Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action debate -
Tuesday, 18 Jun 2024

The meeting today will be split into two sessions. In the first session, we will hear from officials from the Department of Environment, Climate and Communications and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. In the second session we will have representatives from the Rediscovery Centre and Community Resources Network Ireland. The purpose of both sessions is to have a discussion on the circular economy as it relates to consumer durables. On behalf of the committee, I welcome to the room the following witnesses from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment: Mr. Barry McGreal, principal officer, and Ms. Claire O'Brien, assistant principal officer. Joining us online are Mr. Niall McLoughlin, principal officer for circular economy strategic policy, Ms Bernie Kiely, principal officer for circular economy materials management, and Ms Danielle McCormack, assistant principal officer. They are very welcome.

Before we begin I will read a note on privilege. I remind our guests of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. If their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, I will direct them to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside of the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I also remind members that they may only participate in the meeting if they are physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex. I ask that members who are joining us virtually to confirm prior to make their contribution that they are on the grounds of Leinster House.

I invite Mr. McLoughlin to make his opening statement.

I thank the Chair and members for the invitation to appear today to discuss the circular economy as it relates to consumer durables and to report on producer responsibility schemes.

As we are all aware, the linear economic model of take-make-waste is environmentally and economically unsustainable, with global resource consumption outstripping the planet’s natural resource capacity. Achieving a circular economy will play a crucial role in reducing global carbon impact and protecting natural resources, environment and health. A circular economy has the potential to significantly reduce our dependency on primary resource extraction and complex global supply chains, thereby strengthening State and business resilience in the face of supply shocks.

In a circular economy, waste and resource use is minimised and the value of products and materials is maintained for as long as possible. Materials can be designed to be less resource intensive and waste can be recaptured as a resource to manufacture new materials and products. In a circular economy, when a product has reached its end of life, its material parts can then be used again to create new, refurbished or remanufactured products. The Government has been making real progress in making the circular economy a reality in Ireland, with significant pro-circular policy and legislation introduced in recent years.

The Circular Economy and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2022 underpins Ireland's shift to a more sustainable pattern of production and consumption that retains the value of resources in the economy for as long as possible. Ireland's first whole-of-government circular economy strategy, published in late 2021, established an overall approach to circular economy policy, identifying key objectives and setting the direction of future policy development. This includes the future development of sectoral circular economy roadmaps, including, for example, consumer goods, with potential actions highlighted, such as: promoting design for improved repairability, durability and increased energy efficiency; increased level of remanufacturing for consumer goods; increased use of extended producer responsibility schemes; incentivised take-back and refurbishment models for large household goods; and addressing product liability for repaired and reused goods. Work continues on the next iteration of the circular economy strategy, which will have a statutory basis and, in line with the requirements under the circular economy Act, will set out sectoral targets for reductions in material resource consumption, increased levels of repair and reuse and increases in the use of reusable products and materials.

Ensuring that the targets selected are appropriate requires a robust evidence base. In this regard, the Department has commissioned a circularity gap analysis to understand how raw materials are processed and assembled to become products that address the country's needs. This analysis will provide an evidence base and key recommendations for informing the second whole-of-government circular economy strategy, which will drive the circular economy transition and revamp production and consumption patterns. The strategy will be subject to public consultation and Government approval and will be published this year.

The recently adopted directive promoting the repair of broken or defective goods, also known as the right-to-repair directive, will make it easier for consumers to seek repair instead of replacement, and repair services will become more accessible, transparent and attractive. It gives manufacturers the incentive to make products that last longer and can be repaired, reused and recycled. It complements other recent EU legislation to promote sustainable consumption, such as the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, which will promote the production of repairable products, and the directive on empowering consumers for the green transition, which will enable consumers to make better informed purchasing decisions at the point of sale.

Textiles is a good example of a material stream where a focus on consumer durables not only is important but also can help achieve our ambition for the circular economy. Recently, there have been important policy and legislative developments at EU level which will have a positive impact on circularity in textiles in Ireland, from the design stages to post-consumer textiles. The EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles, launched by the European Commission in 2022, sets a 2030 vision whereby textile products placed on the EU market are long-lived and recyclable, to a great extent made of recycled fibres, free of hazardous substances and produced respecting social rights and the environment. Textiles will also be a priority product under the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation. The Commission plans to develop mandatory eco-design requirements to make textiles last longer and to make them easier to repair and recycle, as well as requirements on minimum recycled content. This groundbreaking legislation will also introduce a digital product passport for textiles based on mandatory information requirements on circularity and other key environmental aspects. This legislation, once implemented in Ireland, will be key to achieving our circular economy ambitions for textiles as products will be designed for durability, repairability and recyclability.

Reuse, repair and remanufacturing are key activities to support resource efficiency within a circular economy. The Environmental Protection Agency has established a national reuse and repair network to bring together relevant public bodies and national organisations to facilitate knowledge-sharing and engagement to support and scale reuse and repair in Ireland. Network activities will align to include the following strategic outcomes: reuse and repair skills are building within the population, and opportunities exist to develop skills and employment; barriers to reuse and repair are removed and opportunities are readily available; repair and reuse are standard practice in priority areas; and effective communications on reuse and repair are in place.

Repairmystuff.ie is a publicly funded national online directory of repair organisations that was established in 2018. The EPA's circular economy programme has provided grant aid funding to support Repairmystuff.ie for its initial development and its ongoing maintenance and management as a national resource to support repair of consumer goods and drive the circular economy.

The Department has provided funding to support Community Resources Network Ireland, a network for community reuse, repair and recycling organisations, including several involved in furniture reuse and repair.

Green public procurement can play a key role in the circular transition in stimulating the creation and provision of more resource-efficient, less polluting goods. This includes supporting reuse, repair and remanufacturing. When procuring goods, services or works, consideration needs to be given to avoiding unnecessary purchases; rethinking how the demand can be met in a way that requires fewer or better value goods to be purchased; resource-sharing, reuse or repair options; and building flexibility into contracts and frameworks in order that the nature and volume of supply best reflects changing and future needs.

The EPA's green public procurement guidance and criteria for ten product sectors and services helps public procurers in ensuring environmental sustainability of purchasing decisions. These include, for example, criteria related to extended product lifespan, durability and reuse for ICT procurement. In April, the Department published Buying Greener: Green Public Procurement Strategy and Action Plan 2024-2027, which will play a key role in driving the implementation of green and circular procurement practices across the public sector. The strategy includes a key sectoral focus with green public procurement targets set out for a number of areas of public procurement within the economy. For example, by 2025, a minimum of 80% of ICT end-user products such as desktop computers, portable computers and mobile phones procured by public sector bodies under new contract arrangements will be certified to electronic product environmental assessment tool, EPEAT, gold standard or equivalent, TCO certified or equivalent or will have been remanufactured. By the end of 2027, where possible and available, a minimum proportion of annual procurement by public sector bodies shall include used or repaired goods or materials.

Innovation and demonstration is a key support in transitioning to a circular economy. The circular economy innovation grant scheme funded by the Department aims to support innovation and demonstration circular economy projects by small to medium enterprises and social enterprises. Some €650,000 has been allocated to support the scheme in 2024, bringing total funding to €1.8 million since the scheme launched in 2021. This year’s funding call will be announced tomorrow and proposals for repair and reuse will be welcome. CIRCULÉIRE, which receives funding from the Department, is a public private partnership co-created by Irish Manufacturing Research to assist manufacturers and their supply chains to achieve a circular transition. It is a circular manufacturing platform dedicated to the development of innovation and demonstration projects that are designed to support the transition from a linear to a circular economy. Activities include a focus on reuse, repair, remanufacturing and recirculation strategies.

Education and awareness are highly important in communicating to businesses and wider society the value and benefits of transitioning to a circular economy, including promoting sustainable consumption. The Department provides annual funding to and works in partnership with regional waste management planning offices to deliver public education and awareness campaigns on waste prevention and management and encouraging people in all sectors of society to embrace circularity. Funding has also recently been approved for the Rediscovery Centre, which, as the committee knows, is a leading circular economy organisation based in Ballymun, to develop and build a circular economy communications platform and complementary actions to support excellence in communications for a circular economy. The intention is that the platform will provide a national communication platform to connect key activities of the circular economy and support the development of a circular economy in Ireland. Ireland uses the extended producer responsibility, EPR, model as a policy tool to ensure that recycling targets for certain waste streams are met. This operates on the polluter pays principle. Under EPR, producers are financially responsible for the environmentally sound management of their products at end of life. EPR schemes have been introduced in Ireland for packaging, batteries, waste electrical and electronic equipment, end-of-life vehicles, tyres, farm plastics and tobacco filter products. The Department works with operators of these schemes to enhance circularity and ensure that circular principles are promoted. To date, these schemes have operated successfully, contributed to Ireland meeting its overall environmental goals and have diverted substantial volumes of waste from landfill. For waste electronics, the Department has been supporting enhanced public awareness of the need to recycle such products. Operators of producer responsibility schemes for waste electronics are obliged to work with organisations that prepare such items for reuse once they are appropriately qualified.

