Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Yes. This can be seen in washing machines or any other feature of a house. Given the price of a washing machine versus the cost of calling someone to come and fix it, you would better off putting it into the boot of the car, bringing it to the recycling plant and buying a new one in the shop. If we keep that mentality going, there will never be a circular economy. We have to go back to the basics with great tradespeople. I recall black and white televisions. There was a bulb in the back of them and a tradesperson would change it and get the television going again. The owner might be without the screen for a day or two but there were tradespeople who would come and get the television back up and running. Those kinds of tradespeople are gone because a television, which showed a black and white picture at the time, used to cost IR£400 or IR£500. Nowadays, a television can be bought for €170 or €180. We have gone down the road of quick products and throwaway culture.

In fact, we are going the same way with cars. I come from the agricultural sector, where tractors are also going that way. There was a time when you could fix a tractor yourself with your hands. Now you have to get a guy with a laptop, a whizz kid who will charge an arm and a leg, and you would be nearly better off trading it in for a different one. That is the way we have gone. It will take a ferocious turnaround to get things back to where they were, and it will not be Ireland on its own; it will need to be an effort on the part of the EU and the wider world.

I acknowledge the Minister of State indicated he will grant us a meeting to discuss ideas. In the construction sector, for example, approximately 50% of emissions could be got rid of if we did things the way we should. As things stand, if I knocked down the building we are in and I put all the stone to one side, I would not be able to recycle it. If I brought it to a tip, that would be enough to tick the box to say it has been recycled. Instead, I should be able to bring the stone somewhere where it could be recycled and used on a roadway, for instance. I am not saying we should use it for houses or buildings but on roadways such as forestry roads or farmers' roads, or for motorways. That would not do any harm and we would then be reusing and recycling it.

I did a lot of work throughout the country carrying out water jobs and digging trenches. We would dig out all the soil and bring it all to a tip, and we would get stone from the quarry and fill the hole. In fact, there is now a better system known as soil stabilisation. The soil can be brought a quarter of a mile down the road to a yard and put it into a machine, and within 12 hours, a 30 tonne digger would not be able to dig it. The soil is mixed with a small quantity of cement and lime, and it is made stronger than the gear that would have been brought from the quarry. A coating is then applied to the top with a 1 m cover, and all that needs to be applied on top of that is a small amount of stone.

These are the steps we need to take. The problem is that people are trying to recycle topsoil and stone, and the county council will intervene and say those materials are end-of-waste stuff, so they should go to a tip. The council will threaten to take the person to court if he or she continues with what he or she is doing. That is the current mentality. To be blunt, the EPA has done absolutely nothing but put burdens on people. I know several people in the construction business who have gone to great lengths over the past two or three years to try to meet these requirements and go through all the licence procedures, and it costs a lot of money. They have waited two or three years just to get the licence in this so-called circular economy to allow them to recycle stone or concrete. Someone needs to call a halt to what is going on at the EPA. That might sound a bit strong but I have watched the agency over recent years. A product cannot be called an end-of-waste product if it is concrete that can be recycled. It has to be put under different terms and conditions. I agree some materials are end-of-waste products, but certain materials should be used. We should bear in mind that 90% of the soil that is removed in this city goes to Longford, Offaly, Monaghan and all over to tips, where it will be tipped into a field, a bulldozer will push it and, if stone is put on top of it, it will be capped and recycled. That is our coverage at the moment.

We should consider turning things around and switching to soil stabilisation, which is being used for the new Amazon warehouse in Dublin on its 10 acre facility and the area outside that. If we use soil stabilisation, we will reduce the movement of trucks in the country by 90%. That is some statistic. Moreover, we will reduce carbon emissions in the building sector by at least 50%. These are the innovative ideas but the problem is the machinery that is required is not cheap. The private sector is willing to make the change but the State is blocking it no matter what. This is bread and butter stuff in Germany, where it was first done years ago. Regardless of whatever idea we have here, however, we seem to want to put in stronger and more rigorous stuff than even the EU implements. I am no fan of the EU, but what we are doing here is even stronger than what the EU is providing for. The Minister of State has to grab this by the horns. Some of the people who believe they are on a glory track to saving the planet should look to the simple, low-hanging fruit we can pick. To return to the likes of the EU and the ideas I mentioned earlier, where can we improve in that regard? Where can we improve in respect of the building sector and pick the low-hanging fruit? Everything I have talked about is very simple. It is often the simple things that make the greatest improvements in life. If we do the simple things, we will help. I am not much of an admirer of the provisions for fines in the Bill. We need to bring people with us. If we say to people we can leave them with 90% of the soil on their land and build houses or a factory, and if we let them know it will save them a lot of money, anyone will buy in to that, as opposed to if we say we have to send 3,000 lorryloads down the road, on top of the traffic congestion and so on.

I have no objections to the Bill but we need to broaden its provisions. I have prepared some presentations and there is a group who will meet him to show him these innovative ideas. It is grand us showing them to him, but if there is someone in some corner of the EPA or anywhere else who is hell bent on blocking these ideas, we will go nowhere. I fear the EPA is living in its own world but it needs to understand what can be done. We need to embrace what has been done in other countries, and Germany has been miles ahead of most people in the building sector. I reiterate I have nothing against the Bill and I wish the Minister of State all the best, but we need to examine what low-hanging fruit we can pick.

See this speech in context