I was disgusted and furious yesterday at 5.30 p.m. to receive a notice from the office of the Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, Deputy Simon Coveney, saying Seanad Éireann declines to give the Micro-plastic and Micro-bead Pollution Prevention Bill a Second Reading. I am disgusted because it is undemocratic. Several weeks ago, I brought the Bill to the House. I first informed the House. The Bill was prepared and ready. There have been many weeks during which the Minister or the Department could have consulted with me or my team to discuss the Bill if there were shortcomings. It is an issue of marine pollution. Other countries such as the UK, the Netherlands and Italy are already working on similar Bills. The Minister said my Bill is breaching Articles 34 and 35 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Based on the precautionary principle, Article 36, it is fine. It is a simple Bill, designed to pass through the House. It is relatively straightforward. The Minister said he would do the be all and end all for the marine environment and fisheries. He has not. He has had years. He now is responsible for a housing crisis, which he is not managing. He certainly is not managing my Bill because at 5.30 p.m. on the day before the Bill was to be debated, he informed me that he wanted the Bill killed.

It is outrageous.

It is totally outrageous and unfair. I do not understand why he wants to do it. Yesterday, Fianna Fáil announced it would bring forward a Bill. Maybe he was afraid Fianna Fáil would steal his thunder.

He is right.

There is something with the Bill. It is poor management, untimely and unacceptable. I move for a suspension of the sitting under Standing Order 25 to allow for the Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, Deputy Simon Coveney, to attend the House to explain why the Government has moved an amendment to block the Second Reading of the Micro-plastic and Micro-bead Pollution Prevention Bill. Further, I urge the Government to withdraw the amendment in order to allow the debate to go ahead.

To clarify, is the Senator moving an amendment to the Order of Business?

Yes.

To what effect?

To allow for the Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, Deputy Simon Coveney, to attend the House to explain to me why the Government has moved an amendment to block the Second Reading of the Bill.

We are not clear. Is the Senator proposing that the Minister be brought in straight away before the next item is taken?

Yes. I am asking the Minister to come to the House to explain.

The Bill has been ordered and is on the agenda. The Minister will have the opportunity to explain when it comes up.

I am asking him to come to the House-----

The Leader will explain the Order of Business when he responds.

I am asking the Minister to come separately this afternoon and for an amendment to the Order of Business.

For what purpose? The Bill has already been ordered by the Leader and is on the Order of Business.

The problem is that the Minister does not want to have a Second Reading of the Bill and I am questioning this.

There will be a debate on it, the Minister will be able to explain, and the Senator will be able to participate. While the Senator means well, it is not relevant.

To be helpful, the Senator may not understand. The two-hour debate will go ahead. The Government has an amendment to her Bill and there will be an opportunity during that two hours for the Senator to make her point to the Minister here. There is no need for an amendment to the Order of Business.

The Senator will have her opportunity when the Bill comes up this evening.

So we will have a full debate from 2.30 p.m. until 4.30 p.m.

Yes, for two hours.

I am still asking the Minister to withdraw his amendment.

I will allow the Leader in to make a point of order.

The motion will be debated before the House. I talked to the Minister this morning. He is prepared to speak to the Senator before the debate. I will explain in my response to the Order of Business. The motion is being put to the House. There is no attempt on the part of the House to deprive the Senator of the opportunity to debate the motion, and we are happy to do it. I will talk to the Senator further.