I welcome Aodhán McCormack and his son Cian and daughter Áine from Limerick who are in the Gallery. We also have other guests in the Gallery. They are equally welcome.
Ban on Dumping New Products Bill 2022: Second Stage
I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I also welcome our guests from VOICE, the environmental NGO.
This is an important debate. The Sinn Féin Seanad team has tabled this Bill because we are fully supportive of the need to move to a circular economy. Our planet has finite resources and we cannot continue to waste them in a take-make-waste business model. A key problem that we believe was not addressed in the circular economy Bill is that big corporations are dumping perfectly good products which have not been used. This is the most wasteful scenario conceivable in a linear economy. All of the waste associated with the mining of raw materials and the energy and labour that goes into manufacturing and distributing the product, only for it to go into the bin without delivering any benefit, is unconscionable, particularly in view of the environmental crisis we mace on multiple fronts. The Bill is a necessary step in the context of addressing this.
The Bill states that producers, importers and distributors of new non-food products intended for sale but that remain unsold are forbidden from destroying or dumping such items. Instead, they are required to take proactive measures to reuse these products. One way to achieve this is by donating them to charities, NGOs, second-hand shops or social enterprises. To ensure there is the necessary flexibility, these can be defined by the Minister for the Environment, Climate, and Communications.
The Bill also provides a definition for "non-food products" but it is not an exhaustive list. It includes items such as electronic products, textiles, clothes, shoes, furniture, ink cartridges, hygiene products, food preservation and cooking equipment as well as leisure products, books and school equipment. We have seen these being dumped in the public domain. It is important to note that there are exceptions to these obligations. The Bill acknowledges that certain products may pose serious risks to health or safety when reused or recycled. Therefore, the requirements outlined in subsection (1) do not apply to those products. Additionally, products whose disposal is already prescribed or whose material recovery is prohibited are exempted as well.
To enforce these provisions, the Bill establishes penalties for non-compliance. Any person or entity found guilty of disposing products contrary to subsection (1) will be deemed to have committed an offence. Upon summary conviction, they shall be liable to a fine not exceeding €3,000 for each such offence. Given the scale of the problem, fines of €3,000 would quickly rack up and be a disincentive to the practice.
There was an opportunity to take decisive action in the circular economy Bill. There was a lot of media attention on the Government Bill, which Sinn Féin supported, but it focused on the latte levy, which we still hear about on the airwaves. Approximately 30 of the 70 pages of that legislation focused on tackling littering by individuals and allowing councils to set up CCTV operations. Meanwhile, amendments tabled by Sinn Féin, which were based on this Bill, were not accepted. The excuse we heard was that the EU was working on similar provisions to ban this corporate practice.
We fear that the EU Council's position that was agreed in May only covers the dumping of textiles. I understand that it does not cover the dumping of all of the other items that are included in the Bill. EU legislation takes a very long time to work through the system and to be eventually transposed into national law. Given the scale of the problem with dumping we do not have this time to wait. We should show the same leadership as other countries such as France, which has implemented a very similar law to the Bill. Scotland is also in the process of including such a ban in its circular economy legislation.
Most individuals would be shocked to know that up to 50% of the items they return to online retailers are dumped. For all the focus there is on how to be sustainable, and people are trying to do their best, it will come as a shock to many that after they make the effort to put a product back in the box, be it an item of clothing or something that has never been opened, and go through the process of sending it back to a supplier, it is then put straight into landfill or incineration. Most people at home would be shocked to know this is happening. We know the Bill will not fix everything to do with the model that facilitates this type of business but it does highlight Sinn Féin’s commitment to tackling systemic change rather than focusing on individual measures and putting the guilt on individual people.
For years it has been endemic in the fashion industry to overproduce stock only for it to go straight from the rails to landfill. My colleagues will elaborate more on these practices. It has become rampant in other product ranges since the pandemic, when more people became accustomed to buying their products online. For example, hygiene products are dumped.
If we extrapolate from the figures for France because we do not have the data for Ireland, we could say that on a per capita basis some €13 million of hygiene and beauty products are destroyed in Ireland each year. We are in a cost of living crisis and people are finding it very difficult to buy basic necessities, yet these companies are literally dumping hygiene products straight into the bin. Another sector where dumping unused goods is practised is the furniture and kitchen appliances sector. Again, we lack the official statistics but to get a sense of the scale of the problem, figures from France suggest that 2.3% of all furniture on the French market is not sold, of which 46% is directly destroyed or recycled. To extrapolate from those figures to Ireland on a per capita basis, that is around 1,097 microwaves or 1,567 kettles, which would bring about savings of 279 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.
