Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank our guests for their contributions. I have a number of specific questions that I would like to tease out. I worked on the single-use plastic directive when I was an MEP and one of the things that was exposed through freedom of information, FOI, was the negative role that Repak, particularly in Ireland, played in trying to delay the targets. My first question is on the discretionary nature of those targets. Should we not be setting statutory targets because industry has shown that it is unwilling to move unless it is forced to do so? It also creates an unfair disadvantage vis-à-visthose companies that are trying to do their best. I echo what Deputy Bruton said with regard to the importance of having strict and ambitious targets to force industry to change the way it does business.

Under head 3, is there a possibility of including marine protected areas in the list of matters the Minister should take account of? The Marine planning framework is included but not the marine protected areas which would cover wildlife at sea and the quality of the water.

My next question is about head 4, which deals with recovery. My understanding of recovery is incineration, either in the incinerator in Ringsend or in cement kilns, and that this would be included in the circular economy fund. However, at EU level, incineration has been excluded from the new European Green Deal funding. I am wondering why we would include this element of recovery. Given that Covanta alone made €21.9 million in 2021, I do not think it needs access to the circular economy fund, if that is what the definition of recovery is in head 4.

On head 6, Senator O'Reilly asked about the lists of items and Mr. O'Donoghue answered her by saying that we can expand on the lists, which are broad areas that can be teased out. Is there a possibility of also including marking requirements?

One of the disappointments in regard to the single-use plastics directive is that the marking requirement on balloon packaging advising people that they should not release balloons into the air did not get through. Perhaps we can show more ambition at a national level and have that marking requirement on balloon packaging.

I have another concern in regard to, I think, head 15 around the civic amenity, CA, sites and waste collection. The national review of civic amenity sites found that there is a lot of disparity among the different civic amenity sites and that where you live can determine how much you are charged and how often you can access the site, including at the weekend. There are some parts of the country where there is no provision for waste collection services and people have to travel long distances to civic amenity sites. Are we, therefore, increasing the potential for illegal dumping? Will this be covered in the Bill? Will there be a standardisation of tariffs, opening hours and what is accepted at civic amenity sites? The review also noted that some civic amenity sites are doing co-operative work in establishing co-location of re-use and repair social enterprises such as Men's Sheds. Will that be expanded? It might address some of the insurance issues if they are covered by the civic amenity site as opposed to having to get their own insurance.