Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I will take the ten minutes. I welcome the debate on this Bill. I welcome that people are exercised about it. I welcome the fact there is a majority consensus around the Bill. That is what this House is about - hearing voices that are against and for a proposition. However, each and every one of us is entitled to promulgate legislation and we are entitled to be heard. I understand the argy-bargy that happens, but it sometimes gets a bit much. Sometimes, it is a bit ridiculous.

To Deputy Duncan Smith's credit, he set out an explanatory memorandum when he was drafting this Bill. It reads, "There is increasing awareness of the need to make informed consumer choices based on the environmental impact of goods – their 'carbon footprint'." We can argue about the language of what constitutes a carbon footprint and who designed that language in the first instance, but the concept of a carbon footprint is broadly accepted. The memorandum continues, "Some companies have introduced their own labelling system showing, for example, the quantity of greenhouse gas emitted in the process of manufacturing and shipping products to consumers." We can all accept the fact there are such things as global warming and greenhouse gas emissions. If we accept those fundamental principles, then we are off to a good start. Some may not accept them, and that is their entitlement. The memorandum continues:

A fuller carbon inventory will attempt to itemise all greenhouse gas emissions released throughout the product life-cycle, from the extractions of raw materials through to the product's manufacture, distribution, use and eventual disposal.

However, while many consumers are willing to make more sustainable choices, they face difficulties. For a sustainable purchase choice to become easier, consumers need better information. Currently, there are no commonly used and accepted standards on how to calculate or communicate a product's carbon footprint to consumers.

This is all that the Bill seeks to do. We recognise and openly acknowledge, as does Deputy Smith, the person who wrote the legislation, that this presents enormous challenges for every stakeholder involved. Regardless of where someone is in the economy and society, be he or she a farmer in north Cork, the chief executive of a global multinational like Nestlé or the producer of a sub-supply part for the aeronautical sector in Shannon, it presents a major challenge. All we are trying to do in promulgating this legislation - we accept the Government's amendment - is to acknowledge that consumers want to make informed decisions.

No one who introduces a Private Members' Bill professes to have the wisdom of Solomon when writing it. We write our Bills in the expectation they can get to Committee Stage to be amended as needs be. We accept this Bill is not a perfect document, but it can be made perfect if it is given a chance to proceed. We are not entirely happy that the Government is seeking a year to do that - I contend that a year is a long time, but we accept it on the basis of the argument that has been proposed by two Ministers of State in respect of the amendment. If I interpreted them correctly, the Ministers of State, Deputies Ossian Smyth and Troy, have stated we cannot move ahead of the EU because of Single Market and harmonisation considerations. I understand the same applied in the case of the smoking ban and possibly the plastic bag levy - I am unsure about the latter - but we understand and accept the principle.

At least we are at a starting point in a process where there is an acceptance by individuals. I wish to disaggregate the principle of the consumer from the principle of the individual. We recognise that consumers are individuals, but people broadly have a level of consciousness now about what they are purchasing and, in using their purchasing power with their hard-earned money, they want to see transparency when buying a product, regardless of what that product is, about what its carbon footprint is. That is not a bad thing. Rather, it is inherently good. Increasingly, we are seeing behavioural change. We are changing our behaviours in our own households in a way that tries to contribute to the reduction of global warming and cut greenhouse gas emissions. That is all this legislation is trying to do.

If we look at the Government's response, what is a little discomfiting is the fact we do not have timelines for the sustainable product initiative or the eco design directive, for instance. Neither do we know how the Commission's 2020 circular economy action plan will be promulgated. Timing is important. We do not have time, if that makes sense. I do not mean to be partisan, but COP26 was not the end point. Rather, it was the starting point for the next steps forward. That is why, in introducing this legislation, we want to maintain the momentum of what arose from COP26. As such, we are hopeful the timeline will be shortened and there will be an urgency on the part of the Government in respect of its proposed amendment. All we are trying to do is put in place a framework.

The costs to small businesses can be offset easily through Enterprise Ireland, an agency for which the Minister of State, Deputy Troy, has responsibility. We spend millions upon millions of euro of taxpayers' money funding companies through Enterprise Ireland. I know that because I used to sit where the Minister of State is now.

I represent an agricultural community and I speak, as I am entitled to do, for the agricultural community as well. I live in a town that has one of the largest milk processing plants in the country. I recognise the value of a beast and of a blade of grass as much as the next person. I recognise the value of what farming brings to this economy. However, the purchasers of the primary product, be it a side of beef, a carton of milk, baby powder, infant formula or yoghurt, are the Yoplaits, Nestlés and Unilevers and the Lidls, Aldis and other multiples, and they are placing a downward pressure on the primary producer because they are going to start mapping their carbon footprints. This will result in the market determining from whom inside the farm gate the Unilevers, Nestlés and Dairygolds are going to purchase. The farmer or primary producer who has his or her carbon footprint mapped will be the person from whom they will purchase. That is the reality of the market. We have researched this extensively.

Through this legislation, we are trying to give those primary producers a fighting chance so that they can offset any cost that they might incur inside the farm gate. This can easily be done through Pillar 2 of the next round of the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, for instance, by mapping it into the eco schemes.

We can subsidise the effort of the farmers or the cost of the expert advice they might procure to reduce their carbon footprints. That can be easily done.

It will happen whether we like it or not because the consumer demands it, regardless of whether it is done today, tomorrow or in two or three years' time. We want to make sure those farmers, primary producers and small businesses are given a fighting chance. We are introducing this legislation so that we can get this on the agenda now and get Enterprise Ireland, Teagasc and all the might of the State, through its research and funding arms, to support the people who produce the excellent produce we have in this country and to give them a fighting chance on this agenda. I fear that if we do not give them a fighting chance, then the likes of Unilever, Nestlé, Lidl and Aldi will exclude a lot of the people we are seeking to fight for. That is why we are introducing this Bill.

See this speech in context