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

I acknowledge the significant work done by Senator Grace O'Sullivan and Deputy Sherlock and I echo the comments the Minister made in that regard. I have I have little doubt that if that work had not been done, we would not be here with legislation which, on the basis of what we have heard so far, will be passed by the House. That is positive and has to be acknowledged. I also acknowledge the significant shift in the Government's position on this issue in the past year or 18 months. Not that long ago we were discussing Deputy Sherlock's Bill and the Government's position was that it was not possible to do what he proposed under EU law. I thank both the Minister and his officials for what has been a very constructive engagement with the committee and the sponsors of the two previous Bills. Notwithstanding people's initial positions at the start of any dialogue, it is always possible to come to a much better position at the end.

It is important to also acknowledge that this Bill deals with what is a very small piece of a much larger problem. While I was not expecting secondary microplastics to be dealt with in the Bill before us, that is where the bigger problem lies, along with single-use plastics more generally. There is significant resistance at an industry level across the European Union, not necessarily to tackling the smaller part of the problem but to dealing with the broader issue of single-use plastics in a more definitive way. The industry spends almost €2 billion annually in lobbying to try to resist some of the moves being made in respect of such plastics. While there is no doubt that we should pass this Bill and implement it as a matter of urgency, I look forward to working with the Minister and the Government on those broader issues. Ultimately, the Bill will only remove a very small amount of the damaging substances that have entered our seas and water systems. It must be followed by much more significant action at a later date. If the Minister takes the same approach to those issues as he has taken to this Bill, he will have the support of our party.

We fully support the Bill, although I have a few questions to which we may come back on Committee Stage. I will not spend long detaining other Members. I am still concerned about some of the exemptions, specifically that relating to sun cream. The joint committee asked if officials were aware of any sun creams that contain microbeads and they indicated that they were not. I acknowledge the Minister's comment to the effect that they contacted the relevant agency. Regardless of whether there are sun creams that contain microbeads, the point is that they should not. Microbeads offer no benefit in the context of the valuable role that sun cream plays in protecting people against skin cancer. It makes no sense to allow them to continue to be used in such creams. I urge the Minister and his officials to re-examine this matter in order to see if there is a way to proceed.

I am not clear about the merits of excluding leave-on or wear-off products. Will the Minister provide more information about the logic of that? Even if it is not the designer's intention for those products to be washed off, the fact that the Minister acknowledged that they end up in the sewerage system and, ultimately, the water system as a result of the fact that people misuse wipes shows that there is a problem. As he knows, some of us who have had to deal with the negative impact of wipes on our sewerage system are aware that there is a large volume of them going into our water system. If those wipes contain a significant volume off wash-off products with microbeads, then that is an issue. I would like to hear more about that from the Minister and I would like him to reconsider the position between now and Committee Stage.

While I appreciate the ongoing work on the revised registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals, REACH, directive - I accept that this is not directly relevant to the Bill - I want to put on the record the fact that there will be a six-year lead-in time once the negotiations on directive have been concluded. That period seems far too protracted. Since he did not refer to it earlier, perhaps the Minister will clarify, subject to both this Bill passing all Stages and the completion of the request for derogation from the Commission, at what point the impact of this legislation will become actionable. Is there a lead-in time proposed for industry, etc.?

Our party supports the Bill. My initial comments were intended in the spirit of this being a good example of how things should be done. It would be better if it happened more quickly. Perhaps that is the lesson for the next stage in the process, whether that involves dealing with secondary microplastics or single-use plastics, in order that we might work together in a collective and much more co-ordinated fashion. We are where we are and it is a decent enough place. I would like the Minister to address the exemptions and the lead-in period that will apply after the passing of the legislation.

See this speech in context