I want to focus on one of the biggest offenders in regard to this practice, which, as we know because of the public exposés, is Amazon. Ireland now has its first fulfilment centre, which opened recently just down the road from where I live. We know from a 2018 exposé in Germany that Amazon was guilty of dumping thousands of products there. A 2019 undercover exposé in France found that up to 3 million products were dumped across fulfilment centres in France. Even more recently, a 2020 undercover exposé in Britain found that 130,000 items were being dumped per week in one fulfilment centre there.
The Amazon lobbyists have been really proactive on my Bill, which I suppose demonstrates that we are doing the right thing if we are aggravating the likes of Amazon. They sent a letter outlining their business model and their concerns with this Bill. When we read the letter, Amazon comes across as very impressive and a model company but we need to actually drill down into the detail of what it is saying. The Amazon representatives mention that it has purchased three renewable windfarms and that when they come online, they will power 185,000 Irish homes. They do not mention that their data centres are contributing to a 30% increase in electricity demand and they do not mention what their data centres do. We know that Amazon Web Services actually goes out and targets the business of fossil fuel companies to extract oil far quicker and to save those fossil fuel companies about €10 billion annually.
Most importantly, when they address the substance of the Bill, they state that since the launch of fulfilment by Amazon donations, it has helped third-party sellers to donate more than 100 million items worldwide to people and organisations in need, including households and schools. That is very impressive - 100 million items since the launch of this scheme. In their letter, they do not say when the scheme launched, so I went off and found that it was in 2019, so it is three and a half years since the scheme was launched. Again, 100 million items sounds very impressive but when we break it down, it is about 28 million products per year. If we look at the exposés and take Britain as an example, it had 130,000 per fulfilment centre, and, according to its own website, Amazon had 175 fulfilment centres. To extrapolate from that, 130,000 items per week works out at approximately 1 billion items per year that are being dumped by Amazon fulfilment centres. Amazon is boasting about 100 million items in three and a half years when it is actually responsible for dumping about 1 billion items per year.
I welcome what I hear from the Minister of State, which is that he is not going to oppose the Bill, and he might confirm that. When we hear those figures, we know that is just one company but we do not know if it is doing it in Ireland, although we can assume it is doing this if it is doing it in France, Germany and Britain. We do not have time to wait for the EU. If the Minister of State is not going to oppose the Bill, I ask him to facilitate the time to allow it to progress so we can show the same leadership as has been shown in France. I will hand over to my colleague, Senator Gavan.
I welcome the Minister of State. I commend my comrade, Senator Boylan, on this excellent Bill. As we can hear from her contribution, it is more than timely. Indeed, to be frank, it should have been adopted as part of the circular economy Bill some months back and it was disappointing that the Minister of State rejected the opportunity at that time. Equally, I welcome the fact he is apparently now recognising that this is a Bill that should pass.
I was relatively new to this topic and anyone new to this topic must be shocked to find out that these global corporations are literally burying new and unused products in the ground in their hundreds of thousands, if not millions. That is what is happening in the world today. One of the key reasons it is happening is that there is a global chain of exploitation that works so efficiently for these companies, at the expense of human beings, of course, that it means they can produce these goods so cheaply that it often makes financial sense for them to plough them into the ground in order to not damage the status of their products in the marketplace.
I want to focus on the fashion side of things. I could talk about Burberry, Zara and H&M, all of which deliberately plough their new and unused products into the ground. Instead, I want to talk about Shein, the well-known online clothes company, which opened its Dublin HQ in May of this year. There have been many reports raising concerns around its business model and how it falls short of protecting workers’ rights, human rights and the environment. We cannot allow that kind of irresponsible practice to be the norm here in Ireland and we cannot wait for Europe to legislate for it before we do, as has been well explained by my colleague, Senator Boylan. Incidentally, right now, it is the European Union, with the support of the Government, that is blocking the adoption of a binding UN treaty on business and human rights that could go some way to ending these shameful manufacturing supply chains like that of Shein. The Minister of State might like to comment on that fact or perhaps even highlight it to his colleagues in Cabinet.
Reports have highlighted that Shein has 6,000 clothing factories in China, some reported as employing workers for as little as 4 cent per item, working 18-hour shifts, with a requirement to produce 500 items per person. The fabrics are cheap, often made from synthetic fossil fuel-based fabrics with toxic dyes and microplastics. The business model is one of ultra-fast fashion and they produce up to 10,000 new products a day. Most returns end up in landfill.
