Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 24 Apr 2018

Vol. 967 No. 7

Ceisteanna - Questions

Strategic Communications Unit

Mary Lou McDonald

Question:

1. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recently published review of the operation of the strategic communications unit in his Department. [15860/18]

Brendan Howlin

Question:

2. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach the progress on delivering the recommendations of the report on the review of the strategic communications unit. [16463/18]

Micheál Martin

Question:

3. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the report on matters relating to the strategic communications unit that was published in late March 2018. [16497/18]

Michael Moynihan

Question:

4. Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Taoiseach the position regarding the report on matters relating to the strategic communications unit that was published in late March 2018. [16524/18]

Joan Burton

Question:

5. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach the status of the implementation of the report to wind down the strategic communications unit. [17613/18]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.

On 1 March, I requested that the Secretary General of my Department conduct a review into the operations of the strategic communications unit, SCU. The report from this review was accepted by the Government on 27 March and published on the same date.

The report finds that there is significant benefit to be realised by implementing the communications reform programme which had been led by the SCU. Furthermore, rapid progress had been made by the SCU in implementing its Government-approved work programme and it has played a very important role in improving cross-Government communications. In regard to Project Ireland 2040, the report finds no evidence of a breach of the Civil Service code by civil servants in the SCU, whether by seeking favourable coverage for Fine Gael candidates or otherwise.

However, the report also notes that dealing with the intense political and media interest in the work of the SCU had come to dominate much of the time of the staff of the unit and of senior management. By way of illustration, the SCU had, at the time of the review, been the subject of 203 parliamentary questions and 63 freedom of information requests, as well as a number of other debates, Leaders' Questions in the Dáil and a large number of press queries. This intense focus had been impacting my Department’s ability to focus on its everyday work and strategic priorities. This situation was not sustainable for my Department if it was to discharge its core functions.

In light of the aforementioned considerations, the Secretary General of my Department has made the following recommendations, which will be implemented over the coming months: that the SCU should be wound down; that the Department should revert to a reformed Government Information Service, GIS, model, with a smaller budget, fewer staff and a more limited role than the SCU; that measures should be put in place across Departments which preserve the valuable and necessary reforms to ensure value for money, professionalisation and modernisation in Government communications activity; that there will not be any new national campaigns run by the SCU, with the GIS continuing to have a co-ordinating and supporting role for national cross-Government communications, as has always been the case, but with such campaigns led and funded by the relevant line Department, if there is one; that international communications such as Global Ireland, the Security Council campaign, or the diaspora will be led by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; that the future communication of Project Ireland 2040 will be the responsibility of the new Project Ireland 2040 delivery board, which will be led by the Departments of Public Expenditure and Reform and Housing, Planning and Local Government; that a number of aspects of the communications programme, such as the single Government identity programme, the migration to one single web portal, gov.ie, the capacity-building work for staff and the research survey will continue to be implemented; and that there will be a managed reversion to the more traditional GIS model, with a transition period until July 2018.

This transition is now underway and will conclude on schedule. The reassignment of staff is being dealt with as a confidential HR matter by the management of the Department in consultation with each individual staff member. As outlined in the review, surplus staff will be given the opportunity to be reassigned to another post either within my Department or in other Departments or agencies. In some cases, the duties of staff will not change as they either predated the establishment of the SCU or their work will continue in a reformed GIS. There will be no redundancies arising from the implementation of the recommendations of the review.

The 2018 funding allocation for the unit has been reduced from €5 million to €2.5 million to reflect the fact that the mandate ends in July. The result will be that my Department's Estimate in total will be 9% less than it was in 2017.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Taoiseach as ucht a chuid freagraí. First, I welcome the publication of the report on 27 March by the Ard-Rúnaí of your Department, Mr. Martin Frasier. I think it is insightful and it is useful in examining the mistakes made in the establishment of the strategic communications unit, SCU. I welcome its principal recommendation, for the SCU to be wound down by July. I have a number of questions, however. The report mentions on page 7 that the SCU engaged a company to carry out research work involving a public opinion survey. The report says that given the express concerns by Opposition parties, it would be useful if they received a briefing and gave their views on the content of that survey before it is carried out. This has not happened. When will it happen?

