Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action díospóireacht -
Thursday, 15 Feb 2024

Review of Climate Action Plan 2023: Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform

An Cathaoirleach

Apologies have been received from Deputies Richard Bruton and Jennifer Whitmore. The purpose of the meeting is to have a discussion about the climate action plan and continue our review of it. In that regard, we have invited the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, to come before the committee. Other Ministers have come before us and have had very good sessions in our examination of the climate action plan and the role of various Departments. I thank the Minister for coming before the committee and the officials for joining him.

Before we begin, I will read out the note on privilege. I remind our guests of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that you should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. If their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, I will direct them to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative they comply with any such direction. We do not have any witnesses attending from outside the campus today.

I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I would like to remind members that they are only allowed to participate in this meeting if they are physically located on the Leinster House complex. In this regard, I ask those members who are joining online that, prior to making their contribution to the meeting, they confirm they are on the grounds of Leinster House. A number of members are joining us from their offices.

I call on the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, to make his opening statement.

Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform (Deputy Paschal Donohoe)

I thank the Chair and committee for the invitation to speak to them today. I am accompanied by Mr. Ken Cleary and Mr. Patrick Moran from the climate division in the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. I look forward to engaging with the committee and discussing the role of my Department in achieving the sustainable transition of society and our economy in line with our national climate objectives.

We face a number of threats to our future prosperity, but none more pressing than climate change. There are no longer any serious arguments about the necessity to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. The only question is how best to do so, in particular how we can balance the requirement to act quickly while also providing for a growing population and maintaining an economy that can support the investments that need to be made. Within this challenge, how we will deal with the inevitable trade-offs, some of which are already rising to the forefront of public debate, is critical.

The Government has, I believe, grasped this nettle by ensuring there has been an approach to incremental and permanent decarbonisation that is strategic and sustainable. We are seeing the fruits of this policy. Last year, 39% of our electricity came from renewable sources, reaching 52% in December. In addition, in 2023 almost 40,000 electric vehicles were sold, heat pumps were installed in more than 90% of new homes and nearly 50,000 homes were retrofitted. All of this contributed to a likely fall in emissions of between 4% and 5%.

However, there is so much more to do. New policies are needed and we must redouble our efforts to accelerate the implementation of those policies we have already committed to. In this regard, a Chathaoirligh, I am an optimist. We have the technological solutions today to achieve most of the decarbonisation we need by 2050. It is now a matter for policy makers to determine how we can implement the required changes in a manner that is fair, equitable, cost-effective and brings our society with us rather than fosters dissent.

This is far easier said than done. The work the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform is engaged in will, I hope, help us in this endeavour. I would like to outline some of our key climate achievements and give the committee a flavour of our work for the coming years.

Before I do so, it is worthwhile setting out the legislative framework that we operate under. The Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act has created a rigorous system for achieving our national climate objectives. It aligns responsibility for reducing emissions with resources and wider sectoral responsibility. It ensures accountability, with the relevant Ministers required to report to this committee, and creates independent oversight through the statutory Climate Change Advisory Council. The Act also obliges Government to achieve the best possible value for money, consistent with the sustainable management of the public finances, and to maximise, as far as is practicable, the net benefits to society, taking into account the impact of greenhouse gas emissions.

Central to the achievement of these targets in this manner are our ambitious public investment plans. The €165 billion national development plan is the largest and greenest capital plan in the history of our State. It will see capital investment in Ireland reach some of the highest levels in the developed world. The investments planned provide for the decarbonisation of society, while meeting the needs of 1 million additional people by 2040. In budget 2024, the Government announced that it will be supplemented by a further €2.25 billion from windfall corporation tax receipts between 2024 and 2026.

In 2026 and beyond, the infrastructure, climate and nature fund will see a further €3.15 billion State investment in projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, boost biodiversity and improve water quality.

The effective implementation of policies that blend regulation, behavioural change and taxation measures with direct Government investment will lead to the achievement of Ireland’s climate objectives in a manner consistent with the climate Act. This means using Government funds to leverage and drive investment from businesses and households in support of these objectives. Government policy on energy efficiency is a tangible example of this innovative use of Government funds. A low-cost loan scheme will be launched in the coming weeks to allow more homeowners to make the investments needed to make their homes warmer, more comfortable and less exposed to changes in energy prices. This is complemented by the warmer homes scheme, which offers energy efficiency upgrades free of charge to the homes of those most in need. The Government's policy on energy efficiency has been designed to be comprehensive and socially progressive. We could not do this without our core carbon tax regime.

As Minister for Finance, I introduced the legislation that put into effect the Government’s commitment to increasing carbon tax, providing certainty to our economy and encouraging low-carbon investment decisions to be made now and not postponed. Our policy, unlike that of any other EU member state, provides a legislated schedule of annual carbon tax increases, with every additional euro raised recycled to generate the resources we need to decarbonise the economy. For budget 2024, this was worth €788 million, bringing the total amount of funding to support climate action since 2020 to €2.2 billion. This is paying for our energy efficiency schemes and for agri-environmental schemes to allow farmers to reduce their emissions and, critically, it will address fuel poverty and support the least well-off in society. Analysis has consistently demonstrated that those households on the lowest incomes are materially better off as a result of the social protection measures funded by the increased carbon tax than they would otherwise be.

As well as allocating funds, my Department is responsible for setting the framework the Government uses to consider the costs and benefits of public capital investments. I published the latest version of these infrastructure guidelines late last year. Capital investments give rise to greenhouse gas emissions, both in the construction sector and in the ongoing operation of the asset. Given the enduring impact of greenhouse gas emissions, it is vital our infrastructure guidelines take into account the emissions impact of investment decisions. Every project is required to quantify the greenhouse gas emissions it may give rise to and a shadow price of carbon is applied. My officials have been working with the Centre for Marine and Renewable Energy Ireland at UCC to undertake modelling on a range of price scenarios to update the shadow price of carbon to better align with our climate targets. Over the past nine months, we have piloted the application of these new values among a range of appraisals within a range of Departments, including in the low-cost loan scheme I mentioned. My Department is in the final phase of consideration of the new values and I hope to make a final decision in the coming weeks. It is worth reiterating that improving our economic appraisal tools does not determine policy choices but does, I believe, better inform them. An accurate shadow price of carbon ensures the cost of emissions are properly considered when evaluating which projects are of overall benefit to society. It also prompts lower carbon choices in project design and ensures that the Government will recognise cost-effective opportunities to make investments that can reduce emissions.

