Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 25 October 2005
93 Mr. O’Dowd asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he has met electrical and electronic producers and retailers with a view to discussing the implementation of an extra charge on electrical and electronic products that consumers are paying since the implementation of the WEEE Directive; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30675/05]
View answerImplementation of the EU Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment has required close co-operation between all stakeholders including producers, retailers and both central and local government. The process began with the establishment of a task force representative of all relevant sectors, including producers and retailers, in February 2003 to draw up proposals for implementing the directive. Following the publication of the task force report in 2004, an extensive public consultation process took place.
While the scheme is producer-funded, the directive allows producers to show the cost of recovering and recycling historic waste which was put on the market before 13 August 2005. These costs are referred to as environmental management costs, EMCs, and were the subject of detailed discussions between the representatives of producers and retailers, which my Department helped to facilitate. I also met both groups separately before finalising the regulations. The majority view among the industry and the independent retail sector, for reasons of fuller transparency and greater accountability, favoured a system of visible EMCs in the manner which has been provided for under the regulations.
The advantages of visible EMCs include the provision of maximum transparency, maximum information for consumers and the facilitation of easier implementation of the scheme. Visible EMCs also ensure traceability and greater financial accountability, allow all companies, large and small, to know precisely the cost of the structures involved, and by informing the public in an open way, ensure that profiteering is prevented.
The EMCs are validated by an independent body, the WEEE Register Society Limited, which has an independent committee of management. EMCs are used to fund the operations of the two recycling schemes set up by the industry which are required to operate on a not-for-profit basis and will be subject to periodic review.
EMCs are not imposed by or remitted to the Government. The EMC can only be used to pay for the collection, treatment and recycling of electrical waste. The design of the new system assures the public that any moneys collected by producers for recycling are assigned for recycling activity and are not diverted elsewhere. It also ensures traceability and financial accountability and, by informing the public in an open way, ensures that profiteering is prevented.
Now that the system has been in operation for two months, I have again met the representatives of producers and retailers, as well as the WEEE Register Society and discussed a number of areas in which it could be improved. While the WEEE Register Society will carry out a comprehensive review of all EMC levels after six months to ensure that they are not any higher than is necessary to fund the scheme, it has agreed to my request that it look immediately at the levels which apply to low cost goods. I expect more realistic levels for these goods will be set by the end of this month.
I have also discussed with all parties the need for greater consistency and simplicity in the way in which the EMCs are set out in media advertisements and shelf displays. A consensus is emerging on this issue which I hope shortly to see adopted as best practice by the industry. My Department is drawing up a guidance note to assist this process.
These are the real benefits of this new system for consumers and the environment. Householders can now have their old appliances disposed of safely, responsibly and free of charge. Waste collected under the scheme will be recycled. It cannot go to landfill. Unregulated collection of electrical and electronic waste which contributed to the wanton dumping of old washing machines, fridges and cookers and other unsightly and dangerous waste in fields and back roads, which in turn despoiled our natural environment, will be resolved by the cradle to the grave recycling system which has now been put in place.
The gain to the environment will be very significant. We should also take pride in the fact that Ireland is one of only a small number of EU member states to have implemented the directive fully by the due date.
A final point may be of help to Deputy O'Dowd. I have met the WEEE Register Society Limited again recently to discuss the scheme and will continue to do so. There are a number of small issues with it that will require continual consultation.
The most important issue is what the Minister said when the scheme was launched. At the time that the measures were announced, he rejected suggestions that the costs of recycling would lead to increased prices for consumers. The reality is that the producers in the electrical and electronic equipment industry have a turnover of approximately €1.6 billion nationally and the Minister has let them off the hook. The only person who pays for the implementation of this EU directive is the consumer. The Minister has failed miserably in his job. I do not have a difficulty with the directive itself but fully support it. However, the Minister has let the consumer down and has let the producer off——
The Deputy should confine himself to questions.
My question is why the Minister did not insist that the producers of the equipment would absorb this cost. He said that there would be no increase in price for the consumer. That is the nub of the issue.
I suggest that Deputy O'Dowd pay attention to the advertisements which are carried daily in newspapers——
I pay attention to the statements from the Minister. It is his statements that I am talking about.
Those advertisements show that in the electrical and electronic goods——
The Minister is waffling now.