On the final page, the report further states, in stronger language, that the survey should only proceed once Opposition parties have given a view on the content. That is an absolute necessity. The report also recommends that the Government Information Service should continue to have a co-ordinating and supporting role for national cross-governmental communications, as has always been the case. Do that finding and that recommendation not highlight the fact that the establishment of the SCU was a flawed decision in the very first instance? Do they not highlight that if, as the Taoiseach has said on more than one occasion, the idea was for Government as an entity to initiate cross-departmental information campaigns and the like, the infrastructure was already in place to do all of that? I note also the final recommendation of the report, that the issues raised in the review might usefully be considered by the Oireachtas. I want to ask, therefore, if the Government intends to allocate time to discuss the review in the Dáil. It strikes me, given the lessons to be learned, that this would be a very useful endeavour.

I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. Will he outline the specific changes that have occurred since the announcement on 26 March that the Secretary General's review had been accepted? What specifically has occurred and what staff have been redeployed to date? How many staff will be retained in the Government Information Service, GIS? The Taoiseach indicated that offers of redeployment would be made. Will staff be redeployed in his Department or across the public service generally?

I am also interested in learning what will happen to the research that was carried out and that which was planned. A sum of €160,000 was allocated for this purpose. We were informed in response to a parliamentary question that the research had not yet commenced. According to the reply, it is intended to run a citizen survey "to assess public awareness and understanding of Government services." As Deputy McDonald noted, the Secretary General made clear that this research should proceed only after Opposition parties had been briefed and had given their views on the contents of the survey. When will that process take place and will the research proceed?

On the overall budget, the Taoiseach indicated the budget of €5 million was to be reallocated, with €2.5 million to be retained to meet existing financial commitments. I understand from his reply that the remaining €2.5 million will be a saving to be rebated at the end of the year. Is that the case or will this money be reallocated for other specific purposes? I ask the Taoiseach to clarify the matters I have raised.

I have made clear from the outset that the strategic communications unit was a bad idea and wrong. Wittingly or unwittingly, the SCU involved the politicisation of the public service. Advertorials featuring Fine Gael Party candidates appeared in newspapers. While we do not seem to understand how that happened, it is a fact. Taxpayers' money should not be used to pay for such advertorials. The nature of many of them was promotion rather than providing information. The purpose of expensive advertisements placed at bus stops and in newspapers was promotion and in some respects propaganda, rather than providing citizens with information, as one would normally understand that function of government.

I welcome the amount of information provided in the report of the Secretary General in which he recommended the winding up of Taoiseach's pet project, the strategic communications unit. However, I encourage more people to read the detail of the report as it is in stark contrast with many of the comments and claims the Taoiseach made about the unit. From the beginning, we were informed the SCU would be established in line with worldwide best practice. The sole business case made was that the unit was best practice. Documents show, however, that only two countries were reviewed and independent information or opinion was not sought on whether such a unit should be established or what it should do. The reason was that this was the Taoiseach's idea and he proceeded to appointed the head person. Incredibly, the two countries reviewed both indicated that the agenda for such a unit should be set by the public rather than politicians and should emerge from public consultation rather than being set to fit political parties.

The Taoiseach stated originally that the objective of the research was to inform the work of the strategic communications unit. However, that work proceeded and €2.5 million was spent before any research was carried out. Will the Taoiseach explain how €2.5 million was contracted, with millions more planned, without any public consultation on the agenda?

The Taoiseach also informed the House that €178 million was being spent in a fragmented manner on advertising and needed to be rationalised. As we learned from the report, two Departments account for 60% of this expenditure, namely, the Departments of Transport, Tourism and Sport and Agriculture, Food and the Marine. The bulk of this was spent by independent agencies such as Fáilte Ireland and Bord Bia. The Taoiseach emphasised in the House that it was never intended that the unit would oversee the advertising budgets of these two Departments, although none of this was said in the aggressive, not-an-inch defence of the unit we heard for weeks and months. Would it not have been reasonable to supply this information before contracting millions of euro in new advertising? Will the research proceed?

