Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

When we were in early discussions about the Bill, I spoke to an environmental group in Galway. We were discussing the Bill, what needed to be changed or fixed and what areas could be strengthened. When I told the group the SDGs were not mentioned in the Bill, they were shocked, even though they are really supportive of the general thrust of the legislation. I was focusing on other matters and I said, foolishly perhaps, that I imagined it was an issue that would be addressed. I said that there would be other areas we would have to debate but that I was sure the SDGs would, eventually, be included. Of course, their inclusion was recommended by the Oireachtas joint committee. It seemed to me to be a simple and sensible provision.

While the SDGs are referenced in other agreements such as the Paris Agreement, they are explicitly a commitment that Ireland has made that has not been transposed into law, yet it is important that we have regard to that commitment. It was David Donoghue, on behalf of Ireland, who negotiated with the world. Imagine getting every country in the UN to sign up to detailed proposals about work, cities, water and how we treat it, life on land and in water, and health and its basics - not in vague language but with specific targets and goals - yet we cannot agree to refer in our climate legislation to that groundbreaking global agreement. That is despite the fact that of all the SDGs, the one on which we are doing worst is that which relates to environmental legislation. It is the one on which we scored 15th of 15 EU countries.

The SDGs are not merely aspirational. The badges are lovely - I have a number of them at home - but they are not there as an inspiration, a colourful prop or an aspiration; they are a blueprint for what good development looks like.Considering things like the coronavirus pandemic, which we are prolonging by not introducing a TRIPS waiver, Brexit and the social cohesion loss, if an approach to ensure the measures in the sustainable development goals were in place a long time ago, the world would face fewer crises. The fact that those crises are present now is not a reason to postpone the sustainable development goals. It is a reason we need to speed up on delivering them because they are the blueprint for how we do things better, and how we make society more resilient and prepare it to ensure we have strong integrated approaches on equality and the environment. The sustainable development goals are a gift to the world. They are a collective high point of our international vision of what it means to live together on this planet. We should think about them when we develop our climate policies.

The Minister's Bill refers to "sustainable development" but, as we have pointed out, that could mean anything. It could mean sustaining the model of development we currently have. If could mean sustaining trickle-down models of development. It could mean sustaining business as usual. I do not know why sustainable development goals are not referenced and included in the Bill. While they do refer to the 2030 deadline, that does not preclude them. Our definition states that it "includes, but is not limited to, the United Nations sustainable development goals". It, therefore, allows space for what comes after the sustainable development goals when we reach the 2030 deadline and the decade of action, which we are one year into already, ends. It leaves space for what the world will collectively come up with that follows that. This amendment only requires that regard is given to this. It does not bind or tie down. We know that "have regard" is weak language but it gives an important signal. It would not be justiciable in every respect, but it would be something that is thought about.

Can the Minister indicate why Ireland, the lead negotiator of the United Nations sustainable development goals, is not putting that into the Bill? Can he specifically indicate what "sustainable development" means if it does not mean the United Nations sustainable development goals? How might it be interpreted? We have been warned of the dangers of loose interpretation at various points of the Bill. I am concerned that "sustainable development" is open to loose interpretation. How does the Minister plan to nail down and clarify what sustainable development means in the course of the implementation of the actions in the Bill?