Mr. David Donoghue:

It is a pleasure to be here. While serving as Ireland’s permanent representative to the United Nations from 2013 to 2017, I was asked to take on the role of co-facilitator, or co-chair, for global negotiations to agree a new development agenda in succession to the millennium development goals with which many members of the committee will be familiar. This appointment was, frankly, a great honour for Ireland. I was teamed up with my counterpart from Kenya. It is a UN convention to combine ambassadors, that is, one ambassador from the global north and one from the global south. It was our responsibility to lead the negotiations towards an agreement which all 193 member states of the UN could support. This we achieved on 2 August 2015. In the following month, a special summit formally launched the new sustainable development goals, SDGs, and the wider 2030 agenda for sustainable development of which they are the key part.

In this document, every country in the world agreed on an ambitious collective plan to guide the development of humanity and the planet over the 15-year period up to 2030. Nothing like this had ever been attempted before. The 17 interconnected goals and 169 sub-goals, or targets as they are called, cover a vast range of policy areas, from health and education to sustainable cities and oceans and from food security to human rights and gender equality. Every country has agreed to use the SDGs as the framework for its own policies in these areas. The document was agreed unanimously and without reservations from any country. The commitments made are not legally binding but might be described as politically, and even in some instances morally, binding on all governments.

What was the role of the European Union in the negotiations and how is it contributing today to the implementation of the goals and targets? The EU played a key role from the beginning. Its representatives at the UN worked hard to co-ordinate the views of all EU member states and to present a united position on the many challenges of the negotiations. This was at times difficult, given the scale and complexity of the issues as well as the diversity of perspectives and priorities within the Union. EU member states were also free to intervene nationally and, while they generally did so to complement the formal EU position, there were occasional challenges in ensuring consistency across the various interventions. Overall, there was a strong EU involvement, with regular attendance by Commissioners and MEPs and frequent Council decisions and Commission communications.

In the first few years after adoption of the SDGs, however, the zeal which the EU had demonstrated during the negotiations slackened a little. There was a concern not to undermine the implementation responsibilities of the individual EU member states. While the 2015 agreement had envisaged implementation at global, regional and national levels, the main emphasis initially was on the role to be played by national governments. Detailed arrangements were made by national governments for national SDGs co-ordination but there was relatively little activity at EU level. There was, for example, no overall EU strategy to achieve the SDGs in support of the national plans. The EU's institutions were not joined up behind the new agenda and political impetus was clearly lacking.

This changed, however, with the arrival of the von der Leyen Commission. President von der Leyen asked that her fellow Commissioners align their work explicitly with the SDGs. The SDGs were placed at the heart of the Commission’s work programme, internally and externally. They were integrated into the European semester and the better regulation framework. President von der Leyen also, of course, oversaw the closely linked European Green Deal, which, among other moves, committed the EU to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. The vast majority of programmes funded under the EU budget today are contributing, in one way or another, to the SDGs. Any proposed legislation must also pass this test. A global gateway strategy, which aims to mobilise €300 billion by 2027, is geared to the implementation of SDGs. The pledge to leave no one behind, a core commitment under the SDGs and the 2030 agenda, underpins the EU's international partnerships.

There are still some weaknesses, however, in the EU’s institutional response. There is, for example, still no dedicated mechanism within the Commission to promote and oversee the implementation of SDGs. There is merely loose co-ordination between individual Commissioners. Improved Council co-ordination on the SDGs is also needed.

The European Parliament is moving towards a more systematic engagement after a hesitant start. An informal SDGs alliance, in which some Irish MEPs, including Barry Andrews MEP, are prominent, is doing valuable work. Depending on the outcome of this year's European Parliament elections, the alliance could acquire formal status and associated resources in the next Parliament.

Recent global developments, in particular Covid-19, accelerating climate change and spiralling conflict, have had the effect of reinforcing the significance of the SDGs. In the wake of the pandemic, the UN Secretary General called on the world to "build back better" on the basis of the SDGs. In an increasingly uncertain world, many countries see the SDGs as indispensable. They are one of the very few uncontested global agendas, even if the rate of actual achievement is very modest. The EU shares this view and sees a leadership role for itself in encouraging and supporting others to make faster progress over the remaining six years.

The UN hosts a high-level political forum each year at which countries deliver national reports, or voluntary national reviews, on their progress with the SDGs. All but five countries have by now delivered such reports. In a striking innovation, the European Union last year presented a voluntary review which reported systematically on how each of the SDGs is being implemented across the Union. Intended as a complement to the national reviews, this was the first progress report made by an international organisation. The EU initiative attracted much interest and favourable comment.

Another vehicle for scrutiny of the EU’s performance is the annual Europe Sustainable Development Report, which analyses developments under each goal across over 30 countries, including the EU and its neighbours and not exclusively the EU. An SDG index published as part of the 2022 report showed that this set of countries had, in fact, made very little progress since 2020 because of the pandemic.

The EU was prominent at a UN summit last September to review the progress of SDGs at the halfway point of the 15-year period. Ireland again had the honour of being one of the two co-facilitators for that process. Responding to a call from the Secretary General for an SDG stimulus package, the EU pledged strengthened investment in areas such as digitalisation, climate action and development finance. It will also be a key player at the Summit of the Future, which will take place at the UN in September of this year and is likely to announce other important supports for achievement of the SDGs.

Ms Meaghan Carmody:

We thank the members and secretariat of the committee for the opportunity to discuss concerns related to the EU's progress towards achieving the SDGs. We represent a coalition of civil society organisations and trade unions dedicated to holding Ireland accountable for its commitment to achieving the SDGs by 2030, as outlined in the transformative 2030 agenda for sustainable development.

The SDGs are a global roadmap to address interconnected challenges and guide us toward eradicating poverty, meeting universal needs, tackling inequality and operating within planetary boundaries. They are, or should be, our guiding principles, our north star, ensuring we stay on course towards a sustainable future. Yet, the latest Eurostat and SDG index studies shows the EU has not achieved any overall SDG. Challenges persist across most areas, notably in food systems and agriculture, biodiversity, climate action and global partnerships. To illustrate, the EU is falling short, and in fact moving away from, its target for net greenhouse gas emissions from land use, land use change and forestry, and there has been insufficient progress towards its target for net greenhouse gas emissions. The EU is also moving away from its terrestrial protection targets related to phosphate in rivers, the grassland butterfly index and the common bird index. These trends represent a stark risk to food security, yet they are largely caused by the degradation of the ecosystem due to agricultural intensification and unsustainable food systems.