Under the original budgetary estimates, €5 million was allocated for the strategic communications unit and we were informed at the time that the unit would have a staff of five. By the time the Government's programme had reached its zenith, the unit employed 15 staff and we had not been given a figure on its expenditure at that point. However, I understand from the Taoiseach's response that the cost of the unit in the months until May was €2.5 million. In other words, half of the budget was spent in four months. The SCU was a runaway train. We advised the Taoiseach as best we could that he had stepped over a line.

Today's edition of The Irish Times includes a nice historical feature on which the following is printed: "A series of special supplements supported by the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht". Inside, the publication features a nice photograph of the Minister for Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Josepha Madigan, and a page of commentary from the Minister. Is this old school or new school?

It is continuing school.

I understand officials from the Department of the Taoiseach had meetings with representatives of the three largest newspapers and other newspapers to set budgets. Were contractual agreements or indications of contracts made at any of these meetings? Why are we being left hanging on? How much did the study carried out by the Secretary General cost? One of his senior officials helped the Secretary General with his work. This has been a fiasco.

Will each Department revert to having its own public affairs function and press officer, as was the tradition? Is the Government Information Service being restored and, if so, on what basis? We deserve to know the answer to that question. If the GIS is commissioning studies, will they be made available to Dáil Éireann given that the Dáil votes for funding that is to be spent for this purpose and it is to Dáil Éireann and all of its parties and Members to which research should be made available?

I will deal first with the survey and research aspects. As outlined on 18 October 2017 and again on 22 November 2017, the research commissioned is to inform Government communications. It is intended to help the Department learn more about public awareness and understanding of Government services. As outlined in the Secretary General's review, the intention is to continue with the citizen survey after Opposition parties have had an opportunity to be briefed and to give their views on it. The research will inform best practice and support evidence based decision making on communications policies and approaches across government. When I last checked, work on this had not commenced and, as such, no survey has been done as yet and nothing has been done in the field. We have given a commitment that Opposition parties will be consulted on the questions before a survey is carried out. The issue has been de-prioritised. While it is still intended to carry out the survey at some point in the future, it is not a priority at the moment.

It is not necessary to do research in advance when it comes, for example, to finding out whether people know about Project Ireland 2040. How could people possibly know about something that had not yet been launched? I am sure the same approach was taken with regard to the national development programme and Transport 21. We do not need research to tell us that people did not know about Transport 21 before it had been launched because it would not be possible for people to know about something that was a new policy or programme. That is, therefore, a rather facile argument.

We were told that was the reason the research would be carried out.

In terms of cross-departmental campaigns, what is different is that it is no longer intended to fund cross-departmental campaigns through my Department. However, it is intended that the Government Information Service will have a role in co-ordinating cross-departmental campaigns, for example, Healthy Ireland, which cuts across different Departments. Project Ireland 2040 will be handed over in large part to the management board consisting of officials from the Departments of Public Expenditure and Reform and Housing, Planning and Local Government.

As for specific changes, activities have been pared back and planned campaigns have not happened. Other things have continued, such as the regional and sectoral launches of Project Ireland 2040. There were 15 staff members in the unit, of whom seven or eight already worked in communications in GIS or MerrionStreet.ie. Of those 15, only seven or eight were new or additional staff members, which is where the five or six came from before.

If it was a hospital, it would be a big number.

Some people may have had the impression that the six turned into 15. Half of those 15 were people already working in GIS or MerrionStreet.ie dealing with communications in the Department. The additional number of staff was five or six. I cannot remember the exact number. As should be the case, human resources matters are confidential and I am not going to discuss what has happened to individual staff members, where they have moved to or things like that.

Just the numbers.

I do not have the exact numbers.

The Taoiseach does not know.

That is pathetic.

The Taoiseach does not know how many people work in the unit.

Not today. I know what it was before but I do not know exactly how many are there today. Obviously, there is a process under way whereby staff members are being offered the possibility to transfer to other roles within the Department or to another agency or Department. That is being managed, as it should be, by the relevant assistant secretary general.

Is the Taoiseach not accountable to the House?

I am not getting daily or weekly reports on how many people work in the different sections of my Department.

The Taoiseach is accountable here.

That is the correct role for the Secretary General and the relevant assistant secretary general.

