JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT debate -
Tuesday, 31 May 2005

Waste Management (Electrical and Electronic Equipment) Regulations 2005: Motion.

Chairman

The purpose of today's meeting is to consider a motion on the Waste Management (Electrical and Electronic Equipment) Regulations 2005 referred to the committee by both Houses. The motion reads:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Regulations in draft:

The Waste Management (Electrical and Electronic Equipment) Regulations 2005, copies of which were laid in draft form before Dáil Éireann on 18 May 2005.

Similar wording was used for the Seanad motion. The joint committee will consider the motion in accordance with paragraph 2 of its orders of reference. The committee will, not later than 2 June 2005, send a message to the Dáil in a manner prescribed in Standing Order 85 and to the Seanad in a manner prescribed in Standing Order 67. Accordingly, Standing Orders 84(2) and 69(2) shall apply retrospectively.

On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, and his officials.

Minister for the Environment and Local Government (Deputy Roche)

I am pleased to bring this matter before the joint committee. The adoption of the motion by both Houses will pave the way for transposing the EU directives on the restriction of hazardous substances in electrical equipment — otherwise known as the RoHS directive — and waste electrical and electronic equipment, commonly known as the WEEE directive. I dislike both acronyms but bow to them for the moment. For the benefit of the committee, I will outline the background to this issue and the approach taken in developing systems for the implementation of the directives.

The draft regulations which are the subject of discussion are being made under section 7(4) of the Waste Management Acts 1996 to 2003. This section provides that any regulations under section 62 of these Acts, which enables the State to give effect to any Community Act on waste, shall not be made until both Houses of the Oireachtas have approved a draft of the regulations. What we are about today is the putting in place of the necessary enabling legislation for the transposition and implementation of these two landmark directives.

The draft regulations are one part of three sets of draft regulations which I published on 15 April last. The enabling legislative changes to the Waste Management Act 1996, the subject of our discussion today, will allow for the making of further detailed implementing regulations for the WEEE and RoHS directives, respectively. The regulatory regime proposed will allow for the full transposition of the directives and facilitate the commencement of the operation of the WEEE directive with effect from 13 August next, when producer financed recycling of waste electrical and electronic equipment gets under way. The RoHS directive will commence on 1 July 2006.

We are seeing the opening of a new and potentially exciting chapter in the development of recycling in Ireland. We have already seen the accelerated progress made under the earlier packaging and packaging waste directive, the operation of which under the industry based Repak scheme led to an increase in packaging waste recycling from just under 15% in 1998 to 44% in 2004, with Ireland well on course to meet the EU target of 50% in 2005. The producer responsibility approach is now being applied to another problematical waste stream and I am sure we will be able to replicate the success already achieved with packaging waste recycling.

Packaging waste recycling is not the only area where there has been a remarkable example of a producer initiative. Today I was pleased to be in attendance at a meeting of the Irish Farm Film Producers' Group, the group which is recycling an amazing 9,000 to 10,000 tonnes of farm plastic waste every year.

The key aims of the WEEE directive are to reduce WEEE disposal to landfill; provide for a free producer take-back scheme for consumers of end-of-life equipment which will come into effect from 13 August this year; improve product design with a view to both preventing WEEE and increasing its recoverability, reusability and/or recyclability; achieve specified targets for recovery, reuse and recycling of different classes of WEEE; provide for the establishment of collection facilities and separate collection systems for WEEE from private households; and provide for the establishment and financing by producers of systems for the recovery and treatment of WEEE, including provisions for placing financial guarantees on new products placed on the market.

Electronic waste is one of the fastest growing waste streams in the European Union. New versions of consumer products are constantly being launched. Built-in obsolescence and constant pressure to keep up with new developments mean that ever increasing numbers of electronic goods are being purchased and, of course, ever increasing numbers of electronic goods are being consigned to waste.

Economic growth and greater personal wealth allow more of us to enjoy the benefits of new technology from DVDs to PCs, from specialised equipment in the kitchen to sophisticated life-saving equipment in our hospitals. When one thinks about it, there is a bewildering array of electrical and electronic equipment and new materials come on stream every day. Built-in obsolescence undoubtedly plays a part, while fashion also plays a big role.

Alongside many great benefits, some disadvantages are associated with this technological revolution. Electronic waste is growing at a much faster rate than other forms of municipal waste. While we have seen some innovative recycling initiatives in this area such as the all-island fridges and fridge-freezer initiative funded jointly by my Department and the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland, the coming into operation of the WEEE directive on 13 August will mark a major shift in how we manage this waste stream.

There are good reasons to tackle this waste stream. First, most electrical and electronic equipment contains valuable compounds and other materials which can readily be recycled. Second, some equipment contains chemicals, heavy metals and radiated elements which are hazardous and should not be landfilled in municipal landfill facilities. Third, the sustainable use of resources and our limited landfill capacity demand that we do not send increasing volumes of electronic and electrical waste to landfill. We must find some other way of dealing with it.

This waste can best be managed across the European Union by member states acting together and following a common legal framework. These new directives set down that common framework. The purpose of the RoHS directive is to approximate the laws of the member states on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment other than medical and monitoring devices. This will lead to significant health and safety and environmental benefits for Ireland in the years ahead.