This appraisal also applies to new investments. My Department is also working on green budgeting methodologies that can provide information to the public and policymakers on the impact of all spending decisions, including those that have been taken, with a view to improving outcomes. Since I announced Ireland’s introduction of green budgeting reforms in 2018, we have made significant improvements year after year. We are considered to be at the forefront of international developments in this space and this is confirmed in the latest OECD survey, which, as of 2022, puts Ireland second highest in green budgeting among all the OECD countries. My Department chairs the OECD’s Paris Collaborative on Green Budgeting and will chair the European Commission’s annual green budgeting conference taking place in Brussels next month. We introduced the latest steps in our green budgeting initiative in December 2023. Monitoring of climate- and environment-related expenditure was extended to include all six of the EU's taxonomy for sustainable activities criteria. We now also capture expenditure allocations that may have unfavourable impacts on climate and environmental outcomes. Green budgeting initiatives and the wider performance framework play an important role in enhancing the level of accountability and transparency surrounding spending on climate action and the environment. This approach also generates insights that can be used to guide the evolution of climate policy.

Alongside my Department’s commitments under the climate action plan, I also have a role in supporting emissions reductions in the public sector. While decisions on resource allocation within a sector can only be made by the Minister responsible for the sector in question, my Department plays an active role on the heat and built environment task force, the implementation focus group and the public sector working group of that task force. No less important is our work through the Office of Government Procurement in ensuring our public services operate in line with our climate objectives. This includes work on the capital works management framework to deliver public sector construction procurement reform, the financial appraisal of projects based on the total cost of ownership, including environmental considerations, and the promotion of green public procurement. These all seek to ensure that goods, services and works with a reduced environmental impact throughout their life cycle will be prioritised and that public services can be delivered to meet the needs of a decarbonised society.

It is worth reflecting on the scale of the challenge we face and the efforts we are making to address it. I have described some of what the Government is doing to achieve this and a few of the steps my Department is taking, but these represent only a portion of the activities we are engaged in. Fundamentally, we are managing the growth in public expenditure on a sustainable basis, we are improving the evidence and analytical base to allow better informed policy decisions to be taken, and we are setting the frameworks to support investment decisions that incorporate climate considerations. With many of the critical decisions taken, our focus now has to be on implementation. We know the challenges that face us and the benefits that climate action can bring, but we also know the costs if we do not act.

I thank members for their attention and look forward to their questions. I hope this address has given an overview of the work we do.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the Minister. He outlined the significant challenge we have. It is interesting that the country is at a point where, for the first time in well over a century, our population is growing rapidly, which is very positive. Of course, it presents the challenge of decarbonising our targets and real numbers, which are not calculated as a proportion of our economy. While we have a growing population, we also have a growing economy, which is what we want, with the simultaneous challenge of decarbonising it such that there will be a 51% cut in emissions by 2030 based on the 2018 baseline. That is an immense challenge but I think we are making great inroads.

We had a very good engagement last week in the Dáil, I am sure the Minister will recall, on the importance of balanced regional development, and I would argue this is also key to the sustainable development challenge we face. If we want a bigger and thriving economy, that needs to be balanced and there are all kinds of arguments regarding the need to realign transport, for example, which is a big part of it. I made the case that in respect of this vision of Ireland for 2040, 2050 and 2060 as rebalanced - I am being very parochial here - the mid-west and the Shannon-Limerick access would be a significant part of that. It is a real opportunity to counterbalance the economic weight and growth of Dublin over recent decades.

The fact that the population is likely to grow and, based on a recent ESRI report, will exceed 1 million by 2040 brings into question the size of the national development plan and how we pay for the kinds of infrastructure projects, and the right infrastructure projects, that will cater for the growing population while also ensuring that it happens in the right parts of the country and helps to grow our economy, which underpins the society that we are to serve. Perhaps the Minister could comment on how the national development plan might need to be altered in the coming months and years to make that happen.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

The question summarises the tensions that are there in the work we need to do. For example, we need to build more infrastructure. Even the supply and construction of infrastructure that has the potential to reduce carbon emissions has a carbon impact. We have the obvious trade-off between the need to support a growing population, and what that means for our economy and the delivery of more infrastructure, with our legal obligation to reduce our carbon emissions by 51% by 2030.

If I was to pick out three strands that I believe would be important to achieve this in the times ahead, the first would be to identify the continued importance of a credible, predictable and unchanging carbon tax regime. It is of incredible importance that we have a separate stream of tax revenue that, in particular in the Estimates process, is, in effect, ring-fenced to deal with how we can alleviate the trade-off the Chair mentioned. The fact that that is worth around €800 million in expenditure already, despite the fact that it has only been in place for a relatively short number of years, provides an indication of what this could be in the future and how we can make even smarter decisions in respect of our tax stream in the future to deal with some of the trade-offs. We have very valuable learnings from that already regarding how we have managed to protect the living standards of those who have the least in our country as we have changed carbon taxes and dealt with an incredible inflation shock that we could not have predicted we began this work.

The second element would be the medium-term impact of the new climate infrastructure fund that we have in place from 2026 onwards. While it is at a very early stage - as the committee knows the legislation for it has not even been brought to the Oireachtas - the effect of that fund in respect of protecting investment from the inevitable economic cycle and, if needs be, prioritising further green investment, is something that in the latter half of this decade will have a particular value.

Third, I will emphasise the value of the national broadband plan. We are still underestimating the transformative effects of what it will bring to our country, what it will mean for the allocation of existing and new enterprises way outside of our cities and copper-fastening our regional objectives. In particular, the development of capital is based more and more on its intellectual value. The fact that Ireland will have an extraordinary competitive edge in the availability of high-speed broadband later on this century is a value we could still potentially be underestimating. They are the three things I would call out to try to manage the trade-off between economic growth to support a growing population and trying to avoid making people poorer and the imperative that we have, in a few short years, to accelerate the progress that I believe we are already making.

