Mr. John Chave:

I will give the committee a frank answer to that question. The reason I believe Ireland should align with the UK legislation at a maximum is that it would preserve the trade position. When the ECHA restriction is in place, the position with regard to those trade elements inside the European Union is that all the bets are off because that is the new standard. The way ECHA is going is frankly quite radical if we look at the additional proposals from the agency. These are likely to go beyond the ECHA legislation. I will offer one example. Committee members may be aware of a polymer called styrene-acrylic coating, which is used to pacify some liquids. When I buy a shampoo, the liquid is not clear because there is material in it to make it not clear - to make it opaque. Hence, we use the term "to pacify". I am not a polymer scientist but such people can have a legitimate debate about whether that material actually meets the definition of plastic and is thus problematic in this context. It is highly likely that ECHA will maintain that it is and will regulate the material. I may be wrong but I think that is likely. If so, that would go beyond the UK legislation because it does not deal with that particular issue. While the Department may go forward and put into place legislation in Ireland, it is quite possible that in some, but not all, respects what comes out of the ECHA process may go beyond that in two ways. The first is that it will cover more sectors whereas the Department is limiting the sectors in this legislation. The second is that it may address more materials than those currently covered in the national legislation. Committee members should not get the impression that ECHA is a big friend of industry in this context, because it is not.