Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour) | Oireachtas source

He did bring in a statutory instrument, but he did not anticipate, as no one else did at the time, how it might be abused.

I have some questions with regard to the Government amendment and the statement by the Minister, Deputy Coveney, today. I commend him on the actions he has taken but there are still some outstanding issues, particularly in respect of what exactly he intends to bring forward by way of amendment to the statutory instrument. He referred also to the possibility of legislation. While the representatives of the majority of the collectors have publicly come out and stated that they will not increase their charges over the year, and I know that there has been some evidence that Greyhound and the other provider are also in that space, we need more clarity. In particular, we need clarity from the other two providers that they will not raise their charges over the next 12 months. In that regard, we probably will need either primary legislation or secondary legislation in the form of a statutory instrument.

The Dáil should return to this issue in the next few weeks and preferably before 1 July because we need clarity on those issues. We are acting on partial information here this evening. Indeed, when the motion was tabled, the proposers would not have been aware at the time that the Minister, Deputy Coveney, was going to take the two actions he has since taken. That is one point.

In the original motion there is a proposal that standing charges cannot be increased at a rate which is out of line with the consumer price index. However, I question the standing charges that are already in place by some collectors. They vary in different parts of the country but, if we are to have a real polluter-pay system to encourage people to reduce their waste, standing charges should be minimal and people should be paying on the basis of how they separate waste or appropriately use the system. While saying standing orders could not be increased at a rate greater than the change in the consumer price index is a helpful measure, we should be getting back to the idea that, if a person is doing everything he or she possibly can to reduce what he or she puts out, the standing charge should be very small.

I support the idea that we should examine the possibility of having a regulator because we need to ensure that into the future this is affordable, fair and transparent. As we have different systems throughout the country, there is an argument for having a regulator and I hope that will be examined over the period of the price freeze.

I would also like clarity on which Minister will have responsibility for this area. This morning, the Taoiseach indicated that responsibility was moving to the Minister, Deputy Naughten. However, the Minister, Deputy Coveney, has been dealing with it as of now. We could do with some clarity on where exactly responsibility will lie. This issue arises because "environment" was originally left out of all ministerial titles or responsibilities, and I hope the Government clarifies that soon as well.

We need to do something about the amount of packaging still in our shops. I know we can leave the packaging behind, but will people really go through their bags of groceries and take off the packaging before they go home? Most people will not. I would like to see some incentives, be it carrot or stick but probably stick, that encourage shops, supermarkets and manufacturers of goods to reduce the amount of packaging they inflict on the householder. This is something that should also be considered.

I welcome the fact that those who have to use incontinence pads are included in the concept of waivers. As the Minister, Deputy Coveney, stated, it is true that the former Minister, Deputy Kelly, had begun work on that matter before he left office. There is a case to be made for having some waivers. As Deputy Quinlivan will know, the Limerick city local authority ran a waiver system and people got a certain amount of free lifts. It has been diminished but still exists to some extent. A waiver system that would protect the most vulnerable of households could be introduced.

See this speech in context