Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the time they have given to be here this evening. I have found the debate very constructive and interesting, and I am glad the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach found it so as well. I am glad there is, for the most part, a consensus developing around the idea that this could be a useful approach.

The Minister spoke about the steps we, as a Government, have taken to move beyond GDP, that simple conception of how we measure the success of our economy through material throughput. That is an essential piece of work we are going to have to accomplish sooner rather than later, not just in Ireland but across the world. We are going to have to conceive of a way where society works for people in a way that is consistent with our planetary boundaries. We know that with the obsessive focus on GDP, it is difficult to make those two things meet.

The work we are doing on the well-being framework is valuable. I reiterate, but this time in the English language, that there is a deficit in terms of the 12th indicator around language and culture. We have seen that adopted in the model in New Zealand. We have seen an excellent example in the Welsh framework and that is something we should be concentrating on.

This is a digression but I do not think we can properly understand someone's sense of well-being if we do not have comprehension of their ability to access culture, be it a session in the pub, a match in Croke Park, a play at the Abbey Theatre or from wherever it is that people want to access their culture and have that sense of self-expression. Similarly, our well-being as a nation is greatly enhanced by the existence and persistence of the Irish language and I would like to see this built on.

The Minister mentioned the obligations we have under the sustainable development goals and the key role that Ireland played in negotiating them and the obligation that comes with this. The Cabinet has a role in overseeing their implementation and ultimately it lies with the Minister for the environment. However, it is not always the case that they are front and centre in the development of policy. Very often we get retrospective matching, whereby instead of starting with the 169 subtargets that really are the meat and drink of the sustainable development goals, we find a policy is written and somebody finds which nice colourful badges we will be able to apply in retrospect.

The Oireachtas committees are beginning to play a very important role in holding Departments' feet to the fire in terms of the implementation of the sustainable development goals. This is something I included in the Standing Orders of each committee at the beginning of this term. The Oireachtas Committee on Social Protection, Community and Rural Development and the Islands, which Deputy Naughten chairs, was one of the first committees to do this rigorous investigation of a Department in terms of the subtargets for which it is the main lead or stakeholder Department. It is a very useful exercise. I have also seen it happen at other committees since. The Oireachtas Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment has looked at it and the Oireachtas Committee on Education, Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science is looking to do it also.

This comes back to the central point of what we are trying to achieve in the legislation. As Deputy Nash said, it is to put in place a guardian or a watchdog. It is all well and good that we have this well-being framework, and that we will hear it reported on in the Summer Economic Framework. How this really tracks through to the budget and the decisions made in the budget remains to be seen. We have not really seen how the well-being framework will be fully incorporated into the budgetary cycle.

Similarly with the sustainable development goals, in some places and in some Departments we get a first principles approach, whereby they really are incorporated right from the off in terms of policy development. In other areas we get retrospective matching, lip service and box-ticking exercises. The role of the ombudsman would be to hold the Departments' feet to the fire and to hold public bodies to account. This is another significant area where the Welsh model has made great strides.

I will comment on some of the contributions made by other Members. Deputy Bríd Smith references the fact it is a recommendation included in the Oireachtas joint committee's response to the citizen's assembly on biodiversity loss. I was very happy to see it in there. I was very happy to see the idea getting wider traction. She questioned the necessity of an ombudsman and the role that person would have. The Minister has already countered this very effectively by citing the example we have in the Ombudsman for Children and the useful tension between the role of the Minister and the role of the Ombudsman in terms of advice and constructive criticism. We also see it in other walks of life. I could also cite An Coimisinéir Teanga, who plays a very important role. I accept the Deputy's point of view but I disagree with it. There is a role to be played by an ombudsman.

Deputy Naughten spoke about Finland's Parliamentary Committee for the Future, which is a very good example of this.. This was brought to my attention by Dr. Tadhg O'Mahony. The Committee for the Future has a very powerful role in terms of advising the Government on its programme for government. The Prime Minister must report to it on progress. It is a very interesting model and it is within the legislation that the commission could consider it and come back and make a recommendation on it.

I thank Deputy Nash for his kind words. He points out that we stand in danger of violating the social contract. It could be that the next generation is the first generation to be less well-off than their forebears. This is something we need to counteract and plan for. It is already part of the discussion when we look at the housing crisis at present.

I am delighted to have had this debate and to have heard the positive feedback. I do not wish to be presumptive, but I am also delighted to have an indication that the Bill will be allowed progress to the next Stage. I spoke about Dr. O'Mahony. One of the central ideas he put to me is that thinking about the future is a way of building a political consensus. We may all disagree violently over the small things concerning decisions on today and tomorrow but if we focus on some 30-year or 50-year goal and what we want our society to look like then, perhaps we will be able to build a consensus around it across the aisles and maybe we will then be able to work backwards.

In fact, we have seen a model of this type of approach in Sláintecare, even though the implementation is slower than I think we would all like. Perhaps, by doing this we can come to an understanding, arrive at this style of cathedral thinking and come to a way of doing politics that is beyond just being a Punch-and-Judy show approach day after day. We could focus on these long-term goals and begin to plan backwards. Perhaps, this is a way we could create a more constructive and useful politics that really does put the principle of sustainability right at the heart of our decision-making here.

See this speech in context