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

To start with Deputy Devlin’s request that the amendments be sent to the clerk with a list of which amendments I am planning to take, I have done that. Of course, I might be persuaded otherwise, but there is a list up there.

I will address some of Deputy Farrell's comments for a minute. When we are comparing the sustainability of a plastic cup and a paper cup, for example, we are thinking about how many times it is used. Clearly, a plastic cup that is used once is less sustainable than one that is used 100 times. For example, as the Deputy pointed out, we have these very flimsy plastic cups in front of us, and one has to decide then what constitutes a reusable container. This same challenge faced the plastic bag levy in regard to thin plastic bags and what constitutes long-lasting bags and bags for life. That was defined in the regulations, with various exemptions for putting in meat or fish and so on. However, they managed it and it works in practice, and I think we can do the same thing. It is a fair question about materials, and I suppose it relates to Deputy Bruton’s earlier question about sustainable materials. On my reading of the Bill and the advice that I have, I can prescribe various materials to be in or out for use.

The Deputy asked what the goal was. The goal is not to raise revenue. It is different from a tax, where the goal is usually to raise revenue. The goal of this levy is to change behaviour. The difference between this levy and a tax is that the money is going into a ring-fenced fund to be used to promote the circular economy. If this levy works, we will not collect any of it because we will have converted people. That is not an unrealistic prospect. The plan is to start by levying a fee on a disposable cup and then to ban such cups altogether. Once they are banned, there is no levy to be collected. It is a short-term measure to change behaviour. That is the focus of what we are doing. I am happy to listen to anything that the Deputy has to say or any suggestion he has on this matter, though.

Turning to amendments Nos. 6 and 36, this is a much broader issue than just plastic. The purpose of the levy is to influence people's behaviour away from single usage, not just of plastic items, but of anything that is used once. If someone used a mug made out of crockery and then threw it away, it would not make sense. Some 200 million paper cups are ending up in landfill or incineration. That is crazy and is similar to when we used to use a large number of plastic bags. We reduced that usage by more than 90%. When the plastic bag levy was introduced, paper cups were not a feature. They are a recent innovation. Go back a few years more and plastic bags did not exist either. They are things that arrived and were taken for granted, with millions being used every day before they all end up as waste, either incinerated or put into landfill.

In the UK, less than 5% of single-use cups are recycled or composted. Generally, people use takeaway cups and throw them into bins, where they get mixed up with other items. They also tend to have some coffee at the bottom, which contaminates other waste. The likelihood of those cups being composted or recycled is small, even where they are recyclable products. They also end up as litter on the side of the road. Our constituents spend a great deal of time collecting them and picking them up. It is a Sisyphean task. There is also effectively zero recycling of lids. They are single-use plastics that do not rot and last a long time.

Our objective is to reduce the consumption of all types of disposable cup by inducing people to change their behaviour and switch to using reusable cups. The objective of the levy is to change behaviour and prevent the continuous and unnecessary use of resources that are required for the production and disposal of single-use items. Regardless of whether these items are made of paper, plastic or any other material, they go through this entire production process just to be used once and have a few minutes of life.

For a cup to be recycled or composted, it must be disposed of correctly. If not disposed of correctly, it will end up in landfill. Biodegradable cups are better than a plastic alternative strictly in material terms, but they do not achieve the objective of preventing litter and waste or minimising the use of resources. In fact, they may be counterproductive because the consumer believes that he or she is making an environmentally responsible choice by drinking out of compostable cups. Consequently, consumers do not change their behaviour and continue to use single-use items.

The Bill would allow for exemptions from the levy for different categories of single-use items, including recyclable or compostable cups. However, the efficacy or success of a levy or ban is influenced by the exemptions to that ban or levy. If the exemptions allow for an easy substitution or are too broad, there will be no behavioural change. I point again to our experience with plastic bags. I intend to provide for some limited exemptions to the levy in the regulations. These will be set out in the draft regulations and made available for consultation. I do not intend to exempt recyclable or compostable cups. The public consultation process will take place in advance of the introduction of the new levies. The levy on single-use disposable cups will be the first of the levies, but for any levy that is introduced, there will have to be a public consultation process for the public and industry beforehand. That is where the exemptions and details will get worked out. I cannot guess in advance. I have spoken to cafés and we have undertaken some consultation, but until we have the full consultation process, I cannot predict what the outcome will be.

