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

With regard to amendment No. 49, the PFAS family of chemicals is a significant concern in the EU and globally as these chemicals can cause long-lasting environmental damage and adverse health impacts. In this regard, it is important that they are comprehensively regulated at EU level rather than through the national legislation of individual member states.

In recent years, the EU has set in place several new strategies aimed at strengthening chemical legislation to ensure that chemicals are safe and sustainable by design and that the most hazardous chemicals are banned. My Department, along with other Departments and agencies that have responsibility for chemicals policy, is actively engaging with the EU on this matter and strongly supports the initiatives being undertaken at EU level. These include the farm to fork strategy, the chemicals strategy for sustainability and the European Commission review of the packaging and packaging waste directive. The effective regulation of PFAS is appropriately being addressed at EU level and Ireland is actively engaging with our EU colleagues on a number of initiatives in this regard. That is why I am not accepting this amendment.

As amendment No. 50 is consequential on amendment 49, I will not be accepting it.

As regards amendments Nos. 46, 48 and 53, similarly, meaningful changes to requirements in respect of these issues can be most effectively implemented by way of comprehensive EU legislation, rather than through national measures, and I will not be accepting these amendments.

Amendment No. 51 relates to transnational shipments of waste, including to non-EU countries, which is already highly regulated under EU legislation. The Bill provides that material wastage associated with a product or class of products must be considered when making regulations. I am satisfied that the combination of these measures adequately addresses the issues referred to in the amendment and I will not be accepting it.

Regarding amendment No. 52, it is possible that an alternative to a single-use item may not be recyclable but it may be the best alternative because it is, for example, highly durable and can be used indefinitely. The Bill should ensure that it accommodates that situation where the alternative is something that is extremely durable but not recyclable. For that reason, I am not accepting the amendment.