A sum of €2.5 million has either been spent or is already committed to things like the self-employed campaign, Healthy Ireland, Project Ireland 2040 and some other initiatives. The other €2.5 million will be rebated to the Exchequer. It is anticipated that my Department will underrun in its spending. I have fewer advisers than the three previous taoisigh and mine is one of the few Departments that has reduced its budget this year. I anticipate that sum being remitted to the Exchequer, albeit there is always the possibility that one of the inquiries might cost more than we anticipated. We will have to bear that in mind towards the end of the year as these things are reconciled.

Deputy Micheál Martin mentioned advertorials, which featured two or three Fine Gael Senators who were selected candidates. As Deputies will know, or should know from the report, all editors confirmed that they included those photographs on foot of their own decisions and were not asked or pressed to do so by anyone. That is, of course, in stark contrast to the false allegations that were made in the House. I regret that nobody has withdrawn any of quite a number of false allegations that were made regarding the SCU. I regret that we have not seen any Member withdraw those false allegations. It was also found in the report that no member of the Civil Service and no public servant breached the Civil Service code of conduct or favoured a political party in any way. Again, that was a false allegation that should be withdrawn by those who made it and who accused civil servants and public servants of engaging in political work or promoting the interests of one particular party.

I am afraid that I cannot advise Deputy Burton on the particular supplement in The Irish Times. Certainly, it returns to what was commonly done before the SCU was ever invented, which was for Departments to have inserts and supplements in newspapers.

On Creative Ireland, the Minister made the decision as to who got what financially. That was not the norm. We got that through a freedom of information request.

National Economic and Social Council

Mary Lou McDonald

Question:

6. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach if the appointment of independent members to the National Economic and Social Council has been finalised. [16169/18]

Joan Burton

Question:

7. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach the progress on filling the vacancies on the National Economic and Social Council. [17614/18]

Brendan Howlin

Question:

8. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the appointment of members to the National Economic and Social Council and the vacancies that exist. [17615/18]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 8, inclusive, together.

The National Economic and Social Council, NESC, has a membership of 28, reduced from 34 in the previous council. Members are appointed in accordance with the National Economic and Social Development Office Act 2006 and the National Economic and Social Council (Alteration of Composition) Order 2010, that is, 15 members are nominated by the five sectors - business and employer, ICTU, farming and agriculture, community and voluntary, and environmental; six are public servants and there are seven independent members. Appointments also comply with the guidelines on appointments to State boards. Currently, four vacancies exist on the council in the independent category. These vacancies were advertised on www.stateboards.ie on 31 January last. The process of seeking expressions of interest and assessing suitability for appointment was managed by the Public Appointments Service, PAS, and has now concluded. Just before Easter I received the names of those deemed suitable for appointment by the PAS assessment panel and I am considering these at the moment.

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Taoiseach as an cheist seo a fhreagairt. The closing date for the receipt of applications for these four vacancies was 21 February. The Taoiseach says the process has been completed and that he has a list of proposed appointees. When does the Taoiseach propose to announce who the individuals are? I imagine there were any number of applications for these vacancies and posts, given the nature and function of the council. How many applicants were there from whom the Taoiseach had to choose the four successful candidates? How many were on the list that was handed to the Taoiseach for decision? I seek a bit more detail on the numbers.

One current area of work for the council is on land use, land value and urban development. I note a recent workshop on the issue in late February, which focused in particular on housing affordability. There were presentations and examples from the Netherlands and Austria where Vienna boasts one of the best housing systems of any capital city globally. Given the Taoiseach's love of all things European, can we expect recommendations from the NESC to enhance State and local authority involvement in affordable housing?

From the way the Taoiseach approaches the NESC, it seems he has not made up his mind as to whether he wants this body at all or, if he wants it, what it should be doing. There are a lot of infrastructural bottlenecks, as the Taoiseach has been telling us. In particular, the Minister for Education and Skills has significantly slowed the refurbishment of older schools and almost completely abandoned their refurbishment in favour exclusively of brand-new schools. The NESC has done valuable work in the past on identifying priorities. It is fair to say that the way the Government is approaching housing is a mystery to everyone. For instance, a small problem which could be addressed and an area in which the NESC could show us the way involves all of the vacant sites in the possession of Dublin City Council. These include O'Devaney Gardens, the bottom of Dominick Street and about 40 others I could list. That is not to mention the pervasive dereliction in the north inner city, which looks like an individual with two front teeth and gaps everywhere else. The Taoiseach was in the north inner city recently and he could not have failed to spot this. Given the brain power in the NESC, it might be in a position to advise the Taoiseach on some way out of the housing situation, wasted empty sites and the failure of local authorities to do anything.

