Alan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I appreciate having engaged with the Minister of State on Second Stage about what the intentions are. However, I can see drawbacks in this particular proposal. The single-use plastic directive, when it comes to cups, is fairly clear. We know that in due course, all plastic contained within disposable cups will be removed and then be replaced with the ones that are available here in the Oireachtas and are fully recyclable and compostable and, indeed, the lid is also recyclable.

What I want to achieve in the passage of this particular Bill is twofold. First, I want to reduce the number of single-use items that are entering the market in the first instance, and that disincentivise people from using keep cups like Deputy Burton has in front of him. I forgot mine today. In addition, I want to ensure the replacements of the single-use paper cup do not actually come with more embedded carbon than the manufacturing process for this cup. I am not convinced that the good intentions contained within the Bill as drafted capture that fully. The reason I say that is because the question is whether, like the plastic bag levy in the past, this will incentivise people to change their use. To a certain extent, the answer is "Yes" However, on the question of whether it will fully disincentivise people to change the manner in which they buy a cup of coffee, tea, latte or whatever it might be, I think the answer is “No”. Then we are going back to the single-use plastic directive to protect us from unnecessary concentrations of plastic within those cups, that is, the film, the coating and all that sort of stuff, which will be excluded again. An example would be this cup I have to hand, which contains none of those things. The difficulty I have is that hardened plastic cups, for instance, which are available on the market, cost less to produce than this cup. The coffee companies, the Starbucks and Insomnias of the world, will simply replace their paper cups with plastic. I do not think that makes sense. Applying a levy to it should, in fact, be inverted. What if the State were to mandate that those retailers discount the price of a cup of coffee, tea or latte, if a person presents a reusable cup? Many of them already do. They are doing it voluntarily and are doing it more than by 20 cent. They are actually doing it to the tune of 30 cent. The sector already recognises that there are people whom they want to incentivise to use to continue to use their keep cup. This is a general remark on the section, rather than on the individual amendments. That would be my take on it.

The other side of it is the argument that biodegradable cups are available in the market and people do not put them into their brown bin or compost heap or whatever it might be. Again, is it better that a person uses a biodegradable or fully recyclable cup than a heavy plastic cup with a rubber ring around it, which most of them have in order to reduce the conductivity of the plastic and reduce the heat of the cup in the person’s hand? Is it better, from an embedded carbon perspective, that we utilise these paper cups, which are 100% recyclable? Obviously the lid is a separate issue, but they are available in recyclable and biodegradable forms as well. I totally understand where the Minister of State is coming from in his ambition to try to change consumer behaviour but there are other ways of doing it that I believe would be more effective. That is why the general principles of the levy on anything other than a cup that contains plastic is wrong. We will be far better placed as an Oireachtas and a Government to focus in on what would this incentivise. Would it disincentivise people from using unsustainable products in the market, as we have referred to over the course of this debate this morning? I might add that I say all this very respectfully and do not want to force my view on anyone. However, I believe that if we want to change behaviour, we need to incentivise that change while also keeping an eye on the credentials of the product we are incentivising people to use instead of the single-use plastic cup.

I was going to start my contribution by asking what the purpose of the levy is. Is it to generate income? Of course the Minister of State was going to say no, the ambition of the idea is to change behaviour. From a business management perspective and a psychological perspective, one can identify other means of disincentivising people from making bad choices or, often, default choices. We should be incentivising the sector to disincentivise the use of unsustainable materials in their products, as Deputy Bruton has referred to in prior amendments.

I could go on, but I think my point is made. I would ask the Minister of State to perhaps reflect upon those particular remarks in our ambition to disincentivise unsustainable single-use products.