According to the Minister of State’s fellow Green Party member, Councillor Carolyn Moore, who sits on the Government’s waste advisory board, Ireland disposed of 110,000 tonnes of clothes in 2020. The point is that, so long as it is easy enough and a cheaper option to dump these unsold or returned products, the practice of over-production will continue. It is the practice of over-production that then drives companies to ignore human rights, environmental issues and workers’ rights. We should remember the Rana Plaza disaster. That was ten years ago and we are still talking about the lack of protection for workers’ rights in these kinds of factories. Despite some improvements in Bangladesh around safety and working conditions, several provisions in the labour laws have yet to be aligned with international labour standards.
When we hear about companies dumping electronics, such as laptops, televisions and so on, it is not just the idea that others could have had the use of them or that the components could have been recycled properly, it is also the horrible truth that there are children in some countries being used for rare mineral mining. Little do people realise that some of these rare minerals, such as cobalt, are mined by children and end up in global supply chains, including those of automobiles, banking, construction, cosmetics, electronics and jewellery. More than half of the world’s supply of cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo, where children, some as young as seven years of age, work in life-threatening conditions, subject to violence, extortion and intimidation. This cobalt has been traced to lithium batteries sold by major multinational companies. And all for what? For the products to be dumped in a landfill if they are returned or not sold.
My former manager, Jack O'Connor, late of SIPTU, used to refer to this practice as tooth and claw capitalism, and that is what it is. It is the ugly underbelly, the side of the business that we do not like to acknowledge is there, but it is there, and its implications for human beings across the globe are horrific. There is a cycle of wrongdoing throughout the whole supply chain that is caused by fast-fashion and a throwaway culture. We have to break that cycle. It starts with each country actively enforcing legislation to prevent the dumping of unsold goods, which in turn prevents overproduction. It will not solve everything but, at the very least, we need to punish these companies for burying their new and unused products in the ground. We need to make sure that it is such a punishment that they will actually stop the practice. That would be a significant step forward.
If the Minister of State is going to allow this Bill through today, which I believe he is, it would be appropriate if he would also commit to giving Government time so we can get this Bill passed as quickly as possible through this autumn.
Why would we wait any longer given the horrific practices Senator Boylan and I have outlined? We can make a real difference. The Minister of State can join Sinn Féin in making a difference by supporting the Bill.
I welcome the Minister of State. I compliment Senator Boylan on bringing forward the Bill. Nothing ever stays the same. The longer we live, the more we know. I knew very little about this type of practice until the Bill was brought forward by Senator Boylan and Senator McGahon asked me to take it on his behalf from the Fine Gael side. There was a time that my wife and I were involved in the fashion business. There was a term in use at that stage, namely, "cabbage", which referred to lines of fashion that were oversupplied and were sold off at certain times of the year at a discounted price, where there was too much production. This is completely new now. When I looked at the Bill I thought there is very little production here of textiles or, for that matter, electronics.
Senator Boylan made a lot of sense. We have these great big stores from Amazon and items are sent out online and go back to a central distribution station, where they feel it is easier to dump them than recycle them, do anything with them or send them for incineration. That is a complete change in the past ten or 20 years from when products were sold off at a discounted rate when there was an oversupply. Now we have a system where there is an oversupply and when returns come back, they go to incineration or to landfill because it is cheaper to do that. The Bill makes perfect sense.
Where do we draw the line? The likes of Amazon order on the basis of what they think they are going to sell. The manufacturer is probably in a different country or wherever and they manufacture X number of something. There is an oversupply, more than likely, and we have seen from the figures given by Senator Boylan that €13 million worth of hygiene products were dumped last year. Our job and that of the Minister of State is to get them to get their act together in order that there is not an oversupply. If there is an oversupply, as Senator Boylan has said, items should be recycled. That should be part of the circular economy. It should not be going to landfill and if it is going to landfill or incineration, there should be a fine or mechanism to punish people for doing that.
The Bill is very short. It makes perfect sense to me. As I said, production is very small in these areas. Most of this stuff is produced in other countries. It is not a big problem from a legislative point of view, I suppose, but it will have a bearing on how the likes of Amazon and other companies like it operate in this country and how they are going to deal with oversupply and returns. That is the kernel of Senator Boylan's Bill. It is the oversupply and returns that something has to be done with. The Senator is suggesting they should be part of the circular economy, that the items should be distributed in various ways to people who are in need or that there should be some way of curtailing the production lines in other countries. That should be done by Amazon and similar companies; they should not be ordering so much in advance. Their production lines and the scale of production should be watched more closely. As Senator Gavan has pointed out, under mass production it is so cheap to produce an awful lot compared with a smaller amount. There is less of a cost in carrying out mass production. That is basically the Bill. It is a good Bill. If there is as much going into landfill and incineration as Senator Boylan points out to us, some action should be taken. The Bill goes part of the way in doing that.
