Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

This is a substantial round of amendments. In many ways, from the Minister of State’s point of view and that of the previous Government, this is the logical conclusion to the removal from local authorities of waste management. It is now in the hands of private operators who operate it as a business rather than a service, but up to now they have had very little interest in regard to the concerns of the public. Their aim has not been to satisfy the public, other than to try to hold on to them as customers.

8 o’clock

We saw some of that in companies such as Thorntons and Greyhound. There have been a multitude of disputes between companies in Dublin and their workers. The only company left in the city that was half-unionised was Greyhound. The collection of waste had been within the remit of local authorities for many years, and the companies that were set up to benefit from the change to private-sector waste collection were set up in order to benefit the interests of directors and shareholders. We have ended up with a ridiculous situation in which, on some very narrow roads in Dublin – I presume the same is true outside Dublin, but that is outside my area – three or four refuse trucks can arrive on the same day, often at the same time, and one truck must wait until the other one has reversed out of a cul-de-sac before it can enter. That can sometimes go on for some time. In some cases, companies that had failed to make their collections chanced their arm and arrived late at night, in spite of the restrictions on their licence.

In some ways, the logic behind the proposals is to regulate a market that was created by the Government. The problem in amendment No. 14 is that the Government is introducing penalties, for example, in terms of the charge being based on weight of kerbside collection. One would be penalised for compacting waste. In the past I could throw everything into a black bin and fill it up and it would have a certain weight, but if I compact all of the waste in a black bin then the number of lifts is reduced. The new regime will ensure all lifts are based on weight. That might have some logic for waste that is going into landfill, but not for a brown bin or green bin. In the case of recyclable material, one is creating a resource for the waste management company, and people should not be penalised in any way for compacting recyclable waste. I accept that different local authorities use different colours for their bins, but the bins to which I refer contain food waste or other recyclable waste. People should be encouraged to recycle, not penalised for doing so, but that is a problem when one goes down the route of this Government or other governments.

The question I asked the Minister in the context of the previous amendment is also relevant to incineration. The illogical basis of the incinerator that was promised for Dublin city was that all waste from the Dublin City Council area would go for incineration. If one separates waste, as has been done by households since, the recyclable waste is divided between green bins and brown bins and then there is not enough waste remaining in the black bins to satisfy the hunger of the incinerator. Then it would be up to an operator to buy in waste. The logic of incineration must be taken into account, or we will end up paying twice for waste in the sense that Dublin City Council would have to pay for the service.

I note the introduction of standards. One of the required standards is that a company cannot operate if it is anti-union. Companies must set standards in terms of workers. The frightening aspect of some of the sharp practices that have gone on in the city is that some the refuse trucks have become a danger. Some of them are overburdened because there are not enough checks on them. I accept that the intention is to have weight limits on the amount of waste that can be transported. That can already be done, but it is not being done. That is the problem. The RSA is supposed to be responsible for ensuring refuse trucks are suitable for the job. The operators have been chancing their arm and not investing in proper equipment or repairs. Dangers currently exist.

When discussing the previous group of amendments, the Minister said he was adamant about the need for enforcement. This group of amendments also require enforcement, but enforcement has been left to local authorities, in many cases because they grant the licences. However, unless local authorities are properly resourced, which has not been sufficiently clarified, then the effect of the amendments, which are likely to be accepted, will be somewhat meaningless. In effect, the poor householder will be the one to suffer, because if his or her bin does not come within the remit set out by the Minister in the Bill or that set by the refuse collection company in its contract with the householder, it will be left behind, and the householder must suffer the consequences in the following week or two weeks before the next collection. Some of the measures are aimed at getting the householder in order in terms of waste receptacles and ensuring that waste is segregated, but from what I have seen, the problem in that regard does not lie with the householder but with the waste collection companies. One of the key aspects of waste collection is whether we are 100% sure that the waste collected that is intended for recycling is recycled, or, in the case of food waste or green waste, is used in an appropriate way to benefit society. Much of the waste in black bins still goes into landfill, but thankfully it is a lot less than before.

The Minister referred to air pollution. I welcome any commitment that puts a restriction on waste companies to ensure they comply with air pollution regulations if they are storing waste in an area. There has been an ongoing battle in my area for many years between residents and a local waste management company which separates waste on-site. Thorntons is reported to have spent €250,000 on abatement measures and equipment at its plant in order to ensure its neighbours were not plagued by various smells at certain times of the year. Anybody living in the area is aware of the difference in air quality if the equipment breaks down or is switched off. In general, much more enforcement is required.

The problem is that by the time one has managed to call the Environmental Protection Agency it might be the next day before they reach the site, by which time the smell is gone and the machine has been switched back on. A quicker response is required or the investment of more monitors in the vicinity of such large-scale developments. They are not small factories with a few people separating waste but huge companies that have a lot of money behind them and that are willing, every now and again, to save a few bob by flouting the law. Companies in breach of the regulations may be fined or lose their licences, which is welcome. Local residents can hold it over the companies if they breach regulations in the future. The main parts of the amendment are logical, if one takes the logic that private companies should manage waste collection on the scale which they do.

See this speech in context