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

Amendments will not deal with this and I will explain why. I reassure the House that I, as Minister with responsibility for marine environmental protection, and the Government generally recognise that microbeads used in cosmetics, body-care products generally and also products like detergents and scouring agents are potentially harmful to our river and marine environments. Indeed, Ireland has held a formal position that we wish to see microbeads banned throughout the EU. Over recent years, scientists, experts and policy makers have become increasingly concerned about the levels of waste or marine litter winding up in our seas and oceans. As Senators 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 nanolitter particles. However, the extent of the marine litter problem and the harm it causes to the environment are not fully understood at this time and are subject to ongoing research. Nevertheless, it is clear that this is an issue we need to address and, at the very least, we need to do so under the precautionary principle, about which Senator Grace O'Sullivan has spoken. Marine litter also causes socioeconomic harm by affecting tourism and consumer confidence in seafood, but the core issue here is that it is destroying an eco-system that we have a responsibility to protect.

Plastic is a particular problem for the marine environment. It does not biodegrade and persists in the environment for a very long time; many lifetimes in fact. It can break down into secondary microplastic particles through erosion which is evidence that both large plastic items and microplastics are being ingested by marine fauna with undetermined consequences for them and the creatures higher up the food chain who eat them, including ourselves. Microplastics are also entering the marine environment in other forms including microfibres and artificial fibres worn off clothes during washing. However, a certain amount of marine microplastic litter is caused by plastic microbeads, which are used in cosmetics, body-care and cleansing products, detergents and surface cleaning agents, entering the marine environment via wastewater discharges into rivers and estuaries. Such microbeads cannot be easily removed by treatment of wastewater. In fact, it is virtually impossible to treat it according to my understanding.

Microbeads might only represent a small fraction of the microplastic litter entering the marine environment, but they are a particularly pernicious product in the sense that they are ready-made microplastics which cannot be removed once they reach the marine environment. Microbeads cannot be regarded as a major human necessity. They are often present merely for decorative purposes. As some Members will probably know better than I, 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 proposed US and UK bans are due to commence in 2017. A number of EU member states, of which Ireland is one, have formally stated that they seek such microbead bans across the EU. Thus, industry is already turning to other alternatives.

The fact that marine litter is a transboundary issue means no one country can solve the problem on its own. While a domestic ban by a population of 5 million in isolation may send a positive message, banning the use of microbeads by a population of over 500 million would be much more effective. However, I recognise that there is a value in sending a positive message with a domestic ban. If we are going to do this, we have to do it properly. It is my job to ensure that we do it properly rather than to try to do something to support a colleague I happen to think has the right view. As a legislator, my job is to ensure that I take legal advice and take the correct approach. I have taken some initial legal advice on the issue and my primary concern in the first instance is that a national ban could place Ireland in breach of Articles 34 and 35 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provide for the free movement of goods, unless a process is put in place to allow us to do it. Furthermore, under Directive 2015/1535 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on information society services, which is an "EUism", if I may use that term, there is a requirement for Ireland to formally notify the Commission that we intend to introduce such legislation. Introducing a Bill like the one being proposed today prior to such notification would place us in breach of the directive and open to immediate and probable successful challenge. As such, it is not possible for us to introduce such a Bill at this stage.

Even if it were possible, there are other flaws in the Bill that I have a responsibility to highlight. For a start, it is more limited in ambition than our current policy position. It does not cover detergents and scouring agents, which can also contain plastic microbeads. The problems with the Bill are not confined to that issue. If they were, we could address them by way of amendment. For example, the Bill does not appear to provide any investigative or enforcement powers. The penalties laid down are disproportionate and out of step with recent legislation. The specification of a fine of up to €10,000 per item could mean that a shopkeeper with a carton of 100 bottles of eye make-up containing plastic glitter for sale could be liable for a fine of up to €1 million. I do not want to create a drama about that but I note that there is a process here by which we need to test the legislation to ensure that it is right. The Bill does not provide the Minister with sufficient principles and policies to make regulations and the monitoring programme it proposes is far too broad in scale to be either useful or scientifically justified. The advice I have is that the legislation proposed would simply be unworkable, costly and ineffective and I have an obligation to let the Senator know that.

Nonetheless, I see advantages in Ireland leading by examples on microbeads. With this in mind, the Government will develop proposals to ban microbeads nationally in the context of a wider marine environmental Bill to be published next year, which will also provide the legislative basis for a network of marine protected areas, as I mentioned earlier and as required by the marine strategy framework directive, and make necessary amendments to the Dumping at Sea Acts. We will consult the relevant stakeholders in advance of this, draw up our justification for a derogation under Single Market rules and notify the Commission as required. In conjunction with this work, we will continue to lobby for an EU-wide microbead ban at the earliest opportunity. As I stated earlier, marine litter, like climate change, is a transboundary problem and we will only be able to start to solve it by concerted international action underpinned by research and supported by awareness raising activities. In advance of that, I intend to write to the Commission in the coming days to notify it of my intention to proceed with a ban on microbeads, going even further than the ban proposed by Senator Grace O'Sullivan this evening. We are going to follow through on this. I mean that.

The Government recognises the need for measures to prevent microbeads entering the marine environment through wastewater discharge. We welcome the principle and acknowledge Senator Grace O'Sullivan's sincere effort in progressing this important issue. I recognise that this can only realistically be achieved by a ban on their use in cosmetics and the other products we have mentioned. I have heard Senator O'Sullivan on the radio and seen the frustration and the eagerness to progress the legislation. I take that on board and because of it I am making a commitment today to write within a few days to the European Commission to inform it that we plan to proceed with a ban. We will start the process we need to trigger to ensure that when legislation is introduced it is not challenged by the industry in a way that undermines our efforts. If we do that collectively, we will have done a pretty good job.