I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Waste Management (Household Waste Collection Service) Bill. I thank Deputy Sherlock and the Labour Party for bringing this legislation before the House. At the outset, I acknowledge that the Deputy has raised issues that are of real importance to households across the country. Reliable, affordable and environmentally sustainable waste collection services are essential public services. Every household should have confidence that their waste is being collected efficiently and managed responsibly and that the system supports Ireland's transition to a more circular economy. Equally, households need to see that reducing, recycling and properly segregating waste not only benefits the environment but also reduces household waste costs. An effective waste collection system should reward positive environmental behaviour. I also recognise concerns relating to affordability, service quality, consistency of provision and illegal dumping. These are legitimate public policy issues and they deserve careful consideration. However, while I acknowledge the intentions behind this Bill, the Government cannot support it. The principal reason is straightforward. The Bill seeks to legislate for a fundamental restructuring of Ireland's household waste collection market at the very time that Government is undertaking a comprehensive, evidence-based review of the future structure of that market. This is not about resisting reform, nor is it about defending the status quo. It is about ensuring that reform is informed by evidence. The Government has commissioned an independent study to examine the feasibility of moving Ireland's household waste collection system from the current side-by-side competition model to a franchise-based system. That study is examining the environmental, economic, operational and consumer implications of alternative market structures. It is considering issues such as service quality, competition, investment, affordability, environmental performance, implementation challenges and the wider impacts on the waste sector. Importantly, it is doing so independently and objectively. The recommendations arising from that work will be considered as part of the updated waste action plan for a circular economy and the implementation of Ireland's second whole-of-government circular economy strategy in 2027. That is the appropriate policy process. If the evidence supports significant changes to the market structure, the Government will consider those recommendations carefully. If the evidence suggests improvements can be achieved through strengthened regulation, enhanced enforcement or targeted reforms within the existing framework, those options should also be considered. That is how good public policy should be made. It should be based on evidence rather than assumption. It should be informed by independent analysis rather than anecdote. It should also consider both intended and unintended consequences before major legislative changes are introduced. The Bill before us would effectively pre-empt that process. It would commit the State to one particular market model before Government has had the opportunity to consider the findings of the independent review it commissioned. I do not believe that is a responsible way to move forward and develop national policy. The Bill assumes that replacing competition in the market with competition for the market will resolve many of the challenges facing household waste collection. However, that should not be taken as a given. In many instances, the greatest environmental and economic gains arise from strengthening the regulatory and economic measures that already underpin the existing market. Better outcomes may be achieved by improving the operation of the current system rather than replacing it entirely. That distinction is important. The objective of Government policy is not to favour one market model over another. Our objective is to maximise environmental outcomes, improve resource efficiency, provide high-quality services and support Ireland's transition to a circular economy. The Bill focuses primarily on who collects household waste and how collection contracts are awarded. However, waste collection is only one component of Ireland's broader circular economy agenda. The waste action plan for a circular economy seeks to prevent waste arising in the first place, maximise reuse, improve recycling, support producer responsibility, encourage innovation and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Similarly, the circular economy strategy recognises that achieving national and European objectives requires action across government, industry, local authorities and communities. Any reforms to household waste collection should therefore be considered as part of the wider policy framework. We should also be careful not to assume that changing market structure automatically delivers better environmental outcomes. The Bill contains no evidence demonstrating that moving to an exclusive franchise model would significantly increase recycling rates, reduce waste generation or materially improve Ireland's ability to meet its obligations under European waste and circular economy legislation. Those outcomes depend on many factors, including household behaviour, public awareness, producer responsibility schemes, recycling infrastructure, market development and effective regulation. Changing contractual arrangements alone will not necessarily address those challenges. That is why the Government believes that policy development in this area must remain evidence-based and proportionate. There is no single model of household waste collection that has been shown to be universally superior. Across Europe, countries use a variety of systems, including municipal services, regulated competitive markets, concession arrangements and hybrid models. The success of any system depends not simply on market structure but on effective regulation, enforcement, infrastructure, investment, pricing mechanisms and consumer participation. The Government's objective is not to promote one model for ideological reasons. Our objective is to identify the model that delivers the best outcomes for Ireland. That is precisely what the independent feasibility study was commissioned to do. The House should allow that work to conclude before legislating for a permanent restructuring of the sector. Deputy Sherlock has suggested that a franchise model could address issues such as illegal dumping and rising household costs. These are important concerns, and I accept that. No Member of this House underestimates the seriousness of illegal dumping. It damages our environment, imposes costs on local authorities and communities and undermines confidence in the waste management system. The Government remains fully committed to tackling illegal dumping through stronger enforcement, such as the most recent increase in litter fines, improved surveillance, enhanced compliance activity and public awareness. However, illegal dumping is a complex behavioural and enforcement challenge. There is no evidence before this House demonstrating that introducing exclusive franchise areas would, in itself, significantly reduce illegal dumping. Similarly, affordability is influenced by a number of factors, including labour costs, fuel prices, treatment costs, landfill levies, vehicle investment, inflation and regulatory requirements. There is no evidence that changing to a franchise system would automatically reduce those underlying costs. Indeed, depending on how exclusive contracts are designed, competitive pressures may diminish over the lifetime of a franchise agreement. These are precisely the questions being examined through the Government's independent feasibility study around the unintended consequences. Another important consideration is investment certainty. Ireland requires continued investment across the waste and resource sector. We need investment in collection infrastructure, recycling capacity, material recovery technologies, organic waste treatment, digital systems and innovation. Those making long-term investments require certainty regarding Government policy. Introducing fundamental legislative change before the current review is completed risks creating uncertainty for operators, investors and local authorities. The Government does not believe that such uncertainty would serve the interests of households or the wider circular economy. I now wish to address two elements of the Bill in particular, those being the proposed hardship waiver scheme and the provisions relating to landlords. At the heart of Ireland's waste policy is the polluter pays principle. This is a fundamental principle of European environmental law. It reflects the principle that those who generate waste should bear the costs associated with its management and that pricing signals should encourage waste prevention, reuse and recycling. The Government fully recognises that some households face genuine financial hardship. However, the question is not whether support should be provided. The question is how support should be provided. Waste charges are designed to recover the cost of providing the service while encouraging environmentally responsible behaviour. Introducing mandatory waivers through waste collection through waste collection permits risks weakening those incentives. Furthermore, the Bill does not explain how those costs would be funded. The costs do not disappear and they must ultimately be borne by other households, service providers or the State. Where support is required, the Government believes broader social protection measures are a more appropriate and transparent mechanism. The Bill also proposes to place responsibilities on landlords regarding waste collection in rented residential properties. Again, I understand the objective behind this proposal. However, in most rented properties it is tenants, not landlords, who generate household waste and make decisions regarding waste segregation, recycling and presentation for collection. The polluter pays principle requires responsibility to rest, as far as possible, with the person generating the waste. Landlords are generally not in a position to supervise day-to-day waste management practices within occupied properties. The Government therefore has significant concerns regarding both the practicality and effectiveness of these provisions. More broadly, the Government believes Ireland's principal challenge is not simply how household waste is collected. Our challenges include how we prevent waste from arising, how we can increase reuse and recycling, how we support producer responsibility, how we reduce emissions and how we build a genuinely circular economy. Changing the market structure for household waste collection is only one potential element of that broader agenda. That is why the Government is updating the waste action plan for a circular economy and implementing Ireland's second whole-of-government circular economy strategy. It is also why we commissioned an independent feasibility study before making decisions on major structural reform. This is the responsible course of action. It allows us to consider evidence. It allows us to continue to engage stakeholders and it allows us to develop reforms that are effective, proportionate and capable of delivering long-term environmental and economic benefits. The Government shares many of the aspirations underpinning this Bill. We want high-quality services, strong environmental performance, affordable services for households, to eliminate illegal dumping and to accelerate Ireland's transition to a circular economy. However, we do not believe this Bill provides the right mechanism to achieve those objectives. For the reasons I have outlined, and while acknowledging the constructive intentions of Deputy Sherlock, the Government cannot support the Bill at this time. Instead, we are continuing to pursue an evidence-led reform, informed by independent analysis, stakeholder engagement and the updated waste action plan for a circular economy in order that any future changes to Ireland's waste collection system are based not on assumption, but real facts and evidence and deliver lasting benefits for households, communities and the State.

