Waste Management
Mr. Gormley: I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. At a public meeting in Ringsend a number of weeks ago, I gave an undertaking on behalf of the Green Party that we would use our Private Members’ time to table a motion calling on the Government to reassess its decision to grant approval for a public private partnership for an incinerator on the Poolbeg peninsula. Our motion goes further than that. It is a comprehensive motion which details the problems and difficulties with the Government’s approach to waste management and offers a number of solutions. I convey my thanks and appreciation to residents groups in my constituency who have worked so hard on this issue and I express the hope that we will continue to work together on this campaign and bring it to a successful conclusion. I also thank the Opposition parties that have signalled their intention to support the Green Party Private Members’ motion.
Those who are genuinely opposed to the siting of an incinerator on the Poolbeg peninsula will support this motion. Deputy McDowell, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, has issued quite a number of statements and newsletters to our constituents on this matter, insisting that he is opposed to the siting of an incinerator on the peninsula. This is his moment of truth and he has a number of options. He can choose to amend this motion as he sees fit but in a way which will ensure that no incinerator can be located on the Poolbeg peninsula. If he decides to toe the Government line, he will renege on a solemn promise given at the previous general election.
Nobody should be mistaken that the Minister made the issue of the incinerator the central plank of his election campaign and we have all of the election literature to prove it. As befits a man who does not usually mince his words, he told the electorate that he would stop the incinerator. He also told us that Fianna Fáil could not be trusted to govern on its own and that he would use his influence at the Cabinet table to stop the incinerator. However, we are still waiting for this man of action to deliver and we have seen precious little action.
If the Minister was so opposed to this incinerator, why did he do nothing to stop the granting of approval by this Government for the incinerator contract on the Poolbeg peninsula? It is untrue to claim that the public private partnership deal, which was granted to Elsam Limited, had nothing to do with the peninsula proposal. Replies to parliamentary questions I tabled demonstrate the PPP is directly linked to the Poolbeg peninsula. During this debate, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will have an opportunity to make amends. I sincerely hope he will do so when the votes are cast at the end of this debate because I am tired of his posturing and the disingenuous nonsense in his newsletters to constituents. Reading these newsletters, one gets the impression, as only the Progressive Democrats can give, that somehow the Minister is a bystander in Government or, even better, a member of the Opposition.
He claims the proposed incinerator is a mass burn incinerator not in line with Government policy. Well done to the Minister for spotting that. I am sure that took a lot of detective work. We have been saying it is a mass burn incinerator for years and, if it is not in line with Government policy and Fianna Fáil has managed to pull the wool over the Minister’s eyes, as he implies in his newsletters, why did he give his assent to the public private partnership? Why did he not raise an objection? If, as he claims, Dublin City Council is not dealing properly with the ash problem, which is also something the Green Party has stated repeatedly, why has he allowed this process to continue?
I have no intention of allowing the Minister to get away with such cute hoor politics where he pretends to the local electorate to be one thing and then acts differently in Government. It used to be called talking out of both sides of one’s mouth and if the Minister were in Opposition, he would be the first to attack such politics.
Mr. Quinn: Absolutely.
Mr. Gormley: Deputy McDowell is in Government and he is failing to deliver on his commitments. He has betrayed the electorate to whom he made these solemn promises. Unless the Minister persuades his party to accept the thrust of the motion, it is clear that both Government parties are in favour not only of this incinerator but of all incinerators.
The main reason the hazardous waste incinerator was given the go-ahead in Cork, was that it was Government policy. The planning inspector may have given 14 reasons it should not go ahead, but all these were overruled because of the Government’s commitment to incineration. I fear that the proposal for one of the largest mass burn incinerators in Europe on the Poolbeg peninsula could go before An Bord Pleanála and that, although I could provide the best of reasons for opposing it, and there are many such reasons, which I will outline later, all could be ignored because of the Government’s commitment to incineration.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, also claims that he used his influence to stop this proposal from being taken under the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill. There are a number of points to be made about this claim. First, there is no evidence to suggest that the Minister did so. Replies to questions I have asked in this regard in no way indicate that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, could put a stop to this project. If the Minister’s claims are correct, I ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, who is present in the Chamber, to say if it is true. A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.