I am very pleased to be here to support the Bill on behalf of the Civil Engagement Group. I thank Sinn Féin for introducing this important and thoughtful legislation. I commend Senator Boylan on all the work she and her team have done on it. Politicians like Senator Boylan, my colleague, Senator Higgins, and Deputy Bríd Smith are doing very important work to highlight that environmentalism is not only necessary to limit the devastating effects of climate change but can also inspire new ways of doing things that create a more socially just and equal society. We are producing mountains of waste. I will focus on the environmental destruction wrought by the garment industry, but there are similar dynamics in other industries that this Bill addresses.
Developments in e-commerce, manufacturing technology and the brutal exploitation of workers in developing countries mean that consumers in developed countries are acquiring huge quantities of goods for unsustainable cheap prices. However, it is a false economy. Often these goods are of incredibly low quality. Poor manufacturing and confusing, inconsistent sizing mean that many garments that are bought online are returned. These returned garments are dumped because they are so cheaply made it is easier for the companies to dispose of them instead of bringing them back into retail circulation. At a time when the limitations of our planet's resources have never been so starkly illustrated, this wastefulness is absolutely obscene. Not only does this production model damage the environment, it does harm to the workers labouring in oppressive and unbearable conditions to produce what is then so casually discarded. Luxury firms have a different approach which is, however, also profoundly wasteful. They will destroy excess stock so that oversupply does not impinge on the perceived value of the clothes, which is maintained through artificial scarcity and ludicrously overinflated prices. The incentive structure of modern manufacturing and retail is creating massive unnecessary waste and worse outcomes for consumers, who struggle to chart a course between flimsy fast fashion and inaccessible luxury goods that serve primarily as a status symbol. This Bill would disrupt that toxic incentive structure and encourage a more sustainable approach to production. This could have the knock-on effect of producing better quality goods and more humane labour practices. Legislative interventions like this Bill are necessary to disrupt these wasteful and destructive practices. I know there may be EU legislation in the years to come but it is vital that we do not sit around and dither in the meantime. We need to follow the lead of countries like Germany and France and take decisive, positive action.
The Government needs to be a leader in this area. With that in mind, the Minister, Deputy Coveney's decision to attend the opening of the Shein offices was really unfortunate. Shein's involvement in the exploitation of garment workers and its profoundly negative environmental impact should disqualify it from Government and IDA Ireland support. The Minister, Deputy Coveney, is supposed to head up the Government's efforts to enhance and secure workers' rights. Rolling out the welcome mat for an infamous firm like Shein undermines confidence that he or this Government can credibly claim to advance workers' rights or stand up for human rights at home and abroad. At a time when so many people in this world have so little, the destruction of consumer goods that would make a tangible difference in the lives of low-income people is a moral as well as an environmental catastrophe. The profit margins or luxury status of companies cannot trump that greater social need to ensure that waste is avoided and people are provided with the means to have a comfortable, fulfilled and dignified life.
We need to reimagine and reshape our labour markets, supply chains and production and consumption patterns if we are going to limit the devastation of climate change. That is not a recipe for eco-austerity; it is an opportunity to create a more rational economy and society that is less wasteful, less exploitative and better at providing people with the goods and services they need, not mountains of junk mouldering in landfills or littering our seas. We must break out of the short-term, myopic mindset that plagues politicians. We need to think about the big structural changes safeguarding our future requires. The Bill is a brilliant intervention.
I am glad to be here to support it. I hope it receives the cross-party support it deserves and is passed swiftly through these Houses and enacted. We must be bolder and more ambitious in our approach to environmental protection. We have a responsibility to the generations after us and the people of the global south, who will bear a disproportionate amount of the burden of the consequences of the excessive, unsustainable consumption in the global north.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. This Bill should not come as any surprise to him. I would be doubtful if he was not supportive of it because he is fiercely committed to issues around sustainability and sustainable practices. I thank Senator Boylan and her team in Sinn Féin for this Bill. It is very timely and appropriate. It is a simple and common-sense ask. I do not know why we have not examined it long before now. Advocating for sustainable practices and a better environment and, in turn, a more sustainable future for our planet and future generations are at the key of this proposal and central tenets of this legislation. I thank the Sinn Féin Senators for using their time to bring the Bill and for championing the cause of waste reduction, promoting responsible consumer behaviour and encouraging the development of innovative recycling and resource management. That is what they are seeking to do. Together, we can create a more sustainable Ireland. I also acknowledge and thank VOICE for sending an email which was very supportive of the central tenet of this legislation. I thank VOICE for its meaningful engagement, which I found extremely helpful. I also thank Senator Boylan for her memo, which I looked at. I checked a few issues in it. One of the key asks is to ban the destruction or dumping of new non-food products. It requires companies to donate or reuse products including, but not limited to, electronics, ink cartridges, textiles, books and furniture and a €3,000 fine for breaches. Those are very simple asks. There is nothing complicated about that.