An Cathaoirleach

Thank you for that. The Minister mentioned the inflation shock which we may not have predicted a few years ago. It is there and creates a greater challenge. There is an almost philosophical question about the challenge of the bigger State to deliver what we need in terms of infrastructure. Is there something to be said around reviewing the spending envelope and ensuring that we have a public sector that is capable of driving the level of infrastructural investment that is needed?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I make the case that we already have a significantly bigger State in the aftermath of the pandemic. As I look to the time ahead, the number of people working in our public service alone will cross 400,000 at a point this year. Of course, it will cross 400,000 people in the context of a population that is also larger than it was a number of years ago. If the Chair was to ask me what all of this work means for the scale and size of our State, I would say that I think our State will get bigger as we have more people living in Ireland and our economy grows.

The two parts of our State that will continue to grow are not necessarily what we would traditionally think of in terms of the State's share of economic activity. I would first look at the role of our semi-State and commercial semi-State sectors and the role organisations such as, for example, Bord na Móna can play in our decarbonisation agenda. When people think about a bigger State, they do not always think about that in the sense of our commercial semi-State sector. The Chair and committee may well know even more than I do the role that these organisations will play in our future. Second, and obviously, the regulatory role and the imprint of our State in guiding and enforcing the kind of decisions that the private sector will make might not necessarily point to a bigger State in economic terms but rather a State that has a more decisive role in how climate-related economic decisions are made. The obvious impact of the climate Act on the regulatory and planning decisions that will be made is an example of that.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the Minister for his answers.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

I thank the Minister for his opening statement. I have a couple of questions. There have been some reports on the cost of non-compliance. The indications were that we are not on target to meet our first or second carbon budget as things stand. Has an assessment been made by the Department or Minister of the likely cost of non-compliance based on, for example, the latest EPA emissions projections? Do we know how they will be allocated across different sectors?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

The most recent update we have prepared in regard to compliance and potential costs is the paper that was published in 2022 by my Department. We did so in conjunction with the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications. It laid out a range of different compliance scenarios, including the most extreme cost which is the risk that the compliance cost by 2030 could rise to €8.1 billion. I want to emphasise that that is at the far end of the spectrum in terms of what our compliance costs could be. Obviously, what we are now doing, through the national development plan and all of the different regulatory decisions the State is making, is trying to do all we can to minimise that compliance outlook and the cost the State and taxpayers may have to encounter in the years ahead.

This was done last in 2022 and it has not been updated since because we still believe it is a credible prediction of the different scenarios we may encounter. Obviously, I say to Deputy O'Rourke that we are doing all we can to avoid having to be in that place.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

Has it been considered that there is a case to constantly monitor, in forensic detail, where the missed targets are and whether that should then, in the feedback mechanism, influence the type of Government spending and policy decisions that are made? To link into the point the Minister made around the public spending code and the need to finesse it and ensure it is climate-sensitive, based on his opening statement, we are some way off that. Is it envisaged that those two questions would be matched together? When will the new public spending code be updated and how will it be influenced by our climate targets?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

That is the great value of the climate action plan. The current draft climate action plan is out for consultation at the moment. That details where we are on a sectoral basis and where we are with the delivery, or indeed the non-delivery, of targets. The action plan, and all the work that goes into the preparation of its draft, is having a significant effect on the discussions under way in Government around the allocation of capital funding. The fact that, in the current NDP, climate related activities and public transport have such a share of overall capital spending of the State is a reflection that even before we began to develop climate action plans, these issues were germane to expenditure decisions that would be made. A Cabinet subcommittee oversees the annual publication of these action plans and since we have begun to go through them rigorously, it is having a big impact on the tone of how we evaluate where we put the resources of our country.

As for infrastructure guidelines, the revised new infrastructure guidelines are now in place. This is due to a number of decisions I made to the oversight of the NDP and changes I began to put in place last year. The new infrastructure guidelines ensure that, for example, climate and environmental performance is now an explicit element of the preliminary business case for significant capital decisions that Government make. The Accounting Officers of the different Departments who are involved in capital decisions now must pay greater heed to the impact on climate and carbon emissions. That change has been made. I say to Deputy O'Rourke that, in fairness, it will probably take some time to see what the impact of the change in the guidelines on capital decisions will be, given that it only happened recently. I am currently engaged in some work with my officials around the shadow price of carbon and how we can change that. I believe it will complement the changes that have been made to the infrastructure guidelines.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

I thank the Minister.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator McGahon is next to speak.

Senator John McGahon

I thank the Chair and the Minister for coming before the committee today. I appreciate how busy his schedule is and that he is taking time for the climate action committee. I have three basic questions and the Minister can touch on each one. On the national development plan and the projects that are being supported through the NDP, how will the Minister ensure that sustainability will be at the forefront of those projects? Second, related to European funding as well, what is the role of EU funding in achieving our climate objectives and does that funding from the European Union have a role in Ireland? Third, how does the Minister think the importance of the sustainability criteria in the spending decisions being made across Government Departments could be improved?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I thank the Deputy, or Senator.

Senator John McGahon

I have no doubt that is a sign of things to come, Minister.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I will address all the members of the committee as Deputies, as to be equal.

To address the first question, if I was to pick any area that I believe is exceptionally important to the future of the NDP and how we can make it more sustainable, I would probably pick one process and two projects. The process would be the thorough implementation of the revised infrastructure guidelines that I referred to and the conclusion of our work on shadow carbon pricing. If I was asked to pick two strands of Government expenditure, I would identify where we are with the national retrofit plan and, to make the obvious point again, state that we would not be able to do something of that scale if it had not been for the changes that we made in carbon taxation. I believe it is of gigantic value for winning the public argument around the kind of changes we must make now and in the future if we can point the same public to the efforts we are making to invest in warmer homes for people. I think we are making good progress on it - better progress than I thought would be made, to be honest. It is good and important progress of great political and social value.

Finally, I would identify the work we are trying to do on public transport. This work is projects that are back-ended in the NDP, simply because of the challenges that are there and the amount of work that must be undertaken from a planning and tendering point of view. Whether it is other cities across the country and the ambitions that the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and the Government have in relation to light rail in question, or whether it is what we are trying to do in the city of Dublin - for example, the long standing ambition to build a metro - they are projects that are vital. As this committee probably knows better than I do, it is transport that, over time, will prove our greatest challenge in realising our climate ambitions. I think the progress we are making in a few other areas gives us great hope for the future.

