Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)

I am thankful for the support and engagement I have received as a member of the foreign affairs committee.

One of the key issues we had was the potential overreach in the context of maximum harmonisation, such as if a ceiling were to be set. We have heard about that issue. I will go back to what the then Minister of State responsible, Deputy Calleary, said about the CSDD and CSR directives in the previous Government. The language used by the Minister was that the measures should be "clear, proportionate, and enforceable". That was the end product, or the law that had been agreed. I had a lot of engagement with him during the course of the last Oireachtas term. It was not as strong as I would have liked.

What I see within the proposed omnibus Bill, however, destroys the clarity, proportionality and enforceability of those two core directives. In terms of enforceability, it has been mentioned that if a country does not have a harmonised civil liability regime that it is a race to the bottom. There would be multiple confusing, different systems in different countries, some of which will lower their standards enough to let corporations away with the most. That is the harmonisation we need. That is the floor. There has to be floor and there should not be a race to below the floor where there is the rewarding of practices and the erosion of standards. Maximum harmonisation, however, as I understand it, would apply a ceiling that would actually limit the State's capacity to put higher environmental standards on corporations down the line, which is a Department of foreign affairs competency.

In terms of proportionality, if we look at the climate risk to business, life and society, the idea of requiring the publishing of climate plans but not their implementation seems to be deeply disproportionate to the actual risk we face in terms of climate. It is disproportionate to the risk set out by the witnesses in terms of the fines and so forth and crucially, to the given period within which we have to act with regard to the climate.

The clarity aspect is interesting. The line regarding the simplification and so forth has been used but actually we had clarity. We knew in January that these were the laws and it has been coming. IBEC mentioned in its opening statement that this has been coming for several years in negotiations. I know I have been tracking it for years. It has been coming for years. Maybe Dr. Widdis might speak to this. Is there not a risk regarding the lack of clarity now? It is not just about stopping the clock and having more time to implement it; it is about us now not knowing what the rules will be. We knew what the rules were in January; now we do not know. We know they might not be enforceable and so forth but when we come to it, we are at risk there. I have talked to people, including a woman who worked with the 500 business leaders across Europe who had been preparing for this. They do not know where to go. I talked to a company that has been supporting companies preparing for sustainability. It had 18 clients but has had six since February.

Lots of people were studying sustainability because the best companies have been preparing for this. It was an amazing opportunity for SMEs that were coming through to receive support in their country. Ireland has new programmes through its universities. We also have schemes and companies. It is a bigger deal for an SME to invest that money in becoming sustainable. The SMEs have had the rug pulled from under them. Those who had been preparing to have a comparative advantage by being sustainable are now facing a situation of how low will the floor go in terms of the tiered stages. Will the witnesses comment on the impact for businesses in terms of good business practice and so forth? That ties in a little bit to why I am concerned.

I disagree with the idea that we should lower the standards for US companies or that we should make it easier for the EU subsidiaries of US companies because we are seeing a very active period of deregulation in the US. Is it not more important that Europe and Ireland use this moment to have a comparative advantage by supporting our businesses and delivering high, knowable standards in order that we start producing things that are both ethical and environmentally fit for the future versus two years of uncertainty where it will be a matter of which sector manages to lobby hardest to get the standards lower? We will lose time in terms of adaptation in those two years.

I had a lot to stay regarding the human rights and environmental context but as I am hearing about it, I also raise the business piece. I have a final point to make. It is not just that-----