Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I could not agree more with the Minister. Debate is healthy. It is the lifeblood of this place and the voters decide. We will put it to the people. I think I have my poster designed for the upcoming election, which is not that far away. It will be a quote from the Minister's earlier contribution to the debate when he said, "This goes way beyond what is envisaged." It does because we need to start thinking a hell of a lot bigger about what we are doing for the climate. The Fine Gael mantra that the status quois good enough is not good enough. I really relish the chance to come back to the Minister on the specific concerns he has raised, to reassure him that this is absolutely the right structure. It is a super structure but one that is going to work and be relatively easy to introduce. The Minister said this asks a company in advance to set out a plan and engage with stakeholders and mediate. That is exactly what we need. That is exactly what we do not have at the moment with Bord na Móna. As Deputy Harty said, they are trying to do this in Moneypoint but the business is not there. The status quounder the Fine Gael-led Government is not good enough and needs to change.

The Minister said we could do this through the Workplace Relations Commission, that we have an existing structure. The problem is that under the legislation it is set up to specialise in trade union disputes with employers. It does not have experience or expertise in climate change or in dealing with communities. Deputy Harty and other speakers said that when we are doing this we need to get the workers, the communities and other businesses in. We need a community-based stakeholders' response. As good as the Workplace Relations Commission is, it will not deliver that.

The Minister, along with others, suggested that NESC should do it. I have the highest regard for NESC, which has a critical role, and in the climate committee report we outlined that it would have a specific role in this and other areas, but NESC's skill, best capability and best addition in the jigsaw of pieces we need is in strategic policy. I do not believe that NESC wants to get down and dirty in an individual, local dispute where it would try to work out what the specific response should be because that is not its specialty.

The Minister also mentioned the Climate Change Advisory Council but I know from speaking to its members they were terrified by our climate report because they feared we were throwing too much on them and they know they do not have adequate resources in the existing system. Moreover, the council wants to maintain the high level strategic view in how we make the transition and does not want to be involved in dispute management resolution.

The Minister also suggested that the Government and his Department could be responsible. In the Department there are probably approximately 250 officials, perhaps 50 of whom work in the energy section, for example. The work required will not just be in energy, however. It will involve transport, agriculture, forestry, housing and a range of areas. I know that the officials do not have enough time. They manage all the European legislation, all our legislation and all the policy initiatives and regulation. They are not well placed to do it.

Last but not least, the Minister seemed to indicate that the House should do it. While we are well placed to write legislation, hold the Government to account and consider the big policy issues, the House is the last place that would be appropriate. If one wants to find a resolution to a thorny local issue, one wants to be down the country, wherever that is. We heard it in the case of the midlands, where there are such conflicting views. Some people say the answer concerns burning biomass while others say the answer is something else. It would be almost impossible for us to act in the way the community needs, namely, as a neutral specialist service with real expertise in mediation. Mediation is not a dirty word. On page 13 of the programme for Government, it is recognised the State is not working well and one of the reasons outlined is that it does not consult well. It has to start listening, consulting and engaging. I am glad the Minister is holding meetings throughout the country but the problem cannot be resolved in a town hall meeting. One needs to be in the town for months, teasing through some of the specific local issues, which is what the proposed agency will do.

I look forward to the Committee Stage debate, even with the sword of Damocles of no money message hanging over it, to tease the matter out with the Department. Does the Department really believe it is well placed for doing it, or does the Government really believe that the Department of the Taoiseach should do it? The latter Department has a critical role. I am supportive of the all-of-Government action plan approach, the new legislation we have planned and all the measures on which we have agreed. We also agreed, however, that we need a just transition architecture.

I have slightly different views from my colleagues, such as on whether the body should be called a task force. To reassure Deputy Sherlock, whose support on the Bill I very much appreciate, along with the support we have received from trade unions and others, on page 17 of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Climate Action report it is stated the just transition task force will include a specialist mediation service for workers, communities and businesses and that it should make recommendations for action to the Government and the parties. That is what the Bill will do. It provides for a specialist mediation service. We have thought a great deal about the structure outlined. We have sought advice from the best lawyers and talked to all the interested parties that have a good interest and knowledge about the matter.

To allay one of the concerns the Minister outlined, namely, that the service would be all powerful and would not be democratic, it will be democratic in the sense that it will be appointed in the same way we appoint directors to the board of RTÉ and to the Inland Fisheries Board. It will be appointed by both the Government and the Oireachtas. It will be representative, therefore, of the House. One matter keenly fought with trade unions and others is that the commission's decisions in helping to devise a plan will not issue mandatory instructions. It is mediation, not compellability, but it will bring transparency, expertise and neutrality. The Minister stated we are planning an agency that would bring in all the various actors but that is what we need in order to ensure a good transition.

The Bill is technical and specific and is only one piece of the architecture. The Government opposes it because it does not want to lose control, it could not possibly agree to a Bill coming from the Opposition and it could not possibly support a Bill from the other side of the House, but it would make the Government work better. It would be useful for the Department to have it rather than everyone running after a problem like that of Bord na Móna, after the fact. It would be thinking three or five years ahead about where will be the next Bord na Móna problem down the line. It will allow us to set up the systems here and now in advance, instead of the usual reactive response to crises when we turn up too late. We need to get in early and engage all the parties. It will not be expensive. We are not talking about a large organisation but rather small teams of mediators with specialist capability and with the legislative structure to empower them. Compellability is needed. I heard tonight that the ESB is not talking to the workers at the Moneypoint plant. Everyone I speak to in Bord na Móna has stated the process is not working there either. If a single person thinks differently about the Bord na Móna transition issue, I would love to hear about it but the word on the ground is the current system - the status quo - is not working.

The Bill goes beyond what is envisaged because we envisage a massive change to our entire transport, energy, waste and industrial systems. That is what the climate strikers tomorrow demand. They say they listen to that Swedish girl and that the science is so clear and true about the scale of the changes required. We have 430 gigatonnes remaining but we use 41 gigatonnes a year. In eight years, we will be over the tipping point. It will be such change and we need to envisage it and how we plan and prepare for it. The Bill will do that in a just way. It will bring social and ecological justice together, which is what we need to do. I look forward to Committee Stage.

See this speech in context