Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Everyone of us became more aware of the issue of plastic pollution over the last number of years. This is not just because of the unsightly nature of it but because we are now very aware of the knock-on impacts plastics have on all manner of wildlife. When I worked on the EU single use plastic directive, we were told that period products are the fifth most common item found in marine litter and that on average a person who menstruates will use on average 150 kg of tampons, pads and applicators in their lifetime. However, the approach favoured by the EU was not to regulate the manufacturers. It was not to insist that as a bare minimum they print on the packet the amount of plastic contained in their products, which is on average 90% of the contents.Instead the EU wanted to impose an environmental tax on period products. I strongly resisted this. Why should women be made pay the cost of cleaning up what is an essential product to their everyday lives, while manufacturers make huge profits? The disposable period product industry is worth £265 million per year in Britain alone. The period product industry deliberately chose to push women into purchasing disposable products as it is a far better business model to have women come back every month rather than every couple of years, or in the case of menstrual cups, every five to ten years.

It is estimated that only 5% of the population are using reusable products. This is down to many factors, including a lack of awareness of their existence, which can be addressed through public awareness campaigns. A second factor in the lack of use of sustainable products is their low visibility. Supermarket shelves are dominated with disposables because it suits the manufacturers' business model and many have preferential contracts with supermarkets.

However, the biggest barrier to widespread uptake of sustainable period products is their cost. Reusables are not appropriate in many circumstances, especially for vulnerable groups such as women who are homeless or living in precarious situations without access to their own bathrooms. However, cost is preventing a large proportion of the menstruating population from accessing sustainable products. One simple measure that could be taken would be to reduce the VAT rate on those products.

Currently, standard period products are 0% VAT while reusable products such as period underwear and menstrual cups are 13.5%. I am aware that EU rules prevent us reducing the VAT to 0%. However, it is interesting that products relating to a normal bodily function that affects women are on a higher VAT rate than going to a restaurant or pub and a rate almost three times that of trading a greyhound. It shows a bizarre set of priorities when it comes to women's health and protection of the environment.

Even more disturbing is that incontinence pads are taxed at the highest rate of VAT, which has increased to 23% as of 1 March. The rate of VAT on incontinence products is yet another example of regressive tax that disproportionately affects women. Incontinence is not a luxury. It affects women far more than men. It is estimated that as many as one in five women over 40 is affected by some level of incontinence and up to 70% of expectant and new mothers are affected.

I ask for a commitment that incontinence pads and sustainable period products have their VAT levels reduced to the minimum level possible. What measures have been taken to change EU rules to provide for 0% VAT on all period and incontinence products? Can the Minister of State give me a commitment that the Government will consider rolling out a similar scheme to that in Scotland where free samples of reusable products were offered alongside a public awareness campaign.