To call out where we are with our engagement with the EU, a big part of the national recovery and resilience plan, which is under way with the EU, refers to the climate. I briefed Government only a few weeks ago on where we are with the REPowerEU portion of the recovery and resilience plan for Ireland, which is funded by the European Union budget and is now worth €240 million. That, for example, is looking to make and fund investments in greener public transport and also in the retrofitting of important public buildings. While the contribution the EU is making in expenditure is important and a valuable addition to what we are doing, to be candid, given the fact that we are now a net contributor to the European Union and given the scale of the NDP that we are funding ourselves, which we should be able to do, it is a low share of the total value of what we are aiming to do. The vast majority of what we need to do we can and will be paying for ourselves.

Senator John McGahon

I thank the Minister.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Senator McGahon and the Minister.

Deputy Alan Farrell

I thank the Chair and the Minister for coming before the committee, for his opening statement and answers to questions thus far. I had a technical problem in my office, so I came down to the committee room. It is better to do this in person, anyway. I have a couple of areas that I wish to cover with the Minister.

First, public transport projects are an area that Senator McGahon and the Minister referenced. I will be quite parochial on behalf of North Dublin by specifically referencing, as the Minister has, the importance of the metro. I refer to the constraints that both the planning system and elements of the NDP have shown thus far as a result of the perceived delays in the planning process, the resources available to our planning authorities, both at local and national levels, and the impacts that has on the NDP and our climate action targets, which are interlinked. Can the Minister offer a view as to how the NDP and its implementation can be improved?

The Minister referenced the review and a number of other factors from his Department's perspective which I think would be useful to flesh out further, and from my point of view, trying to learn from the process we have been in for the past number of years on a number of projects and around those delays and the impacts they have on our climate action targets.

I am pleased the Minister touched on the low-cost loan scheme for the national retrofit plan. We cannot wait for it to be introduced, to be honest. The appetite among homeowners to invest in, and decarbonise, their properties and residencies has been phenomenal. I pay tribute to SEAI and all the various contributors to that process. However, around the grants scheme that the SEAI offer, which is interlinked to that national retrofit plan, does the Minister believe there are additional steps that can be taken?

The Cathaoirleach rightly touch on balanced regional development and how important it is and I absolutely agree. As someone from north Dublin, I am fortunate to have mass public transport via train. Of course, there is an ambitious plan to not only electrify the network within a reasonable period, but also to roll out 750 electric or battery-electric carriages across the network within the next decade. On the point the Minister made just before I was called to speak around decarbonising our transport systems, does he believe, as a former Minister for Finance and current Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, that this proposal or plan is ambitious enough in terms of our ambitions for climate action and a reduction of our carbon emissions?

I have a few other questions, but I may come back to them on the next round.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I thank the Deputy. On the points the Deputy made on retrofitting, which I mentioned in response to Senator McGahon, I believe it is of great climate benefit but it is also a great strand of the proposition that we must put to our country as to why we can be part of a collective effort to get carbon emissions down. If it is part of that, we can enable homeowners to make their own homes warmer.

The Deputy asked me for my assessment of what we do at the moment. At the moment, my own sense is that the grant regime we have in place is attractive. As the Deputy knows, some of the grants are up to 50% of the cost of the retrofitting of a home. We have some low-cost loans available. Again, as the Deputy knows, there is a scheme in place for low-income and local authority homes. The homes are retrofitted and invested in by the State at no cost to the person or family living in them. In the time ahead, what we must do is build on that, and I return to the answer that I gave the Chairperson - it is about how we manage carbon taxation in the future. The next element of what must be done is to bring out the low-cost loans. I believe we are within a matter of weeks of getting that done. If one looks at the progress that we have made between 2013 and 2019, 132,000 home upgrades have been enabled by the various supports I referred to. Some 31% of those were up to a building energy rating, BER, of B2.

However, I am aware of the criticism that can be sometimes levied, namely, that a lot is done to completely retrofit a home, or to retrofit a home which is owned by a local authority, but for those anywhere in between, what is the support that can be made available? That is why I believe the lower cost loans will be important. Maybe, over time, as our carbon tax revenue continues to grow, we may need to look at the level of grant we make available and whether we need to make a level of grant available that delivers a kind of retrofitting that may be a little less than the deep retrofitting we make available but can still make a big impact on carbon emissions in the time ahead. I believe that is something Government will consider.

As for the Deputy's point on public transport projects and learnings on where we are now with the planning process, I have prioritised An Bord Pleanála from the moment I came into this office. Indeed, the board of the NDP, which I chair, met the key members of An Bord Pleanála a couple of weeks ago. The number of staff and resourcing it has is up by 40% to 50% because we need to ensure that we do two things in the future that we did not always do in the past. First, we must always have a selection of public transport projects moving through the planning process, or that have planning permission, regardless of what money is available today because, at other times when our public finances began to improve, apart from the Luas for Dublin, we were not as advanced in doing that as in retrospect we could have been. With this movement of projects through the planning process, or having projects out of the planning process, we would have public transport projects that we could give a priority to if things changed in our finances. Second, we must have a public planning process that is better resourced and we are working really hard to do that at the moment.

While the Deputy and I are always going to be careful about what we say around planning processes for any project, I am confident that when it comes to public transport and renewable energy, An Bord Pleanála will be given the resources that are needed for the evaluation of those railway orders and planning applications. I am confident that we have made big progress on that.

On the Deputy's final point on whether we are ambitious, of course, we could always do more. However, the scale of growth and capital investment in public transport both now and in the years to come is a really significant.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Deputy Farrell. I invite Senator Dooley to speak.

Senator Timmy Dooley

I welcome and thank the Minister for his presentation. For far too long the debate around climate change has been one that has been couched in negative language; it is around what we must stop doing, what we cannot do anymore and the burden of change that is put on us. I like to look at it a bit differently, insofar as one can, in recognising the opportunities that exist from climate change. The Chairperson identified opportunities around regional development and balancing that development. Opportunities that exist now could not have been imagined. I speak of the potential for the generation of electricity from offshore wind; these projects are known as floating offshore wind.

There is a transformative array of projects for the capture of electricity off the Atlantic coast, off the west of Ireland, the mid west specifically. The Chairperson and I have talked about this on many occasions. It does require a leap of faith by the Government as some, or most, of the technologies are still in development. However, other countries are advancing, namely, Norway, Portugal, Scotland and a number of others. There is a real need for the Government to show, as it has in so many other areas, real ambition around being part of that development phase.