Under the terms of the RoHS directive, member states must ensure that from 1 July 2006 new electrical and electronic equipment put on the market does not contain certain substances, including lead, mercury and cadmium. Implementation of the WEEE and RoHS directives will requires close co-operation between all stakeholders, including producers, retailers and central and local government. For this purpose, a task force representative of all relevant sectors was established in February 2003 to draw up proposals for implementing the directives.

A report by the task force published in April 2004 examined the issues surrounding implementation of the directives and made a number of recommendations regarding the collection, recycling, financing, regulation and reporting arrangements that must be put in place in advance of the free take-back of WEEE which will commence on 13 August this year. A public consultation process followed, the results of which assisted the preparation of draft regulations which I published on 15 April. These consisted of draft regulations to insert a new part into the Waste Management Acts 1996 to 2003 for the purpose of giving legislative effect in Ireland to the directives which are before the joint committee to enable me to make draft regulations laying down detailed rules for implementation of both the RoHS and WEEE directives which I intend to make in advance of implementation of the WEEE directive on 13 August, together with the draft RoHS and WEEE regulations. The draft regulations inserting the new part into the Waste Management Acts will, if adopted, enable me to make regulations allowing for the prohibition and/or restriction of hazardous substances in electrical and electrical equipment under the RoHS directive.

The WEEE directive requires that from August this year producers be responsible for the financing of the collection, treatment, recovery and environmentally sound disposal of WEEE. It means owners of WEEE will be entitled to leave that waste back free of charge, either to the place of purchase or to other authorised collection points. It sets a recovery target of 4 kg of WEEE per head of population. This means that in Ireland, collectively, we must recover approximately 16,000 tonnes of WEEE. This target and a series of recycling and recovery targets for various categories of WEEE are to be achieved by December 2008.

I commend the industry and other stakeholders on the task force for their hard work and co-operation in preparing for implementation of what are acknowledged as challenging and complex directives. This is social partnership in action. While a significant amount of work remains to be done, the deadline of 13 August has concentrated minds and will help galvanise efforts in the run-up to commencement. We are working in partnership with industry to put the registration system for producers in place as required by the directive. It is expected to be running on a non-statutory basis early next month. WEEE Ireland and the European Recycling Platform, ERP, are likely to apply for approval to act as collective schemes. They have been engaging with all relevant stakeholders, producers, local authorities and retailers.

A second consultation process on the draft regulations recently ended. No comments were received on the draft regulations amending the Waste Management Acts. However, all comments and observations received on the draft regulations, laying down detailed rules for implementation of the restriction of use of certain hazardous substances and WEEE directives, will be carefully considered in preparing the final draft regulations. Any amendments proposed will be referred to the task force as part of the ongoing consultation process.

This is an important new chapter in promoting recycling in Ireland and I have no hesitation in commending to both Houses the adoption of these draft regulations to insert a new Part VB into the Waste Management Acts 1996 to 2003. In so doing we will be striking a blow for the regulation of an area which has had a problem with waste. As one travels around the countryside, one still sees white goods deposited on the roadside. This will bring an arrangement into operation that I have no doubt will work and from which we will all benefit.

Deputy Cuffe

The waste electrical and electronic equipment directive was to be transposed into Irish law one year ago. While I understand it is a complex area, complexity is no excuse for dragging our heels on EU directives. Why is the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government one year late in transposing the directive? Complexity is no excuse for tardiness in ensuring legislation is put in place.

Will the regulations provide for a move towards the provision of real support for the re-use and recycling industry? The regulations will follow the Repak model and exonerate distributors and producers from taking on board the responsibility for the re-use and recycling of products. I am concerned that we are going down this road, because Repak only pays a small percentage of the actual cost of disposal that consumers very often pay to local authorities. One must pay €12 at Ballyogan recycling centre to simply go in the door with an old computer. I hope the Minister will place a strong onus on distributors to take back electrical equipment at point of sale. The Repak model has clear flaws from which the Minister must move on. The delay in transposing the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive concerns me. It is yet another directive the Government has failed to incorporate into law in a timely fashion. Is there any practical assistance, financial or otherwise, to assist reuse or recycling, or is it being pushed out to the private sector to deal with? In the past that approach led to companies such as the Irish Glass Bottle Company simply shutting up shop. The Government should take a far more proactive role in assisting recycling and the setting up of recycling industries. I would hate to think we would simply export all our white goods and not tap into the potential to create employment on this island through this new form of industry.

Will the incineration of these goods be allowed for? It seems the Minister is couching the regulations by using the phrase "environmentally friendly means". However, what is environmentally friendly to one person may mean incineration to another. Will the Minister allow for incineration of electrical goods through the changes in the waste regulations?

Deputy Roche

If we were late in transposing the regulations, we are in good company. Every country, bar one, has been late in transposing them because they are very complex. We are ahead of the posse in implementing what has been transposed. We are also adopting an approach which I believe will work better than direct imposition. We are doing this in concert with the social partners. This is very much a partnership approach. The social partners have been involved throughout. However, there are still issues that must be resolved. I acknowledge that there has been a tremendous response from producers and retailers, who are very actively involved.

