Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will take up where Senator Sherlock left off on the question of retrofitting because it is important. I will touch on some of the other environmental and climate aspects but retrofitting is one of the key issues here. It is something we could get right but I am concerned that the mechanisms with which we are approaching it at the moment are not the right ones. That comes down to questions like value for money and so on. It is disappointing, for example, that €49 million of the recovery and resilience funding we received from the European Union specifically for green measures as direct money - a grant, not a loan - went to banks to de-risk them giving loans for retrofitting, instead of going directly into the retrofitting of our public buildings and schools. It could be argued that the banks will give larger loans but we should not need to be motivating the banks on this. We should be making it clear that these are the investments that pay off for banks.

At a macro level, we saw at the climate talks that one of the most dangerous narratives is the idea that states should pour all their money, or a huge amount of it, into de-risking private investment, which will then engage with those aspects of the climate transition that may be profitable. That is something we cannot afford to do. Many changes are going to be opposed tooth and nail but when there are positive changes that people want to make and are popular, like retrofitting, the State needs to lead. That is not simply about private housing, although that is one issue. I was concerned to hear the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications talking about schools taking out loans for retrofitting. Our schools should be retrofitted by the State. The State would then save on the energy costs in schools, as well as having the benefits for our children. That is an example of why it is important how we do this.

There are many positive elements in the Supporting Excellence report, which I have read. However, while it refers to public private partnerships, public-public partnerships are still missing. We have memorandums of understanding about public-private partnerships but not about public-public partnerships. So many of the things we are trying to do as a State will require co-operation between public bodies inside the State. Other governments are trying to do the same thing right across the European Union and the wider world. We need to be looking at public-public partnerships as a way of driving forward new ways of developing and delivering national infrastructure and national services. I urge the Minister of State to look to public-public partnerships as part of this piece.

On value for money, I am concerned by the references to the balancing of environment with value for money and the balancing of quality with value for money. Quality is about value for money. The Minister of State knows this because we have engaged on this issue. Quality is value for money. It is not something you balance against value for money but something that means we are getting the best for the State from what we spend and that we are getting the benefits and dividends. They may not take financial form but may take social or environmental form or may be in costs saved in other ways, such as costs saved in climate-related fines or costs saved in areas like health and so on. This is where the dividends come through. They may not fit within a financial model but they are value for money for the State.

The Minister of State will be aware of my legislation. It will move through slowly but a lot of these projects are going to be happening much sooner than that. I urge that he consider one of the key proposals in my legislation, which is that any major public works projects over the €5 million EU threshold would have a price to quality approach balancing both those things and a minimum of 50% quality. That is how we avoid cases like the national children's hospital, which had a 75% price weighting, meaning that the lowest price was always going to do it. I note the new proposals for the period between tender submission and award, but I respectfully suggest that the period in the design of calls for tender is the crucial one. The design and decision within that about what approach will be taken and what weightings will be given is the crucial period if we want to deliver capital for the many millions of euro that will be spent in this plan.

I will highlight three or four specific issues. I have mentioned my concerns about retrofitting. The piloting is inadequate and we need to be doing it on public buildings. I urge that we also introduce a combined product of retrofitting for climate but also for universal design so that we address the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNCRPD, obligations we have as a State at the same time. When we design in a way that is more environmentally sustainable we should also be designing in a way that is more equitable because we have that obligation under the UNCRPD. A combined retrofitting and adaptation grant would be welcomed by older people and people with a disability who spend more time at home and are more susceptible to high heating bills.

I raised this next matter with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform just a week ago at the finance committee but it has moved along since. The shadow price of carbon is being tracked, but does that include embodied carbon? It is important that embodied carbon is measured. France has now brought in regulations in that regard and it will have the EU Presidency so that is the direction of travel for the EU Commission. Measuring embodied energy is about measuring not just the cost of construction materials but the emission costs of demolition. If you demolish a building and it is going to take 65 years to get the savings back, those are the 65 years in which we need to act on climate. We cannot afford a front-loading of emissions in that regard. I urge that Ireland lead on that and that we include scope 3 emissions in the shadow price of carbon. We know we are going to need to do that from Europe so let us get ahead of it. It would also help if we looked at the refurbishment of construction materials as part of that more responsible approach. That would address some of the costs of those construction materials because we know they will continue to expand.

On the strategic rail review, I urge that the recommendation of the climate committee noting that we are doing cost-benefit analysis on rail wrong be taken on board because, frankly, the cost-benefit analysis on the western rail corridor was flawed. It is regrettable that that was not included in the Europe TEN-T funding projects. There is another round of TEN-T funding coming and Ireland should be submitting rail projects for that EU funding. If we miss this window and push these a decade down the line we will have yet again missed the opportunity for EU funding for national infrastructure and rail infrastructure, as happened when the Tánaiste, Deputy Varadkar, was Minister for Transport. I urge that this be addressed and that the issue of freight also be addressed as part of the rail review.