To follow up on the four vacancies remaining in the independent member category, the Taoiseach says he has already received nominations from the appointments to State boards process. As he knows, Ministers, or in this case the Taoiseach, set out the criteria to determine eligibility for a vacancy. What was the set of skills the Taoiseach looked for to fill these vacancies?

Three current issues are being examined in the work programme of NESC, namely, jobless households, climate change and land use. We all agree the most pressing issue is Brexit. Should the economic, transport and other implications of Brexit be considered by NESC? Has the Taoiseach asked for people with the expertise in this particular area to supplement the existing skill sets of members of NESC? If he has not, will he consider doing so, as this probably will be the most important economic issue we will face for the next decade or does he believe those skill sets already exists on the council?

Caithfidh mé a rá i dtús báire nach bhfuil aon fhianaise ann go bhfuil an Rialtas báúil le NESC. Ní dóigh liom go dtuigeann an Rialtas cé chomh éifeachtach is atá NESC maidir le polasaithe sóisialta. Tá cumas ag NESC dea-chomhairle a thabhairt don Rialtas. Níl an Rialtas ag cur aon bhéim ar an gcomhairle seo.

The delay in appointing independent members of NESC seems to suggest the Government has not been eager for the council to be as active as it can be. That is a great shame, given how important NESC has been in the past in producing common-sense yet detailed reports. Yesterday, the council began a joint lecture series on homelessness with Focus Ireland. This is operating at a high level of independent academic expertise on the dynamics of homelessness. The Taoiseach will agree that the failure of the Government to even understand homelessness figures demonstrates a serious problem. It is now six months since the Taoiseach told his own party, "we have a plan, the plan is working". For the past two months, however, record numbers of people caught up in homelessness show the plan is not working. Will he accept that the statement from the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, that he does not know why the figures are so high and has asked for a report does not suggest he is on top of it?

Before the Taoiseach starts quoting rough sleeper numbers again at us, those numbers are down purely because of the exceptional efforts of voluntary organisations during the extreme weather. When will the Taoiseach be able to explain why announcements in January that everything was fine have been followed with record increases in homelessness?

Is the Taoiseach putting a priority on filling these vacancies in NESC? What role will the council play and is the Taoiseach putting the need to deal with the housing and homelessness crisis as a central urgent priority? There may be issues competing for the title of the most pressing economic and social issue but I believe it is the housing crisis.

Yesterday, a bus driver, who would be on the average industrial wage, came to my office because he and his family are now facing homelessness due to rent increases. He cannot find housing anywhere. If people on average industrial earnings are facing homelessness because there are no council houses, rents are out of control and their earnings will not allow them to get a mortgage, one can hardly state that the Government's housing policy is working.

Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown County Council, which People Before Profit certainly does not control, passed a motion stating Rebuilding Ireland had failed. Wexford County Council passed a similar motion. The evidence is there for all to see. The fact that the Peter McVerry Trust, Focus Ireland, Simon and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions took to the streets as part of a national demonstration recently is also evidence there is simply no faith that the Government's housing and homelessness policy is delivering. How much of a priority will this be for the Taoiseach and the role he will assign to NESC?

There are four vacancies in NESC that I intend to fill in the next two to three weeks. There were 31 applications in total which were short-listed to eight by the Public Appointments Service. It passed these on to me with the various curricula vitae. My intention in approaching these appointments is to have regard, first, to gender balance as there is a degree of gender imbalance in NESC at present. Deputies will be aware that 52% of people appointed to State boards last year were female while 48% were male. I intend to ensure two of those four appointments go to women who were short-listed.

They largely come from academic institutions. Accordingly, I do not want to appoint all four from the one part of the country or the one academic institution. I will have regard to the advantages of having people from different parts of the country and, perhaps, even having members from Northern Ireland or outside of the country. Having representation from Northern Ireland or international expertise could add to the skill mix and skill base that NESC has.

