Barry Cowen (Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

That being the case, it offers an opportunity for me , like Deputy Naughten, to speak to this issue again and use every opportunity we have, within the availability of time and instances that provide such opportunities within the House, to highlight again the position in the region as a result of a recent decision by the ESB and, I might add, the Government.

I negotiated on behalf of our party with my colleague, Deputy Michael McGrath, many aspects of the budget that was put before the Dáil and agreed by the House. One aspect of that related to the carbon tax revenue. We sought a direction whereby a portion of that would be directed to those regions most affected by transition as it occurs. The midlands is one of those greatly affected and hence the reason for €32 million out of the €80 million to be specifically targeted to that region. I refer to €6 million in a transition fund, €20 million in a retrofit programme for social housing, €6 million towards rehab, and a few more million towards pilot projects for alternative farming to assess the new methods of reducing carbon and so forth. That would have been sufficient in the event of the commitments made by Government, the ESB and Bord na Móna a year ago when they said that transition would take place over the next nine to ten years.

That is not now the case as a result of the decision of the ESB not to appeal An Bord Pleanála's decision, which went against the grain of the Government's own policy. As Deputy Naughten said, we have made that point on many occasions, most recently to the ESB itself at the Joint Committee on Climate Action within the past hour. I would have thought there is ample reason for Government to insist that the ESB seek a judicial review on a point of law to address the failure by An Bord Pleanála to acknowledge Government policy as laid down in this House and to the European Union.

This failure to do so means that Shannonbridge and Lanesborough power stations will now close next year, although peat will be burnt at those plants for a further year. The response of the Government and the ESB, which is not to pursue the Government's policy, will have repercussions. It will have repercussions for the ESB, which believes it has answered up to its responsibilities by placing another €500 million in the transition fund. I do not believe that is enough. It is not appropriate and it does not acknowledge the significance of its decision, especially in light of the commitment it made to Government last year. There will also be repercussions for the Government, including increased responsibilities, both financial and otherwise. For example, we expected that €6 million to be increased annually. We also anticipated the Government of the day insisting that not only increases in carbon tax but existing carbon tax revenue be geared in that direction. This revenue is currently €400 million, not including this year's increase. I am not saying that this should have been done in one fell swoop, but it should have been done in conjunction with, and parallel to, the transition we had been anticipating and expecting and that we had been promised. That promise is no longer to be fulfilled.

There will also be other repercussions. The public will have its say and will adjudicate on what those repercussions should be. I will definitely be at the doors telling people that I was very surprised that those in Government with responsibility for this area did not at least ensure that a new application was made or a judicial review sought. This application could have been cognisant of the conditions associated with the planning decision.

It seems the likes of An Taisce are given a lot of weight. An Taisce does good, reputable and commendable work as an advisory body, but it is not a democratically elected body. It does not have representatives in this House representing the public. We fulfil that role. We are here to ensure that the offices of the State adhere to the democratic process, which includes following Government policy as laid out by this House and in legislation. The Government failed to ensure that was the case. That is very regrettable and very unfortunate.

While I acknowledge and commend the thrust of this amendment, as I have said, I do not think it appropriate or fair that one is accepted and another not. That being the case, I am not in a position to support it. I am conscious of what the Minister said previously and I await his response to this matter, having not been present for his reply the previous day.

I take the opportunity to further enlighten the representatives of Government here today. There are increased responsibilities on them as a repercussion of the decision of the ESB, which means we are now playing a different ball game. The €6 million, increasing annually, available to the midlands or Offaly is no longer sufficient. This decision will have a knock-on impact on Bord na Móna and the revenue resource for Offaly County Council. In the same period in which we expected it to receive €60 million, it will lose €40 million in lost rates revenue. That is a swing of €100 million in the space of a few weeks. Our county can hardly afford a swing of €1 million, let alone €100 million. Deputy Naughten is right in saying that the decimation now taking place in our region is equivalent to the Dublin region losing a company like Google.

Back in the 1930s and 1940s, Government charged Bord na Móna with a remit. It was to create jobs in a desolate region. It did that. It reached its peak of 8,000 jobs in the 1980s. The Minister cannot be at the wheel and allow the region to become desolate again while we sit on our hands.

See this speech in context