The economic document that was prepared on the Shannon Estuary, put together by the Shannon Estuary Economic Taskforce led by Barry O'Sullivan, makes a clear call that we must move quickly to designate marine protected areas quicker. While the Government does plan to do that, there is a shortage of resources, human resources more so than money. I believe we need to tool up that area.

We also need to put money in place to establish a demonstrator project that will be part of a pilot programme, so that we are kept abreast and at pace of the development of the technology, so that we are technology developers in this area rather than effectively taking the end product when it is developed elsewhere.

When these new technologies are at commercial scale, they have the capacity if done right to put Ireland as one of the leaders of the world in this regard. I encourage the Minister to look at the funding request and to put that demonstrator or pilot project in place. Most likely, floating offshore wind will not come ashore until approximately 2031 or 2032 but it will be too late for job creation and future investment in that region if we wait until everybody else has developed the technology. I am anxious to hear the Minister's thoughts in this regard.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

The Senator makes a fair point. I agree entirely with his point around how we couch and talk to ourselves and the country about our response to the great climate challenge. During the week, I came across a phrase in a book that mentioned the concept of a "transition trough"-----

Senator Timmy Dooley

A transition-----

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

A transition trough.

Senator Timmy Dooley

Yes.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

It referred to the challenge in politics of a situation whereby costs are seismic and threatening and pose such a challenge to all of us but are in the future. While the build-up to those terrible moments is incremental, the decisions that are needed to minimise that difficulty are significant with big costs in the here and now. The climate issue is the leading example of that. Therefore, how we talk about this issue is enormously important because if we do not talk about it in the right way, it will induce fatalism. A greener Ireland will be a healthier Ireland in which our homes and standards of living will be better. It will be an Ireland that is capable of having better jobs and a more sustainable standard of living.

I will take away the point the Senator made on renewable energy and the need for a demonstrator project, as he is probably more aware than I am on this matter. I believe the future framework for offshore wind is currently out for public consultation. As the Senator outlined, there is a goal as to where we wish to be by 2030 with the target at that point being approximately 5 GW of energy being generated.

I am happy to take away two points from the Senator's contribution. First, on resourcing, as I outlined to Deputy Farrell, big progress is being made around An Bord Pleanála but maybe MARA needs to be looked at. In its early days, it was set up in the same way, which the Senator may have been referring to. Second, the point made around a demonstrator project is a fair one as it can show what is possible and potentially kickstart the transition that will be needed offshore. If the Senator has any examples of a demonstrator project, it may be wise not to give them here, but I think it is a good point and I will take it away.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the Minister and the Senator.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I thank the Chair.

I wish to highlight three areas in which I believe there is a particular role for the Minister's Department. The Minister highlighted himself the issue of public and Government procurement and I have engaged with him on this issue previously. On life cycle costing, the Minister talked about measures to ensure the prioritisation of services and works which have a reduced environmental impact. Of course, the only way this can be done is by bringing in measures that will actually require them to be prioritised. As there is still the widespread use of cost-only procurement processes, which is where the lowest cost is the only determinant, that does not allow for the scope of the life cycle piece nor does it ensure that environmental factors are properly considered. I had constructive engagement with the Minister's colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Ossian Smyth, on the idea that the State would prioritise a price-quality or life cycle approach. This kind of approach to procurement would allow for the measures that the Minister outlined. Otherwise, if the only focus is on the lowest cost, then what the Minister outlined as a goal of the State will not be achieved.

The Minister has a crucial role when it comes to the public service and the public sector. Within this legislation there is a public sector climate action mandate and I am interested how this can be facilitated and strengthened. He also mentioned the performance evaluation in respect of capital infrastructure. Is there strong performance evaluation of the ongoing work of the public sector bodies? More specifically, I refer to the key performance indicators, KPIs, of senior civil and public servants. What tools are being used to support and encourage delivery from public sector bodies?

My main and crucial point today is on the role of the commercial semi-State sector. The Minister flagged this point earlier and it is key. He mentioned Bord na Móna and its potential but there is even greater potential with Coillte. Coillte is responsible for 7% of the land in the State. Currently, the mandate of Coillte is commercial. While it may have some environmental or climate projects, the mandate is clearly on a commercial basis. There was a promise in the programme for Government to review that mandate and to look at how it might be affected. I have legislation which seeks to do just exactly that. During the debate on that, we were told that the Government wished to use its influence through its role as shareholders. The problem with that is that in the shareholder letter sent to Coillte from the Government - not the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, I wish to clarify that it was a former Minister - it stated in the first line on policy objectives that the company should be profitable and cash-generative, maintaining financial policies and capital structures that looked to the payments of dividends for shareholders. While there was some language around climate further on in the letter and there are some interesting projects that Coillte are engaged in, the clear message is not around delivering value for the State in the wider sense but rather on cash returns. This may be at odds with what is in the climate Act where the State obliges the Government to achieve the best possible value for money, as the Minister himself outlined. The best value for money is not necessarily pushing a commercial semi-State to deliver cash but to look at the resource that it is; it is responsible for 7% of the land of the State and we should be asking ourselves if a lot more could be achieved if we shifted the mandate to an economic, social and environmental one, rather than just economic one. This is what I am certainly proposing. There is no balance between the commercial mandate against the desire to do environmental projects and such.

An Cathaoirleach

I ask the Senator to hurry.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

The cost of non-compliance has been mentioned; there may be fines in the billions of euro per year, whereas the dividends to the State from Coillte are approximately €27.7 million. Therefore, it may not be financially prudent or the best value for the State if it gets a small amount back in dividends as a result of a focus on short-term cash and delivery for shareholders rather than maximising this resource. It is not just about the fines as it sets an example where better value could be got than the massive subsidisation that the State will give to the private sector to encourage them to plant accordingly. From a value-for-money perspective, is it not time to shift and use this resource more effectively?

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the Senator.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I thank the Senator for her questions. There is a lot in her contribution and I will quickly address each of the points mentioned.

First, significant progress has been made in ensuring that green and climate issues receive a far higher level of profile in procurement discussions. I attribute much of the credit in this regard to the work that the Minister of State, Deputy Ossian Smyth, has done. He has really looked to drive change in this area.