I tend to see NESC as a think tank for the Government. We have many different ways of engaging with different partners through the labour employer economic forum, LEEF, the national dialogue and various other mechanisms. NESC has produced some good work over the past several months. For those who have not read it, I commend its report on the circular economy. It is worth reading. I read its draft land use study over the past couple of days, which it will publish soon. It provides valuable analysis as to what additional policy actions on better use of land around the country could be put in place.

The Government has taken two actions on derelict sites. The first was the creation of the derelict site levy, which is starting to take effect. It was never going to take effect overnight because we were required for constitutional and common-sense reasons to give people notice that their sites would be levied if they did not develop them. That is kicking in now this year. Anecdotally, I am told it is making a difference in some places in terms of a vacant sites being brought into use.

We also announced we intend to establish a land regeneration agency, which is part of Project Ireland 2040. We will have more details on that in the coming weeks and months ahead. Our intention is to use that agency to take existing State land and acquire additional land for development. It would be following something similar to the model being used by the Grangegorman Development Agency and, before it lost the run of itself, the Dublin Docklands Development Authority in actually using State lands and adding private land to that to make it available for development.

Economic Policy

Mary Lou McDonald

Question:

9. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the national policy statement on the bioeconomy published recently by his Department. [16170/18]

Brendan Howlin

Question:

10. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach the role of his Department in the preparation of the national policy statement on the bioeconomy. [17617/18]

Richard Boyd Barrett

Question:

11. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the national policy statement on the bioeconomy recently published by his Department. [17789/18]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 to 11, inclusive, together.

The Government believes the bioeconomy can ensure more efficient use of renewable resources and support sustainable economic development and employment in rural Ireland. In simple terms, the bioeconomy involves the production of renewable biological resources and the conversion of these resources and waste streams into value added products such as food, biopharmaceuticals and bioenergy.

An interdepartmental group, bringing together the Departments and agencies involved in the bioeconomy and chaired by my Department, was established in November 2016. This group carried out a detailed scoping exercise to identify current and potential activities in the area, as well as stakeholder workshops and a public consultation.

Following extensive engagement and consultation, officials in my Department prepared the first national policy statement on the bioeconomy. The Government published the policy statement on 12 March. This delivered on commitments given in the Action Plan for Jobs and the Action Plan for Rural Development.

The Government's vision for the bioeconomy is for Ireland to be a global leader through a co-ordinated approach that fully harnesses Ireland's natural resources and competitive advantages. The statement sets out some guiding principles and several strategic policy objectives aimed at expanding the bioeconomy. It focuses on three pillars, namely, investments in research, innovation and skills; development of markets and competitiveness; and reinforced policy co-ordination and stakeholder engagement.

It seeks also to build on the recently launched Bioeconomy Research Centre funded by Science Foundation Ireland in conjunction with industry investment. The centre will be a catalyst for the future development of the bioeconomy in Ireland. There will also be a focus on availing of funding to the maximum extent possible from the European Commission and combining this with resources from the private sector.

The Government has established an implementation group, jointly chaired by the Departments of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, and Communications, Climate Action and Environment, to ensure there is coherence between all sectoral strategies which impact on the bioeconomy; identify regulatory and other barriers to growth and how these might be overcome; and examine specific opportunities for development.

The group will submit its first report to Government on these matters by the end of 2018 through Cabinet committee A which deals with matters pertaining to the economy, jobs and rural development.

I welcome the publication of this policy statement. I believe climate change mitigation, the promotion of rural employment and driving economic development are all crucial policy objectives and outcomes. However, there is one particular prerequisite to building the bioeconomy which the policy skates over, although, to be fair, it does mention it, namely, enhancing the supply of domestic clean energy sources. This is not only desirable from the perspective of energy security, but is also key to tackling climate change. The national planning framework contains only vague aspirations which give very little clarity on this matter. The plan states that there will be energy research funding into solar and biogas. These are already well established power sources worldwide. We are past the research stage; we need to use them. We need to be very specific about what energy sources will replace fossil fuels. The phasing out of peat is an aspiration, but there is no plan about what will replace it. If it is biomass, we need to plan to promote the indigenous growing of biomass to become an industry in the midlands to replace the peat industry. Currently, Bord na Móna imports biomass from across the globe to burn with peat. Why is this not being adequately promoted in Ireland?

