Seanad debates

Wednesday, 23 November 2016

Micro-plastic and Micro-bead Pollution Prevention Bill 2016: Second Stage

 

10:30 am

Photo of Alice-Mary HigginsAlice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will share time with Senator Ruane. I commend Senator Grace O’Sullivan’s passion for, and deep knowledge of, marine ecology and environmental concerns. She made this a priority as soon as she entered the Oireachtas. It entered the Order Paper some considerable time ago. There has been immense co-operation from our group with the Government in discussing when it might be taken. We have moved the date of this Private Members' business slot to accommodate the Government. We have endeavoured at all points to ensure constructive dialogue. It has been deeply and well signalled as an area of concern. We have heard concerns expressed across the House about micro-beads and micro-plastics and their impact on the environment. While I may not have had the time on the seas that my colleague had, I have seen, as I am sure many others have, the horrible testimonies and videos of the devastating impact of these micro-plastics, a throwaway element in many products, on marine ecology. It seems extraordinary that the Government would seek to block the reading of this Bill a second time. As I understand it, in the amendment, which we might hear although I am still hoping it will be withdrawn, legal concerns are expressed. I highlighted on the Order of Business the way that these legal concerns are being put forward now yet on this very day an appeal to the European Parliament that the investor dispute resolution courts which raise serious concerns in respect of the EU treaties be referred to the European Court of Justice. We have not heard resounding support from the Government for the referral of these investor courts to the European Court of Justice simply to check their legal compatibility. If we are going to invoke arguments of legal compatibility, we need consistency in that regard. Moreover, we are confident that the precautionary principle, a fundamental principle in EU law and practice, does absolutely justify the measures in this Bill. Even if that were not the case, there would be plenty of time to deal with it.

If this had been taken in good faith, surely we would be considering an amendment from the Government to remove section 2, relating to the manufacture and sale of micro-beads. Instead, we have an order from the Government to kill the entire Bill, including sections which relate very directly to our domestic authority, for example, the water analysis. Is it the view of the Government that there should be no Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, analysis of, and sampling from, coastal waters? Is it the view that there is a problem if we monitor the level of this in our waters? Does the Government have a problem with section 4, which calls for an environmental analysis? If there is such consensus in the House, from Fianna Fáil, who with the exception of the Acting Chairman are unfortunately not here today, and Labour which has expressed concerns about it, let us move ahead with the other sections of the Bill, the environmental and water analyses, and section 6, which gives power to the Minister to make orders in this area. If the Minister is serious about this area, I ask him to withdraw his amendment and work with us towards Committee Stage and the many positive and constructive elements of this Bill.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.