Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am not moving an amendment.

I also want to acknowledge the role of Senator Grace O’Sullivan in raising these issues. I share the concerns of both Deputy Sherlock and Senator Grace O’Sullivan and many others from various parties who have spoken in this debate. I share the same vision as the Deputy in the outcome which we want. There are some problems with the legislation he is proposing. Having spoken to him earlier, I propose that the Government will not oppose this legislation but I want to signal clearly that the Government will bring forward its own legislation and I will outline why that is necessary. I gave a signal that we would legislate for this but could not support the legislation proposed in the Seanad. It is important to recognise that by not opposing this legislation, we will probably abstain and, hopefully, allow it to proceed on the understanding that if and when we produce the Government’s legislative response to this, whether in the foreshore Bill or in a separate piece of legislation, after the work that needs to be done first that Deputy Sherlock will work with us to get the job done and make sure that it is a robust response to what most of us want, which is to ban the production and use of microbeads and micro-plastics where appropriate because it is a significant contributor to marine litter and is unjustifiable and unnecessary.

As I am sure the Deputy is aware, I gave a commitment in the Seanad last November to legislate to prohibit the sale and manufacture of certain products containing microbeads, including cosmetics, body care and cleansing products and detergents and abrasive surface cleaning products. This is a much wider scope than envisaged by the Bill the Deputy proposes. It is intended to include these provisions in legislation which will also provide the legislative basis for a network of marine protected areas as required by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and make necessary amendments to the Dumping at Sea Acts.

At that time, I committed to writing to Commissioner Vella to inform him we would be drawing up such legislation and that we would be seeking a formal derogation for EU market rules in order to do this. This letter has been sent and Commissioner Vella has responded. My officials are currently working on this legislation. Any legislation relating to microbead prohibition will stand or fall on the strength of the definitions of microbeads, plastics and the identification of the ranges of products to be covered by the legislation. At this time, there is much highly technical debate nationally and internationally as to how exactly to define microbeads and also what constitutes plastic. My Department is working both with national experts and has consulted with international experts to help us develop a water-tight and workable definition to reduce, as far as practicable, the possibility of unintended consequences and to ensure that our legislation is comprehensive, robust and future-proofed for the purposes of a robust and future-proofed marine environmental programme. Departmental officials have met with the OSPAR Commission, EU member states, including the UK, Germany and Belgium, with NGOs, such as Seas at Risk, and with industry representatives, such as Plastics Europe and Cosmetics Europe, and are examining other technical approaches being undertaken internationally by the USA, Canada, the UK and France on this matter. The Department is trying to provide a comprehensive response.

What is emerging is that there is little consensus on the definition of microbeads and the definition of "plastic" is also an issue, so whatever legislation is put in place will require very considered work with technical expert input on its definitions to ensure it fit for purpose, including such matters as the important difference between the technical terms “microbeads” and “micro-plastics". Otherwise, any legislation brought forward could have a myriad of unintended consequences. I have no doubt that the Deputy can understand my concern about these definitions.

It is also important the scope of the legislation relates to products where there is an identified pathway by which microbeads contained in them may enter rivers or other marine environments. At this time, the only clearly identified pathway relates to products that are rinse-off. The microbeads they contain are washed into wastewater systems and may reach the environment through them. Not all cosmetic products containing microbeads are considered as having such pathways at this time. Given the scale of the technical work involved, and the importance of achieving the correct outcomes, I consider the Bill before the House to be somewhat problematic but it is a signal of intent that this House should allow proceed, which is what my party intends to do.

In particular, the definitions contained in the Bill are not adequate or appropriate for legislation of this type and no provision is made for powers of investigation or enforcement, which would make the proposed approach unworkable and unenforceable. We can amend that. I am not saying we are ruling these things out but the legislation we bring forward will be a big improvement.

Most importantly, it is my belief, based on preliminary legal advice, that the enactment of this Bill would place Ireland in breach of Articles 34 and 35 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU, which relates to the principle of free movement of goods, and Directive (EU) 2015/1535, laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on information society services. The EU’s analysis, consultation and notification requirements of member states which wish to seek an exception to this principle on environmental grounds have not been met yet. European Court of Justice rulings and Commission guidance place a burden of proof on member states to justify any restriction on the free movement of goods. They require that a proper formal justification be made with evidentiary support rather than simply informing the Commission. We are in the process of putting together a very strong case around that justification. Indeed, Commissioner Vella in his response to my letter specifically stated that he looks forward to seeing Ireland's evidence justifying such a ban. From my experience, Commissioner Vella is passionate about marine litter and micro-plastics. I do not believe we will get resistance from him but he will insist on our being legally consistent with the requirements as set out in the treaties. Commmissioner Vella is almost on a personal crusade to establish a much more comprehensive response to marine litter and that is why I think the Commission will help but we need to do this properly.

