Public private partnerships provide a means to obtain value for money under the national development plan in the provision of extra facilities. A previous speaker mentioned thermal treatment which is under examination. Proposals in this regard are included in the six national level plans. It has been suggested recently at Government level that the country should be divided into two areas if thermal treatment facilities are provided. That proposal should be considered as it would permit the use of finances in other areas of waste minimisation under the national development plan.

I acknowledge the tremendous strides which have been made. Tidy Towns competitions and school schemes have been mentioned. The environment has never been in better condition and much of that is due to schools and the volunteers involved in Tidy Towns who have taken a great interest in waste minimisation. Many of the bring banks which have been so successful over the last year are being monitored by schools and local voluntary bodies. That is to be welcomed. I agree with previous speakers that by working together, we will implement the waste management plan. There is goodwill towards this and I encourage the Minister of State and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to go full steam ahead in implementing this plan.

For example, in Galway East, three sites were identified and have been investigated for the past three years by consultants hired by the local authority to find such suitable places. Discussions at local authority level revealed that many members from all parties had the courage to publicly identify other suitable sites. However, these were rejected because it would not be in keeping with the legislation since consultants had been appointed and if sites other than those identified by the consultants were deemed to be suitable, someone would lose out. While the attitude exists whereby reasonable consultation is stifled at that level, we will always have problems progressing waste management solutions.

I acknowledge that there is opposition to landfill. For example, in the past 12 months, a private company acquired land and applied for and was granted planning permission by the county council. This permission is being appealed to An Bord Pleanála and we await a final decision. However, there are places in some counties in which we could integrate proper landfill sites if the ordinary process of consultation was allowed to take place. Delays will be caused if the Government takes the attitude of blaming local authority members and taking power from them on the basis that they will pussy-foot around the issue or they will not do anything because they are afraid of the local elections. Who is delaying the use of the three sites in County Galway? Will someone decide, sooner rather than later, that they are suitable or not and make a decision in regard to the alternatives?

A number of Senators mentioned the input of schools and Tidy Towns groups. We must encourage young people to improve their commitment towards the environment and waste management because we will not change the attitudes of many older people.

Industry in Ireland also produces a great deal of waste, about which many companies are doing nothing. Companies must not be allowed to continue to pursue the modes in which they have disposed of their waste. We must target industry as being responsible for a sizeable proportion of waste because few companies have made reasonable efforts to deal with the issue.

Will the Minister of State bring to the attention of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the fact that Lough Cutra, which is the water supply source for Gort, has been extensively polluted? The Minister must take immediate action because no one has yet asked the Department, whose responsibility this matter is in conjunction with the local authority, to ensure that safety concerns are addressed.

The Tynagh mines site in County Galway is also heavily polluted and no one has taken responsibility for it. A recent EPA report indicated high levels of contamination at the site and the risks of contamination of water and drainage from the area as well as the pollution of adjoining lands. No one has taken responsibility because the company which operated the mine began its operations in pre-planning days. The company got what it wanted out of the mine and abandoned it. We now have a sore on the landscape for which no one will take responsibility. It is incredible that this situation, along with others, is allowed in 2003.

The Department of Agriculture and Food retains in storage approximately 700 BSE infected animals of which it is unable to dispose. The Department is seeking tenders from contractors to take the animals out of the country but no one wants them. Could there be some type of intergovernmental consultation to devise a way to dispose safely of these animals? We cannot just export them and push our waste elsewhere. If two Departments cannot get together to make a decision on the issue, the problem of waste management will never be resolved.

I do not like the idea of dumps or landfills of any kind. I would prefer other options, including a more regional approach. I loathe the word "incinerator". Is there any way we can drop it? "Incinerator" means awful things to me – it brings me back to the Holocaust. The word should be dropped and we should use some other way of describing thermal treatment. These concerns are justified because there is a rumour going around that the technology is inadequate to deal with unavoidable waste. As this anxiety still exists, people must be assured that whatever modern technology is put in place will work. If the public was reassured on this issue and the word "incinerator" was dropped, we might get somewhere.