There is a lot of focus on the practice of destroying used products, especially in the fashion industry. It has been the norm to maintain brand value. There are issues around why producers dump products to keep prices up, which is an important issue. Dumping unused goods represents a waste of valuable resources. I do not think the Minister of State could deny that. It intensifies demand for new and raw materials and energy as well as the water needed to produce and the impact of the distribution of goods. I have been advised that France has already introduced legislation to ban the practice of destroying unused products, effectively from this year. The European Union is currently negotiating on implementing a similar ban through an ecodesign regulation. Scotland is considering a similar provision for the circular economy. The Minister of State has been a great advocate and promoter and has driven the whole circular economy, for which I pay tribute to him.
This Bill makes sense. It is about championing the cause of waste reduction, promoting responsible consumer behaviour, encouraging the development of innovative recycling and resource management. I commend this Bill to the House.
Well said.
I commend my comrade, Senator Boylan, and Brian Marron, in her office. They have worked tirelessly on this and do an incredible job for Sinn Féin. I also thank our team on climate and just transition.
Central Statistics Office, CSO, figures, show that, in Ireland, 8.9% of people cannot afford new clothes, 1.4% cannot afford a warm, waterproof coat, and 2.5% cannot afford two pairs of shoes suitable for daily activities. This is truly shocking in 2023, when Ireland is considered one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Yet, every year, millions of items of clothing are unsold, disregarded or destroyed. This is as well as the waste associated with mining raw materials and the energy and labour that go into manufacturing the clothes, only for them to go in the bin without delivering benefit to anyone. It is no exaggeration to say that when all the socioeconomic and environmental challenges of the day are considered, the destruction of unsold clothing represents the most wasteful scenario conceivable.
The dominant approach, to date, has been to blame consumers for fast fashion. However, the reality is that dumping clothing is not confined to any one branch of the fashion industry. It is an intrinsic part of the business model of many brands, and, moreover, such overproduction does not happen by accident. It is a fundamental element of a company's projected profits, which is actively pursued and strategically invested in. Burberry, H&M and Zara have all been caught engaging in wilful destruction of vast quantities of clothing. In 2017 alone, Burberry destroyed unsold clothes, accessories and perfume worth £28.6 million. The total value of the goods destroyed by Burberry alone, from 2013 to 2017, is estimated to be in excess of £90 million. The practice of destroying unsold items and even rolls of unused fabric is not unique to Burberry or even luxury fashion brands. For many brands, like Zara, H&M and Shein, the overproduction of goods is the cornerstone of their business models. In companies built on a high-volume model, over-ordering of large quantities of fabric and items can be cost effective, as these items can then be sold at discount, while still turning a profit.
The Government can no longer bury its head in the sand and be an idle bystander to this morally and environmentally bankrupt practice. It cannot continue to pass the buck to consumers as it continues to wait for the EU to act. Individual actions alone will not end this business model. we need strong Government leadership and decisive action. I commend Senator Boylan for pressing the Government. I thank the Sinn Féin team for providing the Private Members' Business time for this important Bill.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire agus roimh an reachtaíocht atá á plé againn inniu. Tréaslaím leis an Seanadóir Ní Bhaoighealláin as ucht an Bille atá os ár gcomhair um thráthnóna.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. As other colleagues across the House have done, I commend Senator Boylan and Brian Marron in her office on drafting and driving forward this important legislation. It is particularly stark when we hear some of the statistics we heard today during the course of this debate. I think we can all agree this is a pretty shocking practice. From a fundamental perspective, we can all agree that this should not be happening. We all know the ethical issue of waste before even getting into the environmental and ecological impacts, and, indeed, the societal impact, which other colleagues mentioned, on the global south and other places. We are on common ground.