Also, I make the point that the moment the State begins to have procurement processes with an objective that is no longer about getting the best available price, will open up huge other risks to the State. Any procurement process must have a high level of focus on the price the State will pay for services or projects to be delivered.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

To clarify, that is part of the model. Price is still a factor but it-----

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

With respect, I do not sure that is what the Senator said in her question.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

That is what I am saying. There are three approaches available, as the Minister is aware; namely a life cycle approach, a price-quality ratio approach, where you consider both price and quality, and a price-only approach.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

Yes.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I do not believe that a price-only approach is the best value for the State.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

Sure, but the Senator should consider the significant changes made in procurement practices. The Government has published cost control and carbon reporting templates and they are now a mandatory part of procurement processes. When capital projects are being considered now, there is the option to report the embodied carbon during construction. While this is not currently mandatory, the Government will make it mandatory by quarter 4 of this year.

To give examples of the kinds of changes that this has led to, 275 zero emission vehicles have been published by the State since 2021. Green procurement is taking place in the Department of Defence with solar panels being rolled out to 11 different Department of Defence locations. The Department has seen a threefold increase in the amount of electricity it is accessing renewably. The State is now replacing carbon-fuelled vehicles with electric vehicles. In the HSE, there is now a clinical waste initiative leading to the recycling of clinical waste as opposed to its disposal. These are just examples of the work that is under way where we have changed procurement policy to ensure that far higher recognition is given to the sustainability issues the Senator has referenced in a number of different contributions with me.

As for the Senator's point on the commercial mandate of the State sector, if their mandates were changed so that they no longer would be commercial, they then would become part of the State entirely. If that were to happen, it would undermine their ability to raise funding in different ways and to engage with the financial markets. They currently engage with the private sector to a higher degree than they would if they were purely State entities. I point to the work that Coillte is doing with the development of renewable energy and offshore wind. Coillte itself is undertaking this work. The company also has ambitions to expand forestry. It is my judgment that it can go ahead with this work due to its commercial status.

The State normally gains its dividends from commercial semi-State bodies after they have funded their ambitious investment programmes, now and into the future. Therefore, my sense is that this balance offers a lot of flexibility to the State and if we were to change that commercial mandate, it could undermine the semi-State bodies' flexibility and bring costs onto the State that we might, over time, struggle to fund in the way we can at the moment through the mixed mandate these organisations have.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

Okay, I wish to say-----

An Cathaoirleach

There is no time, as Deputy Kenny is waiting patiently and I wish to be fair to members. There may be time for a second round of questions and I will bring the Senator in again.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

Okay, the Chairperson can come back to me.

Deputy Martin Kenny

I thank the Chair and I thank the Minister for his opening statement and his remarks.

I wish to address the issue of investment in key infrastructure, particularly in public transport and rail infrastructure. The all-Ireland rail review took place recently and it has a number of recommendation, as the Minister is aware. Some of these recommendations fit into the national development plan and some are outside of the plan. I am particularly concerned with issues around the north west and the regions that are now recognised as being economically behind other regions of the country. I often use the phrase that we must relieve Dublin and revive the rest. This does not mean to take anything out of Dublin but rather to make it work better. We also need the rest of the country to work better and better connectivity is key to that. I am curious to know what plans or ambitions the Government has to achieve this and to ensure that we get connectivity across the regions, particularly regions that have the opportunity to draw down additional funding from the European Union through the Trans-European Transport Network, TEN-T, programme and so forth. How can this be achieved and when can we see movement in this direction?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I thank the Deputy for his question.

The Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, is looking at how we can provide public transport connectivity through rail to more parts of our country, including where the Deputy referred to, through the strategic rail review that is now under way. That will have to be considered by the Government in the future. There are many other different public transport projects that the Minister, Deputy Ryan, and the Government wish to make progress on. These competing and important needs will need to be considered during this year. It will be through the strategic rail review that options for delivering rail connectivity to the Deputy's county will be identified.

Deputy Martin Kenny

I thank the Minister.

I hope this opportunity will be recognised, particularly with the electrification of lines, with battery power and new technology and developments. I also wish to understand the level of ambition there is around developing more bus links in urban areas in particular. I know there are issues in Dublin with BusConnects and so forth. I am sure the Minister hears about bus delays in his own constituency, like everyone else. We hope these are teething problems but they seem to be taking a long time. For the people waiting at the bus stops they are very much a toothache rather than a teething problem. I hope that as this develops, the level of investment required will be enhanced because that seems to be one of the issues: the level of investment does not seem to be available.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

Yes and one reason for the delays the Deputy referred to and what is a common theme in some of the questions put to me today is the length of time involved in moving some of these projects through the planning process. The reasons for this are many. A big factor that I acknowledge as one of the reasons has been the need to supply more resources and support to An Bord Pleanála to evaluate and to do its independent work on big public transport projects quickly.

As for the funding, I do not have the figures with me here today as they are primarily under the aegis of the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan and today we are talking about the NDP in the round. I know that the Government has looked to make funding available to Bus Éireann and to Dublin Bus and the upgrading of their fleets has been a big priority. More money has gone into both of those organisations from the State and although this does not deal with the issues the Deputy and his constituents have, the Minister, Deputy Ryan, has also prioritised in particular investment into rail carriageways and into how we can electrify our rail network in the future. However, I take the Deputy's point that a lot of this is still too far away for his constituents, many of whom are still involved in journeys that are too long.

Deputy Martin Kenny

I thank the Minister.

Transport Infrastructure Ireland appeared before the transport committee yesterday. As the Minister is aware, it has seven stages when it looks to a project. The first four stages are around planning, working it all out and how it will proceed, whether it is building a road or something else. The last three stages are the actual construction and moving things forward. The first four stages take twice as long as the last three stages.