Both directives were required to be transposed into domestic law by 13 August last but only one country, Greece, transposed them into law. That in itself means we are not out of step. My ambition, which I have stated several times, is to see Ireland being much more proactive, not only in transposing directives but also in implementing them because we have and have had a very bad reputation in that regard. The result has been a whole series of court actions against us. However, there is some very active work ongoing in my Department. There is a task force specifically examining transposition and implementation. As Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, I managed to take us from towards the bottom of the league to near the top. I want to do the same in terms of the workings of these directives.

These directives are complex. There has been much consultation with stakeholders. Because of their complexity it is a good idea that there be consultation. That is why we did not meet the deadline. Other member states have not only delayed transposition but have also sought to defer implementation. France, the United Kingdom and Germany are seeking to do this. I do not see it as an option. I do not want to go down that route. I have made it very clear to all concerned that this will come into effect on 13 August. Having a clear-cut date is a very good way of approaching the issue. All the social partners and all the stakeholders know what is expected of them and, to be fair, they are all stepping up to the plate.

The additional 12 months it has taken to prepare the proposed legislation has resulted in a very thoroughgoing process of consultation. I am convinced we will have a more robust set of draft regulations which will be broadly welcomed by the relevant stakeholders. If members think through where we are today, using the legislative approach we are using, they will agree it is a signal to people outside how serious we are. We could have transposed under older arrangements, under the 1973 Act, in a relatively simple way. However, by using the device we are using today under the Waste Management Act, we are leaving the dumpers, the people who break the law, the environmental criminals, wide open to fines of up to €15 million, plus very substantial jail sentences. This sends out a robust signal.

Retailers will still have to take back like for like. Membership of a compliance scheme will not absolve a retailer from the responsibility to take back items.

Deputy Cuffe

Does this mean a person has to buy a new piece of equipment in order to return the first one?

Deputy Roche

Yes. It would be unfair of me, for example, to clear out my attic and bring the items to a retailer and ask him or her — regardless of whether I had purchased them from him or her — to take charge of them. I do not believe that would be practical. People will be able to dispose of material, free of charge, at a civic amenity site because there will be in place at that stage a funding arrangement which does not currently exist. The Deputy mentioned Ballyogan, which is a remarkable facility. Some sites charge a €2 entrance fee. The fee at Ballyogan is slightly higher. The price charged depends on the item being returned. However, people will be able to return items free of charge because the stakeholders will be picking up the cost and financing the arrangement.

I have already stated that the concept is based on recovery. Members will find that the scheme now being put in place will stand up to comparison with anything else coming through from Europe. I was also asked if we will export materials. That is, in all probability, the manner in which materials will be treated because we import all our electrical materials. The Deputy also asked if we are moving towards incineration. There is no subtext being used.

Deputy Cuffe

It appears to be a get-out clause for the Minister.

Deputy Roche

No, it is not. Many recoverable materials are valuable. I visited the Rehab operation, which is most impressive. There are many other schemes in operation throughout the country. Much of the material used in the making of electrical products — be it scrap casing on the outside, plastic or steel, or material used inside — is very valuable. It would be nice if all our materials could be recovered in the United States, thereby adding value to scrap. I would be less than honest if I suggested otherwise.

Some of the material is exported to Holland, which has the facility to remove semi-precious and precious metals. I am not sure we will ever have such a facility, although it would be nice if we did. I do not view incineration as an option.

Deputy Gilmore

I would like to make a couple of observations on the regulations. My first question relates to the manner in which part of the regulations are to be implemented. The Minister stated, in regard to the draft regulations, that it is proposed to insert a new part into the Waste Management Acts 1996 to 2003 for the purpose of giving legislative effect in Ireland to the directives. Is it possible to do that? As I understand it, the nursing homes legislation was struck down on the grounds that it sought to amend primary legislation by means of regulation. By what means is it possible to amend primary legislation by way of regulation?

It is to be welcomed, from an environmental point of view, that the Minister is addressing the disposal of materials used to make up electrical and electronic goods. I wonder about the way it is proposed to do this. The EU directive is based on the principle of producer responsibility but the regulations do not reflect that. They shift the responsibility from the producer to retailers and, ultimately, to consumers. In the directive there is a requirement to improve product design of electrical goods. In the regulations, however, product design is addressed only in so far as it is intended to facilitate the recycling of electronic goods.

Producers should be required to produce something that will last. Many household electrical goods are designed with in-built obsolescence of five years. It would be a miracle if something lasted ten years. Goods of this nature are designed with a view that a person will return to the electrical retailer within five or six years to buy the new upgrade. If producers were required to design and manufacture products that last, the waste stream would not be as great. The regulations do not reflect that; they provide for some improvements in design to facilitate retailers but do not help consumers to buy products that will last.

In the regulations, the producers are being provided with a means by which they can evade the EU directive. They will be able to set up producer organisations, such as WEEE Ireland, which sounds like a cross between County Louth and a united Ireland.

Deputy Morgan

It will emerge very shortly.