Progress on global partnership goals is also lagging, such as the EU target of 0.7% of GNI for official development assistance. The target for progressing EU financing to developing countries remains insufficient. Article 3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union commits the EU to the sustainable development of Europe, and Article 21 explicitly states that the EU shall promote sustainable development beyond its borders. The EU is also obliged to incorporate development co-operation objectives into all internal and external policies that are likely to affect developing countries, as set out in Article 208 of the Treaty.

We will outline three areas where the EU risks contravening these articles and, by extension, risks not just the EU's SDG achievement but also the ability of partner countries to reach the SDGs. The leaked draft of the EU’s next strategic agenda reveals an alarming shift. Climate and nature are sidelined in favour of security, defence, migration, enlargement and economic development. This contradicts the previous agenda's focus on building a climate-neutral, green, fair and social Europe. In this one, climate and nature receive no priority mention. The draft agenda omits biodiversity, which is vital for climate resilience, and fails to mention the SDGs. It references the need for a vibrant agricultural sector but does not state that farming must also be sustainable to allow for genuine and long-term food security. The only mention of the environment is in the context of "promoting an innovation- and business friendly environment". This back-pedalling is taking place in the context of a Europe which is warming at twice the rate of other continents and where there has been a 30% increase in heat-related deaths in the past 20 years. Europe saw its joint warmest year on record in 2023. It also saw a record number of days with extreme heat stress. Precipitation across the region was 7% above average for 2023, making it the wettest year ever.

The draft strategic agenda emphasises accelerating the energy transition and preparing for climate change's impacts in the context of a "prosperous and competitive Europe", but Europe cannot hope to be secure, prosperous or competitive without addressing the interdependent climate and biodiversity crises. The EU will not be secure until the potential for climate and biodiversity breakdown-induced global instability is addressed. These must not be the final priorities for the strategy.

We also want to raise concerns regarding the brief of the next European Commission. The also leaked draft briefing book published by the Department for International Partnerships, DG INTPA, indicates a pivot away from human-centred commitments to sustainable development and a move towards prioritising competition, trade and the interests of the EU to the detriment of the interests of partner countries.

This indicates a disproportionate reliance on the private sector and specific industries of interest to the EU while leaving almost no room for a deliberate sustainable development agenda, human rights, addressing inequalities or leave-no-one-behind approaches.

DG INTPA is entrusted with supporting its partner countries on their path to sustainable development. However, this move, if brought to fruition, risks damaging the EU’s credibility and reputation as a reliable partner and also risks the achievement of the SDGs globally. This should be a major concern for Ireland, as this proposed change in direction does not correspond with the objectives or approach set out in Ireland’s development policy, A Better World. The proposals are also in contravention of Article 3.5 of the Treaty of the European Union. Moreover, the brief is silent on the impact of inequality and its root causes, for example vicious debt cycles, tax injustice and power imbalances in international forums such as the UN Security Council.

Finally last week, MEPs approved the EU’s economic governance reform. Despite improvements post Covid-19, opposition persists from trade unions and CSOs which fear that these reformed fiscal rules auger a return to austerity. We share this concern about overly restrictive fiscal policy as it risks jeopardising investments critical for SDG achievement. The reformed rules maintain unsubstantiated and arbitrary benchmarks, which risk triggering a wave of social and environmental budget cuts across Europe.

Several countries have already slashed green and social spending for this year and next and a New Economics Foundation study commissioned by the European Trade Union Confederation shows 18 member states would not be able to invest sufficiently in social infrastructure under these new rules. This reform poses a major risk to Europe's social and climate goals.

We recommend that the Irish Government ensures that the EU makes its next period of work to address the twin climate and biodiversity crises in a just way and that national budgets are facilitated to front-load green and social investments. It should also advocate for subordinating debt reduction to a new understanding of debt sustainability which asks what level of debt will allow for sustainable development, meeting the needs of all today while ensuring the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

It should also advocate for establishing a permanent fiscal solution for sustainable development akin to the Covid-19 recovery budget, in particular, a dedicated EU public investment fund post 2026 to drive SDG achievement. It should also immediately realign its international co-operation efforts with the SDGs and human rights and addresses root causes of poverty and inequality.

The next European Parliament and Commission will be in power during the final five critical years we have to achieve the SDGs. There are ample recommendations from both civil society and the current European Parliament - I draw the committee's attention to a longer briefing on that - regarding how to turn the tide away from insularity and towards well-being, sustainable development, intergenerational justice and policy coherence. We would be delighted to elaborate on specific ideas and recommendations on these matters and to answer members' questions.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank both witnesses for their contributions. I welcome Barry Andrews, an acknowledged champion of this area, to the committee. I think we have all committed to achieve the SDGs set out. Although Mr. Donoghue's is more optimistic in setting out the structures of the reporting mechanisms, both presentations we have received report very modest advances on any of them. Mr. Donoghue says that the rate of achievement is modest and, more starkly, Ms Carmody says the EU has not achieved any overall SDGs. It is well and good to talk about advocacy and suggest that we must work harder and do more. I sat in a government during very great difficulty here. There is an argument about what should be done and then we need to talk about the political reality within which we are working. I ask both witnesses to address that net issue.

The overarching geopolitical context in which we are operating means that there is growing nationalism across Europe and across the world. There is a retreat generally from multilateralism. We can talk about needing to do more but the reality is that world politics and voters are moving in the opposite direction. In Europe, many of the countries we traditionally looked to as leaders, particularly the Nordic countries, are refocusing away from the continent of Africa, for example. That is the reality. How can that be addressed? What are the witnesses' solutions to that? It is hard to be advocates for doing things while the political ground is moving ever rightwards and ever against the idea of multilateralism that we had assumed, particularly when the millennium development goals, or MDGs, were originally envisaged, to be a pathway that would be one way. It is now in retreat. What is the witnesses' take on that?

