Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)

I apologise for leaving the room but I had to ask a question on promised legislation in the Dáil Chamber. I read the opening statements in advance and was in full attendance at the meeting last week, when representatives of the Irish Coalition for Business and Human Rights and IBEC attended. In that context, I have a couple of questions.

I previously made the observation that Ursula von der Leyen may have been watering things down as part of consensus building, what with the changed direction of the make-up of the new European Parliament. When the coalition made its presentation, it quoted the previous Minister of State with responsibility for directives, Deputy Calleary, who laid out the Government's support when he said:

I have been seeking to ensure that the proposal has ambition while striking the right balance of providing effective protections for stakeholders and ensuring that the measures to be implemented by companies are clear, proportionate, and enforceable.

That is kind of like motherhood and apple pie. No one could have a problem with it. However, the devil is in the detail in this context. I have asked parliamentary questions but have not yet got responses. I will be interested in the response of the witnesses. Why has Ireland not yet publicly aligned with like-minded member states, such as Spain, Denmark, Finland and Latvia, in defending the human rights and environmental protections in the directions? Given there is only a small enough window, how does the Government intend to use the negotiating period to ensure these elements are not weakened beyond repair before negotiations commence? For CSDDD and the omnibus COM (2025) 80 and COM (2025) 81, what specific steps has the Government taken, or plans to take, at Council level to ensure that, while we get the balance right, a risk-based approach to supply chain due diligence is at the core of the directive? We do not have the minutes of meetings and some matters are confidential, but what have the Minister and the officials said, or what will they say, about retaining the due diligence approach?

In respect of our climate transition plans, how will reporting without a legal requirement for full implementation ensure that we meet our international obligations on climate action? If everything is watered down so much, we cannot double check and, therefore, it is not worth the paper it is written on. I would welcome any comments from our witnesses on the issue.