Deputy Gilmore

In the real world, meanwhile, the householder will buy a new fridge and if it is the same size as the old one, the retailer must take it back free of charge. It will then be the retailer's responsibility to figure out how to store it and then transport it to the civic amenity centre. If, however, a person is not buying a new product but wants to get rid of one, he must get it to the civic amenity centre himself. On 13 August, the retail and consumer regime will be put in place. From that date onwards, if I buy a new fridge of the same size or dimensions as my old one, the retailer who sells me the product must take back my old fridge. If, however, it is a different size or I wish, for example, to replace an old fridge freezer with two separate items — a fridge and a freezer — I will have a problem because the retailer is entitled to argue that, in accordance with the regulations, he or she is only obliged to take back like for like and, therefore, is not required to take back a single item in return for the sale of two items. Will the Minister clarify the position?

The retailer must deal with the problem on a practical level. Will the financing arrangement to which the Minister referred be in place on 13 August, or will it be dependent on the establishment of WEE Ireland and the European recycling platform? Will all aspects of the regulations or only the retailer and consumer elements be in place on 13 August?

With regard to the financing arrangement, how does one prevent the cost of disposal being passed on to the consumer? The idea of the European directive is that this cost would fall on the producer. I do not see anything in the directive or the regulations which prevents an additional €20 or €30 being added to the consumer price of the product.

Deputy Roche

The operation will become effective on 13 August. I made clear in my introductory comments that I intend to operate the regulations from that date. It is good to have an opportunity to answer this question because it allows me to send out a message to remove any residual hope in the industry that it will be possible to delay compliance. This will not be the case and the regulations will come into operation from 13 August onwards. By having a clear-cut attitude on this matter, we encourage people to resolve the final issues.

On the question of price, it will be absorbed and will not necessarily be passed on to the consumer, which was not the intention. An interesting discussion is taking place on how one shows this cost on a price tag and the question remains to be resolved. The cost will, however, fall back on the industry.

Deputy Gilmore

Where exactly is that indicated in the regulations?

Deputy Roche

It is not specified.

Deputy Gilmore

That is my point.

Deputy Roche

Industry must pay the cost of disposal. It will fall back on the producers, who must bear it like any other cost. The costs of sheet metal, transport and all the other elements involved in the manufacture of a product must be paid for by the producers and this will also apply to the cost of disposal.

Deputy Gilmore

It will fall on the consumer.

Deputy Roche

The sector in question is very competitive. If the price of steel increases, do manufacturers pass it on to consumers? Manufacturers pass on production costs to the consumer and the cost of disposal will become part and parcel of the cost structure of producing electrical and electronic goods. The market will ultimately determine price but, as we are all aware, electronic and electrical goods manufacturing is the most competitive of industries.

With regard to the design elements, what we have done in the regulations is transpose the design requirements. It will be in the interests of producers to ensure they are more conscious of their environmental responsibilities and build this into their design.

The Deputy asked whether individual producers should bear responsibility in this regard or whether it should be collective in nature. The directive makes specific provision for collective responsibility as the appropriate way to proceed. As a large and important market of 4 million people using some 16,000 tonnes of material, a collective approach would be much more desirable than allowing individual producers to adopt their own methods. If an individual producer wants to self-comply, he or she is not prohibited from doing so. Some may, and possibly will, adopt this approach. By and large, however, there will be collective responsibility. Retailers' responsibilities are also recognised and they and producers are part of the ongoing discussions on the details of the scheme. The industry as a whole will carry the cost. The point of the directive is that the cost of recycling is part of the cost of producing these goods and putting them on the market.

Deputy Gilmore

I return to my example. If, from 13 August, I go to a retailer to purchase a new fridge, he will be obliged to take back the old model free of charge. I will not, therefore, incur a cost in that regard. The retailer will bear the cost for the transport of the old fridge from my home to the location at which it will be stored, for its storage there for up to 30 days and for its transport from there to a civic amenity centre or wherever for disposal. The cost of disposal at the civic amenity centre will be free and will be recouped in some way. Who will pay the cost borne by the retailer in respect of transporting the fridge from my home to storage and on to its disposal point?

Deputy Roche

The overall costs of the scheme will be borne by the producers.

Deputy Gilmore

Who will pay the specific costs incurred in terms of transporting the fridge back to the retailers, storing it and bringing it to the civic amenity centre?

Deputy Roche

As already stated, the overall cost will fall on the producers. Retailers have the option of putting in place their own compliance schemes, in which case they would carry the costs. I may have missed something in the Deputy's question.

Deputy Gilmore

The question is simple. As I understand it, the idea is that the producer pays.

Deputy Roche

That is correct.

Deputy Gilmore

I understand that in some way the civic amenity centres have a way of recouping their costs from the producers. I also appreciate that there is a voluntary scheme. Will retailers not incur costs if they are obliged to take back fridges, store them and transport them to civic amenity centres? Will they be in a position to recover such costs?

Deputy Roche

Producers will carry the full cost. A cost per item will be calculated and input into the system and this will give rise to the funding for the entire arrangement. If retailers wish to take goods and store them on their premises for a period, that is their choice but they will not be able to pass on the cost involved to consumers.

Deputy Gilmore

Most of this scheme will involve the movement of unwanted electrical goods. I understand that when the goods are brought to the civic amenity centre, it will be free and a process will be in place to deal with the goods. However, can a retailer recover that cost? Can a retailer go to the producer and claim that costs were incurred in transporting the fridge and storing it until it was taken to the civic amenity centre?

