Ossian Smyth (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I will start with amendments Nos. 13 and 14. To my mind, these amendments have the same effect. I note that Deputy Bríd Smith is not here to propose her amendment but Deputy O'Rourke is here to propose amendment No. 13, which proposes that the targets should be mandatory or that there must be targets within the circular economy strategy, with which I agree.

I had planned to accept amendment No. 14 but as the Deputy is not here then I will flag that for amendment on Fourth Stage. Amendment No. 14 is stronger than amendment No. 13 as it seeks to insert the word "shall”. So the targets "shall" be there and, therefore, must be there immediately rather than waiting six months as stated in amendment No. 13.

I propose to put Deputy Bríd Smith's amendment No. 14 into effect on Report Stage.

In general, I appreciate and acknowledge the supportive approach members have taken to this Bill and all the ideas that have been expressed. In that spirit, I am planning to accept as many of the amendments as I can and to rewrite for the next Stage those I cannot accept.

Turning to amendment No. 15, in the name of Deputy Bruton, I understand the intention in specifying sectors with particular reference to the circular economy. I listened to the Deputy's contribution in this regard and I wish to put this amendment into effect, but first I wish to consult with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel regarding the exact wording. Subject to that advice, I will reintroduce this amendment on Report Stage.

Moving to amendment No. 17, also in the name of Deputy Bruton, this makes a key contribution to the provisions of the Bill in respect of “improved maintenance and utilisation patterns of products and materials”. The Deputy makes a good case. Again, I want to get the wording right and I will be consulting with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel in this regard. Therefore, I am not going to accept the amendment today, but I commit to reintroducing it on Report Stage, once consultation with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel has been completed.

I note the intention of amendment No. 16, in the name of Deputy Devlin. It refers to “reductions in plastic single-use items according to the waste hierarchy within EU Waste Directive 2008/98 and Commission Implementation Regulation (EU) 2020/2151 Single Use plastic Directive”. This legislation, however, is concerned with moving away from single use across all areas and not just plastic. Additionally, reductions in single-use plastics specifically are being adequately dealt with under the single-use plastics directive at an EU level. The directive came into force last July and banned ten of the most common single-use plastic items that wash up on beaches. Therefore, I am not planning to accept this amendment.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 18 are in the name of Deputy Whitmore, and I thank her for her contributions. As she pointed out, the definition of a “just transition” was discussed in the debate on the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021. Many definitions were proposed. One came from the Minister and another from Deputy Whitmore or other Deputies. Agreement was not reached on the wording of a definition, so it was decided there would be no definition of “just transition”. Consequently, I am loath to put such a definition into this legislation and then have it affect the other legislation without consulting first with the drafters of that Act. Later, however, I intend to accept amendment No. 11, which Deputy Whitmore has also submitted, that will place an obligation on the Minister to consider the national disability inclusion strategy and the roadmap for social inclusion when drafting the circular economy strategy. This will give effect to some of the intentions behind Deputy Whitmore’s amendments. Therefore, I will not be accepting amendments Nos. 1 and 18.

Amendment No. 19, in the names of Deputies O'Rourke and Cronin, relates to “how to achieve greater harmonisation of civic amenity site services in terms of opening hours, materials accepted, accessibility, tariffs charged and an examination of the co-location of these facilities with co-operative and social enterprises such as Men’s Sheds”. These are detailed operational elements concerning how civic amenity sites will function in each local authority area. In fact, waste management planning relating to infrastructural provision, such as civic amenity sites, is the responsibility of local authorities under Part 2 of the Waste Management Act 1996. The waste action plan for a circular economy, launched by the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, Deputy Eamon Ryan, in September 2020, contains a commitment to "formalise the role of civic amenity sites and [to] agree a standard list of waste streams to be accepted at [such] sites". The regional waste management planning offices, with support from the Department, have recently published a national review of civic amenity sites. This review is available online. Discussions have commenced with the local authority sector on the implementation of the report's recommendations and these will allow civic amenity sites to play a greater role in our transition to a more circular economy through measures such as co-ordinated education and awareness programmes, greater use of reuse schemes, standardising a list of waste streams accepted at such sites and collective approaches to extended producer responsibility schemes. That will assist in continuing to reduce the amount of waste disposed of in landfills. Considering those factors, I am not proposing to accept this amendment.

Amendments Nos. 26 to 29, inclusive, are in the name of Deputy Whitmore. I am sympathetic to the intentions behind these amendments. The Deputy raised some key points on Second Stage and that is why I will accept amendment No. 11 later. Regarding amendment No. 28, however, I do not believe it is necessary to specify that protection of the environment includes protection of biodiversity. Biodiversity protection is already provided for in the current draft of this section, and there is no question about that. I cannot see how “environment” could not include “biodiversity”. By separating those terms, and referring to “environment” and “biodiversity” as if they were different things, I would worry that at other points in legislation where “environment” is referred to, that could be then understood as not including “biodiversity”. I hope this point is clear. Therefore, I am not accepting amendment No. 28.

This is also the case in respect of amendment No. 27. I believe the current wording already allows support for these kinds of initiatives. I am also not going to accept amendment No. 26, but I am sympathetic to its intention. I would like to take advice regarding whether the current wording might narrow the scope of what is currently a broadly-drafted provision. My concern is that while I would support providing assistance to “communities which are disadvantaged and marginalised”, I would also like to ensure that the amendment does not limit support under the provision for all communities. I would also like to take advice on how to define “marginalised” and “disadvantaged” communities and whether this is necessary. Based on the outcome of those discussions, I may reintroduce the amendment on Report Stage. I am also not accepting amendment No. 29 because I believe it is disproportionate in the circumstances and could have the unintended consequence of delaying the establishment of a committee under this section. The Minister does not even need to form a committee.

Regarding amendment No. 37, I have been advised that the legislation already provides that the moneys generated from the environmental levies will be paid into the circular economy fund and will be used for those purposes. Therefore, this legislation specifically ring-fences all the money collected for those purposes, and those purposes are specified. What this amendment seeks to achieve is already contained in this legislation. Section 8(7) of the Bill states that “in accordance with, [regulations under] section 11(1)", which relate to the environmental levies, "there shall be paid into the Circular Economy Fund the amounts specified in those regulations”. Section 12(3)(n) of the Bill provides that the regulations under section 11(1) may provide for “the payment into the Circular Economy Fund [...] of amounts received by [the collection authority] [...] on account of the levy (subject to the deduction [...] [of] expenses incurred [in the] [...] collection the levy)". The drafting of these sections is based on the drafting of the provisions which provided for the environment fund. In the previous legislation, that environment fund ring-fenced the proceeds of the plastic bag and landfill levies. Those levies have operated effectively since 2002. Therefore, we have 20 years of experience of seeing a ring-fenced fund in operation, and this will be a continuation of that. Therefore, I am satisfied that the intention behind this amendment is already provided for in the Bill and therefore I am not accepting amendment No. 37.

Turning to amendment No. 67, this inserts a definition of "just transition" into the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015. Section 4(8)(k) of that Act provides that the Government must have regard to "the requirement for a just transition to a climate neutral economy which endeavours, in so far as is practicable, to maximise employment opportunities, and support persons and communities that may be negatively affected by the transition". That Act does not define the term "just transition" and I do not believe it is appropriate to introduce that definition into the Act under the auspices of this legislation, so I am not accepting this amendment.