In the electrical and electronic goods area there has been a significant decrease in costs and that continues to be the case.
The Minister is still waffling.
I am not waffling. If one takes an advertisement——
The Minister is talking rubbish.
The Minister is not answering the question.
Allow the Minister to answer. I want an orderly Question Time.
So do I, but I also want answers.
Deputy O'Dowd can ask the questions and it is up the Minister to answer the questions.
Or not to answer, as he chooses.
The Minister is entitled to the same courtesy Deputy O'Dowd received on submitting his question.
The Minister is simply talking rubbish.
The scheme which has been introduced and is now in operation is a remarkable success. It is extraordinary that the Deputy should make the allegation he made. All he need do is take any advertisement that has appeared in the last seven days and compare it with the prices for electrical and electronic goods six or seven months ago. What I have said consistently is that this is an area where prices are decreasing dramatically.
One of the issues with which we had to deal when we were setting the system up was whether we would make the EMCs visible. We chose to make them visible for the reasons that I have already outlined. I have had ongoing consultations with the groups regarding some confusion that has arisen from differing wording in advertisements. This has contributed to some misunderstandings about the scheme.
Very few people would think that an EMC of €20 to get rid of a washing machine is a heavy cost to carry. As a result of EMCs, people can get rid of old washing machines, historic waste, fridges, cookers and so on for free and without handing them over to some Jack-the-lad to dispose of them in the mountains. It is a good, robust scheme and is operating well. There has been some fair criticism of the EMCs on small items. I have met again with the WEEE register. Even though the register does not have to examine the cost for six months, I suggested there should be a dramatic reduction in fees for small items, particularly coming up to the Christmas period, because of the sheer volumes involved. The EMCs are there to deal with the cost of thousands and thousands of tonnes of electronic waste. It will also set up a fund to allow for two "not-for-profit" schemes. It is a good and robust scheme which is now being considered by other member states in the European Union.
Why did the Minister let the producers off paying anything towards this charge? The Minister said there would be no increase in costs to consumers. Given that the Minister is receiving money in VAT from the charges, will he instruct local authorities to designate a special day or period for collection of all electrical and electronic waste throughout the country so that the public can once and for all clear all the waste in their attics? Will the Minister abolish completely the charge of €1, €1.50, €2 or €3 for small items in order to bring greater credibility to what is happening?
There is an error in the directive in that it does not make any rule for the size of the item. I suggested to the WEEE register that it is difficult to explain, particularly when people are buying small electronic goods, why the cost should be €2, for example, for a small item. The industry explained to me that the cost of dismantling a small item can be as great as the cost of dismantling a big item. I take the Deputy's point and I suggested to the WEEE register that this issue should be examined. The cost on a fluorescent tube is just 50 cent but it is much more difficult to get rid of than some smaller items.
The Deputy asked if there should be a national collection day. This is a good idea and I will look at how to transmit it to local authorities. The tonnage coming through the scheme is amazing. We saw it last week in the Deputy's constituency where a group of entrepreneurs have come together and for the first time there is a fully integrated recycling system for cathode ray tubes which were previously going into landfill. The environmental benefits are tremendous. Seven people are working on the scheme which we did not think of a month or two months ago.
94 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he will reform the current waste collection system following the conclusions of the Competition Authority that it is not working well for consumers nationally; if so, when he intends to reform the system; if such a reform will include a national waiver scheme; the steps he intends to take to increase competition within the market; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30546/05]
View answerThe Competition Authority did not note any significant variations in the amounts charged by private waste collectors throughout the country. However, it suggested that a competitive tendering process might offer better options to consumers by increasing competition in the market. I have already indicated that I am giving consideration to how the waste market might best be regulated in the future. I will have regard to the views of the authority in that context.
As I said on previous occasions, waste collection is the most quintessential of all local services, it has never been a matter in which central Government intervened. Consequently, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has at no time exercised a function in determining waste management charges or any associated waiver arrangements.
Local authorities are empowered under the Waste Management Acts to set a charge for the waste collection services they provide. Where local authorities directly collect, the determination of charges is a matter for the council but, where it is not collected by local authorities, the service providers determine charges. All service providers were asked to move to a "use-based" charging system from January 2005. This is in line with the polluter pays principle and encourages consumers to better control the amount of their charges by availing of increased numbers of recycling facilities.