Deputy Roche

The full cost of the scheme will fall on the producers. The retailers will be part and parcel of the scheme. Retailers have their own storage costs, which they bear themselves. The essential element in the scheme is that the producers will bear the full costs. How they manage the bookkeeping——

Deputy Gilmore

That is the theory.

Deputy Roche

That is the practice. How they manage the bookkeeping will work itself out through their accounting systems.

Deputy Gilmore

The Minister is not answering the question.

Deputy Roche

I apologise but it is the jargon we insist on using. The environmental management cost, the EMC, takes account of the full cost to the producer and the retailer.

Deputy Gilmore

Where does that leave us in terms of the cost of moving the fridge? Who will pay for moving it?

Deputy Roche

The environmental management cost is built in as part of the producers' responsibility. It will pay for the management, transport and storage of the fridge.

Deputy Gilmore

If I am a retailer, can I go to the EMC and say that the driver of the lorry——

Deputy Roche

I apologise, I see the Deputy's point now. That is done by arrangement between the retailers and the producers. The environmental management cost is part and parcel of producing one unit of an electronic good or equipment. It is intended to cover all of those costs. While there is some debate within the industry as to whether it will be put on the price tag or shown separately, the overall cost is intended to be covered. A unit cost will be worked out. If there is a cost for interim storage, it will come out of that cost. As this is a competitive industry, I expect many negotiations will be held between retailers and producers. It is that elemental, one-off environmental management cost that will carry the full costs of all aspects of the scheme.

Deputy Gilmore

I appreciate the Minister's answer but I still do not understand it.

Chairman

Perhaps the Deputy might reflect on the reply.

Deputy Gilmore

I am happy to return to the matter later.

Deputy Roche

It covers all elements. I cannot see why the reply does not meet the Deputy's requirements.

Deputy Gilmore

If I am a retailer, I will need a place to store this material when I take it from a consumer.

Deputy Cregan

However, the retailer will have replaced a unit with a similar sized one and, therefore, will retain the same storage space for it.

Deputy Gilmore

I suppose that is true.

Deputy Roche

I see the Deputy's point but it will have to be worked out in each individual case. Different approaches will be adopted by different retailers. For example, a retailer with much space will take as many units as possible until they need to be moved. There is also the element of reverse logistics. This means that when a fridge is delivered, a space becomes available for the one collected. The logistics are issues which they themselves must resolve but the cost of all of this is this environmental management cost, which becomes part and parcel of the cost of production.

Chairman

Senator Brady, Deputy Morgan and Senator Brennan are offering. Does Deputy Gilmore wish to conclude his line of argument?

Deputy Gilmore

No, I will wait and return to it.

Senator Brady

The Minister has answered the question that I was going to raise on the protection of the consumer. We have noted the proliferation of dumped white goods, particularly in Dublin's city centre and suburbs. In recent times, the retail prices of white goods have fallen. This may be due to the reduced cost of manufacturing or of materials. It is essential that the consumer end of it is protected. I can see what the Minister is trying to get across and I understand Deputy Gilmore's question. The main point is that such protection is in place and that the producer and the retailer must take on the responsibility between them. Once that cost is not passed on to the consumer, that is the main issue. The technologies involved in these matters are evolving continually. As the Minister stated, it is probably the most competitive market. I have noticed that, particularly with the increase in the numbers of new apartments. The turnover in this area is considerable.

I welcome the draft regulations because they will make a difference. People laughed at the regulation on plastic bags when it was introduced initially and hopefully these regulations will make a similar difference.

Deputy Roche

The manner in which the accounting for this will happen between the two players, namely, the retailers and the producers, is part of ongoing discussions. This environmental management charge, EMC, is the subject of discussions between the two of them. We are trying to facilitate that discussion.

Returning to the point, the essential element is that part and parcel of the cost of producing an electronic good in future will be the cost of disposing of it. That is where the unit cost will come into play. The internal management of that is very much a matter which will vary from case to case. It will, however, be part of the cost.

I apologise for not answering Deputy Gilmore's other question about big fridges and small fridges. One must treat like with like. If one buys a fridge, one replaces it with a fridge.

There is also another benefit. People who have fridges but who do not necessarily want to buy new models will be able to take them to civic amenity centres. This will involve a cost because the legacy cost also must be dealt with out of the flow of revenue which comes from the EMC.

Deputy Gilmore

If one buys a fridge, will the retailer take back a fridge-freezer? Such issues will arise.

Deputy Roche

The short and simple answer is yes.

Deputy Cuffe

Will a retailer be allowed to have two price stickers, one predicated on returning another item and the other based on not returning another item?

Deputy Roche

The straight answer is no. One of the ways to control this waste and ensure that it is not dumped in the Dublin mountains is to oblige producers to take responsibility for it.

Deputy Cuffe

If one buys a new fridge on-line from an Ireland-based retailer such as Buy4Now, for example, the company would automatically have to have a tick-box category for the consumer to state that he or she will be giving the company an old fridge when it delivers the new one.

Deputy Roche

The producers must bear the cost. I am not sure whether people buy fridges or fridge-freezers on-line but perhaps they do.

Deputy Cuffe

It is possible to do so.

Deputy Roche

People certainly buy them from catalogues. Much material is bought from catalogues. The answer is yes, they will be part of this particular process.