We need to have this conversation with a sense of reality as opposed to having a sense of let us all just do better and march forwards. There are growing forces across Europe and across the world - we see what is happening in the United States - working mightily in the opposite direction. Those forces are not only in the developed world. We see what is happening in Africa with the retreat of democracy and the growth of autocracy, coups across the Sahel in recent times, the expulsion of European influences and the growing influence of bad actors, particularly Russia and China, and in Russia's case its commercial military offshoots. Rather than dealing with the specifics, I would be interested in hearing the witnesses' take on how we can steady the ship while dealing with the political realities we are facing.

Barry Andrews will have a better take on this than I would. The expectation across Europe is that we will not have a more progressive European Parliament after the next set of elections. We will probably have a more nationalist and regressive parliament and that will obviously also be represented in all the institutions of the European Union.

Mr. David Donoghue:

I am happy to give an initial reaction. I am very sympathetic to what the Deputy said. Let me begin by clarifying what I meant by modest achievements so far on the SDGs. The UN Secretary General has said that only 12% of the 159 targets are on track at present. We are halfway through. There are 159 sub-goals which needs to be progressed and we are on track to achieve only 12% of them. That spells out starkly how far behind we are. The two main reasons for that are: first, Covid and the impact it had socially and economically; and second, the repercussions of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, interruptions of supply chains and so on. There are many other factors.

I now come to the Deputy's main point and argument. It is true that we are facing into very strong headwinds with the moves to the right. While this may seem counterintuitive, the best way to measure how the SDGs are being treated globally is to look at the actions at an annual conference called the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development, to which I referred. Each year at that conference the enthusiasm is more palpable. I should emphasise that I was one of the sceptics. I thought that by about now we would begin to hear slightly more defeatist tones, especially after the 12% completion. However, the mood is that regardless of difficult it is, we must knuckle down and do the best we can between now and 2030.

That may seem a bit Pollyanna-ish. How likely is it that we will in fact achieve the goals in full by 2030? Nevertheless for whatever reason it is as if the world feels this is the anchor and we have to hang on to it. When I say the world, no country has spoken out against the SDGs. If I can get to the point, Trump did not actually disown the SDGs while he was president. One reason for that-----

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He just disowned the entire United Nations.

Mr. David Donoghue:

Just the entire United Nations. One reason may be that for the SDGs there was no specific cheque or financial commitment for US commitment to them. For whatever reason Trump did not use his previous four years to diss the SDGs. Equally, so far the more right-wing regimes are not distancing themselves. That could of course change over the next few years. The strange thing is that the international mood is one of SDGs being the only one we can all agree on and however imperfect and slow the progress is, we must keep going along that path. Part of me is a sceptic, like the Deputy, and thinks this will be overtaken by a global move to the right and away from multilateralism but the other part of me says to hold on to the positives that, oddly enough, we still have at the UN. It is a strange paradox that this incredibly ambitious agenda is still seen as the only one.

Ms Meaghan Carmody:

I thank the Deputy for his question. The Coalition 2030 and I widely share the concern about the move to the right in the institutions of the European Parliament. To echo what Mr. Donoghue said, the SDGs are the best framework we have at the moment to address and stem the tide of this shift to the right because the two central principles are leaving no one behind and reaching the furthest behind first. I will draw the committee's attention to one organisation and the study it carried out. It is named Earth4All and is led by the Club of Rome. The committee members might know the Club of Rome through its study The Limits to Growth published in the 1970s, which sparked a lot of the conversations on sustainable development. Earth4All's recent study, SGDs for All, which I would be happy to circulate afterwards, shows that inequality reduces trust in institutions. That reduces the capacity of these institutions to engage with citizens in a democratic way to make sure everybody's needs are met and address the move towards insularity and to the right, to put it bluntly.

To articulate what Earth4All has found in its study, it has a very useful slide deck, which I can also circulate, and this shows that well-being is declining globally. Even though in many countries GDP, for example, might be rising, inequality between those who are earning the most and those who are earning the least is increasing in many countries that we would call democracies. Since the 1970s the incomes of CEOs have increased by more than 1,300% in the US while the income of the average worker has increased by only 18%. Inflation over the past few years has also been approximately 18%. This inequality is reducing trust and contributing towards leaving people behind. When we look at the move towards the right, we can see it tracks with this inequality.

What of the future? We will have a number of outcome documents. One of those will be a declaration for future generations and one will be a pact for the future. These are efforts to anticipate what will be coming down the line and to try to ensure everybody's needs will be met. There are global initiatives addressing this and rather than saying the SDGs are not being met and that it is time to move on we need to acknowledge that all UN member states agreed to them and we must hold on fast to them until 2030.

Ms Attracta U? Bhroin:

No one can deny the horrible reality he set out. Following on from what Ms Carmody and Mr. Donoghue have articulated, we have an option. We can follow that or we can provide an alternative, an agenda for hope. As Ms Carmody said, we have to reach out to those who are left behind, those who have the right to be most angry and are most vulnerable to the agenda of nationalism. We can provide an alternative. Unfortunately, the reality of the EU's response we see right now is exactly contrary to that. In terms of the leaked draft strategic agenda, we have a complete failure to respond to the challenges of our time.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is my next point. The Commission and the institutions will respond to the voter. Ms Uí Bhroin cannot say she knows better than the voter so we have to convince the voter and not say we will do it despite his or her views because the voter will throw us all out if that is the approach.

Ms Attracta U? Bhroin:

With the greatest of respect to the Deputy, the Eurobarometer poll of voters from six months before tells us that they have a great appetite to address issues such as health and climate. A very toxic narrative is being promoted but the reality of what voters want, what people need and we as leaders and hopefully Ireland will advocate-----

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is what governments are elected is the issue.

Ms Attracta U? Bhroin:

The European Council and the strategic agenda, which will set the priorities for the next five years for the next Commission, is at a very important stage. We have a critical opportunity in the next month to influence the priorities, which are woefully inadequate. I am conscious we are still on the first question but I would like to elaborate on this matter during the discussion.

We really need investment in a socially just and green transition that will give people and companies confidence in the future. We need to provide an alternative and that is the only way to stem the tide.

Seán Haughey (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak. I did not realise Mr. Barry Andrews, MEP, was not a committee member. I thought MEPs were members.