In 2023, the European Commission announced a new legislative proposal to revise the waste framework directive with respect to food waste and textiles. It proposes to introduce mandatory EPR schemes for textiles in all member states, with eco-modulation of fees to support the existing EU requirement to have a separate collection of textiles in place by quarter 1 or January of next year. One of its stated objectives is to curb fast fashion and to extend the lifetime of textile products. Producers will be required to cover the costs of the management of textile waste, which will serve as an incentive to reduce waste and increase the circularity of textile products, designing better products from the start. Negotiations on the proposal started in January, and the Department has been actively engaging in the process. The Department will continue to progress key actions on EPR schemes including relevant measures set out in Ireland’s waste action plan for a circular economy. Further EPR schemes will be introduced for the waste streams listed in the single-use plastics directive, such as wet wipes, balloons and fishing gear.

We cannot continue to consume things without thinking about where the resources to make those things come from and how the waste from those products will be disposed of. We cannot continue to make, use and throw away. As already stated, the linear take, make, use, and dispose economy is unsustainable and driving the climate emergency. The extraction and processing of natural resources make up half of total global greenhouse gas emissions and more than 90% of water stress and biodiversity loss impact, according to the International Resource Panel.

Product reuse and repair are the building blocks of circular economy which can contribute to climate change mitigation by preventing resource depletion, diverting products and materials from landfills and incineration and reducing energy demand. We have been making progress on the circular transition in recent years, particularly in terms of policy and legislation at EU and national levels but we must continue to harness that momentum to effect real change. Raising awareness of the benefits of a circular economy to consumers is key to implementing circular business models. An effective circular business model relies on mindful consumption based on needs and a focus on affordability so that everyone can access sustainable products.

Through measures such as increased awareness, better-informed consumption decisions and appropriate incentives, we can further create the right conditions for the circular transition. Go raibh maith ag an gCathaoirleach.

I thank the Chair and the committee for the opportunity to give an update on the directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules promoting the repair of goods and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2394, Directives (EU) 2019/771 and (EU) 2020/1828. As already outlined, I am accompanied today by my colleague, Ms Claire O’Brien, assistant principal officer.

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment recognises the importance of giving consumers more choice, information and protection. The Department works to maintain an agile, efficient regulatory regime that promotes fair competition for both businesses and consumers and safeguards strong, transparent consumer rights to ensure value for money, quality customer care and protection from unsafe products. The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission is the statutory body responsible for enforcing consumer protection and competition law in Ireland and its mission is to make markets work better for consumers and businesses. It is an independent investigative and enforcement body under the aegis of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. I am representing the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and our focus in the right to repair directive stems from this mandate I have just outlined, which is the protection of consumers and our desire to support consumers in the green transition by providing for sustainable consumption and aiding the circular economy.

On 22 March 2023 a proposal for a directive was published by the European Commission on the common rules promoting the repair of goods. The right to repair directive reached provisional political agreement at trilogues on the 1 February 2024. It was voted on and approved by the European Parliament on the 22 April and

it was adopted by the Council on the 30 May. It is expected to be published in the official journal in the coming days. It will then have a two year transposition period before it comes into operation.

I will briefly go through some of the key articles of that directive. Article 4 sets out details of a European repair information form. This is a form that repairers can choose to provide to consumers when the consumer enquires about a repair. The form will set out all the details of the repair, including the price, timelines and if a replacement good can be provided while the repair is being carried out. They are designed to enable consumers to compare repair offerings.

The main changes the directive brings in are in Article 5 - obligation to repair. This relates to goods that have to be repairable under European law. These are listed in annex II to the directive and include large household appliances as well as mobile phones and tablets. For these goods, once the directive comes into operation, the manufacturer will have to offer a repair service, either directly or sub-contracted. The manufacturer can offer the repair service for free or for a reasonable price. If a manufacturer offers spare parts to enable repair, then they need to do so at a reasonable price so as not to deter repairs. A manufacturer will have to provide the indicative prices for repair on a website so consumers will have access to information to help inform their decision-making around a repair.

Manufacturers will be forbidden from using any contractual clauses, hardware or software techniques that would impede the repair of the goods that have to be repairable. This will include a ban on impeding the use of any compatible spare parts, including 3D printed parts, once the parts conform with product safety or intellectual property law. This will enable independent repairers to make repairs more easily. Manufacturers will also not be able to refuse to repair a good because someone else has tried to repair it first.

Article 7 deals with the European online platform for repair. The EU will set up a website that will contain the details of repairers by country. Repairers, sellers of refurbished goods, purchasers of defective goods for refurbishment and community-led repair initiatives will be able to include their details on this site to enable consumers to find the most appropriate repair service.

What does this mean for consumers? It will ensure they will be able to get a repair for their appliances outside the liability period. Consumers will also be able to check the price of a repair by the manufacturer and to then compare it with the price of a repair by an independent repairer. The directive also maintains the consumer right to choose between a repair and a replacement if there is an issue with their goods during the legal guarantee period.

What does this mean for business? It will encourage the repair industry. It will allow small repairers to use 3D printed parts or parts other than those sold by the manufacturer to repair goods. Repairers will be able to see the price of a repair by the manufacturer to enable them to compete with this price.

It will allow repairers and those who purchase goods for repair or who sell refurbished goods to advertise their services on an EU website.

What will happen next? As I have said, there is a two year period for transposition of the directive. We are awaiting publication, which we expect in the next few days. As part of this process, we will be considering what body will be responsible for enforcement of the directive and if further public consultation is required. We will also be ensuring both businesses and consumers are aware of the changes this directive will bring. I am happy to answer any questions members have.

I thank both speakers for their opening statements. The direction of travel here is clear. We need to see more of the goods and products that are sold being repairable and options being put in place for people. A lot of goods, particularly electronic goods, are imported from outside of the European Union. Some are CE certified while some are not. How will that play into all of this? What level of responsibility lies with the manufacturer and with the people in the middle? It is usually the latter whom the consumer ends up dealing with.

The burden comes down the supply chain from the manufacturer. There is an obligation on the manufacturer to produce repairable goods and to offer a repair service. Where the manufacturer does not have a presence in the EU, the obligation is on the importer. If the importer does not have a presence in the EU, the obligation is on the distributor of the product. It steps from the manufacturer down the line. There is an obligation all the way down the line to the consumer.

As the Deputy can imagine, a distributor would not necessarily want to have this obligation. Where he or she is distributing goods on behalf of a manufacturer that is not meeting its obligations, the distributor might ask whether it is worth delivering and distributing these goods if it means taking on this burden. That causes pressure to flow back up the supply chain to the manufacturer to meet those obligations.

Does this have potential to increase the price of goods? The old Dunnes Stores slogan, stack them high and sell them cheap, has been around for a long time and we still see that in many cases. What we are talking about here is trying to move to a higher quality of product. That could pose problems for people, especially those on lower incomes or who have difficulties with their budget. There could be issues there. Where is the balance to be found in that regard?

It is a fair point. The Deputy is right; it is about balance. This is a new initiative. The right to repair will kick in a few days from now plus two years. It is about that balance. We have access to research that shows some consumers are willing to pay a little bit more to have goods that are repairable and to have options. However, there is a balance we must get right. It is something new, something we will watch and something the EU itself will monitor and revise in the years ahead. There is a review period built into the directive. Those are issues that will be kept under review. On balance, giving consumers the choice of goods that are repairable is a good option for those consumers. The ability to repair items rather than having to replace them regularly could reduce costs in the longer term.

I will come back to my first point. How much of this is being done in other jurisdictions outside of the European Union such as America, south-east Asia and places like that? Is there a trend towards more repairable and better quality goods? A nephew of mine recently visited China. When we hear about China, we hear that it is a completely wasteful society. However, he told me that 80% of the cars he saw in the city he lived in were electric cars and that every roof space had solar panels. It was astonishing to hear these stories and that, in the place we have been told is where all this waste is happening, the situation was the opposite to what our imagination would tell us or what the story has been up to now. Is this change happening in those jurisdictions where these throwaway items have traditionally come from?

Colleagues from the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications who would have wider circular economy responsibilities might want to chip in, but from my perspective on this, with the right to repair directive, and we also have the ecodesign directive in the Department, certainly the idea is to drive behaviour to put an obligation on manufacturers to design repairable products, and that obligation will be on all goods coming into the EU. I cannot speak to consumer patterns in China or wherever but certainly, the EU will be trying to change consumer patterns in the EU to move towards repairability by giving greater access to information about pricing, repairability and products that are designed to be repairable and giving people the information and the choice to do and carry out that.

My sense of it is that a lot of these items are manufactured outside the EU. Therefore, where there might be obligations, they will be on manufacturers outside and where there is an opportunity inside for repairability, yes, that would be my sense. It is not mandatory. There are forms that repairers have to fill out. We are conscious that some people would perhaps be operating quite small businesses. They can choose to participate in this. They can take a watch-and-see approach to how successful it is and choose to take part. We are not obliging them to do it. If they do take part, they can offer quotations for repair. We think there is an opportunity here, absolutely, for small businesses to grow.

I would like to reiterate the point that was made previously in terms of any potential increases in the cost of the product that might be arriving in Ireland, the repairability and durability aspect of the improved product that is being made available to people, which supports what we are talking about in terms of resource efficiency and reuse and recycling and, ultimately, what we are talking about here, which is repair. I think we are all confident that this will ultimately save consumers money because of the fact that they will not have to replace that product as quickly as they might otherwise have had to. We all know there are a number of barriers to repair in Ireland, and cost is certainly one of them. The better the quality and repairability of the product that is coming, however, the quality and durability will mean it will actually require less maintenance than the previous product. From our perspective, therefore, it is certainly a win-win scenario.