Deputy Morgan

This has the potential to deliver the real meaning of the producer pays principle. While it has the capacity to do so, unscrupulous dealers will undoubtedly seek to avoid and evade that responsibility. This is at the nub of the series of questions which members have just asked. It was a constructive line of questioning. In this city there have been recent examples of people who were obliged to take products back, having left them lying about the place in substantial quantities. Hence, the policing of the procedure will be particularly important.

Civic amenity centres — where they exist — already receive these types of goods, which are dealt with constructively through the scheme, the all-Ireland initiative, to which the Minister referred. I welcome it because it creates a critical mass and brings an efficiency to bear on the recycling process which the North, for example, might not have been able to achieve for a considerable time to come. It is unfortunate that more civic amenity centres do not exist. There is an excellent facility in Dundalk in which 48 different products may be recycled. However, Drogheda, the largest town in Ireland, which has a population of more than 40,000, does not have a centre. This is most unfortunate.

Will the second consultation on draft regulations, which concluded recently, be published or made available? The Minister referred to this earlier. Will the comments be made available to members for inspection?

Deputy Roche

The WEEE website will have summaries of the work which has been done.

Deputy Morgan

I expect this will be done quite soon.

Deputy Roche

As soon as they are completed. By way of explanation, at this stage we are trying to deal with details and facilitate the ongoing discussion between retailers and producers, who have played a tremendous role in this process. I have attended some of those discussions and it seems that there is real anxiety across the industry to get this right. The recent incident to which the Deputy referred was where there was an outbreak of white goods being dumped in parts of the Dublin mountains. I actually discovered this myself, by the most extraordinary coincidence, when on my way to a WEEE discussion. It was the ultimate irony to find someone busily dumping fridges in the Dublin mountains. The point is to try to seal the system so that one cannot have free riders. This is why I have been firm in setting a single date. It is only by introducing a degree of certainty to the entire process that one avoids people trying to dodge their responsibilities.

The Deputy is correct in that one development has been the roll-out of civic amenity centres. The Deputy referred to the centre in Dundalk which, by any standards, is the leader of the pack. It is operated by a brother and sister. It is an extraordinary case. I mentioned that——

Deputy Morgan

As the Minister is commenting on civic amenity centres, when will such a facility be put in place in Drogheda?

Deputy Roche

If the Deputy comes up with a site, I would be quite prepared——

Deputy Morgan

There is a site available.

Deputy Roche

In Drogheda's case, we have had discussions and I understand that it will be operating before the end of the year. Louth is well provided for in this regard.

Deputy Morgan

We have been told that before.

Deputy Roche

The Deputy raised another issue which concerned the general question of infrastructure. We have been successful in rolling out infrastructure. This relates to Deputy Gilmore's point. The logical system would be for the people who deliver one's new fridge to collect one's old fridge. It is unreasonable to expect that when someone goes out to buy a fridge, he or she will have the old model in the back of his or her car. The Deputy did not take the point to such ridiculous lengths but the logic in this measure is that the people who deliver goods will also collect old models, particularly those of heavier goods. Smaller goods such as televisions, computers or whatever can be brought back to the point of sale. Some 85 civic amenity sites have been established under the regional waste management plans and many more, including the one in Drogheda, will be provided before the end of the year. I am encouraging local authorities to become involved, although one or two have not responded well in that regard. The civic amenity sites are funded under the environment fund. Many sites, including the ones in Dundalk and Drogheda, require the installation of infrastructure. The logistics of dealing with this issue, particularly in terms of heavy goods, will be simpler now than heretofore when such infrastructure was not in place.

Deputy Morgan

I had not concluded my questions when the Minister interrupted. However, I do not mind his interruption and the political hub that followed.

Deputy Cuffe

The Minister was trying to be helpful.

Deputy Morgan

Yes. Will dealers be audited occasionally to establish, for example, whether the number of machines imported or sold by them tallies with the number of machines taken in? We are all aware that a young couple setting up home will not own an old fridge and as such, the scheme will not operate on a one for one basis. Will dealers be audited occasionally to determine the level of compliance? If so, how often will audits take place and by whom will dealers be inspected?

Deputy Roche

Yes, they will be audited. Retailers will be required to register with the local authority and I am certain they will be closely audited. Given that the cost of the scheme will be borne by the industry, retailers will be closely monitored.

The Environmental Protection Agency will be the inspection agency. As the Deputy mentioned, there will be rogue operators who will try to avoid their responsibilities. However, it is self-delusional because the costs will be built into production. The EPA will be involved and retailers will be required to register with the local authority. Given that electrical and electronic goods will have to be sourced somewhere, the industry will have a detailed idea of who is moving what. From my discussions with it, I have no doubts it is aware of the benefits of self-policing. Nobody will want free-riders on board, those who are not part of the system and dodge their responsibilities. I do not believe that problem will arise.

Senator Brennan

I have no problem with the producer pays principle. However, a typical retailer will now be expected to act as a transfer station for waste and will be required to obtain an EPA waste management licence. Insurance costs will be crippling for his or her business and he or she will be obliged by planning regulations to seek a change of use for his or her premises to cater for the storage and handling of waste. As he or she will be responsible for the movement of waste from the premises to the civic amenity site, he or she will have to obtain a waste collection permit and pay for transportation.

