I take it that Thursday is the day, and we look forward to that.

On another matter, is the Taoiseach aware that an oral hearing has commenced in the Boyne Valley Hotel in Drogheda over the licensing of the first municipal waste incinerator in Ireland? Government policy has often been characterised as a burn it and bury it approach, although Ministers, Deputy Roche and Deputy McDowell, do not want the burning part of it in their areas. Our policy is different as it is a zero waste strategy which does not allow incineration. Does the Taoiseach recognise the growing anger among people over the failure of the EPA to execute its role in a strong, independent and effective way? Will he accept and take seriously the procedural flaws revealed in this process, whereby a planning application can be appealed to another body, An Bord Pleanála, which is entirely independent from the local authority, yet an EPA licence is appealed to the EPA? Given the EPA's biased and well known pro-incineration position, its quite sloppy approach to the GreenStar Kentstown 350 acre dump and that the EPA has been compromised over its public pronouncements which basically parrot Government policy, does he recognise that there is a need for an appeal body that stands aside from the EPA? Does the Taoiseach find it unacceptable that in the monitoring of dioxins, samples have to be sent abroad? Does he find it unacceptable that witnesses at the oral hearing are restricted if they are opposed to incineration, whereas the pro-incineration company proposing the plant can introduce all sorts of other cases? Does he agree that the built-in bias within the EPA needs to be addressed? It is time to review the EPA.

I am sure Deputy Sargent will agree that the EPA's oral hearing into the granting of a licence for the operation of an incinerator in County Meath will give all sides an opportunity to make their views known.

No.

No.

No.

The licence inquiry allows for a lengthy planning process, which is among the most onerous, detailed and open of all such processes. The EPA is independent in the exercise of its functions.

That is a joke.

The Deputy is entitled to his opinion that the EPA is a joke.

How can it make its own decisions?

I do not think it is a joke.

Hear, hear.

It is totally biased.

I do not think those involved in the EPA think it is a joke. The EPA's legislative base is not a joke.

The Green Party Deputies just do not like its decisions.

The Government's policy is that thermal treatment and energy recovery has an important role as a single element of an integrated approach to waste management.

The Taoiseach makes it sound like a hair dryer.

I have listened to Deputy Sargent's comments. Countries like Holland and Germany, which are recognised as being among the most environmentally advanced countries, combine high rates of recycling with the existing use of modern thermal treatment facilities.

They have nuclear power as well.

Their recycling performance has not suffered as a result of the provision of thermal treatment facilities. It is important to note that the introduction of thermal treatment will allow this country to reduce its environmentally unsustainable dependence on landfill.

Thousands of tonnes of ash will have to go to landfills.

One can make cement from it.

Deputy Sargent asked about the health effects of thermal treatment and argued that such effects should be considered during the environmental licensing process. The EPA cannot grant a waste licence if it is not satisfied that the activity in question will not cause environmental pollution. It operates to the highest EU and WHO standards. It follows the rules, directives and procedures——

Of the Government.

——of the EU and the WHO, in line with best international practice.

Just like in Argentina last November.

I reject the accusation that the EPA is a joke.

It is biased.

The EPA considers that human health will be protected if people comply with licence emission limits. It follows the procedures to a high standard.

This matter is far more serious than the Taoiseach realises. Does the Taoiseach appreciate that the position of the EPA is compromised, in light of the pronouncements of its director, Dr. Mary Kelly, in favour of incineration, as well as the appointment to its board of Ms Laura Burke, who is a former employee of Indaver Ireland, which is the company seeking an incinerator licence? In that context, how can the Taoiseach stand over his comment that the EPA is independent? The EPA is judge and jury in its own court, in effect, and will not be subject to any appeals system.

There is an onus on the Government to accept its responsibility to govern, for example by learning from the lessons which should have been learnt by now, ten years after the establishment of the EPA. Is the Taoiseach aware that it seems to the public that every polluter appears to have the ear of the Government? Is that because money talks, or because medical experts and environmental groups do not have the resources of the company that is proposing the incinerator? Will the Taoiseach review the operations of the EPA to try to restore some of Ireland's lost credibility as a clean and green food island? Will he ensure that the EPA is concerned with environmental protection, rather than simply with licensing industrial pollution?

I do not agree with the Deputy's view. Our planning process involves An Bord Pleanála and the EPA. The Deputy has suggested that a further organisation, which is independent of the EPA, should be established. I do not consider that to be the position. The Minister, Deputy Roche, has said he is aware of the concerns of local communities about the development of thermal treatment and other major waste management facilities.

He will not allow such facilities in his local area.

He believes in an approach of "anywhere but Wicklow".

Or Ringsend.

The Minister has said he will examine best practice as part of the ongoing environmental monitoring of projects. In particular, he will ensure that local communities are involved in overseeing such monitoring. The EPA does not just operate on the basis of its own rules, guidelines and standards.

The Government does.

It also follows the relevant EU directives, which are enormous, as Deputy Sargent will agree. The EPA follows such standards. It is not simply ignoring protestors and listening to developers.

The EPA always gives licences.

It considers the WHO standards. The EPA estimates that the 11 waste incinerators in operation in this country — Deputy Sargent would refer to them as hazardous — have contributed a fraction of 1% of national dioxin emissions to air.

That is a projection.

I have given the facts, as outlined by the experts. If one assumes that 1 million tonnes of municipal waste are managed by means of incineration over the coming decade, the EPA projects that dioxin emissions from waste incineration could account for less than 2% of national dioxin emissions to air.

That projection applies in the event of a malfunction.

The EPA has said that opponents of incineration should examine other issues.

That is nonsense.

If we have to examine other issues, what about food?

What about municipal incinerators?

Experts in this area have said that issues such as burning waste in back yards is not regulated.

There is nothing we can do about the burning of waste in back yards.

The effects of such activity can be far worse than the effects of the matters we are discussing. That is what the experts are saying.

Incineration will not stop the burning of waste in back yards.

I regret that the EPA has been rubbished to the extent it has been. The comments we have heard are unfair on professionals and experts who are working in this area. I do not believe that such people are a joke. The suggestion that certain issues should be reviewed after ten years is a fair point. I am sure the Minister will take it into account.

"Burn baby, burn"— that is the Government's approach.