There are a number of points I wish to make. It is to talk about the ethics of this and the drive, intent and culture that prevail which allow this large-scale industrial waste, not just without being held accountable, but also that a lot of these large corporations are incredibly glic. Most people do not know. For example, until Senator Boylan brought forward the amendment to the Circular Economy and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2022, I did not know this was such a common practice and was happening across the board. As Senator Gavan rightly said, and it is a point worth making again, this is due to a relentless and insatiable juggernaut of global, uncurtailed capitalism which is having this impact around the world. This is part and parcel of that.
In reflecting on what I would say today, and the big, macro issues have been dealt with, I thought about how I approach an issue of this scale, as an individual. Other colleagues said that sometimes all of the burden and responsibility is placed on us as individuals. I am not entirely sure how the practice works in the South, but in Belfast, I have to divide up my items for the black bin, which is the waste bin, food recycling and recyclables.
There are days when I look over at the corner in the kitchen where I keep the food waste bin and the plastic, cardboard and other things that can go down into the boxes, and I realise I am using a lot of material. I then feel guilty. I also worry that if I put the wrong thing in the wrong box I could incur a penalty from the council, and I suppose that would be fair enough and rightly so. Then we come in here and we hear that literally millions of items that are unused or returned are going into landfill and then being incinerated. This proposal, therefore, makes absolute sense to me in this context. As I understand it, the Minister of State will not be opposing this legislation, but when he spoke last time on the previous amendment, he referred to waiting to see what the EU was going to do in this regard and that something might be coming down the line. Action on this issue, though, is required now.
We cannot wait. We have the opportunity to do something tangible and important. I think all of us can accept this State will not be the biggest perpetrator in this regard but, nevertheless, if we look at the patterns around the world, we can see this is already happening. What are we going to do about it? How are we going to respond? This legislation being brought forward by the Sinn Féin team is the first step in this journey to doing what is right and necessary. I say this because I do not need to remind the Minister of State that we are in the midst - if not beyond it - of a global and biodiversity catastrophe. Let us, therefore, show today that not only are we on the side of ethics, the environment, the planet and a just transition but also of ensuring workers around the world are not exploited and people are treated fairly.
Let us also ensure this legislation not only passes today on Second Stage - I know the Minister of State does not decide the schedule of business here, this being a matter for this House - but I ask the Minister of State to encourage his colleagues in government to ensure this legislation does not continue to sit in limbo. This issue is time sensitive. We have an opportunity to do something similar to what France has done and to send a message around to the rest of the EU and the world to say this is a problem and we are taking it seriously. We should show that we are not only taking this seriously, but that we are going to hold to account and punish those who engage in this catastrophic, offensive and gross practice of industrial-scale unnecessary waste. Let us, therefore, get the Bill through on Second Stage today, but let us also see it come back for debate on further Stages shortly after the summer break. Let us ensure this legislation passes effectively for the benefit of all.
Well said.
Well done.
Would the Minister of State like to come back in?
Minister of State at the Department of Environment, Climate and Communications (Deputy Ossian Smyth)
I thank Senator Boylan for bringing forward a constructive environmental Bill. I am very happy to see any Senator bring forward constructive suggestions on how to make a better environment. I am going to say, for a start, that the Government shares the objectives of this legislation. I have spoken to my colleagues and we are not going to oppose this Bill for this reason.
It is an affront to people who are responsibly and dutifully sorting through their waste in their kitchens to see perfectly good products being destroyed by large and wealthy companies. It is clearly unfair and destroys the motivation and sense of solidarity among people to tackle this problem. It is for this reason that I signed regulations last month that came into effect on 1 July requiring all businesses and commercial operators to segregate their waste. Many companies were previously only using one bin. When we looked at the contents of the black bins coming from company waste, it was found that 70% of the material was either recyclable or was biowaste. There will be, therefore, a major increase in the segregated waste streams coming from businesses. I did this because they have the same responsibility as individuals to play their part in helping us to achieve a circular economy.
The Senator is also absolutely right to look to other jurisdictions to see how they are approaching what are global problems. It was with that aspect in mind that I met Bérangère Couillard, who is my equivalent as the minister with responsibility for the circular economy in France. I asked her about her experience with different approaches she has taken to deal with the problems of reaching a circular economy. She has brought in legislation that prohibits the destruction of new products where there is extended producer responsibility, EPR, such as in the context of the waste electrical and electronic equipment, WEEE, charge when we buy electronics. This measure does allow the manufacturer and the seller to recycle the product. It does not require that such products be reused or resold. It will also apply to other, non-EPR, products starting next year. We are looking at how this will work in practice and I will stay in close contact with her on this.