Deputy Roche

Virtually none of that is true.

Senator Brennan

I am seeking clarification on the matter from the Minister.

Deputy Roche

I am happy to clarify it, given that there has been a hysterical reaction in some areas. The draft regulations do not go beyond the scope of the directive in terms of retailers' responsibilities. Retailers will be able to transfer waste free of charge to civic amenity sites. I have received correspondence on this matter. I do not know from where the story started but it has caused concern among retailers. Retailers who accumulate large volumes should be in a position to arrange for collection under the collective scheme. Informal working groups of lead regional local authorities are in operation to ensure the infrastructure needed will be in place.

It has been suggested retailers will be required to obtain a waste licence. That is not true. They will not be required to accept contaminated weed products, as suggested in another story doing the rounds. The suggestion that the scheme will place impositions on retailers is not based on fact or any reasonable reading of the directive or regulations. I am glad the Senator raised this matter. It is important to state the directive will come into effect on 13 August. There has been much pleading for a derogation and to move away from the directive but I do not intend to do so. I will facilitate discussions between the different sides — retailers, producers, local authorities and the task force.

To minimise the burden on them, retailers will be allowed to avail of an exemption from the normal waste collection requirements, particularly in terms of its storage and transport. The scheme will be less burdensome under the modified regime than is the case under the normal arrangements. The only additional administrative burden to be borne by retailers will be the requirement to register the premises with the local authority. I am glad the Senator raised this matter, given the unfounded fears being created.

Deputy Morgan

Is there a cost involved in registration?

Deputy Roche

It will cost €20 to register.

Senator Brennan

I thank the Minister for his clarification on the points raised.

Deputy Roche

I am grateful to the Senator for raising the issue as I am also aware from correspondence I received that such questions are being asked.

Deputy Gilmore

What happens when a person buys a washing machine, which is delivered by the retailer, who refuses to plumb it, and he or she has to bring in a plumber to connect it and places the old one at the side of the house?

Deputy Roche

It is up to the user to disconnect the machine and have it ready for collection. That is not unreasonable. A person will not be required to return it to the retailer's premises but can bring it to a civic amenity site.

Deputy Gilmore

That means the consumer will have to employ a plumber twice.

Deputy Roche

No, it does not. The consumer does not need a plumber to pull a plug from the wall and remove the machine.

Deputy Gilmore

He or she might.

Deputy Roche

That is pushing it to a farcical level.

Deputy Gilmore

No, it is not.

Deputy Roche

Under current arrangements, consumers are responsible for the disposal of electrical goods such as washing machines, many of which are disposed of on the side of a mountain. The new system is better. It is in consumers' interests, if they want washing machines and so on collected, to have them ready for collection on the day their new one is delivered. The old washing machine should be taken away on the same day as the new one is delivered. It is pushing logic a little too far to suggest otherwise. I do not mean to be harsh with the Deputy.

Deputy Gilmore

I am only trying to find out what is in store for the general public. The Minister is good at addressing the theory, terminology and fine terms in the regulations. They sound marvellous and great for the environment and the implication is that we will all live longer as a result. However, the public is entitled to know what this will mean in practice.

Deputy Roche

That is a good point. I propose to publish guidelines so that consumers will know exactly what are their rights.

Returning to Deputy Morgan's question, I do not want to see freeloaders trying to offload their responsibilities on to consumers. The producers and the retailers are dealing with this in a constructive way. I will examine the idea of publishing a short guide so that consumers' rights will be made clear.

The Deputy also raised the question of design issues. One reason there has been much change in this industry relates to energy conservation. There has been a great deal of technological change and it is not all related to built-in obsolescence. While it is not my responsibility to defend the industries, I should make that point.

Deputy Gilmore

Under what part of the regulations will the retailer be able to reclaim the cost associated with the transport of these goods to the civil amenity centre?

Deputy Roche

That will be by arrangement with the producer. It relates to the sharing of environmental management costs.

Deputy Gilmore

Will the Minister indicate where that is dealt with in the regulations?

Deputy Roche

I will come back to the Deputy on that.

Deputy Morgan

Regarding the environmental management cost, who hangs on to the kitty? Who holds the pot? I assume there will be one.

Deputy Roche

The environmental management cost is the pot, as the Deputy refers to it, from which all the costs will be paid under the various producer responsibility initiatives which have been taken. There is one operating very well in the area of packaging at present. The same can be said of that operating in the area of farm plastics. The model being put in place in this area will also operate well. The draft WEEE regulations provide for EMCs. The billing will be between the producers and the retailers and that is where costs are covered. The issue of costs is a matter for discussion between the retailers and the producers. It will involve the general public.

Deputy Morgan

There is, therefore, no regulation governing that at present. It is provided for that an exchange of finance, of costs, must happen. I understand that for each washing machine manufactured, the producer will throw, for example, €6 or whatever might be the cost into the kitty.

Deputy Roche

The detailed regulations will deal with that. It is not dealt with in this measure. This regulation allows the arrangement to be established. There will be another stage at which detailed regulations will be made.

Deputy Morgan

Will we have an opportunity to debate them?