Seán Haughey (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank witnesses for their presentations, which were very interesting. I note what Mr. Donoghue said about the difficulties in respect of the EU concerning this matter and that there is no dedicated mechanism within the Commission to promote the SDGs. We also need improved European Council co-ordination on the goals. That is a point we need to take on board as a committee.

I was very struck by Coalition 2030's presentation, particularly the comments about the EU's strategic agenda. It is an alarming shift. Climate and nature are sidelined in favour of security, defence, migration, enlargement, economic development and on it goes. There was talk about backsliding and so forth so it is a big worry. I take Deputy Howlin's point about the move to the right in Europe and throughout the world and we will have a new European Parliament and European Commission. One wonders if there are any grounds for optimism at all. I admire Mr. Donoghue's optimism. I am stepping down from-----

Mr. David Donoghue:

It is qualified.

Seán Haughey (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fair enough. I am stepping down from the Dáil at the next election but the problems seem to be overwhelming both nationally and internationally. Perhaps a new generation will come and sort them all out.

Is the EU the best in the class with regard to the implementation of the sustainable development goals? For me, it seems to be a really good force for change and for good compared to what other countries are doing. Do we have reason to be optimistic or should we remain optimistic?

I guess we must be optimistic. How do the witnesses think the EU is doing, and how is Ireland doing? I do not think there was any reference to Ireland. I know this is the Committee on European Union Affairs, but how is Ireland doing with regard to the implementation of these goals?

Ms Meaghan Carmody:

I am happy to jump in first on that. I thank Deputy Haughey for his question. If I understand correctly, he is asking what the grounds for optimism are, whether the EU region is best in class on the SDGs and how Ireland is doing.

On optimism, I am joining the meeting from Cardiff, where I am attending the Future Generation Forum hosted by the Welsh future generations commissioner. Yesterday there was an extremely optimistic atmosphere at the forum. More than 50% of the world’s population is under the age of 30. Many countries in the world are young countries. The shift in mindset and in approach to how we deal with problems, for example, moving towards long-termism, cathedral thinking and being a good ancestor, as was described yesterday, is notable. There is a move away from short-termism, short-term political cycles and short-term budgets. There is an understanding of the interconnection between various issues. Given I have worked in this area for a long time, I think optimism is hard to come by, but this area of futures thinking and long-termism is an area of hope.

We need to keep the Summit of the Future in mind. It was first floated in 2021 in the Our Common Agenda report from the UN Secretary General and it is now happening this year. As per one of the recommendations from the co-facilitators, this type of summit should happen every five years. There will likely be a UN special envoy for future generations. We are seeing more and more countries, Ireland included, beginning to think about futures thinking and legislating to ensure that those who are not yet born are taken into consideration in our policies. That is absolutely an area of optimism.

In terms of regions around the world, the Deputy is right. The EU is doing better than most. It is not balanced across the EU, as one might intuit. The northern European countries are doing best in the EU and central and eastern European countries are faring worst, so we need to work towards convergence.

The Deputy’s third question on how Ireland is doing could constitute an entire committee meeting by itself, so I will follow up with specific reports and details. Our approach to how Ireland is doing on SDGs and our position is that we need to measure what matters for Ireland. The CSO’s traffic light assessment of how we are doing on the SDGs says we are achieving no poverty, which is evidently not true for anybody who has two eyes and can engage with the world around them. We need a set of indicators that are contextually relevant for Ireland, and this is not unheard of. Many countries have done this and have taken the SDGs and made them nationally relevant. Wales is one example. Finland and the Netherlands are doing great work. There are plenty more examples.

If the Deputy has specific questions on how Ireland is doing, I am be happy to answer them. However, I am conscious that I do not want to get into the weeds if this committee is to talk about the EU. I am happy to answer any specifics and I will send the Deputy some documents after the meeting.

Mr. David Donoghue:

I wish to add to what Ms Carmody said. I thank Deputy Haughey for his questions. It is difficult to give a broad-brush account of how a country or even a region is doing because if they are honest, they will say they are doing well on some goals and not well on others. That honesty has only gradually come in. In the first few years when these national reports were being presented by countries at the UN each year, there was a fair amount of beauty contest stuff – no country wanted to be honest. Ireland was actually one of the first to set out with reasonable openness that we were strong in some areas and weak in others and, dare I say it, we were weak on the climate side several years ago. Ms Carmody and Coalition 2030 will of course have a different perspective because they have the task of analysing in detail what Ireland or any country is doing with regard to the SDGs. My overall sense is that there is now greater honesty and countries, on the whole, will say they are okay in some areas and not doing well in something else. It is a mixed report card for almost everybody. That is why I am not surprised that the EU has not achieved any of the goals in full, as Ms Carmody mentioned. Nobody has achieved any of the goals in full. To be honest, when we were framing this agenda, we did not think there would be a 100% return for anybody, even by 2030. I am not thrown back by the idea that the EU has not achieved any particular goal in full, as long as it is demonstrating it is heading in the right direction.

I hold no brief for the EU but I read the voluntary review it presented last summer, which goes through each goal and gives a differentiated account of each of them. On the whole, I am relieved there is now a greater political energy in the EU in support of the agenda than there was several years ago, and I tried to bring that out in my note. Barry Andrews has done great work in the European Parliament to raise the profile of the SDGs and ensure wider political commitment to them. There are many contributions being made to the EU’s increased profile on the SDGs.

On Ireland, I think Ms Carmody covered it well. My overall sense is that we are now doing better in the broadest way. One can argue about individual goals and targets. I think there has been quite a high level of commitment under this Government from all parties.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ireland has adopted a whole-of-government approach to SDG implementation, with each Minister having specific responsibilities for implementing individual SDG goals and targets related to the ministerial functions. The Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications has responsibility for promoting these SDGs and for overseeing their coherent implementation across government and each Department. How does the homelessness crisis in this country line up with the relevant Minister’s responsibilities regarding the SDGs in this area? What does it say about the oversight of the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, who is leaving these people behind? According to an ESRI study published in 2022 and entitled Fuel Poverty in Ireland: An Analysis of Trends and Profiles, almost one quarter of the population is facing further poverty. How can it be that the Minister in charge of overseeing the coherent implementations of SDGs cannot ensure that they are being implemented in his own Department?