I recently undertook a public consultation process in regard to the legislation I am drawing up to prohibit the manufacture and sale of certain products which contain microbeads. I was impressed by the volume of over 3,000 submissions received in the process which my officials are currently assessing. This follows on from the useful debate in the Seanad last November, and I am sure the debate in this House will add to the evolving policy. Following this public consultation process, further dialogue with stakeholders and experts will be necessary in advance of our lodging of our justification for a derogation under Single Market rules and formally notifying the EU Commission of our intentions, as required. However, the results of the public consultation will streamline this dialogue which I hope will advance quickly.

I wish to reassure the House that both I, as the Minister responsible for the marine environmental protection, and the Government generally, recognise that microbeads used in cosmetics, body care products generally, and also other products, such as detergents and scouring agents, are potentially harmful to our rivers, transitional marine areas and marine environments at sea. Indeed, Ireland holds a formal position that we wish to see microbeads banned throughout the European Union.

Even though we are working on our own national legislation, I intend to continue to actively campaign for an EU-wide ban on microbeads and work collaboratively with the European Commission and other member states to achieve it. Earlier this week I responded positively to a request from the Swedish Minister for the Environment to join a commitment by a number of countries to ban microbeads.

In recent years scientists, experts and policy makers have become increasingly concerned about the levels of waste, or marine litter, ending up in the seas. Deputy Sean Sherlock has mentioned that there are over 6 trillion plastic particles in the seas, which is an extraordinary number. The weight of the combined marine litter across the oceans is staggering. It equates to there being an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean as big as some countries. It is a huge issue, in respect of which, as an island nation surrounded by a very important marine environment, we have a moral obligation to do a lot more. As Deputies are aware, it can be found in every aspect of the marine environment and ranges in size from large objects such as fishing nets or shipping containers to micro and nano-litter particles, that is, particles smaller than 1 mm in diameter. However, the extent of the marine litter problem and the harm it causes to the environment is not yet fully understood and subject to ongoing extensive research. Nonetheless, it is clear to me that it is an issue we need to address in a much more comprehensive way than we have in the past. We should take a precautionary approach in terms of how we approach it from a policy perspective. Marine litter also causes socioeconomic harm. It affects tourism and consumer confidence in seafood. More importantly, it affects the marine ecosystems that we have a responsibility to protect into the future.

Plastic is a particular problem for the marine environment. Owing to its buoyancy, it can be easily washed down rivers, blown offshore or collected by the tide from the shore, as well as being dumped or lost directly into the seas from ships and fishing boats. It does not biodegrade and persists in the environment for a very long time. It can break down into secondary micro-plastic particles through erosion and there is evidence to suggest both large plastic items and micro-plastics are being ingested by marine fauna, with undetermined consequences for them and creatures higher up the food chain who eat them, including ourselves.

While much of the marine micro-plastic litter is created through the erosion of larger pieces, micro-plastics are also entering the marine environment in other forms such as micro-fibres from artificial materials that come off clothes by washing, for example. However, a certain amount of marine micro-plastic litter is caused by plastic microbeads which are used in cosmetics, including body care products, cleansing products and detergents and surface cleaning agents entering the marine environment via wastewater discharges into rivers and estuaries. Such microbeads cannot be easily removed by the treatment of wastewater.

While I acknowledge that microbeads represent a fraction of the micro-plastic litter entering the marine environment, they are a particularly pernicious product as they are ready-made micro-plastics and cannot be removed once they reach the marine environment. Microbeads could not be regarded as a major human necessity. They are often present merely for decorative purposes. Also, where microbeads are used as exfoliating or scouring agents, a wide array of established safe and biodegradable organic particles or natural mineral alternatives are readily available. The relevant industries are fully aware that the tide of international opinion is turning against the use of microbeads on account of their potential to cause harm to marine ecosystems. They are already banned in Canada and the United States. The UK and French prohibitions are due to come into effect later this year and I hope a prohibition will come into effect here too. A number of other EU member states, of which Ireland is one, have formally stated they will seek a similar microbeads prohibition across the European Union. Thus, industry is already turning to other alternatives.

Research on the harm caused by marine litter is at an early stage of development. My Department is actively participating in studies both at national and international level to identity the level of waste in the marine environment, the harm it does and what we can do about it. It will advance the science knowledge base in this area and inform future public policy on the matter.

See this speech in context