I thank our witnesses this morning very much. I really only have one interrelated question to the one already posed. Do the regulations go far enough to stamp out built-in obsolescence of consumer products? It is an issue I firmly aware of in the computer area with the extreme difficulty in repairing certain products. As was highlighted by Mr. McGreal with regard to the regulation and certain products with the right to repair directive, they do not accept non-genuine parts or rather their own parts but parts that conform with the requirements of the piece of hardware in the first instance. I can only use one example, and I am not picking on it, but Apple has an activation lock on a lot of its devices that can render a relatively new device completely obsolete. It cannot be reactivated and cannot be used and, therefore, a person could have a two- or three-year old device that is a paperweight. Is it believed by those present in the committee room this morning that the directive will go far enough to stamp that out? I am sure there are other applications to the idea of built-in obsolescence. Do the witnesses have any views on it?

My sense is that the directive and combined directives have quite a broad scope. They intend to encompass all issues, including illegal contractual issues, that aim to prevent what the Deputy is talking about, that is, the ability for others to repair the issues. They are designed to include hardware and software techniques. They are designed to include the 3D printing of alternative branded manufactured parts, and that all this should be available to independent repairers. We believe it will be two years before this begins. Manufacturers and repairers will have time to get themselves ready and prepared for this, and we will communicate and raise awareness. However, we believe it has quite a broad scope to cover the issues about which the Deputy is talking.

Within Mr. McGreal's Department, would that capture the necessity for something as simplistic as the move to generic power cables to be used, for instance, on phones and other devices?

There are occasions, even today, when those cables are not cross-compatible. There are devices whose manufacturers have their own view of the quality of particular cables, especially USB-C cables. There are cables that are not accepted on certain devices but that are on others. Will the directive embolden the EU to force manufacturers to ensure their devices, whether they take USB-A cables or USB-C cables, operate appropriately?

I am not sure whether a colleague from the Department of the environment has knowledge of this. I do not have expertise on USB cables. I am aware from publicly available information that this has been a big issue in recent months, but it is not a file I am very au fait with. Perhaps colleagues on the call have information. If not, we can come back to the Deputy on this.

Yes. That file was handled by colleagues within my Department. We will certainly be happy to issue the Deputy with a written response to his very specific question.

On the Deputy's point about planned obsolescence, there is another form of planned or strategic obsolescence – I will not mention any brands – involving sequential numbers of new models, etc. There is a trend in this regard and pressure is put upon consumers to have the most up-to-date model. There is work to be done by the Department, with its stakeholders, to push back against that narrative in terms of-----

Is it a narrative, though? That is the question. I have also heard what has been said. From my experience – again, I will not name brands – I believe that from time to time there might be some truth to the online narrative that certain devices, particularly phones, slow down or are unable to compete with the newest or latest models. Is Mr. McLoughlin suggesting that the Department or the EU are researching this?

What we are suggesting is that what we have found in research, with our various stakeholders, is that there is ingrained pressure to buy the next model irrespective of whether, as the Deputy suggested, one's current model is performing to the optimum. What I am suggesting from our perspective is that there is evidence of peer pressure, etc., associated with consumer durables, particularly in the ICT and smartphone space. There is a job of work for us, working with our partners, especially in respect of the introduction of the new communications platform, to reach the relevant demographic, push back against the narrative and suggest that good enough is good enough. That is not necessarily an easy job, but we are confident that, partnered with the Rediscovery Centre, we will succeed in that effort.

I thank the witnesses for their presentation. I confirm that I am in my office in Leinster House.

May I pick up on the issue of barriers to exercising the right to repair and keep consumer durables in circulation and use? One of the issues that has been consistently raised concerns product liability and how this acts as a barrier to the increased use of repaired goods and the reuse of goods. Is this an issue that the Department is aware of and has acknowledged? Have any measures been taken in this regard? Maybe it is working with other Departments. I guess it is a cross-departmental issue.

As I understand it, the Deputy is talking about consumers' statutory rights in terms of product liability outside warranty and guarantee periods.

These are currently set at six years in Ireland. I do not want to say definitively but I think that is the longest period in the EU. It is certainly among the longest periods. We have a strong position whereby consumers can already exercise those rights. The directive on the right to repair will not extend those rights beyond six years. However, in particular instances, it is laid out that certain items should be made reparable for periods of up to ten years or longer. While one will have the existing statutory right to exercise the right to repair for six years, the directive will, in certain instances, put a burden on manufacturers to ensure that spare parts are available in certain categories for longer periods. When one is outside one's statutory period, one will still be able to get a quotation for the repair of a product.

I thank Mr. McGreal. I do not know if Senator Higgins is in the committee room but she hosted a briefing in the audiovisual room a number of weeks ago with colleagues from recycling centres in Copenhagen. They are doing lots of positive work in the area by employing a social enterprise model that we do not have here. Has the Department looked at that type of model for the city or for local authorities, for example? Is there an opportunity to involve communities in a social enterprise endeavour with a particular focus on reuse and the circular economy? Are particular options being considered? Is the Department exploring such opportunities?

I thank the Deputy. I will touch briefly on the point he made about liability. Research has demonstrated that there are concerns with regard to electrical equipment in particular. The learned experience shows that repaired and refurbished items might not work properly or might fail after a short time. In response, one of the projects funded under the circular economy innovation grant scheme was in association with Community Resources Network Ireland. We introduced the reuse quality mark of excellence, ReMark, with the objective of strengthening consumer confidence in reused goods and services. A good pilot was run to which Dr. Miller and I might speak a little later.

The Deputy asked about the involvement of social enterprise or community groups, etc., with local authorities and community facilities, particularly in the context of the recycling network we have. There are a number of different issues. Local authorities partner with social and community groups across the country on every area of recycling, reuse and reparability, including through supporting repair cafés and community toy-sharing projects. A range of initiatives is going on. Where we are falling short in comparison with our colleagues in Denmark is in respect of our infrastructure at local level. We must examine whether that infrastructure is at the optimum level to support reuse and repair activity. A civic amenity facility may not have appropriate coverage or the appropriate receptacles that would optimise the electrical equipment or consumer durables deposited at the facility. If that infrastructure is not up to scratch, we have lost an opportunity to use what we have arriving at our sites and have lost the opportunity to engage further with local organisations. In that regard, a review of civic amenity, CA, sites was undertaken a number of years ago and the report has been under consideration by the County and City Management Association, CCMA, for some time. We are engaging directly with the CCMA and the national waste management planning offices about a review of that infrastructure to make the CA sites circular economy hot spots or hubs, if you like, whereby the material left there is able to be used. There may be legislative barriers to leaving material in such areas because when it is brought to a CA site, it becomes waste. We will have to consider the mechanisms available to us to change that. The review is ongoing and intensifying. We want to see that reflected in the circular economy strategy, which will come out later this year.

The waste management plans have a new target of 20 kg of reuse per person for the future.

That is a huge gap that we have to bridge. Our infrastructure will have to play a key role in that.

I thank Mr. McLoughlin. I will finish with a comment. They are not using the social enterprise model in Copenhagen, but the municipality, state and local authorities. That is a related point. We may want to see that as well and to engage with the CCMA and others about whether the local authorities can do that. Leveraging the decades-long experience of local authorities would be important if we are to deliver something and have a new way of doing things become mainstream. I look forward to updates on that. I thank the witnesses and the Chair.

I thank the witnesses for coming in. I ran repair cafés in the past. The biggest issue we had was insurance. I identify with some of the issues the witnesses mentioned about infrastructure. On the ground with some of the social enterprises in Galway, such as Bounce Back Recycling and An Mheitheal Rothar, the biggest issue is the lack of support from municipal waste services. If they had covered shelters where people could drop off their bikes or mattresses, they could be assured that those products would be good quality and fit to repair or indeed to turn into something else. It is great that we have action on it and that we are seeing that the large corporations in particular will have this new obligation to repair, but there is an awful lot to get right for small businesses. It has to be made viable commercially. Even for social enterprises, it is not quite viable at the moment.

I would like to hear what the immediate plans are to address those things. I know that not every council is on board, even in principle, so there has to be regulation at a national level in order that individual small companies like An Mheitheal Rothar or social enterprises do not have to do all the negotiation with a council on their own, because it will not work like that. This comes up at the doors quite a bit. People mention that the washing machine from when they were children is still in their mam's house, yet now when people go to purchase a washing machine, they know it will break in a couple of years. It would be welcome if the public got on board but, as we know from other schemes, the detail has to be got right. It is good to have two years but there is a lack of detail of how this might be implemented.

I thank Senator O'Reilly. That is feedback that we receive in the Department too. It is critical in how we formulate our next iteration of the circular economy strategy. That upward feedback is important and we deal with a number of different businesses, including medium, small and indeed some larger businesses. A number of supports are available to them. I point again to the circular economy innovation grant scheme, which the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, will launch tomorrow. There is substantial scope in that to apply for grant funding. It is being administered this year by Community Foundation Ireland, CFI, on behalf of the Department. CFI probably has greater capacity than us to work closely with potential applicants to analyse the business cases that are being brought forward and to have the greatest chance for success. I encourage organisations like that to engage with the process which will be launched tomorrow.

