I join with the expressions of sadness at the tragedies of recent days. Our hearts go out to the families and friends of Ana Kriégel and Jastine Valdez. Their murders have shocked the nation.

This morning and this afternoon, in the Mansion House, not far from here, ECO-UNESCO is hosting the Young Environmentalists Awards. Visiting it today would lift one's heart and spirits and would give one renewed hope for this country. There is an incredible sense of can-do and many visions for what we could do differently. There is a broad interest in the issue of how we can reduce the amount of plastic waste we are creating in our society among the young people getting awards today. It is central to much of their thinking. Since the Waste Reduction Bill, which has passed Second Stage, was introduced almost ten months ago in this House, a number of other events have given us pause for thought.

EUROSTAT has produced statistics which show that Ireland is producing twice as much plastic waste as compared to the European average. We are ahead of every other country in that regard. Producers are obliged to pay a producer responsibility fee to try to reduce and cut back on waste, but similar research has shown that Ireland is the third worst, out of 21 countries in Europe, in terms of what we ask them to pay to meet their responsibilities.

In the past ten months, the European Union has come out with a new plastic strategy that states we have to take this seriously and move to a circular economy because China is no longer taking our plastic waste. We should be setting up new streams of waste collection and creating jobs and recycling here. The UK Government has committed to introducing a deposit refund scheme, one of the initiatives that is in our Bill. More than anything else, the likes of David Attenborough and others have shown the reason that there is so much concern. Plastic in our environment is becoming a serious health and environmental hazard that we have to address with vigour.

Our Bill does that, and it has been a useful process. For ten months we have been in committee. We consulted the library and research team and we have heard from stakeholders and international experts to try to tease out how to do this. This afternoon at 3 p.m. we will go into committee to vote on whether to accept the report from the committee on the Waste Reduction Bill 2017 and move the Bill to Committee Stage. The Minister is suggesting that we include an amendment to state that we will not take the action set out in the Bill. He recommends that we provide that we "may" do something rather than provide that we "shall" and he says that we should wait for Europe to do the legislating rather than doing it ourselves.

I fundamentally disagree. If the Bill is voted through to go to Committee Stage today, will the Government be willing to issue the money order that would allow us to debate the issues further at Committee Stage, and introduce in legislation the very measures for which every young environmentalist across the country is now calling? Will the Government commit to doing that if the committee votes in support of the Waste Reduction Bill 2017 and the report that has been carried out, and allows it to go to Committee Stage?

I agree with the Deputy on one point. I know there is enormous and growing public concern about the impact that plastics are having on our environment. I think anyone who saw "The Blue Planet" or any of the programmes like that can see the impact it is having, particularly our marine and maritime environment. I know the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Deputy Denis Naughten, is very interested in this area. He is studying it very closely with his officials to determine what moves and measures may be most effective in trying to reduce the amount of plastics that are produced, reduce the amount that we use and make sure that those we do use are recycled or disposed of in a way that does not damage our environment, particularly our marine environment. In this space, the Minister is working on proposals to ban microbeads before the end of the year, building on proposals that I know were made by Senator Grace O'Sullivan of the Green Party in recent times, and we are very keen to do exactly that.

In terms of the legislation that the Deputy suggests, I refer to the money message. First of all, before a money message can be issued, we first need to know roughly how much money it is going to cost. Second, we must know whether the Oireachtas has voted that money. It is obviously not credible to issue a money message without knowing how much something is going to cost, or whether the Oireachtas has voted that money. We then need to consider whether a scheme could be put in place that would not cost the Exchequer but might actually be cost-neutral. I encourage the Deputy to examine that and to see if he can refine the proposal before it goes to Committee Stage, to make sure that it is cost-neutral, that the polluter pays and that it does not impose additional costs on the Exchequer and the taxpayer. That is money that could go into education, healthcare, disability or other worthy causes.

On that very point, we wish to thank Voice Ireland and Friends of the Irish Environment, groups that have done detailed research work on this area. With regard to the deposit refund scheme, we are saying that there should be a deposit refund of 15 cent. Our estimates are that if the producer's contribution is increased from the current 0.2 cent to 1 cent per container, it would cover half the costs. International experience shows that another quarter would probably be covered by the deposits which are not claimed. The final quarter of the costs would be recovered from the value of the materials that would be collected in a much more sophisticated and effective way. We believe it is possible to introduce this scheme without a cost to the Exchequer.

In regard to the first part of the Bill, we are not proposing a ban, rather we are proposing what the Minister himself suggested before he changed his mind - that the Government impose a levy on non-compostable cups and uses that money to pay for the compost bins we need to start changing our entire system. In further measures without costs, we would ban plastic straws, plates, knives and forks outright, which is what the European Union is saying we should do.

I can answer the Taoiseach's question. To the best of our knowledge, according to the best research and best international experts, we can do this without a cost to the Exchequer. Will the Taoiseach issue the money order if the committee passes it on that basis that afternoon? We are giving the Government two or three years to implement it. We are not saying it has to be implemented tomorrow. We will be doing it at the same time as the UK Government will do it. We will be doing it at the same time as we must radically change our entire recycling system to meet new higher European recycling standards. I believe we do have the answers to the Minister's concerns. We can do this without a cost to the Exchequer. No one knows for certain, as it takes time and we will have to spend a bit of time working through it, but the best research we have states it is possible. Will the Taoiseach issue the money order if the committee votes it through this afternoon on that basis?

If it is revenue neutral and if it will not cost the Exchequer anything then obviously it does not require a money message but I will need more than the afternoon to examine the Deputy's numbers and determine whether his claim is true that it will not cost the Exchequer anything. The Deputy has form in this regard. He was, of course, a Minister in the Government that promised us the cheapest bank bailout in the world and we saw how much that ended up costing. Having been €30 billion out before, it will take more than the afternoon for us to see whether the Deputy's arithmetic has improved in the past decade and whether it stacks up.

This is the future.

Did the Taoiseach not vote for it?

He did.

I thought the Taoiseach voted for it.

As is absolutely the case, if it is Exchequer neutral and if it does not cost the Exchequer anything it will not require a money message, so obviously we will examine the Deputy's claim to see whether his numbers add up.

I would have reservations about any scheme that caused us to have to reduce or limit public expenditure in other areas. Even the richest country that wants to balance its books has limited money to spend on public services and most people would want us to prioritise issues such as health, education and disability for additional spending rather than deposit refund schemes.