Mr. David Donoghue:

I thank the Vice Chairman and everybody else for the very thought-provoking questions. I strongly agree with Deputy Barrett's comments. We have this disconnect in a way between, on the one hand, the enthusiasm that greeted the agreement on the sustainable development goals, SDGs, in New York on the part of many governments and, on the other, that the ordinary man, woman and child on the street does not know about them.

We always knew there would be a major challenge in communicating the new goals. During the negotiations, I remember a British film-maker, who has a passionate interest in sustainable development, came up with a plan that might sound crazy. He had it in mind that within approximately three days of the goals being agreed, he would have communicated them to all 7 billion people on the planet. That would be done with every conceivable form of social media. He did not pursue the plan but one can see that he saw a problem that needed to be addressed.

Younger people have a key role to play. We hope this agenda will be completed in 2030 so, in a way, this will build the kind of world they will live in then. We all noticed that when the SDGs were adopted, young people were the most enthusiastic. They grasped that this could be quite important for the quality of their own lives. It comes down to education in schools. I will come to the committee in a moment but in every country we must start teaching the SDGs in classrooms and bring them to the attention of schoolchildren. That is accepted in the UN and there are many initiatives under way in different parts of the world to raise the profile of the SDGs. Much depends on the initiative of the individual country. I was in Germany at a conference a few months ago and, to my amazement, when I was on a tram I saw the full SDG poster on it. There are 17 icons and it is quite a well-known poster at this stage with a simplified version of the 17 goals. This was all over the tram. Clearly, some local initiative looked to highlight the goals and I remember thinking I would love to see them on the 46A bus, for example.

The roles of this committee and the Oireachtas in general can be very important. We mention parliaments in the SDG document and the declaration. Parliaments, whether regional, local or, in particular, national, can hold governments to account for their performances. The Deputy is absolutely right that it is not just a case of having an annual meeting at the UN. I drafted most of the document and my Kenyan colleague and I envisaged that parliaments would have the role being spoken about. I say this not necessarily in an accusing way, but in a constructive fashion. I hoped parliaments would invite Ministers or civil society representatives, as this committee just has, and ask them what can be done to ensure we have a better story to tell on nutrition, human rights or whatever. That is something being taken seriously by many parliaments. Members might recall when they came to the UN in a formal capacity just before the goals were adopted. Even then there was a sense that parliaments would be a key player in directing political attention and focus on these goals. Ultimately, that will come down to the initiative of individual parliaments and committees. I would have thought it would make sense to ask relevant Ministers, as well as civil society and private sector representatives, to contribute. The private sector is very interested in a constructive way in these goals. The committee might consider inviting relevant people to come before it as the report is being prepared over the first six months or so of the coming year. I would think that would be in the spirit of the SDGs agreement. It is a collective effort and not just the responsibility of the Government. Parliaments can fill the gap in a way.

Senator Lawless spoke about the Rohingya. I left the UN approximately six weeks ago and at that point it was the top priority for the new Secretary General. That does not mean there will be the kinds of solutions we want to see. What we have witnessed over the past few months is a desperate position. The parallels described of Ireland's experience are very real and clear. I am afraid much of this comes down to the political will on the UN Security Council at any given time. In fairness, there is more or less universal condemnation of the treatment of the Rohingya. In a way, I am moving to the question of the effectiveness of the UN. I will try to avoid naming specific countries when speaking about the UN Security Council's current construction. If there are five permanent members, one of which is Russia, and matters arise where Russia wants to block progress, that is a possibility. By way of balance, there are times when Israel would be in the dock, as it were, and it would rely on an ally. It is a fundamental weakness of the current arrangements that five members of the UN Security Council have permanent status with a veto to go with that.

An initiative has been launched by France at the UN whereby the veto would be waived voluntarily in the discussion of mass atrocities. For example, if a Syria-type case is being discussed, the five permanent members would voluntarily waive those veto rights. It is slightly torturous as if one simply changed the UN charter in order to eliminate the veto, it would itself be blocked, leading to a catch-22 situation. There must be some sort of voluntary code, meaning that all five could decide, in a Syria-type discussion, not to invoke a veto. For different reasons, most of the five would not want to change the status quo. They want to cater for positions where they would feel they have a natural interest. Currently, the French initiative has not gone very far but it is supported by many other countries of the UN. They feel something must be done to prevent the kind of stalemate that happens all too often. It happened with Syria, for example. The Rohingya matter is ongoing but we have all seen how particular valuable initiatives are thwarted because one or other member of the P5, as they are called, is unhappy.