There are very ambitious plans, as I said, in respect of local authorities, municipalities and the civic amenity network. It was designed by the sector for the sector in the context of the national waste management plan, which was launched in March. It is beholden on local authorities to seriously consider the infrastructure they have in place and how they are corresponding with, relating to and supporting local organisations, be they enterprises or social community groups, in the repair and reuse space. That is essential if we are to reach the targets they have set themselves, as a sector, under their plan. There is certainly a lack of data on repairability from a local authority perspective. Local authorities are working with the Department and the EPA on a roadmap for a local repair network that can be introduced over the coming months. That will also be a very important step in this space.

I also make the point that local authorities receive funding directly from WEEE compliance schemes to support the infrastructure they have in place. They receive €1.2 million a year from those schemes to put in place the required cover, etc. Whether this has been done or not at local level varies from local authority to local authority. Ten civic amenity sites have been immediately identified in the national waste management plan for a circular economy, which should be scaled up as a priority and in the immediate future to act as exemplars of best practice that can be replicated across the local authority sector.

As I said, the Department is engaging very intensively with local authorities. It is hoped to have a roadmap in place very shortly. We are looking at what supports can be provided from the centre to ensure that the network we have in place is fit for purpose in the context of transitioning to the circular economy.

I will raise one matter that occurred to me, which comes up particularly with bike repair. It can be quite expensive to buy replacement parts. One issue is that bike repair is faced with double VAT, in a sense, because VAT is on the initial product and the replacement parts. It makes it quite expensive for a business to then sell that on. Does Mr. McLoughlin have any thoughts on that? Is there any movement on it?

The issue of VAT is raised across a range of different areas. It is something we continue to consider in conjunction with colleagues in the Department of Finance, etc. There is nothing immediate, however. Notwithstanding that, as the Senator knows, a number of bike schemes are supported through the local authority sector. Some work has been done on providing training opportunities to inmates in certain prisons for refurbishment of bikes that arrive at local authority civic amenity sites, which have proved very valuable recently.

That is all very welcome. I thank Mr. McLoughlin for that. I also thank the Department for continuing to consider it. It is about things moving out of social enterprise, or something based around a social good, to something that actually makes a company money. That is where the lapse is. That is something that needs to be looked at, if this is to really take off throughout the country.

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. When the circular economy Act was passed, we envisaged that we would have the circular economy strategy within six months. It seems that two years on we are still talking about analysing the baseline from which the strategy would evolve. What has gone so radically wrong with the original intention?

That in itself is a bit of a cop-out. We brought in a strategy that envisaged six months, but the relevant section was not activated so we do not have a strategy.

It is hard to square that with the sense of urgency that people feel about the use of materials that have huge emission impact, etc.

As I said, we have got the circular gap report on the way at this point. We had our first national coalition meeting to discuss the baseline results last month. The next meeting of the coalition will be held next week. Following that, we will be looking at a draft circular gap report, which is really important. If we are to be imposing or suggesting targets across a range of sectors across a number of Departments, we absolutely must have the evidence base that is required to go to other Departments - housing, agriculture and ourselves - in terms of being able to prove the concept and say that these targets stack up and here is the evidential base we have for it. On that circular gap report, a draft will be with the Department at the end of July.

Under the climate action plan, we have committed to publish a circular economy strategy this year. That is our absolute intention. That is a priority for the division.

I will ask about the existing producer responsibility schemes. Can Mr. McLoughlin give the committee the current recovery rates and the destination of the material recovered? The purpose of this is to recover a high percentage and then see that the material is reused in some fashion that would give the highest value potential. Does Mr. McLoughlin have them available now? I have not seen them published for quite some time and I worry that they are not as good has we would like to expect.

Apologies, I had an IT durability issue and I had to step in next door into Mr. McLoughlin's room. There are a number of extended producer responsibility schemes, as the Deputy will be aware. The EPA publishes data every year in terms of the official figures reported to Eurostat on the recycling and recovery rates. It is around this time of year. It is 18 months after the expiry of the calendar year involved. We will have 2022 statistics coming on line around this time. The deadlines are mid-year for schemes such as WEEE, packaging, etc. Some schemes are national schemes, for example, tyres and firm plastics, and they do not have a European reporting rate. We can collate the latest position for the Deputy and share it with the committee.

That would be excellent to get. On the reuse, the fear is that it is exported in a ship and no one really cares much as to what happens afterwards where the intention is to recover to get a maximum value. What information has the Department on the value of the chain after these materials are recovered?

It depends really on the stream one is talking about. As the Deputy will be aware, many of the producer schemes were conceived at a time where recycling was the height of the ambition and now there is a generational shift in terms of ambition and recycling is no longer good enough. We are at that point in time of transitioning to a point where we are requiring producers to include reuse as part of their ambition rather than just recycling. That is happening at European level as well, as the Deputy will be aware. There are new regulations agreed for batteries.

The new packaging regulation is just over the line. There are new legislative texts up for negotiation.

I would have thought that was relatively low-hanging fruit, and that we would not need a strategy to start to tighten some of those matters.

I want to ask about the green procurement baseline. Reading what Ms Kiely said will come out of this, the only sector she seemed to be firm about was ICT. It struck me that it is probably happening anyhow. It is not a stretch target that by 2025 a minimum of 80% ICT would be certified to have a certain amount of reused content. It seems a very low baseline for something that is trumpeted as a green procurement strategy that we do not have targets around the use of certain materials in construction in terms of a whole-of-life assessment so that disposal is taken into account. As of today, is this green procurement strategy making a real difference? What is the Department benchmarking in terms of where we are today versus where we need to be in 2027? It strikes me that the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications is a step away from the action. Why is the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, which holds the purse strings, the one that is driving and insisting on green procurement? I would like to know that the approach has teeth: that there is a baseline, which the Department is monitoring, and that people who ignore the guidelines are brought to heel in some way in their procurement approach.

Deputy Bruton is right. There is a user-explain element to the green public procurement action plan. A range of actions and targets are in place. As the Deputy said, the OGP is responsible for procurement under the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. He mentioned low-hanging fruit, but yesterday's announcement of the contract for re-manufactured laptops, which has an estimated value of up to €30 million, and will potentially equip civil servants and public servants with up to 60,000 re-manufactured laptops, is at the cutting edge of the circular economy. It goes beyond refurbishment. That is very welcome. It has been driven by the OGP and the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. It is the first such framework in Europe, so it is ground-breaking in that context. We work very closely with the OGP on green public procurement. A revision is now required to the previous circular on Buying Green!. The Deputy is right in what we said about the system having teeth. We want to do that because the EPA report on green public procurement in the public sector does not make fantastic reading.

The OGP has a very bad record. Saying the Department is working closely with it does not fill me with confidence. At some point higher up in the hierarchy of command, there has to be a decision that green procurement matters. The EPA is right in saying it has not really impacted. I do not know how-----

There is no evidence that sort of leading by example has been a feature.

For my last question, I return to the issue of repair. It strikes me that the whole trend has been towards shorter life – replace rather than repair. That has been the commercial model. Changing this will be expensive for the sector. Does the regulatory impact assessment, RIA, on this repair show the requisite high cost this will be? I am told that the life of washing machines has shortened. The life of clothing certainly has shortened, which is partly consumer choice. The whole direction of the model has been to shorten the life of these goods. Do we know that this will bite in the sense that it has a regulatory impact of some substance? If it does not, one suspects it is a tick-box exercise where it will be said that we have our information sheet and our price for spare parts or whatever it is, but it does not actually happen on the ground.

I think the Deputy is right; that is it. It is about a behavioural issue and nudging companies towards this - not nudging, rather it is legally obliging them to build this in. I have a page of figures in front of me that I will not read out but, essentially, the European Commission conducted a significant regulatory impact analysis in respect of the right to repair directive. I think it received 331 responses to that. It set out its cost-benefit analysis of what that will mean for companies. I am happy to share that document. It suggests there will absolutely be cost for business. Our colleagues in other parts of the Department who are working on the ecodesign regulation are currently working on an impact assessment for that regulation. They are transposing a regulation whereas this is a directive. If it is okay, we can put together a synopsis of that assessment and share it through the Chair.

No. That was considered in the negotiations on the directive. It sets out that you enjoy the same rights and also, although I hope it would not come to this, if something were to go wrong, the manufacturer cannot then refuse to repair again because somebody else made a botched attempt at it.

I do not want to use up the time inappropriately, but I wish to comment on an earlier point. I cannot remember but it may have been Deputy Farrell who asked specifically about the issue of obsolescence. I addressed that but I neglected to say that we have a third directive that has come into place. It has not kicked in but it has been agreed and the transposition clock is ticking. It is called the directive on “empowering consumers for the green transition through better protection against unfair [commercial] practices”. Essentially, it strengthens the existing unfair commercial practices directives and it specifically includes issues such as early obsolescence. I should have mentioned that in my earlier response.

