deputies Humprhreys and Eoghan Murphy that I will be considering the introduction of waste levies in the future in the context of waste policy as they apply to incineration.

Both Deputies mentioned the possibility of having a levy on packaging. There is a consultation process under way and submissions must be received by 5 August. If they wish to raise this issue, it might be appropriate to make a submission and their views could be considered as part of that process before I come to conclusions. I encourage them to do so.

I have no role in the contract between Dublin City Council and Covanta on the project before us. All I can do is outline waste policy. This dates back to 2001 when the taxpayer provided €7.5 million for Dublin City Council for the appointment of its clients' representative in respect of the proposal at Poolbeg. An application for recoupment of funding for the project was made to the European Commission in 2000 as part of a group of projects entitled, Dublin Region Solid Waste Management Infrastructures - Stage 1. However, no assistance was sought or granted in respect of the actual construction or operation of the facility. The issue of potential liabilities is a matter for the parties to the contract and purely speculative at this point.

I have listened to Deputies talk about the huge exposure of the taxpayer arising from the fact that Dublin City Council and the waste authorities in the region will not be able to supply the necessary amount of waste to this facility, if constructed. That indicates to me that they have seen the contract. I have not seen it and I do not know who has, but Deputy Stanley seems to know much more than I do about the exposure of the taxpayer. Deputy Murphy seems to know more about it also. We have a sufficient amount of municipal waste that must be dealt with under the waste policy higher up in the waste hierarchy in order to divert it away from landfill. As there is more than an adequate amount of material available, I do not know what the scaremongering is about when the Deputies talk about the exposure of the taxpayer when the requirement to have in excess of 320,000 tonnes available for such a facility is capable of being met. Mr. John Hennessy, senior counsel, examined various scenarios and the taxpayer will be exposed to a figure of up to €357 million if we do not proceed with the project, or if the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government had anything to do with trying to stop it owing to the contracts signed by the US firm Covanta and Dublin City Council. I am not going to tamper with a contract and thus expose the taxpayer to that amount of money. If we want to stop the project through interfering with the contract, we will be exposing the taxpayer to a figure of €357 million. If we do not want to do anything about diverting waste away from landfill, we will face European Commission fines in 2013. Is that what we want? If it is, the Deputies should tell us how we would pay for this. I am not prepared to pursue a waste policy that will result in taxpayers paying more money in fines to the European Commission, or to break a contract and expose us to potential fines.

I am satisfied that the waste hierarchy on which I have signed off is sufficiently robust and that the new waste policy I will bring forward later this year will take account of the concerns of the Deputies in reducing, reusing and recycling waste material and minimising the exposure of the taxpayer. It will also be more environmentally friendly if we divert waste from landfill sites which nobody wants in his or her constituency.

See this speech in context