Proper planning must be introduced to protect the public. An environmental assessment must be carried out. There will have to be a licence which is rigorously applied and whose application is monitored. We must ensure that emissions are at a low level. If we can reassure the public, we will win the argument on landfill versus thermal treatment.

It is important to take on the anti-bin charge protesters. I have spoken at length about this issue. In my area one side of the road comes under South Dublin County Council, another side comes under Dublin City Council and further up the road comes under Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. Each of the three councils has a separate flat rate for waste charges. I welcome the polluter pays principle. This would get rid of the flat rate and everyone would learn how to recycle and reduce their waste. This would be acceptable to people and would get rid of the anti-charge protests that are taking place because, to be honest, we pay for everything. We pay for our electricity, telephone and I see nothing wrong with paying to have my refuse removed. However, l want to be educated on how to minimise my waste. If we drop the word "incinerator", we will be able to put in place a coherent policy and structure, which I would welcome.

The pharmaceutical sector which has been the backbone of our recent boom has doubled production during the past five years. It was responsible for a major proportion of hazardous waste, although much of it had been committed to environmental management. In rural Ireland the major landfill sites or super dumps are unpalatable. While it appears they are the way of the future, no community wants a super dump on its doorstep, or in its back yard. Many of these communities are fearful of such dumps and ask why it should be located in their particular area. If a landfill site is being imposed on a community, swimming pools, community centres or financial inducements should be provided to compensate for the lack of property development. A super dump in any area will reduce the cost of property in that area. The impact of a super dump can be reduced if it is properly provided for, well managed and maintained. No matter what one does, a super dump is not acceptable in one's area. We all want it in someone else's area.

Senator Ormonde raised the issue of thermal treatment, which is more acceptable than incineration. It is an emotive subject. When starting out on my political career three years ago, I attended a public meeting where I got what I considered to be good advice from an environmental scientist in charge of environmental science in one of the IT colleges. He put it to me that nobody wants incineration or thermal treatment, but every household chimney burns rubbish at a certain temperature which produces dioxins. He asked what we wanted. Did we want thermal treatment which was regulated and measured and would reduce the dioxins? It would burn at a certain temperature and at the end of year less dioxins would be produced than are being produced in every small incinerator. I put that to the public meeting and it was not well received. That is the position we are in and the question is how to inform and package. I do not have all the answers – I may have been wrong – but the issue of thermal treatment is emotive.

Many councils have taken their councillors to see thermal treatment units in Europe. On first accounts, it appears progressive. However, we are not experts. Unfortunately, as elected representatives, we do not know all the answers. It is difficult for county councillors to vote on an issue that sometimes is technically challenging. The jury is out but many serious decisions are made by councils.

An issue about which I am concerned is litter and enforcement of anti-litter measures. When I attended school many years ago we were always told not to drop litter. I do not drop litter and most Members do not drop litter, but somebody is doing it. If I hear of a further education campaign around the schools I will get sick. Enforcement of anti-litter measures is what is required. The more litter wardens that are appointed and impose fines on those who drop litter, the sooner we will get rid of the scourge of litter. As a councillor I fought for and succeeded in getting a second litter warden in my electoral area. It is noticeable that the amount of litter has decreased. In Ireland we need an incentive and if a person has to be fined over €100 for dropping litter, that is what is needed.

In Roscommon County Council we had an anomaly which I raised in the House where the council was removing a bend on a road. It was asked to put the material into a site 300 yards down the road but that could not be done. Instead it had to be transported over 17 miles to the nearest dump. That is not waste management. It involved the transport of that material to a dump and it was filling up the landfill which is a scarce commodity. I wish the Minister well. Waste management is a challenge that faces all of us.

