Dr. Neil Walker:

I thank Deputy Ryan for meeting us last August. We acknowledge that his Bill is well-intentioned, if somewhat vague on the expected outcomes. We have conducted our own assessment of it. On reflection, we are unable to support it. We consider it unlikely that it would have got this far in its current form if an impact analysis had been carried out. Regulatory impact assessments are required not only under the Government's approach to better regulation but also to comply with specific European Commission guidance on beverage packaging. There appear to be unintended consequences arising from each of the Bill's two provisions that would be difficult to avoid.

As Deputy Eamon Ryan has acknowledged, the mandatory deposit return schemeenvisaged in the Bill would entail very large set-up and running costs. Businesses cannot afford to absorb them so Irish shoppers would face rising prices.

There is also a risk of distorting competition between town-centre shops and their out-of-town counterparts. Focusing briefly on the intended environmental benefits, our analysis suggests a prospect of reducedoverall packaging recycling. Drink bottles and cans comprise only a small proportion of post-consumer plastic packaging waste but are by far the most valuable component. Therefore, they are twice as likely to be recycled as plastic film. By taking that valuable stuff out of the green bin, one is undermining the financial viability of Repak, which reduces its ability to encourage waste collectors, which are private sector firms, to accept the less valuable packaging materials. With the closing of the Chinese market, it will be even more difficult to have further progress on the recycling of plastics. We should not be doing anything that makes it any harder than it already is.

We draw attention to a recent UNESCO-supported modelling study, ARIADNA. I can provide a copy or references. The study was carried out in Spain and considered the impact of introducing a mandatory deposit scheme alongside an established collection and recycling scheme. It found that, in addition to being very costly, the duplication of effort could feasibly cause a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

Plastic bottles constitute less than 2% of street litter. A deposit refund scheme might marginally reduce this already small amount, but possibly at the expense of an overall increase in the litter problem. Some households will forgo the return of their deposits simply to avoid the inconvenience of driving to, and queuing at, a reverse vending machine. One obvious way for enterprising individuals in the neighbourhood to make a bit of pocket money would be to go scavenging once the green bins are put out for collection. The quickest and easiest way to do this would be to upend every bin along the street looking for bottles.

Regarding the proposed ban on disposable cups, glasses or plates that cannot be composted at home, we would question the Minister's powers under the 1996 Act. Voluntary action by business should certainly be encouraged. For example, a number of IBEC's members are actively researching, along with their suppliers, the use of safe but compostable hot drink cups. We have had some dealings with CRÉ on this very issue. It is very interesting.

It is unclear whether there are any commercially available bioplastics that form the liner of a coffee cup that can be readily composted at home. In any case, home composting does not count towards meeting EU recovery targets because they are not collected. If the Exchequer were to provide money to local authorities for segregated waste collection in public places, it would certainly help improve recycling rates, but education and labelling would be needed to prevent cross-contamination.

As for litter, it is a social problem. A consumer who cannot be bothered to put soiled packing in the nearest waste bin will not bring it home in his or her pocket or bag to put in the brown bin.

Specifically on the idea of a levy, we do not believe a small levy of 15 cent or 20 cent will have anything like the effect of the highly successful plastic bag tax. The keep cup I bought was on sale, reduced to €15. It is huge. One cannot put it in one's pocket or bag after it has been used as it will leak. If a levy were to be introduced, it would simply be seen as a regressive tax.