Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Labour) | Oireachtas source

Apparently, the reason for opposing the Bill is that there is some hastily found EU law that will spare Fine Gael's blushes. I would like to lance that one if I might. the Labour Party has carefully considered the position of whether EU law would prevent member states from taking action on the issue. Articles 34 and 35 of the treaty set out the principle that as a single market is an area without internal borders, restriction on the movement of goods are not allowed and the free movement of goods should be guaranteed. Undoubtedly an Irish ban on the sale of products containing micro-beads would have the effect of restricting certain imports. However, Article 36 of the treaty goes on to say that "The provisions of Articles 34 and 35 shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports ... [that are] justified on grounds of ... the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants". The EU treaty directly acknowledges that national measures can be taken to protect the environment and this undoubtedly is one of those measures, as has been very well put by my colleague Senator Grace O'Sullivan.

In December 2014, the Netherlands, Austria, Luxembourg, Belgium and Sweden issued a joint statement to EU environment Ministers calling for an EU ban on micro-plastics in cosmetics and detergents. A January 2016 research report, commissioned by the European Union Commission, looked at what EU mechanisms were available to reduce micro-bead pollution from cosmetics. That report concluded that introducing a ban on micro-beads at EU level would be more complicated than the law used in the US and Canada. The report said that it was unclear as to whether any of the existing directives and regulations that had been identified would be suitable. In light of this hesitancy at EU level we believe that domestic action is necessary and appropriate. The Government cannot hide behind EU law in this instance. It is true that our proposed legislation amounts - on the face of it - to a trade barrier but there is a well-established procedure for dealing with this if the mindset was there within Government and within its coalition partners in Fianna Fáil.

The EU Transparency Directive sets up a procedure obliging the member states to notify the Commission of all draft regulations and products before they are adapted in national law. The notification triggers a standstill period of three months. The Commission and the other member states can use this time to examine the notified draft regulations to determine whether or not it complies with the EU treaty and the principles of the free movement of goods and services. If there is no reaction the draft can be adopted after the three month standstill period has expired. This is exactly the procedure that the de facto Tánaiste, Deputy Micheál Martin had to follow when he introduced the ban on smoking in the workplace. There was a standstill period for the new rules and then they came in to full force and effect. The EU Commission can block the proposal if the draft legislation concerns a matter where the EU itself proposes to act. This is clearly not the case on micro-plastics.

Fine Gael should stop pretending, or hiding behind EU law. The fact is that a last minute phone call took place by Deputy Timmy Dooley throwing the dodie out of the pram, he wanted the credit for himself, and an extremely good piece of legislation from the Green party, supported by the Labour Party - even though we had our own Bill in the mix - is now being shot down. The pair of you should be ashamed of yourselves.