Dáil debate on Poolbeg Incinerator
Below are edited extracts from the debate on the proposed Poolbeg incinerator in the Dáil on Thursday February 22nd. The full debate is available on the Oireachtas web site.
Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the Government’s position on incineration and, in particular, the proposed incinerator for the Poolbeg peninsula; the status of the procurement process; if, in his view, Dublin City Council can proceed with the incinerator, which up until now has been supported by the Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. Roche): I propose to take both questions together.
I thank the Deputies for raising this issue. The waste to energy plant concerned is being procured as a public private partnership, PPP, by Dublin City Council acting on behalf of the four Dublin local authorities in the context of the regional waste management plan for which the relevant local authorities have statutory responsibility.
As Members are aware, this project is the subject of applications by Dublin City Council for planning permission and a waste licence. These are matters for An Bord Pleanála and the Environmental Protection Agency, respectively, which are statutorily independent in the exercise of their regulatory functions.
Given the intention to use a public private partnership to deliver the project, my Department was required, in line with public policy, to be satisfied that the procurement process was properly conducted in accordance with national and EU requirements and this was done. Signing off on the public private partnership constitutes the extent of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government’s involvement in this regard.
On 19 February 2007, Dublin City Council informed my Department that, following a change in ownership, the selected service provider for the project has been seeking significant changes in the financial and commercial terms originally agreed. As these changes would not comply with the terms of the original procurement under the strict conditions required by the PPP process, it is not open to the council to accept the changes and the procurement should be terminated and a new procurement process commenced.
My Department understands that the council is informing the service provider of its position at a meeting tomorrow morning. Dublin City Council will continue to have responsibility for taking the project through the planning and waste licensing processes already under way.
It remains the Government’s policy to support local authorities in implementing the internationally accepted approach to waste management. This embodies a waste hierarchy in which waste prevention, reuse and recycling are the primary objectives and thermal treatment with energy recovery is preferred to landfill for the management of residual waste. The siting of any individual installation is not a matter in which the Government plays a role. As Members are aware, that is a matter for the local authorities promoting a particular project. Site selection is very much a matter for the sponsoring authority and is not a matter which is either cleared with, or promoted by, the Government.
[...]
Mr. Gormley: Let us get this very clear; clarity is absolutely necessary because we are dealing with local people who have legitimate fears about this project. Is the Minister stating the oral hearing which is part of the planning process and the EPA licence process can go ahead? Is it the case that the council can seek other partners subsequently? Can planning permission and a licence be given and new contractual arrangements entered into subsequently? The impression given yesterday by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was that the incinerator project was not going ahead. From what the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government stated today, that was a misleading impression. The statement by Mr. Matt Twomey that it was still on track was far more accurate. Will the Minister tell us whether the planning process and EPA licence process are going ahead?
Mr. Roche: I presume the Deputy knows the planning and EPA processes which are entirely stand-alone and independent are in no way related to the financial side of any arrangement.
[...]
Regarding what Mr. Matt Twomey stated yesterday, as I stated, he was carefully reflecting the precise position because until such time as the meeting takes place tomorrow at which the company which succeeded Elsam is finally told the position, it is still theoretically in the deal. The company has stated it is not able to meet the terms of the PPP and the reality is that it will be out of the PPP tomorrow morning.
Mr. Gormley: The point I made is that I want clarity. If the company seeks arrangements which are not to the satisfaction of Dublin City Council, can the planning process and licensing process go ahead? That is the question.
[...]
Mr. Gormley: To make it easy, what I want to know is this. Can the planning and EPA licence processes be continued if Elsam pulls out?
[...]
Mr. Roche: Regarding the question raised by Deputies Gormley and Eoin Ryan, to be absolutely clear, Dublin City Council reached its arrangements with Elsam after the PPP process. Once the project was certified to be in compliance with the PPP process and having received the necessary clearance, the city council went to An Bord Pleanála and the EPA for a license. The council still has the prerogative to pursue both matters. The questions were fairly put and I want to be fair and clear in my answers.
In parallel, Elsam and the council had discussions on the financial side. As we now know, Danish Oil and Natural Gas, DONG, took over Elsam. It is a completely new corporate entity and does not share the same core focus as Elsam. If it wanted to progress with the project, it would require significant changes. Those changes are not possible under the PPP process. That is what Dublin City Council will notify to the company. In the circumstances that will arise from tomorrow’s meeting, the council will have little option but to judge that, acting on the advice of the client’s representative for the PPP, it will have to inform the successor to Elsam that it cannot make those changes.
[...]
Mr. Gormley: I thank the Minister for his reply. I will be going back to constituents, as will Deputy Quinn and others. The Minister can correct if I am wrong but can we now state clearly to them that the planning process and the licence application can go ahead as is? Are there commercial arrangements that may be changed as a result of tomorrow’s meeting? Can they now look for new commercial arrangements or even a new partner? Is that the case? The Minister can answer by indicating “Yes” or “No.”
Mr. Roche: There are three separate questions and “Yes” is not the answer to all three. It is not possible to answer all of them either in the affirmative or the negative. The planning and EPA processes are independent processes which have started and can proceed.
Mr. Gormley: They can proceed.
Mr. Roche: I will not speculate on whether the agency which promoted them will withdraw.
[...]
Mr. Gormley: I have a specific question. The Minister stated today that the public private partnership process is very exacting and case specific. Is it also site specific?
[...]
Mr. Roche: Deputy Gormley asked whether the issue was site specific, but in this case the planning and EPA application was site specific.
Mr. Gormley: I was asking whether the PPP was site specific.
Mr. Roche: I am not being flippant, but whether the PPP is site specific is not the issue.
Mr. Gormley: It is. I am asking the question.
Mr. Roche: The PPP is site specific because this case is mentioned.
Mr. Gormley: Yes.
Mr. Roche: However, the issue is not whether the PPP is site specific, but whether the planning is site specific and who will comprise the financial elements.
Mr. Gormley: The Minister signed the PPP.