Effective waste management is one of the most complex and problematic environmental challenges facing us. There is no magic wand or soft option. Delivery of waste services and infrastructure are, in many respects, inherently more complex than the delivery of other environmental services. Waste streams are very diverse and their management requires consideration of a wide range of environmental, economic and market-related issues. At the same time, waste treatment options are controversial, and there is strong public opposition to proposals for any significant waste infrastructure. As recent cases illustrate, even proposals for relatively small bottle banks and recycling centres attract criticism.

Sound waste management presents significant environmental and lifestyle challenges, which must be confronted. Strenuous efforts must be made and innovative approaches implemented if we are to halt and in time, reverse, the link between waste generation and economic growth. Our objective must be to give practical effect, by means of fiscal and other measures, to the internationally recognised waste hierarchy, which prioritises waste prevention and minimisation.

For waste that cannot be avoided, we need to develop an integrated management infrastructure that utilises a range of available treatment technologies to underpin better service provision, not just by local authorities but by an emerging private waste industry. There is already a sound policy foundation on which to build. Changing our Ways, 1998, set the basis for a strategic regional planning process, emphasising the need for a dramatic reduction in reliance on landfill in favour of a range of preferable waste treatment options. This policy approach was further developed in Preventing and Recycling Waste: Delivering Change, 2002, which provides for a package of new initiatives, funding and revised organisational structures to deliver accelerated change.

Contrary to opinion, real progress has been achieved over recent years. Segregated collection of household waste has been introduced in certain counties. We now have approximately 1,300 bring banks, compared to 400 or 500 in the mid-1990s. That is welcome. Most areas of the country are serviced by recycling centres. Last year, we recycled more than 200,000 tonnes of packaging waste and reached our national target of 25% recycling, as laid down in the European packaging waste directive. The plastic bag levy has had a dramatic effect on our shopping habits and has reduced our use of plastic bags by up to 90%.

Our mindset is changing. The challenge now is to make further, rapid improvements. The cornerstones for any future improvement are the regional waste management plans. These, in line with Government policy and reflecting best international practice, have now been adopted across the country. The plans are designed to tackle the waste problem comprehensively. They include segregation at source and separate collection of recyclable and organic materials in all significant urban areas; extended networks of bring bank facilities for recyclable materials, especially in rural areas; recycling centres and waste transfer stations; biological treatment of green and organic household waste; materials recovery facilities for dry recyclables; thermal treatment facilities and residual landfill requirements.

These regional plans anticipate the recycling or composting of between 40% and 50% of waste, thermal treatment of up to 40%, and landfill for the balance of wastes. We need to drive forward the implementation of these plans intensively across the country. All players must pull in the same direction and with the same degree of focus and urgency.

It is one thing to aspire to eliminate the disposal of waste over a period of one or two decades. However, it is quite another to seek to impose a moratorium on the development of thermal treatment or landfill capacity while we pursue such aspirations. We must be practical and make our decisions based on reality and experience, not aspiration. We cannot prevent and recycle all waste. There will always be residual waste, which must either be thermally treated or landfilled. We must face and address that problem.

Regional waste management plans are not just about incineration. They are about better services for the regions, delivering higher recycling performance, recovering energy from waste which cannot be recycled, and about using landfill as the last resort for residual wastes which cannot otherwise be recovered. Thermal treatment of waste, whether by incineration or other technologies, is only one component of this integrated infrastructure. Any new thermal treatment facilities will be subject to a full environmental impact assessment, planning controls and a rigorous environmental licensing system operated by the Environmental Protection Agency which we respect and trust.

We are coming from behind on the issue of waste management. We have much to do to catch up with our European neighbours. However, building on the work already undertaken, I am confident that, within the next five years, we can together effect a step change for the better in our management of waste.

I wish to make a final point about a public meeting held in my area on incineration. A person spoke from the floor and said that the incinerator was being introduced into this country by the Government simply as a backdoor for the introduction of abortion for disposal of babies. That type of scaremongering at public meetings does nothing for the great work being done by the people and the Department on waste control.

