Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for her detailed briefing on the contents of this miscellaneous Bill. For a miscellaneous Bill, there are quite a lot of miscellaneous provisions within it. It appears to be a big tidying effort to adhere, one would imagine, to many EU controls that have been brought to bear on the Department. While one might initially react positively to the thrust of the Bill, when one begins to read into it and analyse exactly what is being proposed, one does so with a note of caution.

The fixed payment notices that deal with air and chemical pollution offences are, of course, a more reasonable and cost-effective means for local authorities to deal with issues that are brought to their attention by the general public for pollution matters and offences, which may be quite obvious, in the areas for which they have jurisdiction. There is no doubt that the costly manner in which these issues were dealt with in the past - trawling through the courts with great cost and great effort on the part of the local authority, often without achieving the desired result - did have to be analysed and examined. It was necessary to find a resolution and a solution that would be more beneficial to the localities in which these issues occur, and that would incur the least cost to local authorities in order for them not to be hamstrung in their efforts to address other issues for which their representatives chase them on a daily basis, considering the mandate they have been given by the public they represent.

I welcome those increased functions and powers being given to local authorities in those areas, but there are some issues I would like to query or question. I hope during the course of Second Stage or on Committee and Report Stages that many of these issues will be expanded upon and more reasoning and explanation will be given. We must be happy that the relevant and appropriate consultation has taken place with the various stakeholders affected by what is proposed within many of the miscellaneous provisions in the Bill.

In the first instance, taking them in the order in which they appeared during the course of the Second Stage speeches, regarding the amendments on the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park Act 1932, which deals with the whole area of Killarney National Park, I seek assurance and guidance from the Department and the Minister in respect of legal issues and overhangs from the abolition of town councils and the transfer of properties to local authorities and the county councils thereafter. I seek assurance that there are no outstanding issues impinging on the ability of local authorities to provide services pertaining to their localities, whether it be in the area of housing and lands that may have been in the ownership of town councils and so forth. I need clarification and confirmation that all issues pertaining to the adequate and appropriate transfer of lands formerly in the ownership of town councils have moved swiftly and effectively into the ownership of local authorities and that there are no constraints attached to or conditions within any mechanism of transfer denying local authorities the capacity to use and maximise the use of those lands and buildings for the provision of services and facilities to the electorate in the respective area. This was brought to my attention by Senator Byrne in respect of issues concerning Navan town council or urban council as a particular example at that time.

I am sure that was replicated throughout the country. As I said, I would appreciate it if the Minister of State took the opportunity, when replying, to clarify that issue.

I refer to the amendments to the Air Pollution Act 1987 and the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 designed to enhance enforcement of the ban on smoky coal within restricted boundaries. The ban on the burning of this coal was recently extended beyond the major cities to the urban centres of Greystones, Letterkenny, Mullingar, Navan, Newbridge, Portlaoise and Wicklow town. What consultation, negotiation or engagement took place with the sectoral interests? In the event of this being enshrined in law, what provisions will be available in terms of fines for failure to comply? If it is not provided for in this legislation, it will be very easy for people to go to areas outside the restricted boundaries to purchase coal. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a free market and it is up to consumers to decide what fuel they use, what they pay for it, where they get it and so on. I see dangers there as there must be uniformity. What engagement has taken place? What concerns were raised? How have these concerns been addressed? Do the provisions cater for what was raised during that process?

The Bill aims to enhance enforcement measures by the EPA by introducing a ban on the marketing, sale and distribution of smoky coal within specified areas. The EPA can introduce a ban on the marketing, sale and distribution of certain forms of coal within specified areas, but not with other areas. That is what is jumping out at me when I read the provisions in the Bill. How that can be the case needs to be clarified.

The Bill also puts the EPA's existing register of smoky coal bagging suppliers on a statutory footing, with the intention of deterring the sourcing of coal from Northern Ireland where lower environmental solid fuel standards apply. What research or what information has been supplied to substantiate those claims? Where is the scientific evidence to substantiate this? What exactly is the difference in standards in the EPA's guidelines as against the guidelines imposed in the North of Ireland? That must be clarified so that we understand exactly the provisions relating to this sector and the implications they have on it. While increased powers for the EPA and the local authorities may be welcome, it is questionable how enforceable this ban is, and will be, in restricted areas.

Individuals willing to flout the ban can simply go outside the ban zones to buy the fuel. This should be uniform across areas to support the monitoring of households and businesses within banned zones to ensure compliance. The onus of responsibility will be placed on local authorities. What is the extent of their resources, in terms of staff and funds, to deal with the extra responsibilities they have been given in this area to carry out what the Minister of State expects them to do appropriately? Have there been consultations with the unions and the managers' association? Have they given a commitment that they can work within the confines of this? Have they given a commitment that they are prepared to stand over the provisions which seek to restrict certain areas but not others? I find it incomprehensible and I expect the Minister of State to elaborate on its workings. Is it a pilot scheme in certain areas? It is quite extensive when one thinks that Greystones, Letterkenny, Mullingar, Navan, Newbridge, Portlaoise, and Wicklow town will be included. What are the thoughts of the specific staff in those areas?

I refer to the regulation of harmful chemicals in paint products. The Bill transposes an EU directive into law to charge persons supplying paint products which supposedly have harmful chemicals in them. How extensive is this among our EU partners? Has this been piloted in other countries? Has it worked successfully? No more than in the area of fuel suppliers, what consultation or engagement has taken place with the paint manufacturing industry and the retail industry which supplies paint throughout the country? What scientific evidence is available to support the EU directive? Could we have examples of where this is in place and how effective it has been? Has this had any harmful effect on that sector, the trade and the stakeholders involved? Have they been given ample time to change the products to adhere to the directive coming down the tracks? The Minister of State said many products in paints are a threat to public health. If that is the case, we welcome this provision but we need to substantiate those claims with proper and adequate expertise in the areas of relevance in order to enforce that point.