I think it was Ms Carmody who mentioned that another pact is coming forward on the SDGs. I would like to know a little bit more about that and what it would entail.

Mr. David Donoghue:

I do not wish to talk about the role of the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications but the Senator is absolutely right to highlight the issue of homelessness as something which the SDGs must tackle. I had some responsibility for putting the concept of leaving no one behind into the SDGs document. It was agreed by all countries that they would leave no one behind.

What we meant by that was that the most marginalised groups in every society would be given priority. We even added a sentence which was agreed to by everybody that we will try to reach those who are furthest behind first. There was a very clear commitment made that the most impoverished and disadvantaged groups would be given top priority. Whether that has happened is open to debate, to put it mildly, but at least it is a central part of the SDGs. They refer to it as the leave no one behind agenda. That is my only comment on that matter. It will be for others to speak about what Ireland is doing in that respect.

The Summit of the Future, to which Ms Carmody referred, is a meeting that will be convened by the UN Secretary General in September. It is not about the SDGs as such, but it will be relevant to the SDGs because various policy initiatives will be announced there in areas such as digitalisation, development and finance, which are intended to help countries to implement the SDGs. Strictly speaking, it is a separate exercise, but there will be a document called the Pact for the Future, which will try to show more clearly how we will achieve the SDGs without in any way reopening or rewriting the SDGs. There was a little sensitivity for a year or two while the developing countries came to terms with the Summit of the Future. They were afraid it was an attempt to somehow bypass the SDGs. The developing countries are deeply attached to the SDGs. They do not want anything that might call them into question, but that doubt has been resolved. The summit in September will show more clearly what can be done by way of resources, new technologies, AI, etc., to advance the SDGs.

Ms Br?d McGrath:

I will come in on a general point. In Ireland, as far as I understand, the SDGs are the subject of a whole-of-government approach. In the round, where are the grounds for optimism? Where is the true pessimism and what we can do about it? The grounds for optimism are essentially in the youth of Africa and the global south. The more they are educated and the more the SDGs work there, that is good.

Regarding Deputy Howlin's point on the grounds for pessimism, it looks as though the EU is throwing in the towel. The elections have not even happened, but people see the move towards the right. We would argue that one should not run scared of the far right. How do you do this? It is not an easy thing. We must address the inequality the Senator spoke about at home and abroad. We must show where the true power and the true wealth lies. We must look up to where it really is and must not look across at each other or look down.

We spoke of the briefing book, which states nakedly that the new role of the EU in the world will be economic self-interest. We have to explain to everybody that that is a dangerous world. Aping the other power blocs or competing with them in relation to what they do will make us all less safe. It will be a world of resource wars, conflict and more forced migration. Worryingly, that briefing book speaks of how 70% of the cobalt is in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We all know what happens when there is a scramble for resources in the likes of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We must be really clear that we should lead from the front and have the EU be the honourable one and, in that sense, we must partner a true partnership with the Global South. If we stand by our word, those emerging markets, as some people call them, or countries will want to do business with the EU. The EU can then be the leader it says it is.

Mr. Barry Andrews:

I thank the Chair for the welcome. It is true that we will see less progressive MEPs and that will be reflected in the institutions. Even the parties themselves are shifting their base. They are trying to defeat the far right by becoming more far right and that is really worrying. We are seeing the deselection of candidates who do not accord with this less progressive approach, which is very worrying. I will say that the EU is a valued leader in this space. There is no question or doubt about that. Without EU leadership, we would not even be in the modest position we are in now. Let us take into account the European Green Deal and the EU’s presentation of a voluntary review for the first time with spillovers, which is really conscious of how the EU's economic activities impact neighbouring countries. This is a valued area of leadership. We need to take account of that, while still holding the European Union to the high standards it sets for itself. This is where the activities of some MEPs come in. We try to hold the European Union to the highest standards that it sets for itself.

We asked for the overall strategy, but it continues to be absent. There is no overall EU strategy for the implementation of the SDGs, despite several resolutions being passed with huge majorities in the European Parliament, despite requests from the European Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, the European Committee of the Regions and various others. All of them have asked for this overall strategy. The brief about the strategic direction of Directorate General for International Partnerships after this election is incredibly troubling. There has been a drift away from the core principles that we have described, such as regarding putting those who are the furthest behind first. That is, in my opinion, almost completely abandoned in this strategy and it is a real worry. There is even talk of getting rid of the development committee itself. We have moved towards the global gateway strategy, which is supposedly an antidote to the Belt and Road initiative. It contains development money but its focus is not on fragile contexts whatsoever. It completely buys into the idea that everything we do in the global south should have a return; it should be an investment and it should be characterised as what one would expect from the private sector. That is definitely part of it, but we are forgetting the core of development policy in where the European Union is going. The urgency for this issue to be addressed immediately after the election cannot be overstated.

My question is really about the future. Ireland will hold the Presidency of the EU in 2026. We will then be coming into the four yearly review and that summit will be held in 2027. We just had one in 2023 and we will be in the final leg of it. As Mr. Donoghue says, we have achieved 12% of our targets. We need €4 trillion in investments to achieve Agenda 2030, and we are nowhere near that. My question to the panel is on how we are not really making progress. I am not optimistic. The public’s confidence in what we are doing is very diminished. What do we do? Do we focus on the goals, targets and objectives that can give us the best return? I mean that, of course, in the sense of an impact, rather than in the sense of investment.

On education for example, do we focus on one or two of the objectives that will restore public confidence in this project that actually can be achieved? This would be rather than keep saying 12% or 14%, let us just focus. Let us take stock of reality and put some effort into the areas in which we can achieve the most. Does Ireland have a role to play here in the run up to that 2027 summit and the context of our Presidency of the European Union?

Ms Meaghan Carmody:

I was actually going to come in earlier on Senator Keogan’s question, but I could follow up. I might just pass over to my colleague, Ms McGrath, to speak specifically to a couple of those questions and I will come in if there are any gaps.

Ms Br?d McGrath:

On returns, an analysis was done really recently by the ONE Campaign showing how this year alone the global south will send back €50 billion more than it receives in loans or grants just in debt repayments. Therefore, the money is still flowing in the wrong direction.