Incineration has been discussed in the debate and the whole argument of incineration versus landfill has been raised. I have not heard anyone who has spoken in favour of incineration admit that even if we build thermal treatment plants, we will still be obliged to have landfill sites to accommodate what comes out of such plants at the end of the process. The idea that we will suddenly get rid of dumps around the country by building a big furnace, whether it is called an incinerator or anything else, is completely wrong. People who expound that view should be corrected. Landfill sites are going to continue, irrespective of whether they contain the vast bulk of waste or the residue from thermal treatment.

The only difference is that in future landfills will have to be of a much higher standard. There will be much more intensive landfill. The waste that comes from incinerators, or thermal treatment plants, will be of a much more potentially hazardous variety and the landfills will be much more dangerous than those which we have at present.

There is one matter which I do not believe anyone has raised so far, namely, the idea of the regional authorities producing their own waste management plans, which are well advanced at this stage and which have been adopted just about everywhere. Looking to the future, it is ludicrous that each of the eight or nine regions in the country would have separate waste management plans and separate treatments for waste within their area.

We have to place great emphasis on the need for recycling and re-use. I have no expertise in engineering or in the general area, but my biggest concern about incineration is that it removes the necessity for people to recycle. If one builds an incinerator, one has to have a certain stream of rubbish to keep it going. Incinerators will be built by private companies which will want to make a profit, as is their right. In order for that profit to be made, they will have to have to have a continuous supply of waste and that removes the incentive for people to recycle, re-use and cut down on waste. Nobody who supports incineration has explained this to me. It is a very serious problem that needs to be explained.

We should remind ourselves of the different ways in which an effective waste management regime is important. The more obvious dimension relates to environmental protection. We can all readily see how crucially important it is from the perspective of preventing environmental pollution that we have systems, structures and processes in place to ensure our waste is managed to the highest environmental standards. We need policies and systems that focus on preventing waste arising in the first place. Where it does arise – a certain degree of it will always arise – we must ensure we do everything we can to minimise it. We need systems which ensure facilities for the recovery and disposal of waste are effectively regulated and that those involved in the collection and transport of waste are permitted and regulated. Equally, we need across the board systems which ensure there is an effective and timely enforcement regime in place in order to deal with those who try to operate outside the regulatory regime.

This, in turn, brings into play our economic progress. Having a high quality environment and effective regime for controlling environmental pollution are a hugely important selling point for Ireland. In a world of growing and deepening competition, they can provide us with a very valuable competitive advantage. This is readily recognised by external investors who would be considering new industrial developments here. Increasingly, people who are proposing coming to the country want to know about that. They often ask whether we have a modern waste management system in place to meet the requirements of their industrial project.

Outside the House, particularly in places around Dublin, one would think there was huge disagreement on this issue. However, obviously there is much agreement, here in the Seanad anyway, on the fundamental issues surrounding waste management. That is important because it allows us to focus on the scale of the problem that we face and, more importantly, on the need to respond in a comprehensive way to that challenge. If one listens to the various comments made on this issue, there is no doubt that people seem to recognise the tradition we had of burying all of our waste in the ground is not a sustainable long-term solution. If we accept that, we have to look at alternatives.

It is accepted both here and internationally that there needs to be a greater focus on preventing and minimising waste. This task is one which the soon to be established core prevention team in the EPA will be undertaking. It is accepted that we need to improve radically our performance in the whole area of waste recovery with supporting improvements in the infrastructure available. Likewise, it is accepted that we need better information, education and understanding of the sometimes complex issues surrounding waste management.

