Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chairman.

I thank Deputies Catherine Martin and Eamon Ryan for tabling this motion. I absolutely believe we need an effective policy to tackle plastics and their excessive use in Ireland. The figures I have — I am sure the Deputies are more familiar with them than I am — show that our usage of plastic, at 58 g per capita, is 80% above the EU average. We have a chronic reliance on plastics and we need to start to sort that out.

Plastic represents more than a quarter of all the packaging waste generated. Our recycling level is at or about the EU average, which is acceptable at one level in that we have not fallen behind, but it is far from where we need to be. The Deputies cast aspersions on the enthusiasm to endorse the 90% target for the recycling of plastic bottles. It is important that we endorse such a target, just as we need to deliver on the target of recycling 55% of all our plastics. These are important targets that we need to meet but we also need to develop the policy instruments to make them happen. While I fully recognise the passion of the advocates who have set out a list of proposals, I believe that even Deputy Eamon Ryan will recognise that we ought to consider other possibilities and that an effective strategy needs to examine the full range and pick those strategies that are going to deliver effectively.

I very much welcome the decision of the European Union to ban ten particular items comprising single-use plastics that have been identified as causes of the chronic problem of ocean pollution. I understand from EU data that as much as 500,000 tonnes of plastic from the EU make their way into our oceans. It is important that we get to grips with meeting the targets.

I am in no way denigrating the role of the Oireachtas, as suggested, or casting aspersions on the efforts of others. I look forward to implementing a strong range of initiatives to ensure that we meet those responsibilities to which we are signing up.

Deputy Eamon Ryan, who has been in my position, will understand that, for the Government to come forward with a set of proposals, it will have to make a fair and objective evaluation, or a regulatory impact assessment. We must make sure we are picking the most effective policy instruments to deliver on our ambitions. The Deputy asked what we could consider. There is a range of actions we could consider, apart from the outright bans that the European Union is bringing forward. We cannot introduce bans without EU endorsement because of interference with trade but we have many opportunities, through our own policy instruments, to address the problems in this area. We can extend producer responsibility. Deputies Ryan and Martin are keen supporters of that.

We need incentives and levies at various points in the supply chain to determine how we can change the patterns of behaviour. We need much better labelling so people making decisions about recycling in their own homes can do so effectively and correctly. We need better packaging designs so we do not have mixed materials that make it hard to recycle. There is a wide range of policy instruments, including those Deputy Ryan listed. Included are a deposit retention scheme and the levy on disposable cups. Those are certainly measures we should consider. I am determined to do that.

I am but a week and an hour in the job, bearing in mind the time I got to the Phoenix Park last week, but I am determined to proceed with this work speedily. I will commission the work we promised to evaluate the issues speedily. I will revert to the House as quickly as I can with the outcome of the evaluation.

Deputy Eamon Ryan indicated we should just proceed to Committee Stage, where he believes we can thrash this out. I beg to differ. Committee Stage is carried out in the political arena. We do not have economic evaluations or the sorts of evaluations required on that Stage. I examined the Oireachtas committee report. It sets out the sorts of steps we need to consider. They are fairly fundamental. It is asked whether a deposit return scheme will increase recycling rates and whether the infrastructure is in place to support it. It is asked how the proposals fit with a system that has a high level of curbside collection and whether there are alternatives that might offer the same or better environmental returns. It is also asked whether infrastructure is in place to make the system work. These are pretty fundamental questions about how we can deliver on the ambitions the Deputies have set out.

I have been through Committee Stage of many Bills in my years in the House. Committee Stage is not an arena where people sit down and tease through evidence of the kind in question. It comprises largely political debates in which people set out their views and hear others and at the end of which there is a vote and a count of numbers.

We need the sort of evaluation that can result in a reduction in our reliance on plastic. Our rate of use is 80% higher than that of the rest of Europe. We must improve our recycling rates. I have seen various statistics in the evidence. The committee report suggested that we are ahead of Europe, on average. Elsewhere I have seen that we are behind Europe, on average. I am not going to try to claim we are doing well because we certainly need to do better.

We need to examine these matters and others. One of our candidates in the Taoiseach's constituency sent me today an idea involving the placing of reverse vending machines in beauty spots, whereby people could return plastics without having to have a barcode and without having to meet the other criteria involved in a deposit return scheme. Perhaps this could be added to the choices we will make.

There is no doubt we need a stronger outlet for recycled plastic. It is clear from the Commission's work in this area that if recycled plastic continues to be regarded as a second-rate material that is not admitted to the supply chains of the big branded products, we are handicapping ourselves in achieving the circular-economy approach we want to achieve.

Equally, we must get a standard for compostable cups so they can be clearly marked and separated in the waste stream and we can avoid the reliance on plastic materials. The reason we are abstaining on this and not opposing it is that we are taking time to evaluate these issues. We cannot impose a cost without having clearly understood who bears it, whether it will work and how it will work.

The Deputy said he wanted a signal and that the legislation is a signal, but he has been here long enough to know that legislation is far more than a signal. Legislation introduces obligations that must be enforced, policed and delivered. Legislative measures are not signals of how we feel but the vehicles through which we implement policy change. I must ensure I am in a position to stand over the validity of the choices we are making. All I can offer the House is the assurance, based on my record in the House, and I do not wish to count the number of years, that I take this issue intensely seriously. It is part of a much wider range of issues to which I have been given the responsibility to respond. I appreciate the passion people feel for this because it is very important. I hope I will be given the opportunity to work in this area in a constructive way with all Members, but my responsibility must always be to have the ability to stack up the evidence. As an economist I must be able to provide the evidence to support the policy decisions I make. I trained in the ESRI and came through that school. I will act when I have the evidence and I will not delay unnecessarily.

Any suggestions that we are against this agenda in some way are quite beside the point. I am determined to make an impact in this area and I have been given the privilege of taking it on. I thank the Chairman for his kind words. While the sponsors of this motion are not happy with my position, I hope I will be able to vindicate what I have done by the actions I take.

See this speech in context