Mr. David Donoghue:

I will keep it short. At the UN the emphasis is on individual countries. I will not confuse things by saying the UN also speaks about member states. It is very much the 193 countries that must take action nationally. The EU provides some added value, and this is what we are speaking about today, but I would not want to give the impression that everything European countries do depends on it coming under the flag of the EU. The fact is that France, Germany and Ireland are all doing their national bit. Under the present Commission, a bigger effort has been made to put the SDGs at the heart of the EU's activities but it is not a perfect effort. As I have said, I do not hold a brief with the EU.

Mr. Andrews mentioned there is no overall strategy for the SDGs and he is absolutely right. I find this baffling. Having had some involvement in the process in recent years, I find it baffling that the EU cannot come up with this. The reason is there are too many divisions on whether the environment should dominate over social issues. There are many tensions at a policy level so they find it easier not to go for an overall strategy but instead to try to address individual headings. That is my guess. There is no mechanism in the Commission. As a former civil servant, I do not understand why this cannot be done. It looks as if it is able to muddle through without it somehow. I would not want to give the impression that EU countries are somehow failing because of deficiencies in the arrangements in Brussels. I do not think that is the case. We would still have countries such as Germany, France and Italy making their contribution despite the overarching EU dimension.

Deputy Ó Murchú spoke about conflict and he put his finger on something very important, which is that the world is now a much more conflicted place than it was in 2015. We were fortunate to have a very positive international atmosphere and a very co-operative one at that time. Multilateralism was at a peak of relevance. If we have countries at loggerheads with each other, they will not be co-operating on a benevolent development agenda. They will not be coming at this with the co-operative spirit that the goals require. There is no doubt that progress will stall because of Gaza. It is already stalling because of the repercussions of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. All of this does not help. The fact that climate change is continuing unabated does not help either and nor does the fact that inequalities are deepening in many countries.

The list of challenges gets longer and longer but the curious thing is that somehow countries seem to think this is the way to go. I am pleasantly surprised by that but it is unmistakable. It is as if, having expended a great effort to reach this global agreement in 2015, they do not want to throw it out. They want to hold on to it in the hope that it will deliver progress. As Mr. Andrews said a moment ago, we really have to do something to fast-forward progress to show there is some credibility left. We will not be anywhere near 100% of the target, I have to say, by 2030 but we are further behind than we had hoped to be. We have to make a bigger effort and then quietly anticipate we will be rolling it over. I would not say this too officially but that is my guess. The last thing that will happen is that we throw out the SDGs in 2030. They are here to stay.

Ms Carmody made a point about youth and it is a very important point. When we were negotiating the goals there was a strong emphasis on the fact they would be for the next generation. The world was being shaped for the young generation. This is why young people are so enthusiastic about the SDGs. We deliberately had them in as stakeholders at that time. In many ways, even if there is a certain amount of scepticism among older people, the young generation is enthusiastic about them and that is a good thing.