I refer to the regulation of vehicle respraying operations. The Minister of State, who comes from a partly rural constituency, knows well, no more than myself, that many small car repair garages are located at the back of houses. They carry out an effective and appropriate service in their localities. If they were seeking planning permission for such businesses today, they may not meet with the requirements or planning regulations associated with such operations. However, they have been there for many years and, in some cases, the businesses have been passed from one generation to the next. therefore predating the very laws which govern planning, dating from 1963 and 1964 onwards. Has an audit of such facilities been carried out by the Department, in conjunction with the local authorities, in order to ascertain the extent of this? Are they aware of the implications of what is contained in this Bill? Are they aware that it appears their activities have been harmful to those around them because of the lack of proper facilities in the EU's mind to deal with these issues? While it appears a sound basis from which to proceed into the future, that is, to monitor and police that whole area, many people are carrying out effective and appropriate businesses from which they achieve their livelihoods. My party, representatives throughout the country and I need to know if there has been positive and appropriate engagement with this sector also, considering the possible implications of the provisions in this Bill on their livelihoods in the future.

I refer to the regulation of dry cleaning solvents. This Bill allows local authorities to issue fixed payment notices to dry cleaners and other operators using a solvent installation without required certification. I would have expected that in the course of the planning process, any such operation would have been through the rigours of the planning process which would have contained many queries and questions about the various solvents and chemicals being used by such an operation in carrying out its business effectively and in order to assure the public no pollutants or potential danger was entering into wastewater treatment plants which, in time, would be treated and used for other purposes. This is almost a retrospective provision in this legislation perhaps to penalise people who were not afforded the correct procedure during the planning stages of setting up their businesses in the first place.

Many agents within that business would have been working to certain standards with their advisers and their planning expertise when making an application in the first place. Now they find that the provisions and deterrents that exist at present must be retrospectively applied. Is the industry to suffer such a blow that it might affect its ability to move forward without having adequately provided for the changes that are necessary to meet these new directives and the provisions of this Bill? The Bill transfers the appeals procedures in the granting or refusing of air pollution licences issued by local authorities from An Bord Pleanála to the EPA. Could the Minister of State confirm that in the case of applications already in the system, only the laws pertaining to their application as of the date of the application itself will affect that process? If that is the case, what plans does she have to deal with it, any more than the way in which she is dealing with the dry-cleaning industry retrospectively? Under the present appeals system, the appeals mechanism for anybody who is in the system seeking a licence is to An Bord Pleanála and new applications from the date this legislation is enacted will be to the EPA. If the EPA in its subsequent decisions is found to be more stringent and restrictive, will local authorities be forced to retrospectively apply conditions imposed by the EPA to those who received permission during the course of the existing legislation? If so, what provision is there to assist that industry rather than expecting it to find funding to deal with it by virtue of the existing legislation?

On the regulations on non-use of motor vehicles, the Minister of State has said there was a €41 million increase in revenue. I asked in a parliamentary question about the breakdown of the increase in revenue throughout the country, because I want to see local authorities retain those funds for the provision of facilities and services in their own counties, especially in the area of the upkeep and maintenance of roads, because we have seen a progressive fall-off in funding being made available. We have seen much of the motor tax revenue, unfortunately and unbelievably, transferred to Irish Water. We have seen Irish Water gobble up enough of the taxpayers' money from other sectors without motor tax being an annual contributor to that super-quango. That is for another day's argument. We have had many of them and we will have many more. People need to see a correlation between the revenue derived from motor taxation in a particular local authority area and an improvement in their roads.

I had representations from many people who are associated with and partake in the vintage car industry, the vintage tractor sector and so forth, and were very worried about impending amendments to existing legislation, which will leave them facing huge costs for their hobby in the future. I hope the Minister of State has met them. I do not believe there is anything in the provisions of this Bill that seeks to implement what was spoken about towards the end of last year. Can she confirm that representatives of her Department have met with these people, have listened to their concerns about what was proposed and its effect on their industry and the huge costs associated with them continuing in that sector? It is not only of benefit to themselves, but generates a great deal of money for the charity sector and also the tourism sector, by virtue of many of the rallies that are held in various locations throughout the country at various times of the year. During the course of this debate on Committee and Report Stage, she must confirm she has met with that sector, has allayed its fears and will row back on the intentions she had to further increase costs associated with road tax for vehicles in that sector.

The Bill gives provision to an EU directive based on the "producer pays" principle. We welcome that concept, which specifically deals with the disposal of electrical equipment, batteries, packaging, end-of-life vehicles and so forth. It is paramount that the House is informed that there has been extensive negotiation, consultation and engagement with the relevant sectors to allow them appropriate time to carry out the sort of research that is necessary for them to meet the provisions of this directive, among many other provisions within the Bill. There must be active engagement with that sector, whereby we can assure the House that there is agreement between both parties to address the issues in a cost-efficient manner that will not negatively affect the industry or jobs in the industry, while recognising their obligation from an environmental perspective not to harm the environment to such an extent that it costs local authorities a significant amount of money to rectify this.

That is where we stand on the Bill. We agree with its thrust. We agree with the concept and the background to it, but we expect the Department to have engaged with the relevant sectors and stakeholders to such an extent that it has their co-operation to make the provisions contained within the Bill appropriate to the needs in that sector by balancing those against the effect of continual harm that might exist for many of these sectors. We ask the Minister of State to address many of the concerns during the time allocated for the remainder of this debate and through the various Stages of the passage of the legislation.

See this speech in context