Skip to main content
Normal View

Legislative Process

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 19 June 2018

Tuesday, 19 June 2018

Questions (463, 469, 470, 472)

Eamon Scanlon

Question:

463. Deputy Eamon Scanlon asked the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment the status of the Waste Reduction Bill 2017; if the proposed deposit and return scheme will be supported; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26402/18]

View answer

Ruth Coppinger

Question:

469. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment his views on the progression of the Waste Reduction Bill 2017; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26501/18]

View answer

Fergus O'Dowd

Question:

470. Deputy Fergus O'Dowd asked the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment his views in relation to the Waste Reduction Bill 2017; the reason that may cause a delay to the Bill; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26600/18]

View answer

Róisín Shortall

Question:

472. Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment his plans to support the Waste Reduction Bill 2017 progressing to Committee Stage at which formal amendments can be proposed and considered; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26794/18]

View answer

Written answers

I propose to take Questions Nos. 463, 469, 470 and 472 together.

I have welcomed the principles of the Private Members' Bill on Waste Reduction and I asked the Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment to look at the merits of the proposals therein.  The Committee have published their report on the Bill and there are clear issues arising that need to be addressed. Firstly, it is clear that the Bill as it currently stands cannot proceed without amendments. The EU recently published its proposal to address the top ten single use plastic items that make up approximately 70% of beach litter (cotton bud sticks, cutlery, plates, straws, beverage stirrers, balloon sticks) and these proposals do include a possible ban on some items. I fully welcomed the EU proposal on plastics, having written to the EU Commissioner in support of this, and I will not delay in introducing the necessary bans on the items provided for in the proposal when the EU legislation is finalised.  However, the provision provided in Section 3 of the Waste Reduction Bill goes beyond the EU proposal to include plastic beverage containers which are considered as packaging under the EU Packaging Directive. Under this Directive, I am prohibited from banning such items.

Secondly, more information is needed in relation to the introduction of a Deposit and Return scheme. As such I cannot support a mandatory introduction of a scheme about which we do not have sufficient information to fully understand the impacts, positive or negative. The Joint Oireachtas Committee report supports these concerns, particularly around costs of implementation, the effectiveness of this in achieving the desirable environmental outcomes and any potential impact on the existing kerbside collection system. To address this, I have asked my officials to set up a pilot scheme which is in early planning stages. This will allow us to assess the likely impacts and costs of Deposit and Return in an Irish context.

Finally, in line with Oireachtas procedures, once a Bill is examined after second stage, the Ceann Comhairle may write to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform requesting a money message which informs both the Committee and the sponsors of the Bill as to the decision received. The Ceann Comhairle has determined that this Bill could place a cost on the exchequer and as such, at this juncture the Bill can only progress in accordance with the procedures of the Oireachtas. 

I have made it absolutely clear to the Joint Oireachtas Committee, at every opportunity, that I am very happy to help progress this important Bill. However, in addition to the proposals which are incompatible with EU law, I cannot agree to the compulsory introduction of a national Deposit and Return Scheme.  To agree to a mandatory scheme without proper analysis on the likely effect of increased costs for families and householders or evidence of its effectiveness in improving the recycling rates in this jurisdiction would be financially reckless. 

Top
Share