In progressing legislation, we must ensure that measures intended to support the circular economy are as effective as possible, that they can influence product supply chains far beyond our island and that they ensure a level playing field for Irish businesses. I say this because there is the risk that if we tell companies here that they cannot destroy perfectly good products they will put those products into a container and ship them to their partners in another country where there is different legislation in place and we will simply move the problem from one country to another. It is with this in mind that we are working on European legislation. It is not a directive. European directives require that they be transposed locally, and the Senator may know this already, in each member state. This initiative, though, is being undertaken as a regulation, which will mean that when it passes, it will have immediate effect. It has been agreed in the European Parliament and by the European Council, so we are at the final stage of the trilogue, which will happen later this summer.
As I said, when it is agreed, it will have immediate effect. It makes sense to take a co-ordinated approach on this matter because of the problem of moving goods across borders. When looking at the problem of plastic pollution, for example, we found the vast majority of such plastics have been crossing borders during their lifetimes. This movement of products across borders is a problem and requires a multi-jurisdictional approach. Clearly, we cannot get an answer that is 100% perfect. How can we force a factory in China, for example, not to destroy clothing? It does make sense, however, to put work into a co-ordinated approach.
I will bring the House up to speed on where we are with the ecodesign for sustainable products regulation, the ESPR, which is the European Commission's proposal for an ecodesign for sustainable products regulation, which was published on 30 March 2022. This is part of the European Green Deal. The main objectives of this initiative are to reduce the negative life cycle environmental impacts of products and to improve the functioning of the Internal Market. The ESPR is a framework regulation. It will set out requirements for how products should be made. These detailed requirements are not yet known, but they will be coming into force in the coming months and years through secondary EU legislation. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has been leading for Ireland on this matter in the negotiations in Brussels, with additional significant ongoing inputs from the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications and other national stakeholders drawn from the public sector organisations, including the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, the Revenue and others.
More than 20 meetings related to ecodesign were held under the recent Swedish and Czech EU Presidencies. A common approach among member states, known as the general approach, was agreed by the Competitiveness Council at its meeting held on 22 May 2023. Throughout the negotiations, Ireland argued that as a smaller member state our ability to influence international supply chains was more limited and that the EU should move together as one bloc on this important policy issue. Chapter 6 of the draft ESPR concerns the destruction of unsold consumer products and it is worth noting that of all the aspects of the proposed regulation, this perhaps generated the most diversity of opinion during the negotiations with other member states. Some member states wanted stronger provisions in the framework, while others wanted fewer. Ireland strongly supported the introduction of a general principle prohibiting the destruction of unsold consumer goods.
The issues related to the destruction of unsold goods in the textiles industry and the negative impacts of fast fashion are well known and have rightly been highlighted by the Senators. Ultimately, therefore, in a spirit of compromise and despite strongly diverging views among member states, a general approach was agreed that included an explicit prohibition against the destruction of unsold consumer products that are apparel or clothing accessories but not for other product types. This common position foresees that the prohibition for unsold goods in other product categories will need to be developed over time through detailed and product-specific regulations under the ESPR framework.
Trilogue negotiations on the ESPR will now take place between the Spanish Presidency and the European Parliament. These are expected to start either during or after the summer.
In anticipation of an agreement, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is already undertaking a regulatory impact assessment to inform decisions about how best to implement ESPR in Ireland and to ensure adequate market surveillance. Thus, as I have argued, the most effective anti-dumping response would be at EU level. That would provide a clear signal to manufacturers and retailers right across the Single Market and to those around the world looking to sell products into that market. This approach plays to Ireland's strengths in that it delivers impact far broader than a national approach could. It also ensures manufacturers based in Ireland are operating on a level playing field in Europe and facing similar regulations and costs to their competitors.
We should also remember what we are talking here are products and not waste materials and as such it would be relatively easy for products to be shipped out of Ireland to another member state with less stringent rules where they could be dumped or destroyed. This Bill would not prevent that scenario, nor indeed could any set of purely national measures, given the existence of the Single Market. The Single Market can be a powerful tool in shaping global production practices, retail standards and circularity of materials and common rules across member states help support that outcome. Ireland should therefore advocate for strong environmental standards alongside a transparent and open market and that is what we have been doing with the ESPR. We should allow the current EU negotiations to conclude and once we can see what provisions will be in place at EU level we will consider whether additional national measures such as those proposed in this Private Members' Bill are required.
I thank the Minister of State. I welcome our visitors from the Ballinasloe Active Retirement Association and from Tipperary to the Chamber.
I apologise for coming late to the debate. I welcome this Bill and thank our Sinn Féin colleagues for introducing what is an important piece of legislation. The Labour Party is glad to support it.