Education is a clear one. It is always the case that if there is a silver bullet to end poverty, education is famous for it, in particular educating women and girls.

I turn to what Ireland can do. Ireland can be a leader in climate finance, which is a really big area where the global south can move out or move ahead. Some €350 million of Irish overseas development assistance is channelled through the EU institutions. The Oireachtas needs a line of sight on that money, and we need to be clear where it is going and to what end. Ireland has a great history, as Mr. Donoghue will know better than I, of being a real leader in particular when it holds the Presidency. There are fewer Irish Presidencies than there were previously, but they are still important when you can write an agenda. Ireland is showing leadership on Gaza and that is something people understand. They understand disaster relief. They understand how we need to turn up at times of conflict and be brave. I ask the committee to encourage the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs when they go to negotiate the wording of this strategic agenda, and I encourage Ireland to decide straight up that it will be a leader on this stage in relation to multilateralism and be the honest broker it has the history of being.

Mr. David Donoghue:

I will go back to the interesting points raised by Mr. Andrews. I think he is right. In the remaining years we have to take a number of dramatic actions - "we" being the world - which will fast forward in some areas. We need, in particular, to have so-called accelerator actions, which are measures taken by a number of countries that are particularly well placed and well resourced. These are projects or initiatives that would hit several of the SDGs together. There are a lot of ideas around. There is potentially also enough finance if it can be properly allocated by the international financial institutions and so on. There are demonstrative actions that could be taken to show we are able to make faster progress than the 12% achieved. That has to happen over the next few years. Some of that will come out of the Summit of the Future in September. To be fair, some of it did come out of the SDG summit last September, which Mr. Andrews attended. That mobilised a fair number of financial pledges by countries and organisations. Some of that is being worked through at the moment, and it means we have a lot of goodwill we have to translate into concrete initiatives that will address several goals simultaneously.

I turn to the question of what is going to happen more generally by 2030. This agenda officially finishes in 2030. Something tells me we will end up flipping over and in effect renewing the current goals for a subsequent period. That will not be talked about officially until about 2027. For now, oddly enough, the emphasis is on hunkering down and doing everything we can to achieve the 2030 agenda. However, at some point realism will set in and people will decide we need negotiations on a new set of goals. In my view, however, they are likely to be the same as the present set. There might be a couple added. There is a school of thought that says there could be an attempt by the more right-wing governments to pull back on the SDGs and reopen what we agreed in 2015. This may seem too optimistic to some members, but I feel it is more likely we will retain the same goals. I do not think there will be a reopening of them, but they will be given a new validity for, say, another 15 years. From about 2027 on, we will begin to look ahead to a new agenda so the sense of everything coming to an end in 2030 will probably dissipate at that stage. You may ask what the point is of having a 15-year period for implementation of these goals if you then ignore it. The truth is that human beings like to have some goals or ways of concentrating energies and resources. On one hand we want to keep the focus on the current set. On the other hand, we realistically are not going to make the kind of massive progress needed, but we need some demonstrative initiatives to show what can be done. By that I mean a coalition of like-minded countries that would deliberately set out co-operative plans spanning six or seven goals simultaneously with the aid of the UNDP and the UN system more generally. That is what should happen and what probably will happen. Ireland has a role in that. I was glad Ireland was again given the co-facilitator position for the SDG summit last September and it did a great job. I would like to think, in our EU role, we will be in a position to steer things in the right direction from 2026 on.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise as I had to head to another committee and then somebody else came and took my spot, but that is life.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have to be careful; I do not like handing it over to anybody. The issue we are dealing with, depending on who is speaking at what particular time, leaves you either hopeful, hopeless or lacking all hope altogether. We all know we are talking about sustainability and that for the SDGs to mean anything they have to be built into every aspect of what we do. That is obviously at every level, from the domestic to the international with a huge focus on the European Union because of its capacity to do good, but that is not always the case.

There is general agreement if you look at what is happening across the world. In Africa and the Middle East, there is conflict, with huge populations, destabilisation and modern day colonisation, or nouveau colonialism, and resource acquisition. That is being done specifically by the Russians and Chinese, but the western world is also making mistakes. It has basically lost the global south through its support of Israel and what is happening to the Palestinians, particularly in Gaza. Beyond that, there is the mess in Syria and right across Iraq and the particular disaster that was Libya. We are dealing with the circumstances related to that.

As Deputy Howlin said, there is then this swing to the right. Sometimes it is not quite to the right, but is an element of dissatisfaction. This goes for domestic governments and the European Union. We need to tackle the issues that impact people, in particular the cost of living, poverty and intergenerational poverty. In this day and age, across the western world in particular, we are dealing with something that nobody ever talks about, which is drug addition and drug crime. It is the stuff that impacts on a day-to-day basis. Circumstances are not improving. Ms McGrath said that we can talk about African countries and overseas development aid grants and whatever, but there is still more money being paid back in debt. If we leave these places as they are, we should not be shocked that a huge number of people are going to try to leave them. There will be a huge migration issue in the future, even if every other issue, be it climate change, conflict or anything else, is specifically dealt with.

Mr. Donoghue started from the point of view of looking at the European institutions-----

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know, I am bringing it to a point. Why do you always stop me, a Chathaoirligh? You just elongate the process.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a fact, and I get it, that there is a shift because of changed circumstances around defence and security. How does that play into what the institutions do? I get that after Covid-19 and the war in Ukraine strategic autonomy now actually means something as opposed to just being two words that were bandied around.

Mr. Donoghue said the institutions were weak and the individual states were probably weak in dealing with this. He said this has improved to some degree but there is still no mechanism in the Commission to promote the SDGs, there is loose communications between Commissioners and we need better Council co-ordination. That is before talking about formalising the SDG alliance to a greater degree. How do we get down to business? Ms Uí Bhroin said the fact is that the priorities are all in the wrong place. What do we need to do? We pick what we can impact and what will make things better on an international basis but will that also make better people's lives individually. This is how we sell all of these. If the witnesses could answer in two or three minutes, the Cathaoirleach will be delighted.

