Mr. John Chave:

I will comment on the REACH process because it is an interesting and important question. Ireland is not the first country in the European Union to initiate legislation on microbeads. The UK has legislation, as do France and Sweden. Italy is implementing legislation and Denmark is planning legislation. This presents a problem because if various member states have various legislative measures, potentially we will have an issue with the EU Single Market. Something similar happened in the US with initiatives on microbeads at state level. At some point, the US federal government stated the measures were breaking up the US internal market and that a federal measure was required that would be common throughout the US market. There is a strong case on Single Market grounds for a European measure.

To give a little bit of history, there are two possibilities to address this at European level. We could have a regulation or directive that goes through the European Parliament in an ordinary legislative procedure or we could have the ECHA REACH process. Rightly and understandably, there has been a lot of concern, perfectly articulated by Senator Boyhan, about this problem and the need to address it, and not only on Single Market grounds because it is recognised that it is an environmental problem. The European Commission decided not to go along the ordinary legislative procedure route but to go through the REACH process.

Essentially, REACH is a system for managing chemicals. Within the REACH process, the European Chemicals Agency has the power and capacity to recommend to the European Commission that it restrict certain chemicals. This is the process we are going through. Why did it go down the REACH process and not the ordinary legislative procedure process? At the time, it was thought that REACH was slightly quicker. Sometimes the processes in Brussels, as anybody who has ever worked there knows, can take an awfully long time and there is a sense of urgency about this. This partly explains why the Irish Government wants to push forward the legislation.

The ECHA process was begun at the end of 2017. The speed element is relative because ECHA takes a little bit of time and there are several points to note about it. It is completely harmonised so it addresses the Single Market problem. This means whatever legislation Ireland chooses to adopt, and I fully appreciate the sense of urgency and the wish to push forward, will be subject to European legislation. Essentially, if the domestic legislation is in conflict with European legislation, then the European legislation will take precedence in the normal way of the Single Market.

That is not a controversial comment to make.

This is not likely to be completed until approximately 2021. It is difficult to say for sure when it will be finished. The ECHA secretariat had a year to present a dossier. It finished that on 11 January and published it on 30 January. Committee members can see the ECHA's initial work on its website. The second stage of the process must now take place, with the dossier to be considered by the committee for risk assessment, RAC, of the ECHA. One of the requirements for restriction processes is that a risk must be demonstrated - not necessarily a litter risk, but a toxic one. It is a slightly controversial part of the legislation.

There will also be a social and economic assessment under which the impact on industry will be considered, which members of this committee wish to discuss during this session. That process will take most of 2019. In 2020 or so, there will be a recommendation and, all things being equal, the process will be finished by around 2021. The Irish legislation will be subject to that.

Members need to bear in mind that the mandate of the ECHA goes slightly beyond what Ireland is considering. The agency covers intentionally added microbeads and microplastics. They are a small fraction of a much bigger problem, but the agency is considering the issue across a number of sectors as opposed to just ours.

Other European countries are pressing ahead with their legislation, and there is a certain amount of political pressure to do so. Legislation was recently tabled for debate in Portugal, but people there opted to wait until the ECHA had decided what it would do. It is understandable that Ireland might want to push ahead and not wait for the agency, but the take-home point from this is that, after 2021, it is overwhelmingly likely that there will be a restriction on microplastic in some form. It may be slightly broader in scope than this proposal, as it also addresses other sectors, and the Irish legislation would be subject to it.

That is my take on the ECHA. Other witnesses might wish to add or correct something if they disagree.