Sentiment score: 0.02

I thank all the Deputies who contributed to today's debate. I acknowledge and appreciate the thoughtful and constructive manner in which this debate has engaged with a really important issue. The one broad consensus and fundamental point that has been raised is that we all want a household waste collection system that is affordable, reliable and environmentally sustainable but also has the capacity to support Ireland's transition to a more circular economy. We want to continue to invest in ensuring we have cleaner communities and higher recycling rates. Deputy Sherlock made that point. We want to reduce illegal dumping and indeed we want a waste service that meets the needs of our householders, communities and businesses. We also want to see a well-designed waste collection system that not only delivers environmental benefits but also provides householders with the opportunity to reduce their own household waste costs through reducing residual waste, correctly segregating recyclable materials and correctly segregating organic materials. All this can contribute to minimising disposal costs while contributing to our circular economy objectives. I acknowledge Deputy Sherlock bringing the Bill forward. It provides us with the clear and genuine desire to improve the household waste collection system and to address the concerns that many have in regard to service provision, affordability and environmental outcomes. Those concerns are legitimate and deserve careful consideration. I also acknowledge Deputy McAuliffe for the constructive points he made. As I outlined, however, the Government does not believe this Bill represents the appropriate means to address those challenges. As I said, the central proposal contained in the Bill is to replace the current household waste collection market with a mandatory franchise model. That is a really significant structural reform that has potentially far more implications for householders, local authorities, waste operators and the wider circular economy. That is precisely why the Government is opposing the Bill. It relates to the requirement for robust evidence, which involves looking at the pros and cons. I genuinely do not believe a CCPC report or a local authority report has that robust, evidence-led, fact-finding analysis. As I said, the Government commissioned the independent report and study to examine the feasibility of transitioning Ireland's household waste collection system from the current side-by-side system to a more franchised model. That work examines the environmental, economic and operational implications and considers the experience of other jurisdictions and specific circumstances that apply here in Ireland. Importantly, the purpose of that study is not to validate a predetermined outcome. It is to provide an objective evidence base upon which further policy decisions can be made. Regarding the wider objectives, namely, to deliver better environmental outcomes, support householders and encourage investment, we need to continue to ensure we have investment in more innovative recycling centres. We have a lack of capacity so we need to continue that, and investment certainty is really important in that regard but also to enable Ireland to meet both our national and European obligations, which are far reaching. These will all benefit from a stable and predictable policy framework. That certainty is really important as we want to continue to invest in our waste collection system. I again thank Deputy Sherlock for bringing the Bill forward and look forward to continuing our engagement with Members of this House. I thank the Ceann Comhairle, members of staff and everyone in Leinster House for their work over the past number of months. I wish them a very happy summer and wish the Mayo team, its manager Andy Moran and all the supporters who will travel up to Croke Park Sunday week for the All-Ireland final well. It will be a very exciting day and we hope they can deliver this time. I am sure we will end that 75-year famine.

Sentiment score: 0.21