Mr. Leslie Carberry:

I thank the Senator for her questions. Regarding the definition, to the best of my knowledge, this is one of very few examples, if not the first example, of capturing the concept of the circular economy in legislation. It is a broad economic, social and environmental concept, so it is not easily captured in the language of legislation, but we are open to making the definition as expansive and progressive as possible.

On the shift towards the producers, I should have noted in my opening statement that the Bill and the strategy do not represent the totality of everything that is going on in the circular economy space. The Department is working on amendments to ensure that, under the extended producer responsibility scheme, self-certification will no longer be an option. Producers will be required to become members of certified schemes and will then be subject to eco-modulation of fees whereby less recyclable goods will incur higher fees than more recyclable goods will. There are incentives. While it might be said that the commercial segregation of waste is at the end of the pipe, when one considers the purchasing power of the commercial sector and the sector's incentives to switch to more recyclable options, it will have an effect.

We strongly support the initiatives around right to repair, eco-design and eco-labelling, although they are better taken at EU level through the EU's circular economy action plan so as to ensure a level playing field. This would recognise the fact that, were Ireland as a relatively small EU market to introduce some of these measures alone, it would be difficult to say that a comprehensive right to repair, for example, would shift the EU manufacturing market. We believe that these measures should be introduced, and would be most effective, at EU level. We will advocate for strong measures along those lines in our discussions with fellow EU member states.

Regarding waste policy, are there already measures in place that address enforcement and mislabelling?