In most jurisdictions it is the other way around. The people who were here yesterday made it clear they felt there needs to be an examination of some of these processes. They put forward a plan and the plan went to the Department. It came back nine, 12, 14 months later with no changes made and yet it has taken that length of time. We certainly detected a frustration there. From the point of view of public expenditure, time is money. These delays cost and there needs to be an examination of why we have these delays in this jurisdiction, which do not exist to the same extent in other jurisdictions.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

Sure. On the Deputy's point on the evaluation of business cases and the length of time involved in that, we have to look at how we have conducted our work, what works and how we can do it even better in the future. The point I respectfully make to the Deputy is when we get to the point when BusConnects starts being built, for those of us who have been involved in it and have seen some of the challenges in our constituencies and communities that are affected by it, it becomes a really valuable part of making the argument for it. You can demonstrate that it has gone through a really thorough evaluation and the business case stands up. That is in addition to the fact that all of these projects involve spending hundreds of millions of their money. A few of the projects we have touched upon here this afternoon would be in the billions and when the Government makes a final decision on them, the Deputy would expect us to be able to bring forward a thorough business case regarding why that should be done. If there is frustration about that within some organisations, so be it. At the end of the day it tends to be people like me and other elected representatives who have to make the case in public.

Where I definitely accept the Deputy's point is in relation to the speed of time in the planning process. I believe the work that the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, is doing legislatively to try to change the planning process will help in terms of the predictability of outcomes and of people knowing when decisions will be made. My big contribution to this, however, has been and has to continue to be that An Bord Pleanála has more planners, more engineers and more environmental consultants in order that that part of the process can happen with greater speed. I accept that this is something we have difficulties in at the moment.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the Minister and Deputy Kenny. Does Senator Boylan wish to come in? As the Minister is leaving at 4 p.m. we do not have so much time left.

Senator Lynn Boylan

I will be brief.

An Cathaoirleach

Others want to come in for a second round and I want to facilitate as many as possible.

Senator Lynn Boylan

I thank the Minister for his opening statement. I want to refer to a study that the Department of public expenditure did back in 2020. I think it was by the economic and evaluation service staff in the Department. They looked at the social impact assessment of SEAI programmes that were targeting energy poverty. At the time, it came out with the rather staggering conclusion that because of the level of data collected on those programmes around household income and use of energy and reductions in use of energy, it was not possible to provide an assessment of the scheme's impact on its recipients. We are now seeing the highest rate of energy poverty - I believe it is at 29% - since 1994 or 1995. That report recommended that an updated social impact assessment be carried out. Will the Minister give a commitment that that will happen and that the data will now be collected in order that we can evaluate whether those retrofitting programmes, and the grants-based ones in particular, are not just wealth transfers but are reducing both our emissions and our energy poverty levels?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

Is the Senator looking for my commitment regarding doing the work?

Senator Lynn Boylan

I am looking first for the Minister to accept that we do not have the level of data to assess whether grants are just transferring public money to private homeowners and are not reducing energy poverty. We should be trying to reduce both our emissions and our energy poverty levels. That report called for a second impact assessment to be undertaken. Is the Department of public expenditure and reform doing that or will the Minister give a commitment that it will be done and that the data will be collected in order for us to actually assess?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I thank the Senator for raising a very fair point. I was exchanging questions with my colleagues, as I am reasonably sure that we have done that work and that ii has been done a lot more recently than 2020. It may be the case that it has not been published yet. I will go away and check that and come back to the Senator on that. I accept that the impact of those schemes and what their influence is on energy efficiency is an important point. I believe that we have done more work on it since 2020 and I will come back to the Senator on it.

Senator Lynn Boylan

My second question refers to a circular from the Minister's Department that went out to all Departments on the offsetting of emissions associated with official air travel. You then pay into a scheme which is a system offsetting the carbon emissions from that. I personally have an issue with offsetting as they are indulgences in my opinion. That aside, is the Minister using an outside independent body to verify that he is in fact offsetting, or is he setting the price for the offset of emissions? There are organisations who would verify that the offsets are actually offsetting the emissions.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I will have to come back to the Senator with an answer on that.

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister might send the answer to the secretariat and we can circulate it to colleagues.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I will, certainly.

An Cathaoirleach

As we have limited time, I propose that we might take all the questions together and then the Minister can answer them. I have two more questions for the Minister, which build on Deputy Kenny's question about the cost-benefit analysis process, the planning process and so on. I would like the Minister's view on whether there is an argument for a two-tier system. Some kinds of investments are fundamentally sustainable and others it can be argued, are not. There is an argument that for the investments we know are fundamentally sustainable and fit with our objectives, we may need to skip some of those steps. I am minded that in the case of the French economy, they seem to decide what they want and just go for it; they do not seem to go through the kinds of hoops that we put ourselves through in the interests of spending money wisely, which of course is a noble objective. When we fundamentally know something is a sustainable project, however, perhaps we should just get on with it. That is my first question. Second, I think the Department of public expenditure did some work on fossil fuel subsidies in this country last year. The Minister was going to come back on it. While I do not know whether anything has been published at this point, he might update us. Those are my questions and I will go now to Deputy Farrell.

Deputy Alan Farrell

I wanted to point out that I was very pleased to hear the Minister's reference to pipeline projects. I have seen so many projects fall by the wayside, particularly in the 2008 to 2010 period, when my own local authority did not progress with bringing projects up to the point where they could shelve them as "Awaiting funding". Unfortunately a lot of projects were simply stopped dead in the water, which was inappropriate because they are now scrambling to try to update plans and get them through the planning process. As they are specific to transport, I was pleased to hear the Minister say that.

The Minister will be aware of our very ambitious but unquantified plans for offshore wind generation and to become a net exporter of electricity. A report last year was published by Wind Energy Ireland and MaREI, which is an academic think-tank in the sphere. They estimated that our energy consumption at the moment is around 30 TW or 32 TW per annum, rising to approximately 100 TW in 25 years. While we have a very ambitious plan to deliver I believe, 80 GW of electricity in or near our jurisdiction in this part of Europe, I am not convinced we have the means or the mechanism to deliver upon that ambition.

The reason I mention it is because I appreciate some of it will be delivered by private enterprise. Speaking in the abstract, is it possible to consider whether a State entity should engage itself in the process of delivering offshore wind energy on behalf of the State? One could argue that we have expertise already on the island of Ireland. I am aware of joint ventures, which of course are welcomed. The committee membership has observed some of those joint ventures first hand. However, if we are talking about 25 years of planning and beyond, is it not prudent for us to at least consider it?