Mr. David Donoghue:

I will keep it short. At the UN the emphasis is on individual countries. I will not confuse things by saying the UN also speaks about member states. It is very much the 193 countries that must take action nationally. The EU provides some added value, and this is what we are speaking about today, but I would not want to give the impression that everything European countries do depends on it coming under the flag of the EU. The fact is that France, Germany and Ireland are all doing their national bit. Under the present Commission, a bigger effort has been made to put the SDGs at the heart of the EU's activities but it is not a perfect effort. As I have said, I do not hold a brief with the EU.

Mr. Andrews mentioned there is no overall strategy for the SDGs and he is absolutely right. I find this baffling. Having had some involvement in the process in recent years, I find it baffling that the EU cannot come up with this. The reason is there are too many divisions on whether the environment should dominate over social issues. There are many tensions at a policy level so they find it easier not to go for an overall strategy but instead to try to address individual headings. That is my guess. There is no mechanism in the Commission. As a former civil servant, I do not understand why this cannot be done. It looks as if it is able to muddle through without it somehow. I would not want to give the impression that EU countries are somehow failing because of deficiencies in the arrangements in Brussels. I do not think that is the case. We would still have countries such as Germany, France and Italy making their contribution despite the overarching EU dimension.

Deputy Ó Murchú spoke about conflict and he put his finger on something very important, which is that the world is now a much more conflicted place than it was in 2015. We were fortunate to have a very positive international atmosphere and a very co-operative one at that time. Multilateralism was at a peak of relevance. If we have countries at loggerheads with each other, they will not be co-operating on a benevolent development agenda. They will not be coming at this with the co-operative spirit that the goals require. There is no doubt that progress will stall because of Gaza. It is already stalling because of the repercussions of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. All of this does not help. The fact that climate change is continuing unabated does not help either and nor does the fact that inequalities are deepening in many countries.

The list of challenges gets longer and longer but the curious thing is that somehow countries seem to think this is the way to go. I am pleasantly surprised by that but it is unmistakable. It is as if, having expended a great effort to reach this global agreement in 2015, they do not want to throw it out. They want to hold on to it in the hope that it will deliver progress. As Mr. Andrews said a moment ago, we really have to do something to fast-forward progress to show there is some credibility left. We will not be anywhere near 100% of the target, I have to say, by 2030 but we are further behind than we had hoped to be. We have to make a bigger effort and then quietly anticipate we will be rolling it over. I would not say this too officially but that is my guess. The last thing that will happen is that we throw out the SDGs in 2030. They are here to stay.

Ms Carmody made a point about youth and it is a very important point. When we were negotiating the goals there was a strong emphasis on the fact they would be for the next generation. The world was being shaped for the young generation. This is why young people are so enthusiastic about the SDGs. We deliberately had them in as stakeholders at that time. In many ways, even if there is a certain amount of scepticism among older people, the young generation is enthusiastic about them and that is a good thing.

Ms Attracta U? Bhroin:

I am taking heart from the discussion this morning. We are all sharing the same concerns. We are all seeking, to use Deputy Ó Murchú's words, how we get down to business. The simple fact of the matter is, exactly as Ms McGrath said, we need to look them right in the eye. We need to say to them the strategy and priorities in the leaked agenda are for a strong and secure Europe, and a prosperous and competitive Europe, and that they cannot hope to deliver this without addressing inequalities or the global instability we will see if we do not address climate change and biodiversity collapse. This is a simple fact of the matter. We only have to look to our former Chief of Staff, Vice Admiral Mark Mellett, and his commitment to the global SDGs as an incredibly important agenda for security. With some exceptions, we have had no greater champion in this country in respect of the SDGs than Vice Admiral Mark Mellett. He saw the security threat there. Last night, I was listening to Deputy Ó Murchú speaking on "The Late Debate" about the concerns-----

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My wife was listening too.

Ms Attracta U? Bhroin:

There is a first for everything if she is anything like me; I never listen to my husband.

There are understandable concerns about the impact of migration, particularly in the context of the challenges we have in providing homes for people. There are very real concerns. What we need to do is provide a uniting hook that will bring together those rooted in fear and anger and those seeking hope. We need a framework for the SDGs. Let us face it; it is very hard to get your head around the 17 SDGs, even for nerds like us. We all have our pet ones. We can all relate to certain ones better than others. We need a framework that works in the context of what we know with regard to how we invest, how we manage our fiscal rules and how we implement legislation. These are things we do over again on other things.

We need a fourth agenda. I would disagree with one thing Mr. Andrews said, with regard to this being for the next Commission. These next weeks and this next month are critical. We need to up the ante to make the EU the type of EU we want it to be, claim it back and make sure it does not slide. That is the agenda we need from people, such as the members of this committee, to really reach out with an agenda and manifesto of hope in the context of the discussions we will be having on these very important elections for the EU.

More than anything, we need to include the Taoiseach. We need to ask him to do the type of advocacy Ireland does best through proactive engagement, and ask him to advocate and promote very loudly having a further agenda on building a climate-neutral, nature-positive, fair and social Europe containing the necessary commitment to deliver on our international climate and environmental agreements in a just and social transition. We need a framework. Right now, we have an amorphous agenda of defend and lock down.

We cannot hope to stem the tide of the absolute catastrophe there will be if we do not address the ultimate ambition and objectives of the SDGs. We cannot stem that tide. It is an agenda which unites those who are rooted in fear and anger and those of us who want to cling to hope and for our future, not just for future generations but indeed for us. In Europe we will face food shortages, droughts and deaths from issues with air quality and heat temperatures. This is happening right now. This is a critical window. We cannot wait until after the election. We have to really fight for the strategic agenda and to mobilise and alert the electorate, not just in Ireland but across Europe.

Ms Meaghan Carmody:

I thank the Chair. If he allows me a few minutes, I have a few points in response to that because he raised a number of really important threads that I want to make sure are not lost. First, the badge was designed by a documentarian called Adam Curtis and a lot of thought went into it. It is not a coincidence that it also represents the doughnut, if the Chair has ever heard of doughnut economics. My second point is the outer of the concentric circles represents the planetary boundaries. There are nine of them and we have already surpassed or transgressed six.

