Mr. Conall O'Connor:

The robust and future-proofed definitions of plastics arise from some of the feedback we have received in our consultation process. We want to ensure whatever definition we will have will encompass any potential plastic microbead in order that we will not miss something. We do not want a manufacturer to be clever and find a synthetic polymer that could be harmful to get around the definition which we want to be all-encompassing, if possible. We also want to take in polymers that may not yet have been developed. That should be straightforward enough. The UK definition is not that bad, but we are looking at the issue with our own national experts.

Before moving to enforcement, I will respond to one of Dr. Lynch's points about monitoring. Under the marine strategy framework directive we must identify the good environmental status of our waters and set targets and indicators. We must then put a monitoring programme in place. That is extremely important. Much of our research and the work of the Environmental Protection Agency will heavily inform what we will choose to monitor. We need to identify the ideal candidate species to monitor and the ideal locations, etc. in order that we get a picture of what is happening with microplastics and marine litter in general.

We would envisage that the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, would have a role in enforcement and that we would create the standard authorised person. There is much legislation that provides a model for this where people can go out and take samples, look at things, analyse, investigate and so on, and then prosecute if necessary. That would be the role but there would obviously be a financial cost attached to that which we need to factor into our considerations.