From Rediscovery Ireland I welcome Dr. Sarah Miller, chief executive officer, and Ms Claire Downey, director of policy and research. From Community Resources Network Ireland we have Mr. Chris Mooney-Brown, executive director, Ms Una Lavelle, director, Ms Bernie Connolly, chair, who is from my neck of the woods, and Ms Emma Kavanagh, network director.

Before we continue I must read the note on privilege. I remind witnesses of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that may be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, witnesses will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction. I call Dr. Miller.

I thank the Chair and committee members for inviting us to present our vision for consumer durables in a circular economy. The Rediscovery Centre is the national centre for the circular economy. For the past 20 years, the centre has been focused on leading Ireland’s transition to a circular economy. Based in Ballymun in Europe's first circular economy demonstration centre, the Rediscovery Centre acts as an innovation hub and creative space delivering education, providing research and enabling policy in collaboration to support the transition. Our work covers wide-ranging circular economy themes, but in this statement we will focus on our operational research and advocacy experience in reuse and repair through social enterprises working with textiles, bikes, paint and furniture. We are going to start by sharing our vision for these consumer durables in a circular economy and conclude with some suggestions and solutions as to how that vision can be realised. For this I am going to pass over to Ms Downey.

Our vision for the future of consumer durables in Ireland is threefold. First of all, Ireland’s consumption rates will be dramatically reduced. Our consumption rates are currently high when compared with those of other regions. The circular material use rate, CMUR, is the ratio between recycled materials and overall material use. Ours is the second lowest in Europe at 1.8%. Our EPA-funded research indicates this is primarily due to high economy-wide consumption levels, particularly related to construction materials and biomass, and low recycling rates compared with other regions. Studies on the consumption of specific consumer durables are limited. However, the EPA-funded study relating to textiles, led by Clean Technology Centre with the Rediscovery Centre, CRNI and Charity Retail Ireland, found Ireland’s consumption of textiles is high at 53 kg per person. Current research into Ireland’s circularity gap, which is being conducted by Circle Economy for the Department, will provide further insights into our consumption patterns and circularity through alternative methodologies, which we welcome. From what we know it is already very clear our consumption rates need to be dramatically reduced.

The second part of our vision for consumer durables is that Ireland's reuse and future repair targets effectively drive change. We are hopeful the suite of national statutory targets introduced through the Circular Economy and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2022 and national waste management plan for a circular economy will underpin significant growth in the sector. These targets primarily relate to consumer durables. The Q2 Reuse study was pioneering research led by Clean Technology Centre in partnership with CRNI and the Rediscovery Centre. It provided the foundation for a reuse target for consumer durables in Ireland. It provided a methodology for measuring reuse and a baseline figure of 6.52 kg per person in 2020. A 2021 citizen survey conducted by the EPA indicated current levels of reuse could be as high as 10.6 kg per person. Ireland’s statutory national reuse target is set at 20 kg per person. It is the first of its kind in Europe, is highly ambitious and will require at least a twofold increase in reuse compared with current baseline levels. It is important to note that even through our small-scale reuse demonstration enterprises at the Rediscovery Centre, we have reused approximately 55,000 kg in the past three years, with an estimated saving of 120,000 kg of carbon equivalent. However, as the national centre for the circular economy, our aim is to facilitate much larger multiplier effects nationwide. We support growth in reuse and repair through our circular economy academy and our community climate action programme providing training mentoring and support based on our operational experience to enable new community reuse and repair projects.

We also work closely with local authorities to support reuse at civic amenity sites nationwide.

In addition to reuse, a focus on repair in the waste plan is extremely welcome as studies show there has been a decline in repair professionals over time and a decline in manual skills for repair. Furthermore, our recent EPA-funded research on barriers to repair cafés highlighted the significant challenge in obtaining or affording insurance for product liability. Overcoming these and other barriers and meeting our targets will require a concerted effort and focus on reuse and repair.

The third aspect of our vision is that social enterprises be supported and recognised in the context of their role in driving the sector. Social enterprises are recognised in Ireland and across the EU as pioneers in circular economy business models that are highly impactful in delivering green skills training and jobs. Research into reuse measurement found that social enterprises and charities operate approximately half of all second-hand outlets in Ireland. The Rediscovery Centre is just one of a network of social enterprises working in the reuse and repair sector supported by CRNI, which I have no doubt Mr. Mooney-Brown and the team will talk about. Ireland's interdepartmental approach to supporting social enterprises in the circular economy is unique in Europe and should be safeguarded into the future.

Overall, the vision includes more sustainable consumption levels, a target-driven reuse and repair sector and a thriving social enterprise network delivering social, economic and environmental benefits. There are a number of measures that need to be addressed to deliver on this vision. First, citizens of Ireland need to be engaged, informed and enabled to transition to a circular economy. We are pleased to be working on a new project to support citizen engagement and deliver a national platform for the circular economy. This five-year collaborative project is supported by the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communication and involves collaboration with the EPA, the regional waste management plan lead authorities, the Local Government Management Agency and the wider network for circular economy communicators. It will support excellence in communications and citizen engagement nationwide and will be underpinned by market research and insights. This work will build on and support the active network of circular economy communicators and NGOs that are already raising awareness of, and providing public access to, circular economy solutions and services.

That brings me to our second point. We need to create the enabling environment for prevention, reuse and repair in Ireland, facilitated through the realignment of economic models and policy instruments. As we have outlined, the challenge is significant. Meeting the reuse target alone will require growing an additional 50,000 tonnes of capacity in the area of reuse by 2030. I have no doubt the Department will have outlined European measures earlier. In the longer term, these will drive more sustainable consumption and eco-design for circularity in consumer durables. We support these policy and economic measures through our work in the European reuse network and the European Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform, locally through Community Resources Network Ireland and through our research and advocacy work.

In the near term, a number of key additional financial and policy measures will be required. The low cost of new goods is one major barrier to the circular economy and distorts the market against reuse and repair. Financial incentives in support of reuse and repair must be explored fully and could include commercial rates measures, tax benefits, a reduced rate of VAT, repair bonuses or support schemes such as we have seen in Austria, Germany and France. We should also review how existing support schemes like the bike-to-work scheme could encourage the consumption of second-hand goods.

Furthermore, the new green product procurement strategy and roadmap is a positive step towards supporting large-scale circular procurement. It was very encouraging to see the news yesterday regarding the new framework for the procurement of up to 60,000 refurbished or second-hand laptops. However, there remain significant opportunities to support circularity, reuse and repair for consumer durables at the smaller scale, below the €50,000 threshold. As an example, Fingal County Council tendered for reused paint with the Rediscovery Centre. This facilitates the use of remixed paint from local civic amenity sites in community settings. This serves as an excellent template for other local authorities throughout the country. We are supporting this through the paint reuse network.

In addition, it is crucial that all new legislative and policy measures are carefully assessed to ensure they support and enable the circular economy and the existing reuse and repair sector. For example, producer responsibility schemes in Ireland have historically supported recycling as a priority over reuse and repair. We have seen the emergence of new schemes in other member states, in particular for textiles, disrupting the thriving reuse sector and recommend caution in exploring any such schemes for Ireland.

Another important measure is the community services programme, which has enabled social enterprises in the circular economy to build capacity in reuse and repair.

Further extension of this scheme for such work would support growth in this area.

Finally, Ireland needs to invest in prevention, reuse and repair infrastructure and systems as a priority over waste infrastructure. To meet new targets we need to see significant investment in infrastructure and systems. Numerous studies have shown the type of investment required ranging from sorting infrastructure and warehousing, collection systems, door-to-door repair services, and so on. For example, findings from the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, Green Enterprise study on circular textiles led by the Community Reuse Network Ireland, CRNI, in partnership with the Clean Technology Centre, CTC, and the Rediscovery Centre, identified a lack of back-end infrastructure and systems, including handling, sorting and storage capacity, as key barriers to the reuse of textiles.

Our EPA research on paint identified the need for reuse infrastructure also to divert water-based paint from hazardous waste incineration and provided a blueprint to support interested organisations to set up paint reuse schemes around the country, leading to the development of the Paint Reuse Network by the

Rediscovery Centre, which is funded by the regional waste management planning offices. This now supports eight paint reuse social enterprises servicing 25 civic amenity sites across the country and has reused 65 tonnes of paint since 2021.

This demonstrates the importance of research, pioneering and networks in supporting growth and the potential to grow reuse at civic amenity sites, building on the national waste plan target to introduce reuse facilities at ten such sites.

Overall, we believe it is time for reuse and repair infrastructure and systems to be prioritised as being of national importance ahead of other recycling waste investments.

In summary, we have an ambitious policy framework now in Ireland for growth in prevention, reuse and repair of consumer durables. We now need to find ways to support this through communications, citizen engagement and enabling environment and investment in infrastructure and systems. I thank the committee very much for this opportunity to present our work and our ambition for the circular economy in the context of consumer durables.

I thank the committee very much for this opportunity to present to it. We are talking today about social enterprise, which is a key enabler of the circular economy. Across Europe social enterprises annually divert around 1 million tonnes of materials away from landfill through reuse, repair and recycling, and in doing so they generate a combined turnover of €1.2 billion. These social enterprises engage 95,000 employees, volunteers and trainees in this circular economy activity.

