Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I echo others in welcoming the Circular Economy, Waste Management (Amendment) and Minerals Development (Amendment) Bill which is long overdue. For too long we have developed a global economic system which is extractive, linear and based on hyper consumption. The Bill will not address the bigger issue relating to the growth model we live within, but it is a welcome step. We know we are using raw materials unsustainably and this at least puts in place a framework whereby we value the materials within a product and can ensure that they are long lived, and that they can be repaired, reused, repurposed and only as a last resort recycled.

While I welcome the Bill, I wish to raise the number of issues with the Minister of State. The first relates to construction and demolition waste. Throughout the country we have enormous levels of dereliction. We are also seeing young buildings only 30 or 40 years old being demolished. It is widely believed - the Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action heard from experts on this - that construction and demolition waste is the fastest growing waste stream in the country and could be producing 10 million tonnes of carbon emissions annually.

Like everything, the most carbon-efficient building is the one that is already built. How does the Minister of State plan to address unnecessary demolition? Will we see legislation to limit unnecessary demolition? We do not need to go too far from this building to see the site that was once the Kevin Street Institute of Technology, a building which was important for its architectural value but also for the fact that it had embodied carbon. It has now been completely flattened instead of seeing how that building could be repurposed and redeveloped into housing and apartments. If a building cannot be repurposed and the only option is to demolish it, will we see the proper segregation of waste and the reuse of as much of the materials as possible following demolition?

Others have already mentioned food waste. I understand that on Report Stage in the Dáil it was agreed that the Minister would prepare an annual report on the implementation of the food waste prevention strategy. If that is the case, it is very welcome.There are a few points I would like to raise. The first relates to the terminology used. Will the language align with the revised EU waste framework directive 2018, which would ensure the reduction of food waste at each stage of the food supply chain? We have to capture food loss as well as food waste and many people are not aware of the distinction. Food waste is the food we buy in the shop that then goes to waste, whereas food loss is when crops die in the ground, for example, because it is not financially viable for the farmer to take them up or due to pests. We have to capture the whole food industry if we really want to address the emissions and the waste.

Under the provisions of the Bill and the strategy, there is a target to reduce food waste by 50% by 2030. Would the Minister of State be open to considering annual food waste targets? We have passed the climate Act and have our annual targets and sectoral targets. An annual target of a 7% reduction, alongside mandatory reporting by food businesses on the amount of waste they generate, would allow us to track whether we are meeting those targets. We can set targets all we want but if we are not actually on track to meet them, they will not make a difference. Having those annual targets would allow us to monitor that and make sure we are in fact reducing both food waste and food loss. I would also like assurances that when food redistribution is required to reduce food waste, business will prioritise human consumption over animal feed or reprocessing into non-food products.

Moving on to the matter of single-use items, particularly plastics, I was fortunate enough in my time as an MEP to negotiate the single-use plastics directive for my political group. I saw at first hand the power of the business lobby during those negotiations. It was desperately trying to water down measures. Ireland’s own Repak played a very negative role in the single-use plastics directive. Through a freedom of information request, we were able to show just how much these lobbyists pushed back against targets and were successful in delaying the introduction of deposit return schemes in Ireland. It is great that we are finally going to get a deposit return scheme in Ireland but I again echo the calls from my colleagues in the Dáil to expand that scheme to include glass. Glass is particularly suitable for reuse. We could work with small and medium enterprises on this, as has been done in other jurisdictions, including in the United States, where they have encouraged craft beer companies or dairy farmers to go back to using glass.

I would also like catering businesses to be supported to move away from disposable products to reusable ones. During the debate on the single-use plastics directive, when the issue of plastics was having its moment in the sun, we hailed as a huge achievement the fact that biodegradable food containers were being used on the Leinster House campus. I had to laugh because the European Parliament in Strasbourg had already moved to the reusable model, where people gave a €2 deposit and got their salad, soup or whatever in a glass container and then brought it back and got their €2 back.

The problem with lauding biodegradable containers as positive is that most people are not aware that they have to be disposed of properly. They have to go into a bin that will be diverted to an industrial composter. On this campus, we deposit the biodegradable containers in which we get our salads or soups or dinners in the regular bin. That completely defeats the purpose of being biodegradable. Likewise, there are concerns around the linings of the food bowls used both on this campus and in general, particularly for salads. The food containers in the Leinster House facilities were found to have 12 times the permitted amount of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS, on them. If we want to bring people along on this journey and get them to buy into it we should be leading by example. We should abandon the single-use items in this building and bring in that model of reusable deposit return schemes.

I would also raise the so-called latte levy. Nobody would disagree that discarded coffee cups are a blight, particularly in cities and towns. Actually, I will take that back as somebody does disagree.We also see them on roadsides and in hedgerows, discarded through car windows.

Has the Minister of State considered the Italian levy model? It uses a graduated levy on containers, determined by the amount of plastic in the containers. Those who are producing the worst forms of single-use items incur the highest levies, incentivising businesses to buy the best forms. However, I would prefer it if we moved to a reuse model.

What precautionary measures are being taken to ensure that we do not get the cheap products about which we are being warned, that is, those that are marketed as reusable but will realistically only be used once or twice or, at festivals, will be discarded?

I am running out of time. There is so much in this Bill that I hope to get to on Committee Stage. I wish to reiterate my support for legislating for the provision of refill products in supermarkets of a certain size. Detergents, dry foods and cosmetics lend themselves to refillable containers. There is an issue regarding insurance and repairs. I encourage the Minister of State to consider Italy's laws on obsolescence because we cannot afford to wait for the EU to act. Thanks to the influence of business, we have seen how long the EU has taken to agree a standard charger for mobile phones. I commend Italy on the moves it has taken on obsolescence.