Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Yes, I know. Professor Convery was saying we could assist in advancing the policy agenda in Europe. In giving ourselves the best prospect of taking things from that perspective, would we not have to show an element of leadership in meeting our own targets? How we do this is a key issue. Professor Convery highlighted the expert advisory group and the various agencies involved and I agree that they all have to be part of it. How do we get away from this silo-based approach in terms of the institutional arrangement involved? Some people have come and said this should be driven by the Department of the Taoiseach. The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources is a better location from which to drive it because that is where the opportunity is. I would be interested to hear what Professor Convery has to say on whether it is appropriately located. In the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources it is almost seen as the negative side of climate change rather than the positive side in terms of the opportunities available and innovation. There may be a mindset that could be an advantage.

We have had sectoral roadmaps in the past. We will not meet our targets and that might not be because of the sectoral roadmaps. Why does Professor Convery think that mechanism will work now? Does it need something more to work? How would he frame an innovation segment in this policy that would work and not just be a statement? He has said the carbon tax is working. It may be working on one level by giving an advantage to vehicles with lower emissions. However, on the policy side, the tax is not ring-fenced and people do not see a return via a fund that is used, for example, for the retrofitting of housing. If there was a return on it, it would be a more complete policy. I would welcome Professor Convery's comments on that issue.