Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Let us take a step back from the very technical stuff for a second. It is important for us to reassert at a very basic level why this committee has spent so much time on this issue, partly at the request of Senator Grace O'Sullivan and Deputy Sherlock at earlier stages and now at the request of the Minister. We are all concerned as a result of our growing knowledge of the impact of plastics in general on our environment, whether first or second generation microplastics or single-use plastics. It is becoming a bigger part of our policy debate, and that is a good thing. The committee is unanimous in taking the view that these things are bad for our environment and that we need to have stronger regulatory mechanisms to reduce the number of them. It is also important, however, that we do not have this debate in isolation. I make these points partly with regard to the debate as to whether we should wait for the European Union process. What has been going on in the European Union and European Commission in recent years with regard not only to microbeads but also to single-use plastics has involved quite a significant battle between industry and environmentalists with regard to how this enormous threat should be dealt with. It is a threat and we need to be honest about that.

To put this conversation in context, the corporate budget for lobbying on the EU's position on single-use plastics is between €1.5 million and €1.75 million. That is the amount of money industry is spending to advocate for what it wants to see, as it is perfectly entitled to do. The general approach has been to favour voluntary agreements over statutory enforcement. These agreements are often weaker than those we are discussing here, in a limited sense. There are also far lower levels of transparency in the policymaking processes of many member states. One of the reasons we are now seeing individual member states pushing ahead and saying that they are not waiting any more is because it has been taking so long to progress some of this at European Union level. Clearly, it would be better if there was a single agreement at EU level, but it is highly likely that, when and if that agreement comes, it will give us a floor above which individual member states may decide to have higher levels of environmental standards. My view is certainly that this would be a good thing. I appreciate that we are talking about companies, jobs, and profits to reinvest in the economy, but we are also talking about our ecosystem and its future viability. If I am ever asked to make a choice between adhering to Single Market principles or doing something good for the environment, I intuitively favour the latter, even if I do not know the finer scientific details with regard to where I rest on the question.

I will get back to the legislation because I have a couple of specific questions for everybody and I am genuinely interested to hear people's views. Head 4 of the Bill deals with exceptions. We had an interesting conversation with the officials when we were looking at the exceptions. Some of the exceptions seem to be eminently sensible, such as products for medical or veterinary use and so on, but there was one at which I was surprised. The heads of the Bill refer to "creams, lotions or gels containing plastic microbeads designed, manufactured and sold solely for the purposes of application to the surface of a person’s skin to protect it from the harmful effects of solar ultraviolet radiation". When we questioned the officials, they said that there are no products available on the Irish market that fulfil that function and which contain microbeads or microplastics. It seemed odd that this would be included in the exceptions. As microbeads do not add anything to the medical value of sun tan lotions and are purely cosmetic, it seems odd that we would open it up or create an incentive for people to add them to such products. I would like the views of both the industry representatives and the scientists here on that exception. Do they have any other comments on the exceptions generally? Most of them seem sensible but that one stood out as a little bit odd.

Head 13 deals with the penalties. The Chairman is right that there are a number of penalties, including a low-level, class A fine of up to €5,000 and up to six months' imprisonment. The penalty on court indictment is a fine of up to €3 million and up to two years' imprisonment. I presume the witnesses' concern is that the first one is likely to be used more often in respect of breaches. Are they saying that the summary penalty is too low? Are there examples of other penalties at a summary level, rather than involving going to court, that are at a higher level? Will the witnesses elaborate on that? It is important that there is a third sanction, which is that individual members of a board of directors can be held accountable. This is a power the EPA has in enforcing waste management regulations and so on.

If the witnesses have specific concerns about that, I would be interested in hearing them.

I have a query about Ms Dean's reference to the fact that European industry is on track to achieve a 100% phasing out of plastic microbeads by 2020. This point has been well made. She seemed to suggest in the final paragraph of her presentation that she is concerned that the Bill, as drafted, will remove many products from the Irish market until those products are reformulated. She pointed out that: "The business and consumer impacts in the general scheme, however, do not take this into account." On the one hand, she seems to be saying that by 2020, which is around the time that this legislation, if passed, will be fully enacted and imposed on Irish industry, there will have been a 100% withdrawal of microplastics or microbeads from the products in which her industry is involved. On the other hand, she seems to be saying that she still has concerns. Am I misunderstanding what she is saying? Are there certain categories of products which are still being produced or sold in the Irish market that will not be included in the 100% phasing out of microbeads? Given that this legislation, if passed, will not come into effect until next year, what is the nature of Ms Dean's concern? I want to understand her position fully.