Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 11 seeks to include transport, including aviation and shipping, in the sectors listed as sectors which should be factored into the circular economy strategy. According to the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, transport is one of the largest sources of energy-related CO2 emissions in Ireland. Before the Covid-19 pandemic, it was responsible for over 40% of energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019.

It is a sector which has emission reduction targets but the carbon budgets excluded emissions resulting from aviation and shipping. I also note that the State has been quite a bad actor in respect of transport emissions, specifically, for example, in terms of subsidisation of fossil fuels in the sector. The Government provides an excise duty exemption on jet kerosene for domestic and international commercial aviation which came to €634 million in 2019. That €634 million in jet kerosene subsidies, that is, fossil fuel subsidies for jet kerosene, makes some of those funds on circular economy and on peatlands look fairly small. There is no point in giving with one hand and taking with the other. The reason that it is relevant in this context is because, as I have highlighted, matters such as supply chain and journey length are relevant in terms of the circular economy and in its emissions.

Amendment No. 12 seeks the deletion of section 7(6) to replace it with a stronger provision around green public procurement. As the Minister of State will be aware, I have a strong passion for public procurement. I brought forward legislation in this area. The climate committee's recommendation 13 was clear that explicit measures should be taken in the Bill in terms of sound principles in the design, procurement, package, logistics, retail, repairability, etc., around public procurement. Recommendation 58 was that green public procurement should be placed on a statutory basis, that it is not sufficient that we have general aspirations for green public procurement and that we need laws around green public procurement. This was an opportunity. If we talk about trying to change consumer behaviour, we have to remember that the State is the largest consumer in the State in terms of the largest customer and the largest purchaser of goods and services. If the State gets it right, it will set the tone for industry. That is why having those standards built into law is important. We spent €12 billion in public contracts for goods, services and works in 2019. There have been guidelines but we need to have those on a stronger basis. I will not discuss this area further as the Minister of State is aware already of my views on this matter. It is one that we are pursuing and that I will continue to debate at every opportunity.

Amendment No. 13 relates to the right to repair. This amendment would insert the words "and availability" into the provision that targets within the circular economy should result in increased levels of repair and reuse of products and materials. It is a relatively simple amendment but it helps with the issue of just transition. This is around decent community-based work. A target to increase the availability of repair would mean that the strategy had targets around job creation and regional access to repairs. Repair is an area of opportunity, in terms of employment and, indeed, in terms of persons addressing issues of cost of living.

Amendment No. 14 seeks to ensure that sectoral arrangements that may be made under this Act are not voluntary but, in fact, mandatory. That is probably one of the most important amendments of all. Having a long statement about all of the circular economy strategy and all of these matters, the idea of having "on a voluntary basis" attached to all of that for every sector - leaving aside the levies on consumption but in terms of the list of big sectors identified such as retail, manufacture and business - and that one would only have any action being taken on a voluntary basis begs the question, "What is the point of the Bill?" Is it just a Bill about cups and single-use items or is it a Bill about the circular economy? If it is a Bill about the circular economy, one does not talk at length about some strategy and then say that one hopes people will do it. If that is the case, we all may as well draw up codes and award prizes for good companies. Legislation is for legislating and putting regulations and measures in place. This is the opportunity to put hard, real measures in place.That participation by those crucial sectors, with their incredibly important implications, in the kinds of strategies we are setting out and for which we are going to all this trouble to resource and develop is voluntary is kind of a wasted opportunity. It guts the Bill, really. I am not simply talking about punitive regulatory measures. I have spoken about the fact that I believe we need to have positive measures, for example, public procurement policies that reward companies that engage in best practice. I am referring to positive measures that support and identify industrial practices of the kind in question. There are many stronger positive steps we could and should be taking. Also, we need to have some regulation. We need to be tackling these measures in a stronger way.

For me, amendments Nos. 14 to 17 all address the same areas: retail, packaging, textiles and, crucially, electronic equipment. Think of the fact that so much electronic equipment contains precious metals. We should look to some of the concrete measures introduced in other countries, for example, real rules concerning how a floor is divided, packaging and how much floor space in a supermarket is given to certain kinds of products. These are the hard tools, yet we are not using this opportunity to empower the Minister to set out, as in amendments Nos. 16 and 17, mandatory requirements and regulations for the sectors to ensure they meet their sectoral targets.

The fact is companies need us to regulate them. Good companies want regulation. They want to be rewarded in terms of procurement and see it recognised. Each individual company answers to its shareholders or owners and companies have fiduciary and financial duties. To ask companies to take on these measures voluntarily, with the potential cost that may come with that, creates tension. Most companies will meet their fiduciary duties while ensuring they comply with the laws. Therefore, when we put good laws in place, we empower companies, executives and staff to take good measures. Otherwise, we are simply relying on consumer pressure. Again, the Government is passing the buck down the line to the customer and saying the customer has to try to influence the companies, including companies associated with retail, packaging, textiles and electronic equipment that are of a scale where it is very difficult to achieve the kind of change desired. The State, at the stroke of a pen, could introduce changes in terms of manufacturing and business practices if it chose to put in place mandatory requirements and regulations.

These amendments are fundamental. Amendments Nos. 15 to 18, inclusive, all relate to these areas. I have lengthy examples of the kinds of regulations we should be introducing in terms of retail, packaging, textiles and electronic equipment but I am going to leave them aside because time is limited.

Amendment No. 18 provides that mandatory requirements may be set out for the retail sector’s targets and the display or promotion of goods.

Amendment No. 19 proposes to insert a requirement that the circular economy strategy would set out actions necessary to further just transition and climate justice in the context of the development of a circular economy. I will not reiterate all my points on those matters.

Amendment No. 28 seeks to insert the provision that the circular economy programme would reflect the principles of just transition and climate justice. I have discussed these matters extensively, so I will not expand on them further at this point.

Amendment No. 30 is a relatively simple one that changes the timeframe in which the agency may review the circular economy from at least once every six years after the publication of the first strategy to once every three years. Once every six years is too long a timeframe. We need to be identifying problems and issues with the operation of the programme as quickly as possible. In fact, if we look to our carbon budgets, which operate according to five-year cycles, we should ensure we are being informed of what is and is not working regarding a circular economy strategy and that this knowledge influences new measures that might be put in place or new decisions on the next budget. We are talking about five-year units in terms of our carbon budgets, and we should not be having six-year units regarding the circular economy strategies. It just does not make sense.

I have further information on the urgency and the fact that every single year matters, but maybe the simplest fact I would take from a lengthy section on urgency, which I am not going to read out, is that the past ten years have been the hottest ten on record in 100,000. The next ten years really matter. Everything we do in every year matters. Regarding six-year strategies, I do not even think about the 2050 targets anymore. Rather, I think about the 2030 targets, because if we do not turn things around by 2026, we will be in extraordinary trouble.

Amendment No. 31 is a simple amendment that seeks to insert a requirement that the Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action be one of the bodies to which the agency must give a copy of the circular economy strategy, once published. Perhaps the Minister of State can do even better than that. Given the expertise across the House and all parties and the genuine passion of all members of the committee, which has been evident from their presence throughout these debates, it is important the committee be consulted on the circular economy strategy.