I will not be accepting amendment No. 35. The level at which the levy is set is key. The amendment proposes that it could be as low as 1 cent. The levy must be set high enough to induce behavioural change and be sufficient to disincentivise consumption. I have received a great deal of correspondence from the public and café owners saying that they believed that 20 cent was not enough. They based this on their experience of what made someone choose item A over item B. I was surprised because I had believed that 20 cent was high, but that is the feedback that I have received so far. If the levy's level is not high enough, change will not be effected. We saw this with the plastic bag levy in 2006. By that time, the levy had been in place for five years at a time of rapid economic growth. We then began to see data showing that the sustained reductions in consumption and litter pollution were starting to reverse. In July 2007, the levy was increased from 15 cent to 22 cent. There was an immediate drop in consumption.

Other jurisdictions around the world have introduced very low levies. For example, Lithuania and Latvia introduced plastic bag levies like ours but set theirs at 1 cent and 2 cent, respectively. The data from those countries showed that there was little reduction in consumption. These empirical data show that setting the levy too low means that you do not succeed.

Regarding amendments Nos. 32 and 33, difficult-to-recycle materials are a challenge to a circular economy, but levying individual materials rather than products is unlikely to be effective in combating this. Often, the problem is where there is a combination of materials in one product. If you buy a sandwich, its container has cardboard but also plastic because producers want to give you a window through which to see. It is difficult to recycle that composite product. It is not the plastic or the paper that is the problem, but the fact that they are glued together into a single item. Consumers know that, when purchasing a specific type of single-use item like a disposable cup, they cannot be expected to foresee its material composition. In such circumstances, they could incur the levy in a manner that would be random and arbitrary. For example, if a sandwich container incurs different levy rates depending on which materials or composites it is made of, we may end up with an arbitrary levy that cannot be understood by the public. That could undermine public acceptance of and confidence in the measure.

We should keep in mind the extended producer responsibility, EPR, model. Members of the committee are familiar with it. When someone buys electronic equipment like a toaster or washing machine, he or she pays this fee, which is then used to guarantee that the salesperson will take back the old product. I am mentioning this because it is an effective means of addressing the challenge of difficult-to-recycle materials. In packaging, the application of eco-modulated fees places a greater financial burden on producers that place difficult-to-recycle materials on the market. In other words, they will only get the same money back for recycling that product even when it is a difficult-to-recycle product. Eco-modulated fees in respect of plastic packaging are being levied through the Repak EPR scheme this year for the first time. Fees for other packaging materials are being reconfigured according to recycling performance from 2023. The EPR model provides a better means of achieving the purpose of these amendments. I will be considering how successful the Repak EPR scheme is this year. Therefore, I will not be accepting amendments Nos. 32 and 33.

Amendment No. 34 reads:

In page 16, line 23, after “available” to insert the following: “and if the levels of material wastage of the single-use item do not adhere to the principles as outlined in EU Waste Directive 2008/98 regarding lifecycle justification and the best overall environmental outcome in regard to achieving the lowest carbon dioxide emissions and freshwater consumption”.

This is not necessary because section 11(2) already requires that the level of material wastage associated with a given single-use item or class of items must be considered by the Minister.

Section 11(3) requires that the Minister must satisfy himself or herself that any alternatives to that item are suitable before making regulations to impose a levy on that item. If there is a single-use item or class of items which results in the lowest level of material wastage over its life cycle, then no alternatives would be suitable for the purposes of the legislation.

Amendment No. 7 provides that "or other products" be inserted after "food". This broadens the scope of the Bill and I look favourably on it. If I can expand it, I will. It is a significant expansion of the application of the levy and I want to take advice on it because of that. In that context, I ask Deputy Bruton to withdraw the amendment at this stage and if there are no legal impediments, I will introduce it on Report Stage.