Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I welcome our guests. It is important to say at the outset that, although we will be nitpicking because this is the pre-legislative scrutiny phase, they have done good work with this Bill. It is in a similar vein to the climate action Bill, which the committee also scrutinised. It puts in place a legislative framework to empower the Minister, which is the important element. The Bill will not contain everything - that is where the plans will come in. From our point of view, we need to consider what the problems are and whether this legislation allows the Minister to address all of them.

I run repair cafés. One of the main challenges is insurance. In Ireland, it is difficult to run repair cafés, so we ended up doing sewing rather than anything mechanical.

The other issue is having to pay full VAT. There is no tax incentive to sell something that is repaired or made from reused materials. Obviously it is much more difficult to do because it is more difficult to purchase the items that are necessary. Will the Bill allow the Minister to make the changes that are necessary to make these things easier for people?

I understand the point that the witnesses are making about wanting to get people on board but my experience in recent years is that many people are already on board but find it quite difficult to do what they need to do in their daily lives. For instance, in terms of zero waste, one could spend one's entire day thinking out how to arrange one's life in a way that is compatible with one's values and most people simply do not have that time. I am thinking particularly of those in more disadvantaged areas who are living hand to mouth and whose children are far away from a market. I do not believe the options are there for people. As Senator Higgins has said, we must make sure it is the manufacturers and retailers who bear the brunt of this. How does that fit into the overall plan and, more specifically, into the Bill?

There is quite a small list of products under head 6. The list is far smaller than the one in the waste action plan. I ask the witnesses to explain why that is the case. Under head 3, similar to the climate action plan, the Minister shall "take into account" the following. Is there a way to make that a firmer commitment in order to ensure that the Minister takes into account the programme for Government, the climate action plan and relevant EU directives? Is there a way to strengthen the language in general? Sometimes "may" is used rather than "shall" and there might be a good reason for that but we will have to look at it in more detail.