The Government accepts all of these fundamentals and supports giving them practical effect in a very substantive way. Residual waste simply has to be dealt with and we cannot just walk away from that. Taking the elements of an integrated approach, to engage in cherry-picking is simply fooling ourselves and constitutes a bit of a cop-out. There is no point fooling ourselves that we can do something in the short term because we cannot afford that type of approach. We cannot wait until we have pushed our recycling levels to the limit and then start to make decisions about how we deal with the remainder of our waste. If we favour an integrated approach, we have to face the reality of that and not cherrypick. Some of the individual comments referred to prevention and reduction of waste and the use of sustainable resources. In my opening statement I set out what is being done and I indicated that there are areas which are also the subject of much discussion at EU level. The Minister has identified initiatives in these areas to be advanced as a priority during the Irish Presidency in the first half of next year.

The revised EU directives on packaging will pose a major challenge but we should not lose sight of the fact that significant progress has been made and to date we have achieved the 25% recovery target set for 2002. That is working very well under the industry-based recycling regime operated by Repak, which Senator Quinn mentioned. It is on target to achieve the higher recycling target by the end of 2005. While we have the structures and the policies, we need better action on the ground but many things are happening too.

Senator Bannon accepted the need for residual landfill but said that we should follow best waste practices abroad and he added that he was kicking to touch on thermal treatment. We are following best international and best European practice in adopting the integrated waste management approach. We all use the phrases "best practice" and "best international approach", but we should also accept that approach and not run away from what it entails. There is no point cherrypicking and being afraid to embrace less attractive aspects of that approach.

I agree with those Senators who mentioned the importance of education on some of the newer waste infrastructure, particularly the thermal treatment projects. This is a key concern for the Race against Waste communications campaign which is being implemented in parallel with the advertising campaign. Senator Bannon mentioned the rat. I met someone recently who said that the rat cannot be seen before 9 p.m. Another person, who works with children, said that was a foolish decision, that it would be more effective and likely to succeed with younger people than with 50 year olds who are set in their ways. It is hard to knock us into shape. The advertisement may be somewhat shocking, and it is intended to be so, but I am sure that not all young viewers are in bed by 9 p.m. and it may have more effect on them.

Dioxins are often the focus of concern when we talk about thermal treatment plants. The Government does not use the term used by Senator Ormonde. It is important to realise that if within the next seven years we reached the stage of treating a million tonnes of waste thermally, the level and quantity of dioxins that such waste would release would be no more than about 2%. The levels from the burning of domestic waste could be over 30 times higher. It is important that we air these facts and the minute quantity of dioxins that might be released by certain projects. I was in a part of my constituency last Saturday afternoon, 20 hours after the Hallowe'en bonfires, and the air was thick with smoke. People complained that certain business people delivered truck loads of waste for which they should have been paying or getting a waste licence to put into the landfill. Instead, they were tipping it out for the children who thought that Christmas had come early. The quality of the air 20 hours afterwards was awful.

People should focus on reality. We worry about the minute particles that might enter the air from thermal treatment plants, yet we tolerate behaviour like that which must do serious damage to people's health. I did not feel well while I was there and that was only for 20 minutes. I do not know what people living in the area had to endure the previous night but some of the elderly may have had to go to Beaumont hospital or the Mater hospital.

Senator Bannon raised the issue of supporting local authorities in implementing their plans. No matter what a Government does, the Opposition can say €22 million or €50 million is only buttons, yet these are major resources. The number of bring banks has increased greatly, from 800 to 1,450. There are several civic amenity sites and there is funding for more of these. A lot has been done and a lot more needs to be done. It is important that we continue and that we recognise what has been done.

Several Senators, including Senator Quinn, spoke about waiver charges and there is a message in that. In the Dublin local authorities when charges were being approved – I was on a local authority at the time – we took serious measures to ensure that there was a generous waiver scheme, particularly for pensioners. In Dublin and around the country where the local authorities withdrew from waste collection it was left to private operators to look after this area. People in the Dublin area who caused civil disobedience should realise what might happen if local authorities withdrew and it was left to the private operators because while it is with local authorities, if the councillors so choose, they can introduce liberal waiver schemes. If the local authorities opt out, certain people in the Dáil and on the streets who are campaigning should be aware that they will end up in a situation where the private contractor may not be so generous.