Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I was hoping for some positive message on the regulation of the sector in the Minister's speech and I have to say in all sincerity that I am not seeing anything that is not worthwhile. The Minister states that he is acknowledging the concerns of some households and in that regard he will introduce a pricing watchdog monitoring unit. I have never heard of a "pricing watchdog monitoring unit" that will have teeth. This is without teeth. It is, in all honesty, an attempt to placate the Members on the opposite side of the House in order to ensure that this new regime will get as smooth a political passage as possible.

The monthly reports on pricing developments involving the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission to report on the household waste collection market is wholly inadequate. In fairness, the Minister has been in situfor a year. This was announced well over a year ago. What was the Minister doing for the last year on objectively examining how the market for waste operates in Ireland?

The idea that the Minister will set up or establish a regulator on the basis of an evidence base or information that is going to come in does not stand up. We are now into July 2017. This is an attempt to kick the can further down the line.

I am making the argument, notwithstanding the Minister's rejection of our proposal, to give more power to the Environmental Protection Agency and to set up a pricing division in the agency as such measures would ensure the State has a role in the regulation of the market. There would be no major cost impediment to do that. The Minister would have goodwill towards the idea if the EPA was already regulating the market, that is, if legislation was in place to back that up and if the EPA was already researching and analysing the market. The very act of setting up some sort of watchdog or monitoring unit is pointless. There was an opportunity in the past year to set up something that had real teeth and that could have really looked at the market.

I do not accept that it is adequate for the Minister to say we are providing choice in the market in respect of the pricing mechanisms, that is, the per kilo charge, the lift and per kilo charge, the weight band charges or the weight allowance plus per kilo surcharge for excess weight. All these different products are already in existence in the market. If we are making the argument on the basis of increased competition, then we have to analyse properly the exact nature of the market at the moment. It is not a perfectly competitive market in spite of the Minister's contention. In fact, the Minister has potentially created a vacuum within a short space of time whereby the waste management companies can come together, act like a cartel and start fixing prices in a manner that they so choose, thereby adversely affecting consumers, in the absence of any proper regulatory regime.

People want honesty in the debate. If one considers the polluter pays principle, one cannot have a situation whereby those who recycle every week to the tune of 30%, 40% 50% or higher of their waste are subsidising those who do not. We need proper analysis of how the market actually works before we introduce any move away from the flat charge structure. There is still a lack of information and of consumer information in particular with regard to what products are available. Most people are price takers because depending on geography, they have no choice but to be price takers. If they live in large conurbations, they may have competition. However, if a person lives in rural west Cork and there is only one operator there, that person is subjected to the pricing mechanism. Let us not call that competition, because it is not.

We believe there could be a role for the local authorities in future. In the past, local authorities guaranteed universal service but that universal service is no longer in existence. As some people do not have access to waste collection, there is apartheid in that sense.

The new structure the Minister proposed to introduce will encourage more people to dispose of their waste illegally. It is not good enough for the Minister to come back to the House after a year with this temporary quick-fix solution. There should have been proper analysis during the past year. We will stand with our hands up if the Minister wants to critique our position – that is fair enough. However, in politics one is also allowed to evolve and advance one's position and the Minister has been in situfor over a year.

We have to look at the green schools programme. We all agree with the Repak recycle and change for the better educational programme. All such programmes are having a positive effect on behaviour. However, it is no good teaching a child of seven, eight or ten years of age about the need to recycle if the family of the child does not have the bins at home to be able to do so. That is the current position in large swathes of the country.

There should be a postponement in this regard. There is a role for the EPA and we need to look at Repak because while there may be an industry view on what Repak does, I do not believe there is a consumer-facing view on what Repak does. We are reaching dangerous levels of plastics production globally. The amount of plastic going into refuse and not being recycled is dangerous at this stage and is resulting in major environmental cost. There is no need to rehash the evidence on what is happening in the environment vis-à-visthe production of plastics. We need an overview and proper analysis of what exactly is going on.

I reiterate the point that a watchdog monitoring unit is not a sufficient response. We have been in government. I understand that the Government has to respond politically and try to get the motion over the line and so on. There is a confidence and supply arrangement and one should be realistic about that. However, this should not be at the expense of the consumers, who are not fools.

As for parts of the Minister's speech, for him to stand up in the Dáil and state no one leaves lights or the immersion on any more when there is an incentive to turn them off is schoolboy stuff. It is unbecoming of the Minister to come in and make statements like that. The people are educated and are not to be treated like fools. The people want a market and want to be able to recycle. They want access to proper services. However, the regime the Minister is proposing is not going to provide this because it is not a perfectly competitive market. It is actually going to be more of the same. The people who have the flat charge at the moment are concerned about how much their charges are going to increase by as a result of this. They need certainty. People need certainty in their household budget.

See this speech in context