In Ireland, Community Resources Network Ireland, CRNI, is the representative body for this sector. It is the only community-based reuse, repair and recycling network in Ireland. Through its active and committed membership of over 45 social enterprises, and other community-centred organisations and businesses, it serves the unique and valuable role of developing resource efficiency and circular economy initiatives via information sharing, member opportunities, and sector development and advocacy.

Our vision is an Ireland where the word "waste" does not exist and where our entire community benefits from the social, environmental and economic value of all reusable resources. Our mission is to promote community based, sustainable management of reusable resources as a practical and effective way of tackling Ireland’s growing waste problem.

CRNI’s members are involved in a range of circular economy activities, including: reuse schemes; sharing schemes; and repair schemes and hubs, for example, repairing bicycles, furniture, small engines, tools and laptops, and enabling all of these items to be reused. CRNI is a board member of the RREUSE network of Europe and at a local level is involved in the national reuse and repair network in Ireland. Our core activities for 2024 are funded through the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications.

I will now discuss some of the sector challenges as we see them in Ireland. While some of CRNI’s members have been delivering reuse and repair activities for decades, the circular economy is still at its earliest stages of development, both in practical infrastructural terms and as a widely understood principle. As a consequence, CRNI’s members and Ireland’s circular economy efforts in general face the following common challenges, as we see them.

There is a lack of adequate funding to cover ongoing core activities of social enterprises and enable their long-term business planning and development. Broad-brush legislation and licensing can create restrictions for, or prevent, social enterprises from embarking on circular economy activities. Reuse, repair and recycling activities often require large and-or specially fitted premises, which are difficult to acquire, as Ms Downey mentioned earlier. There is an absence of formal accreditation or recognised qualifications for most sector-provided training. There are difficulties in accessing an adequate pool of trainers and labour activation scheme participants to engage in sector-led upskilling. Large procurement contracts are out of reach for social enterprises due to scale or undercutting by large-scale private waste management operators. As was mentioned, insurance costs are rising and there can be an absence of sufficient insurance coverage for reuse, repair and recycling activities. We are also aware of sector uncertainty on VAT rules.

In a functioning circular economy, social enterprises will have the same means as any traditional business for capitalising on their scaling-up potential in terms of finances, premises and personnel. We would like to see favourable operational conditions exist for social enterprise start-ups and growth, including a wider range of suitable insurance providers and reduced VAT on goods and services purchased by social enterprises to prepare and deliver their reuse, repair and recycling activities. A stated percentage of circular economy funds could be dedicated for community-based reuse, repair and recycling activity, and its investment could be informed and strategic. We would like the circular economy to be mainstreamed in public perception. Examples would include civic amenity sites being rebranded as recovery parks and awareness-raising campaigns to prompt behavioural change among users towards waste minimisation. We would also like to see corporate procurement processes, including favourable conditions to enable social enterprises to compete with large-scale private waste management operators. We envisage delivery of that target by enabling consortium frameworks to scale up.

Government policies play a significant role in promoting the circular economy. CRNI engages with policymakers and advisers to inform a policy landscape that supports and encourages sustainable economic practices, including tax incentives, regulatory frameworks and strategic, long-term funding opportunities for social enterprises.

I thank Mr. Mooney-Brown and all the witnesses for their opening statements. We will now continue with questions. I will go first because I will be relieved of the chairmanship in a moment. It is important that we have gone ahead with this session because the witnesses have come a long way. This is an important topic. It is something that is close to the hearts of the witnesses and many of the committee members.

The witnesses might be aware of Cycle Sense in Skibbereen. I was blissfully unaware of it until two or three years ago when I received an invitation to visit the shop. To say I was blown away would be an understatement. What it does is unbelievable. Hundreds of bikes are being repaired or are ready for repair. The workmanship on display is incredible, as are the finish and the quality of bikes going back into circulation having been worked on. It is amazing. Another element of what Cycle Sense does is reusing paint. The volume of bikes it gets back into circulation is extraordinary and the amount of waste it avoids is brilliant.

It had a lasting impact on my sense of how things could and should be done. The people behind it are absolutely wonderful, but I worry because it involves a great deal of work by what is only a small number of individuals. I often worry about the reward they get. This is the subject matter of my first question. Reference was made to how the organisations should be sustainable. How can we give confidence to the social enterprises so they can continue doing what they are doing and be made sustainable on a long-term basis?

Funding was mentioned. Any time the enterprises get a grant of €1,500 from the local authority, they are absolutely over the moon, but it seems they should be getting far more significant grants to keep them sustainable. They have to think about their premises, materials, training, etc. That is one point of view on funding. I imagine it is the community employment scheme model that is sustaining the enterprises. How sustainable is that? Since this work is so important, it should surely be put on a stronger footing by paying the people responsible for bringing all the material back into circulation. Whoever wishes to do so might comment on that.

The irony of our being here is that many of us started out in labour activation organisations that happened to find themselves in what is now called the circular economy. Therefore, some of us, although not all, are in the circular economy by default. I do not know the particulars of Cycle Sense, but my organisation was set up to create training and employment opportunities. I am in Clondalkin, which consistently had one of the highest unemployment rates in the country throughout economic highs and lows. Even though our company is a recycling company, our main objective is to be available to create training and employment opportunities, and we do that through the management of electrical and electronic equipment waste. Anything with a plug or a battery, we will take it.

I am one of the founding members of CRNI. We have always wanted to engage in reuse. Our organisation was more engaged in reuse activities ten or 12 years ago than it is now. Unfortunately, that is one of the unintended consequences of regulation. Ten years ago, we were sending a tonne and a half of sewing machines to Tanzania every year to be de-electrified and made into treadle or foot-pedal sewing machines. We did that with Tools for Solidarity in Northern Ireland. However, with the waste transfer regulations, we could no longer do it without bureaucracy that would have been overwhelming for such a small organisation. We just did not have the capacity to continue to provide the appliances.

We also used to dismantle large household appliances. In south Dublin, every community school and community garden would have had parts of our appliances as garden containers. Again, owing to unintended consequences of regulation, we can no longer dismantle the appliances. We no longer physically recycle them ourselves; they are all corralled into one company in the midlands because the cost of implementing the European standards required to continue doing the work ourselves would have been more than we were making on the sale of metals and parts.

That is an example of just one small social enterprise. The community and enterprise elements have to be of equal measure. In just 12 months, we have seen two very prominent social enterprises in Ireland close their doors because the community and enterprise elements became unbalanced. Many of us start because what is done is a great thing to do, and the enterprise and finance aspects are not as focused on or supported as the community aspect. However, if the community aspect overtakes the finance aspect, then the organisation is on a road to collapse.

In many community enterprises which we represent, we have a fine balancing act of core funding and the community services programme, which Ms Downey mentioned. At the moment, that is the platinum standard. It is what every organisation dreams about having if they do not have it. It is really the only show in town at the minute.

I am aware of Cycle Sense. It is a wonderful organisation and one of our first academy members. We run a circular economy academy at the centre. On the points made by Ms Lavelle and the Leas-Chathaoirleach, the labour activation programmes are often not sustainable for social and circular enterprises. What is very sustainable is the community services programme, as Ms Lavelle mentioned, because it balances the playing field a little. At the moment, we are competing with very low cost new products. To create a market for reused, recycled and upcycled products, we need additional financial support. The community services programme provides that. It provides funding for the manager of the programme and four to five full-time employee equivalents. That makes a significant difference to what we can do as social enterprises and takes pressure off, as Ms Lavelle says. We have been calling for a climate-specific community services programme for several years. We believe and have seen that it works well. That could be delivered quickly. The mechanism and model are already there, as is a proof of concept.

Ms Downey mentioned textiles and the tonnage of them that Rediscovery Ireland is trying to reuse or recycle. Will she give us more information on that? When products are ordered online, which might then also be sent back, there is the carbon footprint of delivery drivers going around. Items that have been worn a few times might be disposed of. I know this is a big part of the circular economy legislation we have passed. What are the most practical ways to address that? There seems to be much waste in that area.

The first thing with textiles is that we need to turn off the tap. We have a very high consumption level and we need to tackle that. There is good work on behavioural insights which we hope to add to through the communications excellence programme, to understand what is going on, why consumption levels are so high and how we can intervene to try to address that. That is the first problem, which flows through to every subsequent challenge that handling those consumer textiles involves. We know from the research that we are passing on around 170,000 tonnes of textiles in post-consumer waste. A significant portion of that is going into the bin. We do not know exactly what that is. Much more data is required in this area. We are exporting around 35,000 tonnes, which typically goes for reuse, depending on how it is handled in the receiving market. We are reusing about 10,000 tonnes out of the 170,000, so that stays in the country and is resold. That is the best estimate but the data needs to be improved, as I said. The more that we can do to support retaining textiles in the country-----

We would like to see reuse and repair prioritised.

We would like to grow the market for second-hand sales, provide more outlets and find ways to support social enterprises and others to return second-hand textiles to the market. There is a growing interest in the area and it is said that market is due to overtake new retail of textiles, which is positive. The interest is there. Repair is a huge area that we need to find ways to support as well. Obviously, the very low cost of textiles is a real challenge, and that affects consumption as well.