Deputy Roche

This matter is dealt with in section 16(11) of the regulations, which states:

Each producer or, as appropriate, distributor who displays environmental management costs shall be required to ensure that all costs shown shall not exceed the current substantiated costs of environmentally sound management of waste electrical and electronic equipment, incurred by both producers and distributors, arising from electrical and electronic equipment placed on the market prior to 13 August.

That deals with both the legacy and the ongoing costs.

Deputy Gilmore

That refers only to the display of the costs.

Deputy Roche

It is up to the two players to determine how much it is and how they will account for it between them.

Deputy Morgan

The retailer is to share some of the costs. However, the retailer is not the producer. The producer is the manufacturer and must surely carry the cost.

Deputy Roche

It is a shared responsibility. Producers and retailers have a shared responsibility for dealing with this.

Deputy Morgan

The Minister's point is that the cost must be met by both of them.

Deputy Roche

Yes and because business inevitably drives down costs, I believe they will operate in a way that is cost effective. It will be in their interests to be cost effective in this area because it is one in which they can control the costs in their own industry.

Deputy Morgan

Is it correct that if WEEE Ireland arrives with a truck and makes collections, it will bill the retailer in the first instance?

Deputy Roche

That is an issue that will be worked out between them.

Deputy Morgan

There are three or four involved now — the producer, WEEE Ireland and another company.

Deputy Roche

There are more than three or four. There are myriad producers in the marketplace. That there are so many producers is one of the issues which complicates matters. There are more producers than retailers in this market. How the accountancy is done is a matter for them.

Deputy Gilmore

In a nutshell, the European Union directive states that it is the producer's responsibility.

Deputy Roche

That is correct.

Deputy Gilmore

However, the Minister is producing regulations under which producers and retailers must resolve matters between themselves.

Deputy Roche

No.

Deputy Gilmore

That is what the Minister is saying.

Deputy Roche

That is not what I am saying.

Deputy Gilmore

That is what I am hearing.

Deputy Roche

That is not what I am saying. I have simply transposed the wording used in the directive.

Deputy Gilmore

The Minister has not. He has split it up, even in terms of the one with which are dealing.

Deputy Roche

The directive does not deal with the detail of EMCs.

Deputy Gilmore

Section 14(1)(b)——

Deputy Roche

The Deputy is being argumentative. Can he show me where the directive deals with the detail of EMCs?

Deputy Gilmore

Yes.

Deputy Roche

It does not.

Deputy Gilmore

I can show the Minister. The Minister's case is that he is simply transposing the directive, word for word, into domestic legislation.

Deputy Roche

Yes.

Deputy Gilmore

I do not want to be pedantic but the Minister is not doing that. The issue of one for one return of goods as expressed in the regulations is divided into two paragraphs and the text used is different from the text in the directive. I accept that it is not substantially different but there are differences. It is not done word for word.

Deputy Roche

The Deputy is splitting hairs.

Deputy Gilmore

No, I am not. We have a European Union directive which quite properly provides that the producers of electrical goods should take responsibility for disposal and for dealing with waste and that will be built into the cost. What the Minister is doing in these regulations is creating a cocoon for the producers in terms of WEEE Ireland and so on. In the real world, however, the return and disposal of electrical goods are, for all practical purposes, being left to the retailer. His answer on the issue of producer responsibility is that because there is a competitive market the retailer will work out some kind of deal with the producers to deal with the cost.

Deputy Roche

That characterisation is grotesquely untrue. The directive makes clear that those involved in the chain that brings these goods from production to consumer must bear the responsibility. We are putting in place a take-back scheme which recognises collective responsibility. It is the most cost-effective and consumer-friendly way of dealing with the matter. We will not create a mysterious system for consumers or the market whereby they will be obliged to contact a certain producer in respect of a particular product and a different producer in respect of another. We are putting in place a common sense arrangement in respect of producer responsibility and this has worked elsewhere. This is an easily accessible system and provides for collective responsibility. It is visible and viable and is the most sustainable way of dealing with the issue.

Chairman

Does that conclude the discussion on the motion?

Deputy Morgan

The position is extremely unsatisfactory.

Deputy Gilmore

I am not happy.

Deputy Roche

If there is any specific question to which the Deputies feel I have not replied in a sufficient manner or if they wish to submit a written query, I will certainly provide an answer. It is a complex issue and it is fair to say, without being patronising, that I have had more time to research the issue than either of the Deputies. I accept their points but to suggest that this somehow cocoons the producers is simply wrong. The opposite is the case. Producer responsibility is explicitly dealt with in the regulations.

Deputy Gilmore

I am not agreeing to these regulations in their current form. The issues I have raised have not been satisfactorily addressed by the Minister.

Chairman

We will produce a report after the meeting stating that further discussion and debate is required in the Dáil.

Deputy Gilmore

I appreciate that. The House should have an opportunity to debate the matter further. I notice that it is listed to be taken on Thursday without debate. I support the Chairman's recommendation on that.

Chairman

We will suspend for approximately ten minutes to prepare the report. Is the motion agreed?

Question, "That the motion be agreed", put and declared carried.

Deputy Roche

I thank members. As already stated, this is a complex issue and I will reply in detail to any written queries on the matters discussed at this meeting.