In 2015 that framework was devised by Will Steffen and a number of others at the Stockholm Resilience Centre. It is really important that we keep those in mind because we need to meet everybody's needs and put a social floor under everybody's feet, regardless of where they come from, while not transgressing those planetary boundaries. That social floor is the inner circle. That is a great hub for conversations. The Cathaoirleach mentioned fear and optimism. I have recently learned the distinction between optimism and hope. Optimism can be being positive and disregarding the evidence, and the evidence is bleak. We need to be cognisant and explicit about that. We are not on the right track. Even before Covid-19, the EU was not on the right track in terms of achieving the SDGs. As Mr. Donoghue pointed out, it is unlikely that any country was ever going to achieve 100% by 2030. They are a direction but the evidence shows that we are actually backtracking on a lot of them, which is very worrying. Alternatively, the hope is sticking to the desired outcome despite the odds. Even if there is a narrowing window, we remain hopeful. That is common to all of us here.

The Cathaoirleach made a point about climate migration. Sian Cowman, a fantastic researcher at NUI Maynooth, is doing a lot of research on the narratives around climate migration and, in particular, advocating for us not to use that term anymore because it is being co-opted and it is plastering over deeper issues that are causing people to move. People have always moved as mobility is natural to humans. To take the example of UAE, however, people are not moving from UAE because there is infrastructure there and they do not have to move. People are moving from countries that historically have lacked investment and the infrastructure to meet everybody's needs. This is deeply related to climate finance. They are not two separate tracks of thought. We need to be paying our historical debt. Ireland is doing relatively well in many areas but we have to keep the spillovers that were mentioned earlier at the front of our minds. We are importing emissions and embodied slavery and we are offshoring many of the issues, as is the EU as a whole. We need to talk about climate finance and get to the €500 million target that has been floated by Oxfam, Dóchas and others.

I take the point about lazy language in terms of the drift to the right. It is really important not to label people. People vote for different reasons. There are agitators, albeit few of them, but there are people who want less rights for most people for whatever reason. Many people have suffered the brunt of the financial crisis. They have been squeezed and are seeing a lack of investment in their communities, particularly working class communities. They are frustrated and fed up. Rather than labelling people, we need to ensure that communities are well served and there is investment in our communities. That investment still has not returned to pre-2008 levels as of today in Ireland.

The Cathaoirleach spoke about education, which is important, but well-being and providing that social floor for everybody is foundational. We cannot have increasing inequality and this consistent focus on economic growth, and then think that education will be the plaster to solve this. It is part of it but it is not the panacea.

On futures, this is an area where there is real optimism. Ireland has the opportunity to be the second country in the world with a future generations commissioner or a future generations ombudsman. There is a Bill going through the Houses at the moment. We could show how we punch above our weight in this area. We are a small country, like Wales, and could have a national conversation on what sort of a future we want to have for Ireland. There are models out there on how to do that. I will push back a little bit on the statement that in Ireland we have a whole-of-government approach. We hear this again and again. We do have a framework for SDG delivery but it is not integrated or embedded sufficiently across all Departments. We have an inter-departmental working group but it is relatively weak. To take the food poverty working group and hot school meals for children, for example, a lot of the food used is not local and is not necessarily sustainable in terms of packaging. There is incoherence there on something that is very easy to be coherent with. We also need leadership from the Department of the Taoiseach. That signal has to come from the higher levels as, otherwise, the Department of the environment will not have accountability over other Departments, which speaks to Senator Keogan's point. That is a key issue. We need to integrate this with our well-being framework, which already exists, and account for spillover effects. When we do that and it informs the budget, we will supercharge SDG delivery in Ireland.

My final point is to focus on having a well-being economy. People are sick of hearing that Ireland is doing really well economically. We have a budget every year but if we look at the housing crisis or what is happening today on Mount St., it begs the question as to where that money is going. We need more transparency, as well as more involvement of citizens in our national budgets and our future.

Mr. David Donoghue:

I will waive the invitation as the Cathaoirleach and Ms Carmody have summed up my thoughts very eloquently. I thank the committee for scheduling this debate, which I have found extremely interesting and instructive. I have been enriched by all of the contributions.

Ms Attracta U? Bhroin:

I want to pick up on and emphasise a point Ms Carmody made in terms of accountability. We really need to focus on democratic accountability and governance in the context of that third hook that I spoke about in terms of our agenda. That is the only way our citizens will have confidence. It is the only way we will address the tide of fear.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What specifically is Ms Uí Bhroin asking the committee to do?

Ms Attracta U? Bhroin:

Specifically, if we want to take it home, we need to look to the new Planning and Development Bill 2023. The provisions in the Bill relating to access to justice are deeply concerning. It goes very much to Senator Keogan's question regarding the responsibility of the Minister with responsibility for the environment and oversight in the context of what we are doing on access to justice and the barriers that are being erected to preclude citizens from being able to engage in environmental decision-making. That will have a huge impact. It will not only impact on the rights of those citizens. Very problematically, what we are hearing from an unusual coalition of experts across the board, including lawyers, builders, NGOs, academics and so on, is that these changes will cause delays to the delivery of key infrastructure.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not disagree with any of that but the issue is that this is our national Parliament. It consists of people who were elected by the people. Their decisions hold sway here. It goes back to the first point I made, that there is no point in preaching-----

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the truth. One cannot tell people who are elected, "This is right." There are an awful lot of things that pass through these Houses that I fundamentally disagree with but that is what democracy is. There is no point in people decrying the decision-making processes. Rather, they should participate, along with like-minded people, which is what we all try to do. The Cathaoirleach made a very powerful contribution. The focus of our debate today has widened to domestic issues, but its purpose was to discuss the development goals that we want to achieve. We have a consensus that we want to achieve them but we are swimming against a tide. It is not lectures we need; it is people to help us swim.

Ms Attracta U? Bhroin:

If I may respond, as regards swimming against a tide, what we need is for politicians to actually look at the facts, to require data and analysis, to support the legislative changes-----

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Ms Uí Bhroin think we do not do that?

Ms Attracta U? Bhroin:

I think it is a very real issue in the context of the Planning and Development Bill, for example. I know we are going into a very specific-----

Ms Attracta U? Bhroin:

I apologise, but I was asked to respond-----

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have one final sentence if I may. There are people in this House now calling for the defunding of NGOs. This is a precarious time. I was not going to mention that. It is a fact, however.

Mr. David Donoghue:

That is much appreciated. I thank the Cathaoirleach very much.