Ms Mindy O'Brien:

I will answer the first two questions and Mr. Coghlan will answer the second two. Repak is against the deposit refund scheme. It feels the incremental collection of bottles would not justify the cost of setting it up. We calculate it probably would cost about €40 million to set it up. It will take a while for people to switch over to bringing their bottles back. As a bottle-collection rate of 98% is reached, there would be surplus money that could be used to offset the set-up of the project. Repak does not fund litter clean-up, nor does it fund street clean-up. I have asked it specifically whether it helps with the separation issues and litter and it says it is not its job. The problem is that many of the bottles, cans and coffee cups become litter. It is the on-the-go society that we need to address. Repak is sponsoring the bottle banks and helping to offset the cost of recycling but not litter. We are spending €90 million per year on street cleaning and litter collection.

There is a campaign called the conscious cup campaign. We are encouraging cafés and coffee shops to give a discount when people bring their own cup. We calculate there are more than 250 million cups per year. If there were a 10 cent tax on those, it would yield €25 million. We do not just want to bring the money in, however; we want to change behaviour. What was so beautiful about the plastic bag tax is that it was imposed at the till. It was very visible. People said they had a choice as to whether they wanted the bag. If they did not, they did not pay the 15 cent. People would have a choice between bringing their own coffee cup and paying for a disposable one. This affects people at the till. That is the best way to change human behaviour. A problem with Repak is that it does not differentiate between packaging. It charges the same rate for plastic composites that are not recycled and paper that is recyclable. Therefore, there is no differentiation in the charges to its members. In addition, the cement kilns will be taking a lot of the rubbish. That is a matter of which we need to be mindful.

We were asked about land use. The Environmental Pillar stands behind taxing the environmental bads and promoting the environmental goods. Unsustainable consumption is what we should be taxing. With regard to land use, the issue that arises is one I have seen with water. It is a question of who owns the aggregate below one's land. I am trying to find this information out from the Geological Survey of Ireland, GSI. No one really knows. I believe the people who own the land own the aggregates. If, however, I have land with minerals underneath, the State owns it. It is a very nebulous area that needs to be reflected upon. The same applies to water. Who owns the water? This is a debate taking place here. What about the Ballygowan enterprise, which extracts all the water for free because it is not treated? With regard to land use planning, is the State the owner? If we are polluting something that is owned by the State, should we pay something for that? Similarly, if we are doing something to promote the health of the resource, we should get a benefit. How that balances out is something I will leave to economists and others.