Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will pick up on one of the places where the discussion had left off. The discussion was about the small things making it visible. Sometimes, the very big things are what make it easier to communicate the many small changes. If the SDGs are downstream people may feel that it is all on them. Mention was made of the very good example from Wales making quite a different decision and naming this as part of the reason, naming future generations which links back to that commissioner being established with a vision for a more equal and sustainable future. Some of those big decision pieces can be something that gives heart and strength to those who are making the case at a local level.

I thought a comment from Social Justice Ireland was very interesting. Both Chambers Ireland and Social Justice Ireland spoke about the importance of naming this in the budget and making it be visible. One way that Social Justice Ireland set it out was that it has mapped the SDGs onto the well-being indicators, which are meant to be in the budget.

My concern with the well-being indicators has to do with constantly attaching new grids. I was involved in the previous pressure to have gender- and equality-proofing of our budgets. Following that proofing, wellness indicators were included. An advantage of trying to map those onto the SDGs is that it starts a conversation across various countries and we can see how some of the elements in our wellness indicators that are also in the SDGs are being dealt with elsewhere. The witnesses might comment on this.

I would also like to hear their comments on the future commissioner, for example, and the importance of not only puncturing the complacency around the SDGs and the sense that we will get there eventually and they are a nice add-on, but of naming when we are working against the SDGs and making decisions that take us backwards. There are two clear examples of this. One of Social Justice Ireland’s recommendations for the budget was a universal social welfare pension. What we instead saw was an increase in the private pension tax relief. From a gender equality perspective, that relief has been shown to predominantly benefit men in higher income brackets, so it is a step backwards under the income and wealth well-being indicator.

Another serious concern is the fact that one of the areas where we score the lowest is in affordable and clean energy. A worrying provision in the planning Bill relates to the potential introduction of liquefied natural gas as named strategic infrastructure, thereby facilitating its access to an accelerated planning process. I believe we are already in the bottom five when it comes to clean energy, so how further back would a decision like that push us?

Each of us could pick a hundred policies, but these two are examples of where we can not only have a robust conversation that gets attention and wherein the Government takes a leap forward, but where decisions that take us backwards can be challenged. LNG also has implications from a fair seas perspective, given the onshore and offshore components of such terminals.

I will leave it there. I have another question on the international side that I might ask in a minute. Do the witnesses have comments on these matters?