Caít Keane (Fine Gael)

This is an important, wide-ranging environmental Bill. The waste management issue is a massive one facing the country. I welcome the many positive changes proposed in the Bill. They include the changes in waste management regulations; the provision of flexibility and a mechanism for a gradated approach to the plastic bag levy; a mechanism for changes in the landfill levy, amendments to penalties under air pollution legislation; changes in section 7 on thermal treatment enabling ratification of the Aarhus Convention; changes to the Freedom of information Act, to placenames and to the Planning and Development Acts, many of which are of a technical nature; and amendments to the Local Government Act to allow local authorities more freedom on the provision of money for public roads and public transport. The Bill is wide-ranging. I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward all these changes and amendments in the environmental area in the short time he has been in office.

I wish to follow on up on what the previous speaker said about the plastic bag levy. It was introduced in 2002. The levy, which was 15 cent at that time, was a positive initiative and it had the effect of greatly reducing plastic bag litter throughout the country. Nobody could argue but that levies definitely work, especially the plastic bag levy. The levy was raised to 22 cent in 2007 and in line with the consumer price index and changes in monetary value over time, the proposed increase in the levy is correct. When the levy was introduced people took heed of it, but there has been some sliding back and people have started to use plastic bags again, which must be discouraged.

According to a study carried out by An Taisce and Irish Business Against Litter in 2009, there was a 21% increase in the number of areas that had no evidence of plastic bag litter in the year after the levy was introduced. However, there has been a gradual increase in the volume of plastic bag litter in the past few years. The Minister recognises that in the measure proposed in the legislation. It is important that we do not forget that the original rationale behind the introduction of the levy was to dissuade the public from the use of plastic bags. The revenue that accrues from the levy is a serious consideration. In 2008, €26 million was generated in revenue from the levy but revenue is not and should not be the primary aim of the levy. It is not a fund-raising but an educational measure. It is designed to hurt people where it hits them most, in their pockets, and to ensure that they do not throw plastic bags around willy nilly. The Minister has been proactive in the methodological way he is introducing the changes. It is not the case, as some speakers have said, that he is increasing the levy to 70 cent. He stated that the increase in the levy will be gradual, that it will be reviewed, that it will not be increased by more than 10% in any one year and that it will be linked to the consumer price index.

The proposed increase in the landfill levy was mentioned by previous speakers. Landfill is being overused as a means of waste management. The Minister said that the levy can be capped at €120 per tonne and can be increased by no more than €50 in any one year. That levy will generate revenue and obviously every penny counts but we must also ensure that we are compliant with waste regulations. We are overly dependent on the use of landfill. In the waste hierarchy complete prevention would be and should be the way to go. Previous Governments, and this Government in particular, have encouraged the use of the three r's, those of reduce, re-use and re-cycle, as the most desirable options. Advances have been made over the years in that respect and in educating the public, particularly school children. The extension of recycling facilities countrywide must be rolled out. I call on the Minister to ensure that will be done. He has promised to introduce a paper on waste energy in the near future.

In terms of the 3.2 million tonnes of municipal waste generated in Ireland, there has been only a 5% decrease of waste going to municipal landfill. The Environmental Protection Agency in 2010 showed that 90% of municipal household waste went to landfill in 2000. This percentage was reduced to 61% in 2009. I acknowledge that while some inroads have been made in reducing the percentage of waste going to landfill, 61% of waste going to landfill in 2009 compares starkly to the position that obtains in the Netherlands and Sweden where only 1% of their municipal waste goes to landfill. That is the position towards which we are aiming but we have a long way to go. The Minister has to act to ensure that we are not fined to the hilt in terms of our waste going to landfill because we have targets to meet by 2013. How will we meet them? We cannot bury our heads in the sand and pretend that the waste will fly off into thin air, although some of it does. A speaker mentioned that litter is left on the side of our roads and that issue must be addressed.

There are arguments for and against thermal treatment of waste. The perception of thermal treatment here is not positive. The Minister has indicated the reason for omitting a levy for this in section 7. Incineration when it reaches the required threshold for energy recovery is deemed to be on the recovery tier of the waste hierarchy and can have favourable outcomes such as when it involves the recovery of heat generated by combustion for the provision of district heating facilities. That, hopefully, is eventually what will happen; we will have more district heating facilities such as those in Austria and other European countries. I am not advocating it but if it is a means to an end in reaching a target to ensuring waste does not go landfill, we cannot ignore it and there must be an education process around it. Similarly, it can be used to generate energy in the form of electricity. Therefore, it is not all negative.

I would like the Minister to indicate his plans to introduce a levy for thermal treatment of waste when such a system is up and running. He stated his reasoning for omitting a levy at this stage was to ensure that the measure dealt with by the previous Government would be based on an approach that the inclusion of levies would not give landfill an advantage over incineration or visa versa. The Minister has said that he will publish a discussion document for consultation to inform the finalisation of a new waste policy. The appropriate use of economic instruments such as levies may be considered as part of that process. I welcome that as I think it may be necessary fairly soon to reduce the possibility of abuse of over-reliance on incineration or thermal treatment; we must have a proper balance in the waste management matrix. The Minister has made the point previously that such a levy may be premature at present because the market has not established itself and I acknowledge that. It is probably the correct way to proceed at this time. I ask the Minister to keep it under review in terms of the waste hierarchy and waste regulations.

The Minister has stated that moving from the least desirable waste management option of landfill to options higher up the waste hierarchy is the way we should be proceeding at this point. I mentioned the plastic bag levy. We must also ensure there is a levy to deter manufactures from overpackaging of goods. I ask the Minister to comment on that.

I welcome the provision dealing with the primary legislation underpinning payments from the environment fund.

I welcome in particular the provision of changes to the Air Pollution Act 1987 by increasing the monetary penalties and for the introduction of a graduated fixed payment for breaches of the Act. This is much needed as currently penalties cannot be considered a sufficient deterrent to prevent air pollution. The maintenance of such low penalties would represent poor value for money as local authorities would be investing in court cases and ineffectual judicial proceedings and they would be reluctant to take enforcement action. Therefore I welcome this section.

Given the time constraints that apply I will not deal with the issue of non-smokeless coal. I will take up the issue on Committee Stage as there will be amendments on the packaging of non-smokeless coal. The changes to the freedom of information aspects are most welcome in the interests of transparency.