Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 7, to delete lines 19 to 27 and substitute the following: “ “circular economy” means an economic model and the policies and practices which give effect to that model in which—

(a) production and distribution processes in respect of goods, products and materials are designed so as to minimise the consumption of raw materials associated with the production and use of those goods, products and materials,

(b) the delivery of services is designed so as to reduce the consumption of raw materials,

(c) goods, products and materials are kept in use for as long as possible thereby further reducing the consumption of raw materials and impacts harmful to the environment,

(d) the maximum economic value is extracted from goods, products, and materials by the persons using them, and

(e) goods, products and materials are recovered and regenerated at the end of their useful life;”.

This is an example of what I referred to earlier whereby we have introduced amendments that take into account some of the views and ideas of Members opposite and Government backbench Members who had some very useful suggestions on how we could strengthen the Bill. Amendments Nos. 2 and 9 significantly strengthen the definition of a "circular economy" to broaden the concept to include design and the role of design in both production and distribution processes and in the delivery of services, not just manufactured goods, in a circular economy. Amendment No. 2 provides that in a circular economy the production and distribution processes and the delivery of services are designed to minimise and reduce the consumption of raw materials.

Regarding amendment No. 3, I am of the view that amendment No. 2 better gives effect to the intention of Deputy Bríd Smith's amendment so I cannot accept it. Amendment No. 4 would further amend the definition and while I understand the intention behind it and fully agree with the concept of producer responsibility, that is better achieved by the extension of producer responsibility schemes than by the proposed amendment to the definition, and, therefore, I cannot accept amendment No. 4.

Amendment No. 9 expands the definition of "single-use packaging". Currently the definition relates to packaging conceived, designed or placed on the market in respect of the holding of food products. With the simple deletion of the three words "to hold food", we are taking the views expressed during the Committee Stage debate and expanding the definition. That is a very useful and welcome extension that came out of the Committee Stage debate and I thank Deputy Bruton, in particular, for his work on that.

I hope the House agrees with my proposals.

See this speech in context