Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will be brief in response. These are international issues. It is an international challenge; it is climate change. In that sense, I believe it is appropriate we look to the wider context.We are connected. This is not a local or national issue. It is not something around which we can draw a boundary. It is an international issue and we are a part of the international community. Through our legislation, we take decisions which have implications in that regard.

I am concerned by the fact that the Minister fears legal challenge over regulating sectors. We regulate things all the time. How on earth would concern around a legal challenge affect the State's setting out measures to regulate sectors? To be clear, we are not going to achieve the action on climate change we need or face up to the existential threat it poses by simply changing consumer procedures alone. There is an idea that the State can only work through consumer power. The State must become ready and willing to challenge some sector of the economy and some set of businesses about something. We must challenge areas such as textiles and electronics. If we are not willing to say "Boo" to somebody in manufacturing, we are not going to take the action we need. There seems to be an idea that we are afraid to regulate. It may be that the Government has chosen not to regulate in this legislation. The Minister of State said he is concerned about legal challenge. My measures here require mandatory requirements and regulations around the display or promotion of goods. The Government's position is inconsistent. The Public Health (Alcohol) Act included measures around the display and promotion of alcoholic goods. That is totally legal. It was fine and is now the law. As a result, actions have been changed. It is hard law and not a voluntary code, which means the way in which alcohol is displayed in supermarkets has changed. That is what the Government does. It brings forward actual laws and measures that require good practice.

Similarly, amendment No. 16 calls for mandatory requirements and regulations on sectoral targets in areas such as retail, packaging and textiles. To be clear, commercial activity and economic activity take place within the State when they take place within the State. Society is not sitting inside the economy; the economy is sitting inside society. We are elected by the citizens to regulate in that regard and to set those rules. I encourage the Minister of State to consider, question and challenge the kind of line that is coming through because, frankly, if we start hearing that line any time we try to regulate a sector, we are in trouble.

I have included other measures relating to public public partnerships and so on. I will formally move those.

I appreciate there have been indications in respect of amendment No. 31.

On the question of timeframes, in an ideal scenario it would be nice to check in after six years but anything that deals with climate change is not the same as any other example where we are looking to embed best practice and considering what might happen. Anything that is responding to climate change is effectively emergency legislation, in that it is taking place within a very narrow emergency time period. We did not have such long periods of review in respect of our Covid-19 legislation because it was dealing with an emergency situation and we should not have such long periods of review in respect of our climate legislation. We need to be getting it right. We need to think not only about the longer term. We require shorter timeframes and more urgent action. These actions need to be treated as urgent in response to a crisis. The other House has recognised that we are facing a climate and biodiversity emergency.