Likewise, the determination of any waiver scheme is a matter for the local authority concerned where it is the service provider. Traditionally, local authorities who provided a collection service operated such a scheme. Waiver schemes do not generally operate where services are provided by private collectors. However, where there are private collections, a small number of local authorities have put additional arrangements in place to assist low income families or people living on fixed incomes, for example, by providing subsidised collection bags, or in the case of Limerick city, tendering for a service for low income households.
In considering how the waste market is best regulated, I am giving thought to the extent to which any regulatory regime should have a role in regard to charges. I have said previously in this House that there should be a regulator in the industry. I hope to present my proposals by the end of the year or early in the New Year. I note that the Competition Authority is not as enamoured as I am with the idea of a regulator.
Does the Minister agree with the assessment of the Competition Authority that the system of waste collection is not working well for consumers? I would like to know more about his plans for regulating the waste collection service and if he will provide for its regulation. Will this be done by way of legislation and, if so, when will it be introduced in the House?
In regard to the recommendation of the Competition Authority that there should be competitive tendering for waste collection services, how does he envisage it will operate, given that the companies operating waste collection services have in the main consolidated into one or two? In reality, there does not appear to be a great deal of potential for competition in many parts of the country.
Finally, I would be interested to hear his views on the fact that there is no role for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in the waste collection service or the regime of charges. Does it follow that the Minister intends to repeal the regulations and guidelines issued by his predecessor to local authorities on the way in which they should charge and, second, does he intend to repeal the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Act, which sets down in law the way in which charging for waste should be arrived at?
The Deputy is correct that the Competition Authority recommended that the Department consider reforming the waste collection system as it appeared the current market was not working well for consumers. It also promotes a move towards competitive tendering in this market as preferable to the appointment of a regulator. I do not agree with that view for the reasons put forward by the Deputy, namely, that there is a propensity to consolidate in this industry. It is one of the reasons I find the idea of a regulator more appropriate than competitive tendering. Competitive tendering would have fundamental difficulties, not least the difficulty to which the Deputy referred, and because there are a number of operators in the market and it is very difficult to become involved because of capital and other costs. However, I am examining the report of the Competition Authority and I will take it on board when constructing the proposals for a regulator.
The exact form of the regulator is still at the drafting stage. I will try to bring it forward as quickly as possible but I am seeking the best model. I agree with the general view expressed on several occasions, not by the authority, but by others, including Members of this House, that we may have an abundance of regulators and we probably do not need any more. Whether it would be appropriate to give this to an existing regulator is something I will examine.
I do not intend to repeal environmental legislation. The point I was making was a statement of fact. Since the 1890s, no Minister for the Environment has taken it upon himself or herself to run the bin collection service or a related service anywhere in the country. It is the most quintessential of local services. If one believes in subsidiarity, one will believe that local authorities should have the right to make decisions to stay or go out of schemes.
If the Minister believes in subsidiarity, he will repeal the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Act which allow him to dictate the way charges are to be made.
Under the polluter pays principle, is it permitted to charge for recycling services? Is a service provider allowed to charge for the collection of the green bin with which most householders are familiar?
I am not sure what is the Deputy's last point. The issue of whether charges should be imposed for certain recycling collections arose recently. As a general principle, one would try to avoid that in so far as one possibly could.
What is Government policy on it?
I recall the Deputy suggesting on 13 or 14 August that the WEEE directive should be scrapped. Government policy has been——
I said the Minister should scrap his regulations, which is different.
That is not what the Deputy said. He stated the Minister should go back to square one and redraft the entire directive, which is not possible.
I said the Minister should redraft his regulations. I know the Minister cannot redraft the directive.
That is not what the Deputy said at the time. Thankfully, Deputy O'Dowd took a much more progressive view than Deputy Gilmore and he was more supportive.
I am glad the Minister is so busy that he is parsing every word I utter and looking for bargains for washing machines in the advertisement columns of the newspapers.
As a result of the change we made, charges imposed by recycling centres are——
What is Government policy on green bins?
Government policy is to encourage people to recycle and to discourage anything that would prohibit——
Should charges be imposed for the use of green bins? Deputy Roche is the Minister responsible.
The Minister is a bad salesman.
If the Deputy wants to ask a more detailed question, I suggests that he do so.
Should there be charges for green bins?
