Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. There is no doubt there is a need for a stronger focus on a circular economy and stronger accountability in terms of waste management and our personal environmental impact. It is important we start to consider the lifetime of products rather than see them in a linear, take-make-waste approach, as currently we tend to do.

According to the 2021 circularity gap report, the global economy is only 8.6% circular. That is incredibly concerning. We would need to double this figure to close the greenhouse gas emissions gap and keep us below a 2°C rise in temperature by 2032.

There is a strong focus in this Bill on making our economy circular, which is great. The Bill supports a significant move towards reusing and recycling and preventing waste. However, I note a lack in reduction policies. There seems to be a focus on the reuse of products, with no focus on our consumption patterns and how to reduce our consumption as a whole. I also note more of a focus on the consumer and the product than on the manufacturer and how products are created. This has been the downfall of most of our environmental policies over the years. I am disappointed this Bill seems to follow suit with this type of individual blame. It is unfair to place all of the accountability on individuals when industry has such a big part to play in ensuring a circular economy and in proper waste management. A Bill such as this needs to include industry in a much stronger way.

I have concerns about section 14A, which provides that an authorised person can submit to the chief executive of a local authority a proposal to install and operate a CCTV scheme in the functional area of that local authority to deter environmental pollution and facilitate the deterrence, prevention, detection and prosecution of offences under this Act.

Although the Bill outlines that the CCTV scheme will be reviewed at least every five years, I am unsure about a permanent type of CCTV fixture. Really and truly, that arrangement will become permanent rather than being reviewed every five years.

I understand that far more needs to be done to address properly and efficiently the illegal dumping that ruins many of our beauty spots in this country. I have seen many beautiful areas around Donegal ruined by illegal dumping, which is incredibly upsetting. However, I know that during pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill there was a discussion about facilitating non-CCTV technology, such as drones and body cameras, to ensure monitoring of illegal dumping takes place in a manner that is compliant with the general data protection regulation, GDPR, and law enforcement directive provisions rather than inserting a permanent fixture in rural areas. Why did those conversations not progress? I know the Minister has said that data privacy and data intrusion have been taken into account when drafting this Bill and I am very glad to hear that the Data Protection Commissioner was involved in addressing these concerns. However, despite the constant reassurances those have been addressed, I am yet to hear exactly how they have been addressed. It is extremely important this is looked at on Committee Stage.

I have been concerned to hear the number of Deputies speaking out against GDPR during this debate. We have to remember we are living in a very different world than we were ten years ago and we can guarantee we will be living in a very different world in ten years' time. Technology is evolving at an incredibly rapid pace and we need to ensure we are constantly taking into account our citizens’ privacy and GDPR rights. GDPR is more important now than ever. It is not true that someone who is not doing something wrong has nothing to fear from CCTV surveillance. That must be taken into account in this Bill. Illegal dumping is a very serious issue that needs to be addressed immediately but not at the expense of our privacy rights. There is no knowing how technology will develop and we need to be aware of potential threats to our privacy or we could be looking back in 50 years' time wondering when we began compromising our privacy rights and why.

It would be beneficial if we also looked further into the causes of illegal dumping. In some rural areas, such as in my constituency of Donegal, there is no provision for waste collection services and people are forced to travel long distances to dump their waste properly. In our attempt to address illegal dumping, we should be making more of an effort to address the lack of access rural areas may have to waste collection. The constant privatisation of waste collection services and the focus on fees are also barriers to many people who want to dispose of their waste affordably. The previous speaker, Deputy Ó Murchú, outlined that he announced on the radio that a clean-up was ongoing and a lot of rubbish suddenly appeared. That is something we must look at and take account of. I am convinced that is a result of privatisation and fees.