I think exactly that. There is an opportunity within the community-based and social enterprise infrastructure to potentially scale and embed some of those solutions around textile repair and reuse, and make it more readily available. We want to be able to provide consumers community-based, locally available and accessible solutions around textile repair. One of our members, Charity Retail Ireland, represents a significant portion of the charity retail market across the country. We have an amazing spread of different types of entities of charity shops that consumers and the public are familiar with and engage with. If we could be innovative in understanding potentially how more people could be encouraged to engage with charity retailers as a means of reuse and repair, there is a huge opportunity there for supporting that already quite large sector in being able to thrive even more.

Regarding overall supports, I think Mr. Mooney-Brown mentioned that social enterprise and the circular economy is poorly understood. In a way, we are trying to shoehorn social enterprise into an existing private sector environment. One of the things we found when we had the mattress recycling project and even in the Cork urban soil project now is that many of the supports and soft supports available to private enterprise, such as setting up a website or getting an innovation voucher, are not available to social enterprises. There is a suite of things that could be done as well as the core funding, in addition to more robust and better-paid job activation programmes.

There are pieces of the legislation that are tricky in getting things off the ground. I refer to the waste management legislation. For example, community composting is in the climate action programme. Many groups are trying to do that now. There is kind of an anomaly there where they do not know whether they need to get a permit from the local authority, whether they can get an exemption, and there is licensing through the EPA for bigger facilities as well. We have not adjusted some of our legislation framework to suit social enterprise, and that is urgently needed.

It is clear they need to be put on a sustainable footing and secure their future.

My last point before I go to Deputy Bruton is that in Garrettstown, there is an amazing initiative in the toy library, where basically people have brought their used toys. Perhaps their kids have grown out of their toys. They bring them to the local beaches. There are little brackets hanging on the beach wall where you put the toys. You take the toys, play with them and put them back. It is an incredible initiative. Every local authority should be given a fund or purse to establish those along the hundreds of beaches along the Irish coast. We would certainly avoid a lot of wastage in that regard.

That is enough from me.

In respect of the circular economy, we have to move from launching interesting pilots to creating an admiralty, as someone else said. It is not an original quote but the concept is valid. Two thirds of what we put into our bin is in the wrong place. We are coming from very seriously off the pace.

I have a provocative question. Does success mean that there has to be commercial entry into this sector if we are to hit the levels we need in terms of material recovery, material reduction and reuse?

I see the vital importance of community initiative. How can we make this a commercial, successful thing instead of doing what is now commercially successful, which is to keep selling things as part of the take-make-waste approach?

I have another high-level question. Our guests have mentioned community engagement and consumer engagement. Is zero waste too much to now be loaded upon zero emissions or can we make them complementary and integrated? I ask because I think people are struggling. In a lot of countries across Europe, we have seen the reaction against zero emissions and the ending of fossil fuels. Are we trying to put another very heavy weight on this poor camel?

I was very interested to hear what our guests said about producer responsibilities, and how they have encouraged recycling over reuse and repair, and issued a warning about textiles, which I understood from the previous presentation is to come in on 1 January next year. What have we learned from the producer responsibility scheme? The scheme covers packaging, batteries, electronics, vehicles, tyres, farm plastics and tobacco filters, so they are a fair segment. There is talk about textiles and mattresses. I have no doubt the scheme will cover bikes, perhaps paint and God knows what else.

If this is the way to go, and one tries to change the market, so that producers have to think in a different way, where does the social enterprise sector fit in? Can arrangements be made with some of these extended producer responsibilities to create the space for a social enterprise dimension?

I would like our guests to explain the insurance and product liability issue a little bit more. What exactly is going wrong there? I ask because we heard in the last presentation that we have the longest product liability at six years. If people get things repaired by some of the community enterprises, it should not undermine that. The guests need to explain to us point by point the problem there.

If we were take our existing bring centres, or the top one in every county or the top profile of them, what would it take to move them from where they are to something along the lines of a rediscovery centre or something that could be scaled up? The issue is scaling up. I recognise the viability of social enterprise, which is the only scale at the moment and that is a real problem. I do not know whether we can scale up using the social enterprise model alone. How can we develop both together?

There are a few ways to scale up. The way we have looked it in the past is that one can scale up or scale out. Here we have a huge opportunity to engage communities and social enterprises at a local level to deliver services of reuse-repair and community-based recycling. Yes, there are challenges in that the financial models do not necessarily add up, as we discussed. However, with some small adjustments through, for example, a community services programme for these types of services then one could have social enterprises all over the country working in tandem with their civic amenity sites, with their local authorities, to create solutions so that every local authority and civic amenity site has a partnership with a social enterprise delivering real services in their local community. That creates jobs, addresses the environmental issues and has a big economic impact on the local community.

Yes, while the commercial route allows us to scale up, it adds a little bit of concern as to how they can work in tandem. I am not saying that it cannot be done. Of course it can but we would really like to see the social enterprise sector be given support to work in their local communities.

As we heard earlier, there is no tracking of what happens after the material goes to recovery. We need to get quite forensic about what happens subsequently to all this WEEE material, including where all the various batteries are assembled and where they go. My worry is whether community bring centres can get us to the scale we need. If they cannot, how do we make the two things compatible? Can we change the extended producer responsibility model to create the new spaces we need in communities?

The reuse targets can certainly be met by this type of model. That is what we are here to discuss. Ms Downey might comment on some of the commercially concerning issues, such as insurance, and how they may become barriers. As the system stands, we could, with very small changes, enable an entire network of community-based reuse, recycle and repair organisations working with local authorities to deliver solutions locally in communities.

The model of producer responsibility schemes, involving the collection of funds, usually at the point of sale. The channelling of those funds into infrastructure and services, has always been based around meeting recycling targets. Typically, for electrical goods or packaging waste, it involves investing in packaging recycling infrastructure to support and subsidise that activity. To date, certainly in Europe, no EPR scheme has been set up expressly to support reuse. EPR schemes tend to operate only inside the waste regime, dealing with the waste, whereas the consumer durables we are talking about are not defined as waste. There are some challenges in seeing how that model can adapt to non-waste activities, which would mean second-hand sales through existing social enterprises and others working in second-hand goods, repair and so on.

The way in which social enterprises can be supported through EPR schemes is twofold. First, they can have priority access to the materials that are collected. For example, social enterprises can have priority access to reuse of products collected at civic amenity sites. The second means of support is in decision-making about how EPR schemes are run and structured and how, for instance, eco-modulation works to ensure social enterprises are involved in and can influence that decision-making. Those issues are really important as we look ahead to new schemes. Fundamentally, we need to see how we can design an EPR scheme that will support non-waste reuse activities in an existing thriving sector. As has been described, textiles are already being reused through our existing charity retail network and other operators. It is really important that any new measure does not disrupt that really good activity. It must support it.

How would such a scheme be designed? Ms Downey said that of the 170,000 tonnes of textile waste being produced at the moment, just 10,000 tonnes are being reused. If we brought in an extended producer responsibility model, one presumes we would recover well over 100,000 tonnes. We need to see that chain being a quality chain. What model would keep the existing sector and the scaling ambition together?

The circular textile study, which was led by Dr. Miller and me - it is important to say we were involved in it - looked at the impact of separate collection of textiles and, down the line, the impact of an EPR scheme on the sector that is already there.

It looked into what all the additional collection will do and what we will do with the textiles if we collect more or divert them from the bin. Some of the conclusions were that investment – a third part of the deposition – is absolutely needed in back-end sorting facilities, logistics, warehousing and outlets, or in upcycling or handling facilities to turn textiles into something that can be returned to the market. These are the invisible back-end aspects but the need was identified at the back-end level, not just in terms of having more outlets or places-----

We do not have a clear picture of how we will collect the additional textiles. There are existing collection points, including the charity retail outlets, and there are existing textile banks. The circular textile study examined what other means of collection would meet a separate collection obligation. The findings of that study have been published and are with the Department, with a view to its considering what will facilitate this.

We were tasked with doing some research into how you might obtain product liability cover for community repair specifically. That essentially means volunteer-led repair cafés. If the Deputy is familiar with the model, he will be aware that everybody is invited to bring anything along to be repaired for free. You work alongside volunteer fixers who can teach repair skills to people who come along. They carry out the repairs on site.

The real sticking point for insurers in particular is the risk associated with unknown entities repairing electrical goods, because that is where the highest risk lies. A less significant risk lies with repairing bicycles because there is potential for injury down the line. Those are the two key risk areas we are talking about in respect of product liability. It does not really apply to textiles and furniture so much. The challenge in Ireland is that we are reliant on a small insurance market. I am sure the Deputy is familiar with how this applies to the wider conversation about repair. Insurers are not inclined or incentivised. It is not as viable for them to develop products such as product liability for a very small number of activities. We cannot use the same insurance cover that the UK market provides, for example. Through our study, we contacted 40 insurance companies, placed 30 or 40 phone calls and sent 80 emails but did not obtain a single quote for product liability cover to run a repair café that would include provision to make electrical repairs. However, we did find an insurance company willing to provide group scheme cover. That is the way forward in this area. However, the premium for such a group scheme is very high. The number of repair cafés operating on a regular basis is quite small, and that is partly because there is no insurance. As a result, there is something of a circular argument. If there were a way to support repair cafés to have group scheme cover, as we have seen in Wales, that would probably help to move things along.