An Cathaoirleach

I will go back to the Minister, but I will come back to Senator Higgins and Deputy O'Rourke after that.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I will deal with each question in turn. Do I believe there should be two different processes of business cases, one for sustainable projects and another for projects that should be less sustainable? Unfortunately, I will disappoint the Chairperson and say no. I think what would happen is that most Government Departments would argue that their projects are sustainable and that they should be going into one process and not the other. I believe we are better off having a single approach that puts a lot of focus on carbon cost, which we are trying to do with a change in our investment guidelines, and to try to do that work as quickly as we can.

As for the question around harmful effects in the work my Department did, we concluded that work and we published it in February 2023. We will include that as an ongoing accompanying process to the Revised Estimates Volume, REV, beginning in December of this year. We did it for last December. It has already been done but it will be ongoing now and it will be an accompanying piece of analysis for each REV. For example, in the REV, which was published a few months ago, we laid out what were the different shares of expenditure that could have a positive effect on our climate objectives and what were the ones that would be damaging to our climate objectives and what we are aiming to do.

As for Deputy Farrell's question, it reminded me that when I was speaker to Senator Higgins earlier, I said Coillte when I should have said ESB as an example of commercial semi-State bodies. Do I think a new entity is needed to do all of this work? I believe we have entities like this, such as ESB and the work it is doing, as well as Bord na Móna. Do I think we need an entirely new organisation? I think it would run the risk of duplicating the work that they are doing. If there are new organisations with a different mandate from ESB or Bord na Móna, we run the risk of them competing with bodies that have been around for a long time or creating organisations that do not have the ability to collaborate with the private sector. I believe the private sector will be essential as the amount of money needed will be so big that it will not be possible for the taxpayer to provide it on its own, which is why we collaborate with and try to organise the private sector. That is an essential element of what we are going to be doing in the future, and it is already happening.

An Cathaoirleach

I invite Deputy O'Rourke to speak and then I will go directly to Senator Higgins.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

The Minister has a couple of representatives from his climate division here. How big is the climate division relative to his overall staff? This is a new process for all of us. Can the Minister reflect on how the primacy of climate and the climate Act are inserted into the work of the Department?

As for financial investment funds, how moneys are filtered through Ireland and are being used for significant fossil fuel or large-scale and harmful agri-business in the global south has been raised with us in the past. They are being conducted through Ireland. Has the Minister plans to address that? He will be aware of the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act. Related to that, will the Minister ensure the infrastructure, climate and nature fund, ICN, will not be, directly or indirectly, supporting fossil fuel or harmful climate funding?

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

My previous question was around the environmental and climate targets and the performance on those, and how that is reflected in performance reviews, including KPI for senior public servants.

To focus specifically on Coillte, it does not have a mixed mandate right now; it has a solely commercial and indeed cash-generative mandate. It is excluded from the public sector climate action mandate, so that does not apply. It has a solely commercial mandate. What is being proposed, and widely supported by many across civil society, is that it would be economically, socially and environmentally sustainable. That has an economic element there too. That is an actual mixed mandate. The reason we need to look at a new mandate is that whatever reinvestment there may be, when it comes to climate, right now forestry is one of the major areas where the State is failing. The Department of agriculture found that from 2015 to 2017, Ireland's forest estate went from being a carbon sink to being a net-emitter. We moved forestry to a net-emitter, which is pretty shameful.

The Minister mentioned the need for big decisions and the idea of a trough because while the implications may drip slow, this is a major moment of opportunity cost. If we need to do something that delivers 7% of the State land, that could be a big deal and it could help us. However, if we do not have action on that, it is going to have an impact. Again, land use-----

An Cathaoirleach

Let us give the Minister time-----

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

My final point relates directly to the climate plan. The land use and forestry targets were not set. The ceiling was not set. If we go beyond the envelope available on forestry and there is a knock-on whereby we have to have megatonnage reductions in some of the other areas, how will his Department be accommodating that? Is it better to get forestry right or will it be about asking other Departments to cut and having to subsidise them to do that?

An Cathaoirleach

I apologise for pushing the Senator along, but there are just a few minutes left. I invite the Minister to respond.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I thank the members for their questions. We roughly totted up the number in response to Deputy O'Rourke's question. I started counting people but then I realised I was going to miss some important colleagues. We think we have around 15 to 20 people in the team overall working on climate in the Department, which makes it a good share of the overall organisation's headcount. They are a vocal pillar of the Department and very active and punch well above their weight, even though, in terms of share of the organisation, they are a big part of the Department and only recently established.

As for investment funds, I will have to get more information from Deputy O'Rourke on that. I am not exactly familiar with the issue he is referring to, but I am sure the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, or the Minister, Deputy Ryan, are. As Minister for Finance, I was involved in the decision on the investment strategy of ISIF and that it could not invest in certain kinds of companies in the future. Therefore, while I am familiar with the broad area, I am not familiar with the specific area the Deputy is referring to and I do not wish to do a disservice by giving a glib answer.

On the semi-State sector and senior civil servants, which Senator Higgins mentioned, the role of the climate dimensions of Departments' mandates is absolutely considered in the evaluation of the performance of Secretaries General and their management boards. The climate aspect of what my Department does is part of how we evaluate our performance and evaluate the performance of those who lead the Department on a Civil Service basis.

On Coillte, I will have to consider what the Senator said to me. I believe organisations like Coillte can unlock so much opportunity for our country and I know the Senator has a different view regarding what its mandate could be. The Minister, Deputy Ryan, who is a big fan of organisations like this, paints a positive picture as to what Coillte can do in the future and what it is building up to do, but clearly, the Senator has a different view on how it is structured and I will have to commit to take her point of view on board and give it more consideration in future, which I will do.

An Cathaoirleach

Thank you, Minister. The engagement today, as with other engagements with Ministers, has shown the real power of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act. When we have discussions here it is clear that this committee is a better forum than the Lower House. Perhaps the Upper House has more time for discussion than the Dáil, but these committee sessions have been incredibly helpful and informative for us as a committee and for the wider public. This is the accountability piece that is locked into the Act. If any encouragement were needed, it certainly encourages the relevant Ministers to engage faithfully with the challenge of climate, which is a real challenge.

This has been an excellent session. I thank members for their engagement. The level of interest among committee members is always very high, and not just when Ministers come in. Week in and week out, members are turning up and really grappling with the issues that we have. I thank them for that.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.01 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 20 February 2024.