I welcome the statement as one of aspiration. However, we are coming late to the party and the statement is somewhat general and lacking in specific detail. We need to move to real projects and investment which will make this a reality. Biological waste is a resource but we are not using it while doing things that militate against it. Building a huge incinerator in Dublin, for example, militates against developing a circular economy and a bioeconomy. Why develop a bio and circular economy - a sustainable economy - when there is a big incinerator where one can just burn everything? That militates against it. Cities such as London, Paris and Munich have all discovered that privatising waste collection and recycling services does not help develop sustainable circular economies and bioeconomies, which is why those three cities have taken waste and recycling back into public ownership. We see from waste companies, the factor that dictates what they will or will not recycle is whether something is profitable, not whether it is good for developing a sustainable, circular economy and a recycling industry. We need to take those services back into public ownership, as those cities have done.

Finally, if we are going to develop biorefining, biomass and so on, we must dramatically increase forest cover in this country, which is currently pathetic.

It would be very helpful if the Taoiseach could give a simple explanation so that people can understand what fancy terms such as bioeconomy mean. I expect most people do not have a clue. Perhaps people studying science at an advanced level, whether for the leaving certificate or in college would understand it.

Regarding the future of Bord na Móna, the way people in Ireland use turf is changing dramatically. It involves major economic and social pressures in rural areas, yet Fine Gael has given no indication of what it sees as the future for Bord na Móna. Over the past three or four decades, Bord na Móna has shown a very considerable capacity to change and workers have shown a capacity to co-operate with change. However, the Government has no vision of how this will happen. The Lisheen mine has come to the end of its life and been abandoned. That is in a rural part of Tipperary. Will the Taoiseach indicate in simple language, whether in English or Irish, what vision, if any, Fine Gael and the Government has for a bioeconomy at Lisheen?

The best definition of a bioeconomy is that it relates to the maximising of the use of renewable biological resources to produce value added products such as food and bioenergy. It extends across a range of sectors and disciplines, from what can be seen as quite traditional sectors such as farming and agrifood, as well as energy suppliers, to novel protein production and biopharmaceuticals. It is about using advances in technology to put renewable biological resources, including those which might previously have been discarded as by-products of waste, back into productive use. Biological resources could mean things such as crops, forest, fish, animals and their by-products, micro organisms and also industrial feed stock resources such as solid waste and wastewater. I hope that is in straightforward enough language to satisfy Deputies.

On the Government's actions, much of this is set out well in Project Ireland 2040. A decision to stop burning coal at Moneypoint in 2025 will see Ireland become one of the first countries in the world to take coal off its grid as a source of fuel. Between now and then, a decision will have to be made on what will replace it. It might be natural gas, which is a fossil fuel but is considered a transitional fuel in moving away from heavy carbon fuels, or it might be biomass. We must bear in mind that biomass must be largely imported and there are costs associated with that, including environmental costs where it has been transported over large distances. It could also displace other agriculture in Ireland, so we must consider that one consequences of growing more biomass in Ireland is that we have to grow less of other things.

We decided that, as of next year, the Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann will no longer buy vehicles for their fleets other than low or no emission vehicles. Peat will continue to be used as long as the public service obligation exists but we envisage that it will also come off the grid in time. We have indicated that in 2030, we will end the sale of diesel and petrol cars, preparing for their replacement by electric vehicles and other vehicles. As part of Project Ireland 2040, we have also committed to electrifying some of our busier existing train lines which will help to decarbonise our transport system.

Forestry was mentioned. It is correct that forest cover in Ireland is much lower than in other European countries but it has also increased considerably in recent decades as a result of the forestry programme. We have indicated that the forestry programme will continue and there will be a new programme on the completion of the current programme. Forestry acts as both a carbon sink as well as creating rural employment and, if managed correctly, can benefit tourism. We have also indicated the establishment of the climate action fund, a fund of over €500 million to support innovation in the area.

Top
Share