Mr. Quinn: The Minister should tell the House the full story.
Mr. Gormley: Yes, he should give Members the full story.
Mr. Roche: The Deputies should stick around.
Mr. Gormley: Possibly more importantly, the processes for a public private partnership for a waste facility do not differ markedly from those which will operate under the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill. Hence, it is not a big deal that this project will not be developed under the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill. There is nothing to prevent Dublin City Council from using the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill for this proposal if it so wishes. If the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government wishes to rebut or clarify any of these points, I would like to hear him so do.
The Minister knows only too well that the last major infrastructural project on the Poolbeg peninsula has not gone as planned. The Taoiseach, the Minister and other dignitaries opened the waste water treatment plant - again the largest in Europe - with great fanfare. Since then, residents from the locality and beyond have been subjected to the foulest of odours from this plant which is running at capacity. One wonders how Dublin City Council and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, who signed off on it, could have got it so badly wrong. However, they did so.
The Minister appears to believe that big is beautiful because he has authorised the construction beside the sewage treatment plant of what will possibly be the largest mass burn incinerator in Europe. The building, and not merely its chimney stacks, will be the height of Liberty Hall and the length of Croke Park. The chimney stacks will be approximately half the height of the red and white chimneys on the Poolbeg peninsula. This will be a monstrosity, even in visual and planning terms. Moreover, this monster will require feeding for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year for 30 years. For 30 years, Ireland’s waste management strategy will be committed to incineration, during which hundreds of trucks will trundle through Sandymount and Ringsend daily and the costs of incineration will spiral beyond the original estimates.
Although the Minister has made a mess of the sewage treatment plant, no one has been held accountable. No one has lost his or her job or has held up his or her hand and admitted guilt This is a prime example of incompetence and a lack of transparency and accountability.
Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats now want to repeat the trick. An independent expert, to whom reference was made in the motion, has stated that the costs given by Dublin City Council are inaccurate. The expert in question is Mr Joe McCarthy, with whom officials in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will be very familiar because he exposed the debacle of electronic voting and showed it could not work properly.
Mr. Quinn: Along with others.
Mr. Gormley: Will the Government ignore Mr McCarthy on this issue? Will the Government plough ahead in the knowledge that Dublin City Council has not properly addressed ash disposal and CO2 emissions, to mention just two issues? Will the Government turn a blind eye? For every three tonnes put into the incinerator, one tonne, which must be disposed of in a landfill, will be returned. Therefore, landfill will always be part of the equation.
The kind of landfill which the Green Party supports would contain no compostibles and would be very different. It would be so different that Professor Paul Connett, a waste management expert, refers to it as “clean fill”. This is a landfill in which one sees no rats or seagulls and in which there are next to no leachates or methane emissions. Moreover, if the political will exists, this can be achieved. However, it is quite clear that the political will does not exist because not even the delivery of brown bins has been implemented. Where are the brown bins of which the Minister and others continually speak?
As our knowledge of waste management techniques improve, it is becoming clearer that incineration is not a sustainable technology. How could it be sustainable to use energy to create products and then burn those products, thus wasting energy and creating CO2 emissions? We now have a unique opportunity to avoid making that mistake. It will mean changing the direction of society and the manner in which we conduct our affairs. Built-in obsolescence and the throwaway society must come to an end and industry will be obliged to clean up its act and assume responsibility for the products it makes. Many industries have realised that clean technology, as it has become known, can save money. It makes economic sense not to be wasteful. The argument is often used by proponents of incineration that environmentally friendly countries use it as a means of waste management. However, the same arguments have been used by those who support the nuclear industry.
I refer to another problem of which the Minister has not taken account and to which a “Prime Time” television programme alluded. New evidence has emerged about emissions from incinerators which deal with particulate matter or very small particles. The particulates in question are much smaller than PM10s or PM2.5s. Dr. Staines, who was commissioned by the Government to perform its health studies, has stated that he has reassessed the evidence and now has a different opinion in respect of incineration. He now states that he would oppose incinerators, which is very significant.
It is up to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, and the Progressive Democrats, to put their money where their mouths are. I ask them to vote for this motion, which I commend to the House.