Michelle Mulherin (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I wish to acknowledge that this plan is the most substantial and comprehensive environmental and climate action document produced by any Government in this country. There is a great deal of joined-up thinking in it because of the comprehensive consideration given by this committee in producing its report, the Citizens' Assembly and the work done by the Minister and all the Departments with which he worked. Notwithstanding that, it will be a massive challenge to achieve what the Minister is trying to achieve, which is to take carbon out of our economy and our lifestyles and, as a consequence, provide cleaner air, cleaner water and all the other good things that can flow from this. We only have to look to Canada and Prime Minister Trudeau's green agenda, the gilets jaunesmovement in France and the row-back on carbon tax. This can be even more divisive than climate change, not to take from the changes in climate that result in catastrophes around the world.

The very people who say we should do something about climate change will not help one bit. They do not have any solutions. They are full of criticism. While we can understand that the ordinary person can be fearful of so many changes and their cost, no solutions are being provided by the detractors. That is the truth. That is where dialogue is needed. We have to remember that dialogue is about just transition. How do we make it fair? How do we balance it? If we agree that something needs to be done - and it seems there is a general consensus to that effect - it is no longer enough to point the finger at agriculture, some other sector or somebody else. This is tough and difficult.

This comes back to the issue of dialogue with the public. A report prepared by NESC a couple of years ago examined delivery of renewable electricity. One of the most significant issues was not cost but community acceptance. It all goes back to that. This is about how people feel about this in their individual communities and how it impacts on their lifestyles. The Department of Finance is working on carbon tax and how it might look to facilitate that dialogue. We are trying to find innovative ways to engage with the public. At the moment, however, pursuant to our national planning framework, the regional assemblies are charged with the delivery of regional economic and spatial strategies. We are talking about fundamentally overhauling lifestyles based on fossil fuels and the technologies emanating therefrom, including the internal combustion engine. We have not invested in renewable energy. This means that renewable electricity is now more expensive to deliver than electricity from conventional sources. Can a specific climate change element be added to the ongoing process of developing regional spatial plans under the national planning framework? That way people can be encouraged to engage. This could be brought down to the level of local authority areas' development plans and co-ordinated with the regional climate change offices the Minister has established in the regions. That joined-up thinking could help us determine where to put charging points, what we need to do and where to put infrastructure. We must think about the bigger picture.

Second, now that the all-of-Government climate action plan has been produced, will the Minister amend the draft national climate and energy plan he submitted to the European Commission in December, which is now in draft format? I understand the Commission is to revert to the Department with its views. In what way might that be changed? There is a lot more consideration of and focus on climate change than ever before. I would like to see how one document fits into the other.

Returning to the issue of communities, there is a lot of talk about microgeneration. It is important that people feel they have a stake. We will have to acknowledge the reality that most communities do not have the money to develop renewable energy projects. We have to find other ways for people to enjoy the benefits. I know the Minister's Department has a code of practice for wind farm development. These projects are being developed at the moment. Unfortunately, the envisaged community benefit is a lump sum per MW to the benefit of the community. It gives no recognition to the fact that some people live beside wind farm infrastructure. There needs to be another layer which benefits individual households. I live near the Oweninny power wind farm, a joint venture of Bord na Móna and ESB Networks. The community accepts it. However, it is a sparse rural area. The households immediately beside the site will get no particular gain. They are looking for reduced electricity prices. ESB Networks runs a near-neighbour scheme but there is no Government guidance on it. The local authority does not seem to be able to deal with it.

We have to recognise that some people will be asked to bear more of the burden than others. There must be more than a community gain whereby money is given to a community centre 15 km up the road, which most people are never going to use. I will bring further details to the Minister. I have put it to the Chair that the committee must examine this issue in more depth, but I want to flag it with the Minister. There is a deficit in the code of practice for wind farm development.

I commend the objective of decarbonising transport. There have been a lot of contributions from the city folk among us. I can see that if I lived in Dublin or Galway I would need public transport. However, when the commentary turns to rural areas, it sounds like a parallel universe. We need roads to put the buses on. We will not get a bus every ten minutes as one can do in a city. It is not enough to rubbish the idea of electric vehicles or say they are insufficient. We need roads so that all the development and economic and social growth does not end up in the cities. There are whole regions, the west and north west, which did not get roads during the Celtic tiger era. They are acknowledged as being disadvantaged as a result. This veers into unreality, like some of the talk about agriculture. The idea of not spending money on roads is crazy. We will not be putting a train into every village and up every bóithrín in rural Ireland. It is one thing to tick a box. There is no comparison with something running every ten minutes.

The best initiative for rural Ireland is the national broadband plan. Broadband means people will not have to get into their cars. The sooner that can be rolled out the better. There is a lot of talk about the market, commercial investment and intervention. They has all been tried. We should support the national broadband plan. It is not commercially attractive and that is why the Government has to spend money on it. There has been so much warped commentary on the plan when it is exactly what is needed for connectivity in rural Ireland. That is not just relevant to economic growth; it also pertains to medical interventions in the future, remote diagnosis, etc.

I refer also to the SEAI and its better energy warmer homes scheme funding. As the Minister correctly pointed out, the most disadvantaged people in our society, who qualify for fuel allowance, get their homes retrofitted 100% free of charge, which is welcome. I want to ask the Minister about a current issue that I have flagged and that has not gone away-----