We are too quick to jump to extreme measures without properly addressing and strengthening measures that are already in place. For example, most people do not know that every household in Ireland should be supplied with a brown bin. I was waiting for a brown bin to be provided to me but it never came. I contacted the provider to ask what the story was and I was told that households must ask for it. Nobody in my town asked for a brown bin. Mine is the only house in the area of the town with a brown bin because I have asked for it. That is nonsensical and crazy. How can we talk about a circular economy and proper waste collection when this is how we deal with things? It does not make sense.

Most households are not aware they are entitled to a brown bin despite the fact brown bins play an important role in creating a circular economy. The Government’s Waste Action Plan for a Circular Economy states that the National Waste Collection Permit Office and brown bin data will be used "to develop strategies and investigate how new technology can support greater usage". That is again looking to create new measures to support greater use of brown bins when most of the country do not even know they are entitled to one. I do not think brown bins are rolled out widely in Dublin. What is needed here is an awareness campaign or for waste management companies to provide bins automatically so that households must use them. It should not be the case that people have to make a decision to ask for them. Brown bins are a fantastic contribution to a circular economy and it is a shame they are not being utilised fully. Since I started using a brown bin in my house, it has made a considerable difference. It has also made a difference to what goes into the black bin. That is the kind of stuff that should be normal rather than persevering with the crazy situation whereby people must ring up and ask for bins themselves.

It is important to remember that a circular economy is not a new concept. A few decades ago, our economy was far more circular. Hand-me-downs and the reusing of products and materials, such as clothes and bottles, was the norm. However, like most of the rest of the world, we got swept up in macro-structures of unsustainability, such as capitalist-based materialism and individualism, which have created an incredibly linear economy. Those models were forced on us. We did not tell anyone we wanted those models. They were forced on us by capitalism and society as a whole. We must tackle that.

We know today's capitalistic economies are not sustainable. We know we cannot continue with the enormous level of consumption that has been taking place in recent years. We need a return to our previous habits of continuously and consistently reusing and recycling. We cannot hide the fact that a lot of our emissions issues are due to the capitalist system in which we live. We must challenge the capitalist economy that pushes constant production for profit, which is not sustainable, if we are serious about trying to establish and nurture a circular economy. This means making industry responsible as much as individuals.

I welcome that the Bill includes timelines. I hope this will be the norm for Government Bills going forward. There is no point introducing such legislation when there is no real commitment to introduce it within a timeline. I have often said this country has great legislation but serious issues with implementation, so I welcome that there are timelines and I hope all future Bills follow suit. Implementation is vital.

Like other Deputies, I have a few language issues. Although timelines are included, this Bill, like most Bills before it, continues to use very vague language. There is repeated use of the word "may", which suggests a lack of commitment in terms of implementation, which, as I said, we struggle with in this country. I would also like further clarification on where the money for the levies outlined in this Bill will go. I understand the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications now has the power to introduce new environmental levies on single-use items, with the proceeds ring-fenced for products related to environmental and climate action objectives. I am glad to hear this will be put towards a new circular economy fund to support key environmental projects, but I believe there should be complete transparency on the projects it funds. I welcome that the purpose of the levies will not be to raise revenue, although I sometimes doubt that because many levies seem to be all about raising revenue. I also welcome that they will only be introduced where there are sustainable alternatives to the consumer. That is important. It can be easily imagine that those levies could become a valuable revenue stream the State could not afford to do without.

Overall, there are improvements that need to be made to this Bill. However, I welcome the increased focus on a circular economy. Many of the measures are well overdue and needed and I hope it goes a long way towards reducing emissions in this country. We need to ensure a transition to a circular economy model as soon as possible to address the negative impacts on the environment and human health caused by the incredible increase and unsustainable trends in production and consumption of materials and products. I hope that many of the issues outlined are considered on Committee Stage. I know the Minister said in his opening address that he intends to respond to the committee's pre-legislative scrutiny recommendations and I will be interested to hear that response.

The important point is that a circular economy must work for everyone and should never be at anyone’s expense. We are trying to improve the environment and improve lives, which is what should be at the heart of this legislation.

See this speech in context