Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I welcome the Minister before the House, and to a large extent his proposals are also welcome. I was very much involved in the introduction of the plastic bag levy ten years ago and although I argued strongly against it, each argument was overcome. I am now an enthusiast for the measure. I am on the board of two international organisations in the supermarket business and spend my time arguing that every country should have a plastic bag levy. It has worked very well and I have no problem with the current cost of 22 cent. I had a problem when I believed there was a proposal to increase the levy to 70 cent but I understand the Minister's comments that this is a maximum cost so that the measure will not have to be put in legislation on a regular basis.

I remember when the levy was introduced there was talk of a switch to paper bags. The Minister of the time indicated if people switched there would be a tax on paper bags as well. I explained to people that the levy was part of an anti-litter campaign, the main motivation behind the legislation. I was interested in the fact that reusable paper bags could be considered for the levy. Washington DC has recently imposed a levy not just on plastic bags but on paper carrier bags also. I am not proposing such a measure but merely noting it. It follows successful legislation in Seattle, Los Angeles and San Francisco, and more than 20 bag taxes have been proposed across American cities in the past year. A paper bag weighs approximately six times that of a plastic bag, is approximately four times as expensive and takes up to ten times the storage space.

Certain retailers, mainly clothes retailers, are now using more paper bags so could we incentivise the use of more sustainable means? I am not sure what that would entail and I could see a problem for a woman buying a new dress, as paying extra for the bag would not necessarily be the right action.

On the Poolbeg incinerator, I do not concur with the argument that we do not have a need for an incinerator, given that waste from Dublin is still sent to landfills around the country. We cannot have a scenario similar to the Dublin Port tunnel, which was too small when constructed and not future-proofed. It is my belief that hundreds of jobs will open up when work begins and there should be far more clarity from the Minister with regard to the market.

I will comment on the ever-growing electronic product waste problem. There is not adequate consideration in this Bill of electronic product waste, which will be a much greater issue in future years. An even greater boom in battery-powered devices is predicted in the coming years. We can consider electric cars as an example, which are anticipated to place an enormous strain on resources and, ultimately, recycling facilities. Competition for commodities and the need for better recycling infrastructure is only expected to grow in coming years.

Last month the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States announced a new grant of $2.5 million to help finance the creation of the first ever comprehensive inventory of electronic product waste output in that country. The project will co-operate directly with electronic manufacturers, who are happy to tally the units sold but are often less rigorous in reporting those returned for recycling. The announcement includes the first voluntary commitments made by major companies such as Dell and Sony to the American Environmental Protection Agency, and the aim is to promote the environmentally sound management of used electronics.

Mr. Michael Dell, the chairman and CEO of Dell, stated:

Last fiscal year, Dell diverted more than 150 million lbs of end-of-life electronics globally from landfills. We are now on our way to meeting our goal of recycling 1 billion lbs of electronic equipment by 2014.

Several such companies are assessing the viability of equipment lease and deposit schemes in an effort to encourage customers to return electronics directly to them at the end of their life cycles. It is a problem we have in this country. Should consumers return goods through the same channels in which they were bought? For example, should manufacturers be obliged to pick up used goods at Power City or Curry's? If they do not, is too much waste being put into landfill and are we playing a part in putting a burden on the planet? We must move on that issue.

What about the public sector and e-waste? It goes through millions of euro in electronic equipment each year and much is probably not recycled. By contrast, in the US the federal government aims to now be the US's most responsible user of electronics and lead by example. The billions of dollars in IT equipment the American Government cycles through annually will be either reused or recycled. Where is our own public sector's plan? What is our own Environmental Protection Agency doing in this rapidly expanding field? Would it not be wise to consider this issue more fully in the Bill?

Some experts believe that although collecting and recycling does not currently make economic sense for many materials, it is a shrewd long-term move to begin taking stock. Could Ireland see opportunity in this? Should we simply be dumping our old electronic waste on developing countries? For example, it is estimated that when e-waste is exported to the developing world, only around 25% of gold contained in mobile phones is reclaimed. I could not believe that gold would not be used. All the material could be reclaimed if the most advanced recycling technologies available were used. Are businesses fully exploiting the resources in waste, and how can we develop this sector to perhaps create jobs? I researched the use of gold in electronics and apparently it has been recycled in other countries. For example, recycled gold was partly used in the making of gold medals for the Olympics. How much money are we wasting by not properly recycling this gold and allowing it go to landfills? According to one source, Mr. Ruediger Kuehr, the PC sector has gold worth hundreds of millions of dollars being written off.

There are initiatives around the world and challenges remain. We have taken some steps today but we have not gone far enough. We must continue to work on the issue in the years ahead.