It is not an issue because there is nobody involved. I am referring mainly to electrical and electronic goods. There are very few operating in the community sector. Rehab engages in some electronics reuse activity, and there is an organisation in Trinity that emerged during the Covid pandemic to supply laptops to students. Given the extenuating circumstances during the Covid pandemic, I am not sure what the Trinity organisation's insurance circumstances were. For us in managing waste electrical and electronic equipment, we cannot get a quote for product liability insurance. I started in 2007. We had an insurance policy that included product liability, public liability and director liability. It cost €1,900 and related to a group scheme under the community services programme. Today, we have no product liability insurance. Our insurance bill is over €50,000. That has displaced two jobs in our place, and that is without looking for product liability insurance. Our broker has been trying to get us product liability insurance for non-electrical and electronic equipment in order to have a tool reuse library or make tools available to the men's sheds. We would gather them because we do house-to-house collections, but we still have not been able to get a quote. We cannot answer the Deputy's point because we have not got that far yet even.

Access to insurance and costs of insurance for repair, reuse and recycling activities are among the top five challenges faced by our members. As Mr. Mooney-Brown mentioned, we are part of the Alliance for Insurance Reform, with a view to having an enabling environment in order that social enterprises can embed activities such as tool library activities. In Ireland, we do not have a tool library system. This contrasts with our counterparts in Belfast, who are able to scale their activity much easier.

I will respond to the comment on whether we are asking too much of citizens in asking them to have another commitment and action. We find through our research that the circular economy entails a very positive action within the community, with over 64% of people believing it is a really good idea. Most people see that it has significant add-on benefits in the form of well-being, health and community inclusion. I do not believe it is regarded as being as much of a burden on people as perhaps some of the climate action activities that are being pushed forward.

Let me pick up on that. One of the discussions has been on community engagement. With respect to the community-led approach and the kinds of initiatives we have been hearing about, such as social enterprise and community-led initiatives, I agree there is almost a co-benefit, as has just been described. It is seen as a positive and as something connected to a community. That is slightly different from solely having centralised commercial actors involved in recycling, reuse and recovery.

Maybe there is a scope, and we referred to a few examples of it from the Rediscovery centre. In a way, the mandate is to innovate. Maybe CRNI might have examples of this, but there have been examples at community level of innovation. This is effectively a new way of approaching things. When we look at things like reuse, that innovation can come from a social or community-based project. Even though it has, unfortunately, no longer continued, the project in Tanzania that was outlined earlier was a good example of this. That capacity to see new potential and new forms of reuse is different to a large-scale contracted body, in respect of straightforward repair and reuse as a regional function, for example. I would appreciate some feedback around what the particular co-benefits are around the social enterprise or community-based approach.

Of course, there is no reason that cannot be at scale. The insurance issue was outlined. If you look to a group scheme, at supporting scale and at that initial funding to almost create a new sector of the economy going into a community and a social enterprise-led space, at scale something could be done around things like the pooling of those particular skewing costs, like insurance. I would appreciate the witnesses' thoughts on that.

I want to go to the other side of it and the discussions around perverse incentives, that is, perverse incentives towards recycling, for example, rather than reuse or recovery. The Rediscovery centre highlighted that there was a concern that some of the incentives could look to this. Even when we look to the question of textiles, for example, on the one hand we are focusing on how we create receiving opportunities for textiles in terms of the existing collection centres and charity stores. That is a minimal piece. On the other side, do we need to have a stronger pressure on manufacturers regarding not creating this waste? Do we need to have measures that cannot be easily satisfied because you dump a load of textiles on somebody subcontracted to take them away and that there would be a cost to the waste of textiles?

Our colleague on the committee, Senator Boylan, produced some interesting legislation that explicitly looked at the wider set of non-food product and consumer durables. It sought to ban the destruction or dumping of non-food products and placed a significant pressure and obligation on not just the manufacturers, but the companies. For example, there is a phenomenon whereby some major retailers, including major online retailers, dump a lot of new products. This is not even product that has had a short lifetime. It is product that has never been used and has not sold and is then dumped or destroyed. We must ensure we do not see those types of products simply pushed one step further into recycling, but rather reused or donated as these are unused products.

Both CRNI and the Rediscovery Centre mentioned-----

There is a lot in that and it is a very interesting question. I want to touch on the idea of perverse incentives. We need to look at the whole economy and all of our subsidies, taxes and measures that are in place and try to map out what is supporting and what is undermining reuse and repair activities. It is a huge challenge. We have already talked about the fact the low cost of new items is a barrier, and that is a global challenge. There are certainly things we can do locally. A further investigation into, for example, whether we are subsidising virgin plastic on the one hand and then seeing the problem of excessive textiles, which contain huge amounts of plastics, on the other hand, and then trying to apply some other measure to that. We need to have a better understanding of where the opportunities are. We mentioned other things like existing schemes and procurement, and seeing reuse and repair supported.

Regarding manufacturers and textiles, France has already done a lot and it is often the poster child in this area. France is doing a lot on banning unsold goods, eco-modulation and fast-fashion tax and so on. That is one to watch. There are many interesting lessons to come from this as well. I understand that the ban on unsold goods saw a lot of unsold goods being channelled into charity retail, which was not necessarily the best outcome in terms of trying to tackle the issue of overproduction in the first place. The whole measure needs to be carefully assessed in that sense. Of course, the commission is doing a huge amount on sustainable products and trying to ensure manufacturers design them in the first place to be durable, as well as working on labelling requirements also. While it is a very long game to play, it is essential this continues to progress.

In the context of the electrical and electronics sector, the compliance scheme was set up to deal with waste. Waste legislation is incredibly strict in terms of the classification of waste. Once it comes into a facility, a person cannot say it looks like it would work, ask for it to be plugged in to see if it will work, and then ask for it if it does work. That is absolutely not what happens. There is a large amount of work, regulations and bureaucracy that would surround a single item once it goes into the waste stream. It is not fair to blame the EPRs completely for this. The way they have been established means they are dealing with waste, so they cannot channel waste back out again. There is no easy way for that to happen. The ideal scenario is to capture it before it becomes classified as waste. WEEE Ireland, the compliance scheme for electrical and electronics, has engaged in training people in reuse. The organisation has been engaged for the past couple of years in supporting training schemes. Not many of the students who have been employed in workplace have gone into sole traders or community enterprises. They have gone back into the likes of the Siemens, Phillips, etc. which is great, because it means these companies are becoming more interested in repair. There is talk of those companies actually looking at leasing models, so instead of going forwards, we are going backwards, where we are leasing our appliances from big companies, which then have a vested interest in making sure it is repairable and that the longevity is the key factor in its manufacture. That is very hopeful.

On the procurement piece, there are a couple things. We mentioned the paint project as a very good example of Fingal explicitly putting out a tender for recycled paint.

However, in procurement we could have a price-to-quality ratio approach rather than a lowest-price model one. Reuse could be identified and named as a quality factor that gives advantage when tendering for any project. If a company has reused products within its bid, that could be recognised as something that gets a positive weighting in the procurement process. The witnesses might comment on that. It is one thing to name it as a requirement, maybe on a small-scale project, but if it were in larger projects it could become mainstream.

I was concerned with the mention of dismantling and how the permission to dismantle is not there now. I am wondering about goods that are not reusable - we are back into the recovery space really - and the question of precious metals and rare earths. It is one of the huge concerns and one where there needs to be strong incentives for manufacturers to ensure they are doing everything possible on this when producing goods. Perhaps there could be penalties.

On the first point around the tendering process, other jurisdictions use community and social benefit clauses in a lot of tender processes for many things. It is something the sector has pushed on a lot and it has not really manifested itself. There are some small examples, maybe even for local authorities themselves to have some kind of social benefit clause in some of their tendering process, but certainly that is something that could be looked at much more widely. That was the only comment I wanted to make on that one. There were a number of other questions in there, so I will let others come in.

On the objective of the promotion of green and social procurement, one of the initiatives CRNI has launched in the last couple of years is a virtual trade fair to promote green and social procurement opportunities to public and private procurement decision-makers. We opened up a conversation around where the opportunities and considerations are when allowing social enterprises to fully engage in a procurement contract or to become part of a value chain that sees them delivering on part of a procurement opportunity. Social clauses are certainly part of that discussion. In the development of the corporate social responsibility directive, we have seen an increased interest in understanding how social enterprises can be part of that piece. Social clauses are something we welcome in those contracts, as well as flexibility with procurers in allowing and engaging social enterprises to be part of that process.

Could I just put one question? I do not need to get an answer, but it is just if the witnesses are sending us supplementary information. It is the question around the co-benefits of community, social or locally-led enterprises. That could be pooled risks and pooled supports with things like insurance while having that community or social enterprise. If there are co-benefits to scaling up that model, I would be very interested in hearing any comments.

I thank Senator Higgins. We will finish the meeting now, but if our guests want to write to us with further detail - we are going to be doing quite a significant report on the circular economy - we would welcome any further contributions they might want to make. We will take them on board in our deliberations around that report and ultimately the recommendations that will go to the Government.

With that, I thank the guests so much for their time. I am sorry I was not able to be more engaged with the second part of the session, but we all really appreciate their time and coming in and their sharing their expertise with us. We look forward to producing that report and we will certainly appreciate any further help they can give us.