I acknowledge what the Minister of State said about European law, but we have to make a stand in Ireland as well. I am sure that is what colleagues have told him already. When we hear a company like Burberry incinerated €90 million worth of product in the five years preceding 2018 it shows the urgent need for a Bill like this and that is why Sinn Féin must be congratulated.
I brought in a Bill last year on the use of CCTV cameras that still has not taken effect, unfortunately. That is not related to this Bill, but this is a problem for our rural areas, towns and villages. The Minister of State has accepted that and brought it in as part of the Circular Economy and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, but it has not been rolled out yet and we need to see that legislation. There are negotiations going on with the City and County Managers Association, etc. to try to get that up and running but it needs to happen quickly.
Returning to the Bill before us, the Labour Party is happy to support it. I have a lot more to say on it, but I do not want to hold up Senator Boylan’s reply to the Minister of State. This Bill is essential. There are many community associations that could use the technology and products the Minister of State has mentioned. They could make a difference to a lot of communities, as opposed to being exported. That should be incorporated somewhere. This is all about image and greenwashing. It is totally unacceptable to us in the Labour Party that this is happening at the moment. I again thank Senator Boylan and Sinn Féin for bringing forward the Bill.
I thank the Minister of State for his response. I will pick up on the EU regulation element. The Minister of State has confirmed it just applies to textiles, which was my understanding. That is deeply disappointing. As he rightly pointed out, France has gone further than that on a national level. The argument that products will simply be shipped to another country does not stack up. If that was the case then France did not have those concerns despite it having a rail network that would make it easier and cheaper for companies to transport the products to other EU states. If companies were seeking to transport product out of Ireland they would literally have to ship or fly it out, which adds a cost. The whole point is we must start putting the cost of these practices back on the large corporations.
I listened to Senator Burke talking about the oversupply. The problem is what has happened with the business model, namely, these corporations have externalised the costs of their business model. They have outsourced production. There is a reason we do not produce clothes and other items in Ireland anymore. Companies have outsourced production to countries with poorer labour practices and in worst-case scenarios to countries that have child labour and human trafficking. The quality of the product has decreased, which again boosts the profits of these corporations. Items are not designed to be repaired and have built-in obsolescence to force us to buy more. Then we have an issue where it is literally cheaper for corporations to dump the products rather than resell them. The whole point of the Bill is to try to bring some of those costs back onto those responsible for creating this business model.
It should not be about society moving to an online sales model. It should not be our fault that model creates problems for companies that sell online in the form of their having to deal with returns. They should have taken that on board. That is the problem here. With online sales it is more difficult to manage a product that somebody sends back. That is why it is easier just to dump under this business model and that cannot continue. It is not society’s fault but the corporations’ responsibility. Online sales are highly profitable. They now need to take on board the costs and the difficulties that come with that model of handling returns.
I will pick up on some of the other points made. I thank colleagues for speaking in favour of the Bill. Senator Black rightly criticised the Minister, Deputy Coveney’s, attendance at the opening of Shein’s EU headquarters. It needs to be put on record that event was held behind closed doors and for very good reason, which was it prevented journalists from asking difficult questions of that company about its practices and how badly it is ranked internationally when it comes to sustainability.
To get to the root cause we must break the overconsumption business model. That would not only be beneficial for our climate, biodiversity and workers’ rights but also for society. People are constantly being told they must have the latest gadget, mobile phone, smart TV or cosmetic and this places enormous pressure on young people and families and impacts on their mental health. It would be a win-win situation if we did everything within our power to break the business model that just dumps products cheaply and externalises the cost onto society. This Bill is not a silver bullet but would at least deliver a significant wound to the corporations that have got us to this point. It would be effective. The evidence, as I said, is that I have had much contact from Amazon about this Bill with it trying to say why it does not think it would do what we want it to. I always say if representatives are contacting me and laying out how wonderful the company is in a way that can be torn apart by any little bit of research then it is clear the Bill would have the effect we want, which is to try to stop this practice. We cannot stand over a situation where it is cheaper for corporations to dump brand-new, unused products rather than to facilitate their donation, reuse or recycling. That is a broken business model and it is up to us as legislators to fix it and not to have to rely on the EU and its weakened regulation that only applies to textiles.
Well said.
Question put and agreed to.
When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?
Next Tuesday.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 11 July 2023.
Cuireadh an Seanad ar fionraí ar 3.59 p.m. agus cuireadh tús leis arís ar 5.02 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 3.59 p.m. and resumed at 5.02 p.m.