Ossian Smyth (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

PFAS chemicals are a significant concern based on their toxicity. While bearing in mind that this is a Bill about the principles of wastage and circularity rather than toxicity, there are genuine concerns, if not real problems, with these chemicals. They can be extremely hazardous and because of this, they are being regulated at EU level rather than by individual member states. In recent years the EU has put in place a number of new strategies aimed at strengthening legislation to ensure that chemicals are safe and sustainable by design and that the most hazardous chemicals are banned. My Department and other Departments and agencies that have responsibility for chemicals policy are engaging actively with the EU on these matters and strongly supporting the initiatives being undertaken at EU level. Of particular relevance with regard to PFAS are the EU farm to fork strategy, the EU chemical strategy for sustainability and the European Commission-led review of the packaging and packaging waste directive. I am committed to ensuring Ireland plays a lead role in pushing the level of ambition in proposals emerging from this review. Effective regulation of PFAS is being addressed at EU level and we are actively engaging with our EU colleagues on that. On the basis that this is not the right place to do it, I am rejecting these amendments.

I will now turn to amendments Nos. 41 and 42 from Deputy Devlin. The intention behind amendment No. 42 is adequately covered by the current drafting of section 14(3), which allows for the banning of specific types of single-use items, with a wider class of items concerned. I am not going to accept that amendment on the basis that its provisions are already covered. On amendment No. 41, it is not appropriate to provide that the reusable alternative must be recyclable because this limits the scope of the provision. For example, one may be using a crockery mug to get a coffee instead of a paper cup and while the crockery mug may not be recyclable, it is certainly much more environmentally friendly. One could use a crockery mug 500 times but only use a paper cup once and even though one cannot recycle crockery, I would not be in favour of banning it or restricting its use. There are cases where a reusable alternative is not recyclable but is extremely durable, as is the case with a typical mug that one finds in one's kitchen. I do not foresee such circumstances arising often but I can use the legislation as drafted to ban items if I need to, under section 14.

Amendment No. 43 provides that the Minister shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, "draft and publish a report examining how single use plastics used in the sale of fruit and vegetables can be reduced." The example in France has inspired this amendment. The French have gone ahead and introduced restrictions for particular types of hard fruit and vegetables. They are planning, over time, to widen that out to softer fruits. I would like to accept the amendment and such a report could certainly help in establishing circular economy principles in the retail sector but I want to review the 12-month timeframe. I want to make sure that it is realistic and that any report can be completed on time. I would ask the Deputies to withdraw their amendment and I will introduce it on Report Stage.