Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. All those of us on the Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action accept and are wedded to the idea of moving to a circular economy and away from a linear one. Part of the way to do that is to buy less stuff. It is one of the most obvious ways for people to reduce their own waste. My amendment No. 64 deals with a problem that has emerged whereby not buying stuff is generating waste. This is because many corporations have a business model involving overproduction. They also want to shift assets quickly so, the longer the stock remains unsold, the more it becomes a liability and a cost on the corporations' books. The storage of this stock incurs such a cost that it becomes cheaper to dispose of the goods than to continue to store them.

We also see the business models of luxury brands, which prefer to destroy unsold merchandise as they do not wish to sacrifice an image of scarcity and exclusivity. The designer brand company Burberry burnt €38 million worth of stock in a single year rather than redistributing it, just to preserve that image of exclusivity. It is not just Burberry; it is Amazon, H&M, Nike and so on. Producers and retailers are sending millions of tonnes of products that have never been opened directly to landfill or incinerators. These are completely brand new materials. This all occurs out of the sight of the public. We are always talking about the importance of systemic change and not putting everything on the individual. It is thanks to the investigative reports in Germany that the public got a window into this practice. It was first exposed in 2018 at a so-called fulfilment centre of Amazon's and then again in Britain in 2021. We all must agree that this is an immoral practice. Brand new products, because they are unsold, are going straight from the shelves to landfill.

One spreadsheet in the British example showed that 124,000 items were marked for destruction in a single week. Amazon likes to tell us that it makes best efforts to redistribute such products and to find homes for them with charities but the spreadsheet told a different story. It showed 124,000 brand new items marked for destruction while only 28,000 were marked for redistribution. These items included smart televisions, laptops, iPads, leisure equipment, electrical items, Dyson fans, hairdryers and Bluetooth earphones. What was particularly galling about the case in England was that these laptops and iPads were being sent straight to landfill during the pandemic, when children in low-income households were being denied access to education because they did not have the technological facilities required. Households were really struggling while these multinational corporations were just binning items they could have used. Most reasonable people would be horrified by that practice. It is not just that the carbon footprint of these items is large but also, as Senator Higgins has outlined, that many rely on finite resources for their production.

The Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action carried out lengthy pre-legislative scrutiny on this Bill. Everybody was very positive about it and tried to contribute to it. In pre-legislative scrutiny, we often ask the experts who is doing a given thing well and what jurisdictions we can learn from. We do not need to reinvent the wheel so we ask which jurisdictions have got it right. When it comes to the circular economy, there was no argument. Everybody pointed to France. Later amendments of mine will talk about what France has done in respect of food waste and refill stations in supermarkets. It has also banned the practice I have been talking about, so we cannot hide behind EU law and say it cannot be done. The French Government passed a law in January 2020 that basically says these multinational corporations cannot just dispose of unused items and items returned that are still in their boxes, and that they have to redistribute them. They have to identify organisations or charities to receive the items.

Because we all know the circular economy issue is very significant and because we are trying to move away from a philosophy of take, use and waste, it is disappointing that much of the focus has been on the latte levy. That is not the fault of the Minister of State or of the joint committee. The media have fed into it. The latte levy is tinkering around the edges, although that is not to say it should not be done. It again puts the onus back on the individual and says it is up to the individual to bring along his or her KeepCup. What I am trying to do with amendment No. 64 is to put the onus back on the corporations because the public is largely unaware of this practice. The French have shown great ambition in this legislation. It was only introduced in 2020. It will come into effect in 2023. I urge the Minister of State to give it serious consideration because it represents real and radical action on reducing waste as opposed to the measures on plastic cups and paper cups we have spent so much time talking about. This is about televisions, laptops and other electronic goods going straight to landfill or incineration. It is the same with clothes, shoes and many other things many people could really do with during a cost-of-living crisis. I look forward to hearing whether the Minister of State will accept this amendment.