Barry Cowen (Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank AAA-People before Profit for bringing forward this motion. I agree with much, but not all, of what it contains but I acknowledge the role it has played in bringing this issue to a head and in forcing it to be dealt with in conjunction with other matters.

The Minister referred to the debate we had last week on foot of a Topical Issue raised by me and many other Members in the Opposition.

Unfortunately, as previous speakers alluded to, this matter has its roots in the statutory instrument put forward by the former Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly. Like many other issues dealt with by him and his predecessor in that Department, this has been a disaster. Those involved have been ill-informed, ill-advised and ill-prepared. I notice he stated in recent days that the Government took its eye off the ball with regard to this issue. There was a ball as big as a beach ball on his desk last January and he failed to enter into a process that could have allowed a more informed debate at that time and a more meaningful process that could have led to the solution now being spoken about. It could have avoided the great fear and trepidation placed on many people throughout the country. In recent weeks we have been hearing anecdotal evidence of this as the issue developed.

A vacuum was created because of the gap in the statutory order and it allowed many collectors to increase standing or handling charges. That was not appropriate and it led to an opportunity for collectors to reach the holy grail with respect to the commitment they made to investors some years ago when they sought market share with rates that were below cost. Ultimately and inevitably, it led to what took place in recent weeks.

There was a responsibility on us to address the issue and, as representatives, this was said to us in no uncertain terms. From my perspective and that of my party, during the course of that debate, we and many others asked the Minister to take responsibility for the error made and the opportunity created by the Government because of a lack of appropriate legislation or possibilities within the statutory instrument. It was imperative that the Minister met representatives in the industry, brought in his officials and had legal representatives available to him. I appreciate the speed with which he did that. I also appreciate the work of those who engaged with the Minister, and I spoke to some of them in the past few days, reaffirming my party's position on the issue. We wanted the matter addressed properly, effectively and to everybody's satisfaction. We called for space to be created and a transition period with the freezing of prices. Within that space, there should be transparency around the proposals emanating from collectors and information provided to consumers. There was a lack of information available to consumers on the potential of the pay-by-weight system to reward them for improved efforts to recycle.

An opportunity has since been created on proposals to allow consumers to opt in, having adjudicated on the system, as mentioned by the Minister. There is a 12-month period for a price freeze and within that there may be opportunities to educate and inform, allowing an opportunity to reward those who engage in recycling. In that time there must be a root and branch review of waste management by the State and its policy in that regard so the sector can be effective in future. If that amounts to the provision of a regulator for the industry, so be it. It is incumbent on the Minister and the Government to ensure this root and branch review is undertaken, with all stakeholders included in the process. Perhaps an all-party committee with responsibility in this area could lead that. Ultimately, there should be feedback to the Department so the Minister can return to the House before the end of the year with proposals that could meet with the approval of the rest of the Members. That is important.

From my perspective and that of my party, we sought space for the Minister to take control and report to the Dáil with proposals for reversing the price hikes. The Minister should have industry buy-in to the process. I note the representative association, comprising 75% of those involved, has committed to that, and the other 25%, comprising two providers, has since also given a commitment in that regard. The legislation is hanging over people's heads and will be there in the autumn if there is no follow-through on commitments.

To be honest, I can ask for no more than that. I cannot be responsible one week and irresponsible the next. I made a firm commitment to those who sought our interference in this matter to hold the Government to account so it would intervene and address the fears of people informed of price hikes of up to 50%, 100% or 200%. That has been achieved. I pay tribute to those involved. I hope and expect that what has been put in place has the potential to resolve this issue. If the same effort, commitment, responsibility and transparency around the issue had been evident last January, we might have subsequently been in a better place. Irrespective of who deserves the blame, as the awful saying goes, we are where we are. There is a duty and a responsibility on the Government to address the issue and I sought that. I wanted interference and a resolution, and what is contained in the Minister's amendment to the motion has the potential to succeed. Its success will be based on continued surveillance and transparency. More importantly, there must be effort and will from the Government, together with others in the House, to participate in a real and meaningful root and branch review. If that happens, when we return to the issue in 12 months, we will have moved on.

From my time as a councillor I know it has been 15 years since the initial waste management plan across the regions was proposed. At that time there was much more waste going to landfill than is the case at present; much progress has been made. It would be a retrograde step to reverse that progress now. I am also conscious of the associated costs of the providers or waste collectors when they dispose of waste in landfill. We can consider some of the remedies spoken of at that time, including incinerators in each region, but the cost associated with landfill means many local authorities are now out of that game and could not afford to meet the commitments expected of them, when one considers Environmental Protection Agency licence rules and so forth.

There is a duty of responsibility on us to have clear and real alternatives available so that consumers can be protected in the first instance and have a choice with respect to cost. Those consumers should be rewarded for participating in improved recycling efforts, which can only benefit all of us. Our party asked for this to be addressed and we feel that has been done properly. We hope the process will succeed and we will monitor it no less than anybody else in the House with a view to ensuring those whom we represent get a fair crack of the whip. Those who participate in these activities in the spirit of the original statutory instrument should be rewarded rather than penalised, as was the case when we stood to speak about the issue this time last week.

See this speech in context