Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I am not at all surprised that the European Commission has been unable to get support in the REACH committee due to the fundamental problems with the proposals. Did the European Commission forget about the presumption of innocence? An extremely important principle in EU law is that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, yet these proposals would have seen that burden move to the person. The person would have been responsible for proving that he or she had been outside wetlands when he or she used lead shot. There was nothing in the proposal to give a clear and precise understanding of people's rights and obligations and nothing in it to require the courts to ensure those rights and obligations are observed.

The definition of wetlands under the Ramsar Convention could not be less clear. It includes peatlands - all of them - and a 1 sq. m area of temporary water. Where I come from, they are called puddles. They come from rain, and then they disappear. When one adds on to this the 100 m buffer zone, not only does one get widespread confusion but one gets something that is completely unenforceable. That definition meant wetlands would literally change with the weather. Bizarrely, the proposal meant it would have been perfectly fine to fire lead shot towards a wetland as long as it was 100 m away.

It is also strange that there was no reference in any way, either explicit or implied, to the use of lead gunshot by military or by the police falling under these regulations. It seems to be one of many oversights in the proposals.

See this speech in context